21 May 2013
IGF Open Consultation
The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Open Consultations of the IGF, in Geneva. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Can we resume the afternoon session? May I ask you to take your seats? And as we in Paris set up two informal working groups, one to deal with the report of the working group on IGF improvement and the other one with multistakeholder cooperation and enhanced cooperation I would like.
[ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. And on the Internet Governance principles, I will like to invite them to get us started and report on their immediate work. Peter, can you -- you just had an ad hoc meeting here. Can you feed back to the session what the results so far of your working group.
>>PETER MAJOR: Thank you, Markus. As you mentioned, the working group to implement the recommendations of the (indiscernible) working group on the improvements to the IGF has been set up in Paris. The importance of the implementation of the recommendation is formulated in the U.N. General Assembly resolution which invites the secretary general to report back to the General Assembly next -- end of this year on the implementation of the recommendations, and we all know what it means. Eventually it may mean the future of the IGF itself. So probably we have to be very careful, carefully respecting this resolution. So that's why some of us thought it's an important point.
Now, as for the meeting we had right now, we have been discussing the recommendations and I suggested some criteria according to which we can evaluate the implementation itself. One of the criteria was the cost implication. The other criteria was the target date, meaning should it happen before the Bali meeting or should it be after the Bali meeting. And we tried to identify -- identify responsible organs -- for the implementation and fine out the status of the implementation of the recommendations. So basically managed to go through a couple of recommendations. As you know, the -- they have been grouped into five main chapters. We went through the first one shaping the outcomes of the IGF meetings and we came to some kind of conclusions about the implementation of different recommendations. And we planned to continue -- we also worked -- are working with others, including the global consultations multistakeholder advisory groups and Secretariat. We noted that even though recommendations have been accepted by different U.N. bodies so we cannot really modify them but we can give in my report, written report to the MAG tomorrow and eventually which will be reflected also to the CSTD, some ideas about the modalities of the implementations. So we think to continue this face-to-face consultation tomorrow morning. I would like to invite those who are interested in this discussions to join us at 9:00. That is before the MAG meeting. And if you agree, Chair, we would like to continue in the very same way at the back of the room. And so after that meeting I think I can formally report to the MAG tomorrow. Thank you, Chair.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. Just one point for your consideration, I was going to propose to have a closed meeting of the MAG to begin with tomorrow morning to allow the new members to interact with the sitting members which would then be from 9:30 until 11:00. So that may be a bit awkward if there are no MAG members a part of your group so maybe we have to with the agenda start as a MAG earlier and then maybe have a half an hour break to allow your group to get together for the open meeting. But just for your consideration. Maybe we'll come back to that at the end of the meeting.
Anriette, are you also able to report on what's happened since Paris on the principles?
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Markus. This is the working group on Internet Governance principles. We only started working about two to three weeks ago, two weeks ago, and I'm working really closely with Wolfgang Kleinwachter who is, in fact, an informal chair of this working group. And so just what we can report is that we -- we feel that while we are dealing with IG principles there actually are two categories of principles that we are addressing. And multistakeholder principles, which we see as procedural principles, and then Internet Governance principles, which we see as political substantive principles. So we think it is necessary to recognize and that these are two interrelated but different areas. And our proposal for how to deal with these two areas of principles in the planning for the IGF is to recognize that they are different but also to make sure that the workshops do not overlap. So that, in fact, you can have continuity between discussion on procedure principles for multistakeholder participation and Internet Governance and substantive principles on which Internet Governance decision-making should be based. So just to recognize that.
In practice what we've done is to form this group. We've set up a mailing list and it's growing and there are several MAG members, and I want to thank all the MAG members who have joined this group. Our objectives are to prepare for the plenary -- not allowed to use the term "plenary." The main session or whatever overall session we have on this theme in Bali, and also to produce a compendium of some kind that brings together existing statements of principles. And I won't go into more detail because I can report in writing, but we've also developed a little bit of an outline of how we would go about that and how to map what instruments to use and to gather this information. So I think that's -- and we have a roadmap for discussion as well. And I'll share that with the MAG.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that, and I presume that anyone who is interested can contact you and be added to the list, yes. Thank you. Then we have a third group. Yes, would you be ready to say a few words on where you are.
>>THERESA SWINEHART: Sorry. Thank you, Markus. Yes. So the third group is the ad hoc group on principles of multistakeholder cooperation and enhanced cooperation -- or multistakeholder principles and enhanced cooperation. So I think as we heard this morning and also last week, it's quite timely. Just to flag as some background, the concept of forming this group was really as a result of the discussions having occurred in the IGF over the past years and also in their multiple forums. We decided to separate out the multistakeholder principles from the Internet Governance principles as Anriette had highlighted because they're primarily procedural. What are the terms for engagement, how do we identify what those threshold processes are, and obviously those are complimentary but distinct from the enhanced cooperation dialogue. So that's where we've kept that. It's also to be noted with the work of this group in particular in relation to the enhanced cooperation is these discussions are also occurring in other forums. And in this discussion and preparatory work to incorporate and also recognize that dialogues are occurring in other forums and it should also be complimentary and seen as input or output into those dialogues.
So where we are right now in the process is subsequent to the February Open Consultations meeting and the summary report following Expressions of Interest from MAG members and others we've put together a mailing list. We've begun a process of trying to compile relevant materials that should be the basis and premise of the work. This group includes both MAG and non-MAG members and it's likewise growing. So anybody interested should obviously let us know. We've had several e-mail exchanges, one conference call, and tomorrow morning we will again be meeting face-to-face at 8:30 in case anybody would like to join.
In the discussions what we've looked at is the materials that are relevant for the work and began discussing a possible timeline and outputs. The timeline that we're looking at is trying to have two draft pieces, one on multistakeholder principles, one around the enhanced cooperation, that can be used as a basis for discussion and input in the preparations of the IGF overall and to try to have that close to ready in draft form by middle of July, if possible. These drafts would be living documents for continued input and together with these would be annexes of relevant consolidated materials that were used as the basis. So we see this as a work in progress. What I do want to highlight is with the proposal received -- seen from Brazil last week, that obviously would form another important premise for the work and for reflection of the work of this group as well.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. And I take it that you had planned to have one hours meeting tomorrow morning for your group. My suggestion then would be that we meet as MAG in closed session at 9:00 where we basically have this interaction, and I think we should be able to do that in one hour between the new members and the old members, and then we allow one hour for these two separate working groups to meet and continue and consolidate their work and that we would meet them -- resume the meeting again at the 11:00 MAG meeting in open session where everybody was interested can participate. Would that find general agreement of policy? I see heads nodding. No, heads are not nodding. Marilyn, you asked the floor anyway before the lunch break, so can you please express your concern?
>>MARILYN CADE: I think I'm going to express my concern and my question. Years ago the MAG met in closed session and the community traveled to the consultation and then was not allowed to even be in the room when the MAG met. We made, I thought, a huge amount of progress and the MAG developed a different standard of interaction which enables the community to be in the room for the MAG to work together on the second two days but to not exclude the community from the room. I certainly am sympathetic to the idea that there are new MAG members who are getting to know their colleagues and I really applaud that, but I just wonder, is it really necessary to exclude the community from even being in the room?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: I'm open. Yes, Bill.
>>WILLIAM DRAKE: I'm generally always opposed to exclusion, but one hour doesn't strike me as a -- maybe it's just me but doesn't strike me as a big issue if we have a one-hour greet kind of session and then proceed to the substance. We're not going to do anything other than sort of meet and exchange greetings in that period of time, right? So I don't understand the problem.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, I would have thought it might be a rather boring session for those who are not MAG members as it would be -- we would ask basically the new MAG members to represent themselves and to get in touch. But -- Izumi.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Yeah, I'd like to ask two questions, or maybe same question -- I'm not pro or con yet on why do we need a closed meeting. And the second, how do the new MAG members feel like? If it's not too significant then we can have a limited to those new MAG members to take the floor, observers can sit down unless they have urgent things, they can just kindly observe the meeting, unless there's any delicacy or whatever. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. A new MAG member, Susan?
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Markus. I, too, am predisposed to openness. That's my default operating mode. But as a new MAG member, I think that it would be nice to be able to meet with the existing MAG members and in a closed session. There are over 50 of us and there are a lot of new faces. And I do think that that would be beneficial. I certainly would feel more comfortable with that arrangement.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Olga.
>>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chair. I'm okay with opening it. If the purpose of the -- of the one-hour meeting is identifying and getting to know in between us, then maybe we can -- we can see who are MAG members and who are not and say our expectations, especially the newcomers, and maybe others can share some ideas and experiences. But I'm okay opening the meeting.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, please, sir.
>>ARNOLD van RHIJN: Arnold van Rhijn, Netherlands. I don't have any strong feelings, but in case it will be the decision that the MAG will be a closed meeting then my question will be where can I go to in this building because I have a meeting perhaps on 8:30 and then I have to leave the room because it's a closed session. And is there any cafeteria where I can get a cup of coffee or something like that?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: This is precisely my concern. That's why I suggested we meet as a MAG first at 9:00 and then at 10:00 we allow for the other meetings of these working groups to get started and we meet at 11:00 in an open session. But after having listened, I would say let's meet as a MAG, 9:00 and that will be the let's meet each other session, and if somebody wants to turn up to that session, we leave the door open, we have no secrets. If you want to come in, please do. But it's essentially for the new MAG members to meet the sitting MAG members. But we will have this opportunity, anyway, there will be a small reception at the end of this day where you can interact and mingle. Now, will this address everybody's concern? I don't see any objection, at least. So I assume we have a rough consensus on this formula.
I would -- Marilyn, you had asked for the floor before lunch break, and I did not give you the opportunity to speak, so could you make your point now, please?
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Markus. My name is Marilyn Cade. My comments, I think, are probably framed now in indirect support of comments that were made by Theresa, I think, and -- sorry.
[ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>MARILYN CADE: Sorry. So I just -- what I had wanted to say is, the WTPF, the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, is a forum which is -- which was chartered by the ITU council for a specific purpose and it is closed. It has completed its work with six opinions and a Chair's report and the document that I believe we were talking about this morning, it now is actually a Brazilian document which is relevant to the conversations and discussions about the role of governments and participation in multistakeholder fora but it is actually no longer an opinion nor is it a draft opinion. I think it's very relevant to include it in our conversations and in our considerations, and it is a topic that definitely belongs here and will, as you said earlier, Markus, be discussed as a topic in other settings as well. And I welcome that, but I think we should just refer to it as a Brazilian document about the role of governments in multistakeholder so that there isn't confusion that somehow there's a leftover, unfinished opinion that would go back into the WTPF, which is in fact a completed initiative. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for this precision. Let's be careful indeed as we go forward. But I take it also, at least I would read it as an emerging consensus in this room, that we move forward with this Brazilian proposal or document or whatever we want to call it. And obviously we'll have to flesh out on how best to do this.
