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

Multistakeholder Advisory Group Meeting
Thursday, 17 May 2012

The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Multistakeholder Advisory Group meeting 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.
*** 

 
 [ Gavel ]
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Dear colleagues, good morning.  Please sit in your place while we start our morning session.  We welcome all.  I think today we will have good discussions.  This is our second day of our work, and I hope today this morning we have some results, some maybe improvement in our discussions.  And, therefore, now we will receive some reports by you, by moderator of group.  And after, we will discuss other issues related to our forum which are indicated in our agenda.
 And I want to give floor to Secretariat, so Chengetai can give you brief information and inform us about our activity.
 Please, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Chair.  
 First of all, I would like to thank you all for the work you did yesterday, breaking up into groups and looking at the workshops.  I'm aware it was no easy task, but I'm sure you managed it quite well.
 As we are going forward with our documentation, I think it would also be a good idea to document the comments that we have had during the past two days and also come up with a template that the next time we can use going into these working groups.
 So for this morning, the first thing we're going to do is, first of all, we're going to call upon each of the working groups to give a summary of what they have done.  First of all, I would like to ask them to please state who the coordinators and facilitators are and what they have decided concerning the workshops and feeder workshops and also if they have eliminated any workshops.  They don't have to go through each individual workshop and telling us the comments, just pass that over to the Secretariat and we can take over from there.
 And, also, if you can, tell us what you decided about the main sessions.  You don't have to have any concrete steps or panelists or anything like that.  Just if you have made a timeline and you're going to take it online, et cetera.  After we have discussed the workshops, I think it will be best as well to discuss the other events.  There was talk about streams, capacity-building streams, if anybody has any ideas on that, I think we can get into discussion about that and also any other types of meetings that we want to have during the Baku meeting.
 In the next steps discussion, we also have to decide about the deadlines about when we will have what due from the workshop organizers.  Paul sent an e-mail out last night which has had some support and I think it will be good to discuss that as well and integrate that into our next steps if you all agree on that.
 I think I will start in alphabetical order and I will call on the access and diversity group to give us a briefing of what they did yesterday.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  And now I ask, please -- I will announce the name of our groups and, please, moderator, inform us about your activity yesterday.
 First, access and diversity.
 >>JUDY OKITE:   Good morning.  My name is Judy Okite.  Our group was access and diversity, that I co-chaired with Ayesha Hassan.
 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you very much.  Judy and I had a good group of stakeholders, representatives.  We had representation from all the different stakeholder groups in the small group that worked together.  In terms of, Chengetai, you have asked for which ones we have rejected.  We would like to call your attention to workshop 165 on blocking and filtering.  We felt it was incomplete and unclear.  And unless the Secretariat decides to ask the organizer to revise it pretty much completely to meet the criteria, we thought that one should be rejected.
 We also would like to call your attention to workshop 191, the influence of politics over the users' access, we wanted to flag this one for the IGF Secretariat as we felt that we weren't sure this is politically appropriate for the IGF and would not potentially need to be rejected.  If the Secretariat decides that it is an acceptable topic, it is very incomplete.  So those were our thoughts on those two.
 We have outlined, and this has been sent to the IGF Secretariat, we went through all of the workshops and outlined those that we believe should receive what appears to be a form message -- the idea of an form message of the merging, to just ask them to complete the proposal and create the necessary balance, otherwise, they would be rejected.
 And then we have outlined some that we believe are ready to be accepted.  In general, we would say that there are many of the workshops in this section that just people seem to need more time to be able to create the balance and overall -- meet the overall criteria.  In the list we have put forward, we have identified two potential feeder workshops, both contingent upon them confirming some more of the speakers.  But that has been outlined in the list that we've sent to the Secretariat.
 We also felt that the group would like to, as soon as we have workshop proposals updated, we would re-look at the workshops and see somewhere feeder workshops and some other subquestions for access and diversity could be identified.
 On the main session, we had time for a brief discussion to bring out some ideas.  We thought it would be important to have an interactive discussion led by moderators without -- moderating the discussion through questions, absolutely no presentations.  We wanted to put a question to the Secretariat as to whether there may be a way to gather some questions ahead of the session that relate to the questions in the program paper that could be given to the moderator.
 We also thought that the feeder workshops again would be asked to engage in the discussion through questions to the feeder workshops on particular subissues, not through long reports or statements.
 And we wanted to identify lead discussions in the program so that we could have a smaller panel but have some lead discussions that would help make the discussion more dynamic.  We've outlined a few potential ideas that we look forward to discussing online and when we start to brainstorm speakers, et cetera.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay.  Thank you, Ayesha.
 The second theme is Internet governance for development.  Who is the moderator for this?  Please.
 >>PAUL WILSON:   Paul Wilson here.  Our moderator was Qusai.  I don't think he is in the room just yet.  If you don't mind leaving this session until the end in case he can turn up.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Thank you, Paul.  Thank you.
 And our theme taking stock and the way forward.
 >> CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much, Chair.  
 We were lucky in a sense because we had a limited number of workshops to assess.  All of them had a very reasonable quality and level, so we have not excluded any of them.  I would say that for almost all of them, however, we thought more geographical diversity and more gender balance would improve the quality of the workshops.  For some of them, we felt that there was a need for stronger multistakeholder representation and we have documented our comments for each of those workshops, so I will send those comments to the Secretariat afterwards.
 We would like to recommend accepting 145 -- workshop Number 145, 85, 175, 185 as proposed by the Secretariat.  Those who need improvement are Number 141, 154, 163, 164, 171.
 We have identified two additional workshops that we felt could fit in our taking stock main session, 170 and 176 which would actually be merged.
 We have also identified two feeder workshops, 145 and 85.  Those are the ones focusing on threats to multistakeholder Internet governance, is it worth protecting.  And the workshop entitled "Evolution of the IGF."
 Regarding the structure of the main session, so following the pattern proposed by the program paper, we would have a first part of 90 minutes reserved for discussion on principles and framework.  And second part that would cover a summary of the entire IGF.  And in regard, in advance of the meeting, what we would like to do is ask each coordinator of each main session to think about a couple questions.  We would provide them with a questionnaire in advance of the meeting, and at the end of their sessions, they would give us three sentences maximum.  It could be messages.  It could be one message.  It could be plural.  It could be several messages.  And we would -- based on that collection, we would feed the second part of the main session on taking stock.
 We also envisioned the second part of that main session as including feedback from the cross-cutting themes human rights and development which could be developed, I imagine, through roundtables or open forums.
 We also imagine including a synthesis of the collection of online discussions.  And Vladimir sent a message on our mailing list yesterday explaining giving more details on how that could work, exploiting the cloud created during the IGF and reporting on that as well.
 And, finally, of course, we would leave as much room as possible for interaction with the room.  Thank you very much.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Constance.  Other groups, managing critical Internet resources.  Please.  Please.
 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thank you.  Good morning, everybody.  We had a productive gathering of representatives from all of the various stakeholder areas at the IGF.  We went through the CIR workshops.  An e-mail has gone to the Secretariat.  I don't propose to go through each workshop, but they fall into some categories.  There are a couple that we've marked as red because they are not Internet governance.  There are a couple that we marked as red because we don't think they are actually workshops.  They are not currently shaped as workshops.  They would be what we think they would be best practice sessions, but we don't know if we are having any best practice sessions.  But we suggested that they could be.
 We have one -- two workshops that we've suggested a merger on, which we thought about a lot but we actually thought would be fairly easy for the two workshops we've suggested and number we said could move from yellow or amber to green provided that they provide more information, which fits effectively with Paul's suggestion on a two-stage process.
 That's the workshops.  In respect to the main session, we talked about that and it became clear that currently in the paper, there are six questions -- six questions or topics for the CIR main session.  And it is pretty clear to us that offering all of those, doing justice to any of those six in a three-hour session would be almost impossible.
 So we're working -- we'll finish this on the list to put some things together under one or two headings rather than having them separated and see if we can cover at least most of the topics one way or another.
 That led to a very brief discussion about future thinking, and it occurred to us that we should -- we should be thinking towards next year's IGF as well and that there are -- there may be workshops running in Baku that could interesting topics for the main session next year, even though they can't be dealt with this year.  So that's just something to throw out to people to think about and maybe keep a note of things that they think could happen for next year.
 Finally, we'd like to explore the possibility of having, in some cases, introductory material or sheets at the beginning of the main session.  So give you a specific example, one of the topics in CIR is IPv6, IPv4 and what we're going to focus on, we think, in the maybe session is the secondary market in IPv4 addresses, the emerging secondary market in IPv4 addresses.  It would be very useful if at the beginning of the main CIR session the participants could get a simple sheet that explains IPv4, IPv6, so we don't have to spend any time going through all of the stuff that people don't necessarily know.  We need to assume, I think that there is lots of new people in the IGF and, therefore, they don't necessarily carry with them the same level of extraordinarily exciting knowledge that we do.
 So that's our report on CIR.  More work to do on the list in respect to the main sessions.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Chris.
 Okay.  Security, openness and privacy.  Who is moderator?
 >>WENDY SELTZER:   Thank you very much.  Wendy Seltzer here.  I was moderating the session yesterday, although I can't commit to moderating/facilitating throughout.  We had a very lively discussion of the -- I think the largest set of workshops.  And we heard the guidance to encourage workshops to -- to encourage acceptance of workshops, so we started as an open group inviting the participation of non-MAG members in the group and had some very productive conversations and assistance from them as well.
 We broke the -- for the feeder workshops, we found four later expanded to five themes that we were going to try to use as feeder subjects including legal framework, economic development, digital freedom, users and norms of behavior and technological architecture.  So as we went through workshops, we looked to classify them within those themes.
 We agreed that the workshops had been marked in green were ready for approval.  Those marked in yellow, we made comments and generally felt that if they had addressed the comments that we gave, that they would be acceptable.  In some cases, we proposed mergers, and we have all of this in a spreadsheet that we'll send to the Secretariat.
 A few of them we felt didn't show enough depth of exploration of the issue or enough consideration or preparation of actually identifying panelists or a clear subject and those we recommended excluding and those were Numbers 153, 155, 162 and, I believe, 188.
 In addition, we suggested that workshop 129 appeared to be a better fit for the access and diversity category.  But as we were here late at night, we don't believe we got a chance to make that suggestion to that group directly.
 For the main workshop, we identified some timelines and had a good discussion about how to make it interactive.  And we'll do further work on that among the mailing list that we've generated of participants, both MAG and non-MAG participants.
 Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Wendy.
 Yeah, we have one question for you.
 Please, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you, Wendy.  So just to be clear, there's nobody yet volunteering to be the coordinator/facilitator for security, openness and privacy to take on the main session, correct?  So this is a call -- (laughter) -- if anybody would like to do that, can you please send us an e-mail or volunteer right now.  Thank you very much.
 Thank you very much, Wendy, for your work.  Much appreciated.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Chengetai.  Thank you, Wendy.
 Now I invite moderator of group emerging issues.
 >> IZUMI AIZU:  Good morning, everybody.  We are a little lazier than those who stayed until 8:00 or something.  We stopped around 6:00 in the morning -- 6:00 in the evening, I'm sorry.
 [ Laughter ]
 However, with very beautiful weather this morning, we gathered past 8:00 for not all of them but a few of us, so it is a collective report.
 First, we started to tackle the list of the workshops.  We want to be ruthless, but we also want to be very reasonable.  We have 25 proposals out of which we finally concluded five deserved to be dropped.  I will explain a little bit more in detail.
 We started with the bottom of the table, the two reds we had.  And we -- for the workshop 148, intermediaries on the Internet, we suggested drop it.  It is a duplication of the proposals by the same organizer or proposer.  Better to be realistic.
 And then we move to the next one.  It is a hybrid TV or a connected TV.  We were negative, but we didn't decide to drop.  We, rather, recommend to improve to add more diversity and completeness, and then it can be accepted.
 For the transparency within our working group, we have the proposer.
 Then we discussed about the 143, measuring the economic and social impact of the Internet in policy making.  We felt it is not quite an emerging issue, so we suggested to drop.
 Then we went up to the Number 111, 1-1-1, we suggest to drop it.  The topic is too broad and does not meet the criteria.  And it lacks geographical diversity.
 Then finally another one governing identity on the Internet, 163, we also suggested to drop.  It is incomplete.  It lacks geographic and gender balance.  Needs to add governmental stakeholders.  But we suggest if they can collaborate with a similar workshop such as 50.
 We didn't really conclude to merge.  Merging, as Paul said onto the list, it is rather difficult for us to merge but explore ways to work together or something like that.
 We also discussed all the other proposals, and I don't want to go into details.  The sense or sentiment is that the -- we discuss some of these yellow ones could be green but we added comments on to each proposals where to be improved, and that includes the green.  So overall, we feel that it is not the final decision to drop or to improve, but, rather, we would like to encourage all the proposers to really work on from now until November.
 But, of course, as the Secretariat spelled out, we will have some procedures to -- for the deadlines of submission to be complete.  So these are the summary of what we worked on on the workshops.
 We couldn't have any time to discuss about the feeder workshops, weather we have the opportunity how to discuss about the structure or how to build the main session.  Then I would like to introduce my co-coordinator, Thomas Spiller.
 >> THOMAS SPILLER:  Thank you very much.  So when it comes to the main session, we had a good discussion this morning.  So basically what we are recommending -- of course, that's work in progress -- is that we would like to have something as dynamic as possible, as much interaction with the audience as possible.
 So the idea would be to start with, you know -- on emerging issues like a framing part so we understand what emerging issues means for different constituencies and in particular in terms of timeline.  What does that mean for civil society?  For business?  For governments?  Are we talking about one year?  Three years?  Five years?  What emerging issues?  And what kind of outlook future we can have?
 And then if we look at a program, we had four questions under emerging issues.  One of them is a kind of stand-alone one.  It is on (indiscernible) recovery.  We propose we actually tackle this issue first under emerging issues.  
 And then we have to reframe the three others, which are kind of crisscrossing -- (indiscernible).  We would like to reframe them something into which is more visible and more understandable for the audience.  So framing, then (indiscernible) recovery, then the three remaining questions reframe.  And for each we will address 35, 40-minute session.  Then leave 45 -- yeah, let's say 45 minutes at the end.  
 Taking stock within the session, what did we learn?  How do we look at the future on emerging issues based on what was discussed?  And then finish like this.
 One of the key issues that we are facing is find a good moderator, of course.  We have some good ideas.  Notably a Japanese gentleman who was here at a previous IGF.  So that's the frame.  
 As I have said, we have not worked on feeder workshops yet.
 And in terms of planning, we will, of course, do online conversation with the group, and we plan also to have conference calls around summer time to make sure we are good.  And we have names as it was mentioned.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Izumi.  Thank you, Thomas.
 And now, Qusai.
 >> QUSAI AL-SHATTI:  Good morning, everybody.  The group for Internet governance for development met yesterday.  We noticed -- oh, sorry.  
 Everybody is hearing me?  Please.  Sorry.
 Good morning, everybody.  The Internet governance for development group yesterday have revised the clusters.  We have noticed the themes itself had three subthemes.  One of them is expanding the top-level domain space, which has two questions under it.  And there is the second theme or subtheme, (indiscernible) environment.  And the third, let's say, cluster theme was the infrastructure.
 The group has revised -- has looked at the questions and revised some of them, maybe making them clearer, more focused.  And we have identified possible moderators for the theme IG4D.  Plus we have also identified some of the possible panelists.  That's what we have done so far on the theme itself.
 Regarding the workshop, we have looked at each of the workshops that was listed under IG4D, and we have identified possible feeder workshops that would be more linked to the theme itself.
 We have a view that -- some of my colleagues had a view that the reporting of the feeder workshops and the plenary wasn't that effective from previous experiences.  So maybe the approach will be the feeder workshops that we have identified would be a possible place for people who are interested in the topic or the theme to attend and participate and then come to the plenary rather than making a reporting time during that panel itself.  Some of them, we think that they are not related to IG4D, maybe to other topics, and we have notes on some of the workshops that needs to have some information completed to have a better description and we have forwarded this to the secretariat already.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Okay.  We received the information by our moderators, and now I want to open the discussion about next activity, what we will do in the next steps.
 And according to my information, Paul Wilson had some suggestion on this regard.  Yeah?  Please, Paul.
 >>PAUL WILSON:  I sent an e-mail last night after the session that came out of some of our discussions about the structure of the -- and the relationship between the workshops and the main session, and in particular the point about feeder workshops seemed to be that the mandatory reporting from the so-called feeder workshops into the main sessions was a bit mechanistic and not really well integrated into the discussions that were actually happening in the main session.  
 And it seemed that the point of a feeder workshop is really one of order on the agenda, so that there are some workshops which are designed and should occur before the main sessions because there will be some useful -- potentially some useful product and input into the main session.  Other workshops can follow the main session or don't have that kind of relationship with them.
