IGF  MAG Meeting (Afternoon Session)
Friday 22 MAY 2015
ILO Geneva, Switzerland

 The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the May 2015 IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings, in Geneva, Switzerland. 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.

 
 
 
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Let us resume our session.  You have received the latest version of the agenda -- or accepted workshops. 
 We have now agreed on 93 workshops which are listed -- which are listed in the order as they are accepted according to ranking and as a result of our decisions. 
 We have a list of 15 which are listed "maybe," and could we scroll down a little bit the list to see all of the proposals?
 I do not see Proposal 48 that was suggested to put on the --
 Is it?  Yeah, it is.  Good. 
 So we have seven remaining slots.  We have 15 on -- 15 proposals which we need to rediscuss because there were some doubts, but before we do this, I would like to advise to look at the statistics, and the statistics shows us that we are well on track in respect to origin of proposers.  41 from developing countries, 60 from developed countries.
 In relation to first-time proposers, still 40 -- (indiscernible) 40/60 is kept.
 When it comes to subthemes, I think we have slightly balanced, though when we look to the critical Internet resources and openness, that is still maybe not sufficiently represented if we look in comparison with other subthemes. 
 And when we look to the overall representation of the stakeholders, then we see that -- a civil society majority, but what we have managed to do is we have managed to increase share of governments and intergovernmental organizations and we would have more or less equal distribution among government and intergovernmental organizations combined, or public sector, private sector, and technical community.
 So I think that we have achieved, in that respect, our goal in bringing more government and intergovernmental participation in the main program.
 That said, I open the floor for any questions you may have.
 Michael and then Virat.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Real quick question. 
 When you say that we have seven slots left, does that take into account that many of the sessions that we've approved were approved as flash sessions?  Because we -- that really is the real number of 90-minute slots that we have left.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, but there may be a little bit of leeway with the 60-minute sessions.  It's difficult to get the 60-minute sessions, but the flash sessions have been taken into account.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Could the secretariat just send the last charts to the members?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It has been sent.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  They should be in your --
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  We haven't received it thus far.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Have you?  What time?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  3:01.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ginger, please.
 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Thank you, Chair. 
 I would like to reiterate that we do have the files in our mailboxes, so if we look around, we may find them.
 As I look at the list of "maybes," I'm struck by the ranking of many of them, and I would like to go back to previous comments from MAG members about the importance of respecting our original and majority views on these rankings, and I think some are significantly low ranked, so I think we might take that into account as well when we take the overall strategy for this afternoon.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Yes.  I just wanted to support the fact that we've done rather well (indiscernible) balance of (indiscernible) I take Ginger's (indiscernible) I believe that would be the proper (indiscernible) exercise to (indiscernible).
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi, could you please come closer to the mic?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  (indiscernible) type out (indiscernible) chatbox.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Okay.  Subi's breaking up, so she will type in the comments in the chat.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.
 One of the things I wanted to ask about was some of the other distributions.
 For example, we had not only encouraged the newcomers and developing economies, we had encouraged differing formats, and I know in the original 40 there was a chart on that.
 Was there a rechart done on formats?  I wasn't -- I didn't see that yet and I'm just wondering how that one's doing.  And so was wondering as we move forward, do we want to pay attention to some of the other distributions on this next pass.  Thanks.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If you look at the Excel sheet, yeah, you'll find the stats there.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So any other comments? 
 So what I would like to propose, I think that the MAG members were suggesting those specific workshops for the reason they felt that they correspond to the criteria of balancing, bringing new things out and so on.
 So therefore, it is up to us to decide whether we continue with this "maybe" list and going through and taking proposals out of this list or we decide otherwise.  Though my experience shows if we start to define procedures in a group of 50, it will take -- it may take about 55 hours, and we have only 1 hour and maybe a half to conclude this part of the exercise.
 So therefore, I would suggest that we take the remaining 15 proposals and still look at those balancing things, one-time proposers, and go through.
 And we need not to select seven.  We may decide to select only four.  And then we would take in others based on the scoring of the MAG.  But I still would suggest to go through quickly those 15 and see whether we can agree on which should be taken in.
 Marilyn and then Michael.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair. 
 I was going to suggest that we maybe prioritize those where we have proposed mergers, since that conceivably will take two off, resulting in only one, and see if we can reach conclusion on that quickly.
 And then I -- again, I guess I wanted to just ask the secretariat a question.  I'm sorry, I wasn't able to look at the statistics.  I still am un- -- so I need a clarification.
 Are we equating sustainable development as a theme with Internet economy? 
 Because if not -- and they're not quite the same thing; they have a relationship -- then I would like to look at these with an eye to any that advance and support our overall theme of sustainable development.
 For instance, 231, which was -- I think Mark suggested the proposers could take a particular focus on sustainable development, because I think that's a bit of a gap for us.  We chose it as a theme.  It's a really important year to be showing we're doing something on sustainable development.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you for doing an excellent job of outlining what our goals are here and the different things we're trying to include, but I didn't hear you mention that we're also trying to bring some new ideas in here.  I mean, that's -- for me, that's very important, and I think for a number of us that's the reason we're spending so much time on this exercise.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  Emerging issues is one of the subthemes of our exercise and, indeed, we need to bring new themes for sure.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  But not just emerging issues.  There are new themes within some of the existing -- the other themes that are well-represented, so I would argue that, you know, it's -- in some cases, we might be adding a new idea that is so novel that it might not be -- it's more important to get that new idea than to somehow get more balance between the subthemes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Indeed, Michael.  We are both converted and we're arguing about the same thing.  These are new things, they're merging issues, and whether they belong to other subthemes, if they are new, they are new and emerging.  Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that there's a lesson here for next time -- and it's important we record this -- that if we are going to reward new ideas as a -- as workshops that can be pulled up from 228 and 2- -- you know, 151, then we must put that out as the criteria at the beginning, because it is unfair on proposed people who sent in proposals, following guidelines, sending out their points under emerging issues, and then learn that those who didn't meet the criteria are being rewarded in this discussion.
 I request that we take into consideration this, and next time if new ideas is important -- and I respect that -- then we must say that so that the publicly known transparent process allows people to provide inputs and proposals under that category, just as this year we have serious rewards for new formats.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So shall we go one by one now?  Let me put, then, up Proposal 70.
 As you see, these are -- these are sort of listed in -- using the overall ranking, as well, that we can -- we can see, which have been listed the highest.
 So all of them, we had already discussed, and there were not really good feeling in the room whether they would merit or not be included, taking into account the balancing criteria, and I see Avri's seeking the floor.  Please, Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri Doria speaking. 
 Yeah.  I wanted to speak out in favor of this one.  Did a little bit more looking into it, after seeing it last night.  Had, I believe, graded it well.  Wanted to point out that it does -- you know, it is a newcomer.  It is an emerging issue.  Both of which are lower than they could be.
 It's a different format.  The hypothetical format that's being done is different, and it is -- it's an idea that is sort of anew.  It is -- not only is it an emerging topic, but it is a different way of looking at a very serious issue.
 Now, it has a minus, in that it is civil society again.  And one of the other minuses that came up is that the geodiversity of it wasn't good enough, and especially within this hypothetical format that they're taking of basically talking about that issue from various perspectives, it did seem a little shy there.
 Had a conversation with the organizer of it and basically, you know, got a gigantic willingness to gather both government and more geodiversity, and basically got the impression that they were sort of waiting to find out where they were.
 And I will also point out that it was in that first group of 10 that, you know, it was -- it was our first "maybe," it was in that group of 10 that was very close to being automatic, so I'd really like to ask people to reconsider this one because of those features.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Any further comments? 
 I was -- I had the impression that another workshop on "maybe" list was also geared towards the managing digital legacies, I think, but now I cannot find it very quickly.
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  When we first discussed this, there was some discussion about somehow merging this with the right to be forgotten panel, but those are very distinct concepts and the people involved are quite distinct.
 One reason I'm quite excited about this proposal is because it actually is one of just a couple things that were proposed as a direct result of an IGF meeting at the regional level.
 This was -- this was based on a panel that the Australians did at the Australian IGF very successfully.  So far, I don't think we've accepted either of the two proposals that were proposed by IGFs directly, and so this is a -- would be a nice statement that we value the input of the regional and national IGFs.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Now I've found it.  That is -- I was thinking about workshop Number 33, "Mandatory Data Retention, Human Rights."
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Now, this is really based -- this is a question of:  After I die, who gets to log into my Facebook account, who gets to see my email.  That's very different than the data retention laws related to law enforcement.  So, again, I thought this was unique among the sessions and topic.  It's only been discussed in the U.S. for maybe the last five months, so it's brand new.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Fiona?
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you, Janis.  I would just suggest that based on a principled matter, because both the first two workshops on this chart, Number 70 and Number 35, both actually on merits scored within the 100 that we would accept those two.  The first one scored 75 and the second one was merit-based-ranked 90, and I think if we're going back to that principled merit-based thing, I think just letting those two through would make sense, so we could move on.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for helping me out.  Subi?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said that for the reasons mentioned she doesn't support inclusion of this proposal.  It does add to the thematic stakeholder balance, and we already have enough workshops on the topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Now, if we follow what Fiona said, maybe that could help us accelerate these things.  They would be these two -- 35 and 70 would be in based on merit.  That's in top hundred. 
 Since we did majority of balancing already, if we would accept proposal of Fiona, can we?  I see nodding.  And Ginger is also in agreement.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Ginger said yes, from me on 70 and 35.  And before that, she said, I agree with Michael Nelson.  This is an important issue to include even if the organizers need mentoring.  Also support Fiona's recommendation on those two.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then we have agreement of MAG, and we go straight to 63.
 Sorry.  I'm looking to the wrong screen.  I need to look to the next ranking.  It is 231.
 Anyone would like to launch discussion about 231?
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Sorry, because I think that I have in my computer a different -- did we already discuss the one above those?  I see 70, 35, then 263, then 56, then 33 and 231.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Simply, we're working -- I asked secretariat to rank those according to initial ranking.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Ah, okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That's why I was looking exactly to the same screen that you are looking.  That's why I was wrong.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  A very quick fix to that is if you see the tab by the rank, right on top by the rank, you just click that and then it says sort from largest to smallest and then they will be in the right order.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So that was lesson in computer literacy.  Thank you, Chengetai.  (chuckles)
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I just want to preface my comments by saying something that I feel -- I don't want to debate it, but I do just want to express this. 
 I think we have to be a little bit careful about assuming that there's some kind of meritorious judgments in the ratings we did.  We are all different, and we did the best we could. 
 But really this is an exercise in being human in how we got these ratings assigned, and I think we should all recognize that.
 So I appreciate the opportunity to talk about 231 which was ranked 111.  As I said before -- and I know Mark made a comment about this.  I'd like to come back to that.  One of the main things I think this can contribute is that it brings in a regional perspective that is not otherwise actively participating and that is business from the MENA region, business from small SMEs from other regions as well as it's described through those industry associations.
 It is business focused.  So I would say there is definitely a gap in the fact that it focused on SMEs across the regions.  It does not include government, and it doesn't include -- although in some of the countries, the associations are NGOs.  They are required legally to be NGOs but by no means would they be called civil society.
 Mark's suggestion that the focus be on sustainable development I think is an excellent suggestion and particularly if we were to ask them to focus on the sustainable development in digital economy aspects that are of concern and are related to Internet governance.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  I won't repeat that point.  I just note it would enhance the percentage of private sector-oriented proposals.  Currently it's 10%, isn't it, of all the proposals?
