22 May 2013
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Good morning. May I ask you to take your seats so we can get started? Good morning. Our honorary chair may not have heard that we start at 9:00. As we said on the program, it's 9:30, but let's get started. Oh, they're here. They're coming. Let's get started. We said this would basically be mainly a session to introduce the new members -- the new MAG members and give them an opportunity to present themselves, to share their vision of the IGF and their ambition and their hopes and whatever they have to say. I wonder, could we just make the identification easier, would you mind if I ask you to stand up, the new members, the new MAG members? So that we have a -- get a visual?
[ Laughter ]
Right? Yes? Okay. So we have one, two, three, four, five are present. Yes. Welcome.
[ Applause ]
So who with would like to jump into the cold water and be the first to take the floor and tell us a bit about him or herself and what their expectations are, their hopes and their vision also for the IGF? I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but I think everybody would agree of the new members who say a few words. Otherwise we take alphabetical order.
[ Laughter ]
Volunteers? Subi, please.
>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Can we do this sitting? Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Subi Chaturvedi, and I come from India. I teach new media technology, journalism, communication, and Internet Governance at the university, and I run a foundation called Media for Change which looks at building bridges, so to speak, between governance, people, and policy. And it looks at using media to articulate issues of concern. For a developing country like India, access and diversity precedes issues of challenges, change, and is the heart of almost every debate.
The Internet is something that we've not had a relationship that's very transient. It's at the core of things. It is empowering conversations and opinions. For me, the IGF at Baku last year was my first experience of being part of this wonderful universe and it has been a (indiscernible). I've tried to seek order in chaos. It's been a wonderful, wonderful learning experience to me. As far as my wishing for the IGF, one of the tasks -- and I'm thankful to Markus and Chengetai for doing the orientation for us yesterday. I heard from a lot of members on the MAG that this was really the first time that such an initiative happened. For me it was a wonderful initiation into understanding the institutional history, practices, and what is really expected of us.
Broadly, I do understand that we're supposed to represent our stakeholders, the regions that we belong to. We're here in our individual capacity and that is what I'll endeavor to do, to feed into the MAG conversations and dialogues and debates that are happening in my region. Not just from my stakeholder community, because there are not very many from academia, media, or Civil Society but also from governments in India and largely to feed into conversations from developing countries. And I will at times dig in and at times humbly submit that this is where we're at and these are the issues that we most care about from our region, our stakeholder community. And the IGF, I think, is truly -- and I can't say that enough or many number of times at the cost of being repetitive -- is truly inclusive, bottom-up and multistakeholder. As a platform I'm yet to see a room which allow a new member, someone who's just come on board, so to speak, to articulate their opinions, ask questions, stupid questions, any questions. I think it's been a phenomenal platform and we will do our utmost to make this sustainable, inclusive, and also make sure there is diversity of voices in the room.
So that is really what my vision for the IGF is, to make sure we impact and change lives, bring in more people, and bring in more opinions. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much for this. We also have, I think, new members online so of course we also would give them the opportunity to come in. And I saw right at the back, there's another new member, our colleague from Russia, Igor. Maybe you can quickly stand up so people can see you if they haven't talked to you yet? Well, I mean, just -- we'll give you the opportunity to present yourself in any case. Who would like to take the next -- Susan, please.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Good morning, everybody. My name is Susan Chalmers. I'm the policy lead at Internet New Zealand. I'm a relative newcomer to this space. My background is in law and before that music, actually. But since I've been with Internet NZ I've really developed an appreciation for this entire space and just how it's every single day that I'm -- I'm here, I learn something new. And I care very deeply about the Internet and how we can create a sustainable Internet for future generations. And while we -- I do -- I am here, we are all here in our personal capacities, I have to say that the way I feel about the Internet and the way I feel about the IGF is very deeply inspired by Internet NZ and our mission, which is to protect and promote an open Internet. And so that really does inform my thinking of this space. And I just -- I'm looking forward to working with everybody and to getting to know the space better and to producing a very successful IGF in Bali. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Who next? Please. Mr. Chen.
>>HONG BING CHEN: Good morning, other colleagues. I'm so happy to be present at this meeting and to be a new member of MAG. As we know, in my mind, that Internet is the greatest invention in human history. It is not a technological invention but more than that. It is -- it creates a new world for all the humanity and everybody can benefit from that. They have -- it has changed all the working style and living style of every -- every person, and I think its governance is of critical importance for future development of everybody, including all the -- all kinds of entities and governments or countries. So there are so many issues involved in Internet Governance, but unfortunately every year we only have around one week's time to get together to discuss such broader issues. So I think my purpose or my vision for IGF is, I want to make it more efficient, make it a more open and effective platform for all the stakeholders to communicate with each other. Thus through our discussions and communications we can share our good thoughts on how we can make an Internet governed in a better way. How can make it benefit everybody. Benefit more people. So my idea is -- or my vision is to, through my efforts I think and of course with the cooperation with my colleagues, I want to make the IGF more efficient and more effective. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. Who next? Patrick.
>>PATRICK RYAN: Thank you. This is Patrick Ryan here. I think most of you all have had an opportunity to chat with me at some point. I'm happy to be sitting here as a peer with you all as a MAG member. Thank you for welcoming into your community. My interests are, of course, in supporting the multistakeholder model to the extent as I can. Its openness and inclusion and transparency are very important to me.
Projects that I'm interested in undertaking, as many of you know, include the funding model of the IGF. And I'll sound a little bit like a broken record about this until it gets fixed. So let's try to get that -- let's try to hopefully make that happen fairly quickly. But, you know, I just truly believe that we -- it's in all of our interests to make the funding opportunities for the IGF much stronger so there's a lot more support for Chengetai and that the IGF becomes a sustainable forum for the future. And I'm also interested in doing what we can and participating in groups to make sure that we have the -- the information that's shared at the IGF, the archives, the transcripts, the videos, all of the wealth of information open, available, and searchable for everybody in the community, whether they're researchers or new participants and relatively new entrants like myself into this space. And so thank you all. And I look forward to working with you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Who next? We haven't heard from Igor and Fiona. Fiona, would you like to -- you're new to the MAG but you're not new to the business.
>>FIONA ALEXANDER: That is correct. So some people I think I haven't met before. But my name is Fiona Alexander. I've been working in and around the space for about 13 years now. Our office in NTIA is involved in all these different sets of issues at the IGF, at ICANN, OECD, APEC, ITUC, Intel, all of them. And then I've had the pleasure of being at every IGF since the first one and watching the evolution of the IGF from the somewhat surprised organizational challenges in Athens to the most recent successes that the IGF has had. And I think from my perspective I'm really interested in seeing how the issues that Patrick was raising about sustainability and funding, but also how you take the IGF to the next level of what it could be for people going forward. And one of the things I'm actually very concerned about is making sure we bring more people into this, not just in terms of replacing us and replacing the institutional knowledge we have but making it more open to new people so they can show up and actually participate and understand it.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Can I ask you, Igor, to present yourself?
>>IGOR MILASHEVSKY: Thank you. My name is Igor Milashevsky. I'm from minister of telecom and mass media of Russia. I believe the IGF is the real multistakeholder platform. I couldn't call it organization. It's bigger. And I -- I was slightly involved into the work of ITU, ICANN, OECD, I mean the committee of OECD, and I believe that the real multistakeholder would -- model could be realized in the cooperation in different international organizations. And we recently discussed the recent contribution which is about the role of governments. I feel lack of similar contribution from -- I think we really need to define the roles of all major stakeholders. So first time in MAG. Very impressed with openness and quality of discussions. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. I think now we have heard from all new MAG members in the room. And we have some remotely. Farzaneh, can you bring them on?
>>FATIMA CAMBRONERO: Hello, everyone. Can you hear me?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, we can hear you.