 So the idea of a feeder would be for the main session to be documented within the program with one or more feeder workshops which are more or less recommended for people with an interest in the topic, so if you are, as an attendee at IGF, reviewing the program and looking and planning your time, then you take an interest in a particular theme, you can see that the main session has got feeder workshops which are recommended.  It's simply a matter of program structure.
 Whether or not there is structured input from the feeder workshop into the main session really depends on the circumstances.  It could be left to the panelists or to the participants, so that as the main session is progressing, there would be topics that have been covered in one or other of the feeder workshops that would come up and be better to be discussed and raised at that time within the discussion, rather than in a separate mandatory mechanistic report which it was observed that those reports are really not well attended, well listened to, in the main workshop.
 So that was the -- that was the point that I made on the feeder workshops.  Yeah.  Thanks.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thanks, Paul.  Yeah.
 >>PAUL WILSON:  There was -- the other part of the message I sent last night was about the structure of the -- and the process for dealing with workshops from this point onwards and I was really looking at the secretariat task.  All of the small breakout groups that happened yesterday produced a long list of very specific questions for every different workshop, and it seemed to be a very long process for the secretariat to be contacting each directly and customizing a contact with workshop proponents.  So given that all of the workshops have got a common requirement and most of them have common deficiencies in terms of the requirement for a confirmed panel showing diversity in the required respects, I think most of them probably could do with some more work or consideration in terms of purpose and description, and as I think Chris pointed out, some may not, but I think a reminder as part of a standard approach to all workshops that are provisionally accepted, a reminder that the description and purpose should be as clear and as complete as possible would give all of the workshop proponents the ability to revise and to update their workshop proposals.
 I felt that the difference between a proposed panelist, an invited panelist, and a confirmed panelist was really not clear and very difficult to validate and probably the best way to encourage confirmed panelists to actually be -- to be decided would be to ask the organizers to -- or the panelists themselves to register under that resource person's registration process, which requires their name and bio and all the details, and I think it would be perfectly reasonable, by a certain time -- for instance, end of July -- to have all panelists confirmed with their complete biographical details.
 I guess it doesn't prevent some updates from happening later, but I think in my mind I'd really like to increase the requirements and state clearly the requirements for having these things fully detailed and fully spec'd out early in the process.  Thanks.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thanks, Paul.
 This is good remarks about our activities.
 So next stage.  And I agree.  Yeah.  I agree with you, we must appoint some deadlines for each such proposals, and where it was indicated all aspects that relate to that organizational work.  Please.
 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:  Hello.  Kieren McCarthy from dot Nxt.  I stuck my head into the various different MAG meetings yesterday and I had some observations that might be useful.  And that's coming at it from the perspective of the actual organizers of these sessions.  And there was quite a lot of good discussion about the pros and cons of different workshops and I just wonder whether that is being filtered back down to the organizers themselves.  
 I've run a couple of IGF sessions in the past and, well, maybe my sessions were wonderful but I never got any feedback on them.
 So I felt, you know, to -- I'd recommend to MAG members that they supply useful feedback to those session organizers.
 And then tied in with that, there was quite a few times in which people had run previous sessions, previous IGFs, similar sort of topics, and people were wondering whether those sessions had been any good, and they were trying to figure out whether this would be -- whether they should put it forward based on how it went last year, and there really wasn't any mechanism for people to see that or to understand that, unless they'd physically been in the session and could recall it.
 So a suggestion I would have would be to try to find some automated way of gathering feedback from attendees at this IGF, so that next year people will say something along the lines of, you know, "Well, we're running this session again.  What happened last year?"  And you say, "Well, the feedback of the attendees was that it was extremely good," or "it could have been improved," or so on and so forth.  
 So to provide some kind of feedback mechanism I think would be incredibly useful for improving the IGF and also for helping the MAG next year.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thanks, Kieren.  I -- if we do manage to revamp our Web site before the Baku meeting, I did plan to have an evaluation form within that, so when people go to a workshop, they can evaluate that afterwards and make comments, but I think that would be useful.
 If not, then we may have to go manually, but I would really like it to be on the Web site -- (garbled audio) -- thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Masanobu, please.
 >>MASANOBU KATOH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.  My name is Masanobu Katoh, and first of all, I, you know, fully support the, you know, process for the future like, you know, Paul Wilson just, you know, proposed.  This is very helpful, you know, for all of us.
 I have one question relating to the idea of combining workshops.  As we had on the past day of open consultation and yesterday's, you know, breakout sessions as reported this morning, there are some, you know, consideration of combining proposed workshops.
 I think this is a great idea, you know, to keep diversity and multistakeholder kind of, you know -- you know, point.  And, you know, by doing this, of course we can, you know, have more diversity of the group of people on the panels of those proposed workshops.
 But one question, though relating to this is:  Can we give, you know, others than the one block for those combined workshops on -- say, for instance, two blocks or one and a half, and giving them more, you know, incentives to combine and maintain those diversity or multistakeholder, you know -- you know, participation?
 Because when we go through some of the proposed workshops, there are many panelists already, you know, proposed and they're all good, but they are not (indiscernible).  So if, you know, we are combining those, giving some more time for those, you know, combined workshops, that would be great.  But, you know, of course this may, you know, cause some problem.  You know, who gets longer time and who gets the regular, you know, block of, you know, time.  So I just want to, you know, put this out as a proposal for, you know, consideration and if the secretariat or the MAG members has any ideas on this proposal, it would be appreciated.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Vladimir?  Or Masano.  Yeah.  And Vladimir, please.  And please give your -- provide your opinion about deadlines.  Which deadline we must appoint for the organization.  Please, Vladimir.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  Yeah, thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  One moment.  Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  About the combining of workshops -- about combining of slots, if the MAG deems it necessary, we can combine two slots for the -- I mean, that's all in the realm of -- (garbled audio) --
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please, Vladimir.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  Thank you.  Two comments.  One is on evaluation of the workshops, as Chengetai mentioned regarding the Web.  But I sent an e-mail on yesterday evening about -- that Constance mentioned about the crowdsourcing of inputs from people at the IGF in round.  I can elaborate later on when we discuss remote participation.  But within one such platform, we can also have feedbacks to all the sessions and discussions that we had and it can be quite easily done with new tools, exactly like the map that you can see over there, for instance, that for each workshop in the report, you can track how many people from where accessed it to see -- to realize what was reported and so on.
 You can have -- someone mentioned yesterday the ranking -- five stars, three stars, two stars -- so it can be really easily one-click thing to add.  It is a job, of course, and I don't think the secretariat, this should be a high priority, but it's something to consider.
 On the other note, regardless of this, is I discussed with a couple of people the concept of setting-the-scenes sessions that we used to have.  I'm not sure what's the status this year.
 There is a couple of sessions that I've also noticed while evaluating, including, for instance, 166 -- that's just one of them -- on sustainable development, Rio+20, and so on.  But there are many others about ITU telecom regulations and so on.  So providing the wider context of where the IGF is currently, which can really fit well at the beginning as setting the theme and the context of the IGF.
 Just wanted to check with the secretariat and maybe the others.  Are there any ideas if we can focus also and put up some of the sessions that we have at the forefront, at the beginning of the IGF, to set the theme in this contextual political manner.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Please, Chengetai, comment.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  We can discuss this in our next item when we're discussing the other sessions apart from the workshops.  We can.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Chengetai.
 Robert, please.
 >>ROBERT GUERRA:  Thank you.  Good morning.  I just wanted to maybe complement some of the comments that Wendy made in regards to the security, openness, and privacy session, and that -- some comments in regards to time lines.
 The working group did talk about a time line, and two key things, I think, to identify.  One of which is, given that the summer's soon coming upon us, it was felt that it would be very important, before mid-July comes, to identify a list of names and communicate to the secretariat names and get the invites out before the Europeans and others start going out.
 And so we proposed in the notes that we sent to the secretariat a kind of a schedule, in terms of collecting the names and having people on the working group discuss it.
 And I think one of the -- so I just wanted to flag that.  We did devise a time line and thought it would be very important, as well, to have numerous discussions with the proposed panel well ahead of the -- of the Baku meeting.
 I wanted to get back to Kieren's message and I think Vladimir's as well.  Something that was discussed in Kenya as well is the idea of using survey tools I think would be particularly useful.  There are a variety of different mechanisms.  I'm happy to follow up with you in regards to that.  It really creates a quick snapshot after a session to get some feedback and provides very constructive feedback going forward for the MAG conversations on the following year and catching them at the moment could be particularly helpful.
 Again, thank you very much for the time.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Robert.  Jeff, please.
 >>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN: Thank you.  I wanted to make a comment about the proposal for a development track of workshop.  I think that is a very good idea and I had some suggestions for maybe how to accomplish that.
 In addition to identifying which workshops may be appropriate, I think there are some process things that could be done to make them particularly helpful as capacity building and development.
 I think one would be to try and have the workshops prepare materials ahead of time that could be distributed.  So as we talked about somewhat in the February meeting, have some outcomes actually be prepared before the IGF meeting.
 And the second would be to make sure that those workshops are very well designed for remote participation to try and get as broad of an audience as possible.
 A couple of specific subjects that I think would lend itself to that, one would be infrastructure deployment, whether it's the underlying facilities or the DNS infrastructure.  
 Number two would be cybersecurity.  There are a lot of practical resources and information that could be provided there.
 A third would be on economic development and innovation.
 And then the fourth would be perhaps on rights and legal framework practices.
 So I think there are a number of areas that would lend themselves to this, but maybe we should also think about how to make the structure of the -- of the track also particularly appealing for that audience.
 Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Jeff.  Other persons?
 Okay.  I see no other comments.  Please, I ask Chengetai to summarize this agenda of proposals.  Please.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  
 For the next steps, then, the secretariat has received most of your suggestions and the comments to be made to the workshop proposers, so we're going to send e-mails out to them and ask them to update their workshop proposals.  We're going to open up the workshops for editing again.
 Now, we -- also -- we should also have the workshop organizers make an agenda after they've done this, and also with Paul's recommendation, each of the panelists should actually register as a resource person so that we have a brief biography of them.
 In previous IGFs, there was also some drive to make a little book with all the panelists, so that -- listed in alphabetical order, so people could know who was speaking in each session.
 We can talk to our host and maybe this can be done this year as well.  I'm not too sure.  We'll have to talk to them.
 So my first question is:  We need a deadline for, one, when these updates to these workshops should be made.  And would June 30th be a good deadline for that?
 Because we need two deadlines.  One deadline for the updates to the workshop and then another deadline for them to provide an agenda for the workshop.
 So the first deadline I would like to suggest June 30th.
 Okay.  So June 30th it is.  We're going to tell all the workshop organizers that they have until June 30th to update their workshop with the suggestions from the MAG.
 And then the -- well, should the June 30th deadline also be the same deadline for the panelists to be resource -- to register as resource persons so that we know all the panelists are on the Web site?  Will that be the same?  Am I making myself clear?  Yes.  Ayesha.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Please, Ayesha.
 >>AYESHA HASSAN:  I would suggest that getting the workshops updated, given that some of them will then be selected as feeders and other things will come about, that the June 30th deadline is a good one.  That allows for at least some weeks in July, some of that work to be carried forward.
 Perhaps the next step for the agenda and the panelists could be the first week of September.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I would also like to point out that --
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Comments, please.  Other comments?  Yeah.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  All right.  Thank you.  Adam Peake.
 I just remembered that there's also the open forums, dynamic coalitions.  Previous IGFs have also had sessions where national and regional IGFs have not only responded into the main sessions but also had their own sort of workshop agendas.  Is it a good idea to try and make sure that these are finalized around the same dates?  Otherwise, you're going to have sort of multiple tracks of essentially workshops coming in, you know, at different times.
 So not forgetting these other events that will be on the agenda and trying to make sure that those are built into the calendar.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Adam.  Please, Chengetai, please continue.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I was going to say, if there's going to be a printing of the panelists in a book, we should actually have it, I think, before September, to give time for this printing to be done.
 So I would still recommend -- or we can have it July 30th, but the earlier the better.  I'd say July 30th.
 And for the agenda, full agenda, we'll say September.  
 End of September or beginning of September?
 Beginning of September.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Beginning of September for that.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Need some time for the preparations.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So just to summarize, an e-mail is going to be sent out from the secretariat to all workshop organizers detailing what they need to fix for their workshops to be accepted, and also with the deadlines, and an e-mail out to -- is going to be sent that they have to produce an agenda.
 As for the various working groups, they're going to continue online discussing the main sessions, and should we also give ourselves a deadline for when these main sessions should be organized and complete, or should it be the same type of deadlines as well?  June 30th for panelists and -- should we continue the same deadline or should we make it different, for the main sessions?  
 Same deadlines for the main sessions as well?  Okay.  That's fine.  There's no objection to that, correct?  No.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  No objection.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  All right.  Thanks.  Okay.
 >> No.  I have an objection to that, in the sense that especially if you look at the feeder workshop and you give time to the feeder workshop to complete the list of the speakers, June the 1st is -- and some of them will be speakers in the plenary, it makes a contradiction.  You need some delay.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sure.  Do you want to suggest a date?
 >> Two weeks later.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Two weeks later?  Okay.  Fine.  Andrey?
 >>ANDREY SHCHERBOVICH:  Thank you, chair.  I'd like to say about deadlines for agenda, deadlines for agenda for workshops, it's not good, the beginning of September, because it is the end of the summer holidays.  For example, in scientific institutions, there are no people available.
 So I suggest mid-September.  15th.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Summer holidays in Europe.  
 Yes.  I have to also consult with the host country because if they're printing out a book, it also affects them, but...
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  I think that at the beginning of September, this is better, for good preparation.  Yeah.  Therefore, I ask maybe keep this date.  Yeah.  
 Ayesha, you want -- please.
 >>AYESHA HASSAN:  I just got a little bit confused now.  I thought we were saying all workshops should be updated and finalized by the -- by June 30th; that the open forums and dynamic coalition submissions would be by June 30th; and then the main sessions should be uploaded by mid-July, so the 15th of July; and the June 30th workshop deadlines also means people need to have their speakers from workshops register as resource people; and they have to post an agenda.
 Frankly, I think that deadline is good because then it allows some amount of flexibility in the weeks.  If you're saying September would be okay, you at least have some wiggle room in case things get delayed.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  I think it is a practical point, you know, having a beginning-of-September deadline, because a lot of people are away, a lot of people are trying to, you know, consult, even if they are around, towards the end of August.  You may find it difficult to consult people.
 So it is a practical issue, actually.
 I mean, I know I will be away after the Olympics period.  I've got a vacation.
 So I really -- I really think trying to get as much done before the peak summer period is important.
 And if you -- if we have to have a September deadline, I think you should sort of maybe create a little bit of a window.  End of the first week or something.
 The other point I just wanted to make was that we are all sort of working in individual groups, but I think it's important for each MAG member to keep track of what's happening across the whole domain of preparation.
 So I'm just wondering if -- if there is a risk that if I'm working mainly on the security, openness, and privacy, I'm missing key developments in other -- under the other themes, if that's happening, you know, through the working groups, the other working groups, which I'm not directly a member of or on the mail list for.
 So I just wondered if we are ensuring that we all have the ability to keep track across the whole of the preparatory process, if we bear that in mind as we plan our work ahead.
 Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Do you suggest like summaries coming into the main MAG list or just for MAG members to be aware that they should look into the --
 Because as we receive the information, we are going to update -- for the main sessions, as we receive the information, we're going to update the program paper, so the program paper is always going to have up-to-date information.  So we could have that as a way for MAG members to know what's going on and what the latest developments are.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you.  Yes, I think that's fine, but if a particular working group encounters a major issue or controversy or becomes split on something, can we be assured that all the other MAG members are aware of that and may actually be able to contribute to resolving a problem.
 You know, it's that kind of scenario I'm just thinking of or anticipating, maybe overly pessimistically, but just a sense that we all are aware of the key kind of issues that are cropping up in the working group that have significance for the IGF generally.  Just ensuring that that awareness across the whole of the MAG is secure.  If I make myself clear.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, you have.  Okay.  We'll -- we'll try and do that.  The secretariat will try and do that, and the secretariat is going to keep an eye on all the groups and if something does come up, we can suggest that the facilitator or coordinator bring it back to the MAG as a whole.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Chengetai.
 Other comments?  Izumi, please.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   Thank you, Chair.
 I understand from yesterday's conversation that the working group will work mainly on the list -- mailing list and that be combined only within the MAG members.  And asking three times, I propose that for the efficiency effectiveness.
 But I wonder if we can have some Internet tool, especially for the main sessions, to collect or receive feedback from the IGF community outside of the MAG members.  Being the newbie to the MAG, I had sort of the impression before that most of the work of the MAG have been quite excellent perhaps but perhaps that's because we don't know what's going on there.  And then we see the result, hey, main session be there.  There is no opportunity for the others to sort of give feedback, unless you really go inside.