 And then secondly, there are no low scores.  They were all 3s, 4s or 5s.  So I think there was a general consensus amongst the MAG members who were scoring and commenting that this was sort of above the borderline mark.  See what I mean?  So I would support it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  May I take that we would add this one as well?  I see no objections.
 Now we go to 212.
 Please, Flavio.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Although there are other proposals and maybe even some that has already been accepted by us, this brings different perspective to the engagement of youth.  This will discuss the questions related to youth from the point of view of the principles of Internet governance taking into account different principles that have been defined and analyzing those principles from the point of view of youth.  And this will also discuss the youth manifesto that has been proposed by civil society in Europe with funding from the European community.  This is a multistakeholder approach with people from different continents that will take part of this.  So I think it's meritorious.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So any comments? 
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes, Chair.  I'd like to maybe take stock of how many youth sessions we have and the kind of diversity that's represented as we look across the board.
 If -- I think I rated this one as -- not as highly as some others because I did feel that it was -- it was sort of a -- I saw it almost as a meeting of a like-minded group working together as opposed to being a debate or bringing in -- you know, sort of felt like it's a project that is evolving to the next step.  It does engage youth.  So for that reason, I was interested in considering it.  But I did have some concerns about how it fit into the landscape of all of the workshops that included youth.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ephraim.
 >>EPHRAIM KENYANITO:  Just to point out that despite the number of workshops that's focused on youth being very many proposed, we have two that fit into that criteria.  I just want to point out, you asked about the statistics.  So two have been accepted despite all those very many proposals.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Just to, I guess, bring back the same observation that I mentioned earlier, which is workshop 191.  It's very, very similar in terms of thematic content as well as speakers and ranked very highly and has been accepted.  It's top ten in the current accepted list.  So, again, raising the question on the added value and what difference this will bring or make whilst, of course, really very much supporting youth participation into the IGF.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  From day one, I was proposing that the youth topic should be a main session.  But having said that, I think we already have two workshops.  And one of those is very similar to this one.  So that's why I'm reluctant to -- if we have a spot to spare, maybe I would suggest this.  But the spot for workshops are really scarce now.  So I'm not convinced that it's the best to have three similar workshops.
 I repeat.  I would rather have a main session, 90-minute main session of youth so we could have the plenary hall for that.
 Having said that, I will -- if we want to keep this workshop, I would suggest to merge it with one of the other two selected.  But don't take one spot of workshops that are very scarce for this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Seems that skepticism remains.  There is a proposal to suggest that organizers talk to 191 workshop organizers and see possibility of merger of those.  And we would maintain it on "maybe" list for the moment.
 Ginger, please.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Sorry to put a bump into the road here.  But I think that all -- that two -- we're saying there's already two. 
 I honestly don't believe that two out of a hundred represents the youth and the fact that we want to bring in new voices and new concepts and new young people into the process.
 So even if they need mentoring to emphasize the difference between the different sessions, I think it's important that we have at least three with youth, unless we have a guarantee that there's going to be a main session. 
 In this case, I think the numbers speak.  I don't think two is enough.  And I would strongly ask that we take that into account.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Last time we invited a young lady to speak at the closing.  I will ask secretariat to identify young person to speak at the opening and at the closing.  So in that respect, we will try to put prominence on the young participants.
 Ephraim, please.
 >>EPHRAIM KENYANITO:  Okay.  Just to add to that, I agree with you on that.  Just to emphasize, if it is possible, that the secretariat and the MAG can insist that as you send out the accepted proposals, that the workshop proposers to reach out to young people, that would be good.  Because we've had this discussion on the mailing list, and there is a publicly available document in putting up their profile. 
 And if workshop proposers can go through that list and see which among them they can reach out and young people are continue to reaching out to the dynamic coalition and to put their names onto that list.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Noted.  That should be put in every -- every recommendation that we issue.
 Subi?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Just a short note from Subi.  She said she appreciates the Chair's statement.  She doesn't see new voices here.  It's more an amplification of similar voices.  So I support a main session on youth instead.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Let us move to the next one.
 We maintain 212 on "maybe" list and we go to 213. 
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, this is a very practical, very immediate concern to a number of companies that are in the Internet infrastructure business.  It's also an immediate concern for a lot of civil society groups that are trying to understand just how extensive surveillance is.
 This is about transparency of what's really going on inside the Internet, what kind of law enforcement requests there are for data, who's monitoring what, where.  And we just do not have another session that's like this.
 We have not looked at this issue in the past, and I strongly urge that we consider it.  And, again, while it doesn't have a lot of private sector people involved as yet, I'm sure they will be involved.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you. 
 Reaction?  Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Actually, this is one of my favorite sessions.  But this session only makes sense if those who order surveillance are on the table.  The difficulty with holding these sessions is that most people don't realize that companies that are required to respond to questions asked by civil society are forbidden to respond or give information on the law.  And this session is then -- then becomes shooting darts at a sign board. 
 So if you can get not just government officials but intelligence agencies to come in and inform, or at least INTERPOL, to say what is it they want, why do they have this, what are the processes, then I think it will be meaningful.
 Otherwise, it will be the same old with the two main parties, one which is bound by law to be mum, and the other one who orders surveillance unavailable.  If they are not in the room, let's not have one more of these sessions.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Strongly agree with that.  I mean, obviously you want the full spectrum of speakers there.  And I think that would be the desire of the organizers, too.
 But we have not have had this particular session on this issue of transparency reports.  And I think that's why this would be new and different.
 I do know there will be some people from law enforcement coming to this meeting.  So if you need, I will volunteer.  Maybe Virat, the two of us can volunteer to reach out to the organizers and give them some suggestions on either current law enforcement and intelligence community members or probably better former members of that -- those communities who could talk a little bit about the context and how they see the world from their side.
 Thanks for making that point, Virat.  It's one I should have made.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Ankhi.
 >> ANKHI DAS:  Mike, thanks for the comments. 
 The experience has been from the national and regional processes, for workshops like this when we have tried to engage and involve stakeholders from the law enforcement community and other agencies, they will not show up.  So it's not been due to lack of efforts. 
 But I think there is a roadblock of those coming to engage in these conversations in a very public way.  So we are really talking of a structural problem here.  And minus that, it will be challenging to pull this off in a manner that it is meaningful.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I just -- I want to concur with the statements that have been made and remind folks that in the past when we've tried to do this -- and we did try to do it in Sharm, and we tried to do it again in Lithuania -- we were able to get the U.N. organization dealing with organized crime.  We were able to get a speaker from the U.K. SOCA.  We were able to get MOG, et cetera.  But we have never actually been able to get -- we even got a jurist, a senior jurist, from Egypt.  But we have never been able to get the folks freed up by their government to be able to accept this kind of invitation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then judging what you said just then, Marilyn, this is not a new kind of issue.  This has been discussed on a number of occasions.  That contradicts a little bit what Michael said.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Let me -- We tried to discuss it, and we've taken various approaches at discussing it. 
 I would just say, Michael, there have been situations where publications of reports about the number of requests have been shared.  But we've never been able to bring forward the balance that Ankhi and Virat were suggesting, that we need to have the rest of the -- rest of the participants.  We've never been able to deliver that.  Not for lack of asking.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, I'm making the distinction between panels on the issue of surveillance and law enforcement, which certainly we've had sessions on that, and this particular topic, which is, how do we talk about the collection processes, how do we publish transparency reports.
 This is a narrower focus.  It's one that I think law enforcement or former law enforcement people could engage on.  We might also be creative and reach out to parliamentarians.  I did notice that on a couple other proposals that dealt with law enforcement issues, there were law enforcement people from Brazil who were willing to make the trip for other panels, so it may be that going to the local -- the countries nearby might be another approach.
 But I -- it's hard for me to --
 Clearly, they didn't offer up names of people, probably because they weren't going to approach government officials until they knew they had permission to organize something.
 Why don't we give them a try, tell them our concerns, and see how it goes.  There are -- there are also authors, people who might be able to speak on the need for surveillance.  I can think of five of them quite quickly.  And they might enjoy a few days on the beach.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Honestly, I don't -- I don't feel the room.
 Of course I can say, "Let's go for it," but we still have another 10, and then four slots remaining.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  If there is a provision under which the secretariat could reach out and we have the time to park the slot and if they come back with names, then actually it could be a very valuable session.
 But if that's not the case, then we have to just move on.  But I'm perfectly willing to go with that -- that option, if that option exists and it's practically doable.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So shall we then agree that we would put this workshop proposal aside, pending verification by the secretariat, based on transcript, all the conditions that we discussed here, and if they are met, then a 60-minute session would be allocated?  Can we agree on that?  But we would not count this one in those 100.  At least for the moment.
 Agreed.
 Subi, you are in agreement?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Oh, yes, she's in agreement.  She just had a note on one other thing.
 She asked:  "Once a supporter has introduced a session, can we get a clarification on how many interventions each of us is allowed to go on supporting the same proposal?  I ask this in the interest of time."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Subi, for helping me running this conversation.  That's a very pertinent question.  I was hesitant all the time to ask it, and remind.
 Thank you.
 So we have agreement that we -- on this particular topic, secretariat will reach out, will ask organizers whether those comments which were made could be met, and if they will be promised, then 60 minutes time would be allocated, if they won't be promised, then it would not be allocated as a result of our conversation.
 201.
 Flavio, please.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Just to remember arguments that have already been done before.  Also, we have already approved another workshop on IXPs.  This brings a much broader perspective from also economic side with participants from all multistakeholder groups, from private sector that are involved in running IXPs, civil society organizations that are also running, governments, and so on, so -- and from different continents, so that's --
 The other one is much more focused on the technical side, if we see the list of participants.  So I think that --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes, Chairman.  I don't want to take more -- much time here.  This is the workshop that I would like my senior officials in my ministry to attend, so that said it all.
 The other that we have in IXPs is more implementation and this is more to the reasons for including this in policy.  So I think it really -- it's interesting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Slobodan?
 >>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC:  I support inclusion of this, and as I said, it is a unique aspect of looking at the things.  It's not technical; it's related to sustainability.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  So I hear no opposition.  Shall we include?  Yes.  Decided. 
 Next one.  120.
 So launch of publication.  It's requested 90 minutes.  We had a conversation before that that might be either shortened or we should ask UNESCO to do it during open forum.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Well, I don't see the case for confirming this, really.  UNESCO, IGOs have a good share of the proposals so I don't think that was -- that's an argument purely on grounds of UNESCO, being an IGO, given an extra slot.  I don't see it.  And in view of the purpose, a different format is the option here, I think.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I would support a different format as well.  Either a flash session or asking -- a flash session. 
 I think also -- I'm just going to repeat a comment I made earlier.
 On the commentators that are proposed -- sorry, on the co-organizers and the commentators, I see a lot of the same names, from the private sector and from civil society, so if it's a -- if it's a launch of a publication, it could be a flash session for 30 minutes or it could be incorporated into the open forum.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So shall we offer a flash session, 30 minutes, for the launch?  And that would not count in the overall 100.  Agreed?
 Subi, you are in agreement?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  She said that she doesn't support this one.  It should be either during open forum or on a booth.  We have a lot of slots accessible now for IGOs.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we all live with offering flash session and do not count it in the overall 100?  Yes?  Agreed?
 UNESCO happy?
 Thank you.
 You know I have still very warm feelings about it.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I admit that.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You feel it.  228. 