If there is no other -- or are there other comments on this particular subject, on how to deal with this Brazilian document or proposal? Yes, please.
>>MARILYN CADE: Marilyn Cade again. I just should have asked this question at the end. It's my assumption -- and that was why I referenced Theresa because of your comments you made earlier -- it's my assumption this will be one input document but there may be other documents that would come into the discussion about this topic and I'd just like to say that I would strongly support that openness as well as of course the inclusion of that other document.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, please. Chip.
>>CHIP SHARP: Chip Sharp, Cisco Systems. One thing that strikes me as the document we're referring to as the Brazilian document is focused on the role of one stakeholder in the multistakeholder model and it might be -- think about it being appropriate as in terms of a larger discussion of the roles in the multistakeholder model where that is one role of many. It's just a thought. Thanks.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, I'm sure there are many comments as we move forward and there were comments made back last week in the conference center. And I think most comments refer to that, that roles of other stakeholders were not reflected sufficiently. But precisely that would be the value of the IGF, that it can reflect on the multistakeholder character and the governments, I think -- nobody but nobody said they were against governments, but the question was more on how to work with governments. And obviously they are existing institutions and there are different stakeholders, and how do governments fit into that. And this is -- we have to be aware, this is what will go forward to other institutions, other organizations, and for us, it's an opportunity to add a multistakeholder flavor to this particular discussion. Anriette.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Perhaps I'll just be repeating what you said, Markus. I think while it's good we can broaden the discussion and we're not sending decisions back to the WTPF, I think this proposal achieves two objectives that are very important to us. And I think the one is demonstrating the value of the IGF in complementing and adding -- well, operationalizing, I think, is the term we used in the proposal, decisions that have been made in other more intergovernmental policy forums. And secondly, I think it allows us to do what you've just talked about, which is to add more nuance, to recognize that this is about governments and their role and how they can participate more effectively. But to do that in an IGF way, you know, for want of a better term, which is more inclusive, more informal, more creative, and has the principle of multistakeholder participation at its roots. But I don't think one should make it too general either because I think if it becomes too general then we lose potential influence.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, there was also -- I see particular merit in it, one of the points of criticism, I think it's also in the report on the working group on improvement, was the lack of government participation. And when we actually address that head-on in the IGF, I think it may also have the merit of attracting more governments, in particular from developing countries. And in the region, our host government will make efforts, there will be a ministerial meeting to proceed the IGF. So I think we have a good constellation for attracting governments. And if on top of that we can offer governments some practical, technical advice on how to deal with some of these issues that proved so contentious in Dubai, then I think we should be able to make the IGF attractive to governments to attend the meeting. But this is clearly something we as a -- also as a MAG we need to brainstorm a little further. Zahid, you asked for the floor.
>>ZAHID JAMIL: You know, just sort of tinkering with some of the words I heard in the last two interventions and I'm thinking I think it makes sense that this is not just talking about governments per se and it also makes sense that it's not excluding them. So maybe something in the nature of inclusion and participation, these are the words I heard, inclusion in a multistakeholder forums or in multistakeholder forums-role of governments. So we give -- you know, we balance it out. Just a thought.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, let's not go into wording here. But the proposal put forward by the Civil Society groups is basically picking up on the Brazilian language we had on operationalizing the role of governments. Milton.
>>MILTON MUELLER: Yeah, I just want to make it clear that first, that I -- this is Milton Mueller from Syracuse University. I agree with you, Markus, that this would be a very excellent topic for the IGF to discuss in a main session. And again, the reason would be that we would actually come up with some kind of an output, you know, a yes or a no, and that would encourage people to participate.
I do want to issue some cautions, words of caution. Or maybe just to clarify some confusion. When the representative from Cisco, for example, said that well, it's not just about governments and I think Zahid said something like that, I agree with what I think is the motivation for those observations which is that we are talking about all stakeholder groups. The problem with governments is that -- is this concept of respective roles from the Tunis agenda in which governments are asserting a preeminence over policymaking which inherently excludes -- or elevates them above other stakeholder groups. And I think this is one of the key -- well, no, let's just come out and say it. This is the defining issue of the IGF. Let's not forget how the IGF was born. It was essentially a kind of a grand bargain in which governments who did not like the current system of Internet Governance which was private sector-led and not intergovernmental, agreed that they would not try to disrupt or destroy that system if they had a forum in which they could continue to talk about these issues of their role. And what Brazil has proposed is a specific method of operationalizing that role. And interestingly, this was presented and discussed and debated in the ITU's WTPF which could be conceived as a form of competition with the IGF, that if people can really come up with outcomes and opinions and meet together and have good feelings about working together in that forum, then maybe the IGF is not so important and will be sort of deprecated as time goes on.
So I think it's extremely important that IGF take up this issue. I think it's potentially a much better forum. I couldn't go to the WTPF and talk about this. I felt a little bit excluded. I think we would have a more open and far-ranging debate if we did it right.
So the only problem I have with the Brazilian proposal is it does reassert, as I understand it, this business about respective roles. So I would like to have a debate about operationalizing the role of government. I would not want to start with a resolution that assumes that we're talking about the roles as defined in the Tunis agenda.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, that is -- it is difficult to move away from agreed language in a diplomatic context. What was agreed in Tunis was agreed in Tunis, whether we like it or not.
>>MILTON MUELLER: Could I just intervene there? It was agreed by the governments. It wasn't agreed by us.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, at the same time, you have to recognize the fact that heads of state and heads of government in Tunis adopted the general approach of multistakeholder cooperation, recognizing that they can't do it alone, that they need to work with other stakeholders, which was a huge step forward. So yes, we don't like it. Nobody likes everything in the Tunis agenda, but I think it left everybody equally unhappy, and that's the good thing about it. But that's -- Avri was also asking for the floor.
>>AVRI DORIA: Yes, thank you. Avri Doria speaking. I think obviously one cannot change the language that is in the Tunis agenda. One can recognize, however, that the Tunis agenda does indeed contradict itself in parts between taking one position that gives governments preeminence and in another place, where it talks about all stakeholders on an equal footing. And I think that moving forward we can recognize that that was agreed language but the IGF, as that multistakeholder organization, where we participate as stakeholders on an equal footing, can indeed move beyond that. And we don't have to restrict ourselves to that. So I think taking the -- the Brazilian and other contributions, we can look at the question is what is the government's role in Internet Governance organizations, in that process? And we can look at that as an open question. And perhaps get ourself beyond the ambiguity that got built into the Tunis agenda that does not recognize the reality of Internet Governance and the Internet as it currently exists where we all need to participate as stakeholders on an equal footing. Thanks.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Bill, you asked for the floor.
>>BILL DRAKE: Bill Drake, University of Zurich. I think that there have been a number of us in Civil Society for a long time who have wanted the IGF to perhaps be a place where we could do something a little bit more than have the kinds of dialogues that we have. So there's a desire to try some kind of consensus formation. And I think that's leading people to view this particular proposal, the Brazilian proposal, as a vehicle, as a way to get there and try to do this. I've been disagreeing with my colleagues from Civil Society about this for a couple of days now. I think using the Brazilian opinion is the wrong way to go about that personally. I would have to agree with my friend from Cisco. I mean, if you read the opinion, what it's about, it's very much a creature of the ITU. It's a function of the ITU discussion. It's how the ITU's role should be configured and so on. I don't see why that's the right place for us to start in the IGF a discussion about the role of governments and so on. I mean, I think we can -- if we want to have some sort of a session where we try to great some sort of an agreement on something, whether it's a message or a sense of the room or temperature of the room or whatever it might be, we can do that. But we don't necessarily have to hang it on this particular vehicle. It strikes me as the wrong place to start. So I don't mind this being part of a conversation, but I wouldn't -- taking up the Brazilian proposal per se strikes me as a strange approach to this.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Theresa.
>>THERESA SWINEHEART: I think that there's multiple views and positions and thoughts and outputs on whether from workshops or whether proposals that have been put into different forums. With the Brazilian proposals, if we want to call it the Brazilian proposals, a very thoughtful piece on one facet of the dialogue. And I think we would be remiss in not seizing the opportunity to incorporate that in the discussions around this topic. I think, just as with any of the other proposals that place an important role on operationalizing the role of governments as -- similarly with regards to the operationalization of the role in the private sector or civil society or technical community. So I think we should look at it in a holistic way and incorporate it as part of the dialogue and was struck by how timely it is that this document came in and using the opportunity to discuss it in the IGF forum which brings together a different group of stakeholders.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Baher Esmat. >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you. Baher Esmat. I'm with ICANN. I, too, agree that the Brazilian proposal, like any other proposals in relation to Internet governance should get the opportunity to be discussed and debated at the IGF. This is the whole purpose of the IGF. And, while I also see the point of some of my colleagues of why discuss the role of government as role of government at the IGF as opposed to discussing you know, multistakeholder participation and all this, I don't think there is anything that would prevent any other group of stakeholders to put forward another proposal for discussion whether at the same session or at some other session. So I think it makes a lot of sense to me at least that this proposal gets its chance to be discussed at the IGF. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Maybe also for those who are not in the room during the WTPF, it was a positive meeting. And it was -- I think it served its function in terms of bridge building. And the Brazilian proposals, as such, may not be understood if you haven't looked at the previous proposals. They really completely redrafted it. And Brazil really stood up and emerged as a bridge builder in that meeting. And the head of the delegation was actually rather disappointed, as it did not get adopted. But it was obvious that there was not enough time to discuss it. As I tried to say earlier, it had the merit of being -- it would have been accepted as a starting point for this discussion. This links us up again with enhanced cooperation. As you know, the role of governments is very much at the center of the work of the enhanced cooperation, and this discussion gives the IGF to have an opportunity to have a multistakeholder input into these discussions. And they will come up and be revisited in other fora. And they will go up to the general assembly. They will be revisited when it comes up to WSIS+ 10 whether we like it or not. But I think we will have an opportunity to give a multistakeholder input into these discussions. I think maybe two years ago the IGF community or three years ago may not have been ready to do this. But I think the IGF has also matured. And, at the same time, the conjunction with something being offered on a silver plate, so to speak, to the IGF to pick up. And, in the context of the post Dubai tensions to actually fulfill a function as a bridge builder, I would consider this a rather unique opportunity. But how we're going to fill it in in details, obviously, we'll have to discuss that in the following days.
