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

 

IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings

 19 May 2014

 Paris, France

 The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings, in Paris, France. 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.

 >> Welcome to the high-level event, and I would like to invite the Secretary General of the ITU to open the meeting.  

 >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  On behalf of the organization, ITU, UNESCO, and the UNCTAD, we welcome all the WSIS stakeholders to come together today this morning in Geneva, in Paris, and some remote participation.  Out of this final briefing on the WSIS+10 high-level event of the WSIS (indiscernible)  

 As you're aware, this event is coordinated by the ITU and the -- by ITU, UNESCO.  There, on only two days remain all agencies comprise the Secretariat and provide assistance through this process.  The event is to endorse two powerful outcome documents, which is WSIS+10 element of the implementation of the WSIS with outcome and, more importantly, WSIS 2015.  All of them are developed in a free and open WSIS multistakeholder platform called MPP.  This group we have the last meeting from the 8th to the 31st of May this year in WIPO outside of Geneva.  We're trying to have this in the middle of April.  We could not have this meeting and agreed to a final meeting in May due to the latest IGF -- their work.  We all agreed to that.  But, unfortunately, that moment -- ITU meeting room.  Our neighbor WIPO -- their neighbor kindly agreed to give us their meeting room.  Therefore, we have our WSIS+10 high-level event final there.  (indiscernible)  

 I encourage all stakeholders to join this meeting.  The chief consensus of this final document to be submitted to a high-level event.  We all know that high-level event itself will not be the time or place to negotiate.  Therefore, the -- last chance for our stakeholders to have discussion.  Of course, fine tuning or some of the minor details could be introduced after the high-level discussion.  But, basically, the conclusion of these documents should be by the end of the final meeting of the (indiscernible)  After the 1st of May?  During the appropriate process, a lot has been achieved in the implementation of all WSIS -- significant progress has been made enriching the WSIS packet.  The comprehensive report by the partnership on the measuring ICT for development is the finest quantitative assessment on the 10th of June.  Nevertheless, WSIS MPP has identified a lot of challenges that emerged since 2005 and had also provided recommendations for the implementation of WSIS on the 15th.  The event is implementation.  Real action on the ground.  This is the reason why we are happy to see some engagement in high-level commitment with this process of assuming high-level government and international organizations.  This lets me believe that we will be able to ensure real impact of the ICT on development beyond 2015.  This is the reason why, as the chair of -- ITU is underlining the importance of ensuring the link in the WSIS+10 process and the new vision for the post 2015 development agenda,  including sustainable development course.  

 Ladies and gentlemen, before I close, please let me share with you that the Secretary-General of ITU has completed consultations with minister of Egypt as well as the former chair of the preparatory preface of WSIS that were proposed to be the chair and the vice co-chairs of the WSIS+10 high-level event, respectively.

 You can understand why we propose the minister of Egypt to be chair of this high-level event because originally it was (indiscernible) to have this event in Egypt, and we tried very hard to bring some process of this preparations to Egypt, but unfortunately we could make it.  We are very pleased to learn that he will come to Geneva to attend this meeting, and he's very pleased to accept our invitation to chair this important high-level event.

 We have also launched the call for fellowships that will let the developing countries to be represented at the event.  Of course fellowship sponsors are limited and we will only offer partial (indiscernible) for fellowship.  According to ITU's practice, least developed countries would be granted fellowships.  I think that there is a process already opened.  Any -- any --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Also, ladies and gentlemen, if you're a country representative and you want your name plates, they're outside by the door.  MAG members, name plates will be coming shortly.  Thank you.

 >> -- important ITU conferences such as the ability to offer the fellowship.  

 Once more, let me thank all stakeholders for your proactive approach and support, even to the ITU.  It was a process to make this event happen.  

 In particular, let me mention our partners and contributing partners who sponsored our event.

 UAE (indiscernible), as well as Japan, Kuwait, Mexico, Oman, (indiscernible), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, (indiscernible), and contributing partners (indiscernible), ISOC, ICANN, (indiscernible) ICT, ITU, (indiscernible).  

 I'm looking forward to seeing you all at the next WSIS+10 MPP meeting as well as WSIS+10 high-level event itself.  I thank you for your participation.  Thank you.

 >> Thank you very much, Mr. Zhao, and we'd like to invite Torbjorn Fredriksson from the UNCTAD, also representing CSTD secretariat, to say a few words.

 >>TORBJORN FREDRIKSSON: Thank you, Mr. Zhao.  Thank you, (indiscernible).

 Good morning, everyone, so I think we're having a very intense spring this year with the meetings almost every week, and last week the Commission on Science and Technology for Development concluded its 17th session in the Palais des Nations close to midnight Friday evening, and during this session, delegates were informed about the preparations for the WSIS+10 high-level event, both by Professor Minkin and by the ITU Secretary-General.

 Among other things, there was also a presentation by the permanent representative of Tunisia to the U.N. on developments in New York concerning the modalities for the WSIS review.  

 And as you're aware, negotiations are still ongoing there concerning the modalities by the U.N. General Assembly, so we're still awaiting the final agreement among the member states.

 And let me just conclude by taking the opportunity to thank our colleagues at ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP for very good collaboration in the lead-up to the high-level event.  

 UNCTAD is also very pleased to see so many stakeholders that have shown engagement and commitment to participating in and organizing sessions during the high-level event in June which should promise to be a very useful and productive week.  So thank you very much for being (indiscernible) and thank you.

 >> Thank you very much, Torbjorn.  Thank you very much, Mr. Zhao, for your remarks.  

 And now we would like to go to our agenda.

 The main (indiscernible) is not planned to.

 So we would like to invite you to visit the Web site of the WSIS forum and to consult the agenda for this meeting.

 We propose that we will go through the detailed presentation at first.  We will provide you the full package of information which we will need in order to ensure your proactive participation and proactive participation of your high-level representatives.

 And then I will open the floor according to the agenda for any kind of questions and clarifications, if needed.

 Dear ladies and gentlemen, the high-level event, as Mr. Zhao already mentioned, is a joint effort of the whole U.N. family.  It's all organizations on the screen depicted are jointly working on making sure that this 10-year anniversary of the WSIS concludes with the successful outcomes and the vision for the WSIS beyond 2015, in particular around the implementation part.

 I will not go back to the origins of the event.  These slides are more of the informative background for those who are just joining now and need some background for the meetings, but of course we went through the preparatory process which started already in 2011 and went through the few first meetings in order to accumulate knowledge and to aggregate it in order to provide the input for the high-level event, and that should agree and endorse the outcome documents.

 The events, as we know, will be held from the 10th to 13th of June.  However, on the 9th of June, which is Monday, we'll have the status of the powerful thematic workshops which will pave the way towards the high-level discussions and this is the reason why it's always important to highlight the importance of the participation on that day also by the -- all representatives joining the high-level event.

 Now, also the -- we will be endorsing the two outcome documents and the statement on the implementation and the vision for WSIS beyond 2015.  Both documents, as mentioned, they were developed within the open consultative process, bottom-up approach, with the multistakeholder principles applied for the -- for both tracks, the open consultation on the outcome documents, as well as on the thematic focus on the shape of the event, and the same approach has been applied and this is what we have as of today as the shape of the event as far as the contents and this is what the whole WSIS community has elaborated jointly.

 On the outcome documents, they are developed within the framework of the MPP.  At its last meeting held in the WIPO, a few important information documents has been already posted last week on Thursday and Friday, so you'll find them on the Web site --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Good morning, ladies --

 >> -- the two documents --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Just to repeat, we are connected to the ITU doing their WSIS+10 review.  You can follow it using the headphones.

 >> -- and to invite you to consult these documents and --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Anybody listening?  Thank you.

 >> -- and there is a few items still pending, action lines, other issues, measurements.

 The statements is (indiscernible), and also the Chapters A and B of the vision are also prior agreed and the meeting was of the opinion that we should not come back to the agreed text already.

 So we hope that within these four days, of the meeting we'll be able to complete the full package of the text and the text proposed has been worked out and proposed by the chairman in the consultative process with the action facilitators as well as the partnership on the measuring and ICT for development and there put forward for your consideration.  During the four days, we'll be working in the WIPO and premises.  

 And important to note that on Thursday the reason why we'll be using the ITU for lunches, any kind of breakfast you're planning in this area.  Please make use of your badge and join the ITU cafeteria to have the lunch or the -- and the breakfast.  On Saturday, in this area, the close of place is for our use.  The working hours of the meeting -- and these are the 10 hours from 9 to 19.  No long sessions planned.  Please register as soon as possible to this meeting and please come with your materials.  There will be no meeting, paperless as all our meetings, and in order to avoid any kind of the paper during the meeting.  

 Just that you're not lost, one important information is that during the premises of the ITU around the ITU and WIPO.  

 Important for you is to know that the badging is done in the building.  Please know that first and all delegates are invited to ITU building to pick up the badge and then to join the entrance of the WIPO going through the park.  So don't go to the new building of WIPO.  

 Main principle conference room when you're reaching going through the park, we're not lost Thursday.  Let's come back to the main event, the high-level event.  This is about two tracks, one about the high-level messaging, endorsing the high-level document, but also discussing the thematic issues.  

 We'll have the two tracks.  And, during these five days, everybody -- each representative of the WSIS community will find a place to contribute and to make their point.  Thank you very much for being with us.  During this time we expect 100 ministers or corresponding level representatives of the governments, heads of the international U.N. agencies, CEOs, leaders of the civil society, technical community, and academia.  

 Remote participation will be an integral part.  But those who are planning to join the remotely, please note that they should also go for the registration process in order not to delay the time during the event itself.  With the one log-in, be able to switch from room to room.  All rooms will be having Adobe Connect rooms.  And so also your interventions will be possible.

 Regarding the joining event itself, it is important to note that each -- in order to join the WSIS+10 high-level event, you -- all stakeholders need to go through the accreditation process.  For many stakeholders, governments, international organizations, or the others in the second bullet, not a challenge -- others listed in the second bullet not a challenge because they're going through the regular accreditation process which is automatic and already studying for a focal point.  But for those who never attended the WSIS forum, they need to go through accreditation process.  So, in case you're aware about anyone and thinking who are interested in joining the event for that presentation process, please make sure that the form is in.  And only then, the person can be registered.  We need to make sure that also at the event there are relevant stakeholders.  The accreditation process is a formal procedure.  But we're making sure that everyone who is relevant for the WSIS+10 and for the WSIS process is in the event.  For those who didn't are accredited still.  And important deadline to note 25th of May.  So we have still a few days to go for the deadline.  Please communicate this as well so that no one is missing this deadline.  As soon as registration -- also following the regular registration process of the conferences, from this year we are registering for the focal point, the organization is accredited.  It's also determining the focal point, which is registering the stakeholders at the national level or at the level of the (indiscernible)  So, therefore, please make sure that you're doing your registration process well in advance, that you're not finding things at the last moment.  Who is focal point?  Why?  I didn't know.  Everything is on the Web site from the beginning, so there is no surprises.  But we encourage everyone to go through this information and to make sure that you're not missing this opportunity.  One important, the last bullet is very important for the all stakeholders who need the visa.  We made sure that the confirmation of the registration is the only document provided and needed for visa support.  So all Swiss embassies have been informed about the process and coordinated with them in order to avoid the request for the personalized invitation letters and so on and so on.  As you see, this process has been much more facilitated.  And whoever is applying for the visa in the Swiss embassy worldwide could not meet personalized invitation letter to register to ask for the visa.  It's enough that this document about the registration is attached.  In addition to this, once we're talking about the registration importance is the question on the badging.  Please take good note that your blue badge, diplomatic badge will not be letting you into the venue.  This is important that you're using the time prior to the event.  We'd encourage all of you to use this time efficiently on Friday prior to the event to pick up your badges.  As well as at least to pick up the badge for the minister.  We'll be using photo badges.  Meaning not the whole delegation.  Majority of delegates are not participating -- didn't participate in the previous years.  Therefore, we have to ensure that everybody is coming and picking their own badge.  First for the ministers and then -- and the special arrangements have been provided.  And for those who participated, high level of participants will be able to get the badge well in advance in particular for the ministers, please do not hesitate to pick up the badge well in advance.  As you see on this very beautiful picture, badging will be our IT-only building or picking up the badge over there.  Then you're transferring to the other building on Monday.

 [ Multiple speakers ]

 >> Good evening.  Welcome to our Open Consultations and the meeting.  What I would like to say, we are now in contact with ITU and listening to the presentation.  Please pay attention to this presentation.  And we will take after -- we will start our meeting after this presentation.

 >> ITU VIDEO:  And on Tuesday, this is the only exception that you can pick up your badges already from 7:00 in ITU for those needing the time to pick up the badge. Therefore, the minister, you can come earlier prior to picking up the minister and to pick up the badge.  One more time: important to note your blue badge will not be valid to enter the UNCTAD.  And we request you also to respect this rule.  The security will be quite strict.  We have another event happening.  And this is something agreed with the other participants with other organizers of the other event in CICG.  This is only for a better understanding for those who are not familiar with the ITU.  

 There will be quite nice signage on the CICG that everybody can find the right building.

 Maybe just prior to going to the next page, we are drawing your attention, in particular -- there are two main buildings which will be used for the event.

 ITU Montbrillant building, CICG, Room 1 on the first floor.  Please do not look for the ground floor as the rooms for the WSIS, but you can directly go upstairs.  

 It will be also on Wednesday using the CICG for the ministerial roundtable and this one is only restricted for the ministers, no replacement, and the badge is compulsory.  The security level will be quite enhanced.

 Then coming back to the high-level event and what is expected of us during these five days.  Now we're inviting you to consult the Web site where you will find not only the PDF file with all sessions and all listing of the events, but also you'll find the interactive agenda which will guide you also not only through the type of the sessions but also will provide you the descriptions of the sessions which will uploaded during that week, and for some of the sessions the information is already there.

 For those who are planning heavy networking, we're encouraging you to use the you "I meet you at WSIS" which will let you to shape your agenda on demand in the system and also to set up the lateral meetings and to know also who is registered to the meeting.

 So please do not hesitate to use this type of tool.

 This will also on the mobile clients be available to everyone.  They will be able to benefit from this tool during the event, and to enforce the importance of running such a meeting in the bilateral format.  For the format of the event itself, as I mentioned already earlier, on the 9th of June we will hold (indiscernible) of the (indiscernible) event, so this will be a busy day.  Be prepared for lot of different sessions and lot of parallel sessions.

 However, the community and the priority of the subjects addressed during this week will be huge and therefore, each community is holding their session, so please pay attention to these dates.  

 On the 10th and 11th, we'll hold the high-level track.  On these days, we are not planning to hold any parallel activities and the main activities will be held in the CICG.  However, your badge will be letting you in to the ITU building but also to the CICG buildings.  

 On the 12th, we're reintroducing the WSIS forum format.  It has the status of the high-level dialogue for high-level dialogues in the CICG and the status of the country workshops, action line facilitator, meetings, and the others.  

