Internet Governance Forum Planning Meeting

Palais des Nations

28 June 2010

IGF Consultations

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken

during the June 2010 IGF Planning Meeting in Geneva. Although it is largely

accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to

inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid

to understanding the  proceedings at the session, but should not be

treated as an authoritative record.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Good morning.  Welcome.  It's a hot, sunny day in Geneva.

(scribes receiving background noise).

>>NITIN DESAI:   Focus on the main sessions, and try and see that we come to

closure on that.  And in the afternoon we focus on the workshops.  (inaudible)

essentially decision‑making today so that tomorrow you can spend your time on

the logistics, the scheduling and the logistics of the workshop. I'll be here

with you today, but not tomorrow because I have to be on my way to New York. And

so we will see if we can finish all our essential decision‑making work. Let me

begin by asking Markus to walk us through what we still need to do on the main

sessions.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Good morning.  Thank you and good morning. As you can see,

the scribes are not in the room.  They are actually doing it remotely.  They are

sitting in California and doing it remotely. And good morning to you.  For them,

it's rather early the day. Whenever you take the floor, they will not see you so

please make sure that you say your name, your affiliation.  It's a bit more

difficult for them as they cannot see you. Having said that, I think we could

walk through the program paper and do it session by session. Definitely my hope

would be that we conclude the discussions on who should be panelists for main

sessions and who should be moderators. We have not talked on remote moderation,

for instance.  This is one thing each (inaudible) session should have a remote

moderator. And also, I think we have not looked at much in detail of the

resources. (Inaudible) willing to be resource persons.  They can be used for

main sessions and also for workshops.  We should not forget that we have

(inaudible) at our disposal. So I would suggest that we go (inaudible) session

by session.

>>NITIN DESAI:   So the first, we begin with the. So wee we begin with Internet

governance, setting the scene.  (Inaudible) started by providing an introductory

session for the. (scribes getting echo feedback on audio).

>>NITIN DESAI:   Revise on in?  I thought this would be the format, we liked

last time.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   It will be slightly different as this time we have books that

takes a little bit stock of the discussion and the panel would be ‑‑ would

consist of the office of these chapters and would be co‑moderated by myself and

Bill Drake. Unfortunately, Bill doesn't seem to be in the room, but I don't

think that needs that much further discussions. And in parallel, what I would

suggest is that we have a more basic session, IGF for beginners, which would be.

(inaudible). MAG members.  We would explain a little bit how the IGF works for

newcomers, but at the very basic level, if you want to take the floor, do this

or do that and so on, and also explaining how it works and explaining the

program.  I think we would have not many people for that session.  It would be

in one of the smaller workshop rooms on Monday morning.

>>NITIN DESAI:   So let me summarize.  The session would be moderated by Markus

Kummer and Bill Drake, and the panelists would be the people who have written

these chapters in this book which is going to come up. (inaudible) any questions

because in a sense it is a fairly logical basis for the panel, because its main

purpose is more as an explanatory session rather than a debate session.  Okay?

Good. Then the next session is on regional perspectives. This is a session that

has a lot of interest and now that there are so many of these regional IGFs and

so much interest in them, there are new ones which are now being thought of. I

think we should really look forward to see how can (inaudible) what is the

proposal for this.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   This would be basically the same format we had last year but

clearly the representatives of regional meetings are not requested to read out

the report of their meeting but give us the salient points.  Let's look at what

we had in common, what the regional meetings had in common with the global

meeting.  Also let's look at the differences because each region has different

priorities. Let's look at what their priorities were, if they have a message to

the main meeting. We have, I think, quite a lot of regional meetings.  By now we

have East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Commonwealth, Latin

American/Caribbean, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, and there is also one that is just

Caribbean.  This already makes quite a bit panelists, they all wish to be on the

panel.  But in addition, we do provide a space, a slot for each of the regional

meetings where they can go more into detail and present their report to an

interesting audience.  And yet another proposal would be to have a kind of

(inaudible) meetings where all the organizers of regional and all the national

meetings can sit together and discuss among themselves on how to improve

linkages to the global meeting and how the relationship between ‑‑ (scribes

getting double audio). Greater effort to integrate all the initiatives on the

meeting.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Are there any questions?  Ayesha.

>>AYESHA HASSAN:   I really apologize Nitin. (scribes receiving echoed audio).

Call attention it would probably be useful to identify one or two (inaudible).

>>NITIN DESAI:   But on the regional perspectives session.  Yes, Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:  , thank you, Nitin.  I'd just like to take this opportunity for

a high‑level report that is going to be published in time for Vilnius that will

highlight their stories of the national and IGFs from their perspective.  So

it's not in any way duplicative but some of the outreach to the organizers and

asking them to participate is just still going on from the researcher, but it

might be something that could contribute to the meta meeting that Markus

mentioned.  And as one of the participants in convening IGF U.S.A., I would

offer to collaborate with the other organizers to see if there is interest in

that separate meeting you mentioned, Markus.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Any other comments on the regional perspectives meeting? Okay.

Then on the first day we continued with the opening ceremony.  (Inaudible) usual

format.  The (inaudible) from the host country, the under secretary general will

be there, and presumably the usual stakeholder (inaudible) invited. In any case,

there's not much that we have to decide on opening ceremony right now. Let's

move on to managing critical Internet resources. Markus.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Basically on that, I think we are fairly set.  We have our

(inaudible) team, Chris and Jeanette.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Good morning, everybody.  Yes, we're fine, thank you, and

all is well. Chris Disspain.  They have got my name up there. So we're fine.

We've got ‑‑ as Markus will know, we have managed to find a workshop.  That

means we can look at emergency response.  We are going to get some people from

Haiti talking about what happened there, and that workshop haste been scheduled

now to happen before the critical Internet resources session.  Jeanette and I

will liaise with each other in the next couple of months to make sure we know

what we are doing.  But everything is under control.  We have the IPv6, the IANA

contract and a couple of other things to talk about.  And we're fine, thank you.

But I'll happily answer any questions.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE:   Chris, it's Marilyn Cade.  Would you elaborate a little bit

more, please, on the format, the length of time, how you see the audience

participating, how many people, you know, that you see as respondents,

panelists, that kind of thing?  Thanks.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   We are going to do it the same as we have been doing it,

which is the same panel, using the people we know in the room to start the

debate rolling on the particular issues. And last time we did I think four main

topics, so it was sort of 45 minutes each, really. This time we currently have,

I think, five but we will work to get that down to four because I think we

really need to have sort of reasonable time on each one. And basically what we

do is we start off with a sort of rough structure of the selected topics within

the overall ming we would like to discuss, and then we will be contacting

individuals who are ‑‑ so just to take IPv4/IPv6 as an example, we might get

Paul Wilson to be the first person to speak and say this is where we are with

it.  And obviously in respect to the discussion on emergencies, we would get the

people who run the Haiti workshop to say a few words. So what we have, Marilyn,

is a ‑‑ all of the topics that we are running on that afternoon ‑‑ (inaudible)

morning and afternoon, there will be one workshop covering that topic

previously. So we'll be using those as our feed‑in to the main room, having

identified, okay, that person can speak and that person can speak.  And they

will simply lead the debate off and we will run it from there. It's very free

flowing because we actually quite like just to see where the room wants to go

and we are not particularly fussed by timelines as long as we know we will get

through it all. So does that give you an idea?

>>MARILYN CADE:  (Speaker is off microphone) I really want to welcome the

introduction of the focus on emergency response in Haiti and to note that over

the past 18 months, we have seen a growing number of naturally incited

experience such as the ash experience, the Haiti experience, but I think that

the focus on the response to Haiti may ‑‑ (Speaker is off microphone).

>>NITIN DESAI:  (Speaker is off microphone). [Someone is typing on keyboard]

>>NITIN DESAI:  (Speaker is off microphone) [Scribes are only hearing someone

typing on keyboard.] [No audio]

>>NITIN DESAI:  ‑‑ developing.  I think there's a connection problem.  They're

not ‑‑ they can't get us.  Ah.  Okay.  Yes, they can.  It's come back.  The next

session is on Internet governance or development.  Markus would you like to ‑‑

and because of the scheduling issue that has come up, also.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  As Bill Drake is the convener of this session, I wonder

whether we could maybe have this discussion later.  I don't know yet whether he

is planning to come, and if Fouad was also involved, but it would be good to

have Bill in the room as well.  Maybe could try and give him a phone call to see

whether he's planning to come and we could then take another session.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Then let's move on to the next session, the sessions on

the next day, which are access and diversity.  Access and diversity.  There you

are.  Olga.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Nitin.  Good morning.  Since our last meeting, we

have been working.  On some proposed people not as panelists, but the idea is to

have a format that they give a very, very short speech and maybe some provoking

questions that will be elaborated previously, and also through the outcomes of

the workshops that will go previously to the main session. We have identified

people from all continents, from Africa, Asia, Latin America, North America,

Europe, and they are diverse ‑‑ there are women, men, young, older ‑‑ and that's

the idea.  To work previously in some frame for some big questions and provoke

the dialogue with the audience. Of course we will check the resource persons in

the Web page and see if we can work with them.  We should find a remote

moderator.  The main session will be moderated by Nii Quaynor and myself, but as

you already pointed, we should find someone for remoting moderation. We also

have a diverse ‑‑ invited people from business companies, from governments, from

not‑for‑profit organizations, and also from academic profiles, so it's quite

diverse but it's not ‑‑ not the idea is to have a big panel but just very, very

short references and very short comments and then provoke some questions for the

dialogue. That's the format that we are proposing.

>>NITIN DESAI:  If you'll recollect, about moderators for this were Olga and

Nii, right?

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  No.  He worked with me in Brussels for the ICANN, he told me he

couldn't come, but that's the message we wanted to give you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Are there any questions?  Yes.  Martin.

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Martin Boyle.  Not so much a question, but just a matter of

putting up my hand about potential contributors in the panel. From two sources.

The one from Parliamentarians.  We have Parliamentarians from a number of

origins including east Africa, the U.K., and Europe, and bearing in mind access

is quite an important topic for them, it could be a very useful forum to draw

some of these people in. And the second one is from young people.  Young people

tend to be early adopters, but they also see very clearly some of the issues

that are barriers to getting access.  I've got just over the table from me

Lucinda Fell from Childnet International who have been working with young people

and one of the themes that they've been using has been access.  And so again, it

could be a possibility here to get some young people ‑‑ and by which we mean

under 20s ‑‑ who could take quite an active part on an issue that is, for them,

really quite an important issue. So just two suggestions.  I don't know whether

Lucinda wants to take the floor.

>>LUCINDA FELL: Hi.  Lucinda from Childnet.  If I can just offer a

clarification.  We're going to be bringing 12 young people out to Vilnius with

us, and they will be between about 14 and 18, and we're holding a mini‑IGF for

them over the summer to prepare them on all of the issues so that they will be

quite competent to speak.  And we're happy to volunteer them for any sessions

where people would like them to be involved and also to take input and if there

are things that you would particularly like us to discuss in advance with them.

>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you.  I'm just wondering if it would be possible for

Olga and Nii to provide us with a list of the people that they're looking at and

that way we can help balance and fill in blanks where there might be need.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Sorry.  Maybe I expressed myself not well.  We have already

identified six people, but we are open to discuss this with you.  I mean, we

have been receiving input from you, from you, Ayesha, and from others.  It's not

that we invented it.  And we have also gathered in our respective regions.  But

Martin, just feel free to ‑‑ let's talk about other ‑‑ what I'm thinking now is

maybe we don't need to have 12 people in like a panel.  It would be like too

much.  Maybe they can be actively involved in the discussion, having already

participated in this previous exchange of ideas that we want to make. So maybe

we can do a broader list and be also with the young people coming to the IGF,

and this could be even more active in between the audience and the panelists,

but I'm happy to discuss this with you, maybe, in break time.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  I think the ‑‑ that the news about the participation of these

young people, 12 to 18 ‑‑ the young people, the 14 to 18 age bracket, is a very

welcome one and I would strongly encourage all the moderators to see how we give

them sort of full voice in the sessions.  Maybe we can try and make Vilnius the

place where, in a sense, we...

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I would also like to point out that there is ‑‑ well, we have

Edmon here from ‑‑ the CEO of dot Asia is here for the first time.  Welcome,

Edmon, to Geneva.  He has already brought young people from his region to Sharm

El Sheikh and I think his people are in contact with Lucinda, but maybe ‑‑ could

you maybe introduce a little bit your initiative?

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Sure.  Thank you, Markus.  This is Edmon Chung.  Yeah.  I ‑‑ we

started a ‑‑ I guess a couple of initiatives.  One is called NetMission,

NetMission Asia, and it brings together some university students from Hong Kong

and trains them on Internet governance issues, which we brought to Sharm.

Earlier ‑‑ a couple weeks ago, we put together a youth IGF camp, and in that

camp we brought ‑‑ we brought together actually high school and university

students, prepared them on some Internet governance issues, and actually also

asked them to role‑play in different stakeholders ‑‑ in the different roles of

different stakeholders.  And that was sort of the two initiatives that we've put

together.  And both of them ‑‑ some of the students from both initiatives will

‑‑ we will be supporting to be in Vilnius as well, so I guess the same with

Childnet.  We're happy for them to participate in any panels that are

appropriate.

>>NITIN DESAI:  What I would suggest is that the names be readily available to

the moderators, so that the moderators know that there are a group of

well‑informed young people there in the audience whom they can call on, and I

would strongly encourage all the moderators, when ‑‑ whenever the opportunity

arises, to go to these people.  Because let's try and create this ‑‑ if we like,

in a certain sense, that we were able to give full voice to young people in

Vilnius.  And maybe this is what we can sort of consciously aim at in Vilnius.

Olga.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Nitin.  Two comments that have come from all the

participants in this meeting to me is:  One is to consider the access issue from

a broader perspective, considering also in the discussion access to information

and to knowledge; and also, several people told me that it could be good if we

can coordinate previously with the development session.  Not to overlap access

issues and repeat them in the same way, especially talking about infrastructure.

So I will try to do that with Bill previously, and if you think that there are

people that could participate in the main session ‑‑ and you can contact them

with us previously ‑‑ maybe it could be useful to exchange some ideas and some

guidelines for organizing the sessions. So I'm open to that.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Bertrand.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Bertrand de la Chapelle.  Just a quick comment

regarding the term "diversity."  We have used it mostly to reflect the problem

of linguistic diversity in the past.  One challenge that we're seeing more and

more is the challenge of the diversity of legal frameworks in different

countries regarding various aspects.  It can be commerce, it can be privacy

rules, it can be content.  The challenge that we're facing is how to handle the

diversity of those rules without going to either a complete harmonization, which

is inaccessible, or going back to exclusive national laws which are sometimes

conflicting. So if some angle could be given to that topic, it would probably be

very interesting.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Olga, any reflections on this?  I'm not sure this is what was

discussed, we were looking at in diversity and I am wondering whether you have

any comment on what Bertrand said.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Well, I think that in the sake of not capturing all the

discussion now, maybe we can talk about it and elaborate a little bit more and

come back to you with some proposal.  You think that's okay?

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yeah, I think it's ‑‑ because this is a new element from the

usual ones that we discuss, and you may want to see to what extent it fits in in

this session.  It is possible ‑‑ I mean, there is a certain weakness in our

structure in the sense that we are not able to handle legal issues of this sort

very easily in any of the sessions, and we may wish to think a little about how

we do this, because I suspect this will become more prominent in the future. But

I'm not ‑‑ I'm not entirely sure it is going to fit in, into the diversity

session.  Bertrand.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Bertrand.  No, thank you, Nitin.  I'm perfectly

aware of that, but exactly for that reason, it was just a hint that this year

could be a way to see whether this can be introduced in the debate.  It is not

necessarily to be highlighted as a main theme, but just to exchange with the

moderators and the organizers that this might be a topic that will be raised, so

that it can be addressed in a way to see how next year it will fit into the

program and whether diversity can encompass or not this dimension. I'm fully in

line with what you say.

>>NITIN DESAI:  I would say ‑‑ I would strongly encourage that this be discussed

more at the level of workshops, and I would really advise Bertrand and others,

particularly for the Council of Europe, that in some ways one place where you

have experience is in European integration, the whole notion of mutual

recognition, which is if something is illegal in country X, then the other

country is obliged to treat the person who has done that in that country as an

offender, even if their own laws do not call it an offense. It's the notion of

mutual recognition which is there. Now, I think it is a very interesting

concept, and it may be useful if this is explored more in a workshop context,

because this is a very sensitive issue.  And this is the way in which ‑‑ how you

can address questions of legal enforcement without getting into the issue of

harmonization. In the main session on diversity, we treat this more as something

which should be explored, and maybe if there is room, then one can see whether

one of the workshops can pick it up, because there are workshops which do

address some of these issues and maybe we could pick it up there. Any other

questions on the access and diversity session?  No?  Good. Then Markus, do you

‑‑ (speaker is off microphone) mic is not working?  Now it's working?  Yeah.

Okay.  Let's move back to Internet governance for development, since Bill is

here.  And Bill, if you can just tell us where we are.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Sorry, my morning has not gone the

way I expected.  That happens sometimes. Okay.  The Internet governance for

development session has been the subject of ‑‑ [No audio] ‑‑ so at the last open

planning meeting, had a group of about 10 people who sat together and started to

outline the basic concept.  It was suggested that I would ‑‑ I serve as sort of

the convener. And Fouad established a Google group to which he added those 10

names, as well as about 40 other people, who were interested in some way in

Internet governance for development. Of course the size of the group, therefore,

meant that the discussion sometimes got a little [audio is skipping.]

Ultimately we did come back to some focused and I think productive discussion.

We had started out at the last planning meeting with the notion that I was going

to moderator the session and that we would have kind of a ‑‑ more of an

interactive thing, but as the discussion evolved, it became clear that probably

it would be better to rethink the format, and so we hit upon a different

formulation. Because IG4D has not been discussed in the IGF in a focused way yet

and we're kind of breaking new ground and there are a lot of conceptual and

political issues that people have not had the opportunity for really think

through, I think we have to be somewhat structured in the way we approach this

first effort and recognize also that we can't possibly address all the possible

topics that one could possibly imagine as part of Internet governance for

development. So we need to be somewhat systematic and try to lay this out in a

way that would essentially lay the foundation one hopes for more productive and

detailed discussions along these lines going forward. So what we decided was in

the first instance, that we would have a better and more illustrious moderator

who would be able to manage the process more effectively, so we asked that the

chairman, Nitin Desai, would be willing to serve as our moderator and he kindly

agreed, which makes things, I think, much easier. We have also decided ‑‑ or at

least the suggestion has been made by the group that there should be two

sub‑moderators who ‑‑ [No audio] ‑‑ and Ayesha Hassan of the ICC, subject, of

course, to their agreement, and this they would serve as sort of roaming

ambassadors in the audience to pull together questions that people had and feed

them back to the moderator to try to lead to a more structured discussion. We

decided that probably we should try, because of the nature of this topic is one

where, as I say, there are a lot of conceptual linkages that need to be made, to

try to have a panel not of sort of serial talking heads giving canned heads but

more a panel that is more based on expertise and trying to get people who have

really thought about these issues a bit.  And also of course representative of

all the different stakeholder groups and not too large. And that ideally, the

moderator would perhaps pose questions to the panelists, the panelists would

respond.  There would also be opportunities for rapporteurs of the workshops

that we see as being directly linked to feed into the discussion, and perhaps as

well, we might have some people in the audience who have thought about these

issues from the position of their particular stakeholder groups who would come

prepared to make an intervention on a particular point and could be recognized.