I wonder whether we can maybe conclude this discussion. There was one dissenting voice so far I think. That was Bill who didn't think it was a good idea. But I would sense that the general feeling in the room is it is a good idea. But yes, obviously, they are -- there is room for improvement on the Brazilian proposals. And, clearly, I think a multistakeholder community would have lots to say. Yes, Martin and Chip.
>>MARTIN BOYLE: Thank you, Chair. Not for the purpose of disagreeing with you. But -- sorry, Martin Boyle from Nominet. But rather to be looking at making sure that we do have a discussion that does need to be had. It's been a discussion that's been sitting there for a long time. We continue to hear. We heard in our WCIT. We heard in WTPF that there needs to be some improved understanding of the framework which, for many governments, is a bit of a difficult framework to understand what their role should be. And they see or at least claimed to see that this is a barrier for their engagement. Doing that discussion in the IGF, I think, is very, very important. And that we start with the Brazilian paper doesn't prevent us having other input into that dialogue. I said earlier today that it seemed to me that, A, the IGF should take up this challenge and try and do some work on it. But I also said that it is an issue where probably a good amount of preparatory work would be useful. And that preparatory work might well lead to input on the relative roles of different stakeholders and, hopefully, move us into a point where decisions are being made through a multistakeholder model that isn't just we consult with you and then we go make our decisions but is actually looking very much more on understanding the issues behind the topic. So certainly reiterating, you know, I would strongly support that we do this. The Brazilian paper, I think, is a good starting point but shouldn't be the only starting point and that we should be trying to make sure that we're doing a lot of work between now and October. Thank you, Chair.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Chip.
>>CHIP SHARP: Thank you. Chip Sharp, Cisco Systems. I do not oppose this discussion at IGF, just to make sure it's clear from my previous intervention. It was a question of, you know, the discussion.
The question here really is -- and maybe this will be discussed in the MAG or later on -- is how you would actually logistically do this in that the what we call the Brazilian proposals is currently a contribution to WTPF and how that would get translated over to IGF. Would we solicit the Brazilian government to resubmit this to IGF? So it's really a logistical question as to how that document would actually get input into an IGF discussion.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: That is a good question. And I suppose what we heard from Marilyn is that document doesn't exist any longer. But we could ask Brazil to draft a paper building on what was their draft opinion as an example. But, again, I'm absolutely open. I see Peter asked for the floor.
>>PETER MAJOR: Well, as for the document -- Peter Major. As for the document whether it exists or not, well, they do have the Chair's report on the ITU Web site. And in this Chair's report there's an explicit reference to the document as a document to the third working group draft. So it does exist.
And I would like to raise a question from a different angle. As you know, there will be the CSTD regular session at the beginning of June. And this question will be brought up, I'm sure. And it will appear in the draft resolution as well. this draft resolution will go to the ECOSOC and finally to the U.N. General Assembly. So probably it would be a very good idea to discuss it in the IGF in a multistakeholder environment and to provide some input to the general assembly when it takes its resolution to have a richer picture of what we are talking about and how other stakeholders see this question. So I strongly support the idea of bringing this issue into the IGF and discussing whatever form we may find in the subsequent dates. Thank you.
MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. There are other meetings. There's also the meetings of the ITU council or maybe the ITU council working group on Internet policy issue. So the proposal might be changed and whatever. But Marilyn asked for the floor and Subi.
>>MARILYN CADE: It's Marilyn Cade. I think perhaps I started this. So let's see if I be a little clearer about what I was suggesting. I welcome having the discussion on the topic. My comments were clarifying that there is no draft opinion that continues. The work of the WTPF is closed. There is a Chair's report, and there are six opinions that are agreed. There, of course, is material that is associated with that report.
But I think that's really neither here nor there. What's here, I think, is I hear, generally, support for discussing the topic. I suggested that the content of the document which I was calling the Brazilian document on the -- I should get the title right -- operationalizing the role of governments in multistakeholder something -- I think it's bodies, belongs here. And I welcome that, and there may be other inputs. But I don't see why we can't just invite the Brazilians to provide us with an input document to the -- whatever the working forum ends up being, if it's a plenary session or it's a workshop or it's a roundtable. And then build on the comments of some others who have said -- and myself as well -- some other inputs might also be incoming from participants in such a session. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Time is moving on, and we still have quite a number of issues on the agenda. But I see there is debate. I wondered whether we could close the discussion. But there are -- well, the MAG will have opportunity to go into that tomorrow and the day after. So we are mainly interested in hearing from non-MAG members. European Commission.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you, Markus. Sylvia Viceconte, European Commission. I'm just intervening sustaining the others who said we should discuss the issues in the Brazilian opinion. I think we should discuss anything we want, including the role of the ITU. And the value added of the IGF is to go a little bit beyond what our traditional institutional roles. So I would encourage all of us to look at this from all angles and not shirk away. The questions raised by the Brazilians are probably not going to go away. We can't give a definite opinion, but let's go for it.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, United States.
>>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chair. This is Liesyl Franz from the Department of State. Third time's a charm for me to say my name at the Chair's request.
I just wanted to note that the notion of talking about roles of the a stakeholders in a multistakeholder forum is something we fully support and I think already happens by the nature of the workshops and the sessions we have in the IGF. So, in a way, I don't think it's something new for us to consider. It might be something new for us to consider in a discrete program item for the upcoming forum. But I think there's certainly much discussion and work to capture. I want to join the chorus of folks that echoed the notion of inviting the Brazilians to put forward something perhaps in a recrafted form for our discussion on this topic and welcome others to do so as well noting the comments that Marilyn has made about the process in which it was originally submitted has been closed. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I see Izumi, Subi, and Patrick. Do you have dissenting opinions? Please, okay.
But please be short. Yes.
>>IZUMI AIZU: I kind of support what Bill said. Not too much into the quality of the Brazilian proposal. But the way, if we start with the Brazilian proposal, it started like that, then we may lose more substantive discussion. Naive question is, and especially being aware of the new members of MAG being here who may not have context or knowledge about the context, is there any reason why we cannot used enhanced cooperation as overarching theme? And it questions the roles of the stakeholders rather than directly referring to the Brazilian proposal. I rather like to hear -- you may have already told, Markus, but start with there. And maybe it's in the context of the WTPF and things like that, but I'm still not clear of the benefit.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, I think it's very much the context that defines this. There is -- there was WCIT; there was the WTPF; and now the IGF has been mentioned in this context to take the discussion forward. And that was, basically, the Brazilian proposal. And, as I said, Brazil has proved in that particular context as really the country that had made proposal and that's allowed other proposals to go away, so to speak, that would have been far more divisive. And it's pushed and pulled people towards the middle. And this is also a role that the IGF would have. Subi?
>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Markus, for giving me the floor. Thank you, Izumi, for recognizing the new members, I just went to the ITU Web site and downloaded the draft. So it does exist. And that helped me contextualize the discussion. The Brazilian proposal does mention policy to establish cooperation. And, drawing from this morning's comments where I said -- and I concur with Martin -- that we do need to involve the government more. Just the danger of contextualizing and framing the entire debate around the Brazilian proposal is something that I would be a little uncomfortable about. And anything that is in the nature of prescription and policy, because we did run that danger with the ITU. Broad level principles and guidelines to engage more with the government very welcome. Just, if we can broaden the debate -- I agree with Izumi, it can be enhanced cooperation and to involve more multistakeholder participation.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: It is about enhanced cooperation. It's another word. Patrick.
>>PATRICK RYAN: Patrick Ryan. Thank you. I don't know that I have any suggestions or bright ideas that are going to resolve this. I think we can talk about anything we'd like at the IGF. The only thing that really troubles me to some extent that I'm unable to resolve is that we're talking about unrelated things. One is referral from ITU to IGF. Another is a Brazilian proposal. We're in an open forum right now where anybody can take the microphone, and all those parties are available as well to be here as well. And I'm surprised that the referral from the ITU is not accompanied by having a representative here to talk about it and defend it and explain it. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: As I said, the Brazilian MAG representative has been promoted to another job. And his successor is not here yet. But we have -- I don't know whether Hartmut would like to say words on that, but you're not at the WTPF meeting.
>>HARTMUT GLASER: I am listening.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Hartmut is listening, and he will report back to Brazilia to the powers that be. Zahid.
>>ZAHID JAMIL: I was thinking, Chair, maybe one way to resolve this is we're talking about different words -- the Brazilian proposal, governments, et cetera. Instead of being worried about what we call it, we leave it to you, the Chair, or maybe you can come back with something tomorrow. In principle, I haven't heard anybody say this issued shouldn't be discussed. I support this should be discussed here. If the ITU is talking about multistakeholderism and the role of government or anybody else there, we should be the ones taking the lead in it. We should definitely discuss it. So maybe we leave it to the Chair to come back with suggestions, et cetera, or leave it to your diplomatic skills. And then we can just agree in principle.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, first of all, we don't have to agree on anything today in this room. We're here to listen to the community, to what people think. And I also see economic commission for Africa, please. You have the floor.
>>UNECA: Thank you, Chair. My name is Makane Faye. I would like to recall what you said in the morning that it could be done under enhanced cooperation. I think we support that. And you also said that this could also go from the regional level. Also I support that, because I think even at the national level this can be discussed. And many countries are organizing their regional ideas. Religions are organizing their regional ideas. And framework of African IGF will be held from 11-13 September in Nairobi organized by Kenya ISOC chapter. I believe we could discuss this issue under enhanced cooperation. And I suggest that the same be done also with other regional IGF meetings. And then also we can go up to the global IGF in Bali.thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Anriette?
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think we should probably move on. I think there's a good compromise solution on the table. We can label it, cluster it. I think discussing it, it falls under the IGF mandate, institutional dialogue and interaction between different policy making institutions is part of our role and mandate. I think the regional discussion is great.
I'm hoping we can move on. And where there are still differences of opinion on how to approach that, we can resolve that in the next iteration. I just want to remind the IGF community here what happened when India and Brazil had a meeting to come up with the IPSA proposals in 2011. And, when that proposal was discussed at the IGF there was outrage from the IGF community and who then said to India and Brazil and South Africa, why did you not discuss this in the IGF? I think since then we've seen much more openness from those governments and other governments have exclusive discussions and, therefore, I think explicitly as IGF saying come and have this discussion in the IGF is the appropriate thing to do at this point in time.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I agree. It's an opportunity not to be missed. And it was actually, frankly, in the old MAG member who is not in the foreign ministry any more -- he joined the Ministry of Science and Technology -- who said, when we discussed this last Friday, it actually helped Brazil to clear a little bit to have the feedback from the community in Nairobi to develop their position further. So the IGF has played a helpful role in that. And I think the IGF should play a helpful role again on it this year. Liesyl? United States.