 So could there be any -- don't know if a Wiki is workable or is bad or if it is too noisy for the organizer, but some kind of feedback between now and the real event might increase the participation, awareness, outreach and give more quality to the outcomes.  I know it's not too easy to handle, but being -- I just volunteered myself as a session coordinator of the emerging issues, that I really would like to hear these before making the final session.  That's my sort of just ad hoc idea proposal.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Please, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.  I understand what you're saying.  It is a little bit difficult.  Each MAG member is supposed to represent their constituency bases, their stakeholder group, and they are supposed to consult their stakeholder groups as well on any issues, be it organization of the main sessions, et cetera.  So there is that feedback mechanism through the MAG members.
 But I understand what you are saying about the Wiki and stuff like that.  We can think about it and see if we can come up with something.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   That relates to some idea that dough we have a Facebook on IGF MAG, a Twitter account?  We don't.  I was also impressed with the WSIS forum that every day you received information from them if you register.  Many other ways.  I don't want to go into the details because there are all pros and cons.  But we need to explore these kind of Internet outreach mechanisms more than we have.  We used to have -- or we still have the forum on the Web site.  But if you look at that, the substance is not that much, right?  Not too much participation while the rest of the world is much busier using Facebook and Twitter.
 I think if we are the Internet Governance Forum, we should think of the Internet forum tools that might add more productivity other than just rely on the MAG members per se.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Izumi.  Other remarks?  Please.
 Theresa, please.
 >> THERESA SWINEHART:   Thank you very much.  Perhaps it is my confusion.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Yes, please, please, please, continue.
 >> THERESA SWINEHART:  I am just wondering if we could have maybe  a recap of what we're discussing here and where we would like to be by the end of the day and how we might program our day to help achieve those objectives.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Chengetai, please.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Right now we were concluding the session on discussing about workshops and the main sessions.
 The next step is that there were some suggestions for other sessions within the MAG -- I mean, within the IGF meeting.  So that's -- so we are moving towards discussing the other sessions about streams, et cetera, what, if anything, new, we can include into the meeting in Baku.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Please, please.  No?  Paul, please.
 >> PAUL RENDEK:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.  I'm very happy to see we have formed some deadlines actually for the submissions of workshops and also the main sessions.  There is one overarching problem that I feel has not been addressed to my satisfaction, sorry, and that is the diversity from the geographical regions.  
 In particular, I'm very interested in what the participation would be from Central Asia and the Arab states.  I see that their presentation, when I reviewed all of these workshops, was very uninspiring to me.  And I think whatever support is going to be given to the workshop organizers to actually get their workshops in shape so that we would provide a good program for those that are coming and have good geographical diversity, I feel that maybe some of the organizers of the workshops do not have the reach inside of the different geographical areas to actually make their workshops -- well, to round their workshops in this way.
 So I would like to know:  What kind of support is going to be given to them?  And how will this be communicated?  And I do actually -- I would like to say that I agree very much with Theresa's comments.  I would like to see real concrete areas where we are going to move forward towards the end of the day so we can see how we are going to shape this.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Your question quickly, we have resource persons list on the Web site where people can go and get people to fill out their geographical balance, gender balance, et cetera.
 ICC/BASIS has offered for business people, and I think there have been other people -- I think maybe ISOC offered for Internet community.  So we have these, and we're going to update our Web site as well with these contact points so people can go there and get resource people to be on their workshop panel.
 So with that, maybe we can move to the next steps.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Thank you, Chengetai.
 Azerbaijan delegation.  Thank you.
 >> AZERBAIJAN:  Thank you, Chair.  Good morning.  Thanks all of you for fruitful discussions and able remarks.  As you remember in my presentation the very first beginning, I demonstrated that the venue has enough space for the meetings and workshops.  But now I would like -- it would be better to know the number of the workshops which, indeed, will be very helpful to organize the workshops and to organize the meeting rooms in a highly duly manner.  That's why I would highly appreciate if we have this information, let me say, as soon as possible.  For example, at the end of the July or maybe very beginning of the September.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Thank you.  Okay.
 We have some deadlines.  Thank you for your active participation and discussion.
 And now I invite you to discuss maybe other sessions, maybe you have other ideas which we can organize in this idea.  I invite you.  Please.
 >> VALERIA BETANCOURT:  Thank you, Chair.  In terms of the other sessions that we would like to see happening in the IGF in Baku, I find it very interesting and would like to support the idea proposed by the group on taking stock and the way forward for developing the cross-cutting issues -- themes like human rights and development through open forums and roundtables.  I find it could really help us to effectively address those things mentioned related to the various issues that the main sessions are going to address.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.
 Other opinions?  Other comments?  Yeah, please.
 >> LAURA HUTCHINSON:  Thank you, Chair.  
 My name is Laura Hutchinson from Nominet, the registry for dot UK.  I have an query on a slightly more operational issue.  It is regarding workshops that have more than entered in more than one theme.  There has certainly been one mentioned this morning that centered in more than one area but it has been dropped in one and continued in the other.  I have a query on what happens to proposals like that.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Please, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   They should end up in one session.  The Secretariat is going to check that -- those workshop proposals have ended up in one session.  The purpose was that they will end up in one session.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Chengetai.
 Mervi, please.
 >> MERVI KULTAMAA:  Thank you, Chair.  And good morning.  
 I wanted to address the suggestion to create a capacity-building stream in the IGF.  And, hopefully, we can realize this already in Baku and mark this stream with a particular color in the program of the meeting so that the people who want to follow this path could be able to do so.
 I haven't had a chance to talk to Diplo, (saying name) and others to coordinate these efforts.  But perhaps the Secretariat would create an e-mail correspondence possibility for us so that we could develop this further.  And obviously we need an expertised coordinator as well.
 I'm trying to understand how to make this a real bottom-up exercise and draw from experiences and suggestions from the ground so that especially the people in the region could suggest where are the areas where they need most information and what would they like to suggest as something that would provide basic information on a given subject.  So hopefully we can realize this.
 I was also glad to hear from Chris about the idea to ask workshop proposers -- those proposed workshops with basic information in line with what Mark suggested yesterday.  I think there are different ways to strengthen the capacity-building of the IGF.  And all suggestions to meet this end would be welcome.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.
 Please, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you, Mervi.  We can make a mailing list of people who are interested in this to discuss the issue.  And if something comes up before the Baku meeting and it is implementable, we can go ahead and do that.
 We will send the MAG mailing list the information (audio cutting out.)
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay, thank you, Chengetai.
 Please, Ayesha.
 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you.  I'm just wondering, Chengetai, would it be possible to send out a message as you've done in the past to the MAG list saying -- asking people to contact the co-coordinators of those main sessions that they would like to follow even if they weren't able to participate in the little groups that worked yesterday?  Because I know that in the past, there have been MAG members that didn't participate in the in-person discussions but then followed several of the main sessions and helped to contribute to seek ideas, et cetera.  Will that be possible?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.  We have created mailing lists for each of the main sessions, under each of the main sessions.  We will send an e-mail out to the MAG list so that if anybody wants to follow, they can just join the mailing list.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Vladimir.
 >> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  Thank you.  Two short feedbacks.  
 One, definitely on capacity-building.  I'm absolutely in line with Mervi on this.  I discussed with a couple of people yesterday.  Our experience with Diplo is that capacity-building should be first done before the IGF, in between the IGFs.  That's much -- the most important thing so that people come to the IGF and part of the capacity-building is also bringing people to the IGF through fellowships and so on, that they have meaningful participation.
 However, there are a number people that, of course, do not know about the existing initiatives in capacity-building in Internet governance.  And they show up at the IGF as part of the delegation on their own or whatever.  They should be able to on the spot learn more about the issues that they're interested in, so to be able to more -- to follow the discussions in more qualitative way.  
 Secondly, they should be able to hear what are the programs and opportunities available for the next IGF that they can promote and so on.
 So the first concrete step that I can suggest, of course, is the e-mail list, but probably we can also meet at the break or lunch break, whoever is interested -- I already know ISOC and Mervi and Robert and there are a couple of other people that approached me.  We can start discussing possible tracks and ideas for Baku and onwards.
 The second thing is, again, back to what I raised earlier this morning is setting the scene, set of workshops or sessions.  I encourage you also if anyone has any opinion about it, whether we should introduce something like that, setting the scene.  It does not refer only to giving an introduction to people that are new to the IGF.  That can come under the capacity-building track.
 But setting the scene can be a wider outlook of the framework -- political framework where IGF is currently, within the other initiatives, helping us to streamline in-depth discussion further.
 It can be a separate session, or we can simply take out some of the existing workshops and put them on the first-day morning or something like that to start with them so it can just be an arrangement up to all of us.  Just wanted to hear the ideas.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Thank you, Vladimir.
 Okay.  We have some comment.  Thank you for your good discussions.
 And now, I want announce coffee break, 15 minutes for the coffee break.  After, we will continue our discussions.  Thank you.
 (Coffee break.)
 [ Gavel ]
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Dear colleagues, please be seated and we'll continue our work.
 Okay.  We'll continue.  As we promised to you at yesterday, in the meeting with Mr. Cherkasov we promised to you we present you some presentation and discuss the issue related to capacity building.  And now I ask -- I invite Mr. Cherkasov to do this presentation.  Please.
 >>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  Distinguished members of the MAG and ladies and gentlemen, so that during the meetings and discussions of MAG participants and also meeting with a discussion of the representatives of the countries especially from the developing countries, everybody asked the question so that how we can get the advantage of having this unique type of the activities and the knowledge that the Internet governance society and the Internet Governance Forum have.
 And one of these demands from the developing countries was to build and to get their systems in the form of a capacity-building program, so that then would allow them to build their capacity and to build their Internet governance society.
 So based on these recommendations and the demands-driven requests from the developing countries, so that we would like to take this opportunity to share with you the draft idea about how such a program can be developed, what the major components of this program can be offered to the developing countries, and seek your advice and your direct participation.
 So within this time from February till May, so that I was trying to make the analysis of the current situation and try to come up with suggestions and ideas which can be used for the developing this capacity-building program.
 So the objectives of this capacity-building program, and then we call building -- helping the developing countries to build the Internet governance society is to provide the government officials, representatives of civil society organizations, academia, so that to get the sustainable help into the -- into building the sustainable Internet governance policies and programs.
 And as well as so that to strengthen the role of national and regional Internet governance society capability.
 So that it also -- so that the program can improve the participants' knowledge and understanding of the broad range of the Internet governance issues facing developing countries, provide opportunities for the practitioners from the developing countries to learn from the effective Internet governance experience of the international community, facilitate the exchange of experience, knowledge, and ideas between practitioners and experts from developing and developed countries, and promote south-to-south and north-to-south cooperation by building and strengthening institutional linkages between governmental and nongovernmental training and research institutes.
 So that the suggested methodology for this capacity-building program can be built on the output-oriented participatory approach, a combination of the training techniques of the three-way dialogue and the participatory approach including lectures, workshops, group and panel discussions, case study analysis, and a field visit.
 So that it is also important element to be included is the component of the training of trainers approach, so that the program can have the domino or multiply effect, once at least one or two representatives from the countries initially participate in the training program.  
 So that the suggested participants will be the mid-career practitioners from the government, civil society, and private sector, and they can be selected based on their expertise and experience in the field of Internet governance.
 So now so that I would like to share with you the idea how the knowledgeable experience of the Internet governance society, and as well as community and the MAG members, can be applicable and utilized for developing these training programs.
 So that very often when -- so that I had meetings with the developing countries officials and representatives and we are talking about developing the country Internet Society.  They asking "So that how -- you know, that -- what we can gain from this," and the second question was "How we can be in the mainstream of the Internet development?"
 As you know, so that this -- one of the key momentum and advantage of the MAG meetings, that the leading experts and practitioners from all around the world be able to identify the key and the main topics which are going to be discussed and presented during the regular IGF meetings, annual meetings.
 So that then the whole idea is so that to utilize the outputs of the MAG recommendations so that -- and make the key training modules of the program based on the main areas of the -- of the mainstream emerging issues of the Internet development.
 So that then -- also so that the other great options and opportunities for the developing of the training modules is that the Internet Governance Forum, which provides the outstanding number of the workshops with the various type of the materials that can be used and utilized in the developing of this capacity-building program.
 So that it also provide the sharing of the expertise and experience from the developing and developed countries.
 So that it also provide activities of the IGF regional and IGF countries, so that they also are sharing some expertise and -- which can be also accumulated in the preparation process of the content of the training modules.
 And then so that -- so that this accumulated knowledge and experience of the international community, Internet governance community, be exposed and can be utilized for the developing of the content and the themes from the training models.
 So that this one, for -- for your information, so that I would like to share with you that draft idea of the course modules.
 So that when can be developed -- of course with your assistance and support -- so that this is the -- as you can see, so that it's nine training modules, so that -- and then this is the main areas, so that that can be provided and given to the trainees during this training -- during this training course.
 So that as you can see, so that we have the Internet governance for development, we have emerging issues of Internet, we have the Internet governance society, access and diversity, and also so that issues of the security, open, and privacy.
 This is what I suggested, so that it's one of the training -- individual training module can contain four training and knowledge-sharing lectures.  For example, each of these lectures can last like 1 hour 30 minutes, so that one of these lectures can be enriched by the practical exercise based on the substantive topic presented during one of the lectures, so that it will give the practical expertise and the help to the participants to also gain some practical experience.  Not only to be a listener of the lecture but also to participate in some practical exercise.
 So based on the overall picture of this training program, capacity building, so that I would like to ask your participation in this process, and we have a very enthusiastic group of the MAG members who would like to lead various type of either groups or would like to take a role as the focal point.
 So I just would like to suggest, so that that -- on the Phase Number 1, if the generic outlines for the training module be developed based on the consensus and based on the recommendation of the MAG members.
 So that then this approach will allow us later on to ask and to approach the experts and the practitioners from the -- in the particular area and ask them to develop this training module, which is going to be based on the generic approach, so therefore, we can have the unified type approach, obtaining the same type of the training materials and the same type of the quality which is going to be applied for the training module.
 Then number -- Phase Number 2, so that is to select the themes for the training modules.  As we have a number of the themes for the -- each of the components, and I believe so that the MAG members and the members of the Internet governance community can contribute and can participate in the selection of the relevant -- I would say maybe start one, two, three, or four maximum training themes for the training modules, and then even I believe maybe can help to develop this training module based on the outlines which probably be delivered prior to this training module content is going to be finalized.
 For example, like one of the possible themes for the Module Number 2, so that that Internet governance and development of the Internet governance society, so that it can be infrastructure, you know, providing the ideas and a lecture on the importance of this for how it can be developed, Internet governance principles, framework, bridging a digital divide, so that this is maybe substantive areas that can be utilized for the developing the themes and the content of the training module.  So that -- in this slide, so that I just highlighted this possible themes for the training modules based on the recommendations and based on the advices that was given by the MAG members for the possible themes of the IGF forum 2012.
 Yeah.  Next.
 Okay.  So this is what I wanted to share with you.
 I also have like seven pages of conceptual notes, so that which also, you know, can be available and we'll be happy to share with you, and I would like to ask you just to take into consideration and if you have interest to help the developing countries to build their capacity of their Internet governance society through their capacity-building and knowledge-sharing program, so that you are very much appreciated and we would like to ask your opinion and your recommendation for this initiative.
 So I'm not sure that we just -- you know, that we may discuss it during this MAG members.  Maybe one of the ideas we can share this information electronically through the MAG members and to ask their comments, recommendations, and suggestions.
 On the other hand, I also would like to share with you that from our side, as United Nations, even we have very scarce resources available, but we also tried to provide substantive and direct contribution to this IGF capacity-building program, and right now in the parallel of the MAG, unfortunately due to the arrangements done by the WSIS secretariat, we organize a two-day workshop.  It's called "Open Government Data and Citizen Engagement," so which provide this outputs of this workshop to be into the developing of the toolkit on -- for the governments and from the developing countries, which will help them to be able to have very practical advisors and recommendations on the open government data and the citizen engagement.
 And I also appreciate the direct support of the MAG members, and Olga Cavalli, she directly participated as a resource person in this workshop, so that where she was able to share this experience and expertise, plus she recommended a number of the participants that we invited and they participated in this workshop.
 So I feel that it was very -- very useful and both sides winning situation, so that we're also using the opportunity of building capacity at the country level through such a training.
 And we would like also to encourage you to provide us also recommendations on the potential participants for the future training workshops and as well as we encourage you also to take this opportunity and participate as resource persons and as experts in the training workshops, so that you can share with -- you can share your expertise and train participants from the developing countries.
 I would like to share with you so that in the next May, within this format of the WSIS, we would like to organize the also workshop regarding the e-participation, so where the issue of the Internet governance is also going to be reflected, and just wanted to inform you in advance so that then you can maybe consider to what extent, in what capacity, you also can participate in such type of the workshop as well.
 Thank you very much for your attention, and that's it.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you, Slava.  This is very usable information.
 And if you have some maybe questions, we have only five minutes for your questions.  If you have, please.  Please, Bill.
 >>BILL DRAKE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  This is all very interesting.