 And on the 13th, we will finalize our meeting with the action line facilitators meeting as requested by the Tunis Agenda and to gather all action line facilitators and to (indiscernible) the future.  So when we are putting all these on the one slide, we would see this kind of vision in front of us for the high-level event.  Now, let's talk about the Tuesday and Wednesday, 10th and 11 of June.  

 These days are very particular.  We'll start very early, from 9:00 and for the ministers and the high-level office -- officials contributing with the high-level policy statements, they will start even earlier at 8:00.

 On this date we'll have the policy statement.  The roundtable policy -- (indiscernible)  High-level policy dialogue.  And on the Wednesday in the afternoon, like afternoon, we'll have the endorsement of the document.  Documents elaborated by the MPP will be entered into submitted into the conference at the opening.  And we'll be for the endorsement on the following day.

 As already mentioned, we're not foreseeing the negotiations during the event.  And this is important also.  And to mention this to your all capitols and colleagues from the capitols, so in case any kind of issues should be seeked, a meeting of the last meeting of the NDP is the place to do this.  Talking about the high-level track on the 10th and 11th, we'll have the high-level policy statement.  There is more than 120 high-level policy statement requests as of today.  And the -- lead scope.  (audio cutting in and out)

 Meet requests, the system has been deactivated.  And now be patient.  We've asked that we can provide you the approximate time of your statement of the high-level representative.  Most of all, you will be able to communicate on this by the end of this week in order to facilitate your arrangement for the travel and other unilateral meetings.  

 We're aware that some of the high-level speakers are also joining the other event taking place in Europe.  And, therefore, we are also taking note on the preferences in particular of those who will be joining the meeting.  

 During the high-level dialogues, we hold the four high-level dialogues we'll be holding the CICG.  One on the WSIS+10 and 2015 development agenda.  One on the measuring the information society meeting beyond 2015.

 

 Celebration of 10 years of the partnership on the development, the building track in the cyberspace, and the last session from the information knowledge side.  

 In addition to this, we'll hold the two world cafes which will host stakeholders who like to brainstorm in the open format and innovative format on the two subjects.  On one hand to discuss the implementation beyond 2015.  On the other hand, to celebrate the 10 years of the WSIS stock taking and process.

 So all stakeholders are invited to those.  And this event will be held on the second floor in front of the ICT.  

 As I mentioned already, this year we have the two anniversaries.  One is very important for the future.  The 10-year anniversary of the partnership for measuring the ICT for development.  And, on this occasion, the partnership will be launching the 10 years consultative assessment on the implementation of the WSIS target.  The report will be also submitted to the high-level event during the opening and will be made available to stakeholders.

 We'll also have the 10 years anniversary of the WSIS stock taking process.  And on this occasion we are also awarding 17 winners of the WSIS project prizes at the end of the opening segment.

 In addition to this, as I mentioned, on the 12th, we'll have the country workshops.  And we'd like to thank to those countries who took the initiative to organize the country workshops which we provide gold mine of knowledge on the progress made in the implementation of the WSIS action line.  The countries are listed here.  Those who still will be interested in organization of the country workshop, they're invited to do so.  They're aware that many countries will be launching their 10 years implementation report on this occasion.  We'll also benefit from the small exhibition, small but powerful in the basement of the building.  So please do not hesitate to spend some time network and to make use out of the space.  We'll find at least 24 departments but also different agencies and stakeholders.

 Now let's switch to communication.  In order to fully be integrated in the event, it's important to take note on the communication streams which are worth to follow and which are worth to be aware of.

 The first one is WSIS Flash.  Please make sure that the WSIS Flash coming to you and is not also in your spam account.  This sometimes happens for this kind of newsletter.  But this is one and the only one communication stream which is going to the whole community of the WSIS stakeholders, more than 30,000 WSIS stakeholders worldwide.

 So any kind of the update on the preparatory process or on the WSIS+10 high-level event or the related activities are reflected in these regular flashes.  And now, up to the event, we'll be issuing special issues on specific items like we did last week on the fellowships, like we did last week also on the documents published on the Web site for the MPP meeting.  And we did also one on -- well, I forgot.  But -- yes, on the agenda.  Thank you very much.

 The other platform which I already mentioned is I meet you at WSIS.  So this is the place where you will -- you will construct your own agenda, and you will be able to manage your agenda on your mobile device during the event.  Avoiding any kind of crashes or any kind of possibilities that you'll be losing some opportunities offered by the event.  Please make sure that you are registering prizes with -- to the event and also that you are playing with this tool on your mobile devices prior to the event.  The mobile client works perfectly on the all type of devices.  We checked this and encourage you to benefit from.

 In addition to this, we know that among all of you, there's plenty of active tweeters.  And please do not forget to use the hash WSIS in order to reach the community of the WSIS stakeholders and to build further knowledge on the WSIS.

 In addition to this, more practical information or in particular for the heads of states, ministers and vice ministers.  So do not miss the opportunity of arranging the special VIP pass for them.  This is service offered by the -- in Geneva.  But please use this number which is reflected on the Web site and reflected in this presentation to make aware our Swiss colleagues about arrival of your delegation.  It's not that the late requests will not be treated, unfortunately, due to the fact that, during the same time, there is another community event and we're sharing the capacities of the airport and all of staff assisting the VIPs.  Thank you very much for understanding for that.

 In addition to this, as we mentioned already, we issued on Friday the call for the fellowship.  This call is for developing countries, stakeholders from the developing countries.  That is partial fellowship.  And we hope that at least a number of the countries will be represented by additional stakeholders who will be able to join in Geneva.  

 Compulsory for all fellows to be during the full duration of the event.  And we hope that -- and this will be beneficial and increase the voice of developing countries for this process.  One more time for all partners at least it's here and depicted with the logos on this slide.  And the last slide of ITU quick brief pointer to the most important actions to be made prior to the event.  

 So we exhausted our content of our presentation.  And now we'd like to invite you to follow agenda in order to start with the question.  Maybe we'll display on the screen the agenda in order to collect any questions.  So please give us 30 seconds.

 >> Thank you from the ITU for the great presentation.  Thank you.  Yes, they should be.  From the ITU Web site, yes.  

 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  We're about to start the second open consultation at the MAG meeting.  And, without further ado, I'll just hand it over to -- oh, yes, I have an announcement to make.  The Secretary General has now formally appointed Ambassador Karklins as the chair of the MAG.  We will be putting up a press release and also a notice from the IGF Web site once it's cleared with New York.  New York morning.  So I suspect as the end of the day today.  But it has been signed, approved, and everything.  So I think that's a very good way to start off this meeting.

 [ Applause. ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  And I'm really delighted to accept that nomination.  And I wrote the same in that sense to the Secretary General.  So welcome to UNESCO.  Welcome to the second open consultation.  

 We have three days of work and we have very specific tasks for these three days.  We need to finalize the agenda of the meeting, and that is -- that is an enormous task.

 Therefore, we will -- we need to work very diligently and be as rational and as flexible as we can.

 We're awaiting the deputy director general of UNESCO to join us, but before that, maybe I would like to see if you are in agreement with the proposed agenda of the meeting, which the sort of logic of the proposal is that the first day we would devote to more general questions, we would talk about -- we would talk about how to -- how and -- whether and how to bring NETmundial outcomes to the IGF, how we would structure main sessions, how we would organize best practice forums, how we would -- how many workshops we will have.  

 All these questions would prepare ground for work tomorrow and the day after tomorrow where we would go through all the workshop proposals and would define the shape of IGF meeting.

 Of course today we would have also the presentation of the host country, we will have a possibility to ask all questions we have in relation to that presentation, in relation to state of preparations, and -- yeah, and then we will discuss whatever questions you may have in relation to IGF.

 Secondly, I would like to -- yeah, let me conclude with the agenda.

 So are we in agreement or do you have any other proposals for the agenda?

 So I see no requests for the floor.  I take it that we will follow the proposed agenda as it is posted on the Web site.

 So secondly, I would like to inform you that since I am, if I may say, the new kid on the block --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- I certainly feel that I need some help and assistance, and I asked two distinguished experts to help me in discharging my duties, and those are Mr. Markus Kummer and Hartmut Glaser to become my sort of advisors, senior advisors, on IGF, and Hartmut particularly in sort of preparation already for IGF 2015.

 That is kind of a task which they accepted to do on purely a voluntary basis, and certainly I'm extremely grateful to both of them for their support in my tasks.

 So on other issues which would be pertinent for our meeting, today at 1:30 to 2:30 UNESCO has asked us to organize kind of consultations with the MAG members and all those who are interested who participate in open consultations on UNESCO comprehensive study on Internet-related topics.  That is just to pick the brain.  This is not part of the formal MAG meeting, but this is sort of -- our hosts asked us to organize and we certainly accepted it with great pleasure.

 You know that last General Conference of UNESCO tasked this organization to develop this comprehensive study, and that was related also to -- (audio interference) -- and so that is a very challenging task for the organization.

 Finally, we have remote participation facility here organized and a number of MAG members will join this meeting from their either offices or homes.

 We will look to the facilitator of remote participation, and this will be here.  You show me a sign when somebody's asking for the floor, and all those who participate or will participate remotely, I would kindly ask before making your points just mention your name and affiliation, so that we know who we are talking to.

 So I see Anriette is asking for the floor at this moment.  Anriette, please.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Janis, and congratulations.

 Just a clarification.  So you said you'd appointed Markus Kummer and Hartmut Glaser as advisors.  Can you just clarify a little bit more, and also why, if you are appointing advisors you have two people from the technical community?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  No, I'm -- I was just thinking that Markus, as the previous interim chair of the MAG, with all his experience, as well as his experience as executive secretary of the -- of the secretariat, and he kindly agreed to share his knowledge with me.  That is the one -- one argument -- or that's the main sort of reason why I asked to do -- I asked Markus to help me.

 And Hartmut is a representative of the next organizer of the IGF, and it was in sort of consultation with the host organization of the next IGF that the name of Hartmut was put forward.  

 No sort of other considerations behind these appointments.

 I understand the meaning of your question.  I cannot exclude that if there will be a need for further assistance, I may call on others, but I -- actually, I consider all members of the MAG as my senior advisors because you are the ones who are the real decision-makers here.  Myself, I am just serving you, all of you, making sure that all the voices of the MAG go in the same direction, and that we come with a consensual proposal in relation to organization of the meeting.

 So therefore, please take these sort of nominations, if I may say, as just -- 

 I mean, for the sake of transparency, I felt that I had to say that.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Just a quick -- I have no objection to those two individuals whatsoever, and I'm not sure if you were around but I think we made a proposal to this effect earlier.  I think maybe when Markus was the acting chair.  There was a proposal from within the MAG that it is a good idea to get advisors for the chair, so in principle, absolutely.  It's an excellent idea.  Good individuals.  But I do think having more -- you know, possibly including two -- the other two stakeholders or three stakeholders in some capacity would be useful.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And also, gender as well.

 [ Laughter ]

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  But I felt that you would like that.

 So I see that the deputy director general is on his way, and we will greet him in a second.

 Michael, please.

 >> Just a very quick question.  Sorry, I didn't raise this when we were discussing the agenda, but the agenda lists the different themes during the period when we're going to consider the proposals.  I'm a little concerned that this leaves the impression that we're only going to talk about the different themes at the different times listed.  I mean -- 

 >> (Speaker off microphone) 

 >> So we're just going to be talking about all the themes all the entire time.  Okay.  Because I wouldn't want people tuning in thinking they're only going to hear about digital trust at a certain time and then find out that we've already decided most of the topics.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think we will discuss the methodology how we will work.

 But at this point, I would like to welcome the deputy director of UNESCO, Getachew Engida, in this room, and on behalf of the MAG, to thank UNESCO for hosting this open consultation meeting and associated MAG meeting.

 This is a very crucial moment in the preparation for the IGF meeting in Istanbul and during these three days we need to finalize the agenda, and so that's why we're extremely grateful for all the facilities you have provided to us, and it certainly will facilitate our -- so if you would like to make this opening remarks, this would be the right time.

 >>GETACHEW ENGIDA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, welcome to UNESCO.

 Many of you know this house.  Especially Janis, who perhaps knows it too well --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>GETACHEW ENGIDA: -- whom I wish to congratulate for his appointment as the chairperson of the multistakeholder advisory meeting.  

 On behalf of the UNESCO Director-General, Irina Bokova, let me say it is a great pleasure to host the Internet Governance Forum open consultations and MAG.

 This is an important meeting to prepare the IGF 2014 annual meeting.  It comes at a time when countries are pushing towards the Millennium Development Goals of 2015 and shaping a new global development agenda to follow.

 This is the second time that UNESCO hosts the IGF open consultations and MAG, and I wish to say that we would be very pleased to host them again next year, should you wish so, and perhaps close to the multistakeholder conference we're aiming to hold next February on the key Internet-related issues.

 UNESCO has supported the Internet Governance Forum since its inception in Athens in 2006.  For other past IGFs, UNESCO has organized and co-organized more than 50 workshops and open fora on a wider range of issues.  On promoting freedom of expression and privacy on the Internet; on multilingualism in cyberspace; on local content; on digital preservation.

 For the forthcoming IGF in Istanbul, UNESCO has submitted two workshop proposals and an open forum to discuss questions related to on-line safety of journalists and emerging media access on the Internet, on the role of Internet intermediaries in promoting freedom of expression, as well as the Internet study currently conducted by UNESCO.

 As you know, given the complexity of Internet-related developments, UNESCO members have requested the organization to undertake a comprehensive study on Internet-related issues within UNESCO's skills and competence.  

 In line with Resolution 52 of the last session of the UNESCO General Conference, this report will explore four core issues.

 The first is access to information and knowledge.

 Second, freedom of expression.

 Third, privacy.

 And fourth, the ethical dimensions of the Information Society.

 The report will be prepared on a multistakeholder basis, including governments, the private sector, civil society, academia, international organizations and the technical community, making the most of UNESCO's meetings as well as relevant external fora.

 This is an important initiative to help guide future decision-making by the 195 member states about the intersection of the Internet and our own programs, setting forth also possible options for future actions in this field.

 As a framework for the study, UNESCO has identified four principles guiding the Internet relevant to UNESCO's mandate and fields of competence, and brought this together under the draft concept of Internet universality.

 By this, we mean that for the Internet to be truly universal in its character, its development and governance should be remain guided by the four following principles.

 First, it needs to be human rights based.  Second, openness.  Third, accessibility.  And by this, we mean which goes beyond technical access and includes and covers social inclusion.

 And fourth, it must be multistakeholder participation.

 These are interrelated and of course interdependent.

 If respect for any one of these principles lags, the Internet becomes less than universal in character.

 We have expressed this concept with the acronym ROAM.  Rights, openness, accessible, and multistakeholder.