So what we were thinking in our initial discussion was perhaps a panel of six

people.  The ‑‑ with two developing country government representatives with

different positions, two civil society representatives with different positions,

somebody from business, and somebody from the technical community. However, it

has been pointed out since then that some stakeholder groups would like to have

more people on the panels, so I'm not quite sure how we go about sorting that

out, whether we're going to end up with a panel of six or a panel that's larger

of eight with Noah's Ark approach with two of each or something like that.  This

is to be determined.  The format that we've discussed is as follows:  We've

elaborated a little bit on what we had talked about at the last planning meeting

in Geneva.  There will be essentially four sections to the discussion.  The

first section would be to talk when what do we mean by Internet governance for

development?  How do we think about the linkages about these two spheres?  What

do we ‑‑ I guess this also leads one to ask the question what does one mean by

"development," which is a contestable issue as well. But certainly this is

something that we would think to orient the discussion we start perhaps with 30

minutes of that. Then we thought we would talk about some specific issues

relating to global Internet governance mechanisms that may impact development in

some manner, pro or con. Suggestions were made in the last planning session that

we might talk a bit about names and numbers, standards, security,

interconnection, and intellectual property, but of course this is not

necessarily fixed and the dialogue may go in other directions as well, once

things evolve.  In addition, there were two other suggestions.  One, that we

might also talk about transnational consumer issues, in particular with regard

to B2C global electronic commerce and the problems that consumers have in

assuring protection against fraud and other types of issues.  There's a lot

going on at the global level, as well as in bilateral and pluri‑lateral forms,

and then the other suggestion was that we should also give some defined

attention to procedural institutional aspects of global Internet governance

mechanisms, ways in which the way the processes are structured may facilitate or

unintentionally inhibit the fuller and deeper engagement of developing countries

in governance. We decided to add a third bit, which was sort of driven by

bottom‑up demand, if you would.  Some folks wanted to talk not only about global

Internet governance issues in institutions, but also at the national level, how

developing countries address these issues. Of course the risk there is that you

could get very deeply into the traditional ICT4D matrix, if you're spending your

time talking about the licensing of ISPs and national policies on various

issues, et cetera. So what we thought we would do is try and square the circle

by focusing in particular on how developing countries organize themselves to

participate in global governance processes, so that, in other words, rather than

talking about all Internet governance issues and policies at the national level,

we would look at the interface between the national level and the global level.

Which could lead also, I think, to some interesting observations with respect to

capacity building, which is one of those cross‑cutting issues that also has not

always received defined and focused attention. And then lastly, we would have a

section of the discussion where we would talk about how to take forward the

notion of Internet governance for development in the IGF and other international

forums, and there hopefully have some ‑‑ lay some foundation for if the session

works out well, having a continuing conversation in the IGF.  I'll stop there.

Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Before you continue, let me just mention one thing.  He has

mentioned very kindly that I should be put in the firing line for this, but I

cannot do it on the 15th. There's no way I can get to Vilnius on the 15th,

before 15th evening. Physically impossible. So I would like to you keep this in

mind, that if we stick to the present schedule, I cannot moderate this session.

Because there is no way I can get ‑‑ there are some commitments that I have that

make it impossible for me to get to Vilnius.  Earliest is 15th evening at best.

If I really try hard, I could try to make it by 15th afternoon.  But frankly, to

fly from Beijing to Vilnius and go straight into moderating a session isn't

exactly something a person my age can do easily. So I would like you to keep

this in mind. So don't assume that I'll be moderating it, because there would

have to be some other solution to this, because I cannot be there before the

15th. But let's focus on the substance.  We'll come back to the moderation

issue, which is a less important one.  Let's focus on the four areas of

substance. One question I had before anybody else, why are you saying the

question is how do developing countries organize themselves for participating in

global governance?  It would seem to me the question should apply to all

countries, in terms of why are you restricting the question to how developing

countries?  Because let us not get into the issue that there is a problem there,

but there isn't a problem elsewhere. I suspect that there are people in

stakeholder groups in other countries who may have issues, but how that

country's positions in global processes are articulated. So I would urge we

don't restrict the question to what developing countries are doing, but to

organize themselves, let us ask the question how do countries organize

themselves for participating?  How did the consultant stakeholders before

governments take positions, somebody, whoever joins, participates in the global

(inaudible) community. I just want to inject that as a thought. Okay.  I have

Bill Graham and Marilyn Cade, and I have (saying name). Bill.

>>BILL GRAHAM:   Thanks very much, Nitin, and good morning, everyone. One other

perspective that I think we indeed to have on this is that of the technical

community.  I think there are specific aspects to Internet governance for

development that have technical considerations involved. And while I can't give

you a name right now, there are a few that I have been speaking with various

people in the room this morning about.  I'll try and get a recommendation, but I

do think if we could get someone from Latin America or Africa or Asia who is

from the technical community and has practical experience there, it would be a

benefit to the workshop. Thanks.

>>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking. I really welcome this

session.  I recall at our last discussion, we were trying to examine carefully

how we focused on IG4D versus too broad a, perhaps, addition of a topic that was

so broad we couldn't get our arms around the IG focus on it. So I really welcome

this session. But I would just like to note that I'm particularly interested in,

as we look at topics for this session, making sure that we don't accidentally

cannibalize the other sessions on access and diversity or on CIR, where we're

going to be thoroughly exploring some of the topics and trying to focus on sort

of new ground, if I can say it that way, in the IG4D, meaning what are the

Internet governance issues for development and in development. And I'd like

particularly the topic that focusing on how countries organize themselves to

participate with Nitin's additional thought. I will just say that in talking to

the organizers of the national and regional IGFs, it's already becoming very

interesting to identify some similarities, but also some differences and gaps

that they themselves are beginning to organize in ‑‑ to recognize.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA:  Thank you.  Nitin, good morning.  My name is Jovan Kurbalija

for remote participation. First of all, I would like to thank Bill for mapping

in a very comprehensive way the question of development and Internet governance,

and underlying those border zones, especially towards ICT4D, that could be

carefully observed if we don't cover everything in the field of ICT but to focus

on Internet governance.  Having said that, I would like to highlight this

cross‑cutting issue of capacity development, which is, I would say, extremely

important also for discussion on the development.  And where we can report and

reflect on quite a few successes in the context of the IGF.  And this issue of

capacity building is directly linked to the way how developing states, and not

as you indicated, Nitin, not only developing states, organize themselves to

participate in the IGF. And there are quite a few success stories, there are

quite a few examples.  And I think that element of capacity building ‑‑ I know

there is usually sort of concern about capacity building because it was used in

different context throughout the WSIS and IGF process, but here we have quite

concrete capacity building for the participation of developing states.  Focusing

on IG, not ICT4D, not necessarily technical issues, but building capacity of

those states to discuss IG issues within their national context and to represent

them through multistakeholder approach in the IGF. And I think that issue should

be highlighted both in the context as some sort of stock taking, what IGF

achieved so far, and also giving some sort of guidelines or ideas for the

future. Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Do you want the floor? You wanted the floor.  Please.

>>MAIMOUNA DIOP:  Thank you, Chair.  I welcome the Bill interdiction. My name is

Maimouna Diop.  I am from Senegal.  I forget to give my name.  I can just thank

Bill for this interdiction. I wonder if I could participate on the panel. I'm

interested on it to give my experience on the IG at the national level, and also

Senegal is hosting the west IGF session.  So it would be interesting for us to

be on the panel. Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Just a certain orientation because I think this is, in some

ways, quite an important session, because this is one of the issues which has

come up in the evaluation of the IGF.  We don't really see the connection with

the development agenda, et cetera. I think what we could do here is first ‑‑ and

this is also trying to meet Marilyn's concern about repetition.  The first thing

it could do is try and say, okay, we talked about critical Internet resources,

we talked about access and diversity, we talked about security and privacy.  Now

what are the issues from there which clearly impinge on the possibilities of

development? This would correspond to Bill's first and second question.  What do

we mean by Internet governance for development, and what are the elements in the

global Internet governance mechanisms which are particularly salient for the

purposes of development. This would be one type of thing that we could come up

with. The second thing that we could come up with is there are certain aspects

of how the Internet is managed or operates which do impinge on development which

are not adequately covered in the headings "critical Internet resources,"

"security and privacy," "access and diversity."  And there are at least two that

come to mind.  One which Bill mentioned, which is transnational B2C issues.

They are probably not adequately covered in the way we treat security and

privacy as a governance issue.  But that's one example of something that we pull

out and say this is something which does affect development, but we have not

talked about it enough in the other sessions.  And, therefore, we need a space

where we can talk about it. A second could be the issue Bertrand raised, the

issue Bertrand raised earlier, the diversity of legal arrangements which govern

the Internet is something which does affect.  Now, I'm not hundred percent sure

whether you can say it is a development issue or whether it is a broader issue,

but it is an example of an issue which is not fully covered in the other things

we are talking about. So the second big thing we pull out from there is here are

things we ought to be talking about which do impinge on development which are

not adequately covered under the headings that we have now, which is critical

Internet resources, access and diversity, security and privacy. And the third

thing is what many people have referred to, is that the effectiveness of any

arrangement for Internet governance at a global level does depend on the

effectiveness of participation from the country level.  How well informed people

are in countries on this, how well are countries organized for getting

stakeholder inputs so that they can take a considered position at the global

level, and not just country governments.  It may also mean others who represent

the country at the global level.  It's not just governments that matter here,

you see.  There are many other who are involved in this.  And that could be the

third big thing that we try to pull out, and this is where you can talk about

the sort of things, how the Internet governance at a national level does impinge

on how effectively global Internet governance functions, capacity building, that

was being mentioned, and maybe even a certain role for how the IGF has helped

stimulate thinking on this subject.  This is one way we can approach this. And

in that sense, it becomes a session which draws on the others.  It becomes a

session which is not a substitute, but it draws on the others, saying, yes, we

did talk about it there but this is a dimension. And there may be a little

repetition, that can never be entirely avoided, but this is one way in which we

can make this a session which becomes a space for talking about things which are

not adequately handled in the individual sector sessions.  Like capacity

building.  It's very difficult to put just into one basket or the other.  We

have to talk about it as a cross cutting session. I have Ayesha and then

Marilyn.

>>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you, Chair.  Ayesha Hassan.  I think the approach you

are providing is a very good one.  This is the first time this type of session

will happen.  I think it also calls attention to the fact that we should rethink

the scheduling.  We had originally put it before access and diversity for some

reasons, but given the fact that as you are charting it out, it would be so much

better if the main sessions had already happened, and that way people can brief

you and the session organizers in a way to pool what did take place in the other

sessions and what needs to be focused on here. And I realize there are many

parameters to why you could or could not be there, but if it's moved to the 16th

and that would both solve the scheduling problem and, in my view, I have to say

given your experience with all the sessions in the past years and everything we

have discussed about in the prep meetings and all, I can't any of anybody more

qualified to do this session for the first time, and so I would really plug for

pushing the session to the 16th in the afternoon. Thanks.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah, then if you do it, then it should be after all the main

sessions.  Not just after ‑‑ It should be after security and privacy, also.  So

it becomes in some ways a session which is trying to wrap things up together.

It becomes more a way of pulling.  And yes, there's a risk that it will, you

know, overlap a little with the next day's session on "Taking Stock of Internet

Governance and the Way Forward."  But I think the idea is to try and make this a

session which is really an attempt to provide space for things which people feel

were not fully discussed, either because of cross‑cutting issues or because they

are issues which don't fit neatly into one of those three baskets, you see. And

to me, it seems to me ‑‑ Bertrand's issue is something that doesn't fit easily

into any one of the three baskets, you know, readily. Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.  Marilyn Cade. My comments I think will be very

complementary.  The thought that occurred to me is by moving it to ‑‑ just

switching, perhaps, "security, openness and privacy" to Wednesday and putting

this in that slot is that by that time the open forums that the national IGFs

and regional IGFs will be holding will largely be concluded as well.  And I

think the people who attend those sessions will begin to hear some of the

experiences that are taking place at the national and the regional level.  I

think that would be a nice build, then, to holding and feeding into that

session.

>>NITIN DESAI:   I had ‑‑ Jamil, you wanted to comment?

>>ZAHID JAMIL:   Yes.  Zahid Jamil.  I remember from our discussions back in

February, also, that one of the main reasons for the IGF for development would

have been to give some idea, and I think some of this was discussed this morning

about the impact that regulations have on developing countries, how they

developed the policy, and I know this was mentioned.  I just want to reiterate a

couple of points.  I think it's important that we have some focus on how the

development of national/regional Internet policies impact business as well,

impact developing countries and how they develop the Internet.  So for example,

let's take in my country, in Pakistan, recent blocking of Facebook or Yahoo! or

Microsoft.  It's an ongoing process.  And that has impacted the ability of

businesses within my country to obtain outsourcing, businesses from developed

countries so they can do their business.  It's also impacted developing country

platform and businesses to provide access into the country like Pakistan, things

of that nature. So maybe we could also think about what can be done to develop

the capacity of developing in other countries to understand or assess the impact

of regulations on development of the Internet in their spheres.  And I would

like to sort of just make sure that we have that focus while we are moving ahead

with this session. Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   I think that will fit in reasonably well, particularly if we

are also going to pick up Bertrand's issue of diversity of legal frameworks, and

how that can we handle.  Not that we have answers, but it may be just a space

where we could talk about this as something.  Particularly if you are going to

talk about transnational B2C issues, to some extent because laws are not

harmonized. Yes.  Bertrand and then Jovan.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Bertrand De La Chapelle.  Thank you, Nitin. I would

support, actually, as seems to be the trend, the idea of putting this session as

the last one.  I'd just like to highlight that it will probably be useful to

keep the one on security, privacy and openness as the one just before so that

there can be as many workshops taking place ahead of time. And to go in your

direction regarding specific angles that could be used in the session on

Internet governance and development, there are two elements that could I give as

examples.  One that goes a little bit in the direction of what we were talking

about like the diversity of national regulations, it's also the fact in certain

cases the national regulation can have a transnational impact.  It was what you

mentioned, but it is a matter also of the capacity of national governments

sometimes to be still able to adopt norms at the national level, because some

decisions that have been made either by large corporations abroad or by foreign

governments do have an impact on their territory.  It's a little bit the

direction were you going into. And the second example that would be interested

to look at is that in the case of critical Internet resources, the whole program

that is under discussion within ICANN at the moment regarding new top‑level

domain raises a very important question of whether potential applicants from

developing countries will really be able to participate in the round that is

likely to open right now or are likely to be forced to wait until whatever

second round is coming.  And Avri last week raise add very interesting question.

Even if they do have the opportunity to apply in the second round, why should

they wait?  And the question is does the current thinking about how to open the

new top‑level domain space, does the thinking take into account sufficiently the

desire to allow developing countries to participate in this effort. So it's

another angle that can come in.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Can I now pose a question.  Why is it that that issue should

not be discussed under critical Internet resources, in here?  It will help to us

clarify what we ‑‑

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   It's not that it should not be discussed.  It's

that the agenda on the critical Internet resources is relatively full, in a

certain way.  There are some elements that can go in the management of critical

Internet resources, it would go more around competition rules, fairness, of

treatment of the different economic actors. The benefit of this session that I

could feel is that actually it allows to take a direct angle at this notion,

which is just take it from the perspective of developing countries and

developing country actors and to say we're not talking about how we define the

program.  We're talking about how those actors see this program the way it's

shaped today and whether it fits or not. So it's complementary, but it would fit

nicely in this spot. At least that's the way I sense it.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Jovan Kurbalija again from Diplo. I would like just to make a

quick comment on this new framework which I completely support suggested by

Nitin over the three sort of baskets within the development basket. I'd like to

make a comment on the question of the legal diversity, of the regulatory

diversity. Last month ‑‑ and this is coincidence ‑‑ in this very room, in the

same place, there was a meeting of the International Law Commission, and I was

commuting between IGF preparatory meeting and the International Law Commission

because it is my old interest in international law, and I had a chance to

discuss with a few members of the International Law Commission how different and

how new is Internet law.  Can we at all call "international Internet law." The

conclusion is that it is not as new as ‑‑ and as different as we sometimes tend

to think.  Therefore, we have to be quite careful in discussing this issue

realistically and not trying to discover hot water. There are all sorts of

conventions regulating implementation of foreign judgments and decisions, and

it's quite a developed system and I think that that session has to be carefully

‑‑ or that discussion has to be carefully prepared. There's both awareness

building, as Bertrand suggested, but also indicating what exists, and I will be

ready to help with the preparatory session.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Thank you very much.  That is very helpful.  Yes.  Martin.

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Martin Boyle.  Thank you, Chair. I find it a little bit

difficult, in my mind, to be able to separate clearly what Bertrand is

suggesting from other elements of the critical Internet resources discussion,

and I think that if we do start looking down this route, we need to try and

develop quite clearly what that differentiation is, because if we're having a

problem ‑‑ well, if I have a problem on it, I hope that I'm not alone, and that

other people might also be finding a certain difficulty.  Otherwise perhaps

Bertrand should have a quiet word with me after this session. But I wonder

whether that approach does tie in a little bit with the overall idea of that

capacity‑building theme that was being identified. So for example, I am aware

that within east Africa, they've done a lot of work aimed at trying to develop

nationally some of the management and technical support needed for top‑level

domains.  And if such a thing has been going on, I wonder whether we could try

and use the session on national and regional IGFs to identify ‑‑ [no audio] ‑‑

into the debate and feed those either into the discussion in the critical

Internet resources dialogue or into this session, depending on where they are

being picked up. As a way of trying to make it quite clear that what we are

looking at here is, in fact, Internet governance for development.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Bill, did you want to comment?  Bill Graham?  No, Bill

doesn't want the floor.  Yes.  Fouad.  Fouad or Bill?  Who is coming ‑‑ Bill.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Thank you.  Several just responses.  I really appreciate all

the input and of course the group that's been involved in this welcomes any and

all ideas that people might like to contribute. On the timing issue, I ‑‑ we had

already been hoping that it would be pushed back.  Not only to do what Marilyn

is suggesting, but also because we want the workshops that would feed into it to

be held prior, so that they could be reporting in.  But I do think it's very

sensible that open forums, that organizations might hold, and other types of

things be prior to this and feed into it. I was ‑‑ you know, we were thinking

about this in terms of sort of ‑‑ if you think about it in kind of a funnel.