>>UNITED STATES: Thank you. Liesyl Franz, Department of State. I just very quickly wanted to harken back to Patrick Ryan's comment. Whatever form this discussion takes -- and I, again, support that we do so -- I would hate for it to be referred to as a referral from the ITU. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, we are autonomous to pick it up, the discussion. But it's not a referral. These are touchy issues between relationship between different frameworks. And -- to assume we have reached a stage where everything has been said but not yet by everybody?
Could we have the update on the logistical issues by the host country? Are you all ready? Are you all set to go?
>> Yeah, yeah. Not me.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay.
>>ASHWIN SASONGKA: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to invite our organizing committee to -- the head of the organizing committee, actually, who is also a new MAG member. And he's also a member of the Indonesian council. Chairman is also here, Mr. Serdjoeni Moedjion.
The vice chairman of the council and the organizer of the Indonesian National Association of Internet Service Providers, Mr. Hendrawin Saputra. So the information will be given. Please.
>>SERDJOENI MOEDJION: Thank you, Chair, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, MAG members, good afternoon. First of all, I'd like to thanks for giving us the chance to present the current update issue of the preparation process of the 8th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum 2013. As announced before, the IGF 2013 will be held in Bali, Indonesia, from 21st to 25th of October 2013. And for the first meeting on the 21st of October will be a high-level meeting concerning the ministerial meeting also high level of CIO meeting. And the real IGF meeting will be held in 22nd of October.
As said by Mr. Ashwin Sasongko, we are the multistakeholder team, IGF Internet Governance Forum will present these current update considerations.
First of all, I'm from government. And then later will be presented by Mr. Hendrawin Saputra from the Internet service providers representing business of private sector. And then later we are going to play the video concerning our plan in Bali because we are going to -- we have decided the venue, i.e, the Bali Nusa Dua Conference Center, as our venue. And then we are going to have maybe a discussion later. Please, Mr. Hendrawin, come.
>> HENDRAWIN SAPUTRA: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, delegates, ladies and gentlemen, the MAG members, following up our information in the past of Paris MAG meetings when we made presentation in Paris, where in mind for the IGF to take place back then and after the process and considering the location and number of conference rooms with sufficient equipment, we have selected the Bali Nusa Dua Center as the IGF 2013's venue. We have booked the entire Convention Center as we anticipate an increase in the number of participants. Due to the event location in beautiful Bali, we have been working very hard to prepare all logistical requirements such as booking what will be efficient hotel as working together with the Internet and preparational event organizer to make it convenient as well as economical to those who intend to attend. To see what we have achieved so far, please, you all can visit our Web site, which we should have done -- you know, informed Mr. Chengetai a long time ago.
You can visit www.igf2013.org.id, which we will update as more information becomes available. This will help us in ensuring the success of IGF 2013. We will coordinate further with the IGF Secretariat, Mr. Chengetai Masango, and U.N. Mr. Vyatcheslava who will conduct a second assessment visit to discuss security and network requirement during the event.
Also, we have seen previous IGF. And, as suggested by a number of people, the day prior to the official start, we will host the ministerial level meetings, which mostly we call high-level meetings. And, therefore, we open the opportunity to those who are interested to provide the format of the meetings.
Though the distance to the venue from the official hotel is relatively close, we strive to provide shuttle services to facilitate the transport of participants. As per previous global IGF, even where vias was provided free of charge in 2013, participants can obtain visa on arrival with the fee equivalent to 25 U.S. dollars payable to Indonesian (saying name) which will be reimbursed upon arrival at the venue upon receipt.
And for details, you can take a look at the www.igf2013.org.id. And after that we'll present the video of the venue and the location. Thank you.
>> Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the latest update and hopefully next month we'll host Mr. Vyatcheslava and Chengetai and (indiscernible) we'll see you in Indonesia. And we will see the video first after this.
Make Bali a favorite place for citizens around the world to visit.
∂ Bali is an island the world envies. (indiscernible)
[ video playing off microphone ]
There are also seven Secretariat offices and one business center.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much for this presentation.
[ Applause ]
>> Yes, just to inform you that the management of the (indiscernible) right now are still building the second set of the conferencing center so almost the same but first stage and it will be ready before the August, before August, before -- because the first week of the October we are going to use it for the APAC meeting. That's why we are going to be the third week of October, and we welcome you all and invite your colleagues to the IGF to the 2013 in Bali, Indonesia. We hope and make sure in your busy discussion in the IGF 2013 you are still able to enjoy the beautiful island in Bali. And I propose you can arrive in Bali one week before the event and then leave two weeks before the event. Thank you very much.
[ Laughter ]
[ Applause ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. And I think the video succeeded in convincing us that we will be in safe hands. It may a bit of a hardship to go to meeting rooms when you could sit at the swimming pool, but we will do our best. Yes.
[ Laughter ]
Are there any questions to our gracious hosts.
>> Any comments or any inputs?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: But I would suggest maybe not extending a discussion on logistics but just trust the host and the U.N. and the IGF Secretariat, they will come up and create the perfect environment for our meetings. And I think Bali has hosted many, many international meetings and will so also this year, so I think we'll be in safe hands. So yes. Brazil.
>>BRAZIL: There's no link in IGF Web site with the local --
>>We just found out that went up today.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: We still have some time. Visa is usually an issue, but we are confirmed by our hosts that there again they will know how to handle that and basic thing is to go about early.
>> Sorry about the Web site I've mentioned it, www.igf2013.org.id -- supposedly -- igf2013.org.id.
>> Spell it out.
>> That's right.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: In any case, there will be a link on the IGF Web site to the host country Web site. Yes. Euro-link, please.
>>EURO-LINK: Just one logistics question. There are -- usually there are exhibition in the IGF, so we would like to have as much as -- as early as possible details about how this will be organized and who will be the contact person for discussing the details.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Are you talking about the IGF Village? Yes, it's on our Web site. Just contact the Secretariat and then we'll put your name down and book you a stand.
>>EURO-LINK: IGF Secretariat?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. All the information is up on our Web site. Just visit our Web page and it should be there. If it's unclear, please come and see me and then we'll try to make it more clearer for you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Thank you. Ayesha Hassan for ICC Basis. In that vein, it would be helpful if we have a date by which people need to request pre-event space on the 21st. It's on the web site. Last time I checked it wasn't there. Thank you very much.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, that will bring us back to our agenda. We do say other meetings. Yes, Judy.
>>JUDY OKITE: Thank you, Markus. I would like to ask whether this time around Secretariat is going to add the disability part of the forum participation. Whether you have a disability and what kind of disability when one is registered. All right. Thank you.
>>SARDJOENI MOEDJIONO: Yes, when we prepared the venue and we -- we have discussed also the -- with the venue the management of the venue, the disability that they provide and also when we discuss on the official hotels for the IGF, we specifically stress on the disabilities facilities.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. This is an important issue and I think you will make it -- put it on the form --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: On the registration form.
>>MARKUS KUMMER -- that people can indicate whether they have special needs, I think, so that the organizers are informed in time. Okay. With that I think we can go back to our --
[Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: U.K., yes, Mark.
>> U.K.: Thank you, Markus. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to delay progress with the agenda. I just wanted to ask our Indonesian hosts whether the theme of the pre-IGF high-level event involving ministers has been decided or whether there's some indication of any linkage of the theme to the WTPF and WSIS forum and the issues that came up in that. And just to seek confirmation that as in Baku, this event was open for anybody to attend and observe and I think the round table there, which my minister (saying name) participated in, was a very -- a very -- successful adjunct to the IGF proper that followed. [ no audio ]
So if there's any further information -- [ no audio ] that would be useful for me within our government to decide on participation -- [ no audio ] there may be others too. Thank you.
[ no audio ]
>> Maybe will be discussed later.
[ no audio ] so we are going to decide after this. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: I think the transcription may be -- they say they have no audio. Okay. I think the transcription is back, so the transcription is back, so I think it will be okay.
>> I'm sorry.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Technical glitches do happen, yes. Okay. You're back? No?
[Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay, then I suggest that we continue and once Farzi has the connection we'll get back to the comment from our colleague from the ITU. We are basically on agenda item 3, general discussions about IGF annual meeting preparations, and I would like to start with the third bullet point of the meetings because I think that will be the easiest.
Chengetai has put up on the Web site the deadline for the other meetings and that is Dynamic Coalitions, open forums, and that's it, yes? And that will be 30th of June, correct?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: And that would also include requests for a room for pre-events. And I think -- I don't know whether you have received requests or not, but I think some have already contacted the Secretariat for open forum, so the IGF for the first time will hold an open forum in Bali to explain how they work, and I think that will be of interest. I know that ISOC is planning to hold an open forum focusing on their development activities, these are appearing and connecting and setting up IXPs. And I'm sure there will be other open forums. But the important thing is the deadline is 30th of June, so we have time for that. And the open forums, yes, maybe that needs a little bit discussion because I think we had touched on that briefly in Paris, that many organizations treated them like ordinary workshop but that was not the purpose and I think the Web site states it clearly. The open forums should provide an opportunity to relevant organizations to provide an overview over their activities in the past year so that participants will get a feeling of what their respective organizations are doing. Bill, you were asking for the floor.
>>BILL DRAKE: Thank you. I was going to look it up on the Web site but I believe the Web site language says something like major organizations or something like that. And in the past open forums have tended to be the kind of organizations you have just mentioned. And a number of people have asked me in recent months, is it really limited only to big organizations? Is there any reason why other kinds of programs that might be doing something that would be of interest to the general attendees couldn't also have an open forum, even if they're smaller, nonprofit, so on. And I think it's -- it's just worth asking the question, how do we conceive -- because these things are not really specified very tightly but they've generally been understood in a certain way. So I'd like to get -- reopen the question, is this exactly the model you want to keep going forward or is there any possibility of making this possible -- this open to more people.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for this. Well, I think major makes me a little bit uneasy in any case. I think relevant might be a better definition. But that doesn't answer your question. What is relevant and -- but well, I would suggest that we also maybe take more responsibility from the side of the MAG on that. I think nobody would dispute that the IETF is a relevant organization, although legally speaking it's not an organization. It doesn't have a legal identity. Nobody would dispute that ICANN or the ITU are relevant organizations, but I suppose there may be borderline cases and in any case it should not be the back door for getting in a workshop that would not get in otherwise. I think that is the main caveat. That it should really reflect an entity that has sustained activities over the year. And my suggestion then would be that we bring it to the attention of the MAG. If it's not obvious -- but I see Marilyn has the answer and Olga. Please, Marilyn first and then Olga.