 We have just concluded eight consultations, meetings with UNESCO member states in groups, and the study is being discussed through multiple processes including UNESCO events like the World at Press Freedom Day, the Intergovernmental Council Meetings of IFAP, which is currently going, and the IPVC as well as key global events like NETmundial, the WSIS high-level events review, and the Freedom on-Line Coalition meeting, the so-called Forum on Internet freedom, as well as of course the IGF.

 In this spirit, I wish to invite you all to provide your input to the study.  We'll be giving a briefing this afternoon at 1:45 to 2:30 during lunch break, and your participation would be highly appreciated.

 I cannot say enough how important your experience and visions would be for enriching the study and informing our member states.

 Let me say, in the same cooperative spirit, you may rest assured that UNESCO will contribute actively to the multistakeholder discussions here, and incorporate many of your insights into our mandate and work.

 I wish you fruitful discussions and look forward to a successful IGF in Istanbul.

 I thank you very much.  Thank you, Janis.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Getachew for these remarks and invitation to contribute to your -- UNESCO's reflection.  We certainly will be here tomorrow and will be very interested in listening to the presentation and engaging in the dialogue.

 And certainly we're looking forward to participation of UNESCO in the IGF Istanbul and I will be very happy to greet you personally in Istanbul at the opening.

 So thank you very much.

 Now we will follow our program and it is now my pleasure to reintroduce our honorary chair, Dr. Ahmed Cavusoglu, the head of Department of International Affairs of Information and Communication Technology Authority of Turkey, for his opening remarks and following presentation.  

 Dr. Ahmed, you have the floor.

 >> AHMED CAVUSOGLU:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  First of all, I want to congratulate you once more.   

 Esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I have the great honor to address you here in the second Open Consultation and MAG meeting towards the 9th

 IGF.  As the host country of this year's IGF, I am very pleased to share that everything is going well in its schedule to make IGF 2014 great success. 

 I am sure that IGF in 2014 will be remarkable one and you will all enjoy your stay in Istanbul. Taking this opportunity, we look forward welcoming you all in September. 

 As we all know, in the first meeting of MAG in Geneva, very fruitful discussions took.  Place under the leadership of Mr. Janis Karklins and seven subthemes were proposed drawing the framework for the issues to be handled in IGF. 

 Following this meeting many good proposals were received for overarching theme and we appreciate that. 

 "Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance" was chosen as the proposed overarching theme for IGF 2014. 

 Having this chance, I would like to express our great appreciation and thanks to all MAG team and Chair Mr. Janis Karklins for the excellent work done over the issue. 

 Regarding workshop proposals, we have seen that many workshop proposals were received related to the subthemes and I am very confident that this meeting, will elaborate all the workshop proposals in detail and fruitful results will be achieved in determining the overall agenda and schedule for the IGF 2014. Providing excellent platform for dialogue between all stakeholders for Internet-related issues, IGF 2014 will handle the internet governance keeping the basic principles of transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness of all relevant stakeholders. 

 Internet governance issues are closely linked to the evolution of information and communication technologies. Today, in reaching the information society, internet is the ultimate tool having great potential to access people all around the world. Therefore, open, inclusive, safe and enabling environment are critical issues for internet where all need to pay close attention. 

 For sustainable, robust, secure and stable internet, necessary policies needs to be developed in national level. Best practices and information exchange to make use of every peace of information will help in creating national policies for further development and widespread use of internet. Knowledge sharing through platforms where people from academia, scientific, governmental and non-governmental institutions are important gathering.

 As is known, capacity building for internet issues in developing countries are critical for development of internet. 

 For developing countries, there is the need for skilled personnel, creation of local content, knowledge and expertise internet issues. Therefore, IGF is very important platform where this kind of issues to be discussed in wide range of expertise. 

 I believe that today and tomorrow we will have fruitful discussions for shaping the agenda of the IGF 2014 in addressing the important issues for further developments in good governance of internet. 

 I am very pleased to be here in this community and look forward to hearing discussions and proposals for successful IGF 2014. 

 Expressing once again the great pleasure of hosting IGF 2014 in Turkey, I trust that this meeting will be a successful one in achieving its planned purposes which forms basis for successful outcomes of IGF 2014.  Thank you very much.

 And at that point, I want to introduce my colleague, Ms. Kandemir is going to make the presentation that we have done up to the moment regarding IGF '14.  Yes, Ms. Kandemir, please.

 >>AYSEL KANDEMIR: Thank you very much.  My name is Aysel Kandemir.  I am the chief ICT expert working for regulatory authority of Turkey.

 This is the agenda of my presentation.  I will give you a quick overview what has been talked in the previous meeting regarding the preparations for this MAG meeting, I'm talking about.  And then the optic on the organizational issues.  There will be information on host country agreement status, documents, IGF logo, host country Web sites, day zero events, IGF coordination, and technical service in IGF.

 As you know, the IGF will be conducted through September 2014.  The venue will be the ICEC.   The host is the ICTA.  And the zero day will be conducted on 1st of September in a high-level event.  

 Host of IGF 2014 Istanbul.  It is the biggest city in terms of population, trade, finance, and cultural activities.  Population of Istanbul is over 14 million right now.  (indiscernible) -- sometimes by train. 

 There are two airports.  One is Ataturk, and the other is the Sabiha Gokcen airport.  

 Regarding the venue for the ICT, I have only provided the details presented in the previous MAG meeting.  You can reach through the IGF Web site.  It is located in the region called Harbiye  It hosts already many various events, conferences, fairs, concerts, and exhibitions.  You can reach the visa information through the Web site I have provided in this slide.  

 Regarding the airport transfer, there are various ways to reach there.

 By taxi it's about 10-15 Euros.  Takes 25 minutes.  (Indiscernible.)  Also there's a bus, shuttle bus.  Havatas is the firm name.  It's about 5 Euro.  Takes 40 minutes from airport to center.  And also Metro line from airport to the center.  It's about 4 Euro.  And The main line is M1A.  You can take this line to the airport -- from airport to the center.  

 Regarding the accommodation, ICEC is in walking distance to many hotels.  You will not need any transportation means from the hotel to be the closest venue.  Hotel is with preferential rates will be provided for IGF participants.  Posted to the country Web site soon.  We are developing a host country Web site.  

 Regarding the visa information, we have already signed a letter for minister of foreign affairs informing the visa assistance for IGF participants.  Minister of foreign affairs has really informed Turkish consulate around the world about IGF assistance for visa.  Visa information and guidance will be posted in the host country Web site through the link.  

 Regarding the update on preparations, second planning meeting is conducted from 17 to 18 March of 2014.  In this meeting room, all locations, technical processes, and other organizational arrangements were discussed.  The process for host country agreements are ongoing and will be finalized soon.

 Regarding the preparations on tender document, tender documents for organizations are already finalized and the organizational form will be determined soon after the standard.  

 Standard procedure there's a separate procedure for host country Web sites with the urgency of the matter.  Web site will be developed shortly as this can be reached right now but will be developed further.  There are studies on the logo alternatives.  Indeed, we have prepared several logos.  But these are the most likely ones I can show you in the bigger picture.  Yes.  These are.  The first and second one.  Those two.  This is the first one.  This is the second one.  The first one I liked also.  The first -- some of them like the second one but the first -- my favorite.  The first one?  Yeah.  Okay.

 Regarding the coordination meeting, we have conducted organizational coordination meeting.  It is conducted in April 2014.  There are really governmental institutions.  The idea is to allocate jobs for proper organization of IGF without any problems.  In the meeting there was the representative ministry of foreign affairs; minister of transport, maritime affairs and communications; minister of interior, minister of health, minister of custom and trade, minister of tourism and culture; directorate general of press and informations, PTT, Turkish Airlines.  

 Roles and responsibilities are defined in that action plan are prepared for proper conduction of IGF meeting.  Second coordination meeting is planned in Istanbul in June at the conference venue to see the actual place and organize the action plan.

 Regarding the coordination for IGF and day zero, we have conducted consultations in April through the ICTA Web site before taking the views of the main scheme and project for day zero.  We request various proposed RFCs for day zero events and also for the panel.  In addition to this, we have conducted national coordination meetings with the relevant stakeholders.  There are various participants from operators and service providers, NGOs, universities, et cetera.  This was a very fruitful meeting with the relevant parties regarding the IGF.  Our purpose was the participation of national IGF people in Turkey to the meeting to be conducted in Istanbul.

 We will plan to have second national coordination meeting in Istanbul in June mostly.  For day zero, there are proposals for the main panel.  We are on the page of drafting of the program which will be finalized very soon.  

 About the (indiscernible) servicing in IGF, these are just some of the service in IGF.  We have drafted and finalized terms of reference for having host country agreement every month.  Host country agreement has (saying name) which includes technical services provided by host country and also regarding the other organizational matters.  There will be Internet services in conference center.  We will try to have smooth Internet services without any kind of blip.  There will be Internet cafeí.  And also the meetings will be -- the meeting conducted in IGF will be Webcasted.  Therefore, we are working on (indiscernible)  Also at the same time scribing services and remote participation will be in our meeting.  So we are working on technical details of this and also national TV.  Turkish radio and television will be our national broadcasting company who broadcasts these live events like opening ceremony and press conferences.  

 There will be also post office and banking facilities.  Indeed, the venue is very close to many places.  Post office is also very close.  Banking services and banking machines are very close.  You can reach various banking services nearby.  But there will be in the conference venue also.  

 Also we are planning to have printing facilities for delegations.  Therefore, they can use this in the venue.  There will be tourism agents for tours, et cetera.  And also you can conduct your hotel accommodation through the tourism agency at the event.  Coffee breaks will be provided by host country.  You will love our snacks from baklava to pastry, you know this.

 We'll be having in the morning time and afternoon time.  So you'll enjoy our food.

 And also there will be gala dinner at the event.  It will be in the opening -- after the opening time in the first day of IGF.  Probably the place will be conference venue.  Maybe in other places depending on the firm.  They will provide us some proposals on this.  We will prepare booklets with all the information regarding the logistical details, including the IGF program.  This booklet will be included in the delegate specs.  So you will get it through the registration.  Therefore, maps, et cetera, will be in the booklet.  You will see all the details regarding your stay in Istanbul.  And also there will be welcome desk at the airport to get information on the conference and your way to Istanbul.  Therefore, they will be ready for helping you.

 Regarding the services for medical services, it will be provided in ICEC venue.  They will be ready for everything.  So there will be an ambulance.  And, if needed, transportation to the hospital will be provided in the conference venue.  I remember during the conference conducted in the year 2000, there was a delegate who had a bypass during the meeting.  Hopefully, not to have any surgery during the meeting, but all ready for these kind of emergency cases.  This is the end of my presentation, just a quick presentation.  If you have any questions, I'm here.  Thank you.

 [ Applause. ]

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much for the presentation.  

 Just one remark.  Knowing that Istanbul has very long and rich history, please make sure that those tours to those historic places are organized on Saturday after the meeting.  Otherwise all the delegates will be visiting first, I think.

 So now would be a time for the questions to our host related to the presentation.  So this would be what -- I have a few requests for the floor.  And I will start with Subi, then Hartmut.

 >> SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  As always, gracious host, an excellent presentation.  Just two specific questions.  (indiscernible) -- every single time.

 The idea of the Secretariat, it worked beautifully in Bali when they did organize the local technical as well as civil society group.  So, if you could tell us a little bit more about the Secretariat from the host country perspective.  

 And there is deep interest from governments as well as civil society academia in the high-level meeting.  You did mention certain themes have been tabled.  If you could give us a more detailed idea of what those things are and how open those meetings are going to be.  Thank you.  

 Just an additional point about visas.  A lot of us are hoping that they could be extended as courtesy visas or participants could be reimbursed visa fees, if that is a possibility.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Maybe with a couple of questions but not too many at the time, and then we'll go around.  

 Hartmut, please.

  >>HARTMUT GLASER:  I am from Brazil.  I organized some meetings in the past.  And my concern is not specifically -- my concern is not only my private concern, but I receive a lot of questions from Brazil, because our country sometimes is not so stable, about security.  Can you please explain us how we need to be prepared to be in Istanbul?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Dr. Ahmet, maybe you can answer those questions, and then we'll take the next one.

 >>AHMET CAVUSOGLU:  Thank you very much, Janis.  First of all, I want to say about rich history of Istanbul.  Actually, yes, as Mr. Chairman said, Istanbul has a very rich history and historic monuments and site visits.  We have also many museums.  Some of those historic sites are museums anyway.

 And all of them are open on Saturday and Sunday.  But only all the museums in Turkey are closed only on Mondays.  So all the museums and all the history sites will be open during the weekend.  At the weekend.  On Mondays only museums are closed in Turkey. 

 Now, the question -- first question let me begin with the last one.  Security issue.   You know, Istanbul is -- actually, Istanbul security not a problematic city like some cities in the world.  Unfortunately, we have some cities in the world, but they are not so secure and to go out of the hotel is not so much something to plan on.  Istanbul is not such a city.  Istanbul receives so many tourists.  Turkey actually receives 5 million tourists each year.  Most of those tourists come to Mediterranean side and most -- Istanbul is the biggest.  We receive so many tourists.  So the security is not a big problem in Istanbul.  All the time, the day time and the nighttime, it's possible to enjoy Istanbul.  But, of course, as in many cities also in Paris, there are -- that may happen.  Some unwanted or unexpected issues or events.  But we have taken all the precautions for that event.  And we have already informed the minister of interior affairs and to the police, we'll have all the security precautions for -- during the event.  But, anyway, you can be safe in Istanbul.  Because I think in this room, many of the people want to visit Istanbul. And Istanbul has not a big security problem.  It has not a security problem, not big, but not a security problem.  But, as I told before, we receive so many foreigners also and so many tourists.  And we may have many some minor and small unexpected events.  But the police will be aware of that fact and will try to, during the -- actually, during the conference, the police will be ready for all those issues.

 But, after the conference, in the day time or nighttime, you can enjoy Istanbul as you can.

 The other questions, the visa fees,  we have already consulted with the ministry of foreign affairs about the visas and fees.  They're going to facilitate the visa issue.  We have made a meeting with the minister of foreign affairs.  They are going to facilitate the visa issue.  