 All of us sitting here in the center in my row are -- seem to have missed the part where some important bits were explained, so perhaps you could help me.
 We -- I mean, there's a lot of activity already going on around capacity building.  Wolfgang, sitting next to me, has been running a summer school for seven years that some of us participate in.  Olga has one in Latin America that some of us participate in every year.  There's the Diplo activities and so on.  So there's a lot going on, and that's all good.  And more -- and systemization of it can be useful as well.  But we didn't hear quite exactly where this is coming from, who's organizing it, how will the community participate in making it happen, when would it be held.  Just the basic kinds of things that I think we didn't catch.
 So it may be we were just not listening carefully enough, but if you could back up to the bits that go before the mapping out of the agenda to exactly how would this be done logistically and so on.  That would be really helpful.  Thank you.
 >>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  Okay.  Maybe so that we can get all questions and then I will just, you know, use the opportunity to answer all of them one by one.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Yeah.
 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Yeah.  My name is Wolfgang Kleinwachter.   
 You know, I was very impressed by the seven or nine themes which were listed, you know, here out.  You know, as an academic person, I would say, you know, this is a good course for two semesters at a university, if you want to cover all these issues in a serious way.
 So it makes no sense just to put some interesting catchwords on the slides, so that means you have to be also realistic what you can do in a 90-minute lecture or 90-minute workshop, and my recommendation would be really if you go down the road and to translate this into practical actions, to be very careful what you want to achieve, whether you want just, you know, to give a general overview about or whether you want to go deeper.  It means -- a clarification, what you want to achieve with this course, I think is in particular important.
 I also support very much the target group.  That means people who already made a certain career in government, in private sector and civil society, so it makes absolutely sense.
 Our summer school which we are now doing now, the seventh here in Germany, has the subtitle "Teaching the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow," and we are selecting people who have already made certain progress and so if we can provide any advice for this program, we will do it.  
 We have inspired with our summer school already a number of other issues already, including Olga's in Latin America, and the Arab summer school, and we had also some activities in Asia.  But it means we will, you know, be happy to do this but I would be very, very -- recommend really if you go to the details of the program, to be very careful.
 You introduced all the -- a new terminology, "Internet governance society."  This terminology is totally new, and if we have a lecture about Internet governance society, then it needs some -- some clarification, what do you understand under "Internet governance society."  
 We have used the terminology "Information Society."  I think this is more or less defined by the WSIS process.  We have a definition for "Internet governance," but what "Internet governance society" means is a little bit confusing.
 And so far, you know, my recommendation is:  It's a good start.  Go deeper with the consultations, ask for advice from various groups, and then let's move to the next level.
 By the way, the IGF improvement working group had also discussed the idea of an IGF academy.  Such a proposal is now under discussion in ICANN to prepare people who are involved on the eve of the ICANN meeting to know what's going on in ICANN, and a similar project could be launched, although directly linked to the IGF.  Three or four days before the IGF you offer such an opportunity in the form of an IGF academy.
 So I think you should take all these ideas on board and then move forward and accept.  I think it's a very great initiative.  It gets all the support.  But it has to be carefully drafted to avoid further confusion.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Wolfgang.  Ana, please.
 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much, and good morning.
 Well, I have the same -- the same questions that the previous speakers raised.  But maybe I -- I misunderstood, but where is this program taking place?  In Geneva?  In Baku?  When?
 Sorry, but I didn't get it.
 And who is supporting this program?
 On the other hand, I -- I'd like to underline that coming from the governmental side, I think that besides all these academic courses, it's very important that during the debate and during the workshop, the capacity building line cannot be forgotten.  Never.
 And that the capacity building must be part of the workshops as well.
 So -- and not to put things so apart, because I think that we have already lots of programs on these issues.  Thank you.  
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.  Thank you, Ana.  Yuliya, please.
 >>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Good morning.  First of all, I would like to thank you, Mr. Cherkasov, for the very interesting presentation and I think it would be a very great initiative.
 As I understood it from the beginning, it's just a draft and a proposal, so maybe further consultation will be needed but I would like to bring our support and we just actually finalized the first pass of the capacity-building initiative with a local government representative.
 So from our side, we will be happy to bring this expertise concerning governance -- Internet governance issues as well.
 So we'll be very happy to bring our support and,you know, to be one of the research persons concerning Internet governance issues at local level.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Yuliya.  Olga, please.
 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  As Wolfgang mentioned, there are several initiatives already ongoing.  Our experience has been in Latin America, especially focusing and training in Spanish for a region that is -- where the language is widely spread, and I would like -- I think it's a very good initiative and I would like to offer myself as a resource person.
 I also would like to tell you that for the ITU and for the Organization of American States, I have developed an online training course in Spanish of two months about Internet governance, so maybe that would be helpful.
 I will send you now the URL to these courses.  Thank you very much.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Olga.
 Constance, please.
 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much, Chair.  Thank you for the presentation and I -- I do think it's an excellent initiative.
 I'd like to offer myself as a resource person as well.  We were discussing with Vlad at the coffee break trying to identify missing pieces in the overall scheme of capacity building.  There are a lot of initiatives going on.  We've talked about them.  ISOC has its own fellowship program for the IGF.  There are e-learning programs.  There are fellowship programs.
 What might be missing is something on-site at the event itself, some sort of training session, so maybe that's something we can explore together.
 But in any case, ISOC is happy to contribute to this initiative.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you, Constance.
 Collins, please.
 >>COLLINS ATAHO:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  That's a very brilliant idea and a good program for the developing countries, since I'm from one of the countries that are least evolved.
 But my major concern follows.
 I need to know how you are going to implement this.  The implementation.  Yes, the design looks very fabulous, it looks really nice, but on the ground are you going to participate fully into, you know, these countries so that your policies are fully implemented and followed?
 Because we have such programs on paper, but the implementation is quite, you know, challenging.
 What difference do you intend to make from the already existing programs?  You know, are you going to be part and parcel of the same kind of already existing programs or do you have a unique way of how you're going to implement it?
 Are you going to involve fully the government on the ground and the local population so that the beneficiaries really get to it?  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Collins.  Andrey, please.
 >>ANDREY SHCHERBOVICH:  Thank you, chair.  I would like to thank Vyatcheslav for such a great presentation and for the great idea.  I think all the people here will support that, and I'd like to invite to share some university experience for different academic institutions.
 For example, I know that our university, Higher School of Economics in Moscow, has a master course for the full-time master's program on public law which is related to correlation of the human rights in the Internet and other Internet governance issues related with it.
 So I'm open for sharing my experience and maybe would be grateful if such a cooperation would continue.
 Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Andrey.  Vladimir, please.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  I would like to join -- thanks to Slava for raising this issue.  I think it is important that I also understand this initiative to raise capacity building on the agenda of IGF and MAG very -- on a very high level, and I'm -- I appreciate that very much.
 I also missed the beginning.  Probably the coffee was too inspiring to come at the beginning, so I missed the context and I will ask also to repeat the context when, where, and how this is envisaged.
 But as I said, I understand this is an initiative to discuss more.  There are a huge number of initiatives, as we know and we already heard.  I've been working with Diplo for seven years.  There is a summer school.  ISOC is working on this.  And many others.  Different aspects.  
 And Wolfgang mentioned that probably all of this could hardly be fit into two days workshop.  It can be done in online program but for that we need three months and Diplo is doing that in three months course.  But that's something we should combine:  the instituted workshops as Constance mentioned before the IGF, then the online programs during, and the summer schools and so on.  
 So I would recommend somehow streamlining all these efforts that we already have, and the supports to the existing initiatives, the harmonization of that, so that we use the benefits of the existing initiatives and harmonize all of that for the benefit of the IGF.
 But again, I'm very thankful that we are raising this issue and reminding ourselves what we already have, and that we should harmonize more.
 At the end, I also offer myself as a resource in Diplo to help working further on that.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Vladimir.  Izumi, please.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   On the one hand I think there is good value for the proposal, especially if you can attend the needs from Asia and Pacific small islands, non-speaking English population, being in Japan, China, Indonesia, or these areas especially in the context of the next IGF in Baku where perhaps we see less participation from these parts because it is very far.  
 Also, in the context that Indonesia may be proposing to host the next IGF and then coming back to our region, so these are all sort of positive elements.
 However, I still have some question.  Maybe I didn't listen carefully as to what's the relationship between this and IGF, being a MAG.  Still not too clear.  If you could clarify.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Izumi.  Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:   Thank you, Chair.  And thank you for a very interesting and well-explained account of this proposal.  Speaking as a representative of the U.K. government, my first take on this is that it is a very welcomed initiative, and the work you've put into developing this is much appreciated.  And I'd certainly like to take this away and consider it back in capitol and look forward to receiving more details about the funding and the timing and the -- how this rolls out and how the potential beneficiaries of this actually step forward to take advantage of this capacity-building initiative.  It's very timely.  I think -- it's timely in the sense that it usefully, I think, builds on the successful outreach that was achieved particularly at the Nairobi IGF in terms of securing engagement of stakeholders from all constituencies in Internet governance in developing countries.
 So it looks very good and certainly will look at the further details as they come through and seek to contribute to to the development of the concept and the ideas and the modules that you set out.
 And, secondly, with my Commonwealth hat on -- the U.K. government is very active in the Commonwealth.  We have the Commonwealth Internet Governance Forum, and one of its sort of mandates really is to promote capacity-building, engagement, and so on.  
 And I think this proposal is something that I would like my colleagues in the Commonwealth Internet Governance Forum management to look at and see how it usefully intersects with what the Commonwealth is doing.  The Commonwealth is a global organization with a large number of developing countries involved.  And the Commonwealth very usefully brings together developed economies like the U.K., Canada, Australia and others together with many developing countries and small island states and LDCs.
 So I see some mention synergies there, and I would like to table that as an issue we can explore as we look at how we can engage with you in developing this.
 So certainly welcome it.  As I said, it seems very timely.  There are gaps of engagement.  I think we all readily acknowledge that.  Looking at the workshop proposals, we noted there were deficiencies and gaps geographically in stakeholders' proposals for workshops and so on.  So I think it fits without addressing that concern potentially as well.
 Look forward to receiving more information.  And I hope we can -- from the U.K. and from the Commonwealth, we can identify ways of working with you to bring this to a practicable and effective and efficient way of rolling out.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Mark.
 Theresa, please.
 >>THERESA SWINEHART:   I think you have heard from many other speakers about different initiatives and the opportunities potentially to partner and leverage resources and expertise for something like this, which is obviously an important initiative.
 It does bring me, though, to a related question with regard to resources and how this will be supported on a financial basis.
 As we've been discussing, the IGF Secretariat as we've been discussing the funding mechanisms and also ensuring excellent participation at the IGF from all regions of the world in all sectors, I feel it's also important that we address this issue.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Theresa.
 Robert, please.
 >>ROBERT GUERRA:   Again, this is Robert Guerra from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.  I have a couple quick comments but one coming from an educational institution, it is great to see that there's a capacity-building program that's being developed particularly that's trying to working with developing countries.  As was mentioned before, there are a variety of different initiatives and, you know, may I suggest that consulting and maybe working with others could leverage the great amount of materials that have been developed, a great set of expertise and many different institutions and organizations that have been developed here.
 I might suggest perhaps while we're also here maybe during one of the breaks, maybe a meeting with some of these groups, perhaps the creation of a dynamic coalition to help move this forward.  And may I suggest in terms of the IGF program, different stakeholder groups have proposed and have organized capacity-building sessions in either the preday before the IGF or the pre-preday, which is about two days before, and having one or two-day sessions before the IGF would really build the capacity of new participants, particularly from developing countries but specifically from stakeholder groups whose IGF will be the first one.  
 I welcome the initiative and hope it can build on existing ones.  And also going to Theresa's point, I hope the support of this initiative doesn't draw funding away from the Secretariat and the great tasks and challenges it needs to complete this IGF and other IGFs going forward.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Robert.
 Please.
 >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I am China and Ministry of Industry and Information technology.  Firstly, I very agree with Mr. Izumi's comments for increased representation of IGF.  Measures should be taken to enhance participation, right to speak to the representation from all the stakeholders from the developing country.
 Secondly, regarding the workshop, we refer it well that IGF should follow the Tunis Agenda and then identify the priority of development issues in IGF so all the shareholders can share helpful experience and practice in leveraging the Internet for social, economic development.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Other questions?  Please, I give floor.
 >> VYATCHASLAVA CHERAKOV:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  
 First of all, I would like to thank very much for all the comments that were given.  And I'm very happy because I saw the initiative, that I make the presentation, was going to be silent.  So it means I got so enthusiastic comments from you side, recommendations.  So that I feel that it is really important and for us to continue this efforts and to move forward to this initiative.
 So many questions, but I would like to be a little bit short and, on the other hand, just to telegraph/type the answers.
 First of all, the whole idea was just to -- not invent the new wheels so that we are fully much aware, there is a number of the initiatives and the very practical training programs which are organized at the regional level and in the countries and whatever you mentioned.  
 So that our approach in this case is just what I mentioned from the beginning, is just to utilize what you already have so that use the same training model, the same approach.  So it means that we ask -- my first statement was ask you as the experts as MAG members to see how you can contribute in terms of the content of this training models so that we don't want to -- for example, I know some of your training models or the training program last maybe three months or even more.
 So the idea of some of them, so that due to the time constraints which we have and also we would like to offer this program to be available online so that if, for example, you would like to go further so that to have a deeper training, then we just have for this purpose you need to go to Latin America or you have to go to Europe where you can get more training and more deeper exercise on this one.
 Definitely so what we would like to use this one is just to give the overall picture about what is going on in the world, in the Internet governance, and how some of the maybe practical exercises can be implemented.
 So, therefore, as maybe a little bit not fair, but this is what I'm asking you so that to consider how would your training institutions and how your expertise in this area can be directly usable and can be complemented and can be added into the developing of these models.
 Our priority is to ask you and based on your expertise so that -- actually to develop one of these training models or at least one of the sessions of the training model so that then we can later utilize and we can include into the entire program.
 So, therefore, we would like to actually minimize the level of the -- using any funds from the IGF budget and we fully would like to rely on the contribution or we can call in-kind contribution from the Internet governance society.
 So with respect to the date and then ways how it is going to be organized it is, again, so we're not going to do it as a separate event or something that's going to be heavily financed.  So the whole approach is to discuss with respective potential countries who would like to have access to this type of information, if they would like to have in-country and they would like to have the direct training, then so to seek the support from the sponsors or the donors or some potential sources of the finance so it is provided.
 On the other hand, so that this program is also considered to be available online so then if somebody would like to use it, then it's going to be free of charge.  Usually we just try to implement this approach availability of the materials for the developing countries.
 With your recommendation, suggestions, we will try the next step.  It is only to make this proposal more detailed and share with you this information, seek your advice and recommendations how this initiative be strengthened.  And also to see what is your role and how you would like to complement and to participate in this program.
 So that this initiative is not actually linked to some specific event, for example, like Baku or the next IGF.  So once it is going to be developed, it is going to be all the year-round available for anyone who would like to participate.  And even more I would say that we have such experience with organizing the online training program which we have within this 4-month-old UN DESA.  We have online training center.  And, for example, one of the online training courses said what the future government leaders need to know about the e-government.  And it is open for anyone who would like to take this course.  Upon completion, we provide a certificate.  And we have a very strong interest so that every year we have up to a thousand participants from the developing countries who would like to take this case.
 On the other hand, this course contains some information from the training and the institutional centers all around the world who can provide the deeper information and maybe more technical details about this content of these themes that the participants would like to know.  And we direct -- and we recommended these participants to have the direct contact and the communication with this training center.  That's why we can have these -- one of our feelings and one of our intentions is to try to give the participants and the people from the developing countries the knowledge where and how they can have this information and also the basic training about this Internet governance and plus also to be able to connect and communicate with respective training centers and available programs all around the world.
 Plus, as you mentioned, for example, some of the -- like in Latin America, they have this program in Spanish.  So I believe so in the other parts of the world, non-Spanish speaking people -- they also would like to have some interest.  So I feel like we try to make the way with the support of the Internet governance community to disseminate and to give access to this information so the translation or also the availability of this program is in other languages as well.
 Again, I would like to tell you again, just so that our prime target is just only to -- like, no additional financial burden to the IGF trust fund project.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay.  Thank you, Slava.
 Please.
 >> TIJANI BEN JAMAA:  Thank you.  I still have questions, especially about the meaning of the Internet governance society.  And also another point, since you are presenting this program here in the IGF preparation, it means that it is related -- it is linked to the IGF.  So would it be implemented for the IGF every year?  Or it is only an online course, something that you can download, et cetera?
 >>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:   Thank you very much for this question.  It is a very good one.  It depends on the availability of financial resource.  The online course or the online materials are going to be available so that we consider it a key momentum for the developing countries to get access to the information.  And this is definitely an information-sharing experience.  
 That's why we would like to ask everybody from the MAG group and as well as from The Internet Society so that who would like to contribute and who would like to offer, as we mentioned -- as we already heard, someone would like to do it.  