>>MARILYN CADE: Actually -- it's Marilyn Cade I have more questions that I thought I would just pile on so you could answer them all at the same time. I thought I recalled in the early days that open forums were for international organizations or international groups and that we also had the Dynamic Coalitions and then we also had, I think at one point, the idea that countries might have a session that was about a particular initiative they were doing within their country. So I'm just kind of recalling. I -- my question was more, in the past I've been very involved in the national and regional initiative round table and I'm aware that there is a pending discussion about how to address the national and regional IGF's and I'd just like to be sure that that discussion is open to any of the coordinators of the national and regional IGF's to have that discussion but to note that I hope we will, in our planning, keep in mind that some of the activities that we haven't yet fully developed may present a particular need for sensitivity in scheduling to make sure that they can take place at a time when those parties who are most affected can participate in them. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. You're correct in your memory, your recalling how we -- recall the best practices forums, but they sort of did not really take off that much and the main reason I would have thought was maybe that we are not able to sustain them through qualitative reporting and that was again a resource question. But the idea is such that we look at best practices. But now we are left with the Dynamic Coalitions and with the open forums or fora. The national and regional IGFs I think we decided in the MAG discussions that we would create a special track for these meetings, so that will be yet a separate category, look at them separately from the workshops. And I think there was a general agreement that we attach importance and bring them in into the global IGF. Yes. Olga, yes.
>>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chair. I have two more questions. Will the open forums be selected by which organization is submitting the proposal or by what is it about, which is the relevant thing. And is -- is there specific amount of open forum that we can accept, like many workshops, few open forums, many open forums, do we know that? Will we restrict it in relation with infrastructure or we have a restriction about how many we want to organize. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, the two are related, of course. They're also related to Bill's question. I think in the past we had maybe seven or eight open forums and it was always kept an open invitation to relevant organization. If the ITU comes and says we would like to hold an open forum, they will be given a slot. If the OECD comes or the Council of Europe or ICANN or the IETF, I think these are relevant organizations. The question may more be what Bill -- the issue Bill raised on smaller organizations, then where is the limit. You know, we don't want to -- I think then we crowd out the workshops if we have all of the sudden 50 open forums and if some crafty organizers say okay, we take this path instead of going through a workshop proposal which may be difficult to get a slot. So there is, I think, on these borderline cases, I think there we would need guidance from the MAG. But I would assume that we have assume that we have agreement on the concept. I think this is also in line with what many said that the IGF can be useful as a one-stop shop meeting. Nobody can go to all the meetings, but at least if you can go to an open forum meeting of a relevant organization gives you a flavor of what they are doing. And I don't expect that anybody will go to all of them, but there may be people who have never been to an IETF meeting so if the IETF organizes an open forum that will be of interest.
Yes, Chengetai rightly reminds me, there is a single purpose of that. That is to inform about their activities and it's distinct from a workshop. They're not supposed to dig deep into an issue as such but inform about activities. But Anriette, Jeff, did you ask for the floor again?
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Anriette first.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Markus. I support Bill Drake on this particular issue.
[ Laughter ]
I think a little bit more flexibility. I think one of the -- I think as Chengetai and Markus just said, it is to inform. But I'd like to see some Indonesian organizations, for example, use this format of an open forum to tell us, the international community, more about what's happening in Indonesia, maybe some of the multistakeholder processes between the Indonesian government and Civil Society and business. You know, and Brazil having CGI, for example, do an open forum. So I would suggest, as Markus said, maybe the MAG might have to give guidance if there are too many requests, but to make it a little bit more flexibility and really encourage local organizations to use the format as well.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Jeff.
>>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN: Thank you. Jeff Brueggeman with AT&T. Having spent the weekend working through the workshop proposals, I'm struck by how the process lends itself to feeling like you're operating in a funnel capacity, and I think this -- this discussion to me raises an opportunity of, if we're going to have open forum, for example, let's look at the people who have submitted workshop proposals and try and invite them into the discussions. I think, you know, as we've seen, there's a lot of overlap in the issues that people are raising and I know it's very difficult for us to go through a process of cutting workshops but maybe the opposite approach is to try and be as inclusive as possible for the things like the -- an open forum, a round table, or some of the workshops that maybe are being more highly rated. Let's go out of our way to try and bring more people into the process where there are others, and ultimately, if they want to have their own workshop, maybe that's fine as well. But I think that is a very positive development, having attended the human rights and a couple of other open forum discussions. I do think that's a good innovation and maybe we can encourage people who have been submitting workshops thinking as the way to raise the issue is, you know, maybe they can take advantage of this new forum as an alternative.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: That may be a slight different invitation of an open forum. Traditionally it was basically a single organization informing about activities. Whereas I think what you are referring to are more of a round table concept of different workshops. But we will have the opportunity to dig deeper into that in the next two days. Yes. Yes, please.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Again, I also support Bill for this particular issue and many others. But my concern is the -- as Markus just said, open forum is a single organization mostly who are not multistakeholder and also the composition of the speakers or subjects are not really in line with the criteria for the workshop. Yet we often have open forum and workshops in the same time frame, which theoretically bother me a little bit. I mean, as some said, if it has effect to crowd out one single organization making a program on an open forum while some other smaller organizations trying to do balanced speakers with genders and regional balance and multistakeholder interworkshop and with a fewer members.
And I also see the good opportunity for a single organization in federation with the Indonesian or local Asia Pacific where I'm from. But we need some kind of clear agreed-upon principles about this open forum, if we're to expand that.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, as I said, the open forum traditional is just a single organization. But we can -- and let's see what comes up. If we expand it a bit -- if we end up with 50 or 100 proposals, then obviously, that won't work. But, if there are another 2 or 3 or 4, the mark clearly will need guidance. But I understand that we'll be ready to read out the comment from the ITU colleague.
[Speaker off microphone.].
>> Hello? Hello?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. Hello. Please speak.
>>JEOUNG KIM: Can you hear me?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, we can hear you.
>>JEOUNG KIM: Oh, thank you so much. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Jeoung H. Kim, the IGF person in ITU. As you see, for some technical reason, I couldn't join this consultation meeting from the beginning. But I'm glad that I could join it at least. It is good to know that the discussion held in WTPF could be continued at this IGF meeting.
All delegates presented in WTPF described sincere appreciation is expressed to Brazil for their dedication in consulting and revising the contribution from their previous contribution. Many delegates, while holding the issues, indicated that some modifications were actually needed to more appropriately affect various different reviews (unclear audio) you already know and few modifications were actually suggested from the floor during the meeting. But the many delegations agreed that this issue of the role of government in the multistakeholder model of Internet governance is very important but complex topic and one of the key issues that have not clearly been addressed to date. Therefore, many delegates, including the chairman, expressed the view that this -- this discussion could be -- should be continued.
And Dr. Hamadoun Toure, the ITU Secretary General, in his WTPF closing remarks, he made -- he said he would propose that the ITU working group Internet, (unclear audio) this kind of topic be open to all stakeholders as this meeting has been. And he will bring this proposals to ITU council next month in June.
And I heard some of the colleagues at IGF made comments about it. And I'll be more than happy to work with everybody on the issue. If you need any more information from my side, I'd be more than happy to provide it. Thank you.
Thank you, Markus for giving me the opportunity to make my speech. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. And you, obviously, are cordially invited to join us up on the hill at the EBU office as we have two more days of meetings.
Oh, she's in Korea. Okay. That would be a bit far away, yes. Okay. Then thank you very much to stay up with us so late. Yeah.
>>BILL DRAKE: Just to finish the point, and then actually add one other on open forums. One option might be to set aside two or three slots and make them half hour slots and announce that there are four slots available or something like that for smaller organizations to put in an application to perhaps have an open forum. And then you could have the MAG vet these or something like that. I mean, I think there are a lot of different ways -- you don't necessarily need an hour slot for some organizations. But, I mean, I've talked to a number of people who I think could actually make good use of this kind of space.
The other thing I wanted to mention, going through workshop proposals, one often runs into workshops that are built around reports that some organization has released. And I always feel like those kind of workshops are kind of qualitatively different from a lot of other ones because the general model of the workshop is supposed to be contesting ideas, debating things back and forth, et cetera. And, in these events, what you get, essentially, is some organization that spent a bunch of money and time releasing a report and then gets a bunch of its friends together to sit around and say amen, this is a fantastic report, and highlight different aspects of it.
That strikes me as something also that might be in a different category that we might have. I mean, to encourage -- I mean, if people are doing major reports of relevance to Internet governance, maybe they have not a whole track but some kind of designated space for that. But I'd kind of like, personally, to have them recognized to be somewhat different from the workshops, particularly when I'm having to rate them, on the same criteria as the workshops. Because it doesn't quite make sense to me.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: I think the suggestion to make shortest slots available is an excellent one. It's not necessarily need to be a one size fits all.
Struck me as well going through the workshop proposals that some of them actually were not workshops in the sense we originally intended to them. You look at an issue from different perspectives. But they were rather monolithic in the sense that they present something, which is important to such. But maybe we could give them shorter slots. Okay. We can hear you. It's important what you have to say. But maybe you can say the same thing in half an hour, present it in a shorter slot. That's definitely an idea, a suggestion worth exploring. There was somebody else. Sorry. Zahid, yeah.
>>ZAHID JAMIL: I was going to say in Indonesia, one of the most vibrant groups we have is the Indonesian Press Council. I'd love to hear what they have to say. They've been doing a lot of work in Internet governance. I think I came up with only one workshop where I couldn't come up with another workshop. Just wanted to make the point.
>>IZUMI AIZU: I also agree to have some shorter sessions.
>>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you. Thank you very much, Markus. My name is Baher Esmat. Following what I hear previously -- and this is a question I want to raise to Indonesian representative -- because IGF will be hosted in Bali, but there is another very important meeting will be hosted also in Bali, I think in Indonesia which is WTO, World Trade Organizations. And this international organization is to regulate the globalization. Of course, the Internet community who are interested in not only eCom but how -- because I can't talk on behalf my experience with international organization, even if I'm not diplomate. But the organizer, the country -- if they organize a Congress, they can (indiscernible) But how Indonesian community official can do or can influence the IGF meeting at the same time with WTO ministerial conference or how can they improve more, for example, eCom at an aspect with other aspects. This is my question I want to raise. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: There are some trade related workshop proposals on the agenda, but my answer to the question would be it's usually different ministries dealing with different issues. And, at this stage, I would not like to enter that aspect. It makes, I think -- it's not really related to the agenda items we are discussing. Yes, WTO ministerial is an important meeting. We understand that. And WTO is an important organization. And e-commerce can have an impact on the Internet and Internet governance. Izumi.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Yeah. I'm remembering in Paris that we tried to be more innovative, creative. And I'm glad that there are other forms than panel have been proposed in the workshops. And we may cut down some of the excellent workshops perhaps to, if not half, maybe one third be gone. How to absorb this energy, I'm thinking. One way is perhaps to create some space for poster sessions or more casual ones. If the host could consider a space, physical space, I mean, or similar open space that we don't really define how they use it. So other than just giving the space.