 But for the fees, they said that there are some other -- it's a very complex issue. Because on some issues, due to the diplomatic ways, the reciprocity involves due to some ways minister of (indiscernible)  So they didn't promise us to exempt all the fees.  But they are going to facilitate all the visas, visa issues during the conference.  And they want to inform all the diplomatic missions of Turkey.  I think Turkey has mission in 165 countries in the world.  Turkey has a diplomatic mission, either an ambassador or a consulate.  And in some countries we have more than one diplomatic missions.  For example, in India we have two.  As I know in New Delhi we have ambassador.  In Mumbai I think we have a consulate.  I don't know if we have opened any other.  But that is my knowledge is in Mumbai and New Delhi.  But in many countries we have more than one and at least one diplomatic mission.  And, in some countries -- of course, we do not have.  On some island states or some places we have not.  But we have created all the nearby consulate or embassies for that country.  So visa will not be an issue for that conference because the minister of foreign affairs will inform all the missions.  For the high-level event.  High-level meeting for the time being we have not just decided the shape of that meeting.  We have -- of course, we have so (indiscernible) we are discussing about it. Not just the site, but we have made some consultations and some meetings regarding that high-level meeting.  And I think we are still going to decide how to handle it.  But the main thing is having a half-day event beginning in the afternoon.  Because, you know, in the morning, we're going to receive some ministers in the high-level event and the agendas of the ministers.  So it will be -- Istanbul is easy to transport in the morning.  Maybe some of them are going to come in the morning and attend the meeting just afternoon.  Maybe leave the day after, of course.  So probably, most probably, not just decided simply yet.  But most probably it will be a half-day event beginning in the afternoon.  Just afternoon.  And, of course, in the nighttime we're going to have a gala dinner, of course, together with participants of the high-level event.  And we're going to be plenty invite ministers and chairmans or presidents of (indiscernible)  As much as we can.  And also we're going to receive, I think, some high-level people of some NGOs and some society institutions.  At the time we are just drafting.  And my team, I have a very good team at home in Ankara, and we are working on those issues.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.  Just to add, the U.N. security assessment of Istanbul is level two, low.  So there's no security threats in Istanbul according to U.N. scale.

 Izumi.

 >> IZUMI OKUTANI:  Izumi Okutani.  My questions are probably more simple and more on the practical side.  I have two questions.  One is when would be the time of the host site Web site being ready?  Would it be maybe around mid-June.  If we could get a rough idea, it's helpful to disseminate this information to the countries involved.  

 Secondly, if we, as MAG members, happen to receive feedback on the host country Web site, if we want this information, this is not available, something like that, where would be the best way we can give feedback?  Would it be the MAG mailing list, or do you have a preferred contact to give feedback?  So these two are my questions.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Then gentleman in the back?  If you would introduce yourself.

 >> Good morning.  This is Ayman from the United Nations ESCWA.  It's just a very simple question.  I noticed that the host country agreement is still ongoing, something like that.  I couldn't grasp if the host country is still ongoing nationally, on the national level, or with the IGF globally, just to see exactly where we stand in terms of agreements and commitments both ways.  Thanks.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  

 And then there is one question from remote participant.

 >> Yes.  Thank you.  We have a question about visa.  I will not speak again.  It would be possible to get visas on arrival for those who need it?  So visa on arrival.  Would it be possible or not from Avri Doria.  On arrival.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Dr. Ahmet, if you would answer that question.

 >>AHMET CAVUSOGLU:  Thank you very much.  I'm going to answer the questions one by one.  

 First of all, host country Web site, at the moment we are -- we have already had an interim web page.  We have already introduced it.  At the end of June, I think, the Web site will be operating.  Because, as she has already introduced you the logo, after the logo is going to be decided on -- at the moment she showed you two of the logo candidate logos, but we have so many.  At the moment we eliminated them.  And now we have two.  I think one of them is going to be chosen.  And after that visa -- not visa.  Sorry -- logo has been chosen, then we're going to initiate the web page.  And also we are working on -- I think at end of June, it will be operating.  And it's going to be on us, of course, through the MAG -- you know, there's a MAG mail list.  We're going to announce it through the mail.  And we're going to inform the chairman, of course.  And that will be operating at the end of June.

 For the host country issue, it has two sites.  One is U.N., and the other side is Turkey.  We have made the consultations with U.N. site.  And we received the last iteration of the host country agreement.  And we have some automatic procedures as all other countries.  We have some automatic procedures to initiate or conclude the host country agreement.  We have initiated those procedures.  And we sent it to the minister of foreign affairs.  And we received their comments.  And they have some minor comments, some editorial comments on the text.  And we immediately send it to U.N. And then I think they have already accepted those minor changes.  And we are on the way to initiate it.  And now minister of foreign affairs is going to send it to ministry (saying name)  And, due to our constitution or -- and due to our law, it's going to be our position to sign that treaty.  It's going to be given by the ministry.  The person who is going to sign has already been defined.  It's Mr. (saying name), the chairman of the board and the (indiscernible) of authority.  And I think we're expecting those procedures soon to be concluded and soon to be signed.  I think it will take -- of course it's going to take time, due to the (indiscernible), but we're hoping that it's soon going to be concluded.

 Are there other questions? 

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>AHMED CAVUSOGLU: The on-arrival visa?  We have already concluded -- we have already consulted the issue, as I told before, with the minister of foreign affairs.

 On-arrival visa is sometimes possible but sometimes not, as they said, but we're going to announce all the visa issues, but regarding all the requirements and all the visa issues, as far as we have received the information now that the minister of foreign affairs is going to facilitate all of the visa requirements for that conference.  

 On-arrival visa, they're working on it, and I think it will not be possible for all countries because there are some diplomatic rules, you know.  Reciprocity is one of them.  And they're working on it, and soon they're going to have another meeting with the minister of foreign affairs and we're going to soon learn if on-arrival visa is possible for some countries or not, but there is an eVisa implementation in Turkey and it is announced by our interim web page. 

 eVisa is an easy way to have the visa by not going to the consulates or embassies, but of course it has some conditions.

 If -- once the conditions are complied, then it is a very easy way to obtain a Turkish visa, and there are -- we are soon going to get more fresh information from the minister of foreign affairs.  

 We have already -- as I told you before, we have already consulted all the issues and they are working on it and if possible they are going to give on-arrival visa or exemption of visa fee.  I talk to Subi a few minutes ago.  It's a tough issue but they are still working on it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Dr. Ahmed, for those answers.

 All I can say, I can encourage all those who plan to go to IGF in Istanbul to look at the interim Web site and to read all information contained there concerning visa and make all necessary sort of precautions and apply for visa as needed as soon as it is feasible, because usually it alleviates stress at the end when you apply for a visa at the last minute and so on.

 So it's better to have it done well in advance and go to the -- go to Istanbul with a sort of -- without any stress in that respect.

 So I see that there is a question over there, and then hearing Brazil, please.

 >>BRAZIL: Good morning.  

 So first of all, I'd like to thank you for your presentation.  It was very complete.  I am also from the Brazil delegation, so I have two very specific questions. 

 First of all is, regarding the size of the delegations is there a limit?  Do you have already decided there is a limit for official delegations?  

 And the other question is regarding deadline?  Has there been already decided a deadline for registration?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I think that is a question more to the secretariat, and I will ask Chengetai to answer that question.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you for the question.

 There is no limit to the size of the delegations, and registration will start three months before the event.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And will end?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Two weeks before.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So Brazil?

 >>BRAZIL:  So my name is Marilia Maciel.  I'm from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  My question is about the day zero.  Actors sometimes organize a pre-event before the IGF and I understand that the high-level meeting will take place on the day zero.

 I wonder if there will be facilities, and so different meetings could take place in parallel, and what would be the procedure to apply and for you to have a space to have a pre-meeting.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So maybe again that is more a question for the secretariat.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry.  To apply for a meeting on day zero, you just send an email to the secretariat.  

 We usually reserve day zero for, you know, like GigaNet meetings, academic meetings that take longer.  I mean, they're not part of the official agenda.

 Day zero, we usually also use as a testing day, so we do not guarantee that everything is going to be working well, but everything should be up and running and we use it as a testing day.  But the facilities should be there.  Yes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  A question from remote participant?

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  First we have a follow-up question from Avri Doria about the visa issue.  

 Thanks for the answer on visa on arrival.  Interesting that reciprocity rules are being applied to visa.  

 Does the host country agreement allow for this?  

 And we have another comment from Deidre Williams.

 I may have missed hearing it, but I would like to be certain that the needs of people with disabilities will be addressed.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So Dr. Ahmed?

 >>AHMED CAVUSOGLU:  Thank you very much.  

 As I told you before, the minister of foreign affairs is going to facilitate all the visa issues, and the reciprocity -- I mentioned reciprocity for the on-arrival visas.  Otherwise, the visa issues, of course the minister of foreign affairs has some rules and they are going to comply with those rules to visas, but they're going to facilitate it as much as they can.  And also they are working on the on-arrival visas.

 For disabilities, you know, I don't know if the minister of foreign affairs has some specific rules for disabilities to issue a visa, but as I know, to my knowledge, people with disabilities are at equal level with the other people to obtain a visa.  But for visa rules, maybe -- I don't know if they have some specific rules for disabled people but I have taken note and I am going to consult with the minister of foreign affairs if they have some specific rules for disabled peoples -- people for issuing visa.

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>AHMED CAVUSOGLU: Ah.  I see, I see.  Because since I -- since it was just after the minister of foreign affairs on visa issues, I thought that it's another visa issue, but for the disabled people, of course we have some implementations in the conference center and also Istanbul, we have already conducted with Istanbul municipality and we have received very good resolutions that at the moment Istanbul is a very disabled-friendly city.  It's going to -- it's being a very friendly -- a very disabled-friendly city.  

 And in the conference center, we have some facilities for disabled people.  Elevators and some disabled -- for some other facilities for disabled people.

 We have already consulted with the venue, with the management of the venue, and we received very good consensus and we are going to make -- they have already done -- they have already done some good issues for disabled people and disabled people will be more privileged in that conference center.

 Also in the city of Istanbul, especially in that area, since that area receives many tourists and many people, they have already -- the minister of Istanbul has already implemented some facilities for disabled people.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that Chengetai wants to add something on visa issues and then I will take two further questions and I will thank Dr. Ahmed afterwards.

 We need to move on with our agenda.

 Chengetai, please.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  I just wanted to add about the people with disabilities:  The IGF secretariat is also in close collaboration with the dynamic coalition on people with disabilities and we've integrated a lot of their recommend- -- well, all their recommendations, actually, into our host country agreements, the annexes, and we've had good talks with our host country site and everything is implemented, as far as I can see.

 Also, when people register, they should also expect for them to indicate if they have any special needs, so that we are forewarned.

 And the final thing is, on the list of hotels, there are -- we've also made certain that amongst the hotels, there are rooms for people with disabilities as well.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I will take then final questions and Virat, you are first on my list.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Good morning, everyone.  

 My first question on disabilities is answered, so I'll skip that.

 The second one is on the availability of the large rooms for the main session.  I was going to check if -- we're trying to do some innovative formats for meetings.  

 Are these all fixed seating or is it possible to move the chairs around in the largest rooms for main sessions to have perhaps a roundtable structure which we haven't tried in the past but we hope to, if the structure permits.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Maybe Chengetai can answer that.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry.  For the workshops, there was a question there which says, "What type of workshop is it?  Is it panel?  Is it roundtable?"  Et cetera.  So when we're assigning the rooms, we are -- I think half the rooms are -- I may be corrected but I think half the rooms are a hollow square and there are different types of configurations, so we will try and match the room with the workshop type or with the session type.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Sorry.  My question --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, for the main session.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  The main session is configurable.  We've learned from the last time that you prefer the hollow square, so we've made arrangements for that.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Anriette?  Anriette, please.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry, Janis.  I didn't hear you.

 Thanks for asking that question, Virat.  

 Just one more question for the host country.

 Will Turkish participants be able to register freely and participate freely in the IGF?  Particularly those from civil society.

 And I'm asking particularly because there have been this -- congratulations, by the way, with the unblocking of the social networking sites, but just in case there's any tension or uncertainty about participation of some of the Turkish groups that have been protesting against Internet censorship, how are we handling that?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I think that's more a question to the secretariat.  

 Chengetai?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.

 The secretariat is in charge of the registrations, so we're the ones who approve the registrations, and I don't think there's any problem whatsoever.

 So -- and that is understood.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And the last question comes from UNECA.

 >>UNECA: Good morning, everyone.  Thank you, Chair.  Thank you, honorary chair.  

 I have a suggestion to ease the visa issues that the letter of invitation be sent as soon as possible so that we can start processing their visa.  If you wait for the last minute, then there will be a lot of problems.  And in the invitation letter, also as day zero is usually part of the official event, if people want to travel, participate in the event in day zero, I think we should find ways in adding in the letter that there is a possibility that day zero has events to organize.  Thank you.

 >>AHMED CAVUSOGLU:  Thank you very much.  We have taken that note also, and let me announce to you we are soon going to send all the invitation letters.  I think it will be on -- by the end of June, I think.  We're going to send all the invitation letters as we make the other preparations.

 The invitations to all ministers and to all regulatory authorities all over the world.  And we will also mention the day zero also in our invitation letters, of course.  

 And for the visa issue, of course for relevant other issues, we have already informed minister of foreign affairs also for the day zero, of course.  We have informed that -- informed them that the event is going to begin on 1st of September.  So all the visas will be issued the visa, the minister of foreign affairs is going to consider the first day as 1st of September.  And of course they are going to consider some time frame for travel and others, so they will give the visas on that basis.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The last -- the last -- really last question is from Paul Wilson.

 >>PAUL WILSON:  Thank you very much, Janis, and congratulations again.  Thank you.

 A question about the day zero high-level meeting.

 In Bali last year, the high-level meeting was structured as a multistakeholder high-level meeting and it had representatives from all of the different stakeholder groups given the opportunity to speak, so I'm wondering if you are planning to follow that model, which I think was very well appreciated and highly successful in the context of an IGF.  Thank you.

 >>AHMED CAVUSOGLU:  Thank you very much.  I have already taken note of that issue also.  Since we are on the progress of preparing this event, we are going to consider all those facts.  Actually, we have -- we received so many views and we are working on it, as I told you before.  We have a very good team in Ankara working on all those IGF and IGF preparations and also including day zero.

 >>PAUL WILSON:  Yeah.  You mentioned -- I'm sorry.  You mentioned a multistakeholder preparatory process which was very good to hear but I was asking specifically about access and opportunity to speak at the meeting as well.  Thanks.

 >>AHMED CAVUSOGLU:  Okay.  We have taken note and we're going to consider that proposal also.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much, Dr. Ahmed, for your presentation and for your introductory remarks.

 So we see that preparations are on good track.  We look forward to -- to the meeting itself.  I think the -- there will be a number of issues on the way.  All those will be addressed as soon as they will appear, so in a very constructive manner, and that's normal because it's a huge meeting.  We expect a thousand-plus participants in Istanbul.  So thank you very much for all your hard work, and we now move on to the next agenda item.

 In the Geneva consultations, we agreed -- or we discussed, rather, the general outline of the Istanbul meeting, and we took into consideration during that discussion the feedback from the Bali meeting, which was that we need maybe to consider diminishing number of workshops in order to increase the possibility for participants to attend those workshops that they would like to attend, and many participants said that there were too many competing events.  Therefore, they suggested to cut down the number of workshops.