 Then it is going to be based that these materials can be free of charge so it can be available to the participants and anyone who is interested from the developing countries.
 The second question that you mentioned is, again, so we would like to make it all-around available.  On the other hand, what we would like to do so to update the materials based on the outputs of the regional, national and the IGF forum because as you heard, the technology is changing very quickly.  The approach is some of the governments and some of the countries, they experience even changing their constitution and laws.  That's why we would like to keep these updated and share these lessons learned and the experience so that then there are other countries who would like to also form it so they can learn the lessons quickly and see how they can efficiently do it and also to see how it was done in other countries so then they can also be -- you know, in the streamline of the development of the Internet policies and the Internet governance efficiency, economic, social and financial policies and programs.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Slava.
 Izumi, please.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   I'm still grappling to understand what exactly the relationship between IGF and this initiative.  This initiative itself sounds very good.  I'm very naive or stupid.  What range of financial, say, amount you are thinking in terms of dollars?  Because we are still as IGF suffering from a lack of financial resources around the trust fund.  As you mentioned, it will not burden any extra things to the trust fund.  I tend to trust that.
 But having heard that some other colleague members of MAG have difficulty in coming here, expecting some financial assistance, but it was not applied to the small business.
 I don't want to sort of put them in into the equation like that.  But I really need to know sort of the overall more detailed information and still that we don't have the executive coordinator and we need to really enhance this Secretariat.  It may not be a relevant question.  I hope they are not.  Please clarify, not necessarily now but during the course.  Thank you.
 >>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:   Thank you very much for the questions regarding the finances.  The initiative is based on no financial implications toward the IGF budget.  That's why we just from the initial of my presentation I ask you so to consider to what extent MAG members and the international Internet governance community can contribute to this program.
 Plus, I say that we're not going to invent a new wheel.  This is not the idea.  The idea is only just to utilize what already has been done, what is going to be done so as I mentioned to you when we just have the meetings and discussion with the representative from the developing countries, they're not -- everybody is aware about this training program all around the world so they would like to some extent have something that is consolidated so then at least they just have as a basic understanding what is the Internet governance, how this Internet governance can be useful for the developing countries, how they can benefit from this.  What is the development component that everyone in developing countries is looking for?
 And then based on these basic approach of getting this information, as I mentioned to you.  So, for example, if like Olga's training center will provide the model about this type of themes to be developed so that we just would like to indicate that if you need additional training or if you would like to have deeper -- like, spend two, three months to have this technical capacity training, please contact such and such training institutions for your future development program and career development improvement approach.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Yes, please.
 >>BILL DRAKE:   Thank you.  Everybody in the room is a big believer in capacity-building.  Everybody in the room strongly supports trying to address capacity-building in a coherent way and many of us are already engaged in an until of activities with that in mind.  So certainly at that level, it's music to the ears.
 But I think still at the level of institutionally how you are proposing this to be organized, how you see it interfacing with existing activities and all the rest, it is still -- for all of us, it is just kind of new and so we're having a little bit difficult time getting our head around it in order to assess it properly.
 I'm just wondering, is there any documentation that's been developed that perhaps you could share with us that lays out this idea and would give us a better handle on who exactly is involved in this and how they envision concretely, organizationally working.  That would make it a lot easier for the community -- the Internet governance society, which I guess we are, to respond to.  We're just trying to work through it.
 So any more information you could provide to us in a concrete way would be really, really helpful.  Thank you.
 >>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:   Okay.  Thank you very much.  Actually, I mentioned from the beginning of my presentation that I prepared seven pages draft conceptual notes.  And as I indicated, so if this initiative has interest and you just would like to elaborate further, we would like to send this conceptual note to everyone who just would like to participate and who would like to make a contribution and the comments.
 So then the whole idea is after we share this document with you, it is a draft, again, so, please, make whatever the recommendation you feel comfortable with so that we revamp, we revise the document, the conceptual note based on your recommendations.  I believe you also contribute in terms of what you particularly can also add to the developing of this program.  It can be -- you can be a resource person or you would like to say "I would like to program even the whole maybe training model."  It is up to you.  Everybody is free.  And then, we would like, as I say, the main concept of this program is based on zero funding.  I know it sounds a little bit like --
 [ Laughter ]
 I believe myself if you do nothing and just talking and you don't initiate, nothing happens.  So I suggest that at least we just try to do it.  See how it is going to be done maybe so we cannot have in the initial stage on phase Number 1 the whole package.  But we can start it.
 I remember myself from the expertise of the e-government index, when it was started, nobody paid attention.  Everybody now is approaching us and asking what is our position, what is our role within the whole e-government position within this e-government index.
 So I believe we can start.  And if you feel it is not a bad idea, then we just start sharing this information, collect your proposals, your comments and then go step by step for developing this capacity-building program within this four months of Internet governance.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Please, Wolfgang.
 >> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER:  Yes, a concrete proposal.  We have not yet decided open forum for the IGF in Baku.  I propose that we use one of the slots of the open forum to discuss this issue.  We had in the previous years always one workshop on the summer schools and Internet governance organized by Olga and Sanja.  And I think we could combine this and have just an open forum where all the ideas can be further discussed.
 I think in particular we have zero budget, so it needs much more intensive discussion.  If you have a good idea, then my experience is you will get good money.  But first you have to convince others that the idea is good and it works.  
 As far as I see it now, it needs a lot more work conceptually, institutionally, you know, how to work this out and how to integrate this into the existing or to harmonize or combine it with existing initiatives.  This has potential.
 I think it is worth to discuss it.  And let's, more or less, conclude here that we will continue the debate in Baku with an open forum.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Wolfgang.
 >>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:   Thank you very much.  I appreciate it differently so we can consider for the further improvement.  I hope within the few months prior to Baku we would be able to come up with a more stronger substantively and institutionally sound document and we provide the next phase of the discussion into the development and implementation stage.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you to all persons for your questions, and thank you, Slava, for such interesting presentation and very informative answer to your questions.
 And now I want to invite Peter for a briefing on the CSTD working group on implementations to the IGF and tell us what the next steps of the group's report are.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you to all persons for your questions and thank you, Slava, for the very interesting presentation and very informative answers to your questions.
 And now I want to invite Peter for the briefing on the CSTD working group, on implementations to the IGF, and tell us what the next steps of the group's report are.  Please, please, Peter.
 >>PETER MAJOR:  Good afternoon.  We had a very interesting presentation before that, and I congratulate Slava for his initiative.  It's always difficult to come up with something new, and I could assess from the reactions that it's really very exciting.
 Right now, we'd like to continue the session with my presentation about the results we have achieved in the CSTD working group on the improvements to the IGF.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Do you have presentation?
 >>PETER MAJOR:  Okay.  So I will try to be quick, to go through and give you just an oversight of what has happened and how we proceeded.
 And it's a briefing and probably at the end of the briefing, you may have some questions that I will be ready to answer if I can, but I can tell you that in the room, there are a lot of members of this working group who will be just ready to answer your questions either during the session or even after the session.
 So what I would like to talk about is about the mandate of the working group itself, what were the meetings, what were the main agreed topics, the results and recommendations, and what is more important, the follow-up and the conclusion.
 So just briefly, the CSTD is the Commission on Science and Technology for Development.  It's the U.N. commission which reports to the ECOSOC of the U.N.  It has two mandates.  Traditionally it has a science mandate to follow up scientific issues, and the relatively new mandate is the WSIS follow-up.
 It has its annual session in Geneva, and there was a proposal to set up this working group early in 2010, so the working group was created by the General Assembly of the United Nations and it was supposed to report its results back to the CSTD last year, May 2011.
 So in its mandate, it was said that it should be established in an open and inclusive manner; it should seek, compile, and review inputs from all U.N. member states and all other stakeholders on improvements to the IGF; to give recommendations to the improvements without changing the basic features of the IGF.  That is, its multistakeholder character and taking into account that it's not a decision-taking forum.
 After some very interesting debate, the multistakeholder approach was adopted by the CSTD and the group was set up, including 50 member states.  In addition to that, we had the organizing countries of the IGFs and the organizing countries of the WSIS forum, and we had five business representatives, five from academia, five from civil society, and five from international organizations.
 Personally, I don't really like this chart, though I did it myself, because it kind of shows some kind of confrontation, to my mind.  In fact, we have been working in a very cooperative manner, by the end.
 So in the first phase of the working group, it was Mr. Frederic Riehl from Switzerland who chaired the meeting, and we had two meetings.
 Basically, it just set out the foundation of our meetings, and there was no time to come up with recommendations.
 During the 14th session last year of the CSTD, the mandate of the working group has been extended, and a new chairman has been named.
 So I have been nominated as chairman, and Mr. Vijaya Kumar from Sri Lanka has been nominated as vice chair.  Since then, already in Nairobi we had some kind of informal discussions during the IGF, and following the IGF we had our first meeting where we agreed on the same five main topics which were based on responses to the questionnaire which has been already sent out previously.
 On the subsequent meetings, on the fourth and the fifth meetings, we discussed these topics and we came to some conclusions and drafted recommendations, which was -- as you know, drafting is always a very painful exercise but we managed.
 So what were the main agreed topics.  
 Shaping the outcomes of the IGF meetings.  
 Number two was the working modalities, including open consultations, the MAG, and the secretariat.
 A very exciting topic was the funding of the IGF.
 Number 4 was broadening participation. 
 And finally, linking the IGF to other related processes, mechanisms, and bodies.
 What are the results?
 First of all, I have to emphasize to me one of the major results was that it was a multistakeholder approach.
 During the whole process, we tried and managed to be disconnected from the enhanced cooperation.
 In the end, I think we had a sense of mutual trust and it was teamwork.  It was interesting how we established the agreed main topics.  
 And finally, last but not least, we came up with 39 recommendations.
 During the meetings, it was already said if we come up with only one recommendation, we have already done our job, so I think we have done quite well.  We had 39 recommendations.
 This report has been submitted to the members of the working group for approval and it was approved.
 Just to go into a bit of detail -- by the way, the report itself is available on the Web site of the CSTD.  I will give you the URL and I will give you the presentation itself.  I will circulate them among the MAG members.
 So shaping the outcomes of the IGF meetings, I can group the recommendations into three subgroups:  Develop more tangible outputs; improve the visibility of the IGF outcomes and its accessibility with enhanced communication tools; and number three, communication strategy and tools to making available the relevant documents to all the relevant stakeholders and the media.
 Working modalities.
 The two -- the three subgroups is improve the overall preparatory process of the IGF.
 Number two, improve the structure and working methods of the MAG.  Probably we shall come back to that.
 Strengthen and expand the secretariat.
 As I told you, a critical issue is the funding of the IGF, so Recommendation Number 1 of the group -- we also have three groups -- encourage increased voluntary financial contributions.  
 Number two was enhance accountability and transparency.  
 Number three, acknowledge the host country's support and in-kind support from other countries, organizations, and the U.N.
 The fourth agreed main topic was the broadening participation and capacity building.  
 Here we have four subgroups:  Expand and diversify participation; enhance measures for broader participation; improve the online visibility and accessibility of the IGF; and enhance all stakeholders' understanding of the IGF and Internet governance issues.
 Probably Slava's presentation tried to be a response to that.
 Finally, the fifth main agreed topic was linking the IGF to other IG-related entities.
 Here, the subgroups are:  Ensure the relevance and the inclusiveness of the annual IGFs; support enhanced communication; and number three -- and MAG members may have some interest in that -- empower the MAG and the IGF secretariat to do consistent outreach.
 So I -- as I told you, the report is available on the link I have just put out here.
 This CSTD will have its meeting next week.  I'm going to present the report next week, and probably we are going to have a discussion about it, which will be followed by the draft resolution to the ECOSOC about the follow-up of the report.
 The ECOSOC will hopefully stamp the resolution and will forward it to the U.N. General Assembly, and I hope that the General Assembly will endorse the report itself.  
 We don't have any explicit provision for the implementation.
 However, it is felt that there are tasks implicitly for the secretariat and the MAG, and I'm really pleased to see that the MAG has already taken some initiatives related to the Web site.
 So we have to wait for the endorsement by CSTD, ECOSOC, and the General Assembly.  However, I think we have time and we have the possibility to do proactive reflections on the tasks ahead.
 Personally, I believe that the MAG will have a role to play in the implementation.
 I would recommend that eventually MAG may set up some correspondence groups on each of the main topics.
 I am aware that there are some concerns about this, but probably we should do these reflections in order to make IGF more relevant.
 So what do I have in mind?
 Probably with the exception of funding issues, though funding may be also included, we may set up these correspondence groups around the main topic.
 As I told you, the draft resolution is available so you can go to the Web site, you can see it for yourself, what are in the details.
 And eventually we may set up a SharePoint site for each of the topics to discuss, to exchange ideas.
 I would also recommend to have a moderator or chair for each topic, and naturally anyone from the MAG may like to participate in this work.
 So what I would expect is to have contributions, to focus on how to implement the CSTD working group's recommendations.
 Well, let me conclude by the following.
 I think our work was a multistakeholder approach.  We could work together.  
 I was really glad to see that there was a mutual trust.  In fact, we listened to each other with respect and we tried to understand each other very well.
 Probably our success, if I may call it so, may be related that we managed to decouple the whole process from the enhanced cooperation, which is a controversial issue and we are going to discuss it tomorrow, I think, during a -- also an open consultation.
 The results are within the mandate of the group.  It means that for some of the participants in the group, there was no real change.
 There -- we should be aware that there are critical changes in the Internet world which are not reflected in these recommendations.
 Some of my ideas, it's a personal view that the IGF is in the forefront of the public policy but right now we have no leadership and we have funding problems.
 So what can we expect during the 15th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development?
 Well, it may be too much for some during the session, and probably these will be clarified in the resolution which the CSTD will take.
 So basically, I think I was 15 to 20 minutes.  I will be glad to take your questions, but I'm sure that the MAG members, those who participated in the work, would take your questions and I encourage them, in case they think they can answer better than I do.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Peter, for your information.
 And I want to address it to MAG members.  In our agenda we have only one, our final portion topic, which we must discuss, and if you agree, we can discuss all our topics before our lunch, and after lunch -- lunch, we finish our work, if you agree with such agenda.  
 And I ask you very shortly if you have some questions to Peter, you can have the possibility for the questions and after we are going to discuss our last topic of our agenda.  Please.  Please, Judy.
 >>JUDY OKITE:  Thank you, Chair.  Thank you, Peter.  Just one quick question.  After the groups have formed up and they discuss this document, where does the results go to?
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Please, Peter.
 >>PETER MAJOR:  Thank you, Judy.  Well, there are two parts.  As I told you, this is the -- a draft document which will have to be approved by CSTD, first, and ECOSOC, and finally by General Assembly.
 In the meantime, what I suggested is to have some kind of reflection groups within the MAG.  Probably the secretariat could provide us with a means to communicate among the members of the suggested groups.  I'm not sure whether I answered your question.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.
 >>JUDY OKITE:  After -- after you have -- after the collection of the information from the group, then can this be added to the document?
 >>PETER MAJOR:  Well, no.  We are -- we are in the phase when we have finalized from the working group a document which will be hopefully approved by ECOSOC and the General Assembly of the United Nations.  Our task as MAG members, I believe, is to help in the implementation of this recommendation.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Vladimir.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  Thank you, Peter, for your report.
 Before -- before reflecting to the report, just a technical question to the chair.
 I didn't understand, what is the agenda for the afternoon?  Repeat it later on.
 Now, regarding the CSTD report, I think it reflects really the key issues that we also discussed with the MAG, so in that sense, we are synchronized.  The good thing -- and I am referring to Judy's comment -- I find that we can do a lot without a need to adopt -- to further adjust any document, but we can do it from inside.  A lot of things like capacity building and so on.  And one example that I think I'll also refer to in the afternoon more is, for instance, in the case of the e-participation.
 So an example that most of the topics that we had in the past two years, for instance, the key ones like Arab Spring or the ACTA or so on, happened, for instance, in February/March.  Up until the next IGF, too much time has passed.
 The IGF needs to turn to discussions in between the two events as much as possible and we need to, as I like to put it, Internetizide IGF.  We need to use the e-tools to extend the communication, the outreach, the shaping of the proposals, the shaping of the annual event, as well as the reporting.  
 So it needs to be throughout the year a process, and e-tools and e-participation can help but I'll reflect that in the afternoon.
 The last thing is, regarding the funding, I think this should also be discussed by the MAG.
 It's definite that MAG cannot help, and certainly it's going to be much on the level of (indiscernible) and so on, but I'm sure that the MAG can come up with some constructive questions or suggestions that can be helpful, and some of them might even refer to the cutting -- cutting costs, not only the fundraising, which I already have a couple of ideas.  I'm sure that it's quite complicated in the U.N. system to implement some of them, but some suggestions can come through.
 That's as much as the CSTD report.  
 Again, the question for the chair.  Please explain the agenda for the afternoon.  I didn't really catch it.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Please, please.