>>FATIMA CAMBRONERO: Good morning for everyone. This is Fatima Cambronero from Argentina. Very early here. I am honored to be part of the MAG as a Civil Society representative. I (indiscernible). I am really happy to working with you. Sorry for not being there. I didn't get (indiscernible). I am a lawyer and I am involved with Internet government needs, a professor (indiscernible). And (indiscernible). I am looking forward to working with all of the others there. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. And I think you must have got up very, very early in Argentina. It's, what, five hours time difference. It is very early. Yes. Thank you for that effort. Very much appreciated. Anybody else? No. Well, I open the floor. Would any of the "old" in quotes, quotation marks. The sitting previous MAG members want to say a few words to that? I think we have a great intake of new members.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: [ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: All right. We have a new remote one? And who is it?
[ Speaker off microphone. ]
>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Hello. Anybody hear me?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Good morning. Yes, we can hear you.
>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Good morning. I'm Kossi, I'm from Benin. Can I go?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, we can hear you.
>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Okay. As I say I'm Kossi Amessinou. I'm IT manager of the Ministry of Development (indiscernible). I've been working in Internet Governance since 2010. It's a pleasure for me to be a MAG member. Is it possible for me in that diverse area to speak our national language, too? I mean, in English is not naturally for me. Maybe in French I'll be -- I'll be --
>>MARKUS KUMMER: We do not have interpretation, but please --
>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Okay. Okay. Only in English. Okay. I see. No problem.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: You can also add a few sentences in French. There are a few of us here in the room that understand French, and for the scribes, it's Kossi Amessinou from Benin. They didn't understand your name. But please carry on. Yes, actually, why don't you speak in French, and I try to make a sequential interpretation into English.
>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Okay. (indiscernible) After the discussion I can do my proposal (indiscernible). Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: [ speaking French ]
>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Okay. Okay. [ speaking French ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: [ speaking French ] Kossi has been dealing with Internet Governance since 2010. He is manager for IT in the ministry of development and economic analysis and prospective of Benin. And he looks at the challenges and the -- what the Internet can do to the development of his country and he very much emphasizes the importance of multistakeholder cooperation, of working with Civil Society, with business, that the government alone cannot do it to tackle the developmental challenges. And he is happy to be in the MAG and he hopes also that that work will help him in his work at home.
Now, I don't know -- the French speakers in the room might be able to add a bit more -- whether I've done justice to his intervention, but I did my best. And thank you, once again, Kossi, and we look forward to meeting you in person. Do we have any other participants? Not at this stage, there's no other online participant.
Are there any reactions from the other MAG members? Yes, Theresa, please.
>>THERESA SWINEHART: Sorry. I'm not a new MAG member, but I just wanted to say, I'm a little uncomfortable with the term "new" and "learning," which we heard over different times, because actually there's really not learning about different things but it's more about new contributions and more contributions to all of the effort and to the work. And as we heard from many of the participants who are joining the MAG, they've been engaged in bringing new and different perspectives. So I think maybe we can lose the "learning" term and really look at engaging with more perspectives from a much wider range of participants who have been following this issue and doing quite a bit in different forums. So I just wanted to raise that as maybe a terms for operation moving forward.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. No, that point is well-taken. New versus old doesn't work. I mean, it's maybe incoming members, but in any case, they're all MAG members and they will all participate as equals and we can learn from them. They have their different experience to add to our work, and I think I'm very impressed, for one, with all they have to bring to the table.
Are there other general comments of welcome to our new colleagues? Well, if not, maybe I can bring up some issues that came up yesterday when we had the session, the introductory session which wasn't our idea, actually. It was done at the request of MAG members who said they would have liked to have that kind of introduction session just to know some of the basics. And one issue that came up, whether or not the MAG list should be public. In the past it was not. It was not made public. The archives we have made the e-mails I think in a sanitized version, made them public. But also, what then our colleagues, Elia made the point, there is actually a document issued by the Secretary General of the United Nations for all kind of expert groups of the U.N. that have a Code of Conduct, and we will share that of course with the MAG members. We never had one but on the whole the tone on the list was always very civil. Some lists can get ugly, but I think our list never got ugly. And personally, I would not have a problem with making the archives public. When we started we had more of I think -- was more emphasis on closed sessions of the MAG and now I think the tendency is towards openness, transparency, and a question, as I said, came up whether the archives should be made public and while we don't have to take a decision right now, but I just would like to put it before you, whether anybody has any objection. Bill, you had a comment.
>>BILL DRAKE: I don't -- having only been on the MAG for a year I don't know what the discussions in all the previous years were like and whether there was any discussion of individuals like whether so-and-so is right for a panel and those kinds of things. If there's anything like that, that's slightly awkward to make public. If there isn't that kind of stuff, I -- if it's just a matter of principles that we are following and doing the programming, et cetera, for me, I would think being open is perfectly fine. I would certainly, in any event, like it if the MAG were able to see the previous years of MAG discussions because we have a lack of institutional memory and probably reinvent a lot of wheels because we weren't aware of what was discussed three years ago, four years ago, so on.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, I think Chengetai can comment on that, but we were always very aware of the sensitivity of discussing individuals. And I think these discussions always took place of list, on panels. But Chengetai, you would like to comment.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. The archives from the entire MAG list are available on the site for members of the MAG list. I can give you instructions on how to access them, if you so wish. But it's mailman, so if you know mailman you can do it.
>>BILL DRAKE: I know I'm not the only person who doesn't know this.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yeah, I can send it out to you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Ayesha and then Chris and Aizu.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Yes. Having been on the MAG several years now my goal is to make sure we have as much participation on the MAG lists as possible. So I guess I would like to know from other MAG members whether opening the list in that way, whether making it public in that way, would deter them from participating in the discussions. To be frank, I mean, not a lot of discussions happen on the list and in fact, I think that should be one of the things we continue to work on, is to use that list more substantively. But again, before I say whether I think it's a good idea or not, I really want to know across stakeholder groups whether this would be a chilling effect of some kind and whether people are comfortable and that would inform my viewpoint on this. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, I think for those who have not been part of this since the beginning, it's worth remembering, to begin with I think we operated a lot on the chat models rule and the list also was supposed to be that. What we made available was without names and a slightly sanitized version of the discussion. But we have moved away from the chat models rule. I mean, we still have the possibility of going into closed session, but as this meeting has shown, in the end, we thought okay, we open also this bit. There are a few non-MAG members in the room, and that's fine. But we thought originally it would be more of a private event meet-and-greet between sitting and incoming members. Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thanks, Markus. In principle I don't have any difficulty with having the list open, but I don't think you can open the archive because the list -- people contributed to the list as of up until today with the understanding that the list wasn't going to be public. So unless you ask for everybody's consent, I don't think you can open up -- you can open it from now, if we decide to do so. But historically I think you have to maintain the rules that we all agreed, unless we all agree to change them.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: It's good to have a lawyer on board. It's a valid point. And Chengetai just made the same remark, we can open it if we all agree from now on going forward. But you are right, of course, if you make it retroactive you would need to have the consent of everybody involved, and that might be a lengthy business to get that. And it would need one person to say no, that will be blocked. But that's a valid point.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: [ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, that's the same. Chengetai asked the question about the archives, whether they should be -- they are available to MAG members, they have access to it. But non-MAG members, they are closed. Yes, Marilyn but this time -- not yet, not yet. Please patient. This time reverse the order. MAG members first. Izumi, Mervi and Fiona.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you. I was asked by non-MAG members who are not here via e-mail to please ask to open up the public archive of the MAG list. I agree with that. And I have a question that -- because long time ago it was -- archives are also sanitized version were open. So I listen to what Chris said. Was there any decision by the former MAG members not to open up at all with the change modality or it just happened like that. And okay, I stop there.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yeah, I think it was a tacit understanding. As Chris made the point, people contributed in the knowledge this would not be public. So we do have, I think, a legal problem if we throw everything open without asking people concerned. But I mean, I think going forward is no problem. It's just a question of the archive. Yes.
>>IZUMI AIZU: If I may, the last year we had working groups on the workshop organizational main session as a breakout group and that list has been closed at all and because we did exchange a lot of names and who could be a good candidate. But to the extent I know in the main list, first of all, discussions are not much at all and I didn't see much sensitive discussions at all. So well, of course, if in the new round, if we all agree, then I would like to really see this to be public. And still, we can maintain some closed meeting -- list for other purposes if we can. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, you can always take a discussion off list anyway, if you have a particularly sensitive issue. And I think most people were concerned, have always been concerned, when talking about individuals for a panel, for instance. That is sensitive, and you don't want to put off people by doing that. Fiona.