 228, we had a conversation.  There is a proposal also to merge it -- a proposed merger with 208, which is also on this list, and also link it with a dynamic coalition.
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Chair, perhaps I'm one of the people Subi was referencing.  I don't need to repeat everything I said before, but I stand able to say it if I need to.
 I support the decision we made.  Let's try to merge 208 and 228 and link them to the dynamic coalition.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Thank you.  From day one, I not only defended youth as a main session, I also defended women and gender.  Well, maybe I defend young women, but...
 [ Laughter ]
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  In any case, I think that we should consider even the possibility of having a main session on gender, and I also want to point out to the secretariat that besides 208, there are also five more workshop proposals related with the theme that maybe the -- some of the conveners could be asked to join in that merger.  These are Workshops 20, 59, 107, 144, and 196.
 Having said that, I support Marilyn's suggestion for a merger with 208.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any opposition?
 Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Not in opposition, but to support the merger as well, and for it to go through as proposed, linking with the dynamic coalition where possible.
 But just also to clarify that even though it is looking at gender and women's rights issues, it's not quite the same topic or the same content and to make a distinction between that.
 This is in response to Juan Alfonso's comments.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Then we propose -- we retain this and propose merger with 208 and link with the dynamic coalition activity.
 Decided.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yeah.  Chair, I just have to ask a favor. 
 I think the MAG needs to give instruction -- right? -- that this is a merger, so that both parties understand it's a merger.  And this is a private sector joke.  We normally say there's no such things as mergers, there's only acquisitions.  So I think the guidance from the MAG secretariat needs to be:  Merging means both of you have to be adapt so that you are going to have a new formulation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And if there is no merger, then there is no session.  So the conditionality.  That is what is called MAG is making hostile takeover.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  216.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, just to note that Subi supports the merger as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Subi.  216.
 Maybe before we are talking about this particular proposal, which we also felt would be useful to merge with 156 -- this is just a recollection from the previous session -- I would like to take up -- to jump a little bit to another topic, and that is a discussion about main session, because the decision on the main session themes may influence our discussion about this particular workshop proposal, 216.
 And there is a proposal that Marilyn said at the beginning of the session to organize one of three existing thematic meetings of main session -- thematic main sessions, on sustainable -- Internet economy and sustainable development.
 I understand that I'm maybe pushing the envelope a little bit too far, but can we agree that we will have session -- main session on Internet economy and sustainable development or somebody feels uncomfortable making ad hoc decision at this moment and prefer to leave this for the time when we will talk through all proposals?
 The argument being, if we retain main session, we may agree not to have this retained proposal, or if we -- not, so then we may decide differently.
 Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chair, just a clarification.  So you're suggesting in addition to WSIS+10, IGF at 10, and the three-hour session on intersessional work which combines best practice forums and connecting a billion, and a two-hour session supposedly for the dynamic coalitions, which makes it four?  This will be the fifth main session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So if you look to the file that we sent, the proposal that we sent out earlier today, there are three slots for thematic main sessions because, as Fiona yesterday mentioned, that it is odd having main sessions devoted exclusively to IGF 10 years and WSIS+10 review, and that we decided that we should have thematic sessions.
 There are a number of proposals.  You listed many of them.  They have been circulated to the MAG list.
 One what comes out -- and this is linked with the main theme of our IGF -- is sustainable development. 
 So one proposal is to have one of those three thematic sessions on Internet economy and sustainable development.
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This will be my last comment because I have to leave to catch a train.  I expect applause.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  You've heard me say this before, but we really have to have more focus and crisper titles that will excite people.  If we just say "Internet Economy and Sustainable Development," I fear it will excite a few people in Manhattan but it won't help us generate news stories, bring people to Brazil.
 If we can focus on that piece of sustainable development that ICTs are uniquely and directly responsible for, I think that would be wonderful.  I like using the word "development."  I like using the word "jobs."  I like the word "economy."  But let's talk about sustainable jobs or let's talk about development at Internet speed or let's talk about what's really happening in the workplace, and not have some grand topic that could include everything, and as a result will allow us no time to discuss anything in depth.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think I stepped on the rake.  I shouldn't have asked this question.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  And I also want to thank you for listening to me and, as I say, farewell.  This has been a very effective meeting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Michael, for the kind words.
 So I'm withdrawing my proposal and we're going to discuss 216 and the merits.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael, once you get out of the door, you need to leave your badge with the guard.  Otherwise, you will be chased and you will be beaten up and the badge will be taken off.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Michael, could you please leave with the badge?
 [ Laughter ]
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Camera!
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Order, please, order.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That was a --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This was the minute of recreation.
 [ Applause ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Or rather, 30 seconds of recreation.
 Back to the job, please.  Or to jobs.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Mike, Peter Dengate Thrush says bye.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So let's get serious.  216.  Who is willing to make a point? 
 Subi.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi wants to make a general point regarding to the previous -- one of the previous comments.
 She said, "We don't need to be picky, but it is important that utmost sensitivity be exercised.  Thanks for the support but women don't need defending, but we all know that you mean well.  Since this is a formal meeting with transcript being made public, we do look at fellow traveler and not defenders and champions."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Still 2000 -- 216.
 Susan.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes.  I would just like to say that I think that if we do end up having a session on network neutrality, and when we get to that main session and when we do get to that discussion, I think that this proposal could be included within that, or perhaps we could fold in the proposers into that main session.  That's all I'd like to say.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes, Chairman.  I was the one who proposed this workshop in this round, and I think it's -- well, it's important.  That's why I proposed.  But I am saving the defense for the next one because I think it's more important.
 So this is a negotiation.  Put this in square brackets and move to the -- to the next one, please.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So if proponents suggest that we cannot ignore it, we retain it on the "maybe" list still.  We are moving to 263.
 263?  Private sector proposal, new proposer, and Juan Alfonso is holding his ammunition for this.
 But Fiona first.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you very much, Janis.  I just want to bring to the attention to fellow MAG colleagues that it's 4:00, and we have two hours left or just after 4:00.  We have yet to discuss the dynamic coalitions, and we haven't discussed the main sessions.  And I think it's going to be important that we actually come to agreement at least preliminarily on the main session topics before we leave Geneva. 
 So I would suggest we perhaps give another few minutes to this and then call time.  And if there is still no agreement, the remaining slots just go to the ones that scored the highest on the initial thing and we move on.
 I do have some observations to share on this entire process, but perhaps I will wait and do that once we are done or maybe on the email list.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Again, it's not that much.  We still have five proposals to examine and then certainly there will still be slots, they will go to the highest score.  But since we have started this process, we need to continue.
 It would be unfair simply.  We may shorten up discussion and be more swift.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Recently we talk about this workshop proposal.  What I propose now is to retain it -- and secretariat to include governments from the region to be participants in the panel.
 I think that we could convince very easily that governments that have experience in this, like maybe Colombia, Brazil is also listed here, even the very humble experience of Cuba that we are only beginning.  But we could be there as well.
 But I think that the whole topic, it's very relevant in our continent and not only our continent, because this is relevant, the link between this technology and development.  And the way of how to really measure that link, I will reiterate that Raul Katz is the world leader in this thing.  And I urge you to consult his writings.  We recently had in CSTD one of his latest things.
 And I think that this is very really, really important.  I know that all workshop proposals have merit.  But I think this has a special merit.  It could be even, as I told before, improved with some panelists from Latin American governments.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Jac, your flag is up?  Opposition?  For inclusion?  Private sector, first proposer, new proposer.  No opposition?  Decided.
 128.
 128?  No appetite to MAG member, of MAG members?  UNESCO?
 >>UNESCO:  Just provide some updates during lunch break.  We received a request from the workshop numbered 42 which talks about the online hate speech and the relation with human rights such as freedom of expression, privacy, from also the law and jurisdiction aspect, which fits ours. 
 And I also spoke with the intersection facilitator on the online abuse which we also have a shared interest on the gender, woman and girls aspect.  And after all, we also want to focus the workshop on the youth and the youth radicalization as we have taken from our June conference. 
 So in this way, I wish we can fit this theme better and better, also better frame this huge topic in the IGF to make a more specific focus.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Actually, the question I was going to ask is how does this relate to those two other workshops?  Hate speech and then the dynamic coalition on online abuse, do we see it as a -- sort of a series which have relationship to each other but have different facets and different audiences?  Or do we see it as a continuum?
 If I could better understand that, that would help me understand how it fits.
 This seems to me to be focused on something that is undoubtedly of interest to governments and to citizens, and that is what I might call the abusive use of the medium.  Maybe not everybody things it is abusive use of the medium, but it is -- I think it is a high-profile topic in many capitals today.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I think what's specific about this proposal that's interesting that was also defended earlier is that it's focusing on youth radicalization, which is not a topic that was covered in proposal workshop 151. 
 But, otherwise, what I would recommend is for this proposal -- this workshop proposer to then make sure that they are recommending speakers from this workshop into workshop 151 which has already been accepted and has quite a broad and strong thematic hold.
 And in terms of where the interlinkages are, I would hope that there will be enough outreach to all of the different workshop organizers that may have interlinkages to input into the best practice forum process, for example, which is what by started doing.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Giacomo?
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes.  I think that this topic is very important, and I strongly support it, especially because in some region of the world -- and I would suggest to the organizer to take in account specific regional cases, this is really a very hot issue.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, it's been rightly said this is becoming a very difficult issue for governments, especially in view of some of the developments related to ISIS.  Governments are paying a lot of attention to this issue.
 There is, though, a requirement to include some of the other government officials or law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies again.  In this case, may not be intelligence but law enforcement agencies from the countries that are susceptible to such radicalization.  It's current.  It's happening.  It's right on top.
 And, by the way, since we last spoke, IGO is not exceeding its numbers.  They were less than what they were.  So if you get another one for intergovernmental organizations, it will be a good idea.  It will help the balance that we originally set ourselves up.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Subi, last one.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said that she strongly supports it, that this is an extremely important issue, and we need more diversity of original perspectives.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then I would propose that based on also balancing and increasing intergovernmental participation, we retain this but specifically ask organizers to focus on youth radicalization as an issue that is important for governments.
 Thank you.  If that is decision, yes?  Thank you.
 Now three to go. 
 56.  56.  No one is asking for the floor.  Doubts remain.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks, yes.  Well, I'm sorry if it's repeating what I said earlier about this, but I thought this does bring focus on an issue that's not covered elsewhere, mobile banking and barriers to that and challenges in security and so on.
 So I see it having value as a session at this year's IGF.  So I would support it.  And I thought it was a very good proposal but to extend participation to sub-Saharan Africa.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Xiaodong.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  Yes.  On second comment, this topic is not covered by the currently selected workshop proposals.  So I suggest to add this proposal into the agenda.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Thank you. 
 Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  I second Mark on the same comment.  Yes, I support this proposal.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So shall we retain then?  We need also to most probably coach the organizers and make sure the intent that MAG members express here is achieved as a result of the workshop.
 On this one, Virat, or next one?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  This one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chairman, this proposal, the real challenge with regards to mobile payments in vast majority of the world is with regards to banking rules and central banking.  GSMA will tell you more than anybody else how difficult it is to get past because the moment you get into mobile banking, then you have to start agreeing to all the banking rules which makes it virtually impossible for companies to sort of operate this.