 >>PETER MAJOR:  Basically that was the idea with the briefing and just giving some ideas what the CSTD report is to instantiate, to be active and proactive in implementing these recommendations.
 I'm glad to hear that there is -- where there is a will, I'm sure there will be a way to do that.  
 I'm afraid I can't answer you the question related to the afternoon session, so I'll let the chair do it.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Vladimir, about your questions, I ask -- as I mentioned, we are reaching the end of our agenda and one -- only one topic which we can discuss, and after then this is a room -- this is the full day that belongs to us, and if you want and if other of the members of MAG agree, the working group can come back to this room and use the space for their discussion and -- please.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  We had a very important topic on the agenda which is remote participation, and I don't see it included, so can we do it in the afternoon?  Because we don't have enough time.  I mean, we need time for that.  That's -- uh-huh.
 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  But we are going to do it in the afternoon or --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We can do it now --
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  I'm not sure.  We only have 15 minutes.  That's why I'm asking.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Yeah.  If we can finish our discussion on remote participation, we can finish our work.  If not, we will continue our work.  Yeah.  It's no problem for us.  Yeah.  Giacomo, please.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE: Yes.  Thank you.  I just want to use this opportunity to thank the chairman of the working group on the CSTD, Peter, because he made a very excellent job, and it's been quite difficult, I know, and it's important, so we congratulate him for that.
 But the most important thing is that because the MAG is one of the main tools for which these changes will have to take place, I think that we need to insert into the agenda at one of the next MAG meetings this point of the implementation of the report once that it will go through the proper approval.
 It's absolutely crucial because there are a lot of things that belongs to the MAG and need to be made owner by the MAG in the future.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Please.
 >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Peter, for the wonderful presentation.  I'm from the United Nations ESCWA.  I'm representing some interests of the Arab countries in west Asia and North Africa region.
 My question is regarding to the conclusion slide that was presented regarding the "decoupled from enhanced cooperation" bullet point, which is the second bullet point.  
 I would like to hear your opinion about this specifically, because there is controversy about the enhanced cooperation thing and its relationship to the IGF from one angle.  
 And this brings us to the point you mentioned in one other slide, which is the relationship of the IGF process at large with other processes.  
 How do you see this happening and what are the -- the limiters or the parameters that we are bound with regarding the enhanced cooperation process?
 This is one thing.
 And the other bullet point you mentioned, that IGF in the forefront of public policy but no leadership, no money.  
 So regarding the "no leadership," I'd like also to hear your view about that.  Is it sometimes looked at as a pro or a con, just the idea of having a decentralized nature?  
 And then we mentioned "no leadership," so I'd like to hear this and understand this, because your working group is very, very important for the whole process, and thank you for that.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Please, Peter.
 >>PETER MAJOR: Shukriya.  Well, thank you for the questions and they are very tricky questions, in fact.  Well, let me answer them one by one.
 There are two distinct processes in the WSIS agenda.  One is the Internet governance.  The other is enhanced cooperation.  And the -- in the WSIS agenda -- I mean Tunis Agenda, sorry -- there was the establishment of the IGF itself, which has happened, and enhanced cooperation for some did not.  For some it does exist, so I don't really want to go into this detail.  Probably you will have ample opportunity tomorrow to listen to different opinions about it.
 I -- during my meetings, I tried to respect the mandate of the group, which was explicitly related to the Internet governance -- improvement to the Internet Governance Forum, which meant different aspects, but it was really restricted and very well limited to this topic.
 So that's why all my meetings, I started with just noting and emphasizing the mandate we had, and probably it was very useful because we didn't go outside the mandate.
 Now, as for the second question concerning IGF in the forefront of public policy with no leadership, no money, well, that aspect of being an organization or being a forum in a decentralized way, frankly speaking, I don't recall that during our meetings this aspect occurred to anyone.
 In fact, it was mostly mentioned that this is something we should do about it to show the relevance of the forum, that it does have a leadership.  I'm referring to the executive coordinator and eventually the special advisor.  
 And as for funding, we do have concerns.  We know that we -- since we -- the two aspects unfortunately have an impact on each other.
 So basically I don't think it's a good thing that we don't have leadership.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Peter.  Thank you for your information.
 Okay.  Dear MAG members, I address it to you:  What's your decision about our activity?
 We have about maybe six minutes for the discussions on the last topic of our agenda.  That is topic -- yeah.  This is topic on remote participation in our forum.
 If you want, we can continue our discussions and open -- and now I open the discussions on remote participation.  
 Please, Izumi.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:  I'm sorry.  I was trying to answer to your other question about the CSTD thing.  Is it already closed or not?  I was not clear.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  It is only briefing for you.  It is brief information for you, and I think it is closed.  
 Please, I invite to discuss remote participation.  Thank you.  
 Please, please, Izumi.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   First of all, the six minutes is not absolutely enough to discuss remote participation as civil society and with many members --
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Please, please, please.
 >>IZUMI AIZU: -- who cannot afford --
 (multiple speakers).
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   I want to raise another point.  Some of our colleague members, MAG and others, are expecting that this discussion to be discussed in the afternoon according to the published agenda and they are not in this room now.  So it might be unfair to just cut off.  I really would like to see the discussion continued after lunch.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Please, other persons?
 Please, Paul.
 >>PAUL WILSON:   I'm not sure about others, but I came here expecting to continue into the afternoon.  And I would like to take the opportunity to continue into the afternoon, if the room is still available.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   No problem.  Please, if you want to say some words, please.  You.  No?
 >>BILL DRAKE:   Doesn't one normally have to raise one's flag to be called?
 [ Laughter ]
 Okay.  Well, since I have the floor, I will ask if perhaps the colleagues who would like more time to discuss remote participation could give us a brief sense of what aspects of remote participation they would like to have a longer discussion about.  That would help.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Please, Paul.
 >>PAUL WILSON:   I do understand there are people who would like to discuss remote participation.  It's not particularly my strong area of interest.  I'm very interested to hear what MAG members have got to say, but I would have thought there may be an opportunity at the end of the meeting for some kind of open platform or discussion or opportunity for comments on the way the meeting has gone or the way forward, the next steps and so forth.  That's more what I would be interested in seeing.
 I don't think we would need to spend the entire afternoon doing that.  Possibly a single hour after lunch would do it.  But I think a general discussion would be better, and I would feel a little like things hadn't been left hanging if we were to end in the next five minutes.  Thanks.  Closure is the word.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Please, Ayesha.
 >>AYESHA HASSAN:  I would like to support Paul's point.  I think Izumi's point was correct.  There are other parallel events going on.  Some people might have planned to come in the afternoon, so we shouldn't close up immediately right now.  I agree with Paul about an hour after lunch would be sufficient.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Ayesha.
 Izumi?
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   I appreciate the comment.  About one hour perhaps would be appropriate depending on how much we're going to discuss.
 On a different note, if we can close our agenda meeting earlier than scheduled, I would propose to have voluntary working group meetings on the -- for me, emerging issues, any other groups who would like to because I spend a hell of money and time to come to Geneva.  Not working until it's finished, I feel very bad to those who sent me and many people may feel the same.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA: Izumi, thank you for your position.
 Please.  Question?
 >> Actually, it is not a question.  I'm trying to insist on what our colleague has mentioned.  We need to meet again.  It is very important.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Thank you, Andrey, please.
 >>ANDREY SHCHERBOVICH:   A question to Izumi.  Is there any kind of a working group meeting for emerging issues after lunch or not?
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   The simple answer is yes.  Thomas and I agree we may hold it only after we finish all the other business of the MAG itself.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Izumi.  Thank you.
 Yeah, Paul, you want again?  No?  Please.  Behind you.  No?  Okay.
 Okay.
 We have four opinions, finish our work and continue.  What are your decisions?  Please.  Continue?
 >>BILL DRAKE:   Mr. Chairman, I sense broad support for one hour.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   One hour.
 >>BILL DRAKE:   After lunch, one hour.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   One hour after lunch.  Thank you.
 >> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  I think it wouldn't be fair to say one hour because we have the agenda to discuss.  It may take 15 minutes, as Izumi said, or it could take two hours.  We have the agenda.  And I think even the CSTD was supposed to be in the afternoon.  We can go on discussing how we can organize the next steps among ourselves as Peter suggested.  
 So I think we should have the full two hours available and see how much we need, whoever wants to leave, of course, can leave.  As Izumi said too many of us wasted a lot of funds to come here to cut the discussions that are important.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Vladimir.  Okay.
 Now I invite you to the lunch, and after lunch, we will come back and continue our discussions.  When we finish our discussions and we finish our MAG work -- thank you.  We resume here 3:00 p.m., yeah?  Ayesha, please.
 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Perhaps you were just going to tell us what time we should come back from lunch.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Yeah.  Thank you.  2:00 p.m.  2:00 p.m. please.  Return back and we will continue our discussion.  After one hour, 2:00 p.m. please.
 (Lunch break)
 [ Gavel ]
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Dear colleagues, I welcome you again.  We'll start our afternoon session.  In our agenda, we have last topic.  The last topic is about discussion on remote participation for Baku.
 And now I open discussion.  Please, indicate me.  Attention, please.  I give the floor to you.  Izumi.  Yeah.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   Thank you, Chair, and also your indulgence to work very hard in the afternoon with this lovely weather.
 Now, I wear my hat as a co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Government Caucus for a few minutes, on top of MAG.
 The Civil Society Internet Government Caucus sees remote participation as a very important, integral part of the IGF processes.  And, therefore, we'd like to really emphasize the crucial importance again, especially, I'm sorry, for the new MAG members who are not too aware of this issue.
 We have many lists of technical areas that we'd like to ask both the Secretariat and the local host to work on.  But in the interest of time and with my conversation with Chengetai and others, that most of these details are either already taken care of or will be taken care very well.  So I don't want to repeat these at all.
 But we have these elements in our statement working place about our -- I mean, I will send you later of these.
 So now the remaining areas that we are interested in is more of the institutional and human element, that we need the great -- we have had remote hubs with a lot of work of local coordinators who set up the physical facility and also work on the -- locally to connect live and not only to listen to the sessions ongoing at the host IGF site but they try to sort of solicit the comments and interactions back so we'll have a real global sense of IGF and with very little resources, a lot of dedication, many civil society members, IGF members were involved but we also had good support sometimes from the private sectors or technical assistance from the technical community together.
 So I think we need to continue this or enhance this element.  So these are the areas.  I, again, don't want to go through the details but would just like to start the discussion with these points.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Izumi.  Robert, please.
 >>ROBERT GUERRA:   Thank you.  As Izumi mentioned, I would like to echo some of his comments, that for many participants that can't come to IGF meetings and also those in developing countries, remote participation is the only way to engage, to follow the meetings.  And I would like to just ask that the MAG and also the Azeri host consider effective ways that remote participation and also remote engagement of remote hubs could be used to really show that one does not have to come to Azerbaijan.  It is good if one can.
 And would suggest that one try to have maybe one or two of the panel sessions have panelists participate remotely.  It would show it is not only about Internet governance but that the Internet can bring participants to the IGF.
 In regards to remote hubs, I'm not sure if there's a coordinator for the remote hubs, and I think that's much needed.  It is a way for academic institutions and other stakeholders to have meetings in different parts of the world that coincide with the IGF and have their summing up coincide with the IGF.  
 One could think about almost about an IGF week that takes place around the world and connects with the IGF.  So let me put that proposal forward.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay.  Thank you, Robert.
 Vladimir, please.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:   Or Vlada, whatever you prefer.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:   I wanted to reflect on what Izumi and Robert said and basically to try to map the field what are the open questions about remote participation because I was allowed this one in a previous session to -- allows for discussion on that.  So trying to help to summarize what are the open issues.
 But, firstly, I don't think we need to reiterate the importance.  We have all seen the importance.  I really wish to thank the Secretariat, the remote participation working group, all the people around that really helped in the previous years with a lot of efforts and personal investment rather than much financing coming into it.
 Couple of aspects.  The first one, when it comes to remote participation, the current one we have at the moment, how it is going to be implemented for the Baku meeting.
 In regards to the technical requirements, I'm sure that Bernard and the team already gave a list of requirements.  Now, it is another maybe confirmation required by the Chair and the Azerbaijani delegation that this is going to be -- follow the requirements so we can expect good bandwidth without limitations and so on, everything that is technically needed for that, the equipment, and so on.
 The second note on that what is happening with remote moderators.  That's probably more maybe a question for Chengetai but also the others.  How are we going to recruit them?  Are we going to have the ability to train remote moderators in advance and during the meeting?  Are we going to have funds for that, of course?
 The third thing is the hubs as Robert and Izumi correctly pointed.  My experience from EuroDIG even, which is a much smaller event, is hubs -- organization of hubs is a huge job.  If you want to do it, you really have to start now and you really have to have it organized.  
 Do we have an idea who can push it?  Of course, MAG can help and I'm ready to assist as well.  But we should know what's happening with the remote hubs and who is going to coordinate.  That's on a practical level.  
 On a more conceptual level, I think we have so many elements and needs to improve remote participation.  There are a couple of segments.  One is the short-term, and I think we can do it already for Baku.  I discussed with a number of people yesterday and today about the possibility of using text social reporting, integrating everything people are already posting through Twitter, Facebook, blogs, sharing photos, videos, interviews and so on around the venue.  With an organized system, we can have an excellent digital database about what happened at the IGF.  We can use it for the outputs.  We can use it for reports.  We can use it for a snapshot, for visibility, and so on and so forth.  
 Of course, not to mention, we use it for extended communication of people that are in the venue or outside.  It is, more or less, easy to do.  
 I shared on the MAG list a couple of examples Diplo did as experiments in the past couple years.  And I know some people here also used it.  It can be set up again.  
 What we need is an organized approach to what text are we using, how to promote among people that will be at the IGF and remote to use the same text, to use the same platform so we can condense and crowdsource all the inputs and have it all together.  
 We need -- again, I'm volunteering to some extent to assist that.  But I'm sure there will be a need for others to jump in as well, to think about it, and for the Secretariat and MAG to endorse do we really want to do that, that it is becoming an important component of remote participation.
 In the longer run, we need to think about how to use e-tools -- that's probably after the IGF Baku -- to extend the IGF in between the two IGFs.  I mentioned previously, too many things are happening throughout the year.  One annual event is the key, but it is not enough.  But we can do a lot from shaping the agenda inclusively to reporting and feedbacks throughout the year by using the e-tools.  It is a huge system.  
 We are working on concept notes.  We will be ready to work on that as well.  We should think about that, and this should become probably one of the key components of e-participation in the future, which requires organization and funding and so on.  It is in line with the CSTD recommendations, if they are accepted.
 And, finally, I would like to reiterate that we had an excellent panel -- Ginger and the folks from the remote participation working group led it in Nairobi and Vilnius -- about the guidelines, recommendations for remote participation.  I encourage everybody to take a look at the report.  I'm not sure what is the number of the session.  But you will find it.  It was probably the only session about remote participation in Nairobi.  There is a good set of collaboratively done guidelines that we should follow and extend further and work on.
 But I think we really need to have remote participation or hopefully e-participation as one of the key topics of discussion and work of MAG and Secretariat in the future years.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Vlada.  Collins, please.
 >>COLLINS ATAHO:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  My major concern for that, the idea is quite brilliant.  It saves a lot, most especially those who are coming from far.  
 But my major concern is what happens to areas where there is little or less Internet accessibility for remote accessibility.  What happens to those sites?  Is there a possibility maybe for them to travel to Baku?  Or is there any solution that can be good for them in order to participate remotely?  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay.  Thank you.  Andrea.
 >> ANDREA SAX:  Thank you.  My name is Andrea Sax.  I am the coordinator of the dynamic coalition on accessibility and disability for those of you who don't know me.  I have had extensive conversation with Bernard -- it is not a concern because Bernard and I are pretty close on talking about this -- about remote participation for persons with disabilities.  
 There are techniques that chairmen need to employ and learn so that they will include people who are blind or people who are deaf remotely who might be relying on sign language and the time that it takes.
 I am working with Ginger Paque, and we have a joint workshop in common that we are doing remotely and hopefully demonstrating some of those techniques.  And my comments are mainly to bring this to the attention of the MAG and, secondly, to mention the many persons with disabilities neither have the finances or the confidence in traveling to a foreign country for not only financial reasons but also physical reasons.  They can't, perhaps, afford to bring a guide if they are blind and other such kind of -- oh, what do I call them -- detriments.
 But the thing is it has to take into account that we make it accessible.  And I compliment the IGF on always having captioning, which is vital.  That that also must go through the Internet so that persons remotely can access that.  And just to tell you it is not just for the deaf.  It is for others as well.  And we had a blind man report to me that he couldn't find a way of accessing our remote tool when we had a conference in India.  So he got on the captioning and used his screen reader to follow the meeting.
 So I really compliment the IGF on always providing captioning.  Thank you very much for listening to my comments.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Any person?  Please, discussion is open for any participant.  Please.