You know, in terms of the issues, you've got a broad range of things that might

be talked about in the CIR session but what you try to do then is isolate down

the few that specifically have developing country distinctive dimensions, and,

for example, the point about new gTLDs and the pricing structure is something

that we've been debating in ICANN, and certainly is appropriately a question for

discussion in the IG4D session and we would have somebody reporting in from the

workshop that I'm organizing on names, numbers, and Development Agenda who

presumably would address that point. So certainly we don't want to cannibalize

all the other sessions.  We want to isolate the few bits from those sessions

where there's identifiable implications for developing countries that might not

otherwise enjoy full discussion. A second point that I would make, I guess, is

with regard to capacity‑building. My suggestion would be personally that we not

inventory ‑‑ spend a lot of time inventorying things that are being done,

although we are all aware of those, but I ‑‑ to me, the real advantage

personally would be to try to isolate and systematize discussions around where

are the areas where more needs to be done at the natural level.  What types of

policies do we see that aren't quite putting people into the right kind of

position to optimally participate.  What types of steps seem to be working. Many

people may be familiar with the "Louder Voices" report that was done by the

Panos Institute of two years ago about participation in global ICT governance

institutions.  That was very useful in identifying some of the precise types of

questions that across countries we see making it more difficult for developing

countries to participate effectively.  So those might merit some systematic

discussion. And finally on the general point that Nitin raised about not

limiting it to developing countries, this was one of the topics that we had had

a discussion about as well.  Obviously the notion of development is broader than

developing countries, but we had thought that our mandate, that the pressing

issue before us was, in particular, how to promote the engagement of developing

countries in global Internet governance processes. But certainly one could draw

useful distinctions and comparisons between what happens across countries.  They

don't have to limit it that way.  That might be illustrative and helpful.  So

everything that's been said has been very useful and I would urge anybody to

wants to help out and provide more input, to please talk to me and others in the

group.

>>NITIN DESAI:  A word on the "any questions on the panel." My request is we

should really not go beyond six, because it really makes it very difficult to

get full participation.  And I don't think we should formalize it in terms of

two from here, two from there, one from there, one from there, but simply say,

"These are six people who have been drawn in for a variety of points of view"

and without necessarily getting into an issue of "Why have you only got two from

here and one from there," type of thing. The reason you need to from governments

is to some extent because you do have to reflect a balance of concerns, and

that's fine. And ‑‑ but my urge is that we keep it max six, not to go beyond six

and get pushed into making it eight or something like this. May I just ‑‑ yes,

Zahid.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Hearing Bill, it sounds like where we're trying to sort of focus

is on developing country participation into global Internet processes or

governance processes, and I think that that is an important element in this IG4D

segment. I just want to reiterate that we don't lose ‑‑ and just sort of if I

could use my hands here, I mean that's at the multilateral level.  Fine.  But

what about sort of the lower level, or the national level, and how policies are

made there? From what I heard Bill say, that seemed to be sort of a narrower

scope in the session.  I'd really hope that we can concentrate a little more on

that, sort of adding on to my point I earlier made.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI: Any further ‑‑ In many ways, the discussions that are ‑‑ we are

saying now are very similar to discussions which took place in the early days of

the trade system.  There, the focus was what is the nature of the developing

country exception that I need in the rules of GATT. There, questions were do

developing countries have a voice in what is actually decided in the negotiating

rounds of GATT? Third question was, do they have the capacity to participate

adequately and fully in the negotiating processes in GATT and what can we do

about that? The fourth question was, is the agenda which is set for the trade

negotiations something which reflects their concerns, rather than some other set

of concerns? And in some ways, the Doha round was considered one which was there

for the first time.  Developing country, you know, trade concerns sort of drove

the agenda rather than others. So these are in some ways a repetition of that

debate which took ‑‑ which has lasted over 50 years, and to some extent this is

what we have to see and get the voice of people from developing countries who

have concerns adequately reflected in the panel and in the subsequent

participation, and ‑‑ but also different stakeholders. Because I don't think

this should be treated simply as an issue or that there are differences of

perception between countries.  There may also be differences of perception

between shareholders.  So I think we should make sure that we reflect this

diversity.  I think let's then ‑‑ can I then say that if we are to do this, then

I think it should be the last session after security and privacy.  So it just

means that we would ‑‑ we would move access and diversity forward, we would move

security and privacy one session forward, and this becomes a session on 16th

afternoon.  In a sense, drawing everything to close.  Second, we really do

restrict the panel to not more than six, and that to a panel which will respond

to questions, rather than a panel which is asked to make statements. Third, we

do have a structure where we have ‑‑ I hope that Ayesha and Annette will agree

and that they will support me and I'll be happy to do this exercise, and to some

extent it does over ‑‑ help because, you know, we will be drawing the first five

years of IGF to a certain sense of ‑‑ it's a different type of ‑‑ not closure.

It's more a matter of what is it that we ought to be talking about in IGF.  And

it will then feed into the next day, which is "Taking Stock and the Way

Forward," which could pick up issues from the I go for development saying this

is what we're looking, talking about.  It may also feed a little bit interest

the emerging issues challenge. On the question of law, in the light of what

Jovan is saying, I think we can keep it very loose at the moment, because I

don't think we are adequately prepared for this discussion, which Zahid has also

raised some issues which are relevant, and maybe we can just mention them and

see whether there is a response but I can't see us coming to any real

conclusions on this without ‑‑ because we haven't really prepared it.  We have

not done enough preparatory work on this, so it's not possible to do it in time

for Vilnius, and maybe it will be one of those issues which is mentioned which

will be picked up in the taking stock and looking forward thing.  Maybe next

time around, maybe we ought to be looking at this and just leave it at that.  So

is that okay?  Good.  Then let's move on to security and privacy. Yes.  We need

names of the panelists.  And then ‑‑ we want the security, openness and privacy.

Now here we have to fix the moderators also, right?  Good.  So why don't you

bring us up to speed on where we are.

>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Thank you.  Thank you, chairman.  Lee Hibbard from the

Council of Europe.  I'll probably do this in consultation with Katitza here.

Well, since we last met in the last planning meeting, we formed a group.  We set

up a mailing list.  We've had a couple of very constructive teleconference

calls.  We've established a list of feeder workshops.  We've proposed several

moderators, and we've also done some legwork, if you like, in trying to ‑‑ I

think we ‑‑ I think we can say that we consider that the ‑‑ there's a lot of

workshops being done under this main theme, and so we took the liberty of

contacting several ‑‑ or as many workshops as possible ‑‑ workshop organizer as

possible to sort of get their feedback as to what they think are the key issues

to try to ‑‑ if you like, to narrow down the margin of appreciation about

whether this main session goes.  The workshops are the ‑‑ the bread and butter,

the backbone of this main session.  I'll be bringing a lot of people into this

main session sitting down. So we did some work in trying to distill what they

think are the key issues, the most timely and topical issues.  We've created a

list, a short list, of questions.  If you like, a sort of script to help the

moderators, and so that they can actually just use these key questions to

discuss and dialogue with the audience. We thought it was not necessarily a good

idea to have panelists.  We liked the idea of having no panelists at all.

Rather, three moderators from different stakeholder groups, possibly, to sort of

engage on each of these three parts of the ‑‑ of the session, openness,

security, and privacy, and to roam around the audience and to ‑‑ with the

resource persons, and to really bring out responses to these key questions. So

at least my idea is that we have a set list and that we try to respond to the

questions in hand, so that we come out with a ‑‑ with a result, so it doesn't

just wander around in terms of discussion. We discussed also having this prep ‑‑

this social media governance group of workshops beforehand as a prep, as a

preparatory for the main session.  That was discussed and I think maybe moved

forward, and maybe Bertrand would like to mention something on that.  We had a

very constructive ‑‑ good proposal from one workshop organizer to hold a

debriefing after the ‑‑ after the main session of all those workshops under this

main session to debrief and to go ‑‑ to look forward to the future, what would

be the follow‑up, not this discussion just disappears but we carry it forward,

so there is an interest to actually have a prep workshop, a group of workshops,

and then a post‑debriefing workshop during the IGF. Apart from that, I mean, I

don't know whether Katitza has questions or comments, and others. One question I

have for you, though, a technical question regarding remote participation, is

that do the remote participation moderators have to bring their own laptops, are

we supplied with laptops?  It's something which we were confronted with with

EuroDIG.  You know, how does that work.  Thank you.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That's an excellent question.  We haven't ‑‑ to be honest, we

haven't taken too much thought to that thus far.  The thought of having laptops

there for each remote moderator ‑‑ some may prefer it, some may not ‑‑ (speaker

is off microphone) that we have a laptop there for a remote moderator.  But

let's shelf that discussion and discuss‑‑

>> (Speaker is off microphone).

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I think that there is going to be a computer in each room,

which you can use for whatever you want.  You can either use it for PowerPoint

presentation or you can use it for the remote, in fact, there's going to be two

I would suspect because there's two screens.  Yeah, there's going to be two, so

do whatever you want with them.

>>NITIN DESAI:  I think this is a technical logistical issue which they will

resolve and inform the remote moderators in good time as to how this can be

done.  I don't think we need to discuss it here.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Basically, if I may use this question to underline the

importance of having the names of the remote moderators now, so that we can ‑‑

Marilia is here with the ‑‑ she will be with her working group involved in the

training of remote moderators.  We also have new software for that, and that

requires some time.

>>NITIN DESAI: Yes.

>>LUCINDA FELL:  Lucinda Fell from Childnet.  I think this session will be one

of the key sessions to include young people in.  And particularly with a lot of

the work that we did with them last year, there's a real conundrum between

security and ‑‑ [no audio] ‑‑ workshop we held.  We want to be safe but we want

to go ‑‑ we want to be able to do whatever we want and linking in with social

network  ‑‑ [no audio] ‑‑ getting more and more popular, privacy comes into play

there too. So that's something we've pushed really strongly for the inclusion of

young people in and will feed into the questions.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  I think this is a session in which this could be done

because we don't have ‑‑ they're not going to be panels.

>> (Speaker is off microphone).

>>NITIN DESAI:  Just three moderators.

>> (Speaker is off microphone).

>>NITIN DESAI:  Katitza and then Bertrand.

>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Yes.  I think Lee make a very good brief of the summary of

our work in this session.  I just want to say that the agreement was to have

three moderators for this session, so we don't have panelists, but people on ‑‑

especially young people could participate from the floor and to make their

comments because it's an open session.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Yeah.  Bertrand de la Chapelle.  As Lee has

mentioned, one of the ideas that has emerged in the preparation of this was to

have a sort of wrap‑up session, preparatory wrap‑up session, in the form of a

workshop aggregating the different normal workshops that deal with social media

in one way or the other.  And so instead of making the proposal, I had put

forward a proposal for workshops on governance of social media in general and

seeing the amount of workshops that were already present, we changed the

proposal to make it an opportunity for the organizers to get together and

exchange their views before the main session, so that they can feed in the main

session with a few key questions, a few key angles to nurture the discussion.

That is for want of the topics, which is governance of social media.  There has

been discussion in the group regarding the possibility of having a similar thing

for another angle, but this is an attempt ‑‑ I hope I'm clear now ‑‑ this is an

attempt to produce a sort of work flow between the workshops themselves that

deal with a specific topic to then have a second stage where the workshops that

deal with a similar topic get together and try to identify what are the common

threads and how they can be formalized and put forward, and then you have the

main session or at least a portion of the main session that deals with those

main threads. So governance of social media is clearly one of the angles.

Another possible angle would have been everything that has to do with cybercrime

and fighting cybercrime in the dimension of security, and to see the importance

of the rights angle in fighting cybercrime. So how the governance of social

media is about rights and the constraints that can be put on those rights for

public order reasons.  And on the other hand, the cybercrime dimension is the

fight for ‑‑ against cybercrime and the cautionary elements that must be taken

into account to ensure that this fight against cybercrime is done respecting

rights. So that's a suggestion for structuring, but I'm sure there are other

possible aspects. The main idea is to try to find a sort of work flow that

aggregates progressively the outcomes of the ‑‑ from the workshops, so that the

main session can produce key formulations to structure the work afterwards and

intercessionally, so that the main focus and the main function of the IGF

annually is to shape the questions that the different actors will go away with

to organize their work in between two IGFs.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI: Any other comments on the security and privacy?  Yes.

>>UNESCO: Yes.  (saying name) from UNESCO.  Yes, I agree with Bertrand, his good

proposal, and in this case I have a question.  Shall we arrange all the

workshops on openness before the main session, if we have a preparation session

on that, so that we can ‑‑ the organizer can provide inputs to that?  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes, I think this is something which could be taken into

account.  I mean, we have the scheduling discussion tomorrow and we will

certainly try and make an attempt to see that openness workshops take place

before the security and privacy session.  And it could be taken into account

when the scheduling is looked at tomorrow. It's not going to be possible to do

it a hundred percent, because then, you know, there are some workshops which

have to be handled the third and fourth day ‑‑ the third day.  So it is

impossible to ensure that everything is done in advance, but I'm sure that they

will try. Any other questions on the security and privacy session?  No.  The

names of the moderators, yes. Lee, has some thought been given to this?

>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  We've had several proposals for moderators ‑‑ hello,

Liesyl ‑‑ and I think it's the job of the group today to meet and to finalize

that.  In fact, this is the reason why we're here.  So I really hope that we can

finalize a lot of things before we leave because summer break is approaching and

it's quite close to, you know, a big rush towards the end of August. So I think

it's incumbent on us as a group, also, and maybe other groups to decide upon

everything today and tomorrow.

>>NITIN DESAI:  And you're going to have three moderators, right?

>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Three moderators.  And I hope we can finalize and validate

all of that stuff plus the whole structure today and tomorrow.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Is that okay?  Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  As long as we have it by the end of the day.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes.  The end of the day.  Okay.  Then we want to move on to the

taking stock. Moving on to the last day, where there are ‑‑ first is taking

stock, and we had a taking stock of ‑‑ and of the forum, and we ‑‑ well, taking

stock of Internet governance.  It wasn't just a forum.  If you remember, we had

this discussion and in some ways the thought was, okay, we've had five years.

There were certain expectations at the end of Tunis on how Internet governance

would evolve, and not formalized necessarily but implicit. There are also

certain standards which were laid down there, and in some ways this would be an

attempt to take an overview of how has it actually changed over these five

years.  But not just how has it changed, but how have the challenges changed

also. For instance, when we were in Tunis, there was hardly any talk of social

media or Web 2.  There was virtually no ‑‑ I don't recollect any discussion of

Web 2‑type issues or of social media‑related issues at the time of Tunis, but

that has come now.  And in some ways, the thought was ‑‑ and if you remember the

questions were put down are the main themes of 2005 still relevant today.  Are

there new themes that are being overlooked.  Has the context of the discussions

changed over these five years?  Has Internet governance itself evolved over

these five years? And to a certain extent, this issue of capacity building.

Where were we five years ago, where are we now.  Maybe this is an issue which

will probably get covered a little bit more. And there's other questions, but

the issue is we are to decide on a moderator and it's a session which is ‑‑ if I

remember is a full session, right?  Yeah.  It's a full session of three hours.

So how do we handle this?  Do we have a panel which will take ‑‑ in a sense,

respond to these questions?  We have to decide on a moderator for this, and just

to remind you that there will be the emerging issues session which will come

afterwards, and that's going to be on cloud computing, right?  But any thoughts,

any reflections on this?  Yes, Markus.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  If my recollection of our discussion last time is correct, I

think we decided to have more of an open discussion.  We also said we would

prepare a paper on that based on input received.  We set July 15 as a deadline

for an input on these questions. As regards the moderator, we informally also

were thinking of having a television moderator and I don't know whether Giacomo

has actually approached the BBC.  We've had very good experience there ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI: Jonathan.

>>MARKUS KUMMER: ‑‑ with Jonathan in the last years.  He would be good for that

sort of discussion, to keep it going.  But these are basically the thoughts

where we are.

>>NITIN DESAI:  So the idea is that we ‑‑ well, we haven't got a confirmation,

but this is a gentleman who I think ‑‑ he does a click program, right?  Is he

the man who does the click program?  No?  But he has done it once before for us,

right?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Twice.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Twice.  And the idea was that this would be more an open session

moderated by this ‑‑ I don't know whether ‑‑ three hours. Three hours without a

structure. And there would be a paper.  And maybe this is also the space where

people can, particularly the participants, have full scope of, if you like,

their overview of IGF. We did it last time in Sharm El Sheikh, but in a sense,

there is a sense of completion once we have done the five years. So any

reflections on this? No? Then we will ask Giacomo whether he has managed to

finalize the moderator and can take it from there. I still think we probably

have to identify if not a panel, at least somebody to ‑‑ some people who will,

in a sense, can be relied upon from different shareholders to respond to these

questions.  At least informally, we will have to have some arrangement by which

we make sure there were at least four or five.  But the balance being from all

stakeholders. Yes, Bertrand De La Chapelle.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Bertrand De La Chapelle.  Just one suggestion.  One

thing that I find particularly useful in the IGF is that in the course of those

five years, there are a certain number of issues where you entered the IGF

process five years ago with a certain understanding of what the topic was, and

after five years, hopefully you at least have seen the complete dimensions and

sometimes the formulations themselves have evolved. It could be interesting to

have in an open session like this after ‑‑ as a sort of respondence to the first

session of the first day to ask people in the room to take a step back and to

give their own feeling about how the IGF has changed in their professional

activity, the understanding they had of one or two specific issues. So as to

demonstrate first the fact that people have evolved, and maybe also to ask them

to formulate a certain number of questions that they consider as being very

important for the future, and to not do it as an emerging issues session, but

say on the existing topics, this is how I would like to see the discussion be

continued.  Because in certain cases, and especially on very sensitive issues,

it can be net neutrality, it can be the unilateral control of the Internet

resources and so on ‑‑ there is... (Dropped audio) So my dream, and that's

really a hope, is that at the end of those five years, a few of those very

sensitive issues basically are formulated in a slightly different way so that in

the next five years, we can actually address them in a more efficient manner.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Any other? To some extent, this is the intention behind the

taking stock session. It is ‑‑ And it really is to provide some sense of

guidance for the next ways of IGF. Okay?  Okay, fine.  Then let's move on to the

last session, emerging issues, cloud computing.  It's Patrik.  Patrik, will you

tell us.

>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Thank you very much.  Patrik Fältström here.  I have got

the task of trying to put the emerging issues cloud computing together.  And

what we did at last meeting was that we created a small sort of self‑appointed

group of people that were talking about how to make the session as effective as

possible.  And where we are now is that we will have all the workshops before

the session.  That is very important for the actual layout, because what we want

to have are the ‑‑ is a number of panelists and the panelists were at the

moment, if I don't count wrongly, five, and those five panelists make short

introductions on the three issues that we have agreed upon.  On those very short

introductions, specifically, the participants from the workshops are raising the

issues with the participants that are sort of the findings from the workshop

discussions.  And that, hopefully, will create an interesting discussion based

upon the ‑‑ around the three topics. We do have suggestions on moderators,

myself and Katitza.  And then we have, as I said, five panelists.  We're still

having some discussions of who they are, but we sort of know who they are, and

we hope to finalize all of that this day, so that Katitza and I can move

forward, contact the workshop organizers, get the information from them and

then, of course, prepare the panelists as well for the session. So that's where

we are. Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Comments? Yes.