>>FIONA ALEXANDER: Thanks, Markus. So just for full disclosure, I'm the one that actually raised this in the newcomers orientation yesterday as to why this wasn't the case. I think one of the reasons I was interested in doing this is, as we were looking at how to prepare and as we were sort of shifting to come on to the MAG in this role, we weren't aware of what was happening and it was hard to sort of understand things. So to facilitate outsiders and others who aren't sitting in this room's participation, I think it's really important that the discussions and what happening in this room is open. There's also, I think, when this was set up seven years ago and understanding the sensitivities and the choices made at the time on Chatham House Rules, the world has shifted since then. And I think there's a new standard of openness and transparency that's being asked of all in Internet policy, and I think this group needs to live up to the standard as well.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. I think we should be in the forefront of everything. We should be trend setters and not follow trends.
Hang on, what is the order? Mervi, I think, first, and then Paul.
>>MERVI KULTAMAA: Personally, I'm for the openness and support opening the archives as well. I just wanted to remind everybody that in the report, in the recommendations coming from the working group on improvements to the IGF, one of the recommendations says that it is important that the MAG has clear terms of reference. So I wonder if we can touch this issue as well when we start to think about perhaps drafting these terms of reference. That would be a good point where we can actually evaluate all aspects of the work of the IGF and touch this issue as well.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes. And then there are also the U.N. guidelines for experts we need to take into account. I mean, obviously, we cannot set terms of reference that will be in contradiction with U.N. guidelines on that. Paul.
>>PAUL WILSON: I'd just quickly like to support what Chris said. I don't think you can open up an archive which was created by people both with an understanding of confidentiality and also based on the style and content that people would post. It's different in a closed list if there was an understanding it was open.
I would like to have access to that archive, as a MAG member, assuming that that is an understood thing by everyone. And, if possible, it would be really nice to have it searchable. There's a lot to troll through there. And so searching would be really, really handy.
I think we need a closed list as well. If we're going to open up the MAG list, I think we need a closed list. And I think that should be transparent that there is a closed list and it's available. I think taking things off list in an ad hoc way doesn't help transparency. And, I mean, we don't have the e-mail addresses of everyone who we might want to post. So I would suggest we actually make it quite explicit that there is a closed MAG list that is used minimally as necessary. Thanks.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, that would be basically, we have not said we would never have closed meetings. We have this possibility. And that would be the equivalent, I think, to a closed meeting on the Chatham House Rules. But I think my reading of the room is that the tendency is rather towards openness as the default principle and the closed session closed list should really be more under exceptional circumstances. And, of course, when organizing sessions, when you discuss the quality of possible speakers, you definitely don't want to do that on an open list. Nobody wants to do that. But in the past I think we have tried to do much of that actually person to person, not to have anything in writing, as this can be --
>>PAUL WILSON: I was responding, I guess, to something you said about taking discussions off list, which is always an option that it shouldn't be seen as a default, I think, because it's so ad hoc. So, if we're opening the list, then we should maintain a separate closed list, I think. Thanks.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: As a possibility. Okay. Chen, please.
>>HONGBING CHEN: Three points first. Personally, I think it's absolutely necessary and appropriate for the current incumbent MAG members to have access to the archives.
Second point is just to seek your clarification. Is there any formal decision in previous MAG meetings that our discussions will not be disclosed in future? Is there such kind of decision or, I mean, expressed?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: It was the common understanding.
>>HONGBING CHEN: Understanding. There's no such kind of decision or --
>>MARKUS KUMMER: I think you could argue it was a consensus view that -- we never said should it be open or not. We never discussed that, because it was clear that it would not be open. And there's a -- well, as Chris said and Paul confirmed, it was people entered the list with the understanding it would be a private and closed list. But to -- maybe Chengetai can -- the first question is the archive is accessible to MAG members, and you will send out instructions on how to access the archives. Ana.
>>HONGBING CHEN: Sorry. The third point is in my understanding that, when we are here to have a meeting, are we making decisions in the capacity of an institute, as an organization? Or we are making decisions in -- only in the capacity of our personal capacity? Because, if we consider we are making decisions or we are doing our work in the name of the organization, any discussion or the ideas expressed by the attendants, by the participants will go into public. And then it's not a private property. I mean, in this sense, it is -- there's no need -- legally speaking, there's no need to seek the consent of the speaker. Because it's already in public domain. I mean -- among, within the MAG group. So I think, first of all, we have to decide the statements made by participants is the private property of the person, per se, or has already gone into the public domain within the MAG group. I think, if we have such kind of common understanding, then it will be much easier for us to solve this problem.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, MAG members serve in their personal capacity. But I think -- I'm not a lawyer myself. This is a very -- a question I think that would need some further scrutiny. But my understanding is either the meeting is closed or it's open. There we have a lawyer, Chris, please.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: So I am a lawyer myself. And it -- you can make it as complicated as you choose to. But, if you want to keep it really simple, historical agreements continue unless people agree to change them. And, whether it's written agreement or a tacit understanding or the facts of life were that the list was closed, end of story unless we all agree to open it.
Going forwards, simply put, if this room agrees to have an open list, then it's an open list. If it agrees to have a closed list, it's a closed list. It's as simple as that, and it's not helpful to go into more detail than that.
For what it's worth, I have no problem with the list being open. I would have the problem with the archive being open unless I had the time and energy to go through it and make sure that I haven't been rude about anybody. But, given that the chances are that I have, I'll just say no.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Thank you. That was very helpful. Ana?
>>ANA NEVES AMOROSO: Thank you. And good morning.
Well, I just would like to echo what Chris said. And, besides the legal point, I think there's an ethical point here. So I think that we are for the openness. But, regarding the history, I think that we should be good. Closed. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Baher.
>>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Markus. I, too, am for the opening the list for, you know, the archives for the public. Just thinking about what Paul Wilson said about having another closed list as opposed to taking some discussions off list, I'm not quite sure if that would be a sort of good -- you know, mechanism. I am concerned that it might discourage people from taking any discussions public. And they would tend to use the closed lists more than the open one. So I think, for the sake of transparency, if the group agreed, okay, we better make the archives public, then I don't think we should create a new closed list for members. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yuliya. >>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you, Markus. I would like to continue on this open list. I do agree that maybe we should have an open list. And I do agree with Paul. Maybe for particular issues for when we organize, like, plenaries and discuss sensitive issues like discussing the quality of candidates, et cetera, we will need a specific list, for example, for specific plenaries. I think it was done like this last year. But I'm not sure if it was an open or closed list. But maybe it would be easier to have a specific list where, for example, this plenary and another one people, you know, would have the -- maybe it would be easier to discuss, like, quality of candidates and which candidate we should invite or not. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Izumi.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you. I'd like to support what Mervi said in relation to the mailing list thing that one of the difficulties I had when I came as a new member last year was most of the things are not written. It's tacit things that I have to ask the mentors or whoever. It's much easier if there's at least certain minimal things be clearly identified and written. Maybe dummy's guide or basic rules or something like that so that we don't have to repeat that kind of process. That's about it.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Veronica.
>>VERONICA CRETU: Okay. Thank you, Chair. Veronica Cretu from Moldova, MAG member. It might take us a long time to reach consensus regarding opening up or not opening up what's on the list. I think there might be an alternative solution to that. If we are interested in reaching out to the communities and sharing about what's going on, I think it might be worth looking at having IGF monthly report cards that go out to the community at large sharing the key points that are being discussed on the list, the key deliberations, the key ideas. So this might be an alternative to opening up. Also another possibility is to move some of the discussions if we still want to go for open approach. There might be a possibility to move some of the discussions to the online interactive platforms. Well, Google drive or Google moderator, these are just some of the examples of the kind of platforms that can allow us take online those kind of discussions and get input from the community. I'm not insisting on those, but those are the kind of platforms that we can consider. So, again, looking at alternatives versus being careful about the sensitivity of the openness is something we have to take in consideration. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, in the past we have made discussions available but in an anonymized form. So the question is do we make it open as it is, or do we stick to past practice? Judy.