 When I see the speakers, none of them -- this is not a discussion to be had -- this discussion has to be had with people who have to enable this easily.  Mobile banking sort of -- mobile payments have very wafer-thin margins.  It doesn't work.  The only way it can happen if the regulatory environment is right.  And this is not -- the speakers and the -- this is not the place for that discussion.  This discussion has to happen with banks and central bankers.  So I just want to submit that.  You can have an academic discussion, but the challenge and the audience is very different from those who will be at IGF, as somebody who deals with it practically on a daily basis.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Can we then put it conditional and taking into account what you just said and ask Dominique to get in touch and making sure that this aspect that you raised is factored in and we need to get somebody who can speak on this very subject?  And if that condition is not met, we disqualify -- we take it off the program.  Can we do conditionality?  Good.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Janis, Subi has also proposed that we put a requirement to widen the perspective and speaker diversity, especially to invite more government participation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  This proposal is conditioned with a change in participation and bringing this regulatory aspect in.  Otherwise -- and that will be Dominique.  And secretariat will remind Dominique that this should be done.  Thank you.
 Next one -- two to go -- 33.  We had doubts about this because of --
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  We exposed both on the theme and on the stakeholder.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That's why we did not put it in.  Shall we keep it on "maybe"?  No one is opposing.  We are keeping it on maybe list. 
 Last one, 48.  Who was putting it?  This is a new one.  We put it on the "maybe" list at the very end.
 Mark, I think you were proposing that, if I recall correctly.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  I didn't actual comment on the substance earlier.  But I thought this proposal has value in terms of its horizon scanning and sort of identifying emerging issues and so on.  So it's coming from the Dutch IGF, yeah, this one.
 So, yeah, I would support its inclusion because of its -- it's covering really -- it's one of the more forward-looking substantive agendas and the IGF needs more of those.  So I would argue on that basis it's horizon scanning, looking ahead, and provides value -- additional value for that reason.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And if we would retain, that would be mostly on merits this is an emerging issue and maybe something that's not well understood.  Shita, please.
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair.  This is Shita.  I would support this proposal because it is a continuation of the national IGF as what we already did for Australia.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Subi?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said that this is a fantastic theme and a great content.  She strongly supports it.  It brings government participation, and it is a new issue.  We'll need to enhance speaker diversity.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Xiaodong, yours is up?  No.
 Based what we heard, any opposition of retaining 48 on the merits that this is a new, upcoming, emerging, not well understood as a result badly scored?  It is so decided.  Thank you very much.
 We have now a list of about a hundred.
 What I would like to suggest now, we agreed that secretariat would have discretion of a few workshops.  Otherwise, now when secretariat will put all the accepted workshops in the relevant boxes, we may discover that one or two slots are free or available.  Then secretariat would take workshops from the highest scored in case that would be -- that would happen.  And this exercise should be done fairly soon, that we inform potential workshop proponents very quickly.  Otherwise, we would inform those -- immediately those which proposals were retained.
 Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I agree completely with the proposal, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that that concludes the selection process for the moment.  We will be informed by secretariat on a regular basis on the progress in contacting workshop proponents, organizers. 
 Now, we had some conditionalities.  We'll be hearing reports on those.  And we now can proceed to remaining agenda items that we need to examine.  And those are dynamic coalitions, interregional dialogue main sessions, way forward.
 Shall we take it in that order?  I suspect that main sessions may take longer time, and if we can get through quickly dynamic coalitions, Markus, would you like to introduce the topic?
 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  Thank you, Chairman.  Yes, I will refer back to what I said when we started this meeting and also what I said at the December meeting, recalling the history of dynamic coalitions and the raison d'etre for going ahead with them when we started the IGF.
 It was then a way to compromise between those who wanted to create a very elaborate structure with working groups for intersessional work and those who didn't want any of that.
 So we said, "Let dynamic coalitions emerge and let people who share the same interests work together."
 We discussed on several occasions how to deal with them as we moved along.  Some of the dynamic coalitions fizzled out.  Some others produced useful work.  But on the whole, they remained on the fringes of the IGF. 
 And what we discovered -- well, we also saw that those who fizzled out, some of them were actually mainly created to have a slot in the annual meeting, some of them didn't produce reports, so we tightened gradually a little bit the criteria, made sure that they produced the report before they were given a slot again at the annual meeting.
 But as I said, some of them actually produced reports.
 Now, the downside with that is that these -- this work that was produced on the fringes of the IGF never found its way back to the main session, to the main community, be that for approval or be that for rejection. 
 And we have some of them that produced fairly elaborate booklets, like the dynamic coalition on the rights and principles, but this booklet, this publication, as I said, never went back to the main IGF, the mainstream community.
 Now, I'm not sure whether they would actual- -- it's a fairly solid, elaborate paper, but the mainstream IGF may or may not endorse these principles, but we don't -- we are in a position now that they are kind of independent of the IGF, present themselves as the rights and principles of the dynamic coalition on rights and principles, which has hardly any link left, and I think this is somewhat problematic.
 On the other hand, we have the dynamic coalition -- I think Andrea is sitting behind me -- on accessibility for people with disabilities.  They did have a main session.  They organized a main session in Sharm El Sheikh where they actually presented their work to the broader community, and I had hoped then that the main session would actually endorse these guidelines, but for one or the other reason, the chairman of the session then forgot to ask the question, "Do we all agree with that," and I'm sure at the time the main hall would have approved with acclamation these guidelines.
 So here we are, and the proposal is we had calls with the dynamic coalitions and they all agree to be better integrated, that we actually prepare a slot at the -- in the main session.  Under the current program, it's a 90-minute slot.  I think this would be perfectly adequate.  And this slot would not be for discussing in depth the substance of what work they may or may not have produced, but just to see whether or not the mainstream of the community actually agrees with them or finds these outputs as not acceptable.
 It could be a kind of reality check that also gives feedback back to the dynamic coalitions whether they're actually moving in the right direction towards a consensus-oriented outcome.
 As I said, I don't think we would have any issue with the dynamic coalition on accessibility.  They produced excellent work and they are in the process of updating their guidelines.  They have been adopted by the secretariat, and in planning the annual meeting, the secretariat looks at these guidelines, since they are operational, but in this particular case, it would be, I think, beneficial if they were actually labeled "The IGF Guidelines" and that would also allow the IGF to show to the world there is clearly a tangible outcome.
 The dynamic coalition on network neutrality is actually preparing a process to come up with a statement.  They have previously prepared a framework that has been transferred into the Council of Europe, but again, that was never discussed -- it was always discussed in the meetings of the dynamic coalitions but never in a main setting.
 Now, network neutrality is by far a more controversial subject, but if we let them go ahead with their plan, and they will go ahead with their plan without bringing them back to the main session, we may have some outcome that will be some kind of outcome of a dynamic coalition, but which will not have the reality check of the main session.
 So I think this would be beneficial, I think for the IGF, but also for the dynamic coalition, and it will be in line of strengthening an outcome-oriented IGF.
 We made the comparison with the work in the IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, where any working group starts with a bird of a feather but there's always a feedback then to the mainstream, to the Internet Architecture Board, and no standards get adopted unless it is tested by the broader community.
 So this is essentially the proposal in a nutshell.
 I'm not saying that every dynamic coalition that we have should be given a slot when we have this kind of wrap-up session, but only those who produce some intersessional work with an outcome from this work, and that this intersessional work should be promoted in the IGF context to make sure that everybody is aware that it is taking place so that nobody would come to this final wrap-up session with a surprise.  They would be given the opportunity to make any views on a proposal that is being elaborated, make that in the intersessional work, and would also be possible to address it in the separate meeting of the dynamic coalition when the substantive outcome paper they may have produced will be discussed.
 So this in a nutshell would be the proposal, and I think I would be very happy with this 90-minute slot reserved for dynamic coalitions and go back to the dynamic coalitions and explain it to them.
 I don't know whether any of the dynamic coalitions present in the room would like to add how they see it.  I know there are some people involved with work on network neutrality.  I think Marilia has been involved there.  But there's also Andrea Saks I have referred to from the dynamic coalition on accessibility.  There may be others, but as I said, many of these dynamic coalitions do very serious intersessional work but they don't benefit from an interaction with the mainstream, and here the proposal is to link them closer to the main proceedings of the IGF.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Markus, for this very clear explanation.
 I think I would not ask dynamic coalitions to speak.  I would rather ask MAG members to speak.
 And if there are any doubts, then dynamic coalitions may come in and join.
 The question is:  Can we support the proposal?  And I understand we have reserved 90 minutes as a main session for the dynamic coalitions.
 Avri first, then Giacomo, then Marilyn.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking and I guess I'm speaking both as a MAG member and as someone who has been active in a dynamic coalition for a long time.  Until just this year, I was chair of the Internet of Things dynamic coalition for multiple years.  And I think something like this would be good.
 We do work all year long, we get a meeting, and then we go on continuing the work outside.
 So I think the ability to have this thing, the ability to have this sort of continuity, is good, and in fact, have been talking to the chair of the IoT dynamic coalition and he's been very psyched by what he's seen happening with -- he's the one that's been going to Markus' sessions, not me. 
 And so I support it both as a MAG member and as a longtime dynamic coalition participant.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Giacomo?
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yeah.  I want to endorse what Markus says, adding some other elements.
 I think that there is a little bit of frustration in those that participate to dynamic coalitions that they don't find attention and recognition on the IGF overall because this kind of specific work that is intersessional, by essence and definition, is below the radar.
 So it happens that some of the coalitions for the moment are more active and more fruitful received and listened in the WSIS than at the IGF, and I think that this is a pity.  There is the coalition, for instance, on child on line protection.  There is the coalition on -- on the climate change and others that have been found very hard to find the recognition within the IGF.
 So this initiative is very welcomed and I hope that this could be able to reestablish fruitful links.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think Marilyn also will support it very briefly.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Actually, I'm going to raise some questions very briefly, Chair.  Thank you.
 We established dynamic coalitions because we needed a place for like-minded groups to work together.  I support the idea of a 90-minute session but I want to note that in my view, we as the MAG and as the IGF, do not have the standing or authority to authenticate or approve or validate proposals that are undertaken at a dynamic coalition.
 So I'm cautious about what is it we are -- we need to be careful about the brand we have and what the limitations of our brand are. 
 But I do think it's very useful to have the 90-minute session, but I think we also need to remember -- and you can tell this by looking at the membership of the dynamic coalitions.  This is really -- and this is a good thing.  This is really typically like-minded or groups that are interested in a particular topic doing deeper work, and I don't want to make them into something they're not while also recognizing them.
 But I have this caution about not assuming that we are putting any kind of approval.
 The final thing I will say is, we went through this a little bit with the national and regional IGFs and they -- the coordinators worked together to develop some standards in order to be listed on the -- on the Web site as a national and regional IGF.  There are activities that take place at a national and regional level who don't meet that threshold.  We have similar like standards for the dynamic coalitions and that allows them to use the space and gather, and I want to protect that as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  We have two.
 The first one is Malcolm.  Jeremy Malcolm.  Please, Jeremy.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: Hello.  Am I coming through?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes, we hear you.  Please go ahead.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: So I agree with a large part of what Markus said.  The reason why the dynamic coalitions had fizzled out is that they weren't empowered, and the endorsement of their outputs by the IGF as a plenary body is a way of overcoming that.  It's been a lost opportunity, so far.  And I support the idea of a main session.  I just (indiscernible) Marilyn (indiscernible) that (indiscernible) --
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Jeremy, we lost you.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: -- that's exactly what this main session would be for, but in turn, the main session would be --
 You lost me?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yeah.  Could you repeat the previous three or four sentences?