>>UNESCO: (saying name) from UNESCO. At the February meeting we heard a lot of

discussion about mobile phone, mobile communication.  I just want to make sure

if this important topic will be covered in this session or any of the other, if

we think how many Africans are using mobile phones for information, which is

really more visible to bridge of digital divide. Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   I think it will probably get there with the agenda on the

access issue, "access and diversity." Patrik.

>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Regarding specifically this session, one of the things

that we are supposed to talk about regarding cloud is the, the first one is what

cloud actually is.  And the second one has to do with the infrastructure

hardware environment.  And I could envision that people that are using cell

phones and other kind of devices, and also are accessing the Internet from

Internet cafés, that is sort of one of the main reasons why clouds exist, where

you have the application and storage and stuff somewhere else. So it would ‑‑ So

if it would come up in this session, it would not be cell phone access specific,

but also you could always access the service and data wherever you are. So I

don't really know whether the answer is no, but probably no.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay. Fine.  Anything else on this session? So okay.  We are in

reasonable shape.  The main change we have made is to move "Internet Governance

for Development" to the afternoon of Thursday the 16th September, which means

that "Access and Diversity" becomes Wednesday afternoon.  "Security, Openness

and Privacy" becomes Thursday morning. We had a fairly extensive discussion on

the IG4D, and I think we got somewhere, which will probably allow us to

structure the session so that it is not ‑‑ doesn't become a discussion on the

ICT for development, but after all there is a whole process which is dealing

with ICT for development.  We will not fully succeed in preventing that

discussion, but we should try and keep dragging people back to Internet

governance and management issues rather than e‑education, e‑health, e‑governance

type issues. Any other questions on the overall structure of the main sessions,

et cetera? We don't need to discuss the closing ceremony.  It is fairly

straightforward.  It's a short closing ceremony. Okay? Good. So then we have

done our work on the main sessions, and maybe we can begin on the question that

need to be discussed on the workshop since we do have some time now. Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   To begin with, I have a more philosophical question on

workshops and dynamic coalitions. There are several dynamic coalitions who

proposed workshops.  It was always my understanding that dynamic coalitions are

not here to propose workshops and to organize workshops but they are here to

explore issues and to further understanding of issues among themselves and maybe

find solutions to the issues they addressed. We always give a slot for a dynamic

coalition to meet if they want to meet, but some of them now either want to have

a meeting for the dynamic coalitions of the dynamic coalition and then at the

same time have a workshop.  But as others seem just to be confused and propose a

workshop of the dynamic coalition.  So we always struggled a bit with the

dynamic coalitions, what is their raison d'etre, what is their purpose. But to

me, cannot be the purpose of a dynamic coalition to hold a workshop every year,

but then they remain very much also among themselves.  The idea for a workshop

is also to reach out and to bring together different participants; right back at

the beginning with some of the dynamic coalitions that emerged from workshops,

which is fine.  But then just to continue amongst themselves seems somewhat not

the approach we have envisaged right at the beginning. So I would be interested

here how we should handle that. Andrea will come later this afternoon.  There's

a dynamic coalition on accessibility for people with disabilities.  They are

very active, and they will have a meeting.  Also last year I had discouraged

them to sign up as organizers of a workshop because somehow that gives the wrong

signals to other dynamic coalitions.  They had reached out.  I know last year

they had a workshop, not just as a dynamic coalition, but I think with European

Broadcasting, so it is certainly broader than the dynamic coalition. But there

are a number of dynamic coalitions that have basically signed up as workshop

organizers. Now, I don't know, maybe I'm too rigid and we should be open enough

to allow them to have a workshop, but then they should be judged, I think, like

all the other workshop organizers and not be given the workshop just ex officio

because they are a dynamic coalition. I'm here to listen, to learn.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, Marilyn. And then Wolfgang.

>>MARILYN CADE:   Marilyn Cade speaking. My point or question about putting

other functional groups, both open forums and dynamic coalitions, into the count

of workshops is that if we set a limit on the number of workshops at 60, and we

require certain characteristics ‑‑ that is, geographic diversity and a

multistakeholder organization ‑‑ for the workshops, I'm concerned that if we

take workshop slots for other activities, even open forums, but also dynamic

coalitions, we're going to be diluting or lowering the number of slots for the

workshops that are organized according to certain criteria. And I think the

workshops are really almost a crown jewel of the IGF in that they have certain

characteristics.  Those characteristics are adhered to here, but also are being

reflected in the national and regional IGFs.  And having the different groupings

provides flexibility but protects a core of consistency in the characteristics

of the workshops.  Long message to say would I prefer dynamic coalitions stay in

a separate track, as well as open forum.

>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   Thank you, Chair.  I am speaking here on behalf of

the IGF dynamic coalition on the Internet of things.  It was to blend with the

(inaudible) establish this dynamic coalition in Hyderabad, and we planned

something for Sharm El Sheikh, but unfortunately the chair, Francis Muguet,

passed away and so we had no really clear leadership for this. Meanwhile, the

people involved in this dynamic coalition, which is not yet officially

established, has come together and proposed a workshop.  But I think the

procedure outlined just by Markus is very good for this dynamic coalition.  So I

would think that we should get a slot for the dynamic coalition to clear the

reestablishment or the restart of this dynamic coalition linked to a

workshop‑like discussion, but we should not occupy a special space for a

workshop for this dynamic coalition. Thank you very much.

>>NITIN DESAI: (speaking off mic) that they should be judged as workshop

proposals, and there is no sort of presumption that we are going to say yes.  It

would have to fit in with the agenda, or the session, they will have to fit in,

meet the other criteria which I laid out. So there is nothing to stop them

proposing a workshop, but there is nothing automatic about it.  That was, I

think ‑‑ yes? Okay. Are there any other issues on the workshops that we need to

talk about or would you like to ‑‑

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Maybe a few remarks.  I think Marilyn just led into that.

Obviously they are all interlinked.  How many slots we give to this group will

have an impact on how many slots we can give to the other category. And just to

brief you on the present state. We have requests for ten dynamic coalition

meetings, dynamic coalition on linguistic diversity, a new one for a global open

localization platform, a dynamic coalition on core Internet values, Internet and

climate change, youth coalition on Internet governance, accessibility and

disability, open standards, freedom of expression and freedom of the media,

child online safety, and coalition on gender.  I'm not sure, actually, whether

‑‑ Lucinda also asked for a coalition, but that may not be part of that list

yet, but you will be given a slot. Then we have the open forums that are, again,

a different category.  We give the major institutions involved in Internet

governance a slot where they can present their activities.  And there we have ‑‑

if I can find the right paper, I will get the list. We have the organization for

security and cooperation in Europe, in cooperation of the Council of Europe.  We

have the Council of Europe.  We have the OECD, again in cooperation with the

Council of Europe.  We have ICC/BASIS, UNESCO, ICANN, UN‑ESCWA, and the Arab ICT

organization.  That is eight slots. In the past, I think these slots have

provided a welcome opportunity to these organizations to inform about their

activities, and it has also been appreciated by forum participants as it is one

short opportunity to get an overview of what's happening in the field of

Internet governance. Then we have now an increasing number of regional and

national IGF meetings, and we have so far had 13 requests.  Again, there is a

general feeling that this is important and effort should be made to emphasize

the links and improve the relationship between them, and between them and the

global IGF. There we had thought of giving a two‑hour slot to each regional one

and a one‑hour slot to each national one, which can then be grouped together.

So that will give us, again ‑‑ take us ten slots or so for these meetings. And

the rest would then be the workshop slots. Technically, I think we can

accommodate about 85 slots, but we don't need to fill each of them, and there

was also a general feeling that we have too much of a good thing in past

meetings.  We have now increased each slot to two hours, and in the afternoon we

only ‑‑ we have in the morning two slots, and in the afternoon one slot of two

hours.  The afternoon slot can also be lengthened. We had some requests for

emergent workshops that they would have a slightly longer workshop.  There is no

problem if we give them a slot in the afternoon.  Then they can lengthen that

slot accordingly. But these are sort of the nitty‑gritty of the scheduling, and

I think we can make use of the day tomorrow to go precisely into that where

people can say where they want their slot.  And those are as many of you are

engaged, involved in different workshops and different panels, to make sure that

we can accommodate this and avoid overlaps of workshops.  We did that last year

and that was extremely useful when we do it, and people are still here instead

of on an online process where we then have to negotiate between different

parties. So these are my overall remarks.  And maybe we could identify the

feeder workshops first for all the main sessions, whether there have been any

changes.  We have tried to keep track, but it's not always that easy as the

discussions were very dynamic in the various groups. And they may not be at the

latest stage. And there is one point also, Bertrand made it, a discussion has

come up in the "Security, Openness, Privacy" workshop to have sort of meta

workshops before and after the sessions.  And I think the same mechanism ‑‑

there may well be merit in having the same mechanism for all the sessions to see

whether the feeder workshops can have a joint session to prepare for the main

session to discuss what came out of it, and then also have a session after the

main session to take stock and see whether there's any way of moving forward.

Now I'm not sure whether we are ready to put up the list on the screen.

Otherwise, what we could do ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   I think we can do that ‑‑ We can do the details in the

afternoon, because I'll have to put the list up and we will have to go through

that. I was just fig if there are any more general issues. First, I think the

general philosophy that we try and keep the number of workshops to those which

really just ‑‑ we don't have to fill in the slots simply because we have a room

available.  Because one complaint we have always had is there are too many

workshops, and we can't ‑‑ and there's no point in our saying it's all

voluntary, you don't have to go.  They say no, but we would like to but we don't

want to miss out.  And the more you have ‑‑ it's like having too many dishes at

a dinner.  You don't want to miss any out. So the ‑‑ 60 is what you are looking

with; right?  Around. The second issue is that we really want to try and make an

effort at scheduling workshops so that we can really improve the connection

between the workshops and the main sessions, and this is something that we will

do in the afternoon, session by session.  We will take the workshops which fall

under any particular session and see which other ones which have been designated

as feeder workshops and if there are any issues there, we can resolve those. We

already discussed the dynamic coalition workshop and they are free to propose

but it will be treated as any other workshop.  If it meets the criteria, it is

worth doing, we would go ahead. Are there any other general issues relating to

workshops that we need to discuss or can we say we now need to get into the

individual?  Because that we will do in the afternoon. Yes.

>>GIIC:   Dan O'Neil with GIIC. Markus, get back to your point on the number of

60.  Are we talking about 60 workshops there and then having the dynamic

coalitions and open forum would be in addition to that number?  Or you had also

mentioned the number of 80 before.  So I just want to get an understanding of

where we are, number‑wise.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   The total of slots we can offer is around 85.  So the

workshops, around 60, yes.

>> Just a follow‑up on the numbers, and I apologize if you we have already

discussed this today.  I realize for "Security, Openness and Privacy," you have

a large number of workshops.  So I just ‑‑ and I am aware that we probably

haven't indicated mergers to get down to a number that probably fits in the

scope of 60.  So I didn't know if there was any more guidance on that.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   No, I think this is very much supply driven.  I think it

would be too artificial to impose an artificial limit for each category.  We

noticed, indeed, security, openness and privacy seems to create the biggest

interest.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay. Good. Then let's adjourn.  We have an early lunch.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Can we ask the various groups now to reflect on names, so we

don't have to discuss that in an open setting.  But it's also so that maybe

people who are not part of the core group on each issue might like to be

involved in some of these discussions. So I wonder whether it might not be a

good idea just to stay in this room for another half hour or so ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   Let's just see ‑‑ Let me start.  Lee and Katitza and (saying

name) are handling the privacy.  And you, of course, also have to get the

moderators organized.  So if you can just be ‑‑ anybody who wants to ‑‑ There,

of course, it's just the three moderators; right? So anybody who wants to

contribute to that discussion can go where Lee and Katitza would be. The "access

and diversity" is Olga, and Neil.  Neil is not here but Olga is here, and they

are the moderators.  And if anybody has any contribution they want to make on

names, et cetera, they can contact Olga there. The session on "Critical Internet

Resources," Jeanette is not here but Chris is here, and again, if anybody wants

to make a contribution on participation, they can go to Chris. On "Internet

Governance for Development," Bill Drake and Fouad are here and anybody who wants

to make suggestions can go over to that. And on cloud computing, Patrik is

sitting there. On taking stock, we are not going to have a panel so the issue

doesn't arise. I just have been told that Jonathan is available and will be able

to moderate that session.  So that's taken care of. So there's not much further

to be done on that one. Okay. So then we adjourn now and we reassemble at three

o'clock.  And in the meantime, you can do this talking and to the extent

everything gets finalized and needs to be approved by the full group, we can do

that in the afternoon.  Okay? Thank you. And thank you to the scribes, sitting

at a great distance, and managing rather well, I must say, despite the distance

between us. Thank you very much. [ Lunch Recess ] ***Live Scribing by Brewer &

Darrenougue ‑ www.quicktext.com***

Internet Governance Forum Preparatory Meeting 28 June 2010 ‑ Afternoon Session

***Live Scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue ‑ www.quicktext.com***

>>NITIN DESAI:   Good afternoon. I understand a couple of the groups are now

ready with their suggestions on people, et cetera. Maybe, Lee, can you start

with the "security and privacy" group. The security and privacy, I think.

>>LEE HIBBARD:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Well, we discussed over lunch, but we

narrowed down a number of ‑‑ three moderators.  We are just checking with one of

them to make sure that person agrees, first of all.  So I am just waiting for

confirmation.  We are still working on the structure of the questions, et

cetera, but I think we have to say we need a bit more time, I'm afraid. Well,

the names of the moderators that we have discussed are Frank La Rue, who is the

U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression.  The second

moderator, which remains to be confirmed, is Lisa Horner from Global partners.

I think you know her. And the third moderator ‑‑ remind me who that was.

>> Liesyl just stepped out.  I think that was a business person from Intel,

David Hofmann.

>>LEE HIBBARD:   Yes, David Hofmann from Intel representing business.  So we

have those three.  We are waiting for confirmation. They have been proposed.  So

they haven't come out of thin air, so they actually are there as proposals, so

they have ‑‑ I guess there's been some prior discussions. So subject to

confirmation, those will be the three.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thank you, Nitin.  Subject to Jeanette, I have asked Kathy

Hanley to be our remote participation moderator. (No audio.)

>>NITIN DESAI:   Sorry.  On the Internet governance for development.

>> Right.  Thank you. Well, we, after talking through the possibilities and

recognizing that as I had indicated earlier, we have this program that moves in

essentially four parts, and we need to have panelists on the main panel who can

speak to all four sets of those issues, but then there may be other voices that

we want to bring into the conversation on particular areas, one of the four. We

have decided on a sort of two‑part structure which hopefully is not too complex

or Byzantine which should allow more voices to be brought into the conversation

in a concise and focused manner. So for the main panel, we have, to my

knowledge, at this point, Zahid Jamil from Pakistan for the business community,

you Raul Echeberria from LACNIC from Uruguay from the technical community.

Myself as a civil society sort of person.  We have then probably two persons

from government, one perhaps from Brazil, we are waiting to hear on a prior

invitation, and then another from an African government to be determined. So we

are sort of three‑fifths of the way there in constituting the main panel. Then

alongside that we would have for each of the four thematic parts, as I

suggested, a respondent or two who would sit in the front row of the audience,

whose name would be listed on the program so that if they need that for travel

funding or other purpose, they are indicated there, who, after, say, we have

talked as a panel, say what is IG4D, could then be called on by the chair to

offer a few integrative comments from their own national perspective or

stakeholder group perspective on that particular topic area. So we need, then,

as a group to identify who those persons would be, and we are in the process of

doing that, and it seems to be moving along fairly well. So I think in

reasonably short order, we should have that complete lineup.

>>NITIN DESAI:   I would suggest that we follow a general policy of having

people named as individuals rather than as representatives.  And they should be

listed as individuals in the program, rather than as a representative of ‑‑ Even

if the person was working for a government, the person should be listed as

so‑and‑so.  And of course his position in government would be mentioned but it

should be made clear the person is there as an individual.  Because otherwise,

you run into problems because who are you to decide who speaks for the

government?  You are in no position to decide who speaks for the government.

Only the government can decide.  But you can certainly invite an individual to

be part of a panel.  I think that distinction should be clearly maintained, that

as a group what we are doing is identifying individuals, not governments or

organizations. Because we are not authorized to choose for our people.  We can

only choose in the way we work, which is by looking at what individuals would be

best. I would strongly urge that we really stick to the six panelists in total

for that whole session.  Now, particularly, with the respondents, et cetera,

already we are looking at the named people taking up a fair amount of time, and

I think we need to provide space for full participation by the audience in this.

Okay.  Is Patrik back? No, Patrik is not. Yes.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   If I didn't emphasize that enough, I was only indicating

stakeholder groups for purposes of identity but, yes, we are speaking about

individuals. I don't know if there is anybody else from our group who would like

to add anything, but there was a lot of discussion on exactly how we might do

this and the kinds of people who could serve in those respondent capacities.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Ayesha.

>>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you. I think we recognize, as we said this morning,

that this is a new session, and so it's going to be very important to ensure

that it can be focused on the topics and the way in which you have outlined this

morning, Chair. And so in that respect, what we were trying to do ensure that

there would be key people for to you turn to ensure that perspectives on the

topics at each stage were coming out in the discussion. Given the newness, given

the expansion, given the slippery slope to ICT4D, making sure you have enough

people to draw on from the audience, by putting a label of some kind on specific

people who we get to commit being in the room was part of the objective. We also

have had a number of people from different perspectives in the different groups

express an interest in this topic, and so this was also a way to grab them and

make sure they're going to be there to share their perspective.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay. Yes.

>> (Saying name) here.  I just wanted to support Ms. Diop's suggestion,

actually, to participate in the session.  I think she put her name forward this

morning, and I think that would be an excellent addition.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.  I was pleased to be able to join the discussion

with the group, and I wanted to make a point about the inclusion of a discussion

about the importance of capacity building in a particular way as we work through

the three or four topics. One of the topics we talked about was the way that

countries are organizing themselves to participate effectively in various

activities related to Internet governance, and I think at least one or two of

the respondents, or more, might be prepared to talk not only about the need for

capacity building but a bit about what is going on already.  Just to highlight

that and to draw out more comments from the participants.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Are we ready with something on cloud computing? No? Okay.  He

has an e‑mail from Patrik.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Patrik sent an e‑mail to the list, but not everybody is on

this list.  Basically, they have found agreement.  Moderators are Patrik

Fältström and Katitza Rodriguez, and they have four panelists:  private sector,

Frank Osafo‑Charles from Ghana; government, Luis Magalhães from Portugal; civil

society Andreas Krisch, EDRI president; and Susana Sargento, Portugal; and

private sector, Robert Pepper from Cisco, who is also on the list of resource

persons.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  This is the session on emerging issues. Good.  So that

‑‑ Yes.  Olga.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Yes, I would like to mention that many of the members of our

working group for the "access and diversity" session are not here now.  I met

with some of them in Brussels for the ICANN meeting, so if you want, Chair, I

can share with us the names of the panelists we have so far.  There are six.