Likewise, in Baku I was running around finding what was what. Most of the communication amongst participants was done electronically. We exchanged how many e-mails finding out where to meet next and stuff. I wanted to have one single physical bulletin board, especially when the connection was not good. But it's easier to pin down and just write paper there. It's a small suggestion. But I think, if you could consider that, this will make a facilitate much more spontaneous interaction. Meetings we cannot design. But it would facilitate. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. We did have poster sessions in Hyderabad. And I think that worked reasonably well. That was for spontaneous sessions that come up. I think it would be good. I haven't visited, but I've given to understand the facilities allow for a lot of flexibility. And, obviously, you cannot redesign existing facilities. But, if facilities allow, let's make use of that. And to have a central meeting place I think is always very good and welcome. And yes, we're discussing about experimenting, you know, be that birds of a feather meeting, be that non-meetings we discussed in Paris, and since. But that is actually linked to the first bullet point, format and content of the workshops. Traditionally, we have 90-minute workshops and exceptionally I think we gave sort of double slots to some particular usually merged workshop or super mergers of various proposals. But we could also go the opposite way and reduce the time slots from 90 minutes to 3 times 30 minutes. That's also you would give people the opportunity to say what they have to say. Okay. Maybe a bit short but maybe better than not at all. But this is definitely something we can look at. It may not make the life of the secretariat, if you move away from standard slots for everyone. But, when going through the workshop proposals, why not?
And, on the format of the workshops, I think -- well, there is, I think, a general sense that the roundtable format can be a useful one. And, especially if workshops of similar themes feed into a roundtable, that will then report back to main sessions. And that can also be more outcome oriented as the workshop organizers will have had their workshop and will have discussed together. Are there other creative ideas as regards the format? I think there were quite a few supporters of the non-conference format. I've seen on the list. I don't know whether -- open space on conference. On conference, not non-conference.
Would anybody like to expand or make creative suggestions? Do we all agree to be creative when we go more into the detail in the next two days? Fine with me. And then brings us to -- yes, Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: Marilyn Cade. I'm just -- I'm not sure if Robert Guerra is on the phone as a remote participant, but I'd just like to mention an approach. And perhaps we can come back to it at another time. And that is, when we talk about creative approaches, I wanted to flag the concept of the cyber dialogue modality that was used at a meeting that several of us were at in Canada. And perhaps when we come -- Markus, it depends on when you're talking about the format of innovative approaches. Because I'm not a MAG member. So tomorrow and the next day, I'll be rather far down the line in talking about that. But I just want to mention that there are some experimental approaches that I've seen. And I think others have experienced. And, whenever it's talked about, maybe we could just make sure that that session is open to input.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Maybe expand a bit on the cyber dialogue format. I wasn't at the meeting in Toronto.
>>MARILYN CADE: I see there are other people here, so I'll just kick off. It's Marilyn Cade speaking.
Cyber dialogue is what I would think of as sort of a facilitated -- not just moderated but facilitated approach with a panel of expert speakers, a panel of identified experts who may rebut or add to, expand or challenge what has been said and an interaction that occurs within that group and then reaching in to a broader set of observers who are really there more to observe this broad interaction. So it's -- it's not exactly a roundtable, but it is a -- an effort to identify expert respondents who bring particular additional points of view and using a moderator that is actually very skilled and experienced and trained in that particular approach. Liesyl was there as a panelist. I saw Jeff Brueggeman. I thought there might be a couple other people who participated in it who might want to comment on it. I was quite taken with it as a way to not have 25 panelists, but to have a way to hear sort of a range of views and then get very quick succinct two and three minute responses or enhancements or challenges to particular points.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: We tried when our panels were overflowing to call some people respondents and put them not on the panel but have them in the floor of the meeting room sitting. I'm not sure it worked as well. Maybe it was not as moderated. But I can see, certainly, merit in having speakers. Jeff, would you like to expand?
>>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN: I was going to say it might be particularly useful innovation for the main session. Because I think what it allows is to have a broader set of views represented as opposed to a very small panel. And it can be designed to fit a very large room. And, as we all saw in Baku, it was difficult to have an interactive session. And this preplans a little bit of that to start that going while still then opening it up to the broader audience as well.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Milton.
>>MILTON MUELLER: Yeah, I was a panelist in what I called the Greek chorus at one of these experts on the side in the Canadian cyber dialogue. And I don't think it's going to solve a lot of problems. It's a great format. But keep in mind the cyber dialogue in Canada is a hand-picked set of people by an academic, Ron Diebert, and his staff who know what they're doing and are very expert and conversant in the field themselves. And then they choose a particular moderator who is also fairly expert or might be an expert journalist. And a lot of the success of that format rests with the moderator being able to move back and forth between the panel, the Greek chorus, and then the audience.
The other thing is that the scale is different. You're dealing with at most 200 people, not 2,000. So it's -- I think it's really an excellent idea maybe for workshops that might want to deal with issues and expect to get a larger number of people in there. But I don't think it really solves the problems of the main sessions.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for this comment. And I took your remark that the Canadians know what they're doing. Doesn't imply that we don't know what we're doing.
>>MILTON MUELLER: I mean, you have a committee making decisions, not somebody with a specific vision. Sorry. I don't want to have any negative asterisks. We're supposed to be a participatory and committee-based program rather than one academic with a vision coming up with his own idea.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: I get the point. Thank you.
>>LIESYL FRANZ: Thank you, Chair. I just would like to offer also my observations having been at the forum in Toronto and just adding to what others have said is that the way the format worked there, there were the panelists of which I was one in one session. And then there were the precleared respondents that sat in their respective areas. And then there was the audience. And one note about that is that the audience was not permitted to speak during the sessions or ask questions. And I would urge as we do take this style up or if workshop organizers do, I think that's a good suggestion for people to think about or if it might be used in other venues that they adjust -- for the purposes of the IGF, they adjust that particular modality to allow the audience itself to make interventions as well. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. And audience is another non-word. We always refrain from --
>>LIESYL FRANZ: Participants. And Liesyl Franz, State Department.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: We have active participants. And Milton's point is well-taken. We have a very bottom-up planning process, which makes it very difficult to implement a good concept as there will be other ideas coming in and may well be just a compromise. Yes, once again.
>>LIESYL FRANZ: Sorry if I might follow up. I responded positively to a recommendation Paul Wilson made earlier today about having individuals that might be interested in a particular workshop indicate that interest ahead of time for the workshop organizers to acknowledge them in the interventions that they may -- during the sessions when they're in progress. And I think the nature of that combined with this cyber dialogue format could be useful to identify people who will certainly speak, again welcoming others, participants to provide interventions as well. So I just wanted to connect those two dots in my mind for you. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. Other suggestions? Creative ideas? And related to the main sessions, while I think we all agreed to be innovative, we are, I think, not necessarily in agreement in what way to be innovative.
But one particular point was made that there were too many MAG members on panels. And I think, to begin with, we said MAG members abstain. They should not be speakers. They should be organizers. And I think that was a recurrent remark, recurrent comments that -- that actually reinforced the impression of the IGF being an insider club.
So my suggestion was -- would be can we agree that out of principle MAG members should not be on panels unless -- never say never. There may always be a good reason for making an exception. But, if you have a base rule and need to justify why we make an exception from the rule, then I think we would be able to improve this impression. Ayesha?
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Thank you. Ayesha Hassan for ICC basis. For the main sessions I think that's appropriate approach. I think we can bear in mind, too, that when we're preparing the main sessions, it is critical that, when MAG members and others are trying to approach speakers, that we have confirmation that the people we're putting on the main sessions are actually going to be able to get to the IGF and that they're committed to coming. I think in some cases we ended up with last minute gaps on main sessions. And then we were quickly running around to see who had expertise and who didn't have a conflicting session. And so it was much more complex than just MAG members taking over.
So, going into Bali, we can prepare the main sessions well in advance and have commitment and really have the group of people who are participating as moderators and speakers prepare together so these are substantive sessions. Hopefully we can avoid having these gaps where we're left to look to the expertise who might be in the MAG. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Izumi.
>>IZUMI AIZU: I think some MAG members are 7 years old where the other MAG members are just 1 year-old. So putting the equal restriction to the main session workshop may not be that fair. That's what I want to say.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. The other question is: Do we always need panels for the main session? There are certain issues where we know there are different opinions. We touched on one of them. That is the role of governments. Yes, Olga.
>>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chair. There was a time that we didn't have panels in main sessions. I don't recall if it was in Sharm El Sheikh or before, in Hyderabad. And it went fairly well. We had prepared some questions -- some discussions the audience could take. And there were two people moderating. So we don't have to stick to a panel. And we can build up from that experience or find more innovative formats. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes, I mean, there are certain issues and, especially workshops when you explain a technical issue, where a panel makes sense, where some may be a presentation. This is how we work or whatever. And they are not necessarily controversial issues. But some of these issues we know are relatively controversial with strong opinions all around the room. And, for this kind of thematic session, I think we're better served with just having a free flowing discussion that is moderated. Obviously, we need to have a good moderator who knows the issues and who has the skills to -- yes, to animate a lively discussion, keep it under control at the same time.
But I think we can find these people.
And, well, the question I asked when it came to the duration of the session, should we focus on shorter segments? I mean, we have the three hour slots. But we don't need to have three-hour sessions. Three hours taxes the attention span of most people. And I think shorter segments might be actually livelier.
Yes. Tero, please. And U.S.
>>TERO MUSTALA: Thank you. Tero Mustala. Nokia Siemens Networks. I would like to continue on this main session issue mainly. And trying to respond so what you were just asking, continue the discussion from February Paris where we were talking about innovative forms and so on. I would like that we remember that we very much are agreed to explore new ways of running the meeting. And I've been looking at these. We had, basically, two problems. We had workshops where our problem is we had too much stuff, and we have to do some selection. So it's a kind of positive problem. But then I would very much like that we really would focus on these main sessions. Because, looking back to Baku, I think the most critic and the right critics was for so many sessions. And for that reason I would suggest that we really rethink what we mean by the concept of main session, starting from how long it takes, what are the possible formats, how many we have, et cetera, so that we don't just stick to, let's say, the classical way of main session with huge panel and little audience.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.