 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Hello, Kieren McCarthy from dot Nxt.  I have been a remote participant I think - moderator at each IGF.  And I was also ICANN's general manager for public participation and did a lot of work with remote participation there.  
 And I want to give some -- I think we need to look at it a little bit more from the perspective of the remote participants, so I have some suggestions of how to improve the fact of their getting involved in the meeting.
 One of them is to provide links to whatever will be the remote participation room far in advance so that people who are running these sessions can say this is where it will be at this time, so people can plan.  At each IGF -- And I know the technical issues there are in getting the addresses.  But if a lot of effort were put into into saying this room on this day this link you will go to, if you can get that out much earlier, then people can plan to know where something is so you can easily, to put it out there on Facebook, Twitter, i.e., locate it, rather than have to try to track it through the Web site as it is happening.
 The other thing is just because of the way we work as human beings, we have a lot of interactions with people in the room.  And it is very hard as a remote participant to actually track that in realtime.  It just never works.  That's the reality of it.
 But what does work if you put out some kind of questionnaire or some kind of "this is what we're going to discuss" and allow people far in advance of the meeting to put in comments or suggestions and then to provide that to the people running the suggestions so they can introduce it into the meeting at the relevant time that way a remote participant actually has an active role in the meeting.  That's my suggestion.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   We have a remote participant.  Please.
 >> CHARLIE SELL:  Thank you, sir.  My name is Charlie sell.  And we are running the remote participation for this meeting this afternoon.  We have Nurani Nimpuno who would like to make a remote intervention.  
 Nurani, you have the floor.
 >> NURANI NIMPUNO:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Can you hear me?  
 (Echoing.)
 I think so.  I can hear myself.  My name is Nurani, and I'm the (indiscernible).  I am also a member of the MAG.  I would just like to make the comment that I think it is important that we start seeing remote participation as a priority.  We should aim for true interactive participation, not just somewhat (indiscernible) or possibility to listen to the discussions.  
 If we want to make the IGF fully inclusive, remote participation is a key element.  Not everyone has the possibility to travel to the meeting.  
 I myself have participated remotely several times, and it is a challenging exercise.
 I often don't get my interventions read out properly but summarized or interpreted.  I have been told I am to keep it short or that I have been to -- (indiscernible) when trying to contribute to the comments remotely.
 I'm lucky enough to be able to participate (indiscernibles) most of the time, but I'm very aware that many others are restricted to be able to participate remotely.  If we want those people to feel included in the process, we need to provide them with functioning tools.  So we need to have trained facilitators to make sure to include them.
 I do want to recognize that the IGF has improved remote participation enormously throughout the years.  The live transcript is very helpful.  There are a lot of volunteers that spend a lot of time training other people and finding ways to improve the remote participation.  But I do think we can do more things to further improve, not just for the annual IGF meetings but also for the preparatory process, for the open consultations and the MAG meeting.
 And (indiscernible).  While we're lucky enough to have (indiscernible).  A lot can also be done to have clear instructions, identify various problems, especially in the preparatory process.  (indiscernible) in the WSIS forum.  (indiscernible.)  
 The facilitators think to have different ways of interacting or to intervene participants remotely.  But if we could put clear and consistent instructions on the Web site to what sessions are.  
 The suggestions Kieren mentioned are very useful by providing remote participation in advance, you make it easy for them to intervene.
 I think part of it is also providing information and seeing remote participation as a way of interacting in the meeting and taking into consideration and actually asking for interventions from the remote participants.  Thank you very much.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Nurani, for your comments.  And now I ask Chengetai, briefly inform us about the usual practices in remote participation in various forums and after, we continue discussion.  Please, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.
 At the IGF, we have tried to integrate remote participation.  We do know the value of it, and we've tried to improve our services as the years go by.
 With the current plan, we plan to offer the same services as we have done in last year and previous IGFs.  That is that every single workshop room will be Webcast, there is going to be transcription in every room, and also the opportunity for a truly interactive process to carry on between the remote participants and the people in the room.
 Just -- first, I'll concentrate on the technical aspects and then I'll go into the human aspects.
 Also, last year I think we had 17 remote panelists, panelists who took part in workshops who were not able to make it but could participate remotely.
 Now, as far as the technical requirements are concerned, I personally do not have any doubt that in Baku, there won't be any problem.  I talked to the person who is in charge, or who is going to be in charge of the technical aspects, and they're doing the same thing for the Eurovision and the Eurovision requirements are far and above what we would require for the IGF, and they can put in, you know, half a terabyte of bandwidth for us if we really want to, but we know we're not even going to get anywhere near that.
 And on the secretariat side, we've also got Hartmut Glaser and Patrik Faltstrom.  They've always helped with the requirements and I think all of you know Patrik.  He's the Cisco expert and I think there are very few experts in the world that are better than him in actually consulting with the network infrastructure for the meeting, and he will look at the plans.  What he has done for the past six years -- I haven't actually officially asked him for this yet, but I am sure he will.  I don't want to rope him into anything so far without his agreement.
 And all these requirements are put into the host country agreement which the host country will sign.
 So on that fact, I think you can rest assured that as far as the capacity is concerned, we'll be able to do that.
 For remote moderators, we do have on our workshops that they have to indicate what a remote -- who is going to be their remote moderator, and if they're not able to, they can approach the secretariat and the secretariat will provide remote moderators for them, if possible.
 We will -- and we're also asking the host country to provide some students from the -- from their universities to come and work as remote moderators, and we do plan to have training scheduled.
 Bernard Sadaka is in charge of the remote participation.  That's his full-time -- well, that's his job, and he does a remote moderator training and he also organizes the hubs.  We've had -- I think last year we had 47 hubs?  Last year, we had 47 hubs, and Bernard has been doing it for the past six years?  Three years.  And he is also part of the remote participation working group.
 Apart from that, we do encourage new hubs to come, so to civil society and anybody else -- you know, universities or institutions -- who want to create a remote hub, they can contact Bernard Sadaka and he can coordinate this.
 Also, in my conversations with Bernard, also it's very important that the remote moderators have at least some training in Internet governance issues and we do plan to give remote hub -- remote moderators at least some basic understanding of the concept of Internet governance, and if we have -- if we can have volunteers of people who are coming to the meeting to become remote moderators from civil society or from anywhere else -- I mean, they don't have to do six sessions.  They can actually do one session.  That will be very helpful.  And since they are aware of the topics, it would help.  
 And Vladi was mentioning about new things that we can use, e-tools, et cetera, which I am very interested in and very excited about.
 We are having a renewal of our Web site and we do have a discussion board for suggestions, so if anybody has any suggestions on any tool that we could use or any tool that we can integrate into our Web site, could they please use that platform as well to give suggestions to the secretariat.
 I would also like to suggest that we have separate mailing lists for people, for the MAG members, so that we can discuss remote participation issues, especially tagged.  I mean, if we're going to use tags, we have to have an anthology of the tags.  We have to have -- you know, and a common agreement of what tags we're going to use.
 And we can discuss this on the listserv.
 I think I've covered most of it.  If I missed anything, please ask and I'll answer.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Please.
 >>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS: Thank you, Chengetai.  It was a great explanation and answer to many of our concerns.
 I want to acknowledge, and in fact congratulate, the IGF secretariat on the remote participation improvement since Sharm El Sheikh where it was my first IGF, global IGF, and I've been seeing the improvement on the infrastructure.
 I think that the challenge we are facing at some point in time is to get more participant -- more remote participants.  I think the infrastructure is really well, but we need more people involved, and ideally, I think there should be more remote participants at an IGF than the attending people.  The numbers should be really outrageous -- should be more than the number of people who are attending.  
 And in that sense, I believe that we should embrace some of the social networking tools to get that outreach and we should also embrace some of the social reporting tools as Vladimir suggested to accumulate and facilitate an exchange on all these ideas and the value of the remote participants -- remote participation.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Yeah, please, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That just reminded me of something else that I have -- I had forgotten to say as well.
 We also have Brian Gutterman who is also going to be in charge of the social media tools that -- Twitter, Facebook, et cetera, so if any of you have any ideas, you can see him.
 But he'll also be on the list that we're going to create for remote participants.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Chengetai.
 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:  Kieren McCarthy from dot Nxt again.  With regard to the actual tools that you're using -- and so I run a conference as well, so I consistently sort of try and keep up-to-date with what the most useful tools are, and recently the best tool is something called "Livestream" which a couple of big conferences have used recently and I think it has significant advantages over WebEx or Adobe Connect or these other programs that are out there.  I'll very quickly run through them.
 For example, WebEx requires you to download some script and run it on your computer, and that automatically creates a barrier and also it makes -- adds extra technical difficulties.
 What I was impressed with in Nairobi was the fact that you had a good camera in every room, which I was not expecting.  I think we've had that a few times.
 And so the reason why it doesn't quite work with WebEx is because of the way that you need to pull in the video.  It makes it a little bit clunkier.  Things are more likely to go wrong.  It's not quite as smooth.
 Livestream is very much better in that respect.  Originally it was set up to be a broadcast medium and so I know for a fact that the video works very much better than that, than trying to filter it through WebEx.
 So you'll find it works better.
 The other aspect that I have, Livestream -- I should probably get -- you know, I'm not a sales rep for Livestream, but, you know, it is slightly better at the moment -- is that they incorporate within each box Twitter and Facebook and then its own chatroom, and one of the huge advantages to that is that you're dealing with an infrastructure that Twitter or Facebook have already got in place and that people are already on, so you sort of reduce the barriers to someone getting involved.  It's just very much easier.  They just go, "Oh," and they start using their own existing network and they start interacting with one another.  And I think there are some other advantages.  Or another -- the one thing that is particularly nice about it is that you can go to a single browser screen and it can show you all of the sessions that are going on at that time, and you can, you know, put a name on it and so you actually click and say, "Oh, I want to see what's going on in that development meeting" and you click it and you go into the development meeting.  It's just -- it's much -- it's much slicker.
 So my recommendation is -- and I know, Bernard, you're probably thinking, "Oh, my God, I don't want to build a new infrastructure," so I would say don't do it this year because it's a headache but certainly look at it for next year and coming years.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Ayesha, please.  Sorry.  Izumi, I'm sorry.  Please, Izumi.
 >>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you.  We really -- I really appreciate what Chengetai explained and the process going on, and also other comments to improve, and I think -- I think we are all in agreement at the principle level, let us treat the remote participants equal to the physical attendees, but practically as much as possible.  But I think it's very important -- and what we cannot really overcome is, for example, the time zone.  What is 10:00 a.m. there in Baku will be 3:00 in the afternoon in Japan.  That is not too bad compared with some others.  But there will be folks with -- timing-wise to be simultaneously participating, it's got to be midnight or past, so this is one element that we cannot really overcome by technology.
 But still, I'd like to emphasize the importance of the principle that -- because sometimes we forget that the remote participants -- about them or, you know, they can be added as a sort of additional one but not treated as a main actor of the IGF.
 So with that, the -- it may have already been exercised and also will be implemented, but establishing a clear procedure for the sessions, main workshops, that would encourage remote participants to intervene, such that the system is desirable for both physically and remotely participating people.
 I just remain with a question that, is "remote" the right word?  "Remote" sounds like a very -- too far in the distance, but I don't have any alternative to the "remote," but in that philosophy or, you know, spirit, I'd like to really emphasize and encourage these areas to be practiced so that they don't feel like in just an additional five minutes you can talk, but it's very much an integral part.
 So I welcome that some of the sessions that will have the panelists as a remote participant.
 There were some suggestions, if I remember correctly, that all participants can be remote and the people there will listen, so there are many ways to explore this, so these are just suggestions and I'm really looking forward to working together.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Izumi.  Please, Ayesha.
 >>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you.  Just an idea.  I know that a lot of attention is being paid to the national and regional IGF initiatives, and I'm wondering if there's a way to provide some specific information to those initiatives so that every time you're having a national or regional IGF initiative, there's awareness raising going on about the opportunity to participate remotely at the -- in the global IGF.
 Perhaps if there's something that can be developed that would just be easy for people to hand out at the national and regional initiatives.  I'm looking at Marilyn.  Perhaps it's something that Marilyn can help with as well.  Just an idea for complementary ways of outreach to get more people aware that they can actually do this at the global level IGF.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Please.  Vladi, please.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  I just want to respond to Ayesha's comment.  Excellent point.  At least for the EuroDIG, I know we did the same exercise of remote participation quite successfully, but I know that there other regional fora also ask for that, especially specifically the Caribbean islands.  
 As I mentioned, there is a set of principles that came as an outcome of the workshop in Nairobi.  It is excellent, for a start.
 On Diplo, we have also a couple of concept notes that we did for EuroDIG and other things -- I'm sure others do have -- that may be an initiative to set up or to maybe add more materials to the IGF Web site currently and in the future about some guidelines, concept notes, and so on.
 We'll be working on that, Diplo, within our e-diplomacy initiative as well, so we'll offer what we have, but we might summarize a number of guidelines, concept notes, and so on that might be helpful.  Thanks, Ayesha, for raising this.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  We have remote participant, yeah?  No?  But you are flagged.  Sorry.  Robert.  Please.
 >>ROBERT GUERRA:  Just -- thank you.  On -- on this conversation, I think maybe a practical suggestion for the IGF Web site.  
 Currently national and regional-level IGFs have a -- there's a link to those initiatives.  May I suggest that a link also be created to the archives that may be for the different meetings?
 There's a great wealth of conversations.  Many regional IGFs that have remote participation archive their proceedings so people can listen in.  I think there's a great perspective that's available there, and somehow when the sessions are being streamed live, a way to better communicate that to the larger IGF community.
 I know I've learned a lot in following other IGFs, at times, and I think that would be a great initiative, and I would say that it would be good to maybe have a list of which national and regional-level IGFs are including remote participation or archiving and which ones are not, and those that are not doing it, ways that they could be facilitated or assisted so they could do that in the future.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Robert.  Okay.  Other persons?  
 Yeah.  I think we have some other comments.  
 On behalf of the Azerbaijan delegation, I want to say some words.  
 At the first meeting, I mentioned we're now in the process of signing the agreement with UN DESA.  This agreement have many parts and this agreement have special parts where indicated some requirement to keep (indiscernible) another, and I promise to you on the Azerbaijani side, we will fully implement our obligation which will be done in this agreement and we will try to help out with organizing forum in Baku.  And your advising, your comments, this is very usable for us, and we will keep your advising, your comments, in our preparation process.  
 And together with you, (indiscernible), all multistakeholders, we together will prepare our event on the high level which exists in our (indiscernible) and we will try and I think together with secretariat of IGF and you and UN DESA and other colleagues, we will organize this event in Baku.
 If you are having some other comments -- Constance.  Yeah?  No?  Okay.  Please.  Please, Vladi, yeah.
 >>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  Okay.  Just briefly, because we discussed this morning about the capacity-building track.  We mentioned it.
 So we gathered during the lunch just to brainstorm on what can be a capacity-building track at the IGF and there were some ideas what we can do.  Of course beside harmonizing all the existing materials and online and institute trainings and so on that we have, in between the meetings, for the IGF itself we suggested or we want to suggest to open a call to anyone who wants to organize a capacity-building initiative -- activity during the IGF.
 Now, we had some ideas, but people might come up with others.
 For instance, it can be a training, or whatever, a day before, two days before the Baku meeting.  
 It can be a booth where somebody can be placed, if anyone wants to raise a question how DNS works or whatever.  Whatever they might need.  
 It can be an online resource where someone can send a question and the crowd can respond.
 It can be a booth where you can have different sets of materials of different organizations on capacity building regarding to Internet governance.  
 It can be sessions, of course, if someone wants to deliver during the IGF.  And so on and so forth.
 Also, it can be somehow condensed what is existing at the IGF Web site.
 So the suggestion is that maybe the secretariat and probably a small working group, again, can be found about capacity-building track.  Put up a call.  If someone wants to organize the activity which is capacity-building one in Baku, then we can consider what is the form, what is the best way to do it.  
 It's probably not going to be a big thing this year, but if we start it this year, well, then I suppose next year it can be really a big thing to help anyone who wants to discover more in the areas that are unknown to him or her.  Constance, if I missed anything...
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please, Constance.
 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much, Chair.
 Absolutely I wanted to second what my colleague just said and insist on the fact that considering the critical financial situation, and on the fact that the U.N. doesn't have budget to create new materials, emphasize the fact that we should absolutely concentrate our efforts on synchronizing existing materials, materials developed by the community, and it's also important to have a variety of sources of material, and insist on the fact that it -- in our view, it's not necessary to have the U.N. you know, launch a process to create new materials but simply offer a platform for existing initiatives to be more visible, to get together, and to get the publicity they need to be visible for those who need to benefit from them.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Constance.
 Izumi, please.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Yeah.  My comment is not on the capacity-building track, so if anybody who wants to follow that first, I will wait for that.
 If not, may I proceed?
 Okay.  This is not as civil society Internet governance caucus coordinator, but just simply a MAG member, in my personal capacity.  