 Equally, we discussed and said that in May we should finalize our thinking and make decisions on the structure of the main sessions, and again I remind you that we discussed that maybe not all main session subjects should be taken -- or -- yeah, should be discussed in the main room, but we could move those discussions in the smaller rooms and make sure that there are no sort of very many competing events.

 Finally, we also discussed that IGF should be better linked with other ongoing processes and events in Internet governance, and here, of course, the big question that we need to discuss today is whether and how we will bring NETmundial outcomes to the IGF.

 Secondly, whether and how we will inform IGF participants with outcomes of different events and processes like WSIS+10 review, like Commission on Science and Technology for Development, working group on enhanced cooperation, results on CSTD itself resolution -- we know that CSTD concluded its work last week in Geneva -- and many other sort of events and processes.

 So therefore, we -- we would need to engage now in maybe a bit of conceptual discussion here how IGF will bring those issues and to what extent we should bring those issues in IGF agenda and how we need to address them.

 All that, we need to discuss also bearing in mind the recommendations of the CSTD working group on improvements of IGF where the first recommendation is to consider more tangible outputs from the IGF.

 So -- and you know that NETmundial ended with a consensual statement.  

 And the question which I would like to put in front of you is whether we would need to think about similar type of consensual output as a result of discussions of any of the items at the IGF.

 So here to give a little bit of perspective and remind ourselves of the history of IGF, IGF was created as a forum, town hall meeting, where to discuss policy issues related to Internet governance, public policy issues, technical policy issues, what -- all issues related to Internet governance.

 This was not created as a decision-making body, as such, and we see that there is a free-floating exchange of ideas, exchange of information.  There is a possibility of capacity-building, of training, and so on.

 So do we need to consider introducing this element of consensus building, and to what extent we need to introduce that element of consensus building.

 So all these issues I would like to put on the table and to have about maybe 45 minutes, one hour exchange, to see whether our thinking converges to any of those questions.

 So -- and I see Jivan is the first looking for the floor.

 >>LJUPCO JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  Just a note.  Thank you, Janis.  And I agree with what you said.

 Just to expand a bit more on the background of why IGF at that moment, when it was created, wasn't a decision-making body or why some of the borders were put around it.

 It was because we couldn't -- or that the community at that time, the world, couldn't come to an agreement to make it a more courageous place, and a stronger and more authoritative body to deal with Internet governance issues.  

 The WSIS 1 was going on, WSIS 2 was going on.  We needed to make decisions.  

 So I mean, at that time it wasn't possible, but I think that things have changed and we shouldn't shy away from the opportunity at this moment to be a little bit braver in how we think about the IGF and the Internet governance issue in general.

 Thanks.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  

 I think it's an important time and an opportunity for the IGF to step back, and while a lot of us come from different stakeholder groups and approach these issues with red lines, I do believe that NETmundial and since we're also looking at responding to the larger IGF and Internet governance ecosystem, though there's a clear mandate that this UNDESA gives to us and the kinds of steps that we're talking about taking, they're all positive steps.  They're -- there's immense value that the IGF holds at the moment when we come to a place where it's not binding, where recommendations are not made, where people come and speak with each other and governments engage with civil society and they listen.

 And that itself is an immense amount of contribution.

 But we're also looking at a time where it is a time of reevaluation and it is also a time where things have been broken so we do need to address open issues.

 When we look at NETmundial, it was taking things beyond the session from Bali, which looked at role of governments.  It was e-government engaging with multistakeholder processes, about 188 submissions, about 46 countries, about 1,300 -- (no audio) -- stage and this is the day and the time where we can actually take those issues and engage with them in a manner where people don't get uncomfortable, where people don't go back into their shelf, but not every issue, not surveillance, not -- not copyright, and not permissionless innovation, and some of these we didn't think -- I mean, surveillance, certainly, but not permissionless innovations, we didn't think they were going to be the most controversial issues.  But they're important issues and people want places where they can come to for answers.  

 But having said that, we also need to take this as a step-by-step process.  I mean, if the secretariat is ready?  Do we have enough infrastructure?  -- (no audio) -- to get developing countries in.

 I mean, these are some of the issues that concern me, and they worry me, and there's a lot of learning that we can have from NETmundial but we also need to think what is it that IGF represents today and I -- I agree with Jivan that we can take that leap of faith and we're as ready as we will ever be.  But there are systems and processes also that need to be put in place.  So those are my two cents.

 Thank you, Janis, for the time.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I am one of the business MAG members.  

 I would like to open my comments by saying that I want to hope that we will not make predeterminations at this point on a set number of workshops, open forums, or special sessions but will, first of all, prioritize creating the absolutely best program possible.  

 The second point that I would make is, I believe our lodestone for improvements and enhancements to the IGF must be the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF, and that that must be a focus.

 It does provide guidance on strengthening and methodology -- some ideas on how to strengthen the IGF, but it does not go so far as to assume that it is possible to do negotiated outcomes.  

 And that group worked for two years and was a multistakeholder group, so I hope that we will, first of all, prioritize implementing the guidance in that group.

 I think we can make substantial improvements to outputs, to reports, to findings in workshops, but to move to negotiated documents completely changes the nature of the MAG and the nature of the IGF and does require significant infrastructure changes in terms of human resources and commitments.

 Talking about that is, to me, what we can do in the Istanbul IGF, but we should also prioritize as much as possible the kinds of improvements that can be done and can be accomplished.  

 And by that, I mean the best practice forums which may themselves generate identifiable examples of best practices that can be published, not in an approved sort of way but in a documented sort of way, and that would be where I would like very much for us to prioritize.

 I just came from the CSTD and two weeks before that -- a week before that the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation.  I think it is going to be important to reflect not just NETmundial, which I was privileged to participate in, but also, as you stated, Chair, the other events and the implication that these other events that are influencing thinking and decisions on Internet governance into the IGF, so that the IGF community can thoughtfully consider them.

 Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: European Commission.

  >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  The adoption by acclamation of the multistakeholder agreement of Sao Paulo was a significant achievement.  The conference was a first of its kind using a multistakeholder model to reach a negotiated outcome.  As such, even if the process had a number of shortcomings, the very fact that the conference was able to produce a document reflecting a rough consensus is already a success.  And so, even though more concreteness would have been -- could have been achieved in terms of how and when to implement the commitments taken in NETmundial, we have, indeed, agreed on a number of significant milestones and timelines.  Among these, as you all know, there was a clear call to strengthen the IGF and to implement the recommendations of the CSTD working group on IGF improvements by 2015.  

 So, with this these short-term horizon in mind, in order to be successful, we need to already start advancing during this year's IGF.  We should use the momentum generated in NETmundial to make sure the IGF will evolve and occupy a central stage in Internet governance discussions.  We consider that one of the priorities is to focus the work of the MAG on the work of tangible outcomes.  While we need to preserve IGF's unique feature as a truly open platform for discussion among players with very different ideas, the IGF should, at the same time, have a stronger impact through outcome documents, possibly based on the notion of rough consensus and open for voluntary endorsement.  

 So the European Commission welcomes the ongoing efforts within this group to do just that.  We hope that in Istanbul we will be able to collectively produce a number of relevant documents which will help bringing the discussions forward towards point of convergence.  Moreover, many of the practices used in the runup and during NETmundial have been acknowledged by many as good practices, which could be used by the IGF as well.  

 The reinforcement of the link between national, regional, and global IGF is another area of further improvements and where the work of the MAG is really crucial.  And, finally, NETmundial also identified a number of topics to be further discussed in appropriate fora with the IGF certainly being one of them.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I will take now intervention from ESCWA and then remote participant.

 >>ESCWA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  This is Ayman again from United Nations ESCWA.  Actually, I see that questions from the chair this morning is very challenging.  Because I'm now in nine years after the inception of the IGF and one year before the WSIS Tunis agenda where it was conceived, I think it is ambitious and challenging, but it is worth serious consideration.  I think it considers such a new leapfrogging, but actually seeing the big picture of what's going on in the world and other processes right now plus our capacity plus our mandate plus many other things.  So, I mean, the NETmundial has been a very good exercise, as we have heard.  And we have witnessed and participated in the creating and negotiated document.  So my first reflection is not all issues have been crystallized in this most recent exercise in NETmundial.  Yet, it was a good exercise.  Back again to the IGF, it has tons of issues very commemorated and very much mixed together.  So the first reflection is that we can start moving one step ahead incrementally from non-negotiation, no output, to maybe some output in some areas.  But we cannot do it all for all in one shot.  So this is the first thing.  Like thematic or let us say selective issues where we can start exercising this incremental move.  This is on the scope level.

 The other thing related to the mandate level, we have, as Marilyn has said, very convincing and very wise, we have to look at the big picture regarding the mandate chain.  We have a working group on enhancing the enhanced cooperation, the working group and improvement and IGF both feeding into the CSTD,  the CSTD feeding into the ECOSOC, ECOSOC feeding to the G8, which is my core business.  So the Tunis agenda which emerged 10 years ago had the strength and still has the resilience 10 years after the fact because of going through such very rigorous mandate, legislative mandate.

 So, if we want to move and improve, as we say, we have to respect that there is a process going and make use of it.  So I would suggest, if the chair allows, that any of the gentlemen or gentleladies who attended last week to give, like, five minutes brief on status of working group and improvement of IGF.  Maybe it has already finished this year.  Maybe we take a small mandate for 2016, 2017.  So time-wise, I see that from today until 2015, there is not so much we can do except for strategizing and thinking seriously.  But, after the first, the first two files of the IGF maybe by 2016 we can have two years rigorous move toward decision making, negotiating in selective areas.  And, through this kind of evolution roadmap, we might really utilize all processes.  We have a dialogue among the processes -- the NETmundial, the IGF, the EC, and all things.  But, realistically speaking, we cannot do anything in the next 12 months, given that the hype around us in the world is the NTIA stewardship transition, which is taking all of the energy and the focus.  There are other issues that need also attention.  

 So I suggest very much, Chair, to think of a time frame which is 2016-2017, what can we do then?  Prepare for it for the next G8 in 2015 and do the work during the next 11-12 months.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Time is running.  And maybe we should speak only in nutshell.  Not everything before that.  Just really straight to the point.

 I would like to say that there are outputs from any IGF meeting.  And those outputs are the following:  Chairman statement, the chairman's report, which is prepared and published.

 That is the narrative report prepared by the host country that is compilation of all transcripts, which is compiled usually in a book which comes out after each IGF.  That is the proceedings of IGF.  So these are tangible outputs after every IGF so far.  As well on IGF YouTube site, there are video recordings of sessions.  And then each organizer of the session is asked to provide a report on the session.  And all those reports are compiled in that book, in the proceedings of the session.

 So these are tangible outputs.  All of them will be present in Istanbul.  

 On top of it, we're talking about two additional outputs.  One is compilation of best practices as a result of best practice forums, and we will discuss what topics those will be.  We will try to identify maybe three of them.  And, if you'll recall, I made the request for information on what actions and decisions have been made elsewhere as a result of discussions in IGF.  So secretariat will compile this information.  And the deadline for submission, I remind, was 30 of June.  And we'll present that compilation at the beginning of Istanbul meeting.  And it will remain as an output of the IGF this year.

 So we're talking about, actually, wealth of material after IGF, after every IGF.  The bigger question is do we need to engage in any kind of consensus building and recommendation development at the IGF?  So that is the bigger question.

 So I have ICC BASIS next speaker.  I have many speakers, actually.  Please be aware that we need to be brief.

 >>ICC BASIS:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Just a few brief comments for the purposes of improvements of the IGF.  We think we should emphasize the importance of the IGF as a form for multistakeholder policy dialogue while recognizing that the IGF original mandate was not intended to produce policy positions or principles on Internet issues, but rather to discuss public policy issues on key elements of Internet governance to foster the sustainability, the robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet.  As an open forum designed for change of ideas, the IGF is more free flowing than other fora and is designed -- is more free flowing than other fora.  While the IGF remains a fora that generates input to other fora, not outcomes such as discussions, lessons, and capacity building, it should be more portable in order to enable other fora, organizations, or national governments to build on them.  In the context of such a limited mandate environment, non-binding recommendations like the development and dissemination of best practices may be appropriate to make the lessons learned on some topics more portable.  Each policy issue or topic will have its own needs, its own context and level of maturity which will help address what approach would be most useful.  Some less mature or more controversial topics may be subjects of conversation where the breadth of views may be important to inform the discussions of the topic in other fora.  Whereas, others may progress in IGFs and become capacity building exercises or the base for developing useful practice approaches.  

 In terms of prioritization, we should start with those concepts that have the broadest base of agreement.  To the extent that more contentious topics need to be addressed, the focus on the portability of learning on those topics should be based on properly capturing the breadth of discussions, including risks and opportunities present, with a special attention paid to how these issues may impact or benefit developing nations.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  

 United Kingdom.

  >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you, Chair.  Thank you, Janis.  Congratulations to you on your formal appointment later today.  We also hope that the Secretary General will want to continue to pay attention to a special advisor who can negotiate across the U.N. system and so on.  But that's another point.  Your question, do we need to consider an element of consensus building.  Well, we feel that can be achieved at various levels within the IGF context.  And, to a certain extent, it already takes place.  The CSTD working group on IGF improvements identified the necessity for the priority processes to agree to a set of policy questions.  So, in arriving at those questions, you need a bit of -- you certainly need a consensus building process.  Then the IGF must consider how to address those questions and set the direction for that.  And maybe that's where the focus on strengthening the IGF in that regard needs to be paid attention.  Because you can envisage intersessional activity perhaps involving regional IGFs, national IGFs to take forward the outcomes of the discussions of those questions.  We're not talking about negotiating solutions in the IGF, but identifying possible solutions, possible opportunities, possible barriers to be overcome.  And that's how you can initiate a very valuable process from the IGF having looked at agreed questions.

 The second level, really, is with regard to the workshops.  We feel it's incumbent on organizers of workshops to seek and to set out objectives for concluding their discussion.  We -- I've seen a lot of workshop proposals where we talk about discussing and exploring and then nothing to conclude from that.  And, again, we're not expecting those workshop discussions to produce final results.  But, as the CSTD working group pointed out, they can usefully identify converging and diverging opinions.  That's a very useful exercise to do.  So we think, at that level of the workshop level, there was plenty of opportunity for consensus building on what is agreed and what is not agreed.  And then you can feed through that results back into the IGF main reporting.  And then that helps to progress the issue.  Hope that's helpful.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mark.  It's very helpful.  So next is George Radjou.

 >>GEORGE RADJOU:  Thank you, Chair.  It was nice to hear both of you or three of you on the panel.  I'm George Radjou from the Nigerian delegation.  