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: Hello?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes, you're getting through now.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: I think the main session also needs to be empowered in (indiscernible) that it considers the outputs of the dynamic coalitions and I think just having a main session leader who says, "Do we approve this" and having acclamation is not adequate at all.  We've seen other sessions where the outputs of workshops or dynamic coalitions have been presented in that fashion, and it's been very lacking.  People have not attended that main session.  I think we need a much more deliberative process to consider these outputs.
 For the next IGF, if the deliberative poll process goes ahead, that's one attempt at putting a deliberative process into place, and that's an experiment for the future, but for now, I'm thinking of something lighter weight or endorsing the outputs of the dynamic coalitions.
 There is an idea -- (audio issues) -- which you can find on line at idearatingsheets.org.  I think that would be a very suitable way to get a more tangible and considered response from the plenary group to the dynamic coalitions' outputs, rather than just having a certain leader say, "Do we endorse this?"  It actually requires a bit more thought to go in and it gives a much more -- a much better idea of how well a proposal has been received.
 So I really encourage everyone to look at this idea rating sheets --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: -- model and consider that for this session.  Also --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Malcolm.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: -- I think maybe if there were two main sessions with a break in between, that would even be better than one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Malcolm.  I think if we agree in principle, then modalities will be considered by coordinators of that session, so thank you for your contribution.
 And Subi, please very briefly because we need to continue on other topics.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  It is a brief comment.  She supports the idea but it shouldn't just be a reporting-in session.
 We'll need structure and key framework.  Otherwise, this can get confusing.  Complete support for a main session.  Agree with the comment of MAG not being a validating body for dynamic coalitions.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Subi.  I think Markus will take everything into account and hoping -- or relying on Markus' experience, I have no doubts that the session will be very successful and will be well thought through.
 And Juan Alfonso is in good agreement with that.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I take this opportunity to ask a question.  I'm -- please, excuse me, because I'm new here.  I don't know if you already discussed this last year, but two years ago the working group for the improvement of the IGF mentioned as one of the recommendations they need to have outcomes in some way, and so I am -- this, in part, relates to that.
 I certainly agree with Marilyn that the outcomes is not of the MAG, it's of the IGF, so MAG has no mandate to endorse or to -- in any case the outcome.
 But the question that I am asking you is:  Already this has been discussed in the MAG how outcomes are going to get out, either main sessions or workshops?  If it's not the case, I don't think we have time to do it now.  We will have to do it maybe in the virtual and all these processes.  Maybe that would be a good topic for the next -- next potential meeting.  But my real question is:  It's already some discussion been carried about that?  Because that need a process.  That need a very -- it's not easy in my way to really comply with that request of the working group for improvement of IGF.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso, this has been discussed immediately after working group released recommendations and actually has been implemented already.  Everything we do is taking into account these recommendations.  The best practice work stream, intersessional work stream, all that is done with that in mind.  So we're working on implementation of these recommendations.
 If there are no opposition to proposal, we accept in principle.  We have reserved 90 minutes in main session for dynamic coalitions and, Markus, we're happy that you volunteered to coordinate preparation for that and if you need any help since we will have two coordinators for -- per main session, please indicate whom you would like to have as a co-facilitator and we will formally appoint him.
 So now let us move to next item and that is interregional dialogue.
 I suspect that that will be Marilyn who will be introducing the topic.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes, Chair, if we are going to talk about the interregional dialogue of the national and regional IGFs, yes.  Yes?  Okay.
 For a number of years, the national and regional IGFs have met in an interregional/national dialogue.  It typically is a three-hour session.  It is not a main session.  It is self-designed by the representatives from the national and regional IGFs.  There are some here including Mark Buell from Canada.  I had spoken with Ana as well. 
 What we typically do is put a call out with the help of the secretariat to the coordinators.  We do an online planning and identify what we want to do.
 I will just note that two years ago we did mini studies of the national and regional IGFs that several participated in, and we shared the results of those studies.  We often also talk about the commonality of issues.  But it is designed from a bottom-up perspective by the coordinators themselves.
 We've had varying successes.  In some cases, we get very high turnout.  One of the challenges I will just mention that everybody needs to understand is that the national and regional coordinators very often are engaged separately in workshops and maybe even in plenary sessions.  They do not have a lot of time to take on organizing.
 And the people who participate in the national and regional IGFs, many of them do not come to the IGF itself because it is the national issues that most attract them or there's limited funding for them to come.
 So I propose that those of us who are interested in it put this dialogue together again, invite the coordinators to identify themes and activities. 
 Let me say one other thing.  There is a hoped-for opportunity for reflection from the national and regional IGFs into the main session that Cheryl and others are coordinating on IGF at 10.  And I think also there will be reflection of the participation from the nationals and regionals from those who choose to work in connecting the next billion.
 So there will be multiple ways in which we are linking with the national and regional IGFs.  But my proposal is that we maintain this non-plenary slot, whatever else we do, which is -- needs a large room and needs resources and scheduling at a time when people can participate.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Hi.  Thanks, Marilyn, for that.  I remember the studies that were done two years ago and the work that especially of Sylvia Cadena in collecting those studies.  It was, indeed, nice to see those all together in one place.
 My question will be since I know that national and regional IGF email list has been in a bit of a lull lately, I'm just -- I guess I'm just concerned about participation and also duplication.  I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining how this could add or complement to the IGF Master Chef initiative which also showcases different experiences of national and regional IGFs, just to ensure that the two wouldn't be duplicative?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I can tell you what I know about that workshop.  I was invited to participate in it, but I was not involved in any way in designing it.  It was designed by others from the national IGF initiatives.
 So I think the question about what their intention is -- although I am invited to speak on it, to actually support.  I am a sous chef, I see.  I can't really elaborate on that, Susan, because I wasn't involved in helping design it.
 The national and regional dialogues are typically driven by the coordinators.  That is, they are designed by consensus.  And, again, it's an opportunity in some cases that coordinators choose to spend a good amount of time sharing their experiences and challenges.  In other cases they choose to focus on issues.
 So really until we poll them, I think it's premature to forecast what they will want to focus on
 On the issue of the list, I spoke with Chengetai, the secretariat, who is going to assign -- I'm not going to in any way say a substitute for Serena who we greatly miss but someone from the secretariat to help reach out to the coordinators and revitalize the list.
 The coordinators for those of you who are on it really don't use the list because they are busy working.  It is merely a form of communication.  But the idea would be to send an email to them and invite them to participate in a Webex call and brainstorm.
 And maybe we might also hear from Mark about his thoughts as well since he is also a coordinator.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  My question is:  Do we have any problem with this?  Any reason why we're discussing this?  This has been on the agenda many, many years subsequently. 
 I went last year, I remember and then spoke.  We have room allocation.  This was confirmed by host country. 
 Do we need to spend more time taking into account that we have two outstanding issues to discuss?
 I see no reason.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  If we're not discussing it as a main session, we should just let it go on.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It is not a main session.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yeah.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  God bless this meeting and three -- big room for three hours will be allocated.
 Let us move to main sessions now.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Janis?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, we are stopping this discussion.  Main sessions.
 Chengetai distributed a proposal on main sessions.  And Subi, if I'm not mistaken, was the one who circulated also a list of proposed themes for thematic main sessions.
 Let me see if anyone has any considerable opposition to the proposed outline of main sessions.  That means we start with setting the scene.  Then we go two hours, maybe more, on IGF at 10.  In the afternoon on the first day, we have closing ceremony -- sorry, opening ceremony, opening session.  And the reason why it was moved back is because of technical convenience.  If we expect -- and we do expect dignitaries, they would not be able to arrive in the morning but in the afternoon session.
 So then we would reserve the whole second day for WSIS+10 consultations.  And if consultations will not take place, then we would liberate one afternoon or morning session fully, three hours, and we could add an additional thematic session to that.
 And then we would have a thematic session on third day in the morning.  We would devote afternoon of the third day for a best practice and intersessional billion. 
 And on the fourth day, we would have a thematic 90-minute session in the morning -- sorry, we would have dynamic coalitions in the morning.  Then we would have two 90-minute sessions for thematic discussions.  And then we will have a closing session which would be combined with open mic.  We will start with open mic and combine with closing ceremony.
 Fiona, please.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you very much, Janis.  Maybe just a question for clarification to help at least me understand what would be the difference between the morning session on WSIS+10 and the afternoon proposed session if the UNGA folks were able to come? 
 And in that regard, would this be a consultation on just the IGF component of WSIS+10 or all of the action lines and everything else?  Just an understanding of what's expected in the morning versus the afternoon, assuming the afternoon happens.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We had this conversation this morning here.  And maybe, Marilyn, you can explain.  We're looking at three different scenarios. 
 So, Marilyn, maybe you can explain those.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  I just want to tell everyone that I have a little -- have a little sheet of paper here.  And if you didn't get to come this morning, although I did post to the list -- people who had other commitments -- do sign up.  Chengetai is going to create a special email list, and I will be posting a summary.
 What we talked about this morning with a really good representative group are exploring three scenarios.  One would be that the PGA comes.  In which case it would be a real consultation with the PGA chairing the consultation.  We will have the zero draft document, which we can take comments on.  We will also have other inputs that have been made to the co-facilitators that are going to be on a public Web site that we would also be able to make comments on.
 In order -- if we have the attendance and participation that we expect at the Brazilian IGF, I would envision the three hours being taken up with specific topics that comments are taken on sequentially so that we work through something organized and then we would have both a transcript, rapporteurs, and a report which would be given to the PGA.  It is up to them to decide what they do.  The modalities do not specify what they would do.
 If they do not come, there are two other scenarios.  One is there's somebody who comes as an observer and basically we are conducting a -- pretty much the same kind of consultation but we are conducting it for only three hours.  We have, also, the question to determine of:  Would we include short representation or presenters from those U.N. organizations who have submitted documents into the consultation process?  That would be CSTD.  That will be UNESCO.  And that will be ITU from the MPP platform.  Those would be very short and offer an opportunity for the participants to comment on.
 In all cases, we expect to have a document which documents what is said, not that we vote on it, not that we negotiate it, but it is the proceedings of the meeting. 
 And as I said, we're working on three scenarios that will -- we will -- after the appointment of the co-facilitators and at the first meeting of the stakeholders in New York, which right now we think is either the 30th of June or the 1st of July -- we will know at the end of the week -- we would then plan to issue a formal invitation to the PGA's office to come and engage in a consultation.
 Remember, the PGA will change in September and it will be Denmark.  It is Uganda now.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Marilyn.
 Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.  You asked does anyone object to this?  I haven't gotten all the way to finding it objectionable, but I do not understand why we're investing a whole day in WSIS+10 at the IGF.
 Also, while I'm speaking, on the questions of the thematic sessions, are we talking about two topics or four topics?  So that's another question.
 But I really do not understand a whole day of main sessions invested on WSIS.  So perhaps somebody can explain to me why IGF is doing that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The U.N. General Assembly resolution suggests that the President of General Assembly should consult other stakeholder groups on WSIS+10 review.  And if that will be done in New York, there will be maybe 20, 30 representatives of different stakeholder groups, those who were permanently accredited to U.N.  And they would be providing guidance to President of General Assembly on WSIS+10.
 If that is acceptable, then we don't need to bring or invite PGA to Brazil.  If we think that potentially consulting with 2,000 representatives of different stakeholders -- stakeholder groups in one place during six hours would be useful, then we reserve those six hours and invite PGA to consider.