And the two moderators. What we don't have yet, it's the moderator for remote

participation.  I have asked them if we can exchange some names, but I have no

answers from them yet. So this may take us some ‑‑ perhaps one or two more days.

Should I read the panelists?

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Okay.  It's (saying name) from South Africa from government

and technical community; Manal Ismail from Egypt from government; (saying name)

from Argentina civil society; Philip (saying name) from Germany, private sector

and technical community; (saying name) from India from government; and (saying

name) from India from private sector. So far, these are the six panelists that

we have identified. I also had talked with Lucinda Fell from ChildNet and she

has a group of young people attending the IGF.  So the idea is we prepare an

e‑mail list with all the panelists and some other participants that could be in

the audience, but could participate in our previous preparation.  So we already

have identified some key questions and key issues that should be addressed from

the audience and between the panelists. So this is somehow the way that we will

work from now on, to organize the main session. Thank you. How much time should

we have to identify the remote participation moderator?

>>NITIN DESAI:   The sooner the better.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:   If someone volunteers for that in the room, that would be

welcome.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Please.

>>RAQUEL:  Hello, my name is Raquel from Brazil.  I have actually a remote

contribution here.  Ginger Paque has just logged in from Venezuela and she is

reminding that if you need help, we are from the Remote Participation Working

Group, and we can help with this issue for remote moderators.  So just as a

statement.

>> Just following up the contributions from remote participants, we have some

remote participants who have written us by e‑mail or Twitter.  The first is

Thomas Lowenhaupt.  He is organizer of the workshop ccTLD, governance and best

practices.  It's workshop number 50.  He says the workshop will provide

practical guidance for the cities and the governance and operations of their

TLDs and will begin the formation of a framework for cooperation between cities

operating TLDs. He requests the workshop evaluators to see that he has updated

the workshop proposal, so it's a new one.  Please see it online. He said that he

is following the meeting through remote channels and is prepared to give further

details if needed about the workshop. And the second remote participant is

(saying name).  He proposes that more emphasis is put on regional and national

IG meetings but with the aim to establish a more concrete platform for

cooperation.  He suggest Secretariat to foster multistakeholder consultation

that would have as a result a report, and the report would have the coordination

of several regional IG meetings before the IGF. Antonio Medina from Colombia

just writes to us to say he is following the open consultations using remote

participation, and thanks for this option. (saying name) asks the organizers of

the security, openness and privacy umbrella to see that workshops number 99 and

85 have been merged, so they take into consideration this merge when they

evaluate the workshops. Vladimir (saying name) says DiploFoundation will deliver

IG diplomacy training for citizens of ACP countries under the Diplo AU ACP

sponsored project.  They invite interested professions that will be in Vilnius

to apply for this training.  It will probably take place in '11 and '12, and

Diplo will cover the local costs for participants for these days.  The ones

interested should write to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and DiploFoundation offers to

cooperate with the IGF Secretariat, the Remote Participation Working Group and

other interested partners to train Diplo fellows for the implementation of

remote participation.  And this is my comment here.  Although we have these

Diplo fellows and the list of resource persons, it's really important that

workshop organizers provide the names of remote participants because we will

have the opportunity to train them early, and remote moderators must have people

who ‑‑ must be people who have a real interest on the topic of the workshop so

they will more easily identify good questions to be forward to the panel.  So

it's really important that you provide this workshop moderators, these remote

moderators, in advance.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Thank you.  Okay.  Is there anything else on the main sessions?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  Thank you.  We will be grateful for those who have not

already done so to send us in writing a list of the names for moderators for

main sessions, and those affiliations so that we have it all in correct

spelling.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Let's move on to the workshops, then.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  We had sent out, in a first round, a spreadsheet for

evaluation.  That was prior to the last meeting.  We had sent out a revised

spreadsheet and giving a deadline of 20th of June.  Unfortunately, we had very

limited success with responses.  We received about three or four in the first

round and only one for the second round, so we have done our own Secretariat

assessment of the workshop, taking into account what we received. We have used

these criteria we had set out.  That is, make sure that the diversity in all its

aspects is respected in the proposals.  That is, diversity of viewpoints,

diversity of stakeholder groups, geographic diversity, also gender diversity.

And we gave points accordingly.  We looked at it with relatively strict eyes.

For instance, if there was an excellent workshop proposals but with panelists

from just one region ‑‑ say Europe or North America ‑‑ we said, "This does not

qualify; it could a bigger geographical spread."  The same for stakeholder

groups. Especially taking into account that we have quite an impressive list of

resource persons, so it is relatively easy to supplement the list of panelists.

And the development that I mentioned also is a very important criteria. Now,

what we have done ‑‑ and we have, of course, also incorporated the workshops

that have been identified by the various thematic groups as feeder workshops,

and some workshops were identified by these groups as workshops that are of

sufficient quality to be a stand‑alone workshop but they're not necessarily

related to the main session. We have marked some workshops with amber.  This

time this means there are discussions in progress on possible mergers.  But

otherwise, we have limited it to these workshops in green, which we think should

be given slots. Green, as such, is feeder workshops, and then we have those

green with a cross‑through, and they are workshops that are ‑‑ have been found

as good enough to stand alone. All in all, we have identified 45 workshops as

green workshops and 10 are marked amber. If we agree with this, there would

still be some room for some additional workshops to be given a slot. If we use

every single work slot, we have, I think, about 95 slots available but we don't

need to use these. We have separate categories, I already mentioned, dynamic

coalitions.  We have, I think, 11 slots.  We have 10 slots for regional/national

meetings.  That is seven two‑hour slots for regional meetings and six one‑hour

slots for national meetings.  That gives, in full, 10 two‑hour slots. And we

have ‑‑ what is it ‑‑ open forums?  I think eight slots or so. So what we could

do is run through this list, category by category, and see whether you agree

with our assessment or whether you have maybe additional comments. But again,

bearing in mind that some of these workshops ‑‑ for instance, workshop Number 60

by the Council of Europe is a very solid workshop, but it lacks regional

diversity.  It's I think panelists from just one region.  That is, from Europe.

We have found it should be expanded, but we may agree to have workshops with

more regional dimension.  This is something, I think, which should not be

decided by the Secretariat but ‑‑ [No audio]

>>NITIN DESAI:  Let's take it section by section then.  Critical Internet

resources.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  On criminal Internet resources, 147 and 158, they are

earmarked in amber as in the process of merging, but I think they have agreed to

merge. It's between the Internet Governance Project and LACNIC, and as far as I

understand, they will retain the Number 158.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Chris, any...

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  No.  That's ‑‑ I think we suggested that they ‑‑ we suggested

that they merge.

>>NITIN DESAI:  I see.  Was that somebody who had a flag up?  Yes.

>> I just noticed that under critical Internet resources is the Internet of

things workshop, and this is actually a ‑‑ one of the three topics under

security, openness and privacy, so it probably should move categories.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Internet of things would be under security, openness and

privacy?  Would that be more appropriate, Chris?

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Sorry.  Markus ‑‑ Markus, can we get an up‑to‑date copy of

this because we've got an old one which doesn't have any amber on it.  It just

has red, green ‑‑

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I'll send it out, yeah.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Internet of things.

>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: There are two options now.  One is if there is

remaining space, we would do it as our own workshop and would ask for a slot for

the dynamic coalition.  If we are in competition with another workshop, then we

would ask just for a slot for the dynamic coalition and to include the time ‑‑

the speeches for the workshop into the meeting of the dynamic coalition.  So ‑‑

but we would ‑‑ are happy to have a full slot for a workshop, but if this is in

conflict with other workshops and we do not have space enough, we would be

satisfied also with a slot for the dynamic coalition.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I would say it makes more sense then to give you a slot for a

dynamic coalition, as you want to form a dynamic coalition.

>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:  Yeah.  Okay.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Any other reflections on this?  The Internet of things, is it?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yeah.  Okay.  So that's the set of workshops for the critical

Internet resources. Then we have the ‑‑ in terms of timing, do we want ‑‑ we'll

do this tomorrow.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I mean, some of them have been identified as feeder workshops.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  But it would be on the first morning, actually.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Ayesha?

>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Just a general question.  I'm wondering if the Secretariat had

any positive responses from people who were notified that they had several

workshop proposals and could they potentially choose.  Has there been any ‑‑

just for us to understand if anybody out there who has put in four or five

proposals has been willing to choose or merge in a way.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Markus?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  There was one workshop proposer who had about five or six

workshops who understood that he may end up with only one.  But, I mean, it

depends also very much on the organization.  You cannot, you know, compare

apples and pears.  You can have a big organization that has the capacity own has

also the spread through various subject areas, and you can have individuals who

may not have the capacity have wide‑ranging interests.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE:  Nitin, Marilyn Cade.  I've been asked by an individual who

submitted a workshop.  He did not have a chance to talk to me before, but I will

ask this clarifying question. The ‑‑ and before asking it, I'm going to make a

comment on the answer that Markus just gave. In previous meetings, I have

suggested that we need to be open to the idea that it is challenging for new

parties to develop workshops and ‑‑ and I might say "compete" with the ‑‑ those

of us ‑‑ I would include myself ‑‑ who have been around the entire time. So I

say that to ask the following question. I haven't had a chance to look at the

amber workshops or the workshops that aren't accepted, but I'm wondering if we

have workshop proposals that just need a little more work in order to be

balanced, representative, meet the broad criteria.  Do we have until tomorrow to

urge those parties how to fix up, so to speak, in order to meet the criteria to

give some further consideration to some of those? And on that note, I would say

that I know we are still work ‑‑ looking for workshops to merge and I'll be

happy to talk to the staff separately about the possibility of merging one of

the workshops that I proposed.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  I'm sure there's no problem with that.  Yes.

>>LIESYL FRANZ: Hi.  It's Liesyl Franz. Just to answer Ayesha's question.  In

the security, openness and privacy group, we have had a ‑‑ at least one instance

where ‑‑ one instance in which the same organizer agreed to merge or consolidate

their own proposals, so it has happened.  We're still looking for other merger

candidates, though, I would say in security, openness and privacy, if you're

thinking about it.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Can we move on to the development section? I see a very

grand "Revolutionary Internet governance ideas that can help change the

developing world."  Yes, Fouad.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  The idea of this workshop was to have an open ‑‑ specifically a

test to have an open space where participants can freely share ideas and those

ideas can be recorded and monitored over a period of one year or two years to

see that ‑‑ how these ideas have been useful or who has implemented these and

what the results been?  Sort of a complement to the IG4D main session, and it's

sort of a test from our side from the developing world, whether we do have some

creative process going on in terms of Internet governance, and then at the same

time I wanted to include any workshops which were, like, overstated in the

earlier ‑‑ the initial workshops list to be included into this, so they could

have a chance to share their perspectives as well. So it's ‑‑ I had a discussion

within the IGC regarding that we should have panelists, but I'm not in the ‑‑ in

the favor of having panelists on this.  This is more of an idea‑sharing session,

in which most of the participants ‑‑ young, from all stakeholder groups ‑‑ can

participate freely and share ideas and perspectives. The time will be divided on

the basis of how many participants we have and it will happen ‑‑ it will be more

of a spontaneous workshop, which is like an idea‑sharing session.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  This is the unplanned workshop?

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  This is a creativity innovative workshop, actually.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Same thing. [Laughter]

>>NITIN DESAI:  Any other reflections on the development set?  There's some

problem of the title in 92.  I couldn't quite follow what the title was.  "Best

Practices, Implementation, Internet Future for Sweden 2015."  Yes.  Portugal.

>>PORTUGAL:  Thank you very much.  I'm Ana Neves from Portugal.  Well, regarding

this workshop, I think it's a good idea but I think that it will be interesting

to route it to the developed ‑‑ to the developed world and not only to

developing countries.  So I wonder if it will be ‑‑ there could be some room to

broaden this workshop, that I think it could be very innovative and we can

really put some ideas, because it's time to put on the table what we ‑‑ what can

be really changed, and not only for developing countries, for everybody.  Thank

you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Fouad?

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Yes.  Thank you.  The idea behind this was that a certain level

of policy‑making happens in the developed world which directly affects the

developing countries, and obviously we have a sort of disconnect between our

institutions in our countries whereby technical and ‑‑ technical and policy

capacity lacks extensively and the departments are disconnected a lot. So these

kind of ideas were actually geared towards everyone's participation and sharing

how certain examples might have worked for the developed and could be used for

the developing, so I don't think that we have a problem in also adding the word

"developed" into it, but the context is that we can be ‑‑ we can be vice versa

as well.  Yeah.  So the whole idea is to be open space for everyone to

participate, so I can make the changes.  I again request a change to be made by

the IGC.  Yes.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Any other reflections on the development set of workshops? Okay.

Access and diversity.  Which one?  The revolutionary.  We keep the revolution.

They're all for the revolution.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Or should we delete the title "revolution"?

>>NITIN DESAI:  Can we at least drop the word "revolution"?  Can we just say

Internet governance ideas that can help change the world?  That's ambitious

enough. [Laughter]

>>NITIN DESAI:  I have a feeling this ‑‑ this thing needs some ‑‑ because people

who read this and say ‑‑ could pretty easily ‑‑ some journalist picking this up

could easily make fun of us, you know. [Laughter]

>>NITIN DESAI: So, say, "Ah, look at these guys, who really think that the IGF

is about    to ‑‑

>> (Speaker is off microphone).

>>NITIN DESAI:  No, no.  The point is that just think of a ‑‑ I think the idea

that you have ‑‑ is a different type of workshop, which is not with a lot of

prepared papers, speeches, panelists, but a space for people to ‑‑ where you

could have a room saying that you are allowed to mention anything which has been

mentioned in the main session. So the only people ‑‑ the only thing that you can

come up with is something which is not on the table in the main session. But

think of a title which does not lend itself to some satirical references in the

media, okay?

>>FOUAD BAJWA: Mr. Chairman, I think we can change the word "Revolutionary."

Right?

>>NITIN DESAI:  Why don't you talk to the IGC?

>>FOUAD BAJWA: Okay.  I will.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Talk to the IGC.  What do they really have in mind.

>>FOUAD BAJWA: Okay.

>>NITIN DESAI:  If it's just a space ‑‑ because I'm not sure how we will be able

to describe this in the brochure or whatever.  So why don't you talk to the IGC.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Yeah.  This was actually ‑‑ well, most of it was actually my own

idea. [Laughter]

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  So ‑‑ but, you know, of course ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:  Well, then talk to yourself. [Laughter]

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Yeah.  But then it has a larger group of people who participated

in designing what is actually written now, and most of them want it be an open

space for idea‑sharing, and we can work on the word "Revolutionary."  We can

remove the word "Revolutionary," actually. And there was something which

actually came to my mind earlier this morning when Marilyn shared that she was

preparing a publication which includes inputs from the regional IGFs, so that

could also be a very good space to actually share this in a workshop, because

those are also ideas coming in on the subject.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Suppose you got to put something like "open space for new ideas

on Internet governance."  Would that capture what you're trying to do?  Or

"innovative ideas" ‑‑ "open space for innovative ideas" so that we create a

reasonable understanding of what to expect from this.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Can I come back to it?

>>NITIN DESAI:  Have a look into this.  But as it stands, it is likely to be

picked up by somebody who will then make ‑‑

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Uh‑huh.  Okay.  Can I float this back in the IGC and come back

in seven days, at least?

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  No, no.  Tomorrow.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  In seven days, I'll have the confirmed title of it.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Tomorrow.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Tomorrow?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Okay.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Access and diversity. Yes.  What?

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  I think that most of us will conclude to having the name

something like "innovative Internet governance ideas and approaches."

>>NITIN DESAI:  Fine.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Yeah.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Can we look at access and diversity?  What is 182?  It's not an

obvious... "Welcome to the Magical World of Apps." [Laughter]

>>NITIN DESAI:  Giacomo.  Can somebody explain this to me?  182.  "Welcome to

the Magical World of Apps."  It's not obvious to me what to expect from that.

If somebody has an idea, let me know. [Laughter]

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes?

>> There is a proposed workshop that has been made for that, so we are fully

supporting it.  It was ‑‑ the angle was about the accessibility, so ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yeah.  But I'm not ‑‑ the title does not convey ‑‑ does not

convey what the subject will be.  Somebody reading this would be stumped like I

am stumped.  I have no idea what to expect from this pop.

>> Well, if I understand the suggestion, this would be ‑‑ make more open, not

only for accessibility problem but in general how to use the application for

implementing the old scope.  This is what you mean?

>>NITIN DESAI:  I don't know what the title means.  "Welcome to the Magical

World of Apps."  Bertrand?

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: From the description that is being made there, it's

covering the evolution towards mobile devices, mainly, and the fact that we're

moving from the computer type of software to platforms like the iPhone or the

iPad that work like applications.  There are smaller programs.  And one of the

questions apparently that the workshop wants to propose is not only to examine

the strength but also to see the connection between it and disability and

access, so apparently they plan to have people from companies like Apple, Nokia,

or Google to present their views on the future of applications, and apps in

general. As a matter of fact, this is a very interesting topic.  I don't know if

the title is appropriate, but it is a very interesting topic because it also

brings the question of the potential control of the platforms themselves on what

kind of apps are available or not, and particularly ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI: The point you were raising last time about  iPad, et cetera,

yeah.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Sorry?

>>NITIN DESAI:  The point you raised last time about access issue ‑‑

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Yeah, exactly.  And basically that platform makers

are becoming gatekeepers regarding the applications that are available or not on

the platform.  So it's a ‑‑ it's an actually very interesting topic.  I agree

that the title might be a little bit ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:  It's not obvious that this is what to be discussed.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  No.

>>NITIN DESAI:  So I mean, we need a title which indicates what the content of

the workshop would be. This is too much of an insider type thing, whereas we

will need a title which conveys enough to ‑‑ to somebody who is not completely

an outsider like me.  Okay.  Fouad and then...