 My question follows from the last meeting in Geneva about advancing Internet.  And we already chat about that.  We didn't love the idea of Mundial net.  It was all the constituencies that we should reject the case of Mundial net.  Now I understand that you're pleased very much Mundial net in this meeting.  So what is the motivation of that meeting, which is Internet governance and enhancing cooperation in the digital divide as we say?  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Answering your question, NETmundial was one of the processes launched by a number of governments on the topic of Internet governance.  NETmundial produced an outcome statement on addressing two issues.  Internet governance principles and way forward, which were issues where further discussion are needed.  And the question whether IGF is appropriate fora were addressed, one or all of those issues which have been identified by NETmundial as needing further exploration.  So that is what we're discussing here.

 That was truly a multistakeholder conference, which took decision by rough consensus in a truly multistakeholder manner.  And so that was pleased by many or favored by many.  We know that there are dissenting also opinions about those particular from governments.  Those governments made a statement during the last CSTD meeting in Geneva.  But consensus is not unanimity.  Consensus is less than unanimity.  There might be dissenting voices as well.

 So, of course, the question is whether we bring NETmundial, those identified issues to IGF or not.

 List is getting even longer.  Now Anriette, you have the floor.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Janis.  I want to thank you, actually, for initiating this discussion and putting it on our agenda.  Because I think it is really relevant.  Firstly, I think we are -- (no audio)

 >> Also in terms of the process that conducted two days deliberation.  Several text was written, evaluated NETmundial.  And many of them see the process as a main legacy.  So I don't think that we will be negotiating text.  I think that we will be building, and that's how people saw NETmundial, building a bottom-up process to arrive at an outcome document through multistakeholder deliberation.  This is something really historic and, if we look at NETmundial and look at what were strong points and shortcomings, we can try to get ability of that during the IGF.  And I think that will be really important for the forum to strengthen it on the direction we have been talking about.  Not only there but have been issue on our agenda such as discussion about enhanced cooperation.  It's not enough to say we don't want an intergovernmental discussion.  We need to provide an alternate for that.  I agree very much that we cannot start by --

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Here let me be slightly provocative.  Having organized a number of meetings, I did a calculation of NETmundial.  It's not about the outcome. It's just about statistics.  75% of the meeting time of NETmundial was devoted of negotiating the text.  The statement.  75%.  We started the afternoon of the first day, and we went throughout the second day.  And my provocative question is do we want IGF with the 75% of the time will be devoted to negotiations of any kind of outcome?  So obvious answer is not really.  We would lose the essence of IGF as a free-floating discussion.  At the same time, we really need to find maybe the way how to respond to this expectation which NETmundial clearly created.  So Michael?  Please.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON: Thank you very much, Janis.  I'm just going to provide a little bit of perspective as a technologist and as a representative of one company, Microsoft.  We've devoted a lot of time and effort to the Internet Governance Forum because we believe it's an incredibly useful way to bring people into discussions and events and issues that are going to be dealt with in other fora.  We look at the IGF as a way to talk about some of the things that ICANN will deal with or IETF will deal with or the World Wide Web consortium or national governments.  And that is the essence of the multistakeholder process.  Distributed decision making, the best people working on issues they can deal with best.

 Some of the language I heard in Sao Paulo implied that we needed to replace that distributed model with an effort to bring everybody together to resolve issues.

 That clearly wasn't possible at NETmundial.  We had a number of countries that took reservations and didn't agree to even the high-level agreement that we had there.

 To think the IGF is going to take a self-selected group of people and find a solution to even relatively noncontroversial Internet policy issues is, I think, very difficult to imagine.

 On the other hand, we can continue to do what we've done incredibly well, which is to bring together great people from different perspectives, to tackle issues, to discuss issues, and then fan out and go back to these other organizations where we'll actually get to the nitty-gritty.

 And I think that's what we need to focus on.

 You did a great job of summarizing the outputs we already provide.  How do we strengthen those outputs?  How do we make sure they're applied better?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant now.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  We have a comment from Avri Doria.

 There is a variety of types of outcomes.  If we were speaking of treaty-level consensus negotiated decisions, then of course the IGF is not the place for those.  But the IGF is a multistakeholder organization that needs to define its own form of outcome.  

 The IGF is a multistakeholder environment that can make inputs to other processes.  

 If we begin to think of the IGF as a process that has a yearly meeting, as opposed to a meeting that spends a year in the planning, then we can work on achieving outcomes, global advice, and input on subjects that are ready for such treatment.

 IGF 2014 could kick off a program to achieve an outcome of a single topic with a work program to achieving a rough consensus with minority viewpoint in IGF 2015.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Avri.  I think this is a very, very useful proposal.

 United States is the next on my list.

 >>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, Janis, and good morning, everyone, and congratulations to you, Janis, on your appointment.

 I really just wanted to echo a few of the comments that have been made in the room, but with -- I'm going to try and keep it brief to three points.

 One is that I'd really like to acknowledge the work and participation of the IGF community in the Internet governance events and processes over the course of the past year, and that includes NETmundial.

 I think the participation of the people in this room and the community at large really contributed to the success and of course the organization by the Government of Brazil as well as the committees that worked so hard.

 But I think that brings to your point exactly, Janis, about the number -- the percentage of time that was spent negotiating the text, and in looking at the IGF, as we -- you know, we fully support work on the current and prospective improvements to the IGF and how it might evolve to meet the WSIS goals, to meet the goals of developing countries of achieving Internet for all, as we've said in the past, but as we look to evolve it, we want to also look to retain the candid and content-rich character that it has in its global and multistakeholder sessions that provides for that kind of dialogue.

 So in that sense, we take -- support taking on the discussions that stemmed from NETmundial in that vein, but also those that stem from any other discussions as well, and perhaps it provides an excellent feedback loop to be able to provide -- back to Mike's point about this distributed decision-making process, provide input into other venues as well.

 So we look forward to further discussions about how to move from something that's considered a non-negotiating session to something that has robust outputs.

 You've listed a few, and thank you for the reminder again of the listing of ways that the IGF has had outcomes in other areas, because I think that's a very important data point for us to look at down the road.

 So there is a lot of room between nothing, which I don't think we are, and a negotiation, which I think we're hearing that we don't want, and so we look forward to continuing to explore those options.

 One thing I might just add as a closing is that perhaps we can capture recommendations better than we have to date.  And also the resources.  

 I mean, all the workshops and all of the sessions that we have list many resources and make many recommendations by the participants that are there, and I realize that this kind of goes hand in hand with the recommendation for increased resources for the IGF, so let's not forget that that's important as well.

 So how can we capture those recommendations and discussions that are not just for best practice sessions, although I think that's a very concrete piece, but throughout the program of the IGF.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Matthew.  Matthew Shears.

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you, Chair, and congratulations as well, and hello, colleagues.

 Just a couple of very quick comments because much of what I've said has already been covered by others, but I think one of the challenges that we have in -- 

 First of all, there's a difference.  There's a difference between discussing issues from NETmundial that are possibly issues that are being considered under the way forward and then using rough consensus approaches.

 I mean, the first is easy.  Rough consensus approach is a little bit like running before we know how to walk.

 And I would rather see us really focus on a solutions-orientated approaches and recommendations.  We should be using -- we should be using the workshops as a mechanism for finding divergencies and convergencies on different issues, and that's where we should be deriving, quote-unquote, recommendations on outputs that then would be of use to policymakers.  So I see this as less about a discussion about adopting NETmundial consensus approaches but more looking at the mechanisms we have in place at the moment and strengthening those and really building on those and really looking at this as an opportunity to move forward and trying to be practical and relevant and really solutions-oriented.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We have a bit of a technical issue here.  We will mute those who are talking without permission.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you, Matthew.

 Bertrand?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Thank you, Janis.  This is Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet & Jurisdiction Project.  A few quick points.

 It's important to recognize that NETmundial has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve something, but as you said, it requires to focus on the production of a document that takes most of the time.

 For the IGF, it's obvious that it is not going to work nor be desirable for the whole agenda.  It could be for some specific topics.

 But I would echo what Mark was saying regarding the importance of adding documents that do not only try to achieve agreement but also mark decensus [sic] or divergence so it's an issue-framing type of exercise and here the recommendation -- or the suggestion is to basically try to pick some of the topics, if we agree that the topics of NETmundial are going to be used as threads, of sorts, in -- in the IGF this year, and to encourage the -- the workshops to actually prepare input documents for their own work.  

 So that during the workshops the refinement of the documents can be made by the workshop themselves and not by the whole community of NETmundial.

 And in that regard, I would reuse the expression that I've often suggested that it is not necessarily recommendations by the IGF, but at the IGF, so that different processes can produce specific recommendations, and in particular, highlight the different solutions that are being proposed.  Just having a documentation of the different options would already be a great use.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Would you introduce yourself, please?

 >>BRAZIL: Yes.  Again, my name is (saying name) on behalf of the Brazilian delegation.  So -- (microphone feedback) -- so -- again, so my name is (saying name) on behalf of the Brazilian delegation.

 First of all, I would like to -- before answering your first question directly, I have to get back to your previous statement.

 I believe that in Sao Paulo, we needed some time for the text because the bigger number of the participants that we have in the meeting, the more time we need to have a conclusion.  

 And in this case, I think that we should highlight that we have a lot of diversity, and I think that we should preserve this achievement.

 So going back to your first question, we believe that in order to strengthen the IGF, IGF should be able to produce recommendations.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We are -- we have many people asking for the floor, including remote participants and now it's time.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  We have another comment.  This time from Vladimir Radunovic.  

 For IGF to respond to its strengthened mandate as requested by the CSTD working group but also NETmundial, it needs to provide useful recommendations reflecting key policy questions it defines.  Such outputs should be in the form of nonbinding recommendations like RFC which can be drafted, discussed, and agreed upon between the two annual meetings, intersessional dialogue, and concluded at the IGF.  

 Topics taken should be mature, like accessibility and privacy, with very narrow focus on which there is a broad consensus reached.

 Such recommendations would be clear guidelines to policymakers and decision-makers and would bring more governance to the IGF process as well.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Now, thank you.  Izumi.  Izumi Aizu.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Yes.  I am second Izumi.  

 I have participated in NETmundial, as some of you did.  We have seen a very tangible, successful -- even though some of the civil society members which I belong to have some problems with the final outcome thing, but overall we really saw a great opportunity.

 I'm thinking of some practical elements.  

 If we are to install or implement a similar or corresponding approach at this IGF, which has been questioned, I'm for that, but with certain precautions that we have only four months, first of all.

 We may perhaps create a working group within MAG or with some other invited people on that working group to prepare this process.

 As many of you have pointed out, there were on-line processes before the NETmundial, but it was only two months, at least on the surface.

 They have worked a lot behind the scenes, which shouldn't be also undermined.

 So if we have a majority of people willing to devote to volunteer for this kind of work, then we can challenge -- try to do that.

 I don't want just to select one topic.  Especially top-down.  One of the successes -- or factors of NETmundial was it started with a very open policy with 188 contributions, after which the committee tried to see what are the most relevant issues, and they didn't prioritize too much as a top-down.  So I'm rather skeptical if MAG tries to dictate, "Hey, this is a topic which is easy to agree on."

 Also, if we have two or three different topics, one topic might be more difficult to agree on, where one of the others would be -- and also it depends on where -- which stakeholder you are -- ones from developing countries, they have very specific elements, those businesses in the developed countries may have different agendas, and we can see the diversity by having a few topics.

 On being -- last but not least, but being a member of the CSTD working group on the improvement of the IGF, we are very much debate with different -- we debate a lot about what would be the improvement in terms of outcome, shaping the outcome, and I wouldn't want to repeat the report but there need to have some more work, and NETmundial really provided a good opportunity to challenge.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jim is next.  No?

 Then Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 A few short points.

 One, the excellence of NETmundial and the effort there, the experiment cannot be questioned.  It was an outstanding effort.  We congratulate everybody who helped with that.

 But there's a distinction between drawing inspiration, picking up some of those important issues, and replicating it at a totally different event whose mandate is driven under Section 72 of the Tunis Agenda.

 I think the point that you made, whether it's a consensus document or it's called a nonbinding set of recommendations or outcomes, unless it's very clearly defined, imagine this:  With 70-odd workshops and sessions going on, and you try to draw up an outcome document or in whatever form you call them, and then people will start rushing to that room in which that text is being drawn because that -- then that becomes the sort of document around which you have to live and replicate at other events, and that means that you leave other sessions and you focus on what's going on in that session, and I think it's easier said than done that people would let others negotiate on their behalf because if there's going to be language in that that is important, then everybody will rush to those rooms, which changes the very structure and the mandate of IGF as it's seen.

 The second point that I would like to submit, sir, is the fact that the structure, the resources, the committee structure that we had at NETmundial, is very different from what exists for IGF.

 So if there are inputs coming in and those have to be structured into a draft document, someone needs to have the authority to do that.  Someone then needs to have the patience and the ability to withstand the hostility that might come along with that, as it did when the first draft did.

 So that's a lot of politics and a change of structure and the tension and the pressures around the IGF for change.

 Now, we're not saying that's completely ruled out but we must be mindful that these are apples and oranges and we can try and pick and choose and try and do some things different, but to suggest that any form of text, however mildly we term it, will not make it a tense discussion between people who want the language and words in that, is -- is not something we should ignore.

 And I'd also submit to you again the point of authority.  Someone needs to give the IGF, the MAG, the chair a set of committees that need to be formed, the authority to draft this document and then to take the inputs and then to put it to the next stage and the next stage, which was done exceedingly well by the multiple committee structure that NETmundial had for months in advance of NETmundial.

 I would close by saying that the CSTD working group on enhanced -- on improvements in IGF is a very important point and paper to begin.  I think we should certainly work at that.  That's something that we need to do by 2015.  

 And the second one would be regional and national IGFs coming into and sort of make that more tangible.  Some baby steps, certainly.  We should try and take the inspiration and move in that direction, but however mildly you term it, to change the working and the structure would require, I think, inputs more than just the MAG.  I think the U.N. would get -- I'm not sure who all needs to get involved in taking it from here to there, and not sure if all those people are in this room, but it's a very important discussion to have and to start.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Paul?  Paul Wilson?

 >>PAUL WILSON:  So I think this is a very useful discussion.

 I think there are some issues of terminology here.

 I mean, personally I'm not afraid of the word "negotiation" at all.  I see negotiation happening all over the place in IETF and other organizations and I see consensus processes that involve a kind of negotiation.  Mark Carvell said before we can build consensus on what is agreed and not agreed.  That sounds to me like negotiation.

 Whether it is or not, that's terminology.  I mean, maybe -- maybe there's a distinction between small "n" negotiation and capital "N" negotiation, but whatever it is, it needs to be sort of clear, because for some people, no negotiation sounds really unreasonable.  For some people it sounds like an absolute necessity, obviously.

 So I think -- I mean, let's try and work out what "negotiation" means.  It would be helpful for me, in particular.

 But, you know, I -- in any case, it's not about -- there is a process that's worked.  Marilia said herself, and I agree, that there was something that happened in Brazil in NETmundial and it was very useful, and people are calling, I think, for more of it.

 It's not about whether it's negotiation or not but it's about how it happens.