>>JUDITH OKITE: Thank you, Markus.
Two quick comments about the archives. I'm wondering whether we want the archives opened because there's a particular discussion that we want to follow in or a decision how it was made or we just want it open.
And then the second remark on whether the mailing -- the current mailing list should be open, I'm just wondering, at the end of the day, are we going to look at the discussion of whether this discussion is from a MAG member or this discussion is not from a MAG member, whether this one should be followed or this one should not be followed.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: The discussion started about transparency of our proceedings. And it's a fairly binary question. It's yes or no. And, obviously, we can't take other decisions to enhance our work. But Patrick?
>>PATRICK RYAN: Thank you, Markus. This is -- I know we're taking a lot of time with this discussion. It's a really important one, one that we talk a lot about offline. So it's worth, I think exploring this, and it's a really complicated one.
I have to tell you know that I'm all for the openness. And the more that we can bring sunlight to everything that we do, the better it is for the process.
At the same time, you know, I'm on a few academic listserves. And, as some of you may know, the academic community, professors are some of the most closed people that there are on the planet. And it's through those closed process that ideas are vetted, and ideas often are changed through that vetting process. And you only have the opportunity to expose yourself and to show that you're thinking about something if you're in a closed world. And so reconciling that is a really difficult thing to do.
I'm wondering if one of the ways to -- let me just pile on to Chris Disspain's comment earlier about the expectations that are said. For those of you who may have heard of Google buzz, if you change somebody's expectations about e-mail and their privacy after they're already set, you can get into a lot of trouble. So I am convinced, after speaking today, that there are a part of discussions that we need to keep relatively closed. There are civil society members that may not be able to feel safe even discussing their ideas on a public forum. But I also like the idea of Paul's suggestion of maybe, you know, doing a little bit of both. We can have an open discussion that people can subscribe to from here on forward. we're heading in the right direction. We're moving towards openness and transparency. It's still difficult to catch up with everything that's happened in the past, but we can set new standards for the MAG moving forward. And for those who want to participate in an open discussion, they can. And for those who may feel a need to remain in a closed world for a variety of reasons, whether they're government representatives or civil society representatives or companies that might may be saying something that they don't want public, I think we need to respect that as well. Figuring out a way to accommodate both those opportunities, I think, is important.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. And the Chatham House Rules was invented for that purpose. It allows people to speak freely. And, for those of you who are members of the working group on Internet governance, there were some government representatives there who made the point I can say this if it's in a closed setting; I cannot say this if it's in an open setting.
So I think it is important to encourage dialogue to allow people to say what they would not say in an open, completely transparent setting. The tendency is transparency everywhere. But I think there is merit in keeping a space where -- where there's a comfort zone for everybody to be able to say things they might not be able to say otherwise.
And, as we have this possibility for the MAG meeting -- I mean, for this morning's meeting there was really no need to have a closed meeting as there were really no secrets revealed. There was a meet and greet, and we discussed how to enhance transparency and that should be transparent. But, basically, we could have the same approach also for the list discussion and pick up on Paul's suggestion of the 2-list approach which you supported but make it transparent. Have somebody say there is an issue I would like to pursue in the closed list because it is sensitive for this or for that reason. So people know, okay, there's something happening and see how the discussion goes.
And we could even make what's happening on the closed list available in a sanitized version without revealing the identity of speakers or whatever. But my feeling is there's not general enthusiasm for making everything absolutely public and transparent. But, at the same time, I think most people will be comfortable with having most of their e-mails on an open list, as long as they have the possibility of having some discussions in a closed list. And I think the point was made by several colleagues that the especially sensitive issues talking about other people as speakers, you don't want to do that in a completely open and publicly accessible list.
But we are reaching our break point, and Marilyn has been waiting very patiently for making her comments. Please, Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Markus. My name is Marilyn Cade. I would like to ask a question for clarification, and then I will make a sort suggestion.
But, to preface my question, I personally found the strategy of offering a digest very, very helpful and useful. I may have been one of the only people who bothered to read it. I will say one other thing I note is sometimes we jump up and down in a corner about something and then we don't ourselves actually take advantage of the resource. But I did find it very helpful.
But I'm under the impression it disappeared. And it may be my own technological incapability, which means I'm wandering in the desert. So could I just ask -- due to resources we may not have been able to do it for a while, which is understandable. I just need to know if it's me or it's not there. And then I wanted to make a suggestion.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: It's not you. It's not there.
>>MARILYN CADE: Whew. So often it is me.
Here's my comment about the concern of -- in addition to the MAG, and the fact that the MAG members have accepted a role, an appointed role, a number of people from the community are as dedicated and spend as much time in support of the planning and support of the IGF as MAG members do. So i'm not making a comment about whether you open the MAG list or not. I'm making a comment about for the future.
Sometimes decisions are made by the MAG and there's not enough awareness of those decisions in time for some of the very active people to provide feedback to the MAG members.
So looking ahead, whatever you do about opening the MAG list, if we can just plan toward a sort of -- an announcement, an alert process. For instance, I'll use the scoring of workshops as an example because we spent so much time yesterday on debating whether six simultaneous events were enough. And I think there were many people here yesterday from the non-MAG members who were very concerned about the shrinking, perhaps, of the opportunities. So, looking ahead, regardless of what you do about opening the list, it's just a thought for looking for ways to call attention to the broader community of certain decisions at certain times. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. That's, I think, very much in line with what Veronica had suggested, basically, to enhance and amplify a little bit what's happening. Vladimir.
>>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you, Markus. Briefly, regarding the archives, definitely I think it would be not adequate to open the archives that already exist. Because the decision will be taken only now and people submitting their e-mails before did not know that. So I don't think this is a smart idea.
But, concerning the lists, I agree with most of the opinions that definitely we should have a closed environment as well or the possibility for the closed discussions as well. It's not about secrecy. It's about the easier way to reach the consensus, and it's a part of diplomacy which is not changing with social media and eTools something that has to exist.
But there are many other forms, as Veronica and many others mentioned. The reports which might come regularly from the IGF secretariat, the social media, the forum which we already have on the Web site which probably none of us is using, unfortunately, yet. After all, we are all representatives of the stakeholder groups. So we have the role to convey the message back and forth from our communities as well.
And, when it comes to the two lists, I'm not sure what to think. It is a good idea, though. I have the feeling that some discussions we start in an open list can end up to get a need for a closed discussion. It might be tricky to move it from one to another. That's a practical reason. I don't know. Let's think about it. It's a good idea, but I think we should think a bit more. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. To your last question, I think, if one MAG member says, "I suggest taking it to the closed list," I think that, to me, would seem to be sufficient. If one MAG member is not comfortable with the discussion as it is and would like to move it. We have also a remote participant, and then I'd like to close this discussion.
>>FARZANEH BADII: Thank you, Markus. I have an intervention from Fatima Cambronero. (Reading remote intervention.) I think that the list and the archives must be closed. I agree with the views expressed by Chris. In addition, each member of the MAG, we are here as representatives of each community. And each community sets out how they are accountable to them, if our concern is an issue of transparency.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, thank you. Raul.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Thank you, Markus. It's more a question than a comment. It's, in fact, the list is not so closed. It was clear to me who is subscribed to the list. But I think there is much more people than the MAG members.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, it is almost a semi-public list. I would agree. The previous members, out of courtesy, have never been kicked out. So it has grown into quite a large community. And then -- yes, please.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: No. Maybe we should remember -- I'm not sure if they are also substitute Chatham House Rules. And even the fact that they are not MAG members. And I have experienced now a case where, when we evaluated the workshops, the first evaluation, I was approached by some people that was not very happy with the evaluation. And they exchanged with me exact words that some MAG members have included in their evaluations. And, when I say that they should not circulate these kinds of comments from MAG members in the list, some people say that former MAG members are not subject to Chatham House Rules. So probably we should be more clear with the people that subscribe to the list what are their comments and what are not. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, I would have thought there is a grandfather clause that persists. If you're part of a community you have subscribed -- and I see the lawyer nodding. So -- you know, it's a commitment. You have engaged yourself. You committed yourself to some code of conduct and behavior. And that's valid, I think, even beyond serving on the MAG. But Ayesha would like to comment.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Following up on Raul's point, when we did the first round on the preliminary proposals, I was, frankly, uncomfortable when we were posting them on the whole list. Everybody was supposed to put their assessments up. This new online form system creates a different kind of situation. It's a very good example. There are tons of people. And it had an effect -- at least it was a filter in my mind that -- I don't know who, but somebody has time to go through and say, "Oh, Ayesha said X and Ayesha didn't like that workshop proposal," that kind of thing. It may be well worth after this discussion for you, Markus or Chengetai, to just post to the list saying "just a reminder, these are the ground rules for this list," so that our alumni also are aware. I think I, as a lawyer as well, put on mine "Please do not circulate or forward or share." But I'm not confident that that was the case. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Paul Rendek.