 If PGA says no, then we liberate those and organize something else or leave them completely empty because we also discussed that we may wish to leave some main sessions simply empty, allowing broader participation in workshops.
 So that is the logic behind it.  We will know more in June.  And it will not be too late to revert and then make decisions how to use this time otherwise.
 If PGA is not coming, then it is up to us to decide whether WSIS+10 event or main session, that we agreed yesterday in unanimity, should be conducted -- no, not yesterday, day before yesterday, should be conducted in 90 minutes or in three hours.  So that is entirely now in our hands.  So that's the logic.
 Elizabeth and then Fiona, again.
 >> ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  In the interest of time, I will be as brief as possible.  Two points about the schedule that has been put up there.  I will express one concern with putting the IGF+10 session ahead of the opening ceremony.  I think it would be much better to do that within the framework of the later schedule.  And one of the proposals I have for that is perhaps that session could be the morning -- the following morning.  And the WSIS+10 consultation could actually be split -- on the possibility that it might be a six-hour session, could actually be split over two days.  There's two reasons for that.  One is obviously if there's a section of time that is used because of the PGA and the consultation will not take place, that would fit quite nicely probably in sequence with the IGF review.
 And, secondly, if it is a consultation for these people perhaps in consideration for them spreading it out over the two days might be more effective for our communication.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 One of the arguments why IGF at 10 is scheduled early is dignitaries and ministers could attend it.  And they would not attend it on second, third day.  That is our experience.
 Fiona, please.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you, Janis, for the further explanation on the previous point and for Marilyn for providing the further details to the three possible options that are on the table.
 It would be helpful to get the paper circulated and to see that so we could react appropriately.
 I think from my perspective -- and I appreciate that people are pointing to the MAG in their individual capacity.  But for a government official, you cannot divorce that from your actual -- that you work for an administration.  From the perspective of my administration, I think it is very difficult for us to get out in front of the modalities of an U.N. process that have yet to be developed.  So I need to put that on the record.  But we would like to see the proposals and we can come back to it.
 But I think the initial conversation did cause some concern amongst folks in the back row here.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  If our concern about the opening ceremony is that it will not have enough senior-level people if it is held in the morning, then I suppose IGF at 10 will meet the same fate.  And, therefore, to put it in the morning will probably lose the exact same people that we are missing because we are moving the opening ceremony up.  I am not sure how that works out.  So that's one question.  Please.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We're talking on very, very important people who may come in the afternoon fly in by helicopter and then fly out.  I will not specify who they may be, but there was a reason why it was specifically requested to be put in the afternoon, in order to maximize chance that very, very important people would come in the afternoon.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.  If that is the case, then I understand.  But I would still -- I think we should keep a placeholder on day two in case -- as it develops, and I think the idea that ICC-BASIS just put forward, which is:  Is it possible to split into two days if the PGA does come in, into our request?  And I suppose they will stay overnight, and we might want to take a break between the six hours of consultation, in which case this could be held in day two. 
 I just wanted to leave some flexibility there.  Let's not get to all the decisions today.
 And if it is -- if it is three hours, then we should relook at some of these things.  But right now we'll leave it at that.  So I get the clarification this is for those two or three people that you are talking, not a dozen.  Because if they are not coming in the morning for the opening, then there's no point in having the session.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  We're talking about very, very important people.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And certainly there isn't any- -- isn't that's carved in stone.  Anything.  Everything is flexible and we do not know.  Maybe the second day will be completely empty, so then we are -- we can move around everything easily.
 Can we move to the discussion of themes, if that's possible?  Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Well, thank you.  Very briefly.  You know, for ministers, if there's a high-level event to which ministers are invited on the day zero afternoon, then in the next morning, an IGF session involving ministers and then the opening ceremony, those three elements is a great program for ministers.  Thank you.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  One clarification.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Have we held -- I can't remember from memory.  Have we held sort of events like that are held before like a main session?  Be- --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Last IGF opening also was in the afternoon.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  My question was:  Was there a main session held before the opening?  I couldn't recall one but I'm sure there is.  That's fine, that's fine.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Always has been orientation session, a main session, and then setting-the-scene session always has been the case.
 Constance, please.
 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  I think this is a -- this is a promising draft.  I wonder if there's any value at the beginning of the week to reflect any of the IGF outputs, because the program of work we're preparing for the VVIPs is focused on WSIS and IGF issues, so institutional Internet governance issues, and they will not have a chance to get a sense of the actual outputs of IGF 2015.
 So I wonder if there's any value in including in the beginning of the week any kind of information session on intersessional activities.
 The other -- the other question I have is whether or not we should rename the main session "intersessional," as it doesn't seem to be very clear in terms of terminology.  Maybe "IGF Best Practices and Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion."  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The answer to the first question, that might be raised in the setting-the-scene session or hour. 
 And on titles, everything is possible.  That's entirely up to us.  This is just a placeholder for the moment.
 On themes, can we get on the screen a list of proposed themes? 
 I was thinking the technology allows copy/paste, but thank you for typing.
 So who is willing -- willing to make the first pitch?  Fiona.  No?  Sorry.  I thought that you were --
 Hossam, please.
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Well, once again, regarding the theme for sustainable development and Internet economy and taking into consideration Mike Nelson's comments, so there are two suggested titles:  "How Internet Economy is Vital for Sustainable Development," and this is the suggestion of Mark, and -- or "ICT Driving Sustainable Development."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think it would be not wise now to discuss potential titles.  We will -- let's agree on broad sort of topics that we want to -- want to address in thematic sessions, and then based on that broad agreement, work on concrete titles for the thematic sessions. 
 Any further -- any further thoughts? 
 Jac, please.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Apologies for adding to the list, but I think considering the large amount of proposals that's coming around the thematic area of human rights, that that should be considered as a main session. 
 And also the -- I guess the importance and timeliness of the topic of privacy for this year with the -- with the appointment of the special rapporteur on privacy, the mandate, and I think that's actually a very key issue for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I would, of course, would be much happier hearing trimming the tree, not putting -- putting things on the tree, but I would like also to ask MAG members to express their support to one or another themes which is -- which are present on the list that we see the majority in the room.
 I will take Susan first and then Virat.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Chair. 
 Just to clarify -- and I don't want there to be any misunderstanding about my support for regional and national IGFs, because I think they're all great and I support them very much, but it seems that -- I thought they weren't a main session and it seems that they're included as a main session by the --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  That was proposed as a main session topic, but we equally know that there is a coordination meeting, a three-hour session, for regional and national IGFs.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Okay.  In that case -- okay -- I would like to support and explain a little bit why I believe that network neutrality should be a main session.
 If we take the proposal submitted by the Internet community as any sort of barometer or indication of what the general Internet community is caring about and is interested about, we see that there are, I think in total, eight proposals that dealt with zero rating, two of which, I think, were accepted, at least.
 There are other proposals dealing with zero rating that were not accepted.  Zero rating is a sub-issue of net neutrality.
 So I think given the interest and given that the beauty of the IGF is that government officials and policymakers can come to the event and understand the different solutions that are being proposed or discussed in other jurisdictions, I think it's a really valuable opportunity for people to come together to discuss this issue over the course of the event.
 I understand that network neutrality was a main session last year.  I don't think that's a reason to automatically preclude it from being a main session this year. 
 I also think that there have been many developments that have been happening on this topic since last year.  We're also seeing a broadening of kind of a tripartite classification of net neutrality actors.  We're seeing involvements of CDNs.  We're seeing involvement of Tier 1 ISPs and transit providers.  I don't think that is an issue that's going to go away.  I think everybody could benefit from a discussion on it and so that is why I would propose that we have a main session on network neutrality.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Susan. 
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, we have space for how many, finally?  Two will go through, at best?  How many of these will go through?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So on the previous slide, we have, for the moment, three.  Three thematic sessions reserved.  And if WSIS+10 will fall through, as planned, then we will have fourth.  But not necessarily we need to fill every -- every slot.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So I want to remind myself and ourselves about the conversation we have every time we start the new MAG session in February, this time in December, where people vehemently oppose the need for main sessions and long main sessions, and so many main sessions, and now we are back to sort of filling out every square inch that's left.
 So I would sincerely request that we should stop at one or two, at best, because we -- we -- sort of -- if we tend to forget what we do between four months of meeting last time, then the next time the same subjects will come up and I'm reminded of the Swiss cheese.
 So my request would be to actually keep it at one or two maximum and leave some space.
 Last year, as you're aware, net neutrality came in at the end of May because it was in the outcome statement of NETmundial, and therefore it sort of came up as a new subject, and that might happen this year.  We are quite some time away.
 I would request that we certainly look at sustainable development.  This was -- this is a main theme.  It is linked to a lot of work that is going on in Geneva, in New York.  This is the year that we're looking for renewal.  So let's keep in mind our key objective is the renewal of IGF.  It's to engage the governments.  It's to give them the comfort that we are discussing their language, their issues, their concerns.  And I realize net neutrality is an issue that's grown since we met last time, but, you know, sustainable development has universal appeal across continents, across nations, across regions, so would certainly strongly support sustainable development.
 I'd also think that we might look at -- we don't quite understand right now what NETmundial would be so maybe the host would explain what it would constitute since there are other opportunities for NETmundial but I would certainly --
 You know, from the ones that are listed, Internet economy, given the fact that it's over a trillion dollars invested in this sector, there's a lot of livelihood, jobs, people who love it and who hate it all want to be involved in the economy.  I might be in the minority at this stage but I think Internet economy is a sensible subject to get new perspectives, new people in, and it's a large enough subject -- banking, mobile payments, all of that stuff that we discussed but didn't find homes in workshops, a ton of that stuff can find homes here.
 It's not something that's been done before.  We have a chance once and -- once in a year, so I would ask sustainable development and Internet economy.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Dominique?
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  I have a question and then I want to speak in support of several of these topics.
 So I still count five thematic sessions if the WSIS+10 doesn't happen with the UNGA, is that right?  You said three?  Sorry.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  No.  It depends how you count, you know.
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Counting is not a science, it's just an art, so you can count in different ways.
 If you count 90 minutes, then you have more; if you count three hours, then you have less.
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  For the moment, let's assume we have three and see how far we can get with that.
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Okay.  All right.  Just double-checking on that. 
 So I would support Virat and others on the sustainable development and the Internet economy, mostly because sustainable development is actually a theme. 
 But I would just like to say that we had a very lively and really good discussion and good debate last year on net neutrality.
 However, what we're saying at the GSMA across the globe is net neutrality is not really an issue in developing countries as much as access is an issue, and so I think sustainable development and Internet economy would feed into that and really, you know, target the governments as well, who are looking at regulatory approaches for access and for getting -- many of the governments, obviously, in developing countries as well as developed countries, for getting people on line.  So that's just my two cents.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 
 My intervention is along the lines of the previous one.  I think that we should not fill all the holes now because many things can emerge.  Or even in some cases, it's good to leave it empty so people can go to the workshops.
 Having said that, I think that we should only commit now to the more general, the one that we're really sure.  I think that the balance is leaning towards sustainable development and Internet economy.  And the rest, leave it in standby, just in case if it becomes news or hot items in that -- in that moment.
 And in that case, I would like to add to the list cybersecurity.
 If we have done this last year with all this Sony attack and all that, cybersecurity was a hot topic in that moment.  Maybe it could be a hot topic again.  Cybersecurity as a concept is wider.  It has many facets.  It could easily be one of the hot topics of the moment.