>>FOUAD BAJWA:  The idea of the word "magical" in the field of software

development or Web engineering comes in from a technical point that this is ‑‑

this is sort of a platform which gives you the ability to create the

application, it provides you all the tools to do it, the technology to do it,

and then of course the platform to deploy it. Let me just share one small

example is, for example, the application engine from Google whereby you do

develop your applications in software which is open source, which is python or

Java, but then you deploy this on the Google platform. So you actually have to

end up agreeing with Google, agreeing them most of the rights of your

application so that they can later on charge you from within the cloud. So I do

think that the word "magical" needs to be clarified, because the technical

people will understand what the "magical" means but for the layman, it's a very

vague word, right? So I ‑‑ the word I think for a layman would be something like

the "ease" of application development or something like that. But again, there

are implications, there are privacy implications to this, there are

accessibility implications, because if all programming and coding and

application development will go to the Internet and will be hosted on the Web, a

large amount of people will be left out because of not having access and not

having the speed to connect to the Internet to actually benefit from those

applications. So this is actually a double‑edged sword and it needs a name which

actually clarifies whether it's going to be a technical session or whether it's

going to be a session for the layman, for them to understand what are the

implications of application development in the current Internet cloud, so this

has to be pretty clarified.

>>GIACOMO MAZZONE: Despite the fact that I belong to an organization that is

keen on copyright, we can leave you the title for free. The problem that I see

is simply that we've focused on the application for accessibility for disabled

people, so this is a point where there is not a problem of this kind that we now

open the Pandora box of the application and who controls the application, who is

the gatekeeper, is a very large problem that goes beyond what was our original

intention. So we can contribute but the ‑‑ our portion at the moment for this

workshop will continue to focus on the disability and how the application,

magical application, could help for crumbling the gap.  That is something which

everybody will agree.  Then if you start to open the way after that, the issues

will become more contentious.  We are happy to contribute because as you know,

we are for any open source application that could be interoperable.  This is our

point of view on all problems of this kind.

>>NITIN DESAI:  One of the first ‑‑ yes.

>>PETER MAJOR:  I'm Peter Major from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and

Disability. I can read from the short description that DCAD is also supporting

this workshop, and I can read the concise description of the workshop itself,

which is, "What do those with disabilities want or need from applications on

their Internet‑enabled devices?"  So to me, this could be the title itself. And

it would be clear and it would reflect whatever we want from this workshop.

Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Bertrand and then Fouad.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Actually, on this topic, I'm torn between two

desires.  One is to have a workshop that is relatively focused, and here the

title is ‑‑ or the substance of the short description is relatively clear.  It's

really applications and disabilities. And at the same time, it suddenly dawned

on me when I read this that the world of applications is growing tremendously,

and that if I look at the whole list of topics, we are not actually dealing with

that.  And I could very well see this workshop expanding a little bit so as to

prepare something that could be next year's emerging issues on applications,

just like we had things related to social networks early on that emerged later

on as a major issue, then cloud computing was in a workshop and then became the

topic for emerging issues this year. I could very well see applications as being

a topic that takes some importance in the future events of the IGF because it is

actually reshaping completely the landscape of who has the gatekeeper role, how

the developments are being made, the business models that are related to that.

So I would encourage to not lose the focus but to maybe take this opportunity to

at least point in the direction of some of the issues that will be addressed.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Bertrand, that's not this workshop.  This workshop is what was

‑‑ I think I'm quite taken by the previous suggestion of using a title which

makes it clear that, after all, we are already in end of June. So this workshop

is not what you had in mind.  And we may need a workshop of the sort that you

are talking of, and we may well wish to keep this in mind.  It's not as if every

slot is taken up. But I think it's probably better if your workshop would go

under emerging issues or something like that for future work, if there is scope

and if somebody is ready to organize it. Here, the organizers have clearly

focused, workshop on applications for disability, and I think the previous

phrase read out just now is an accurate title which will convey what the content

of the workshop is, because this thing does not. Yes.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:   Can I make a suggestion for the title "Accessibility Through

the Amazing World of Apps," or something like that.  Maybe instead of "magic."

I am just throwing out words here for suggestions.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Fouad and then Olga.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  I think perhaps apps for those technical experts is okay, but

maybe for the general public it's a little bit confusing, apps or application.

Perhaps we can find another ‑‑ I try to think about something.  But I think

that, for me, I am a technician, but perhaps for other people it could be

confusing.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Fouad and then Peter.

>>FOUAD BAJWA: Two suggestions regarding the title.  The matter I think is more

than enough for its focus. In terms of title, welcome to the magical world of

Web applications, Web could be particularly added.  And as a solution to

accessibility, for using Web applications as a solution for accessibility.

Because it talks about solutions, and it talks about accessibility.  So

solutions and accessibility might be a good option to keep in there. Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Peter.  Well, what is your reaction to the suggestion?

>>PETER MAJOR:  I think we are going to miss the point.  We are talking about

mobile Internet access for disabled people, and that is what the workshop is

about.  So if we try to enlarge it, then we may come up with a very good

workshop, but it will be completely different. So I would reiterate that

probably we should keep the concise description as for title.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah, I think ‑‑ I frankly think that the whole point of a

title should be to convey what the content is.  And I'm quite taken by the

suggestion from Peter which read out a phrase which conveys what the content is.

And if he could just pass it on to the Secretariat in writing, then maybe we

will just use that. As far as Bertrand's issue is concerned, you may still wish

to consider whether at this short notice something can be done, but short notice

is 24 hours because 30th June is your deadline. So if you can get something

organized by tomorrow, fine.  We'll do it.  Otherwise, I don't see any reason

why this can't come up in the discussions.  After all, you are not going to stop

somebody talking about these issues either in this session or, for that matter,

emerging issues session.  It can come newspaper the discussions, even though we

do. (Dropped audio)

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   We make a very simple test.  Is there anybody in

the room who thinks it would be really worth it to organize a workshop on this

in that short time frame, or just to leave the subject emerge quietly and use it

next year?  Is there anybody who is willing to say yes, I'm ‑‑ Okay.  So, no.

Next year.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Carry on. So capacity building. Okay.  So the title we will get

from them on 182. Can we move on?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   On this one there is a comment.  I think the 105 and 106,

they are both by the OECD, but they were basically, as far as I understand, they

prefer 105 instead of 106, but they are ready to merge the two. So I think in

the end, we will end up with 105 and 106 being merged.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Comments on this set of capacity‑building workshops. Any

news? In the type ‑‑ There is some typos there.  Obviously the emerging issues

is a typo which comes up. It is fixing. It's obvious there's a whole set of

things in there on.... Okay, yes, Bertrand De La Chapelle.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Actually, I think the 105 by OECD is putting the

spotlight on a very important expression.  I mean, Internet intermediaries or

intermediaries in general is a very important concept in the public‑policy

debate. I'm not sure that the title here is in advancing public‑policy

objectives, but the role of intermediary ‑‑ intermediaries in public policies is

very important, and the workshop actually is very good in terms of the way it is

described to show the type of work that is going on on the role of

intermediaries, either as a subject of public policy, as a partner in public

policy, or as an actor in shaping public policy. So I think even with a little

tweaking on the title, it's not about advancing public‑policy objectives, but it

is really, for once, in the capacity building so that everybody understands what

is meant by intermediaries, which is a concept that comes back over and over and

over in many debates. So clarifying this concept is very useful work, I think.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Patrik and then Fouad.

>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Thank you. When we were looking at this at the last

meeting in Geneva, we actually thought there were some similarities between 105

and 117 and said yes to the merge between those two, and then we should let 106

just move on.  But if I understand correctly, the OECD was more interested in

moving forward 105.  Or did I understand you correctly, Markus?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   You understood correctly.

>>MARILYN CADE:   Markus, I'm sorry, I understand that he understood correctly,

but I didn't understand. [ Laughter ]

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   The OECD got back to us and said they are basically more

interested in workshop 105 than in 106; that they are ready to merge the two. I

think they are linked very much to a meeting I think they are preparing on

Internet intermediaries, which will take place before ‑‑ Katitza knows all about

it.  Maybe she can ‑‑ Already took place, yeah.

>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   This is about the meeting that was held a few weeks ago.

They are analyzing the different roles of different (inaudible) from registrars

to ‑‑ in copyright, in privacy, in different fields.  And so it's very

cross‑cutting and it's very broad. So I think it's interesting to hear it,

because they are sharing their point of view on the results of that meeting. I

think it's very well ‑‑ The workshop is very well structured, thought, I think.

And it's broad enough. That's my own opinion.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay. In any case, I think we are subsuming climate issues

under the whole rubric of policy objectives, which is how they will probably

combine 105 and 106. Okay. Can we move on? Any other reflections on this set?

Yes, Fouad.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:   Regarding the two workshops from OECD, are we going to merge

them?

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah, they are.  105, 106 are merged.

>>FOUAD BAJWA:   But I think the second workshop, which is on the climate change

aspect, is going to be a bit more technical.  Because cloud computing ‑‑ It's

going to be a technical topic.  I don't think you should ‑‑ we should actually

look into merging them.  Because one is touching a whole different aspect of

capacity building.  The other is touching a very technical issue which goes down

all the way to, like, data centers and government planning for the amount of

power that is spent on these data centers and how the cloud is being built and

developed, so technical.  They should be kept separate, actually.

>>NITIN DESAI:   What it will amount to is how we are going to deal with climate

change as one of the policy objectives, and presumably amongst intermediaries

would be data centers, et cetera, et cetera.  And that is the way they will

handle.  And in that sense, it will get covered under that.  That's my

understanding.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Oh, you want to merge one 106 with 117.  That's a bit odd.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, it makes sense.  106 and 117 makes sense, because they

are both cloud computing.  105 has nothing to do with cloud computing;

therefore, it shouldn't be merged with 117 since they are not in the same

category, as such.

>>MARILYN CADE:   Markus, may I maybe speak on the issue of Internet

intermediaries.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  Having many years ago introduced the

concept.  105 ‑‑ and I am familiar with the OECD's work.  I think 105 is about

the emerging role of Internet intermediaries in a variety of issues, including

consumer protection, dealing with law enforcement, et cetera. I would personally

think that 106 and 117 make much more natural sense.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That's what they propose. [ Laughter ]

>>MARILYN CADE:   You are so brilliant, as usual, Markus. [ Laughter ]

>>NITIN DESAI:   Any other ‑‑ So basically it's 106 and 117 that gets combined.

Okay. I hope we're agreed. Let's go on.  Security, openness and privacy.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I'm not sure whether this list reflects the latest state of

the discussion in the thematic group on security, openness and privacy. In the

green would be the feeder workshops, and the ones with the cross will be good

workshops but not related to the main session.  But maybe Liesyl or one of her

colleagues could guide us through that.  I saw there was some recent postings on

the workshops.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Yes, there have been some recent postings on trying to capture

mergers or other recommendations.  This is Liesyl Franz. And I'm trying to go

back and forth with that posting and see where it fits with what's here.  But at

the very least, I'll give you the most up‑to‑date merger, which I just received

by e‑mail from remote participants.  But do I have to find it.  One second.

Workshop 85 and 99 will merge.  So that's the latest.

>>NITIN DESAI:   85 and?

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   99.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Hold on.  Yes.  And actually, that was a couple that we had

put in a bucket of, I guess, five workshops that seemed to have some similar

content, and we're encouraging folks to consider mergers, and that's one of

them.  So that's great. 51 and 17, we have suggested it.  I don't know if the

organizers have confirmed it, but we had suggested it.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Which one?

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   That one is reflected in the chart.  Hold on.  I'm just seeing

if there's something that's not reflected in the chart. Sorry, I'm just checking

to see it.  It looks like you have maybe the most up‑to‑date except for maybe

the most recent mergers.  So I will cross‑reference those and give them back to

you as soon as possible. But one question I have is for ‑‑ There are some we

have made some recommendation for either trying to merge or things that we

haven't made any kind of recommendation yet.  And I wonder what we should do

about the next step for that.  Or are we at a good sort of number now, even

though we're not going with exact numbers? Should we continue to try to

encourage ‑‑ I guess my questions should we try to encourage merger where we

can?

>>NITIN DESAI:   Sure.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Okay. Because I think there are still some that might be

candidates, but ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   ‑‑ but we don't have any indication from the workshop

organizers yet.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay. Is there anyone else in the group that sees anything

we're missing?  Go ahead, Katitza.

>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   We merged a workshop, workshop 111 with workshop 115, and

workshop 125.  And the new name of the workshop, because we have a strong

discussion among the three organizers, we came up with a new title.  So these

three workshops go out, and the new title will be ‑‑ You know what I mean?  The

new title is "Freedom of Expression and Internet Intermediaries.  Where Do We Go

from Here?"  And we have a new description.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   I will send that to the Secretariat.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Good. Any other issues? Yes.

>> Hi, I have remote contributions from Rafik Dammak, the coordinator of the

youth dynamic coalition, and he is just explaining our dynamic coalition

proposed a youth workshop for dynamic coalition slot.  The youth workshop is a

continuation of previous workshops with changing agenda beyond youth

participation with focus on youth‑related issues.  The dynamic coalition is

organizing it with other partners and trying to bring newcomers as panelists to

IGF. So the youth coalition is playing a facilitator role and trying to

coordinate at certain level activities for youth in IGF without overlapping with

other initiatives. I believe he means about the 69 proposal, "Internet for Youth

Beyond Safety Issues."

>>NITIN DESAI:   69, is it?

>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Internet for Youth Beyond Safety Issues."

69.

>> So that's the relation.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Yes, UNESCO and then (saying name).

>>UNESCO:   Thank you, chairman, because I don't know if this belongs to the

subgroup discussion or I can propose here because we have discussed in the

subgroup, we have updated the list of the feeder workshop. So as I understand,

the workshop 81 is also a freedom workshop, but it's not marked ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, yes, it's marked in green.

>>UNESCO:   Green means a feeder workshop?

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes.

>>UNESCO:   Yes, thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, you had something?

>>MARILIA MACIEL:  It's not from remote this time.  It's Marilia from Center for

Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation.  I just want to

understand the codes here because we were the proposers of workshop 99, that

it's now red and we have merged with workshop 85 that is green.  I just wanted

to understand the difference of the colors and to say that we have merged these

two workshops because we believe that they are very complementary.  While

workshop 85 deals with how to push forward activism and say activism is more

than a freedom of expression, it's to guarantee an open Internet, and the aim

was to discuss what is an open Internet and what we do to achieve it.  Workshop

99 dealt with access to knowledge and human rights, and we were trying to see

how this new public sphere is being hampered by some policies, for instance, of

copyright enforcement through technological measures and the role of ESBs in

order to try to lock down Internet.  So we believe they are complementary.  One

talks about the free and open Internet and the other the hampers and the dangers

to this free and open Internet.  That's why we wanted to merge both.  So I

wanted to understand why one is green and the other is red. And one question to

complement here.  We have also proposed the best practices forum in the name of

the Center for Technology and Society.  I just wanted to know how we're going to

evaluate them, if it's going to be here today or tomorrow. Thanks.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   On the first one, revised list will reflect that.  I'm not

sure whether we have yet ‑‑ We usually retain one number and one title unless

like just in the other merger, both organizers say please give us a new title.

But that will be done for the final program. On 57, we basically felt all best

practice forums as in workshops.  We have found the distinction we made to begin

with was never fully understood or respected.  In this particular case, as the

title indicates, it is a very limited in geography.  It looks at one country.

So it would not fit in the criteria for workshop in terms of diversity, but

otherwise, we have not judged it as such.  You can look at the second reading,

what other ones do we want to retain.

>> Just to make sure.  Why should we place it ‑‑ did we place it in the right ‑‑

Because there are some forums that deal with specific topics or specific

countries; right?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   We have given up the best practice forum as a separate

category.  We have kept the open forums which are reserved for organizations,

but nothing says that we cannot look at one country experience if there's room

for it and if everybody thinks it's a good proposal. But like the Council of

Europe workshop proposal I had mentioned, which looks at the global issue from a

European perspective, there's nothing wrong with that.  I think everybody

agrees, let me go ahead with that.  On the other hand, you may expand the range

of voices and have a more global perspective on the same issue. But this is

something I suggest maybe look at in a second reading it will have a round of

which other workshops we think could be retained.  Maybe a merger with another

similar related best practice forum.  We have quite a few of those, that you

look at it from several countries, different continents, similar issue.

>>NITIN DESAI:   UNESCO, did you want? Bertrand.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Just an element regarding the workshop 103 or what

is labeled as workshop 103 to confirm that it is actually not a workshop, per

se, but a wrap‑up or roundtable session to prepare the main session. So the goal

is just to bring together the different actors who will have organized workshops

on the topic related to social media so that they can exchange their views and

prepare a feed into the main session on security, openness and privacy. So it's

just a question of positioning it as close as possible to the actual main

session so that it can feed into it and take all the inputs into account.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes.

>>LIESYL FRANZ: Thank you, Bertrand.  That helps clarify the question I had

about ‑‑ the remaining question I had about that workshop on our chart.  But I

also wanted to get back to the merger that was discussed earlier between

workshop 85 and 99.  I have been given a new title for that one and I'll send it

to you, but it is "Freedom of Expression or Access to Knowledge:  Are We Taking

the Necessary Steps Toward an Open and Inclusive Internet?" I'll send it to you.

So I suppose whichever number you retain is for your purposes. [Laughter]

>>LIESYL FRANZ:  I wasn't given that.  I'll ask Ana.  I'm sure she'll let me

know.  Marciella.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  No more?  Okay.  Let's move on to the last segment. What

is left?  No.  Just ‑‑ we've done access... Yes.  Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE:  Nitin, I have a question and it is merely a question.  I see in

the workshop list that there are several workshop proposals that are telling a

national story.  Is there ‑‑ you know, depending on the numbers we have, is

there a possibility, rather than not accommodating a workshop that some of the

national stories ‑‑ if I could call them that ‑‑ might prefer to come together

in a single slot in order to ‑‑ in order to make sure that they are included?

Because I am worried that with so many different workshops, we might not be able

to accommodate all of them.

>>NITIN DESAI:  I think part of the balance is what ‑‑ you know, Markus had

mentioned earlier, since we do not now have a separate forum, these get

integrated.  Otherwise, you're stuck under a separate forum.  But of course

we'll have to be ‑‑ we probably will have to evolve a certain policy on how we

handle this, and ‑‑ because otherwise it will become something that could swamp

the process. So that is a ‑‑ that is a ‑‑ I think we will have to consider,

because it's never easy to say ‑‑ you know, once you open the door and one

radical idea I wanted to propose for consideration ‑‑ not now, maybe after

Vilnius ‑‑ for the IGF to consider is that you have country‑level workshops of

this nature only if they are proposed by a country other than the country you're

talking about. So there is some test, you see, saying "Yes, we can do it, but it

must be proposed by a country other than the one you're talking about."