>>PAUL RENDEK: Yes, good morning, everyone. My name is Paul Rendek. I'm from the RIPE NCC.
I just wanted to echo some of the statements and bring forward a point that has happened to me recently as well.
I very much am supporting an open process. I think it's something that my organization stands for. I think it is what I've stood for in the 22 years that I've worked in this Internet industry. So I certainly wouldn't want to have anything closed if it's not necessary.
But what I do actually support is the point Paul Wilson brought forward is there should be someplace where you could contact your fellow MAG members to discuss things you think you need to have championed inside a group that you've been made part of and you're responsible for work that's there. Very recently I was at a forum and approached by someone who had put in quite a number of submissions and commented on my assessment of those submissions. I'm perfectly happy to defend what I did there. I did publish my first set quite openly. But I have to say, when I hit the send button, I did think to myself, ooh, this is certainly not only going to the list. That's fine. I have to live with that. Otherwise, I should probably not have taken up or accepted this position if I can't defend what I'm doing here. Right?
But what I think is really important is, if I look at the IGF Web site, I think it's important to let people understand the expectations that you have as a group. I think that the corporate governance on the IGF Web site -- and I realize this is a very difficult thing. I mean, we all realize that in our day-to-day organizations. But actually put down the corporate governance on what is expected of a MAG member and maybe the processes for how even people are chosen onto this group, what is expected of this group when it does its deliberations. When people know things and they know what's happening, there tends to be a little less suspicious activity on what's going on. So I think maybe we can work a little bit on the corporate governance here. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. That's yet another story. Chengetai also wanted to make some comment.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Just on the corporate governance thing, we do have a draft document out here so we can discuss it a little bit further and then post it.
And, as for the list, if you see anybody -- as Markus has said, it is -- we kept the old MAG members on the list as a courtesy. If they abuse that courtesy, you can just send me an e-mail or something and then we can take them off the list. And also, if it carries on and we don't really know, we can revise the policy. You know, just keep it to the form.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: I would like to close this discussion -- I mean, we have not been -- well, I see, Jeff and Izumi again. Jeff.
>>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN: Thanks, Markus. Just quick comments. I agree with the idea of default openness on the list. I've also assumed it's a semi public list because it's a very large group. However, I do think there has been -- as someone who started last year, there seems to be uncertainty and tension in how we're reviewing the workshop proposals. Are they candid private comments or is it semi public or public? And I think whatever we decide, we should do it. You could say we're going to publish anonymous aggregate results for -- you know, with everyone's comments so that you know they're going to be posted. But I feel myself what others have commented on, that it's not knowing what level of openness that you have that is not a good situation. So -- I would say let's be very transparent about what the process is going to be. So, if it's going to be there's going to be a MAG review process and the aggregate results will be posted, I would support that. I think it's good for people to see the actual comments and not have to probe individually or whatever they're doing. But, as a reviewer, I would like to know that going in. So -- just to clarify, I think, the importance of being transparent about what the rules are.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, yes. I think this is a good example, the workshop assessment. I think it would be better done on a closed list where you know you have a protected environment where you can be candid. And then make the results of that available to the public. But the same goes for discussing possible panelists. That's always very sensitive. And you don't want to have any comment you may have made to be public. Izumi.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you, Chair. I was a bit uncomfortable to what Chengetai just said about the possible abuse and -- of the alumnis or whoever and take it down. I don't want to go too much into details and it's not the biggest thing. First of all, what's the ground that all the alumni remain? If I graduate from that for another two years or five years on the list, that's kind of -- it's one thing -- it's okay to expand a community. But those who are selected feel fine. But those who wanted to be may not be there and they have no access. And, if the Secretariat makes -- I would say after a decision of deleting this member based on that abuse that somebody says is a little bit annoying, depends. I trust you. So it's more of a principle works than the actual reality. Don't be --
>>MARKUS KUMMER: No, this might be slightly radical to do it without warning. My suggestion would be, if you hear there was abuse, give a warning. If you hear again there was abuse, give another warning. Third time that's it, or something like that.
>>IZUMI AIZU: But then, because these often happen in the Internet space content, consent and notice and takedown thing. I don't want to be that much -- but, again, it's -- if we have a tacit understanding only for the other people, they don't have the idea what's going on and stuff like that. So I'd like to really make it clear.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And we can restate the policy on the mailing list, as well, just in case it's not clear. And we can set down some rules. And if everybody agrees to that policy, then we'll institute it. It's not going to be just an executive decision or whatever. Yes.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Can we close this discussion? I think what I hear is there's much support for having a transparent list and at the same time I think there is support for having a second list where we can have closed discussion which would be parallel to the physical meetings where we have the possibility to go in closed meetings. Now, we'll have to see what we can revive the digests we used to have in the past, but again, it needs people to do that. But my reading will be that I don't think there's any fundamental opposition against making the existing list public. It is semi-public as well. But at the same time, maybe create a second list which would be a closed list which we can use then for future discussion such as the workshop assessment which allows you to be candid and allows us to do our work. But whenever we go to a closed list, again, that should be made clear and transparent, that I would like to take this discussion from this list to that list. Could that be -- if there's no strong objection, then I would suggest moving forward in that way, that we make it fully transparent from now on forward, keep the -- yes, Raul.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: I fully support this. My only comment is that in cases where, as Jeff said, in cases we need to know exactly how the things will be processed. So in cases that we send -- we send the information and (indiscernible) directly, it would be important to know before that if those (indiscernible) would be public or not. I don't have any problem with fully transparency, but the only comment is that it is important that everybody know the rules.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Thank you for that. Obviously an important principle that the ground rules are known up front. And we have obviously again, to reemphasize that on the list, that it is -- in the past was always held on the confidentiality principle but from now on it will be a publicly-accessible list and at the same time we create a second list that will be for more confidential matters relating to planning of meetings, assessing of workshops, and so on.
Okay. We have overdrawn a little bit. We said we would leave space for the two breakout groups, Peter's on improvement of the IGF and Theresa's on enhanced cooperation multistakeholder principles. Do we have rooms for these groups?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Supposed to be this room and the next room, if I'm not mistaken. But they may have to find another room since we've got so many people here.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, okay, we can -- where's Farzaneh. Okay. Well, one group can stay in this room and the other group -- make that up among yourselves. Who prefers this room. But I think there is a separate room available, and can we then resume or meeting at 11:15 in this -- yes.
>>BILL DRAKE: If the groups are going to talk about the proposals, wouldn't it be useful to have a little bit of integrated discussion before we break out and do that?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: We're talking about the groups that met yesterday on improvement of the IGF --
>>BILL DRAKE: Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Peter's group and Theresa's group on multistakeholder cooperation. That's continuing the conversation. Theresa.
>>THERESA SWINEHART: A procedural thing. So one group meets in this room or there is another room or there's not. I'm now confused. There is another room.
[ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>THERESA SWINEHART: Okay, great. Peter, which side do you want? There? Okay. Anybody on multistakeholder enhanced cooperation up front and we have an hour, is that right? Or -- okay.
[ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>THERESA SWINEHART: Fabulous, thanks.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: The two groups are IGF improvement and enhanced cooperation.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: It was clear don't try to exclude any of these national regionals, and how do we integrate them and make a meaningful regional track? And we think this will definitely warrant a separate group.
Also the question, I think, came up yesterday. And that may not only apply to the regional or national IGF meetings but how best to use the day reserved for pre-events. The regional track could get started, for instance, the day before the official IGF starts.
I had put Paul on the spot yesterday asked, as he made -- brought to our attention the expectation from the Asia Pacific regional IGF to be given space, whether he would be willing to coordinate. I also heard Olga was quite keen to be involved. There were some names I put forward on the MAG list. Unfortunately, these are not present here. So, if we have a breakout session, I think it would be useful to have a facilitator who is actually physically present in this list. And I learned just by coincidence that there is actually an existing list of all the coordinators of the various IGF-type initiatives. Maybe I can call on Marilyn to inform us a little bit -- I was not aware of that existing list. But that's good to know. Please.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Markus. My name is Marilyn Cade. And I act as the chief catalyst for the IGF U.S.A. We do have a coordinators list. And we have met usually at each of the consultations informally. We have also -- over the past two, three IGFs, we've done a variety of things. We have started -- we started out by having main sessions where regional or national initiatives sort of presented in front of -- in a plenary room not always with a lot of attendance.
Then we moved into a environment where we had two 90-minute sessions in Nairobi, which went very, very well.
Last year in Baku, we had a slightly different approach that didn't work out quite so well. But one of the things that emerged from the discussion, the informal discussion among the coordinators is we did -- we were asked to sign up for a list. And most of us have done this. I will just say that it's not used at all. And that is our fault. I think I was actually the only person who's posted to it in 2013. I am getting ready to post to it, because I was actually disappointed to learn that within the MAG there was a discussion about how to organize the national and regional IGF activities. But it was not inclusive since it only included coordinators who were on the MAG.
So my post is going to be an appeal to ask all of us to realize that lots of the coordinators are not on the MAG. And to maybe take that larger list and use that as a way to bring in some other attention. Just because a coordinator didn't make a workshop proposal, I think many of them are assuming there would still be these roundtables that they'd be able to participate in, this broader roundtable. So we could use this list as a way to inform people quickly, assess whether or not they're coming, and what their interest is in being able to collaborate.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. It was never the intention not to include some to the list. The list was set up with the intention to include all the regional and national IGF folks. But the essence -- which list we use doesn't really matter as long as it is inclusive, the process. And there definitely will be -- I think it was called interregional dialogue.
But the question was more how best do we integrate all these workshops or all these sessions and make them meaningful. In the past some of them just read out reports, and that has not proved particularly productive. And some ideas were discussed on the MAG list on how we could make this. But the discussion hasn't started proper. So we're doing this now. Raul, please.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Thank you, Markus. Just to clarify that the people that volunteer for working on this issue in the MAG are not necessarily coordinators of regional or national IGF. Just people who volunteer for trying to work with the people that have involved with them and that -- and those initiatives around the world.
And one comment is that I didn't know about this initiative from Marilyn trying to coordinate the people that are involved within IGF-like organizations or initiatives.
But it would be good to -- I think it would be good to have something like that but officially under the IGF umbrella. So probably it would be good to create a space for -- under the auspices of the IGF Secretariat to subscribe all the people that is involved in those initiatives. And in Latin America we don't have such kind of coordinator. The process is led by a committee that is supposed to change every year in the similar way that the MAG does. So --
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. I see Egypt and Economic Commission for Africa.
>>EGYPT: Yes, thank you, Markus. After having seen the session that took place in Baku, I think it is important to integrate all the efforts. The mailing list was set by the Secretariat. And it was set before Baku, I think, if I remember right, just to organize the work of the regional IGFs. It was then used afterwards. And I also remember that we had maybe like a follow-up taking stock session I think in Paris, if I'm not mistaken, where we actually took stock of what happened in the interregional session in Baku and mentioned where the mistakes are, what you would like to see better. So I think it's very important to integrate those efforts with what is happening now in order to have some good output. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: As you mentioned this session, I wondered, Christine, whether you could maybe briefly summarize the session of -- you know, the stock that -- taking stock session of Baku and what would have been improved and so on. It would be interesting for us to know.
>>EGYPT: Maybe on top of my head, but I'm sure others were maybe taking notes. But I remember that it was mentioned that it was quite a very long session in Baku. It was not organized in a good manner, so it was good that it was divided into two parts. Part was content, focused on content. The other one was focused on procedures and how to improve the processes in the different regions. And it was, basically, the approach of having an exchange between the regional and national IGFs in both areas, the content area -- what's most important to the region in terms of content, IG content, and how the processes are being run. And that's on top of my head. I'm sure others may have written feedback.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: That's already very helpful, I think. And these are certainly useful that they discuss among themselves how they learn from each other and what will be done better. But there is one thing we have not been able to do that is to bring them into the global IGF, also in terms of content.
And we had this discussion in the past. And I do remember that some regions saw it more as a prep com type of thing; whereas, others clearly set their own agenda.
My humble opinion is that it's better if each region sets their own agenda and that we then see how it actually interacts with a global agenda. There's no one size fits all. I think access may be more important in Africa than it would be in Europe and and and. There are different issues that are on the top of the agenda of each region. And I think it makes sense if the regions set their own agenda.
But the -- what we have to nail down is a bit how to integrate this a little bit better into the main program. But, Makane, you asked for the floor.
>>UNECA: Yes, thank you, Markus. I think we need to integrate the two lists. Because for the last four weeks we have been asking to have some volunteers to work on the regional dimension. Names have been forwarded. I think for almost -- I think all the continents have at least each of them two persons. And those names should be integrated to the list which was prepared by Marilyn last year.
And, on the substance, I think that, even though each region has its own agenda, it will be good to put them together to -- not to report, definitely. But to exchange on best practices what has worked, what did not work so that the next IGF could be more successful than the -- the next national and regional IGF could be more successful than the past ones. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes. And I think it would be good to get a regional input into the main sessions. When we have -- once we have the program ready, that we really make sure that we hear from the regions what their priorities are or how they see. Paul?
>>PAUL RENDEK: Thank you very much, Markus. I'm Paul Rendek from the RIPE NCC. I'd like to echo the support that's being brought forward for taking a look at how the regional initiatives can be brought forward into the IGF. I think it's very important to emphasis or to bring more emphasis or structure, actually, into the program on how we bring forward the pieces that we see from the different regions. I think more attention needs to be put on mapping the issues that are brought forward because I actually think that it would help the MAG do a lot of its work.
I think it would help the MAG see what's topical in the different regions and help bring those to the global IGF so that we can truly see that we've got a lot of the bases covered.
That would require a little bit of structure, I think, in how the MAG is looking or even how reporting is taken from each one of these regional or national IGF initiatives. But I think that, even on top of that, we could look at some of the best common practices that are taken from that. It can feed into much more than even just main sessions. It could help us with a lot of things like, for instance, the working group that we just had on enhanced cooperation.
So I think that this kind of regional input needs to be taken a little more seriously by the MAG. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. Thank you. I think that was my general -- my understanding that it was a general feeling that we need to work harder on bringing this in. Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: Clarify two things. First of all, it was not a list that Marilyn set up or, trust me, it would have had all of you on it. The steering group of the IGF U.S.A. has 87 people on it, and it grows every year. The -- so that's one point.
The secretariat set it up. And I'd be happy to talk about it more because it could be more useful. But I'm going to make a point that is -- the regional and national coordinators have heard me say this. I'm going to say it again.
National IGF initiatives -- and I do spend a lot of time looking at them and what their reports are and what they're doing -- do things that fit the needs of their country. They do not report in to regional IGFs, this is not a hierarchical structure. The regional IGFs are different and address different things. And I want to be very careful that you're not in the MAG inadvertently setting up a reporting structure by thinking that regionals are owning the setting the agenda or directing what is happening at a very dynamic national level or a subregional level. So, when you think about calling for a group to take on a new role, I just want to really question whether it wouldn't be better, first of all, to understand what the national and regional initiatives are focused on. Because in many cases they are driving change downward.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Paul, yes?