 So what I would recommend is, as my previous colleagues said, just to fill sustainable development and Internet economy and leave the rest open, just waiting to see what happens in the rest of the year.  We're just beginning in this road.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Thank you for helping me from one side and adding complexity to another.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.
 I'm going to speak only in support of sustainable development and Internet economy.
 I do think that possibly the two could be merged -- I sound better in French -- but I want to get clarification of whether we are proposing this as two separate main sessions or a merged session.  That's my first comment.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  I think that that would be one.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  My second comment is:  I would propose to take -- if I -- I don't really -- I'd like to hear more from the host about NETmundial, but I'd like to also propose a possible option, and that is, a large room for up to two hours on NETmundial that would be maybe able to hold 150 to 200 people, if it's not --
 I'm not personally of the view that it should take one of our plenary slots, but I want to respect the interest of the host to engage further in a discussion about the NETmundial outcome documents.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Flavio.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Thank you, Janis.
 Just to reinforce the arguments for having a main session on NETmundial outcomes, after 18 months of the NETmundial event, it should be a time to take stock of this outcome.  How is the Internet governance community going regarding the principles that we approved in the document and about the roadmap, the various items.  And I remember you that, in fact, if we take many of those proposals for main sessions, if we consider role of governments, human rights, cybersecurity, net neutrality, all those themes are included in the outcome document of NETmundial. 
 So that by having this main session, we can address all those issues and see how are we doing with those issues in the ecosystem, which -- for which organizations are tackling those issues, how are they doing this, what else should we do. 
 So I think it's a good opportunity not only to take stock of the document of the NETmundial document, but of the whole Internet governance ecosystem because this is what the NETmundial is about.  It's about the ecosystem.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I have many requests for the floor.  Please keep up and I will call on you.  Don't worry, I see everything.
 Fiona is next.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Janis.
 A couple of questions and then maybe a suggestion at the end.
 So it's unclear to me and it's very difficult just looking at the titles to know exactly what the session would be about exactly because there's not a description.  So we are sitting here reacting to just headlines or titles. 
 But it's unclear to me what sustainable development is and how that will be different from a conversation about the WSIS+10. 
 If the WSIS+10 itself is about the development goals and meeting the goals from WSIS and things like that, I'm not quite sure what the difference between the two would be, so some clarification would be helpful.
 As I understand it, we have a main session on the IGF at 10 and then this new idea of a consultation, but the WSIS+10 conversation, as far as I understand, is still supposed to be about the broader document itself and things like that.
 So I'm not sure how that's different.
 But I also have a suggestion.  I'm just not sure the utility of us sitting in here presupposing what we think people that are going to come to Brazil might want to talk about or might want to hear about, so perhaps there's a way to take these topics, flesh them out with a sentence or two, and put them out for public comment in terms of what would people actually like the sessions to be and maybe we could take that approach in terms of deciding what the one or two are that people wanted to move going forward.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So let me do two comments on your proposal.
 So first is, the MAG is tasked by the secretary-general, based on community proposals, to work on a program for IGF.  It's a program committee.
 And this is up to us to -- based on our best understanding what our communities would like to see proposed agenda.
 If we would go now back to consult, that would prolong things and I would say we would put our problem on others' shoulders, so that's why I would like us to, as we did before, suggest and work on main sessions as -- based on our sort of knowledge what our constituencies would like.
 Second is, WSIS+10, as Marilyn described, conversation would be based very much on the outcome -- or, rather, the draft of December meeting document, which by November would be already constituted, and that would be an opportunity to input -- to discuss that document in multistakeholder environment, because otherwise, that would be discussed exclusively in intergovernmental setting.
 Since the overarching theme is sustainable -- how Internet governance supports sustainable development, that would be also one of the main sessions talking about technology for sustainable development or Internet for sustainable development.
 Fiona.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  I'm sorry to come back because your attempt to help me understand things has actually confused a little bit more in my mind. 
 So I understood the proposal as Marilyn described it.  Again, seeing this when it's circulated would be helpful, is that the draft zero conversation would be in the afternoon if the UNGA folks were there.  I wasn't quite sure what the morning conversation was, if there's a difference.  Seeing this in writing would be helpful and could help clarify some of this.  I do appreciate the responsibility of the MAG to set the agenda.  But I don't understand the harm in actually taking a few weeks to ask for stakeholder input on topics but will defer to your judgment in how you prefer to operate.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Aida.
 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC:  So just to express my strong support for both human rights and sustainable development.  I believe both are very critical.  Human rights rounds the Internet governance and rights framework, and it had also had strong support through a number of proposals. 
 Yeah, sustainable development, is very key for developing context.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Ginger?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Let Ginger speak first and then perhaps I can read a short note from Subi.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Okay.  This is Ginger.  The audio is breaking up so I hope you can hear me well.
 >>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC:  Yes, Ginger.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  I would note I do have several points to make because Subi as well has been waiting in the queue.  I realize since you can't see our agitation and that we are jumping up and down in our seats that we really need to speak.  Perhaps you need to have us on camera.
 Going back a little bit, I liked Marilyn's proposal that NETmundial Initiative be given a slide slot.  Yes, NETmundial Initiative ideas and principles are important, and they are very similar to Internet governance -- the idea of proposals.  But what I suggest is that, for instance, net neutrality, which is such an important topic, including internet.org which makes it a critical issue for developing countries, we should discuss net neutrality and we should ask NETmundial Initiative to include their input on all of these themes when we bring them up rather than emphasizing NETmundial meetings.  We should use their principles and their ideas and interventions in every one of the topics because they're important principles and important thematic input.
 But especially since, for instance, we have a very, very important main session that cannot -- if we go back to Juan's suggestion, for instance, that we leave several open, the most indispensable main session -- and we can't forget how long we worked to get this and how hard we worked.  I'm sure you must all understand I'm talking about a human rights main session.  We have to have the human rights main session.  And I would like to see that put on as irrevocable as our first session as it is -- covers all of the principles, all of the norms, all of the reasons we're even talking about Internet governance.
 So I would like to see that we get that one taking a slot.  And then if we need to later leave some flexibility.  But if we're going to, for instance, follow principles and rules as Juan Fernandez has suggested, human rights is the one indispensable main session we need to have.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Now comments from Subi.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Yeah, short comment from Subi.  She said:  Strong proposal for cyber encryption, building digital trust, and governing the deep and dark net.  Our key objective is to do a good program which has more value, most value for each participant.  As MAG, let us not forget renewal is important.  But if we do good work, that should also be a reflection on why IGF needs to be renewed.
 I have heard the word "renewal" over the last three days.  This is important.  But this can't be the only reason why we are doing IGF with support for sustainable development.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ephraim?
 >>EPHRAIM KENYANITO:  Hello.  This is Ephraim Kenyanito for the record.  So I just wanted to reiterate about Dominique's comment about net neutrality not being important.  Last year during the main session, I spoke about zero rating.  And I would still insist that let's find a way of discussing this, even if it's possible by inviting Mark Zuckerberg to the meeting -- that will attract lots of people -- and have a debate this issue.  I want to support inclusion of human rights.  So net neutrality and human rights are the two main sessions that I would really support because it affects the developing countries.
 My Internet is zero rated.  I use Facebook zero and Twitter zero.  And there is a number of implications on that, and they still insist on that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Shita?
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  I have two points.  Thank you.  I'm supporting the regional and national IGF.  But I do think this could also be reflected as the outcome of IGF at 10.  So this would be part of the IGF at 10. 
 And also would like to second or highlight what Ginger and Ephraim said about human rights.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Segun?
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I have just been curious concerning the human rights issues.  For me, I think the topic has been flagged unnecessarily when you consider where -- where you consider Africa and other developing countries. 
 My position is that -- so sustainable development and Internet economy remain the attraction for the stakeholders from developing countries.  And I really want the MAG to consider that because if I can also share with you the experience we're having concerning human rights issues on Internet, I remember that one of our group at the local level was pushing human Internet right freedom.
 But inasmuch as that position is attractive, the main problem we have now in Africa -- and I also want to believe in other parts of the continent like Asia -- how do we ensure -- how do we address -- how can we address the issue of accessibility and (indiscernible)? 
 So for me, human rights is not really the main problem that we have in Africa.  What we have is investment.  How can we drive investment in Internet infrastructure that can open up Internet space?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Segun.
 I will take three further interventions -- four.  And then I will make a proposal and we suggest to move to the next item.
 So I have Ankhi and then Xiaodong and then Avri and then Benedicto.
 Ankhi, please.
 >>ANKHI DAS:  Retaining sustainable development and Internet economy given the jobs and growth agenda, particularly in the developing countries where the youth demographics are literally massive and local innovation is powering a lot of -- fueling a lot of the growth of that economy, particularly the eCommerce side, payment sectors, et cetera. 
 We have in the interest of preserving optionality closer to the date of some other (indiscernible), as spoken by previous speakers and interveners, I think we need to preserve the optionality and leave some blank spaces open.  So I would -- I would make a recommendation that we go with that approach in terms of just holding on for the time being.
 As a third area which we could potentially consider and looking at supporting from this floor would be NETmundial because that is the host country where we are having this.  It germinated out of that meeting -- that country venue.  And, therefore, I think there's some discussions which can -- this could be a good home for that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Xiaodong.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  This is Xiaodong speaking.  I compared the human rights.  I suggest to consider the Internet economy seriously.  I think that in developing countries, they do believe that the Internet can speed the economy development in their country.  So they try to push the Internet economy and try to push other industry.
 My second suggestion is about cybersecurity.  Now, I think cybersecurity is a very serious topic in recent years.  And now there's a lot of debate on the cybersecurity issues.  So I think for the IGF, it is better for us to have a platform for dialogue on cybersecurity issues, especially there is a lot of argument between some countries.
 And my third suggestion is about NETmundial.  Sure, I know in the end of June that we should have a NETmundial meeting.  I don't know what would happen in NETmundial.  But I think NETmundial tried to be another platform for Internet governance discussion and maybe finding some kind of solution and solve the problem.
 So I think we also need to have some sessions to connect more information about NETmundial and have people to discuss NETmundial in IGF.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.  First thing I wanted to do is actually endorse Fiona's idea, that we basically come out of this meeting and take a month and collect some more opinions in addition to our own.
 But beyond that, I support the continuation of human rights as an issue that there's a whole lot of aspects of that we haven't gotten to yet.
 And then when I look at the other one, I really -- I found the appeal to taking on the topic of the internet.org, whether it was the net neutrality aspects or the Internet economy aspects or the development aspects and such because it's become such a focal point of discussion for so many of the issues we're dealing with in governance this day.  It is so topical.  It is a hot issue.  And it actually seems to me that it could be deserving of a session where we really dug down into all the fud and counterfud. thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Benedicto?
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Janis.
 Well, I'd like to offer a few comments because I think part of the difficulty we have in tackling this is because we -- there was -- we lack conceptual documents in regard to what is intended to be discussed under each title.  Differently from what we have when we are considering the workshops, we knew exactly what was intended and who was to be speaking.  Here we are talking more of a concept and trying to -- in the course of the debate trying to fit in some details to assist us in the decision.
 And another point that is lacking is a clear understanding on how this relates, each of those proposed topics relate to those decisions that have already been made in regard to the framework.  How?  Because some of those issues are kind of overarching issues, under which there are workshops, open forums, things that are taking place.  I think it would be useful to have a better understanding how this would fit.