>>MARILYN CADE:  I might not find that ‑‑ I might be accustomed to the art of

negotiation and remember that reciprocity is a behavior that may defeat the

purpose that you were proposing, Mr. Chair, but the comment I would like to make

is:  When we had the separate category, it was acceptable that there were

different criteria. What I get concerned about is, particularly with the

emergence of the national and the regional IGFs, I ‑‑ I'm very committed to

maintaining the principles that we maintain in the core workshops, and I'm at

the same time cognizant of the unique nature on a country‑by‑country basis,

where an open forum developed by a country might need to be specific to the

conditions in that country. So I'm, I guess, saying that we're putting them into

one track is one idea but I am concerned about ‑‑ maybe you will call them "the

core workshops" maintaining the diversity criteria that we have established and

adhered to in the past, while I respect that a country's workshop may be

reflecting what is taking place in their country.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yeah.  I think it's an issue we will have to grapple with.  I

don't think that in this session there is anything terribly problematic, but

we're talking about one or two which are of that nature and it's not as if we've

just swamped the process, but I think it's a good warning and we probably will

have to address this issue. I don't see us being able to work out some

guidelines in time for Vilnius on applying them now. Yes.  You wanted to speak?

>>JORGE CANCIO: Yes.  Thank you.  Jorge Cancio from Spain, and apologies if I

missed something, but I'm not sure. What is the status of those workshops which

have no marking at all, which are just white?  And just ‑‑ just if I get

questions back home. [Laughter]

>>JORGE CANCIO: Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Markus?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, these workshops were the ones we have found wanting on

one or different accounts.  That is, not reflecting sufficient diversity or not

being complete.  Some proposals said "names of panelists will be provided" so we

don't know who is proposed to be there, but usually it's not sufficient

diversity or developing country participation, and so on. But we can look at

each of them.  We can also see how they could be improved, see whether there

could be potential mergers.  Some have indicated they might be ready to merge. I

think if workshop proponents realize it's either a merger or nothing at all,

that might be an incentive for them to consider a merger they may not have

considered in the first round.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes.

>>JORGE CANCIO: And who would be the contact person to talk to?  Markus?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Collectively, we can go through this and ‑‑

>>JORGE CANCIO: Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  ‑‑ you're also welcome to explain why this or that workshop

should be on and what improvements could be made for the workshop to meet the

criteria. [No audio]

>>NITIN DESAI:  And we ‑‑ and IGF is just two months away, with the ‑‑ how shall

I say ‑‑ the European holidays coming in between.  I'm not sure that we can get

things organized.  Yes.

>>JORGE CANCIO: So I really didn't want to go into the specifics of the

workshop, but as I'm one of the you would say co‑organizers of workshop 120, I

just wondered why it was not marked at all.  Because I thought we had done an

effort to have people from Africa, from Australasia, from America, from Europe,

from many places with diversity, from sectors, diversity of gender, from

diversity of use, so ‑‑ but I don't have any strong views on that.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Markus, would you like to discuss that.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I would discuss that with my colleagues why that was as well.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes, because it's difficult for him to respond.  Yes, Liesyl.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:  I'm not sure I'm going to give too much more clarity except to

say that in the groups review for the security and openness, privacy, we noted

that there ‑‑ on that workshop, that there weren't ‑‑ at the time ‑‑ this may

have been updated, but that one note was that there were no industry or business

representatives, and so we made no specific recommendation and that may be why

it's still unmarked. So, again, it goes to Markus' point about just needing more

information or more work on those workshops that don't have a color

coordination.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Again, to respond on that, we ‑‑ (a), we thought it would not

be wise if we, as Secretariat, mark all the possible slots as we did not have

sufficient input, so we wanted to leave a number of slots open that could be

filled collectively, assuming that you agree with those we identified as green.

And I think those we identified as green are very strong workshops that fulfill

all the criteria, we can tick all the boxes, except the remote moderators.  All

of them score very low but if everybody scores low, then it neutralizes itself.

But the others, some of them are just very close.  You know, on a scale of ‑‑ I

think we set the bar at 19 points out of, what, 25 or something, and these are

the workshops that scored highest, but some of them are only a little bit below.

There we could either decide that this ‑‑ like Marilia's Brazilian workshop,

"Okay, it's just one country but it is interesting enough," or we could say,

"Why don't we look at merging it with similar workshops."  Or in some instances,

"Why don't these workshop organizers come up with a list of resource persons and

widen a bit the geographical horizon to reflect the diversity of viewpoints." So

we have not said no to any workshops.  We just selected those we thought are the

most solid workshops based on all criteria. So please, by all means, let's go

through the list again and let's look ‑‑ and obviously those who are involved in

the organizations are best placed to argue in favor of this or that workshop,

and we are definitely more than ready to listen to your input.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Bertrand?

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Yeah.  Thank you, Bertrand de la Chapelle. Just in

that respect, I would like to highlight the workshop Number 50 in the

capacity‑building, which is dealing with ccTLDs and exchange of best practices,

and actually I don't know if you have received some of the additional

information that Thomas Lowenhaupt, the organizer of this workshop have

circulated but it's a very, very interesting one and the lineup of speakers is

now sufficient. So if you have not, I will transfer it to you, but I would

support it very strongly.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I have received the e‑mail and I agree.  I think it, like, has

now the geographical spread it did not have beforehand. I also noted that the

workshop organizer proposals 12 panelists, which seems a bit of a big panel, but

nothing wrong with that either.  We do have our roundtable room settings, so I

would suggest giving this workshop room where everybody sits around a square

table, if there are that many panelists, and have an interactive discussion on a

very topical issue.  I think as a workshop it looks good and with having the

broad diversity required, which it now has, I think there will be no problem.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Have a look at the white ones, okay?  See whether there are any

ones where you want to have a particular second look.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Can we do it category by category?

>>NITIN DESAI: Yes.  Thomas.  Sorry.  Lee.

>>LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Workshop 60.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Which one?

>>LEE HIBBARD: 60.  Number 60.  "A proposal for setting a standard of care in

international law across the broad Internet." This workshop has been updated and

I thank you to Markus for the ‑‑ for highlighting the strength of this workshop

and the need for a broader reach to other parts of the world. So we are going to

bring in ‑‑ after speaking with Wolfgang, who is one of the main components of

this workshop, we're going to bring in North American influence and other

non‑European speakers, so it's sure that this will be more of a global‑oriented

session.  Just to tell you that that's going to be broadened.  Thank you for

your comments on that point.  Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  So that point is taken care of then. Chennai ISOC has a

lot of proposals.  Is somebody able to speak for Chennai ISOC?  No?  Nobody

here?  Any others?  Bill?

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  I can't really speak for him, but I can tell you what the

conversations were that we had, because he was soliciting help with thinking

through several of these workshops. My impression is that the one on trade is

not going to happen.  And Markus can correct me if he's wrong ‑‑ if I'm wrong,

because he was copied on the messages, but it wasn't ‑‑ it did not appear that

he ‑‑ that the kinds of people that would be needed to make this session work

and the kinds of questions that would need to be posed were coming together.

I've heard nothing in the month or so since we talked about this, Markus, and I

think the same would be true with the development one, but I might be wrong.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Anyhow, so that doesn't take us much further but let's carry on.

Development.  46?  54, we've discussed.  There was somebody.  I saw somebody.

Not here?  Anybody want to speak up for 54, 65, 80, 86, 91 and 92? Okay.

Carrying on. Virtual worlds... Have a look.  There are four here. Okay.  Let's

carry on.  There's a whole lot under cloud computing. How would integrated

policies for child protection policies fit in here?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  This is ‑‑ I was going to say the same question on ccTLD

governance and best practices, wide capacity‑building and not critical Internet

resources.  Same with the ‑‑ but I think the ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:  But this is some of the emerging issues, cloud computing.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That's capacity building.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Oh, it is showing under the emerging issues column.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  No, I think ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:  There's a little confusion here.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah, yeah.  The typing ‑‑ okay.  We have to fix that.

>>NITIN DESAI:  We have to fix.  There's a little bit of a mixture on the

capacity building and cloud computing.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  ECPAT is in the process of merging, as far as I understand, I

heard from someone.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Is ECPAT ‑‑ do you know whether ECPAT is in the process of

merging its child protection thing?  Does anybody know?  Huh?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Marilyn, didn't you say you were looking at the merger with

the ECPAT workshop?

>>MARILYN CADE:  Well, I have not had a chance to talk to them but I understand

that you ‑‑ that there was an interest in merging workshops, and my only point

was that my quick review was I would be willing to talk to them, but I have not

had a chance to talk to them.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.

>>MARILYN CADE:  So I'm willing to talk to them, haven't had a chance to, and

haven't had a chance to propose it to the leaders, but if it is ‑‑ if it is of

interest to you, I will pursue it. No commitment, but I will pursue it tonight.

Is that helpful?  I take it yes.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  And for those involved in the ccTLD governance, can anybody

explain to me why this is on the capacity building and not critical Internet

resources?

>>MARILIA MACIEL:  Yeah.  Actually, Thomas, who participated remotely, he tried

to explain this when he said that the workshop would provide practical guidance

for cities on the governance and operation of their TLDs and begin the formation

of a framework for cooperation between cities operating TLDs. So I think it's

more trying to achieve some guidelines with cities operating TLDs, so that is

why he put in best practice session.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Nitin, I have a comment about that workshop, if I might.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes.

>>MARILYN CADE:  My name is Marilyn Cade.  Here's my comment about that workshop

and about all workshops. I really want to see all views presented, so what I

didn't see in that workshop is the view that ‑‑ from any governments who are not

‑‑ who think that they're ‑‑ not all issues are addressed.  And I don't mean

addressed by ICANN.  I mean, addressed.  So I e‑mailed Thomas and just spoke to

Bertrand and would ask that there be an effort to identify parties who might

have different views ‑‑ at least one ‑‑ to participate in the workshop.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Just a side note and complement to say that Marilyn

raises a valid point, that the format of the workshop could go from one end to

the other.  Like from completely just getting together potential ccTLD

applicants to coordinate in a certain way or completely to the other direction,

which is to think about the current framework for ccTLD applications in the new

TLD program, and envisaging the different rules. I think it has a tremendous

potential right in the middle to allow the different actors to get together and

to also sensitize a certain number of actors who are not necessarily aware of

the different issues, and even to get feedback on things that are not

satisfactory for local authorities. Following the brief discussion with Marilyn,

I think we'll outreach to Thomas as well, to see how to incorporate the

federations of local authorities.  There are international associations of

mayors and local authorities that would very positively be incorporated in that

workshop, so that a better dialogue develops around this. So we'll ‑‑ we'll

refine it, but I think Marilyn has an interesting point and it must be taken

into account.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yes.  Ayesha.

>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you.  I just wanted to share a little bit about what's

going on with Number 58, which is an ICC/BASIS and government of Kenya workshop

on the policy implications of cloud computing. We have been in touch with the

GIIC, as well as others, the Internet Society of China, et cetera. Part of what

we're facing ‑‑ and I can try to do my best to get it updated by tomorrow, but

part of what Alice and Michael and I are facing is also watching to see who is

going to be selected for the emerging issues session.  Particularly from

business.  So that we make sure that we can give others an opportunity. We are

still trying to finalize and get commitment from somebody on the technical

community side as well as from civil society, so I just wanted to share that we

are trying to ‑‑ we have tried to explore where we could merge or not merge, how

we can make sure that the GIIC workshop is distinct also in terms of speakers,

which is why we haven't been able to finalize everything.  But we would

certainly like the opportunity to have this workshop and will do our best to

meet the criteria as soon as possible.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Yes.

>> Seeing comments like those who were, say, put forward by the business sector,

I have identified a few workshops that don't have a civil society

representative, so I would like to send a list to the Secretariat which are

those workshops, to be able to make sure that at least one representatives are

in those workshops.

>>MARILIA MACIEL: Okay.  I have just a quick note from Thomas, primarily to

Marilyn and Bertrand.  "Totally in agreement.  Look forward to the assist."

Okay.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Michael.

>>MICHAEL KATUNDU:  Thank you, Chair.

>>NITIN DESAI: The only person ‑‑ only one of two persons have commented on the

(inaudible) so you studied all of this.  Thank you.

>>MICHAEL KATUNDU:  Thank you, Chair.  I would like to add to what Ayesha said.

This Workshop Number 58 is quite crucial to capacity building, particularly

within the developing countries.  This area being a very new area, it's

important that we can have this kind of workshop.  It may not have attracted the

kind of rating so far, but I think we can make every effort to have it held

satisfactory. And mainly some of the areas which can be focused is basically

like within the policy formulation, implications on regulatory frameworks, the

new and emerging areas of cybersecurity and software. So let's see how we can

work to have this workshop may be held.

>>NITIN DESAI: This is the one we're talking about?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  58.

>>NITIN DESAI: 58.  Okay.  Patrik.

>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM: Yes.  On the issue with 58, originally when we looked at the

workshops for cloud computing ‑‑ which by the way, we think are 36, 58, 76, 89,

105, 106, 117, 136, and 154 ‑‑ out of those, we suggested 58 move forward if

merging with 36 and 136.  Now, I see that both 36 and 136 are more towards

reddish color, so in that case, I suggest 58 move forward and become green.

Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  58 is ‑‑ okay.  Any further comments on this slot?  Okay.  Let's

move on to security then.  Yes.

>>DAN O'NEILL: Just to follow up on this ‑‑ this is Dan O'Neill with GIIC, and

we are proposing workshop 136.  We have been in conversation with workshop 36.

We've also dealt with Ayesha at ICC/BASIS and had extensive conversations about

how best to ensure that there is broad representation in all of these and also

giving a proper‑sized footprint for the business community in this important

issue of cloud computing. So the negotiations and discussions are ongoing in

trying to make our workshop distinct from the ICC/BASIS workshop, and ensure

that there's room for both to have very distinctive messages and very

distinctive panels to cover the issue.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Patrik?

>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  When I hear that, I want to say that I think the

negotiation discussion should continue.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Security.  Yes.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:  This is Liesyl Franz.  I just have caught up a little bit on

the chart vis‑a‑vis the input that we had had in the organizing group, and I

think there's not quite a cohesiveness between the ones that are listed green

for a feeder workshop and the ones that we had sent forward.  I don't have any

personal issue with that, except I just wanted to know if we should perhaps

connect on the disconnect, perhaps in the ‑‑ separately. But I guess I also have

a question about two that are now crossed out on the list.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Which ones?

>>LIESYL FRANZ:  123 and 156.  And I apologize if I am missing some connection

of them that were merged or not, or if those have come off separately.

>>NITIN DESAI:  No.  That does not mean ‑‑ crossed out does not mean that.  It

means, if I remember right, that it is a workshop which is to be accommodated,

so it is not necessarily directly a feed‑in workshop. That is my understanding.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Okay.  But they are green.  Does that mean ‑‑ they're green and

have an "X" and a number.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  The "X" means that they were not connected to the main session

but they would be given the green light to go ahead.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Please tell us where we went wrong and which need to be

connected to the main sessions and which not.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Well, those are two, 123 and ‑‑ I'm sorry, I'm just looking ‑‑

156 were in our original thought of ones that could be feeder sessions.  And I

just wasn't sure what the "X" meant and the green in the chart. And then 125,

111 and 115 have merged, and we had indicated ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   125 ‑‑

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   125, 115, and 111 ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   ‑‑ had merged, and we had indicated that 125 at the time

should be a feeder workshop.  So I would just recommend that the new merged

workshop should be a feeder.

>>NITIN DESAI:   That I think is fine.  That's fine.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   And then there are five that are green in your chart that we

didn't indicate, but it may not be a big issue, although I wasn't sure what the

green meant.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Now, there, in that case, if you have not identified them,

you should mark them with a cross if they are not feeder workshops.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   I am not suggesting that they wouldn't be (laughing),

certainly not unilaterally, but it might be just worth a connection with the

Secretariat.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I would suggest revisiting that at a later stage.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   But are there white workshops anybody would like to comment

on the security, openness?  Yes, quite a few. [ Laughter ]

>>NITIN DESAI:   Where will we start.  Let me see.  Chris, then Olga.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Yes, just wondering if perhaps we could understand what the

problem might be with 119. "Core Internet Values in the Principles of Internet

Governance Across Generations." Sitting around this table with so many from an

older generation than me ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   You mean the rest of you. [ Laughter ]

>>NITIN DESAI:   119 is the youth coalition.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Perhaps I can help?

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   The note that I have and what we had collectively put forward

on that one was that we suggest that it could possibly merge with number 69.

Both are addressing youth issues, and both organized by the Youth Coalition on

Internet Governance.  So perhaps that is white because it was incomplete and not

‑‑ incomplete as far as input like that, not necessarily incomplete as a

workshop, and not necessarily that there was a problem.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Well, it's usually when they are not marked green, it's

usually they are incomplete in one way or another.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   That's what I mean.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I'm just looking at the list of speakers.  I think I would

qualify to speak there as well in terms of youth. [ Laughter ]

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Markus, you can qualify for any of them.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Sorry, I had Olga, then I have Bill, I have you here, Bill

Drake, and remote participant, and then I'll come to that row.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Chair.  My question is similar to the one Chris

appointed in relation with 69, "Internet for Youth Beyond Safety Issues." I

would like to know why it's white and not green or what is needed to complete or

if we need more information about it.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Are there any further questions on this youth thing?  Because

then we can try to resolve all of them together.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   It's good to know which ones you consider to be interesting

and let's look at the more detail of what is missing there.

>>LIESYL FRANZ:   And again, in the review of the workshops by the groups, the

convening group here on SOP, it was not necessarily from our perspective that it

wasn't complete.  The process may be the incomplete part on this one, because we

had suggested that 69 and 119 might have similar content, both organized by the

same organization, and might be a candidate for merging.  And that has not been

resolved.  And that's just simply a review ‑‑ workshop review comment.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Then I had Bill, yes.

>>BILL GRAHAM:  Maybe I can help with this.  I spoke to one of the organizers of

119 in last week in Brussels, and he was going through with me the fact that he

has confirmed further speakers.  I expect he will probably be sending a new

list.  If today was the deadline, it will probably arrive.  I will certainly

poke him and see if I can get something in.  But as I understand it, and I see I

am listed on there, the plan was for some of us oldsters to be engaging with a

series of youth participants around what are the core Internet values and what

relevance those have now. So from my perspective, that is one worth going ahead

with, but again with the caveat that we need to get an update in real quick.

Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Can we talk this one out first before you go on to the others?

Markus, can we have a look at the ones on which there was just extensive

discussion, the one about the youth roundtable?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I think roundtable is the key word.  69, you're talking

about.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yeah. There's a very long list of speakers, and there's also

an overlap with the other workshop, 119. But I think, again, we could give them

one of these roundtable rooms, but ‑‑ how many panelists?  One, two, three,

four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.  16 panelists,

which is a huge number.  But if it's more considered to be a roundtable

discussion, I think there's nothing. (dropped audio). Also if we need to be that

much sticking to looking at all the crosses and categories.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  So we'll have a look at this one.  If we can close this

one.  Any further comments on this? Yes.  A remote participant.