>>PAUL WILSON: Yeah. Thanks, Markus. I am interested in contributing to this within pretty limited bandwidth. So I'm -- I'd say that up front. I think this needs quite a few heads on it. But I think it's important. I'd support what my colleague Paul Rendek said about sort of structural measures that really are needed to move from ad hoc reporting and unstructured reporting and reporting that can, frankly, not be very attractive to audiences and, perhaps, not be as useful as it could be, to move from that into something that actually addresses the themes of the IGF that creates useful inputs to the IGF.
And I think there's something else which is that we have a need for a loop here. It's not a reporting into the global IGF only, but it's also the outputs of the IGF influencing regionals.
So I think there is -- there's plenty that can be done. I agree with Marilyn. It's not an obligation to report. It's not a hierarchy at all. It's an opportunity for making the best use of a whole range of things that are going on without a hierarchical interrelationship.
One question which concerns me is to what extent we need to define what an IGF is, to what extent there's a bar that it needs to get over in order to be considered. I think Marilyn also mentioned a couple things there about what national IGFs are and aren't and what regional IGFs are and aren't. And I'm not disagreeing,, by any means, with what she said. But I'm wondering to what extent we need to agree on those things and where they come from.
So yeah, I think that's part of the work -- that may be part of the work that we need to do as well. Thanks.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes, we had I remember for the first time, I think, in Vilnius, the discussion. The discussion may have evolved since what are the baseline for any initiative to be allowed to call itself IGF. And the basic understanding was it's difficult to go beyond saying it has to be bottom up, open and exclusive and multistakeholder and that everybody can participate who wants to participate and has the right to the microphone as the very basic and fundamental principles.
But I'm happy to -- on that one, Christine? Yes, please.
>>EGYPT: I'm the one related to the issues, I want to come back to what Paul Rendek mentioned on emphasis that we need to put more on mapping issues and the point that you brought up, Markus, how to integrate, actually, what's coming up from the different regions. I think there is a merit in maybe having such a roundtable discussion like the one that happens, an interregional one that happens within the global IGF maybe a bit earlier, maybe back to back with an open consultation meeting the one -- as the agenda of the global IGF is being created and focused and everything, maybe this is when the regional coordinators need to come in and have this discussion on the issues specifically. It's still -- regarding the procedures and the discussion of how to set the different processes and the different regions, this can take place in -- so that the exchange between the regional IGFs can continue within the global IGF. But the issues themselves maybe need to come a bit earlier. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: That, we will not be able to do this time around. But I wonder, therefore, whether -- just thinking about it, whether there may not be merit in having a strong regional track the day before it starts. Regional interaction or give an open forum type to initiatives, you know, that -- ULOC, (phonetic) IGF, they have a slot to present what they have been discussing, separate slot. Just an idea. Mr. Chen, you're up.
>>HONGBING CHEN: As to the report, the suggested reporting system between the global IGF and a regional IGF or national IGF, I have one point to make. That actually regional and national IGFs started relatively early by the relevant stakeholders in that geographical region, geographical area. There's no such kind of legal basis to establish that such hierarchical reporting structure.
But, in the meantime, I think the IGFs, regional and international IGFs are great -- they are gathering great momentum, which can benefit our global IGF by giving us much more feeder in or input.
So the question then is how we can change or streamline our actions to integrate their working results. Maybe I can suggest that the secretariat of global IGF can submit or prepare a progress report about the regional and national IGFs every year and then submit it to the MAG for consideration. I mean, so, during our discussions, we can have more documents to refer to or we can know -- I mean, we can also facilitate the MAG members to better understand the whole picture of the situation. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. I think there's a common understanding that there's no legal -- legally established relationship. This is completely voluntary, and this was a spinoff of the IGF. And they have mushroomed. Now we have -- I don't know what the total is. I think somebody said 27 separate initiatives.
But the -- yes, and you made the point. The question is how best to integrate them into the substantive program. Bill.
>>BILL DRAKE: I just wanted to note that it's clearly true that there's no legal relationship. Nevertheless, it's also true that there's great variations across experiences. And I know I've been to IGFs, national IGFs that were planned entirely by the government of a country. I've seen there are IGFs -- there's been a lot of debate about this among social society types. There are regional IGFs that are really kind of planned in a quite closed way without a lot of open participation and so on. So I think it -- we can't force anything. But anything we could do to try to encourage more of the notion that there's kind of a model.
I think Chengetai put something on the Web site last year when we talked about this. I don't know if it's still there. It's still there? Maybe we could elaborate it or call attention to it more in a way that -- I feel like people are -- you wouldn't want to dilute the brand too much. You have people organizing meetings that are really at variance with what the IGF is about. And, really, they're leveraging the name that's been established by the global IGF to -- in kind of -- I don't want to say give legitimacy to because, of course, they're legitimate. But they're implying something about an initiative locally that perhaps might not be entirely accurate. So anything we can do more to try to encourage connection there I think would be good.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, it's also an opportunity for all stakeholders to ask questions and to really actually fulfill these criteria. They are posted on the Web site, and we maybe can also elaborate a bit more on that. Vladimir.
>>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you. Just a short comment that, when I was reviewing some of the proposals for the workshops, there was a number of good proposals to exactly discuss these kinds of principles from the global IGF that should be transferred to the local and regional ones to give credibility and so on, legitimacy of the local ones.
So I think we should just have in mind that, when we're assessing the workshops, to try to encourage these workshops that can help us. And IGF is the space to discuss future steps as well. So have it in mind.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Chengetai would like to make a point.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I would just like to comment that we have had some meetings during the Open Consultations with organizers of national and regional IGFs. And we have come up with some criteria on what the regional and national IGFs should consist of, be multistakeholder, be open, no membership fees, et cetera.
We have also on the Web site under regional international, we have some criteria where they have to also submit reports to the Secretariat that we can display so anybody can see. So we have these, and we can further develop them more as we go along.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: While there's no legal relationship, I think it's kind of a moral relationship. The only sanction we have is to remove them from the IGF Web site, just not make a link to them. Say, sorry, you don't fulfill the basic criteria.
But also I think you have to be sometimes a little bit lenient. There may also be cultural differences. What works in one region may not work in another region and, as long as the basic objective is is to have a true multistakeholder dialogue. Thomas, Switzerland.
>>SWITZERLAND: Thank you. I just would like to quickly inform you that, after we had concentrated on supporting and building the Euro League, the European regional IGF, we have this year in April started a first pilot for a Swiss IGF. This is not a very crucial information.
But the point I'm trying to make is we had half a day meeting with a few sessions. And we decided not have -- for no session, not to have any panelists at all. And we were 50 people, including some high-level people from business, civil society, and government. And everybody perfectly accepted the fact that there are no panelists. We also communicated that in advance. And I think we should -- one of the key criteria for the any IGF meeting should be the interactivity of the session, that this is not a one-way communication, but it's actually the aim of the session is to get any -- as much interaction as possible that could maybe add it to the list of criteria. But the experience shows that if you have good moderators and if you communicate this properly, actually, a maximum of interaction is possible and much more compared to other type of meetings. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.
Well, I've attended quite a few of these regional and national meetings on the continents. But, on the whole, I think what I experienced is they're reasonably interactive. I was in Kuwait, for instance, last -- when was it? -- October or so. And I was surprised to see how interactive the meeting was. And I -- on also sometimes sensitive issues in a region which maybe does normally not have this kind of open discussions. And I was told by people from the region that was, indeed, a very unusual experience. But it was, I think, the IGF label that encouraged this discussion. And I think -- oh, we have online? Okay. We have an online participant. Ricardo, please.
>>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS: Hello, did you hear me.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: We can hear you.
>>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS: Thank you very much. I want to just to build on what Paul Rendek and Paul Wilson have said. Two weeks ago the IGF Secretariat created an e-mail list called regional track with the focus of finding a solution on how to insert the regional IGF into the global IGF agenda. So there has been some non-MAG members participating in that e-mailing list, and they welcome anyone interested in joining that group. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes. And Ricardo had volunteered to lead this discussion on that list. And I think we all agree that it makes sense to have an integrated list. Yes. Paul.