Well, yes, the main session is, basically, a session that takes place in the main room and has interpretation. But the rest it's up to us to decide what we want to have. And we can, in theory, pick a workshop that seems to us really incredibly interesting. We can give that center stage and say here you have a slot in the main session room where you get interpretation. This is a possibility. You know, we could in theory have a session -- assuming we stick to the themes we had up to now, have a session on critical Internet resources. Pick up one workshop, give a workshop 90 minutes on the heading critical Internet resources. And then maybe have a open discussion on the issues touched upon by the workshop. Just a theory, thinking aloud. There may be other ideas. But I'm just saying the definition of main session is, basically, defined by the room and the facilities. There is a big room, and there is interpretation. But the rest is what we want it to be. Liesyl again. United States.
>>LIESYL FRANZ: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to respond to your question that I think I would support shorter sections for the main sessions to allow for -- well, retaining the attention span of folks throughout the session. Not including report outs from previous -- from workshops, per one of my comments in the February meeting. Having done one myself, I can -- I guess I can implicate myself by saying it is quite deadly to the conversation. And just noting that the format will have to be creative in order to allow it to be interactive and meet the criteria of being trans -- of having translation provided and transcription provided. Means to me that it would be great if it had general relevance to the IGF subjects, not discrete narrow ones.
So I'm not sure what that means for the six existing themes, but -- and I wish I could be more creative on the spot about how to address my recommendation. But I think 90 minutes is a good length for that kind of session.
And I hope it also enables there to be more workshops generally per the conversation we had earlier this morning
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Now I'm not sure whether it's Bill or Milton. Both together. Bill. Okay.
>>BILL DRAKE: We were going to sing in 2-part harmony.
I strongly support 90 minutes, changing topics, hot topics, new stuff, not the old topics recycled. More to a specific point, how does it end up happening that we end up with crazy panels? People who have not been part of the planning process may not understand. I mean, for example in Baku, I comoderated with Chris Disspain a CIR main session with nine people in it. People said to me why the hell did you have nine people?
Well, because, when you get a group together and you say okay, we need a government person, somebody says, "Well, you can't just have an industrialized country government person. You also need a developing country government person. Wait. You also need somebody from a country that takes a different portion on this." So you end up with three government people. And then you have to have one for each stakeholder group. And then within those stakeholder groups there's contention. So you end up with a kind of process where people start -- and we're spending so much time and energy trying to load up these things with a perfect balance, political balance of all the interests, that you end up with unworkable mess.
And then, in other workshop plannings I've seen, people were just kind of filling slots. You know, like, oh, you know, we've got this topic. You know, we're going to do IG for D. Who could we get who could say something from private sector? And it becomes a kind of random process, which leads people back to familiar names all the time. So I think we should try to move away from this as much as possible. And, having moderated discussions perhaps with some -- four general questions that will structure the debate announced in advance and time allocation for them or something, anything that would get us away from having to spend all of this time constructing these panels would be really, really useful, I think.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes, it's the search for balance. Balance in all directions. It would be much easier to do without panelists for many of these sessions. And, as Olga reminded, we have done so in the past. And combined also with Paul's suggestion that we actually invite people to send us that interest to speak as well in advance also of the main session. I think that would be a useful way of approaching it. Do I sort of sense -- I see Patrick and -- sorry, okay.
I didn't get that you wanted to speak both. Please, Milton.
>>MILTON MUELLER: We are not joined at the hip. This is Milton Mueller, Syracuse University. I want to go back to what the speaker from Finland said. We need to completely rethink what we do in main session. You're still thinking of them as large scale workshops. I think that model can be tweaked, but it has been tried and has consistently produced some interesting discussions to be sure but I think you're just completely missing the opportunity that you have, which is to bring people together to actually have an output that they can agree on. That's what you should be doing with the main sessions. You should be trying to have a specific proposition or draft opinion. And then get people to see if they can agree on it. And maybe that's too radical to completely turn all the main sessions into that in the upcoming one. But maybe we can do it, one, on a trial basis with this question of the role of governments or multi -- and multistakeholderism. And we can try to come up with, you know, documents that feed into that. So it would be a process. It wouldn't just be a show. But I think -- I fundamentally think that anything short of that, ultimately, is just wasting the incredible concentration of interest and talent that you have in an IGF. And it just -- the workshop model -- there's plenty of opportunities for workshops. Big and small. Why not do something really different with the main sessions where you're actually drawing on the resources that are there. And that's also a solution to the balance problem that Bill mentioned. If there's 16 different positions, then 16 different people get up and talk, you know, in the open forum.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Mark. United Kingdom.
>>MARK CARVELL: Yes, thank you very much. I'm very much in line with that view from Dr. Mueller. I've described workshops that have an objective in trying to have a package of options and so on. So you have to allow time for that sort of final step. What is in that package. So three hours is an endurance test, certainly. Two hours plus, I think you need some time for this kind of substantial session in the IGF. Otherwise, I think the criticism of the IGF that it doesn't produce immediate outputs will persist. And that's all to our disadvantage and doesn't do justice really to the expertise that's coming together in the IGF. So, you know, three hours maybe not. But an extended session. And you have to allow that extra time. Maybe it's half an hour or something after a break for capturing the outputs.
My second point is, if this session allows sufficient interaction, you obviate the need to load up the panel in a way that's been described as very disadvantageous, which large panels are going to be very bad news. You can have a small panel. But, if you maximize the interaction so you get all inputs, all different views coming in, then I think you can successfully obviate that overloading risk. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Economic Commission for Africa?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Economic Commissioner for Africa.
>> UNECA: Thank you, Chair. I'll go for the main sessions, and I think that the main sessions should be discussing issues that are of general interest to most stakeholders. In this connection, I think we should use the IGF main teams on discussion issues, and if we choose one, I think we should go also for the others. The objective will be to discuss general substantive issues of concern to all and to have at the end maybe good or equal understanding of the main issues before going to the workshops. And also one of the objectives would be to get stakeholders to agree on some type of common outputs during these main sessions. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Zahid.
>>ZAHID JAMIL: Thank you. I just wanted to say that the idea of three or four questions, as Bill put it, was excellent. And I believe that we have a workshop's requirements requirement for a background paper or discussion paper. That could be something that could be out there. I don't think it should be opinions necessarily because it could be divisive -- divisive, sorry, and have different views. And on the point of the three hours, it's possible to maybe take the three hours, split them up into three different sections across one large topic. So for instance, if there was a topic on cyber security, legal frameworks and it had sort of sections on spam, one hour on spam, one hour say on legislation, one hour on hacking or something of that nature. That way you have a broad team but you have different sections and they divide into three parts. That could be useful depending on what sort of things we come up with eventually. Thanks.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. And Subi.
>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: While recognizing the need for outcome in main sessions, I just had a small submission. Sometimes we do tend to forget the metaphor of the journey. I just wanted to put it out there that sometimes it's also important to ask and raise the right question and not just to get policy or recommendation and outcome from the main sessions because they are of wide variety and generic interest. Also, on the question of innovation, a lot of workshops are integrating social media feeds so a (indiscernible) as well as integration of Facebook and other social media platforms in main session, I don't even know if that's a possibility but if one could explore looking at those opinions as well. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Do we have a remote participant? Yes. Farzi, please.
>>FARZI BADII: (Reading remote intervention.) Thank you, Marcus. We have intervention from Marilia Maciel. Here is my comment to the on-site participants. There should be a space in the agenda in which the facilitators of the main issue areas, example a critical Internet resources access, et cetera, have the acc -- have the chance to share the broad agreements that may have emerged from workshops, two or three points from each workshop. It is not a reporting back from workshop sessions. It is a useful way to implement the suggestion that has emerged from discussions in CSTD working groups in IGF improvements. So if main sessions will have 90 minutes then maybe we should have another 60 minutes on the agenda for that. Thank you very much.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Tero.
>>TERO MUSTALA: Just to continue a bit about the main sessions. First, if we think about -- or consider the different titles or so, I would encourage us to think for the main session title something which is relevant right now or this year. And I think one example of that is the Brazilian paper, whatever the right name is, it doesn't matter. But that is something we didn't discuss as such last year and I think naturally it would continue. But it came up this year, and for that reason I would encourage people to think in a way similar topics which are more or less hot right now and they would then in a way be the right titles for at least some of the main sessions. Not just repeating old titles or areas as has been the practice, at least for some time.
Then another point actually is that the relationships between the main sessions and the workshops, I think it could -- they could be used in two directions. Either by starting with a main session and then continuing dealing with the same issues in some numbers of workshops to larger detail from -- or from different point of view or so on, and also, the other way around, so that first there would be some workshops and then, if feasible, some kind of summary session perhaps in good situation gathering the opinions and possibly making some conclusions. So we should be flexible with this interaction. And I think it really could be -- would be possible to do it in both ways, depending on the subject and maturity of the subject. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Izumi.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you. And sorry for taking too many times as a MAG member. I really want to listen as well. But I cannot but say --
[ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>IZUMI AIZU: It will be hosting in Bali is Asia-Pacific, and while I agree that making 90-minute slot may be very efficient, quite a few Asian people, unlike me, hesitate to take the floor quite often when Americans jump in and start dialogue. Believe it or not. It's very difficult to intervene unless you feel comfortable with. In Azerbaijan, in India, which is another part of Asia-Pacific although India has some different attitudes.
[ Laughter ]
But remember in the main session they prepared all the written form small papers. Many staffs were walking around and collecting all the written comments or contributions, and there are two or three people like Adam Peake and others, Avri maybe, reading these questions and trying to organize in line with the flow of the theme of discussions and handing it to the two moderators. And while I wanted to say -- take the floor that time, I was not given the floor, but that's another thing. It worked fairly well for those who are not too comfortable in just spontaneously speaking up. So I'm not saying that all the workshops -- I mean the main sessions should be in the same format, but I think we should be mindful of the potential audiences outside of a MAG or even those who are here, and I will work on that.
Similarly, in Baku, I was one of the poorly organized main sessions organizers, together with a few of us
[ no audio ] very few MAG members in my group really were active. We had to do a lot of work within very few members. I wanted to have some nomad members to join and to organize the workshops, whether it be consider this time or not. I think if -- if so needed, I think it should be also implemented.
And finally, the setup -- the physical setup of the room of the main session was so grand, so large. The podium was very high and there's a big distance between the panel members and the audience, like ten meters plus. I was carrying my -- the wireless microphone myself and went down to the floor, asked them to speak up. Otherwise, it didn't happen. And the main session was about 40 people as a total. So it was so unfortunate. And so these different areas should be all considered if we are to make it live, interactive, meaningful, and output-oriented session. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Last speaker on my list. Patrick.