 On the side events, I'd like to just ask or make a comment that all side events which meets some criteria -- I cannot spell it out -- should be treated equally as much as possible, perhaps, without harming the prerogative of the host community.  Host country community may not be the host government, per se.  It's got to be multistakeholder as well.  So there are certain -- well, I heard already that ministerial was there, that GigaNet was there, and that a human rights roundtable might be planned.  So I'd like to see them treated as much as equal so that the participants can have a pre- sort of choice in participation.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Izumi.  Anriette, please.
 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Chair.
 My comment is on the capacity building and to support the suggestion that's been made by -- by Vladi and Constance and maybe just to concretize it.
 I think what we are proposing is that the MAG and the secretariat put out a call to the IGF community to propose to self-organize capacity-building activities within the IGF.  
 We'd need to consult with the host country to find out what the -- the possibilities are in terms of space and number of events and availability, perhaps, for a day before or after.  So I think this does require some additional work.  And I think the positive thing is that you already have a selection of MAG members who are willing to work with the secretariat and with the host country.
 And then I think part of this proposal which has already been outlined I think is just to make the link with the CSTD working group proposals on IGF improvement, which then is in line with that proposal from that working group to really strengthen the -- the capacity-building track or capacity -- or dimension of the IGF.
 But, yes, I don't think we can -- I think we do need to emphasize the fact that it should also be done in the spirit of the IGF which has been the self-organized dimension.  Getting the community to contribute and participate in that.  
 So I also want to reassure the secretariat and UN DESA that we're not expecting you to take on an additional financial burden in introducing this.
 We would like also to propose that we -- if we are able to do it for this IGF, that we then do a fairly -- maybe not a very formal, but that we evaluate it, that we assess afterwards whether this has worked or not, and on that basis, decide whether to make this a more routine component of the IGF or not.
 Thanks.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Anriette.  Paul, please.
 >>PAUL WILSON:  Thank you very much.  As a -- as a new MAG member, this has been a very interesting meeting.  I'd like to thank everyone concerned, particularly Chengetai and the secretariat, for making this possible.  I think it's a really important process.
 Just a couple of short comments and then a longer one.  
 To repeat something I said on the mailing list, I'm -- I'd be very strongly in favor of an online evaluation system that covers all of the IGF sessions and it's available to all participants.  I think that would be very valuable for the work of the MAG and for demonstrating the value of IGF as well, so I just thought I'd mention this -- that here as well as on the mailing list.
 Another one, I agree with Izumi about a small point about "remote participation" and favor "online participation" or "online participant" instead as a term.
 But on to the -- the other comments.
 I come from a community, the RIR and -- the RIR community within the technical community, and we do regard the IGF as very important.  The support that we give for the IGF is going to go on and without a sort of exit plan for the IGF, I don't think there's necessarily an end to that.
 We, the RIRs -- and I know others in the technical community -- have been making an increased contribution and have committed to an increased contribution of more than double previously and, you know, I think that is only reasonable based on our respect and our -- the value that we place in the -- in the IGF.  
 And I'm not sure how many people here saw the Boston Consulting Group report that came out some time ago which put the value of the Internet economy in the G20 countries as large enough to put the Internet economy itself into the G20.  
 In 2016, they say the economy will reach $4.2 trillion and put it amongst the world's top five, and I don't think you can underestimate the kind of efficiency that comes out of a process like this where we've got a secretariat budget of a million dollars or so that's supporting -- critically supporting the -- and hopefully ensuring the future of something that's that valuable.
 I don't think you get so much bang for your buck anywhere else.
 So again, we are supporting -- we're putting our money where our mouths are and we're supporting the IGF.
 But I think the -- the thing is that for the IGF to continue beyond the second phase, I detect that there's quite a consensus that it needs to go on changing and evolving both in line with CSTD, for a start, but then others as well.  And the CSTD report is, I think, very useful, but it also seems that the IGF should be able to evolve under its own steam as well, without some of that kind of adult supervision, if you like.
 I've assumed that the MAG has got a role in steering that process and in helping to improve the IGF, so on that assumption, I can't help feeling there's a bit of a missed opportunity here in this room over the last few days in a couple of respects, at least.
 One is -- one, it's just a simple matter of timing.  That as a new member I feel I was appointed a bit too late, frankly, to be as engaged as I could be in the work that's at hand here.
 The program paper was pretty well baked, for instance, by the time the new MAG got up to speed, and there hasn't been a clear opportunity here in this meeting to discuss it or to understand whether there's an opportunity for review or improvement, and I think that naturally, given timing, these things have to move on, but it -- it would have been more empowering, I think, to new MAG members to be brought in at the earlier stages of the IGF, and I'd really hope that the MAG renewal process could be -- could happen earlier in the future, so that, for instance, as soon as an IGF is over, we really have the ability to start planning for the next IGF with a MAG that's already appointed and ready to get -- to get up to speed.
 I think -- yeah, I think many things would have flowed from that if all of the MAG -- the new MAG members here had been involved with the creation of the program paper from the start.
 The second respect I think in which this is a -- something of a missed opportunity, I think, is that really to make the best use of this group, the group that's here in terms of the level at which we're working and the specific subject we're working on, I mean, this is a large group and it's a group of unbelievably talented and mostly fairly senior-in-experience people and we spent a lot of our time talking about logistics and workshops and mechanics that should only need to be invented once, I think.
 I found myself being drawn into a few detailed issues, like the workshop process and appraisals and so on.  
 It's not really because I want to be working at that level but because it seems that that work needs to be done and of course we should do it, but there are -- we should do whatever needs to be done, but there are other -- there seems to be an opportunity here to work on other matters and I guess I'd like to, you know, open up the agenda a little more and have that -- have that opportunity, because as I said and as I said yesterday, I think on behalf of my community and organization, I'd like to see the IGF go on improving and I really think this here -- in this room, I assume it should be the place in which that really happens.
 So I'm sorry if there seems to be some criticism in these remarks.  I'm really wanting to improve the process.  I really am highly appreciative of the work of the secretariat in organizing all of these -- these processes around the IGF and thanks again for your work, Chengetai, and the rest.  Thanks.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Paul.  Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  I'd like to -- my name is Marilyn Cade.  I'd like to open my comments by acknowledging what I think is already a major improvement in the IGF and the MAG meetings from earlier days, in the fact that the MAG has agreed to become more open and inclusive and the MAG meetings are no longer closed but, in fact, are open to those who want to come and sit in and be -- and also contribute.
 I think there are a number of improvements that have already been made, but one of my comments is going to be about the role of the MAG and asking the MAG to think carefully about being as inclusive and concerned about making sure that non-MAG members and new players really are -- have every opportunity to fully participate, and that we don't fall into a time trap and maybe have to resort to only relying on the MAG to do certain things.
 I say that because originally I raised my hand to note that while I have been here and interacting with some of the participants who have been a part of the WSIS Action Line Forum, I have engendered some interest in coming and participating in the upcoming IGF in Baku including the idea of bringing in a half-day or full-day pre-event.
 In the past, if there were rooms available, then all parties were created -- were treated equally in the assignment of those rooms.
 I would ask that the MAG be very careful about not prioritizing, giving space to pre-events that are organized by the MAG but think about a process that can be open.  That may be a really good way for us to get some new participants who will then stay for the IGF and then who will join us in the future as true committed participants to the overall IGF.
 My second point is actually a -- I was a -- one of the five business representatives on the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF.  And I guess I would just like to comment from my personal view that the -- many of the government participants and all of the 15 non-government stakeholder participants are truly experienced IG effort and brought a wealth of knowledge to and reflected the previous work of the MAG on improvements heavily into the consideration of materials and the discussions.
 So I think you will find that the recommendations that eventually were agreed and that, yet, do await full implementation, you'll find some consistency already in improvements we as a community of stakeholders, not just the MAG but all who support the IGF, have been working to make already.  And I look forward to continuing to contribute to the further evolution, strengthening and improving of our IGF.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Marilyn.
 Cecil, please.
 >> CECIL McCAIN:  Thank you, Chairman.  
 As the IGF evolves and MAG improves on its working conditions, working methods and implements the mandates, I have two points to make regarding workshops.  I had some preliminary discussions yesterday with DiploFoundation as possible candidates to assist in providing this insight.  First, that we need to develop some objective tools to augment the current tools that we use.  We are not saying to disregard the current tools, but we need some objective tools.
 Basically, this deals with minimum requirements.  We see that in current workshops and so on, we tend to give higher score to persons who have confirmed speakers, et cetera, et cetera.  Those persons who were providing or making the proposals themselves may not have been aware of some of these issues beforehand and, therefore, we need to have some set of objective scoring tools to say -- so that we can have a minimum standard, say, If you meet this minimum standard, then we will go to the next phase of doing the evaluation, whether or not there is gender balance, whether or not you are in keeping with the themes, et cetera, et cetera.  So that's just one recommendation.
 And maybe this is not something that the Secretariat can do but maybe we could have one of the other entities who are interested in the IGF propose some of these tools that could be used to augment the evaluation process and to make it easier for selecting the workshop.  The tasks of selecting the workshops are not going to get easier.  Just looking at the number of workshops, the amount of workshops are getting greater and greater every year.  And there is going to be a point whereby some decisions will have to be made regarding future IGFs and whether you cut certain workshops.  We need to prepare for that eventually in making recommendations for the current tools.
 The second issue is data mining.  Several of us are from various stakeholder groups, and we are in touch with our stakeholder groups, or we are an expert in a part of the field.  So we would have expressed opinions regarding success or lack thereof of of a part of the workshop or event.
 There are others who may not be experts or from that interest group, their stakeholder group.  And, therefore, again we need to have information within which we can make some of the decisions that we're being asked to make.
 In this context, again, this is one I had asked with Diplo, and note again for consideration, that we look at past MAGs and do an evaluation as to how many hits have happened on various workshops, geographical location, et cetera, et cetera, and provide that as information to say -- to give some numbers.  It might help us determine what areas might be of interest to what geographic region, et cetera, et cetera.  We may not be able to go into detail, but that as we look to future IGFs, we could augment the Web site hits with additional survey tools that have been mentioned here this afternoon and yesterday, which would also maybe ask supplemental information for gender and other information so that when you go to the Web site, it says, "Would you like to answer this additional information?"  And persons can choose to do that so that at the end of the day, for the future IGFs, we are able to see more clearly, have a picture of what it is we are doing and the impact this has.
 I say this is mining of information because I would not necessarily want to say to use information to determine what is popular.  But what it could do, it could tell us where the digital hole is, where do we need to focus our efforts in terms of creating greater interest and so on.  
 So it would provide us with some form of insight as to what the IGF's sphere of influence in this global community.  And those are the two points I wish to make.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Cecil.
 Paul, you want to speak or not?  Thank you.  Thank you.  Okay.
 Any person?  Please, Izumi.
 >>IZUMI AIZU:   Thank you, Chair, again.  I would also like to share some of the reflections of the three-day experience as being a new member.  
 I agree with Marilyn, that between the MAG members and the MAG members, the purpose of the MAG is to facilitate with all the IGF communities, Secretariat and others, to make the IGF more relevant and more relevant.
 Like what we have experienced at the CSTD working group to the improvements of the IGF, I was a member of along with Marilyn and many other colleagues, originally we were asked to be not there in the room.  It is only the government members.  But, of course, there's a lot of interactions, lobbying, discussions that we were  invited participants.  And in the end, whenever they called, we were treated very equally and we came to a consensus.  I believe our government colleagues of the CSTD working group are equally happy that we worked together.  
 In the same spirit, I would like to see the coming MAG works, we would like to as much as possible facilitate, to create the IGF better as a community.
 I also agree with Paul, or most of what you said, about the renewal timing of the MAG notification.  It would have been much easier for me but also for some others who couldn't really travel to this meeting because of the other commitments we have already made or some financial constraints including this time of the year, the Geneva hotels are so expensive.  It is very difficult for some of us really to make justifications.
 Also, I really very much support the online evaluation.  Paul suggested a tool which seemingly had the multilingual capability beyond the U.N. official languages so that the Japanese or others who have opportunity to participate directly.  And I would urge you to consider these kind of tools, not only necessarily as evaluation tools but any or tools, seemingly now that we are only taking English as the working language.  And, practically speaking, I agree with that.  But the technology is wonderful.  Perhaps we will explore more diverse ideas in language to reach a common understanding.
 Probably two more points.  One is the way forward.  In the MAG statement of interest requirement or so, I saw three meetings a year for MAG to join, the three interpretations, two consultation meetings and one IGF.  And others saying, Well, there could be another meeting in September.  I'm not proposing it per se, but some kind of clarification and sentiment on our colleague members that to some extent have three meetings -- preparatory meetings may improve the sort of process or not.  I don't have any conclusive comment on that, but it's worth exploring.
 Of course, it's not realistic to really have the physical meeting of this scale in September, but in the working groups, we are trying to do -- emerging issues and others, we are thinking to have the more conference call, Webex or remote participation of sort so that between now and then we'll have more opportunity to interact amongst each other.  But working group is one thing, but some kind of sort of plenary interchange being MAG members and non-MAG members might be very welcomed.
 Last perhaps is on the CSTD working group recommendations.  Process-wise we have to wait until the CSTD, ECOSOC and G8 approve.  Many of the components already we can see could be implemented into this IGF without waiting to next year-round.  So as MAG is in part a bottom-up process, we would like to ask other colleague members in the MAG if you haven't read the report, read it again.  And we can make many of these again in the next Baku IGF.  I stop here.
 And I really thank all of you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Izumi.  Please.  Felix, please.
 >>FELIX SAMAKANDE:   Thank you, Chair.  I will just make one and a half comments.
 Internet governance is a subset of one of the most dynamic industries today, the ICT.  As such, I'm happy that IGF is going to be equally dynamic and open to exploring new thematic -- I see a lot of emerging and more practical approaches because this will keep us relevant as we become part of the evolution process.
 We have several devices and challenges that separate us.  Some of us are (indiscernible).  But the solutions converge around the issues debated in the forum.
 IGF informs policy through debate.  And it is important that policy is informed by fact.  From a government stakeholder group perspective, if the policy goal is human rights, it should be enough human rights for enough people.  Thank you, sir.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Other person?  Okay.  Thank you.
 We have your comments.  And we reach the agenda end.  And, therefore, I want to ask Chengetai for final remarks.  And after, we will go -- (audio cutting out).
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you, Chair.  First of all, I would like to say thank you very much.  I think it has been a very constructive three days.  We have done a lot of work and you have handed the work back to the Secretariat as far as the workshops are concerned and informing the workshop organizers.  We will continue our work online.  The Secretariat will set up the mailing list and add your names to it and then we can continue the work online.
 I won't forget the capacity-building call as well, and that will be continued online.
 Izumi asked if we are envisioning another face-to-face meeting.  I don't know if there is any support for that at the moment.  I think we can continue our work online from now until Baku.  And, of course, I mean, if there is anything we need to communicate to the other stakeholders, I mean, that's part of the MAG function as well, to communicate to the other stakeholders.
 Thank you very much.  And I'll see you online, I suppose.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Chengetai.
 Please, I want to give floor to Vyatcheslav.
 >>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:   Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to on behalf of UN DESA express our sincere appreciation for your participation during these three days of intensive discussions that required your full intellectual and physical capacity and that led to the success, conclusions, and outputs of this meeting.
 The meeting has provided the important and very fruitful recommendations and discussions that I believe secure the success of the IGF 2012.
 The meeting has already demonstrated the synergy and calculation between all members of MAG, including the new members as well.
 And, finally, so that I would like all of you to have a safe flight back to your respective countries and wish you and your family best of 2012 and many years ahead.  Thank you.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Okay.  (indiscernible) our activities during the past three days and Chengetai mentioned about our decisions, our discussions.  And I want to say during these three days we had fruitful discussion.  And, therefore, I want to express my thanks to all you, all members of MAG and all observers and all persons who joined us remotely.  This is very important stage in our activity.  
 And today and during these three days, we had some improvement in our activity and for our next steps.  This is very useful for the preparation process.  And we show you our intention, our ideas for the preparation for this IGF.
 But we (indiscernible) with Secretariat and UN DESA, I promise to you, we will keep or full application which must be done.  If you come to Baku, you can see more comfortable situation and condition for your activity in Baku.
 Again, I want to say thanks to all persons and I want to say special thanks to Secretariat.  They had a lot of effort for the preparation and during these three days -- (audio cutting out) -- and holding this event.
 I want to say thanks to our translators and our persons who are captioning this and providing translation to other interested people.
 And I want to say thanks, again, to you.  You are the people who are involved in this process, and you try to find some solution for the Internet governance issue.  This is very global, very important issue all countries.  And, therefore, together we can achieve results in our efforts.
 I wish you success and good health, and I want to say good luck.  See you in Baku in November.  Thank you.
 >> And I also would like to ask you to thank our Chairman for his outstanding job for all of these events in February and this year.
 >>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Our meeting is closed.
 [ Applause ]
 (Concluded)