>>PAUL RENDEK: Yes. Maybe I just want to make clarification on what I was talking about when I mentioned structure of reporting in or sharing. I'm very lucky to have been chosen as a MAG member for the Arab IGF. It's fantastic. And the meeting you were talking about in Kuwait, I was very happy to be a part of that.
I spend a lot of time as a member of that MAG basically trying not to have the same format of the meeting as the global IGF. Because I think that's useless, really.
I think that there are so many things that are topical to the Arab world that sometimes are not touched as heavily upon in the global IGF. And I think that you need to focus on those needs from the region or from the nation. So I think more what I was talking about is just a structured way of bringing these pieces in. Because I think that, when we even look at youth, I think everybody thinks youth is a great topic of discussion. Everybody says yes, yes, let's have youth. We have it in EuroDIG and IGF. But I think the way we approach having a session on youth, whether it be regionally or globally, things are looked at very differently. And I think that people have a different view on maybe what would be the concentration on topics that youth would be interested to discuss.
So I think this is a point that I'm trying to make. I would never want to suggest that we would formalize some kind of reporting that has to be done into the global IGF. I think this has to happen naturally. And it should happen naturally for us to actually share these experiences. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. So Martin, yes. Sorry. Yes.
>>MARTIN BOYLE: Thank you, Chair. Martin Boyle from Nominet and the U.K. IGF. First of all, I would like to echo what I heard Paul just say. It is actually very, very important that we are not looking at -- in regional and national IGFs -- trying to create mini international IGFs. That might work for some people, but I think actually we should to be looking at some sort of added value from whatever initiative we put in place. And so I'd highlight also your comment early in this discussion, Chair, about one size does not fit all. What we're doing is we're looking for what works nationally or regionally and how we can promote dialogue and perhaps more importantly how we can engage our local stakeholders in that wider process, improve their understanding of issues, and help them make the decisions that they need to make on the day-to-day basis.
I'd also sort of try and draw a link here between the ideas in the IGF improvements review and there is a section on sharing information and helping engage and helping improve the awareness of the IGF internationally and again, I do think that this is quite a significant and key role at the national and regional basis because of the need to tailor messages for the local audience.
What I think is useful, though, is to try and learn from one another. So you see someone who has tried something and it looks good and you understand why they've tried it and you can take that and try it locally and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But at least you're open to new ideas and sharing those ideas, so certainly within the international IGF the ability to exchange some information about what other national regional IGFs are doing is in fact, I think, particularly useful.
So I would certainly encourage there to be a dialogue, but without trying to impose an external regulator environment on national and regional IGFs. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: That's definitely not, I think, anybody's intention. Paul, did you ask for the floor? No.
[ Speaker is off microphone. ]
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Right. Okay. Well, I think the discussion among these national region initiatives has in the past and as Christine has reminded us, had already follow-up discussions and this is underway, and they will be given a slot at the IGF. They can have this sharing of best practices and also have substantive discussion. But that doesn't answer the question on how better to integrate these initiatives into the program. And okay. This will require, I think, some work that we will maybe ask them also proactively, please contribute to this or to that particular substantive agenda item. If we discuss, I don't know, access issues, then let's hear maybe from the African region, what was your discussion at the Nairobi African IGF or that we really actually approach the organizers and ask them proactively to make contribution to this or that particular issue. But the -- again, I think one concrete proposal could indeed be just to have -- use the day before the event starts for this kind of interaction where also the organizers could discuss among themselves what they want to contribute in terms of substantive contribution to the main IGF and also give them the space to tell us the story of what they have been doing. And they have good stories to tell. You know, and especially at the national level. That's quite often where the most impact can happen. They discuss with governments. I was at one meeting in West Africa and there the Internet community says hey, this is first time we have a dialogue as equals with our government. Before they didn't listen. And I know there are other good stories to tell, I think. And there is value, I think, in hearing these stories.
Could this be an option that we clearly -- I mean, I don't mean to park them there, but to give them the day, the pre-event day, and to allow them to then have a constructive discussion on how best to feed in into the main IGF? I don't see heads nodding and I don't see heads shaking.
[ Laughter ]
I see one head nodding. Two. Yes. Anju, please.
>>ANJU MANGAL: I agree that dialogue is very important. I just would like to give an example. In 2010 DiploFoundation, in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Pacific community, organized two IGF workshops which was in Cook Islands and also in Fiji. So the overall idea was to do a capacity-building program on what IG is and what the whole global process is. And we targeted ministers, so we used a top-bottom approach, and we also targeted other stakeholders which was like a bottom-top approach. And -- but the reality was that the national focal points that were participating in the -- in the IGF did not necessarily participate in the Pacific IGF which was organized in Noumea in 2011. And so there was a huge gap. And I guess the issue that we faced was that there was a problem with the national and then there was an issue with the Pacific regional IGF and then that wasn't directly feeding into the global, the big global process. So there was a huge communication gap and also lack of understanding of how the global process fits into the national and also regional IGF. So this -- these are some of the things that we were trying to address in our Pacific ICT mailing list. And one of the participants proposed a workshop which looked at strengthening participation and also encouraging sort of a multistakeholder whereby attracting like developed countries to look at how they can assist the developing countries. Unfortunately, the workshop proposal was declined. So that's a reality.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: [ Speaker is off microphone. ] You can't hear me? Oh. What I think has worked and perhaps what has not, but I'm going to make a plea here to actually let those of us who are organizers, whether we're a MAG member or not, to get together, as we often do, and maybe talk this afternoon about what might work and reach out using the list that is already there that I think almost -- that all the organizers are subscribed to and come back. Using day zero may work, but I think one -- may work for interaction among the initiatives themselves, but I think one of the concerns that I hear from some of those who proposed workshops is that they would prefer to do their workshop when they can be assured of a audience, not just interaction with themselves. And so I think we need to maybe talk more from those of us who are actively engaged and come back, if we -- if that would be feasible, with -- I personally think a pre-event, many of the participants that I know that are active in the national and regional IGF's are actively involved in workshop proposals and pre-event commitments, so I don't know that they would want to spend an entire day. But they might want to spend two hours.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Definitely could also be worthwhile considering some mixture. I think we have to close now. We can continue the discussion, of course, in the afternoon. There was Matthew asked for the floor, Mark and Yuliya, but let's take this after the lunch and continue the discussion. And I will hand over to our honorary chair to adjourn the meeting for lunch.
>>ASHWIN SASONGKO: Ladies and Gentlemen, I think today we have -- yesterday and today we have very constructive and useful discussions and especially Indonesia has plan to be hosting the activities at this very important -- it is important for us. We have discussion about whether we will increase number of workshops or even decrease it. Of course, we have to say, the more workshops we have, the more rooms we need. And the number of rooms of course in the Bali conference hall area, it is very, very big. It can host APEC meeting, so it should be able to host our meeting. But still the number of room for the workshop is still -- what you call it -- a limitation for them. And that's kind of thing that of course we have to take into account.
In addition to that discussion about how the -- the emerging power of the Civil Society is becoming more important in the Internet area, in the -- in the Internet sector, bearing in mind that even in some countries -- in many countries there are a big discussion whether all government organizations will look after the -- the Internet activities or whether leave some part of it to the society. And so Indonesia is also in the discussion for that field, for that policies. And I think the IGF with memberships and people will come from all type of countries, from small countries to big countries, from developing countries up to very big countries will take a lot of useful input from our meeting.
So with this I would like to adjourn for the lunch until 2:30? 2:30 p.m. Okay. We will see you again at 2:30 p.m. Thank you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: And an administrative note. The Chairman of the European Broadcasting Union kindly invited all MAG members to a lunch in the cafeteria. And as it was an RSVP lunch, there are invited but the other non-MAG members will -- they will try to accommodate them to the extent possible, but they cannot guarantee a seat for everyone. But I would say then the sooner you are upstairs the better chances you have.
[ Laughter ]