 So I think if any outcomes are produced by IGF, as opposed to an output, which is like a chair's report or factually what happened, then I think they just have to be produced according to really clearly understood rules.

 I mean, out- -- these outcomes are not, I think, outcomes of the IGF plenary with the full authority of the IGF, but they're outcomes that are produced by groups of people working in workshops or working groups or other structures in the IGF.  They are absolutely optional and nonbinding.  They've got to be produced -- if anything is produced as an outcome of a workshop or a session, it's got to be produced with clear requirements of openness and transparency and inclusive multistakeholder participation.  

 If there are draft documents that go into the process, then they've got to be shared.  There's got to be transparency.  And maybe there's more requirements.  But I can see that there's a process by which we kind of relax on the terminology of whether it is or isn't negotiation but we actually talk about how an output -- an outcome document, as such, is actually going to be produced and whether we can agree on moving forward to allow that to happen in accordance with some agreed conditions.

 If some -- I agree that the IGF -- just finally, I agree that the IGF shouldn't spend 75% on discussing documents.  No way.  But I don't mind if a workshop does.  I mean, if a workshop is set up to do that based on something that's happened before, that sounds perfectly reasonable.  I mean, it's an important process and it takes time.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 Now, I have the following organizations and countries and people asking for the floor, so Egypt, ICANN, Izumi, Council of Europe, Jivan, Netherlands, and -- or no.  And Russia.

 And here I would like to draw the line -- and Nominet.  And here I would like to draw the line and to try to put my -- stick my head out and sort of summarize the discussion and see whether you -- you would agree with my sum-up.

 So that is -- that is where I am.

 I see already further requests for the floor, but let me at one point try to summarize and then see whether I hear your reaction to that, and then I will take further.  Kossi and Ayman. 

 So the next one is Egypt, please.

 >>EGYPT:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Christine Arida.  I'm from Egypt.  And I would like to say that Egypt shares the views expressed by the European Commission and by other colleagues in the room that it is really important that we seize the opportunity and build upon the NETmundial momentum.  I mean, the time is right.  NETmundial has made a turning point in multistakeholderism which the IGF has been working so hard on for years.

 So -- but as you mentioned, chair, we should avoid turning the IGF into a negotiation -- a negotiation forum, so this is something we all don't want to see happen at the IGF.

 But we should encourage a building of rough consensus and we should be able to do that in a nonbinding format but something that provides trends -- guidance on where the trend is on specific topics.

 So maybe a possible suggestion is to provide special discussion formats, special sessions for such discussion, for topics that seem to be more mature than others.  

 And if I recall right, even as early as the IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, there were topics where we thought could be mature for roundtable discussions.  We just never pursued this to the end.

 So we can actually work on having something like that with -- with the output -- objective of providing a specific output that is not -- on that specific topic that is not binding but that has a rough consensus from all stakeholders.

 So the idea basically is to encourage consolidated discussions, rather than all the parallel fragmented discussions that -- which we're having on a specific topic in the different workshops.

 And in that, I like the idea of Bertrand to call for -- to also invite for input documents beforehand and work up front.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Baher?  ICANN?

 >>ICANN:  Thank you, Chairman.  And congratulations.  

 My name is Baher Esmat.  I'm with ICANN.  I'm going to make it very short because previous speakers have already covered most of the issues.

 I just want to agree with the -- the notion that the IGF should not be turned into a negotiation process, and that was sort of agreed upon within the CSTD group on IGF improvements.

 The working group have discussed and recommended certain improvements to the IGF, including having the IGF produce outcomes.  Those outcomes could be in the form of, as others said, solutions, messages, recommendations, and they can come out of different and several sessions, whether workshops or main sessions or others.

 I think one other element that was key in the discussion within the -- the CSTD working group was regarding how can we make these outcomes visible to the public.

 This is -- this is a key point, and it -- I mean, we can spend more time discussing it if we want, but it has to do with the Web site, it has to do with the communication tools that we as IGF not only discuss that, but -- I'm talking about the IGF as a community here -- the tools that we have and the tools that we can commit to implement.

 So making the outcomes available and visible and package those outcomes in a way that is user-friendly, if I may use the term, this is very -- very important.

 One last suggestion, I think it was mentioned but I want to just say it again.

 People -- previous speakers focused a bit on workshops and best practice forums as examples of venues to produce outcomes.

 We can also look at the main sessions and try to pick one topic that is less controversial and see how we can encourage the organizers of this session to sort of have an outcome product at the end of this session.  Thank you. 

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.  Thank you, Baher.  Izumi? 

 >>IZUMI OKUTANI: So this is Izumi -- well, I won't refer to myself as the second Izumi, but anyways I won't argue whether I am the second or not.  So Izumi Okutani.

 Yeah.  Actually, Baher has made exactly the points that I really wanted to make.  

 Firstly, I think the capture of the IGF is sharing practical information that people are able to find solutions to and use as a reference.  And while we don't want to make -- or produce a negotiating kind of document, I think it's also very helpful to have some kind of clear document that people can refer to later and bring it back and, you know, apply it in the issues that they're facing.

 And so one start would certainly be documenting a description of the output of the best practice forums.  I think that would be something that is really helpful and -- but I think it would be also useful to list the points that were made and were agreed on some of the main theme sessions and also equally important to list the points that was also disagreed.

 So from my experience of the last IGF, I read some of the transcripts of the sessions such as the role of government on cyber-security collaboration.  Those -- there was many points that was very useful and helpful, but it's really difficult to read the whole transcript or refer to the transcript as something official.

 So just extract some of the points.  

 And then maybe we don't have to agree on the wording at the physical IGF meeting.  We can take this on line and then post it and seek feedbacks on "These are the things that people seem to have commonly agreed or commonly disagreed," and then maybe that will be a helpful reference for people to view as something that was, you know, discussed in the IGF.

 And I also see Anriette's point about people who are -- have expressed requests for improving -- improvements for the IGF at NETmundial or other meetings.  

 If we don't really say anything, people think maybe we're not really listening to them, so even though we are not fully incorporating all the requests at this particular meeting, it may be useful to maybe list the points that we recognize or some of the new things that we're trying this time, as Janis has really helpfully summarized, and then making it clear -- clearly show that we are actually working on some of the issues that are being raised.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Now Jivan.

 >>LJUPCO JIVAN GJORGJINSKI: Thank you.  

 Now, we've heard that our role has been more to provide inputs rather than outputs and also that we're looking at something between nothing and negotiated outcomes and that perhaps in between is policy proposals.

 Now, in my role as deputy chief cabinet to the minister, I prepare policy proposals for the minister.  The ones that I think are useful and the ones that I find useful from Oxford Analytica and places like that are they provide an objective analysis, either in the wording of pros and cons or strong and weak points or whatever it is, and then they have next steps.  

 And I think that the key thing that we've been missing here over the years is that "next steps" aspect.  

 We go into discussing issues year after year but we don't have the continuity of driving different processes forward.

 So I think it is natural that for the chair of this forum to be also special advisor to the secretary-general.  It's the authority that a person has achieved over the years to get it, and I think that that's kind of -- that kind of authority we can bring into the other areas.

 So for instance, for this IGF we've decided that we're going to have policies enabling access, that we're going to have Internet freedom and human rights.  These are areas that by themselves as a whole can provide also -- we can have a chair, for instance, to drive these processes within the IGF to have a chair's outcome at the end of that.

 Now Jon Postel was driving what ICANN is doing right now for years.  Because of the authority, nobody doubted Jon Postel that he's going to abuse his position, so we need those kinds of people to be chairs of these different forums and to have a chair's outcome at the end of it that's -- and I think that that is the in-between.  It's not going to be a negotiated outcome.  This person is going to stand behind this document which is going to be provided as a policy proposal to all the decision-makers in the distributed decision-making mechanisms that we have, and they're not going to perhaps say directly "Do this" or Do that, this is a good policy," but "These are the strong points of this, these are the weak points, this has been discussed and these are next steps that should be or could be or it is advisable to be taken."

 Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  

 Now, Netherlands, please.

 >>NETHERLANDS:  Thank you, Janis, and congratulations.  Let me turn to NETmundial.

 For us -- and I'm speaking on behalf of the Dutch multistakeholder delegation who attended this meeting, it was a great achievement and well-organized.  And it's for us, once again, speaking on behalf of the multistakeholder delegation, from members of Parliament through civil society and private sector, NETmundial was the example of how we all must work to get -- to work on the future of Internet governance.  And the example of how multistakeholder process should work.  And, indeed, we have negotiated two days on the text most of the time.  But let's not forget what happened before that.  I mean, that was a unique and dynamic process where lots of ideas and proposals were coming in and ended up finally in a document.  The statement wouldn't have -- would not have been possible without all those contributions coming from all over the world.  I think that is more important than negotiating on a final text.  So let's keep the momentum and make use of the NETmundial statement.  Indeed, if you look at the text, lots have been said about improving the IGF.  And, responding to your question should we end up negotiating in the IGF, should we make IGF in this decision making body?  The clear answer from the Dutch government is no.  We should try to make IGF a body which -- which finally tried to have recommendations.  

 How is that possible?  I think a couple things have to be taken in mind.  First of all, a better funding of the IGF.  Second, to get a better interaction between national, regional, and global IGF.  I've looked at the list of proposals, more than 200 proposals.  And it struck me that there are only a few coming out from national IGF.  That should be improved.  

 Thirdly, I think we must make use of the workshops to identify where convergence or divergence exists and then feed into the main session.  Finally, that has been stated as well by others, try to have a more structural input.  Thank you very much.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Russia.

  >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION:  Thank you.  Say hello, everybody.

 So NETmundial was very useful in the quality of contributions.  My two days was amazing.  And, for me, I give more than 75% of the time was fruitful discussion.  But what is the lesson learned from NETmundial for me?  We need the method of producing outcome document in non-consensus environment.

 And outcome documents on NETmundial was no consensus.  But it was not rough consensus.  Why?  There was no definition of rough consensus.  If we create this definition and determine the mechanism and the possible status of the outcome document for IGF, so we have it, it's easy.  And I think my proposal is to make this approach on the MAG.  So what I mean is that the rough consensus was invented by IGF, I believe.  And it is really -- that's great at this meeting.  But it is connected to the chairperson.  So it means everybody, if in discussion we agree that they have a chairperson and the person can make the decision if the consensus won't be reached.  So my proposal is, again, to create the opportunities to produce the outcome documents within IGF and to give the definition for a non-consensus document.  For rough consensus, probably just repeat the definition we have in IGF.  We can find in IGF document.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Consensus, as the term exists also in multilateral world -- and we know that many decisions in the U.N. systems are taken by consensus and many organizations.  And that does not necessarily mean unanimity.  Consensus means that in U.N. context consensus means all government proposed the decision which is on the table.  That is everybody can agree or can live with or cannot agree more or less on equal sort of proportion.  But no one objects to that.  That is -- and, of course, reaching consensus entails a collaborative approach to decision making with a lot of flexibility.  Council of Europe, please.

  >>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations.  Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe.  

 Mindful of the drawbacks, I think we still need to look at tangible outcomes, whatever that may be.  We really need to go for it and see what is tangible and what is the strength of the IGF.  It's incumbent for us to try.  I like the reference to building.  I think we should build.  We should continue to build.  NETmundial is a building block.  IGF is, too.  What do we build together?  I would really like to go into the IGF.  I'm very excited at what might come out.  So what would raise excitement?  Why do you want to go there?  And what do you want to discuss?  What do we want to take out of it?  I really need to enthuse colleagues, governments, other stakeholders that what is it going in.  We had that with NETmundial.  And I think we should try to create that for ourselves in the IGF.  

 In the EuroDIG, which is the European Internet Governance Forum, doing the same thing as last year is stagnation.  There's no way we can keep doing the same thing.  We must keep going forward, which means creating new things.  And I think the relevance for the IGF is its convening power.  It convenes.  It convenes people.  It convenes organizations.  It can convene a great number of people with a standing with legitimacy to come and talk and to give their viewpoints.  That's a great power.  And I think we should use that more, which means to focus on who is really important in the discussion and get them to come in.  Maybe that means a specific letter.  Something which really gets them to the table, not which is left open for everybody to run and find those people necessarily.  But where there's a real need to get X and Y and zed in that room, let's send letters and make it very sharp and targeted.  That means good preparation.  I think in terms of preparation, of course, preparation, preparation, preparation is the key to anything that we do.  I think good preparation, you know, in identifying the issues which are ripe, whether it's progress -- I mean, we should -- where is it -- where is it that we can really make progress?  Where is the tussle room?  Who is doing what around the world?  Doing fast and seeing what is being done in whichever field and getting those actors to the IGF.  And how do you get there?  I would say that's not about the quality.  That's about preparation, I think good moderation is key still.  I'm not convinced the moderation I see when I listen to discussion.  I still think we can do a lot, lot more.  So good preparation for moderation is there.  And we need to take what's been done, whether that be the Freedom Online Coalition or NETmundial or whichever -- or the ICANN high-level panel.  We need to take that information and build upon that.  So what do they bring in and what do we take and what do we build upon?  So I think that's where we need to be.  We need to innovate.  I think it's -- I think that the IGF can -- the word "recommendation" is quite strong.  But to at least invite or encourage after an IGF or during an IGF to invite or encourage those actors who are doing something to take this into consideration.  We discussed this.  We think this is an issue.  Please consider that in your discussion.  That's a very concrete outcome, as far as I'm concerned.  It could be written down even, if you wish.

 And that, I think, means, as part of the convening power, it's a -- you know, I think the IGF could do more partnerships and synergies with certain actors where there's a need, where you identify the key issues. I think we can do more now in terms of pulling people in.  And I'd like to do that on behalf of the Council of Europe.  So thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Lee.  Nominet.

 >>NOMINET:  Thank you, Chair.  Martin Boyle from Nominet, the dot U.K. domain name registry.  Welcome back, Chair, to Internet governance.

 I think one of the things that I took away from NETmundial was that it did something that, if it had been organized three, four, five years ago, it wouldn't have worked.  And I think NETmundial had the benefits of being able to draw on eight years of Internet governance fora meetings.  And that is something that we can take heart from, that the Internet Governance Forum providing a fairly open network does help us get to developing understanding of issues and quite often the issues where there is no single solution but rather quite a range of solutions.  I certainly would see that the IGF should be thinking towards more concrete outputs, but I don't instinctively think about looking to negotiated outputs as one of its strong points.  I see its outputs as being -- developing that understanding, sharing good practice, identifying what works in some places but doesn't work in others and to try to identify some of the practical issues that people have to bear in mind as they move forward.

 So, moving forward, one of the things that I would see that we have to do is, firstly, build on what came out of NETmundial.  Very, very important.  Because that opens the whole load of new issues that we need to address that we need to discuss.