>> Actually, I am starting out the remote right now, and being a member of youth

dynamic coalition, I am going to bring back these feedback, including the list

of participants to the group, and try to help this.  Is there a deadline that

was not clear?  I think our coordinator just made a statement, Rafik, about not

being in the dynamic coalition, being a workshop with specific issues. So I just

wanted to know how to address this issue and push forward.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Let's hold it out today and tomorrow.  I mean, here, as far

as I understand, youth coalition has two workshops and a dynamic coalition

meeting.  I think this may be a bit greedy, but we are very much in favor of

accommodating our people so I think everybody would agree that maybe we are a

little bit lenient.  But I think Lucinda would like to make ‑‑

>> Dynamic coalition is actually not the same as the workshop.

>> I was just going to say in favor of workshop 69, it seems to have quite a

broad range of speakers from different countries, and particularly I think it

was Mission Net in Asia as well as the dynamic coalition of some of the young

people.  And that could be a very interesting chance to hear about the

differences between young people in different countries.  And I know we are

hoping to link up with the young people in Hong Kong and also Denmark and feed

those into those types of sessions.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Can I say I sense a fairly widespread support for this.  So

let's close the thing.  We will ‑‑

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I just had ‑‑ Wasn't there a proposal from Hong Kong about

young people, digital natives, the Internet?  I wonder whether that could not

merge or be part of this Internet for youth coalition, Edmon.

>>EDMON CHUNG:   Thank you, Markus.  This is Edmon.  The ‑‑ There was.  That was

merged with another one.  But I think it is already part of it split out, if you

will, which is already in there, which was mentioned that the Net Mission part

is now in the 69 as well.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Is that taken care of?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yeah, okay.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Can we move on, then?  Any other?  Yes, Olga and then

Lee, and did you also want one?  Not the 69.  69 is ‑‑ and Martin.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Nitin.  Also with 69, I have been talking with

Rafik in Brussels about his intention to organizing this workshop, and I think

he has very good ideas. Maybe we can ask them to organize in a certain way that

fits the needs of all the rooms or the space available, but I think it's

worthwhile to have it.

>>NITIN DESAI:   I think it's done.  Carry on, this is done.  Now let's move on

to the other workshop. I had Lee, Martin, and then India, and then Bill Drake.

Then ‑‑

>>Council of Europe:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Workshop 68, the one you

mentioned, and workshop 64 on the digital networks, we are discussing now

actually to try to obtain a merger of those two workshops as we speak. So I

wouldn't say it's there yet, finally totally, but I think it's looking ‑‑ could

be looking quite good.  I think we will confirm to you later.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  So I had Martin.

>>MARTIN BOYLE:   Thank you, chair.  Martin Boyle. If I can refer to number 112,

which is looking at security but looking it from a user point of view.  Liesyl

has suggested to me and was going to make contact with another one, number 172,

which is colored green, where we have a certain commonality of some of the

intervenence and see if there is an option for merging there. We are also

looking at the possibility of merging with number 142, which is "Women in

Cybercrime." And the third thing to take into account is that in this particular

case, we're looking at, as some of the users or consumers, as it were, to

involve some of the 14 to 20‑year‑olds involved in the ChildNet international

activity.  And part of this would be to try and feed or help these people ‑‑

help these children intervene more effectively in the plenary session. So I

wouldn't mind having a word with the Secretariat to identify where he considers

that we're still weak on this one, but I would like to have a little bit more

time to try and look at the options in front of us. Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay. I had ‑‑ yes, sorry.  I had the lady here, and then you,

and then Bill and then Bertrand. Would you, please.

>> I'd just like to provide some background perspective on workshop number 57.

We have proposed this as a best practice session, but now we learn that there

are no such best practice sessions.  And the reason we proposed it is because

Brazil is going through a very interesting process in Internet regulation.  We

are going through a process of creating a broadband plan, of reforming copyright

law.  And this is the third process that we wanted to discuss in the IGF, which

is the civil rights framework for the Internet.  And I believe this is an

interesting process because this new law we are creating, it deals with the

general principles related to the Internet, such as openness, and we actually

address network neutrality and the liability of intermediaries, which is another

thing we have been discussed here.  And seeing access to the Internet as a

fundamental right of citizens.  We bring provisions to try to hamper the

deployment of three‑strike measures in Brazil. So it's a bill that's very rich

both in terms of content and how it was conceived, because it was created from a

bottom‑up perspective.  We have discussed it totally open manner with online,

with civil society.  So we have ‑‑ at first, we have asked civil society to

provide some input on the themes and principles they would like to see in a bill

about the Internet in Brazil.  We have summarized everything, and after that we

have come up with a bill that has been put online for a second round of

consultations.  People were able to comment article by article.  So they were

really exhaustive about how they made comments to it.  And now we're on the

phase of summarizing everything. So I think it's interesting both from the

perspective of the content it addresses, that are the content that are being

addressed in other regulations, and it has a very unique process of

participation online.  We have talked about it in other countries, and we

haven't found so far a process that has been so inclusive as this one have. But

I mean, we really want to talk about it in the IGF, to have the opportunity.  I

don't know how it could merge it, because we have stakeholders' diversity.  We

just don't have geographic diversity in this proposal because it's specifically

about Brazil. So I would like to know if this could be accepted this way or if

we would have to include geographic diversity, and then I would welcome any

suggestions you might have on how to include geographic diversity on this

proposal for us to be able to address in the IGF.  Because I believe it's

important. Thank you.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   If I may react to that.  We did not say we don't ‑‑ We did

not say we don't have (inaudible) anymore, but you put them in the same category

as workshop, and if you apply the same criteria, then a national best practice,

by definition, does not have the geographical spread.  But you can also have

best practice looking at it from a broader perspective, as not a national policy

but how best to fight child pornography, for instance. Having said that, maybe

the simple solution was you put this Brazilian experience under the national

IGF‑type initiatives as ‑‑ it's not an IGF‑type meeting as such, but it's

definitely an IGF‑type process in terms of multistakeholder process to create

something in your own country.  And you do have a multistakeholder approach.

Then we would basically have it in a different category and would you not apply

the same criteria as for workshops. Would that be an acceptable solution?

>>MARILIA MACIEL:   I just missed the category.  Maybe I missed it in the

program.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   It would be on the regional/national give‑type initiatives.

>>MARILIA MACIEL:   It would be a workshop but to deal with ‑‑

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   With Brazilian experience, yes.  Like the IGF U.S.A., this

will be, then, a best practice forum for Internet Bill of Rights for Brazil.

The way you describe the process, there will also be a ‑‑ for instance, Canada,

they have not held yet their national IGF‑type meeting, but they have started an

online process in defining the agenda and so on. So I think if you broaden the

definition a little bit of what is a national IGF‑type process, I think it falls

very much under that.  And I think you made a very eloquent plea for describing

value of this Brazilian experience. Will this work?

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay. Martin. Sorry, can I just get ‑‑ you, Bill, Bertrand and

then Martin. Sorry, which one was this?

>>JORGE CANCIO:  I am Jorge Cancio from ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   I know, but which workshop?

>>JORGE CANCIO:  Workshop 120. I'm sorry to return to this, but ‑‑

>>NITIN DESAI:   Oh, this one.  Yeah, yeah.

>>JORGE CANCIO:  I heard the explanation before, but I didn't really understand

very much the reason.  So that's why I would like to just briefly make the case.

From the content point of view, I think that this is a view public sector

reviews.  It's one of the basis of the open government initiatives, and it's, I

guess, for what I've seen, it's not really very much covered in the Internet

governance workshop list that we have, although it's very important issue which

is gaining a lot of traction and is absolutely related to Internet governance

problems, data protection, security, openness of public institutions, democracy,

participation, and so on. So from a content point of view, I wouldn't see any

doubt on its worthiness. And I have been looking at the list of speakers we have

put there up since more than one month ago.  We have two government

representatives, three platforms of public sector information, re‑(inaudible)

coalitions, one from Africa, one from Europe, which covers the civil society,

the private sector and the governmental sector.  And we have two clearly civil

society representatives. People coming from Australia, Europe, Africa, Asia,

North America.  We have also managed to have some gender balance into the

workshop. So I thought that the case was clear, but I won't insist too much. In

any case, I would like to ask the people who are deciding which workshops are

marked green to get in touch with the organizer, because I think that he hasn't

been contacted, and he's on the list and his e‑mail is available on the list.

Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:   The people who are deciding are here.  So that's what our

purpose is.  If this is just a preliminary classification, just presented by the

Secretariat, but remember it was put up and requests for evaluations were put

up, and two sets of evaluations came, one from Ayesha and one from (saying

name).  Am I right?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   No, there was a little bit more than that.  And basically, if

you have a very small sample, than two or three negative samples drag down the

overall average. But the point I made at the outset was not that we excluded

any.  We just listed those that had the highest marking and are looking at it

again.  Yes, I tend to agree with you, it looks like a very solid work with a

diverse range of speakers.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  So that takes care of that.  It should be part.  Because

we really don't have a serious space issue.  We can accommodate it. Bill Drake,

Bertrand De La Chapelle, then Martin.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   Can I ask for a point of clarification of something first.

Have the workshops that are white and so on, have the organizers been contacted

and asked to provide more information?  And if so, do we assume they have or

have not?  And then I can tell you about one of them, but I just don't know

the....

>>MARKUS KUMMER:   We have contacted most of them in collective e‑mails

recalling them to provide speakers' list and reminding them of the general

criteria of diversity. In some cases when they got back to us, there was a back

and forth of correspondence, but we did not take the initiative to go and

contact individual organizers and say, look, your proposal looks good but here

you lack maybe geographical diversity and so on.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   Okay.  I can say something about number 18 under security,

openness and privacy, which is white.  This is principles of Internet

governance, dimension of open knowledge environment and bridging the digital

divide. This is a proposal from the China Association of Science and Technology.

They have organized workshops at each of the prior IGFs.  I have spoken on all

of them.  And they are ‑‑ It's a group, it's one of the largest groups of

scientists and social scientists in China.  And they are interested in exploring

the notion of open access to knowledge as a fundamental building block of the

Information Society. And I tend to think that a discussion with Chinese

colleagues on that subject can be quite useful. The other workshops that they

had done in the past generally were well attended.  One thing I would say,

though, is that they have often been insufficiently diverse in their speakers.

So what I would suggest, there's a little bit of ‑‑ I can communicate with them,

if you want, because I know them.  They don't really understand entirely how all

this process works, I think.  But they have tended to put five or six Chinese

and then one or two non‑Chinese speakers on the panel.  And it was not really so

problematic in the past, I guess, but now we're a little bit tighter on space,

so perhaps they could be encouraged to bring a little bit more diversity into

the panel, and I certainly can do that.  But I wouldn't rule this panel out as

not fitting under the subject matter or not worth doing. I can't tell you

anything else about it.

>>NITIN DESAI:   I think because I noticed we really do not have one on the

whole question of access to knowledge.  This looks like the only one which is

really focusing on access to knowledge issues. And I would certainly think that

we need to have a second look at this and see, because it is a dimension which

is important, and I notice that this is the only one which is actually talking

about access‑to‑knowledge issues. So we will have a second look. Then I had

Bertrand and then Martin.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Thank you, Nitin.  Bertrand De La Chapelle. If my

memory is right, there's workshop number 93 that is about Internet ‑‑ yeah.

"Internet, an Instrument to Foster Democracy." I suppose it's always delegate

for the host country to be advocating its own workshop, so I think it's good to

support and to help them. It's a very interesting workshop because, in

particular, it highlights a structure or a coordination between governments

called the community of democracies that honestly, I didn't really know about

before.  And Lithuania is in the chairmanship of this structure. The current

list of potential speakers is raising some questions, like are those speakers

confirmed or not confirmed?  I'm sure our colleague from Lithuania will give

more information. One thing can be discussed is whether it is a workshop that

raises the topic in general of Internet and democracy, in which case there might

be a need to have a more balanced participation, including of countries or

actors that are either more critical or who are documenting practices against

democracy or against the Internet.  Or it can be viewed as somehow an open forum

of this community of democracy as a structure or as an institution to present

the activities and what they are doing. So I just wanted to raise the fact that

this looks like a very interesting workshop and encourage our Lithuanian

colleague to give more information about it.

>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, would you like to just supplement that?

>>LITHUANIA:   Thank you for raising these questions, Bertrand. Well, I just

didn't comment, first of all, because it was just not completely finished with

preparation.  We are missing one or two speakers, and the rest panelists already

gave an initial agreement.  It really will be people who are well‑known in,

let's say, among democratic community of democracy.  So people dealing with

democracy issues.  At the moment, we are looking some panelists who are also

known in the Internet world. So if anyone would like to join these panel, would

be very welcome to give some ideas. But the structure of the event is smaller,

like it was in initial proposal, and some speakers are the same, some not, but

I'm not exactly organizer of this event.  And nearest days, I hope that we can

provide the more exact or more final list of the panelists. Thank you.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Thank you.  I had Martin.

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thank you, chair.  Martin Boyle.  Just to confirm, I have just

received from the organizer of workshop 142 that they are happy to work in a

merger with 112. So if records can be updated accordingly.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Any further comments?  We could have a look at this ‑‑

the proposal from ‑‑ 93 from Lithuania. Yes.

>> Thank you.  I just had a little bit of concern about workshop 93 and the

phrasing, which is about fostering democracy.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Yeah.

>> You know, it's like the flip side.  If you have a workshop that says

"Internet," you know, "a tool to foster communism," it's quite ‑‑ it has the

potential of being divisive ‑‑ you know, divisive. Oh.  Sorry. It has the

potential of being divisive, and so my concern is that what were we really

looking at when we talked about ‑‑ when we thought of democracy?  Are we talking

in terms of good governance? And if that's the case, maybe it should be said,

you know ‑‑ what is it now ‑‑ "Internet, an instrument to foster good

governance," because you're practically saying that democracy is the way to go

but you have other countries in the world who are very well sufficient and, you

know, using other methods and are surviving. And if we were to put out a

workshop "to foster communism," there's going to be a problem, and I think ‑‑

you know, I'm just thinking we should maybe look at "good governance" instead.

Just a change of words.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Well, with a couple of exceptions, probably, there's not a

country in the world which doesn't say that it's democratic, so it doesn't

matter.  But the ‑‑ we'll have a look, but what she's saying is that if the

focus is on Internet as an instrument for good governance, that's one thing, but

‑‑ and democracy could be an aspect of good governance.  That's perfectly fine.

But it's just the way the title is formulated should not appear to be a sort of

"in your face" type of title.  That's the basic point.

>>LITHUANIA:  Well, this ‑‑ actually, this event is related also ‑‑ this seminar

is a little bit related to another event, "Day of the Democracy" which is 15th

of December and which is agreed by the U.N. General Assembly. So democracy is

kind of a principle which is acceptable, I guess, even for communist country

which ‑‑ in a way, so ‑‑ but I think organizers would be happy to invite any

people from ‑‑ who are ‑‑ even as panelists who, let's say, want to discuss

whether the Internet should work for democracy or maybe should work against it.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  So we're adding a question mark. Any further comments on

this slot? Okay.  That's it, isn't it?  Because the others are ‑‑ we've taken

care of all the workshops now, right?  The last slot are in any case withdrawn,

so I don't think there's any big issue we overcome, but I think most of the

points ‑‑ several ‑‑ it's very helpful, this discussion.  Particularly people's

views on certain workshops.  And I think we should be able to take care of all

of these. The ‑‑ so what I would suggest is that we ‑‑ there are still a few

loose ends which need to be resolved in terms of mergers, but mostly it has been

sorted out, and I think we need to sort this out very soon because we're only

two months, two and a half months away from the main meeting and we still have

to bring out ‑‑ we certainly have to get workshop organizers informed, but more

than ‑‑ and the other thing is bringing out the information material, so I

suggest that tomorrow you go into the whole issue of the timing and the

logistics of the workshop.  Particularly because of our desire to try and see

that at least some of the key workshops are held before the main session, so

that we can benefit from their work and so that's, I think, a fairly ‑‑ you

obviously cannot ensure that all of them would take place in advance.  That's

not feasible.  So you will have to make some choices, saying out of the 10

workshops on, say, security, "These are the four or five you must try and ensure

take place before the event."  And similarly with the others. So this is an

exercise which you'll have to undertake tomorrow.  I will not be here.  This is

a working exercise.  You may wish to do it in groups.  You may wish to do it all

together.  Probably ‑‑ and I'll leave it to you to decide.  It may be useful if

you were to do it in four groups, so that you can really go through the

descriptions and say, "Okay, these are the four or five we must try and

accommodate in advance." We obviously have less of a problem for the sessions

which are going to be held on the last two days, because you have had, you know,

two days before that.  Your real problem is to get it ‑‑ get the choices made

for the early sessions, the critical Internet resources, access and diversity

particularly, which are on the second day, and that's the ones where you really

have to decide, "These are the ones which we must try to do in advance." Okay?

Good.  So that completes our work.  We set ourselves a goal of completing our

work on the main sessions and the workshops, which we've done that.  You'll all

been very constructive and helpful, so that's been very good, and I'll leave it

to you then to sort out the logistics tomorrow.  Is that it?  Anything else?

(no audio).

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  ‑‑ in your presence to make sure that we have all the names in

the half hour remaining.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That we need all those involved in IG4D, that we really

finalize and nail down the names on that, while our chairman is still here.

>>NITIN DESAI:  Are you in a position to do that?

>> (Speaker is off microphone).

>>NITIN DESAI:  Okay.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  We can adjourn the meeting?

>>NITIN DESAI:  Huh?  Yeah.  I know that.  I just switch off and...

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  When we meet tomorrow morning at 10:00, and for the

scribes, for Chuck and Teri, now it's midday, yeah?  So we'll see you tomorrow

after midnight your time.  Thank you very much for your effort.  It worked very

well.  Thank you.

The remote moderators have three functions:

• They have to connect online with the remote participants;
• They have to connect the online participants to the discussions in the meeting room;
• Lastly, they are responsible for some follow-up work for archiving purposes and in view of improving future remote participation efforts.

Online:

• Connect to remote platform from a dedicated computer (if possible, connected to a projector)
• Moderate the online discussions
  • Follow online interactions and answer questions/comment as necessary
  • Facilitate online discussion and troubleshooting
  • Liaise with onsite tech support
• Collect online meaningful interventions (and forward them to the in situ meeting)
• Exhibit any pre-recorded video or audio intervention at the appropriate time
• Communicate with technician on possible current and/or possible future online problems.

On site:

• Follow on site discussions
• Showcase the remote participation on projector when and if appropriate/possible
• Communicate with panel moderator to present remote interventions and questions at appropriate times (based on collected interventions)
• Facilitate remote (audio/video) interventions from remote participants/panelists (with the help of technician)
• Communicate with technician on possible current and/or possible future in situ problems.

Follow-up:

• Collect all related material for archiving purposes
• Summarize statistics (as much detail as possible):
  • number of participants
  • number of hubs
  • number of questions:
    • asked
    • forwarded
    • answered
    • other
  • Number of audio/video interventions
  • Other topics of interest
• Present a report on the remote participation (personal experience and/or technical and/or statistical report); the aim of this report is to provide material that will help future remote participation.