 But having said that, in regard to the NETmundial, which is the one we are proposing as host country, first of all, it is very important to differentiate that the proposal is to have a main session on the NETmundial outcomes, not on the NETmundial Initiative.  So we are looking at two different things.  It is important not to make a confusion.
 And as my colleague was explaining, the idea is to focus on the principles and the roadmap of the two main aspects of the outcome. 
 And in regard to the roadmap, the principles, of course, is something that is -- does not have a dynamic.  But the roadmap was actually a reoriented document.  It was like a picture we took in April 2014 on some things that were needed in order to advance.
 So we think it would be -- it would make a lot of sense one year and a half later to take stock of how we have moved forward in those regards.  And as my colleagues said, that would entail discussions on a number of issues that are there.  So NETmundial would also provide, let's say, a very comprehensive framework to discuss the issues. 
 Maybe the difficulty would be to select which issues to be discussed there because NETmundial addressed basically all the issues that are there.
 And then another important point is that NETmundial also has provided very important insights into process to how even the multistakeholder model can work in practice.  And this would also be maybe important for IGF to further reflect on this.  And this is also -- this also relates to other workshops that have been proposed.
 So I would not, of course, speak against any of the other main sessions.  But I'd like to highlight those aspects that directly refer to the NETmundial proposal.  We think that would make total sense, that we would be consistent with what we had done before, to take stock, and to try to -- and I think this would even assist us in providing input for this WSIS+10. 
 Overall we feel it would take place at the UNGA because this would provide a very comprehensive assessment of -- an overall assessment of the situation.  As my colleague said, it was -- we look from the perspective of ecosystem and not even much importance as particular aspects.  We would have a very comprehensive appraisal of the issues.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Time is running, and we still have one question to discuss.  And I would like to suggest the following.  As Fiona said and Avri supported, maybe proponents of ideas could make a 250-word abstract explaining what session would try to achieve, what would be angle in the next ten days and provide that to secretariat.  Secretariat would put together a compilation and based on that, we would decide in one of the next MAG meetings.
 If that is acceptable -- or rather, is there any opposition to that?  I will not take any other comments on this.  Simply we need another -- decide another question.
 So I don't hear opposition.  It is decided.
 Let us move to the last item of our agenda.  It is next steps.  On next steps, opposition?
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Thank you.  Just to clarify.  Thank you very much and appreciate the proposal.  But just to clarify on the other document that we had on main sessions, the things that were in brackets and the things that were in red, we're going to revisit those?  Those aren't set -- Okay.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Everything will be revisited.  Main sessions are not decided.
 Way forward.  We have to decide whether we need a third meeting.  And if we need, whether that should be a formal MAG meeting or that should be as -- there was some indications that that might be an editorial group meeting in the framework of intersessional.
 All flags down and on this topic, way forward.  Very brief interventions.
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Chair, it's Marilyn Cade speaking.  I support the need for at least a two-day MAG meeting.  And I think we need more than just the editorial group meeting because we have more work to do.  I also think that there's a little bit of a problem since in order to get funding, parties from developing countries and governments, I think, we really need to make it a MAG meeting.  We have work to do.  If we could do it in Paris, that would be really great as well.  Probably two days would suffice.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Further questions?  Subi?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  This is a note from Subi from earlier.  She asked that we set a time frame for a meeting regarding conditionalities that we tied to certain proposals and that they may be reported into the virtual call whenever it's held next.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: That is exactly my understanding.  Thank you for confirming that, Subi.
 Any comments on the need for the third meeting? 
 Fiona.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Janis.
 It would be helpful to understand the specific items we think we would cover at a next meeting.  I appreciate, given all the intersessional work and the proposals and the drafting group or open-ended group, that that group would need to get together, but it would be helpful to understand the items that might be on the agenda that would require a full MAG meeting, maybe, prior to deciding -- or giving a view.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If I would have answer, I would not ask the question. 
 In my view, we do not need a MAG meeting as MAG meeting.  We may need if intersessional work goes ahead as planned and if we need to edit a document, so then I see the value of meeting in September, early September, to work on that document.  Having -- and then distribute that document for comments and so on.
 For the MAG meeting, honestly we will -- we will continue regular MAG meetings on line, conference calls.  We have outstanding issues certainly.  We will -- we need to decide and prepare main sessions.  We need to finalize workshop -- decisions on workshops, but that is more technical work now.  We need to coach new -- or workshop proponents to make sure that they are quality proposals or quality workshops. 
 But as MAG, on organization, I think after this meeting we are more or less done, except main sessions.
 That's my assessment and that's my question.
 I understand Jac wants to say something.
 >>JAC SM KEE: I think if you were to have a third meeting, it would be then quite useful to have the meeting to be discussing sort of strategic issues around the IGF, considering that it's the 10th year, we'll be disbanding.  So rather than the planning parts for this year's IGF, spend some time to talk through maybe IGF redesign issues, funding issues, renewal issues, those sort of conversations. 
 And then there was also another point around if you were to have it in New York, then it would be useful to reach out to governments, government representatives to then support and attend IGF.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  New York is not any more an option.  Where -- if we decide to have meeting, then it would be in Paris.  UNESCO preliminarily said that they would host us.  And that -- we're looking now at 2, 3, 4, or 3, 4, if we are looking in two days, September.
 Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, first, if a MAG meeting is to be held, it will discuss substantially the main sessions.  In the May meeting of Paris last year, which was the last meeting before the September IGF, detailed presentations were made by all the co-facilitators on the main sessions.  And this year, I'm -- it's my guess that the main sessions are more complicated, are more involved, and require more attention to detail, and therefore, if you had a MAG meeting, one of the main purposes would be that.  And for that, I think September would be the right time.
 However, if the editors wish to meet, they might want to consider not meeting in September, because September is only three months away.  I'm not sure what kind of progress they would have made.  They should actually consider October, if it's a non-MAG meeting with only editors. 
 So those are my two points with regards to MAG meeting, the main issues, and if the editors want to meet, they might wish to reconsider the dates of September.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  I second Virat on this.  In fact, it's a very good opportunity for us to have enough time prior to the IGF to prepare well for the main sessions, especially as said, it would be -- we need to make a good impact.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lea?
 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you.  I'd like to support the point made by Jac earlier on adding on -- that if that meeting is added onto that agenda, strategic discussion about the future of the IGF and perhaps some internal discussions about the MAG itself and some of our processes.
 It seems that, judging just from -- since joining the MAG, that that never -- unless we plan it in advance, it will never happen, and I'm afraid that the December meeting after the IGF is, again, going to focus on stock-taking of the event itself and that would be a lost opportunity.  So I'd strongly support that.
 And if that goes through, if it's acceptable to the MAG, I would also suggest that we have a preparatory process so that we have something to discuss; that it's not just on the day that we come to these issues but actually prepare some points before.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Aida.
 Ephraim.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 
 I would like to add to what Lea said of the themes that I would like to be discussed. 
 The one that I said before, maybe because I knew, but I still feel that the way of getting outcomes from the IGF, not -- I'm not talking about the best forum.  I'm not talking about intersessional.  I'm talking about the IGF itself, the yearly.  I think that we need to get deep on that, get some process.  You know that's one of the sticking points of -- on the criticism of IGF.  In order to -- for its usefulness.  I know that we don't want to have a negotiated document, but I think we have to have something, but for me, it's not clear how we get to that "something."  I think that's something that we need to discuss either in person or through the conference call, because at least for me, I don't have clear how we can have outcomes from the IGF itself.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chair.
 I'm, frankly, uncertain as to whether or not we need a two-day MAG, building on Fiona's point, without having some concrete agenda items in front of us.
 Perhaps we could actually put that together over the mail list and take that determine- -- I know it needs to be decided quite quickly, but, you know, honestly I'm struggling here to have an opinion on that. 
 I wanted also, if I may, while I have the floor, just -- Constance asked me, before she left, if I would remind everybody that the updated draft on the intersessional proposal went out.  If everybody could take a look at that over the next two to three days, that would allow us to launch the initiative next Monday.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much.  I see that there is no really good convergence of views, and doubt remains.
 When we looked and did backward counting, in order to be able to consult community on intersessional document, we thought that there would be need for several kind of iterations of consultations and that's why September would be appropriate for the drafting of the first -- first document.  Or draft.  First draft. 
 That would be put on for public comments, getting back, redrafting -- or reediting, and putting a final version before going to IGF.
 October certainly would be late and we would not be able to do two rounds of consultations.  Only one.  That is the only reason why it was proposed in September. 
 But again, we do not know how many national/regional IGFs will contribute, and if there will not be sufficient number, then most probably we need to accept that there is a failure of experiment.  If there is sufficient number, then we can go on with editing and proposing a document and continuing this experiment.
 So we really need to gather information and see how many.
 For the moment, I know there are three or four.  I hope that there will be a dozen, because only a dozen for me would make sense.
 So therefore, we need -- we need to see how things evolve.
 I am not in a position to make even a proposal, except a proposal that we need to continue reflection and postpone the decision until one of the next meetings we will have over the phone.
 In the meantime, we would keep UNESCO's kind agreement to host eventually a meeting in Paris 2, 3, 4 September, which is Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or 4, 5, which is Thursday, Friday, depending on our future decisions, and we will decide that on a later stage.
 Would that be acceptable?  Thank you.
 I -- with this, we have exhausted the agenda of this meeting, and we are three minutes ahead of schedule, which is a good result, so I would like to thank all of you for very thorough and passionate work.  It was extremely easy for me to chair the meetings, all these sessions, and we achieved a majority of the results that we wanted to achieve.
 I also -- I would like to thank our scribes and would like to thank interpreters who helped us, though we used only one language, but I think there were also francophone in the room who listened also in French, and remote participants also may have used French.
 That said, I also noted that there might be further reflection needed on our working methods.  What I would like to say is that methodology of evaluation helped us enormously, and for that, Susan, Fiona, and others who worked on that methodology, I think that you deserve our gratitude for your really hard work and good outcome.
 Whether we need to continue in this way next time or we need to define a new methodology, not in evaluation but in engineering of IGF, that is maybe something we need to discuss.
 Historically we have been working with this bottom-up approach where an open call was put forward and then we selected proposals out of those who suggested. 
 Of course there is another way, or maybe several ways, how to organize a meeting which would be maybe perceived more as a top-down, but that would provide much more maybe structured approach and would be more focused on certain desired outcomes than this open approach. 
 I have no opinion and I'm looking forward to a discussion about that.  I understand that Fiona has some ideas that she would like to present at one point, whether in writing or in one of the next meetings, but in the meantime, we have done the majority of our work, we have selected workshops.  I believe that this is a good choice.  I think we have explanation for reasoning why we discriminated some -- why we put some up on the agenda which were scored lower, and I think the community will understand that, will understand us, and will understand our reasoning.
 So once again, thank you very much for your work, and safe return back to your home countries or those who are staying in Geneva, good weekend.  The weather will be perfect.  On Sunday, the -- there is an open caves in Geneva, so please walk around, walk in those wineries here, get a drink for free, but remember abuse of alcohol is a bad thing.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So please enjoy your weekend here, those who are staying on for WSIS forum.  So thank you very much.  Meeting stands adjourned.
 [ Applause ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And of course as always, I forgot all those who worked in preparing this meeting, Chengetai and the team.  I think the team also deserves a round of applause.  Thank you very much.
 [ Applause ]