>>PATRICK RYAN: Thank you, Patrick Ryan. One of the big challenges that we're discussing here is to what extent do we be prescriptive but also still allow for the opportunity for creative innovation in workshop style so that we can develop the IGF in a way that is experimental and let's things happen. At the same time, there are a couple of things that I think are very important. In the case of a 90-minute workshop, I do believe that we should set up some strong guidelines that -- try to limit, to the extent we can, the ability for panelists to continue talking. How many workshops have we been in where panelists get all the way to the end and just as a matter of pro forma so okay, we're going to leave the last five minutes for questions. Nobody has a chance to ask questions, and it's really a shame from the point of view of actual participation in the IGF. At the university we have this -- we have this problem as well. At that time university that I'm affiliated with, one of the ways that we get around that is to -- to sort of somewhat address Izumi's concern as well, is to, you know, make sure that the first few questions are asked by students and students are really given the student, exclusive opportunity during the first part to ask questions. Now, I don't know how that would work in -- you know, in an IGF format. It's not like we can call on participants in the same way that a professor can call on students. Yet at the same time, figuring out a way to encourage this participation and to enable the voices to be heard, particularly from the many people in the audience, it's not necessarily a cultural problem. It's just have a -- you know, don't have a type A personality like me and others do to really get them to take the microphone and speak up. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes, we had I think a very good discussion, reaffirming what we already discussed in Paris, that we need to be (indiscernible). However, we also heard there was a view expressed that we should stick to the old themes. And we heard others who said that there's not a -- automatically a dichotomy between the two as the more focused framing of the themes would allow to dig deeper. But this is something we have to pursue further tomorrow and the day after. Clearly I think the key issue is how do we link the workshops to the main session. And I think the idea of having these round tables where all the workshops with the similar theme come together has found much favor. The question is also could that be a main session dealing with the theme, picking up what Tero has said. You know, we can start a theme with a main session or we can also finish a theme with the main session and having it prepared by workshop. Also, I think the point Bill and Milton were making, that we can move further -- I'm not sure we are ready to do that with every theme, but I think clearly we should be ready to do that with what is termed the Brazilian proposal. Basically the roll of governments or enhanced cooperation. There I think I sense we do have -- we're moving toward a common understanding that we can actually move further on that one and produce some tangible, maybe, outcome.
We have not discussed at length the discussions on the possibility main theme and sub-themes of IGF 2013, but I made in my introductory remark, I highlighted the building bridges, which came up -- I think it was originally proposed by the European Commission and it found much favor in Paris. And building on the WTPF or the ITU used the same phraseology without actually having picked it up from us, they came to the same conclusion that time was ripe or it was necessary to build bridges, and I think it was our Chinese colleagues who also picked up on that. So I wonder whether this could really be a possible main theme. We don't have the time to discuss it now. We will have a reception afterwards where we can discuss it informally, and the MAG can obviously discuss that in the next two days. And that's the meeting that will be open. Sorry, I cannot stop -- open for discussion. I mean, this is basically more a question, but we had a lengthy discussion on possible themes, and so far to me the most promising, at least from the Chair reading, seems to be building bridges. But you may not think it's the best theme, but I think if you already have the European Union behind it, we have China behind it, that's already a good start, I think.
[ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Sorry.
>> So I was going to say, I had a different question. There are also going to be issues on the sub-themes. There's the main theme we just discussed. I'm not going to comment on that at all, that's final. It's just the sort of other main session themes that we need to also discuss.
Now, we haven't had an opportunity in the Open Consultation to discuss that. I'm just wondering does that -- that go straight into the MAG and do non-MAG members have an opportunity to, you know, comment, et cetera, on those sort of sessions?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: The MAG meeting will be open throughout, so we will have an opportunity to comment and -- usually we had a short theme and then a subheading for the overall theme. And this is something we need to send back to New York, that's necessary for convening the meeting. Some of the other details we can still sort out in an online process but this would be my hope, that we actually come up with a main theme. But yes, we will now conclude the discussion at this stage. I think it was a very good discussion, but we have the host, the Chairman of the European Broadcasting Union who is kindly hosting us would like to say a few words to us. And I think also Elia Armstrong from UNDESA will also then address us. Please, sir.
>>JEAN PAUL PHILIPPOT: Good afternoon. (speaking French) I would like to make my speech in French. We speak always about diversity and so I'm more confident in French. So if you can take your headphones, I think that the translation will be okay.
Mr. Chairman, my dear colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen in your various capacities, it's an honor for me and I am proud on behalf of the EBU to welcome you here and to host your work here in Geneva. I was given a long speech that was prepared for me on the contribution of EBU to the work of the IGF since its creation, and I'm just trying -- going to give you a summary and perhaps share with you some of our feelings and thoughts on this. We are partners in your work and have been so since you were established. And I think you were here four years already in September 2009. And for quite some time now we have been part and parcel of your multi-lateral reflection process in a bid to try to come up with a framework for governance in the cyberspace arena and on the Internet. And we have shared several values with you. And the first value is the virtue of multi-literalism. Our union, which is made up of members from 57 countries, is the expression of the virtues of this multi-literalism. With our colleagues from other broadcasting associations, we are represented through WBU, World Broadcasting Union. The diversity of the world of broadcasting and audiovisuals. Which represents the state organizations, private operators, all of whom are working for -- with various aims but in a media and audiovisual arena which is common to them all. As a professional union which brings together several scores of operators with varying sizes and origins we also believe in the virtues of in-depth dialogue and the ongoing search for consensus. I, myself, come from one country, Belgium, where the quest for consensus is a core virtue and a pedestal on which we have built a sovereign state, a democratic space, and a place of prosperity. In-depth dialogue, without any tabus, in a bid to understand each other and to properly gauge the expectations and concerns of each one is a foundation on which we can take constructive decisions that will promise a better future. And we, therefore, believe in the methods and process that you have been undertaking with all this energy here in IGF.
Our members, public broadcasters, are partners in your work because they are convinced of the need for your work and our members today are all creators and producers of content and as such, they innovate and create and make innovation and creativity the driving force of their work and the pedestal on which -- the driving force behind their teams. We have a whole range of rich and varied partners throughout the world and they're all concerned with protecting authors, protecting citizens. And it is on these two pillars that our members today look forward to investing and developing the digital world. Our members are also fully convinced of the wealth that lies in the diversity and we have approved a charter for public service operators last year in Strasbourg which considers diversity as one of the cardinal virtues of public service. And our members, finally, are fiercely and ferociously attached to the independence of their editorial teams and the freedom of expression. These are cardinal values on which we base our action and on which we also base our support for each one of our members. And it is in this spirit that we have been participating for many years now in the work of the IGF and it is in this spirit that today we function as enthusiastic members working alongside you in a bid to find solutions that can carry us forward.
However, as the head of a professional union, I am fully aware of how important dialogue and the search for consensus have no meaning unless we eventually take decisions. And whether we do so within our own organizations or within our professional union, if there is a debate that doesn't lead to any decisions or if there is a consensus which never leads to proposed action, this will eventually be nothing but a waste of time. And so, if knowledge, strength, and cooperation and taking into -- the specific advantages of each one are -- underpin the work and the values that you hold important, the obsessive search for decisions should drive us all.
Now, in the time that we will spend discussing this, the world of technology and science continues to advance. And in the time that we discuss -- hold our discussions, the business competition are also moving ahead. And as a public broadcaster today, I must note the huge gap between private operators and the public and government operators are -- is widening. This is a widening gap. And I think that the quest for a solution and quick responses are all the more important because the mechanisms that are concentrating the industry and taking action and adopting stances in our business world are becoming clearer and clearer. So this is not an attempt to pit each of us against each other, but to take into account the need to arrive at conclusions and to come up with recommendations. Otherwise, if we don't, we will see information technologies slip from our grasp. So we are, therefore, among people -- and I know you're all attached to this objective -- which would recommend that this workshop will arrive at decisions this year or in two years. We have deadlines in the agenda, we have deadlines which have been recalled and the need for decisions has been recalled last week at a meeting of the ITU, so we therefore cannot simply discuss and exchange views. We must move towards recommendations and action.
I'd like to close by giving you a quick historical reminder. 2,300 years ago the city of Sidon was taken by Carthage and the city of Sidon called on Rome to have Rome support them. And the Senate in Rome continued to discuss and talk while the city fell into the hands of the Carthaginians. And there is a famous Roman expression that came out of this. While they were deliberating in Rome Sidon was conquered.
I would like to see your work not take 2,300 years later, the same turn that the -- that they did in Rome. As a representative of public European operators we will be alongside you, as far as we can. We will contribute to your quest for concrete solutions and recommendations. And once they have been approved there will be a great deal of work ahead of you to make sure that they are actually viable and implementable for everyone. Thank you. All the best in your work.
[ Applause ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Chairman. We fully appreciate the support that you are offering us. And for the wise words and counsel that you have shared with us. Yes, Elia Armstrong from UNDESA would also like to say a few words. Please.
>>ELIA ARMSTRONG: Thank you, Mr. Philippot, for that very interesting presentation and for your warm welcome. I feel more at ease in English, so I'll continue in English.
Good afternoon. My name is Elia Armstrong. I am chief of the development management branch of the division for public administration and development management in, of course, U.N. department of economic and social affairs. I am probably better known as a colleague and associate of Mr. Vyatcheslava Cherkasov who normally represents the U.N.
I wanted to thank very much EBU for hosting this session and also to IGF for having prepared the program and also to ISOC for the various hospitality measures. This is my first IGF gathering, and I must say I can definitely see the advantages of multistakeholder consultations. It has been very, very interesting indeed. And I very much look forward to having a very interesting session in October in the beautiful island of Bali, as we were shown by the IGF hosts. Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. Just a short logistical note. So tomorrow then, as we have interpretation from 9:30 to 12:30, I think we maybe better have all the other meetings as pre-meetings. That was one starting at 8:30 and the other one at 9:30. I can't remember which one is which. Is Peter here?
[ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>> U.S.: He had set his for 9:00.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: No, sorry, we don't have interpretation tomorrow. We start at 9:00 as MAG and then stop at 10:00 and we have the breakout meetings to deal with enhanced cooperation and IGF improvement. Okay. 9:00 tomorrow. Is that okay? We meet here, and that is basically the meet-and-greet of the old MAG members and new MAG members but it's an open meeting. Whoever wants to be here is welcome to be here. So remains only to remind you that there will be a reception and that will be in the top floor of the EBU, and so we can all move upstairs and have a little bit of social interaction. Thank you very much. And I adjourn the meeting. Thank you.
[ Applause ]