 I also would then say that we need to look very much more carefully about how do we capture and draw on some of the expertise that comes up in the 200 and whatever workshops that take place at each Internet Governance Forum where we have discussions on similar topics in different rooms 

 and no real attempts to draw the bridges between those discussion areas.  And that, perhaps, is something year on year we should be trying to do, looking to how we can build on the conversations that have taken place in the past and to capture them in a form that busy people can extract key ideas from those.

 And then perhaps in another few years we will have a NETmundial in another country apart from Brazil that then tries to capture some of the ideas that have come up in previous years.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Martin.  And then -- last on my list before I am trying to sum up is Kossi.  Please, Kossi.

 >>KOSSI AMESSINOU: (speaking in language other than English).

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Kossi, for your thoughts.  I have another four requests for the floor.  And we have not much time remaining.  And I most probably will not be able to conclude discussion before lunch.

 So, therefore, let me suggest the following:  I will try now to sum up what I heard, what I think I heard from this discussion.  And then we will have about two hours internal reflection.  And we will come back.  And those four people who requested the floor will speak immediately after lunchtime.  And that will be Soonjoung.  That will be Patrick.  That will be Hossam, and that will be somebody from remote participant.

 Let me give a try.  

 What I heard very clearly that NETmundial made a big sort of progress and excited the community in a very positive way on a sort of very practical solution of looking for a solution approach.  

 But I also heard that IGF is slightly different, and there was no appetite in bringing negotiations in pure terms to the IGF.  Nevertheless, the desire for more concrete and tangible outcomes were present in every intervention during this debate.

 And what I would like to suggest that we would concentrate on existing and already longstanding outcomes that we have.  That is chair's summary.  That is a summary from each main session and summary from each workshop.  And we try to improve quality of those summaries that would include also -- first of all, in a runup to the -- to those sessions, we would have clearly defined policy question that the session would address.  In the summary of the session, we would have a clearly defined description of opinions, consensual opinions about those policy questions.  And it would be also listing the dissenting voices on those policy issues.

 Of course, we do not have control over workshops and organizers of workshops.  Therefore, we can only encourage them or appeal to them to follow certain template in the organization of the -- of those workshops.

 But what we can do is impose on ourselves as the organizers of the main session that discipline and that structure.  And to see how the outcomes from main session could be -- could contribute towards what we understand tangible outcomes and policy recommendations.

 Thirdly, the chairman's statement may suggest the way forward.  Something that some of us felt was absent in the previous IGF.  And that way forward would link the Istanbul IGF with the regional and national IGFs and lead us to Brazil IGF.  I cannot say which town, not yet.  Not yet.  But nevertheless in IGF 2015.  And we would create a certain continuity on certain issues that would be identified by the chair in a most professional and impartial manner possible and would constitute the basis for discussions and the program in IGF 2015.

 And the fifth point was that those outcomes from Istanbul IGF would need to be better promoted and communicated, which would mean that very practical -- or outcomes -- or certain outcomes of 2014 IGF would be brought to attention to those organizations which are relevant to those topics.  And that would be not just passive promotion through the Web site, but that would be active promotion by bringing those issues to attention to those organizations which are relevant.  And those might be intergovernmental organizations like UNESCO, like ITU, like a second committee of the general assembly, like ECOSOC, like CSTD, and so on.  Those might be technical organizations like ISOC, ICANN, IETF.  And those might be civil society organizations, specifically dealing with the questions and so on.  So active promotion of the outcomes.  So this is my sort of summary of what I heard.  And I would like you to think them over over the lunchtime.  And we could return back and conclude discussion at 2:30.  In the meantime, I would like to remind that at 1:30 in this very room, UNESCO will make presentation of their concept paper on Internet-related topics, comprehensive study of Internet-related topics.  And I encourage those who are interested to be present in the room.  And, for those who are not familiar with this building, you can have lunch here in this cafeteria, which is next to this meeting room.  There is another cafeteria, much bigger on the 7th floor, which means that you need to get up in the main lobby.  To go to the main lobby to the main entrance, take the elevator to the 7th floor.  There is a big cafeteria.  There is also a big restaurant.  From my experience, you can get lunch in about 20-25 minutes.  In cafeteria, you need to have about one hour, one hour 15 minutes in the restaurant.  There are a number of restaurants outside the building, but that would require maybe 5 minutes walk from here.  Japanese, Chinese, Italian restaurants.  But there you need to count more than an hour for sure.  So that's why, for those who want to be here at 1:30, I encourage to go to cafeteria 7th floor or take sandwich here.  Paul, you want to talk?

  >>PAUL WILSON: Thank you Janis.  I thought I heard the sec gen say 1:45.  Can we clarify that?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This is what I call constructive ambiguity.  I said 1:30 to start at 1:45.  Subi?

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Janis, I notice that on the agenda item number 4 related to the reporting back of online working group on main sessions, are we going to move that now?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  We'll follow agenda.  So bon appÈtit, and I see you here at 1:30/45.

 [ Break ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to start.  If we could all sit down, please.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I hope you had an enjoyable lunch and we can resume our discussions.

 I would like to maybe repeat -- I would like to repeat what I said at the end of the meeting and I hope that I will not contradict myself.

 So as a result of the morning's discussion, we arrived to an understanding that bringing negotiations to the IGF would not be desirable, since that would change the nature of the event.

 At the same time, we need to strive to improve outcomes and to make outcomes more sort of substantive.

 That said, that could be done by using existing mechanisms of reporting on the outcomes of the session and improving quality of preparation of the sessions, which would mean that each session should have as an input the list of policy questions it would seek to respond, and at the end of the debate the organizers of the sessions should write a report clearly outlining what was prevailing opinion and sort of convergence of -- or points of view where opinion converged and which were the points of disagreement.

 Since we do not really have a control over workshops, we can only encourage workshop organizers to follow that methodology, but since we are organizing main sessions, we would need to pay a lot of attention and put a lot of work in preparing these sessions with that methodology I just outlined.

 Furthermore, the traditional chair's summary should contain also proposals for the way forward, which issues the chair in his best professional judgment would recommend to national and regional IGFs to continue exploring in their subsequent meetings, and bring the outcomes of those discussions to IGF 2015.

 And the final element was the active promotion of the outcomes of IGF 2014, not just putting all the documentation and reports on the Web site, but proactively pursuing those organizations who might be interested in those -- those outcomes and sending them the documents and encouraging them to take those outcomes into consideration when they deal with those respective issues, whatever those issues might be.

 So this is the thrust of the discussion I sort of understood from this morning, and we have four people who asked for the floor in the first session and I hope that during these interventions you will tell me whether I captured the sense of discussion or I was a little bit off the target.

 I will start with (saying name), please.

 >> Soonjoung Byun: Thank you, Chair.    I mostly agree with what you -- with what the chair summaried as far as the morning session. I think there would be various ways to improve or strengthen IGF besides producing recommendations like many participants in this room already mentioned . if we donít want to spend 75% of our time to negotiate and want to be some place for free floating of discussion for various subjects but still want to strengthen IGF, first of all, we have to keep looking for the way to improve the quality of the result of workshop.

I mean IGF should be the place to lead discussion in internet governance area by providing high quality and well prepared outputs and showing ways to go and right place for people to catch an fresh idea for issues or areas where they are having some difficulties to find way forward by facilitating more rich and high level discussion. this would be very attractive for policy makers even though it does not have format of any kind of recommendation. And the role of MAG would be more important than ever to find way to improve current way of organizing workshops. for example, when just 1 organization or 1 participant prepares workshops there might be the limitation in ability to gather speakers and real experts and even staffs to prepare that workshop. I found that several workshops in previous IGFs including bali, there were just very few participants somehow, itís maybe because of not so attractive subject, speakers or too many workshops to select which might result in producing not so attractive outcome. so we need to more focus producing high quality workshops for 1 subject or issue by reducing the number of workshop. and also maybe secretariat or any representative group like MAG can give some help gathering interested party or stakeholder to share their view and ideas for each workshops which can result in more rich speakers participating and discussion.   Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much.  Now, remote participant.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  We have several comments.  The first one from Avri Doria.

 In rough consensus, some can either agree or even object.  What the chair needs to do is be sure that everyone understands all of the issues of those dissenting and then ensure that they have had a fair and adequate chance to convince others.

 Also, the chair doesn't really decide when there is rough consensus but, rather, suggests and lets the group decide if it has been reached.

 One of the strengths is that minority statements can be attached to decisions and these decisions do not need to be watered down as is so often in multilateral consensus where people will spend hours, for example, arguing over "congratulated" or "complimented."  

 IGF needs to find its own method for some form of rough consensus process.

 Should I go on with the other two?

 Thank you.

 The second one is from Nnenna Nwakanma.  I made an open speech for civil society at NETmundial.  Among the things that made NETmundial a success was the clear leadership that Brazil took.  We don't have this for now with the IGF.  We need the secretariat strengthened.

 The second is the process.  NETmundial identified two key issues:  Principles and way forward.  It might be good to have IGF choose one or two issues every year and we concentrate on those, so we can have, for example, an IGF on access.

 The other issue that made NETmundial a success is that it gives the impetus to countries to actually adopt this document and work with it.

 IGF needs to be an enabling space.

 On another level, Marco Civil shows us that when Brazil is hosting NETmundial, it is not an event but an initiative that has a national mirror.  This is authentic.  I don't think we have had it so far in IGF in all hosting countries.

 And the last comment from Vladimir Radunovic.  

 There was a diversity of opinions expressed this morning and I am not sure the chair's summary reflects them entirely.

 I suggest creating a MAG working group to discuss various actions of tangible outcomes of the IGF as a follow-up of the CSTD working group report.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  I see a few flags up for those who were not in the room -- I mean, who were not present in the morning, but first let me see Hossam.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  You were up first, yeah.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Well, I think NETmundial was an opportunity to show us more that we need to highlight the real value of the IGF and according to its mandate and according to the expectations of the different stakeholders.

 So my name is Hossam Elgamal.  I represent AFICTA, and according to what I understand, knowledge sharing and know-how transfer, especially to developing countries, regarding challenges in Internet governance and implemented successes is very important.  

 Capacity-building, engagement, is extremely important for developing countries.  

 Review measures to see what improvement had happened over the years, and more inclusivity of all stakeholders related to Internet governance into the ecosystem through discussion on enhancing accountability, security, resilience, and stability are the four issues that we think are very important and would lead to bring more people from developing countries into the IGF.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 Paul, you want to say something?  ESCWA?

 >>UNESCWA:  Hi, again, this is (saying name) again from UNESCWA.  

 I think the conclusion that the chair has tried to provide as a digest is very useful.  What is worrying me is the inherent lengthened time needed between the dialogue as a process and consensus building as another completely different process.

 So as we stand today, the global IGF and the IGFs are a dialogue platform.  The way things are handled is the way you are running a town hall meeting or a live debate show.  This is debate management.

 Consensus building is another.

 So the idea of embedded enhancement within the same format, I think modestly that it will not be very productive because of the time lag.  

 Imagine three days in the same workshop and the same panel, have an hour in between, and we want to pass the wisdom of the dialogue to a wisdom of consensus building to the second day, which is a plenary, to the end with the chair report.  

 So this very embedded fabric of dialogue embedded with consensus building might not be really practical, and I remember -- recall the words of my colleague here from the U.K., Nominet, when he said even the NETmundial came after three or four years of digesting the dialogue consecutively and then NETmundial.

 So I suggest a simple thing like in between, because I know your -- the wisdom of trying to like build from within instead of like going to the CSTD, the GE, and back again.  Why don't we think of like a cluster, IGF cluster.  

 For example, we have four days in the annual meeting, two days for dialogue, maybe half a day complete break to digest the dialogue, wisdom, and things that emerged from the workshop or whatever.  Mind you that the workshops sometimes are very small, like 10 people, and maybe two or three in one company or whatever, so there is also very delicate issues and legitimacy of an outcome from a workshop.

 So anyway, two days dialogue, pure dialogue, one day break for this bridging, and then two days of consensus building which is going to be the new thing.

 Similar like the previous event, we have something called day zero so we can have something called day plus one, plus two, something like that.

 So this format would allow us really to do this kind of incremental move from pure dialogue to something in between which is consensus on recommendations, but giving time to time.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I -- yeah.  Okay.  Fiona, please.  Fiona Alexander.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER: Yes.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and apologies for not making this morning.  My flight was a little bit late so I'm sorry I missed what sounds like an exciting conversation this morning about what to do and not to do.  

 And I think, you know, your summary was an interesting one and perhaps offers a good way forward but I am afraid, though, that if this -- if the MAG doesn't take up the challenge that's in front of us, we're going to be lost in a year or two from now.  

 I think, you know, the success of NETmundial and the meeting and success in Brazil is a real challenge and opportunity in front of us.  If we don't actually take that up and move forward, it's going to be a missed opportunity.  

 So we can't have more of the same, and I appreciate that negotiation and negotiation in an environment of four days is very difficult, so there's got to be a middle way, a third way, whether it's consensus or rough consensus or convergence just where there's agreement, but there really needs to be a practical tangible forward movement in this Internet governance space this year, in particular.  And I think people are watching and a lot of people are watching.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 Matthew?

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thank you, Chair.

 I'd like to support what Vlad said and also what Fiona has just said.

 I think that we -- we very much appreciate your summary.

 I think actually what I was hearing in the -- in the first session was a willingness to go a little bit further.  

 Sure, we don't want to spend days negotiating.  That would not be what the IGF is about.  But I think we can go further.

 I think we really need to look at or maybe even experiment with a workshop track, see if we can link best practices to workshops to agreed findings or recommendations and bubble those up.

 There are ways of getting to a point where the documents that come out of the IGF can actually be useful for policymakers and influencers, and I think if we start in a modest way and experiment in a couple of different ways in seeing how we can get there, then that might be a step in the right direction for more relevance.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Any further comments?  

 Hartmut?

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  My comment -- my comment is in relation to the paradigm that we are using the last years for the IGF.

 My feeling is that the success of NETmundial was before we started the process.  Earlier.

 I am not against the workshops, but we have too many workshops.  I agree with Korea and with others.  I don't know if it's too late for this year but probably we can start to send some of the workshops in a paper form and receive this information earlier, can discuss this between us, and come to the IGF with comments that will be probably in a way that we use in NETmundial.

 We start months before to receive contributions, we have to summarize, and then we receive again 2,000 comments.

 So probably if we have a shift in the paradigm, if we start to change the way that we are working, probably we can -- not -- on the first time -- not for Istanbul, but probably for next year in Brazil have a new way that we can have a better result.

 My concern -- and I am -- I was a member of most of the -- I participate in most of the IGFs.  Too many workshops.  It's impossible to follow.  And we don't have the information back to the main session, so we need to have a bridge or we need to have a time between or we have the workshops before or we start with some paperwork one or two months before, not with the time, to send this to everyone, so that we can bring the comments before we -- we work with the comments before we arrive in the IGF place.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Walid.

 >>WALID AL-SAQAF: Probably you'll agree with me -- Walid Al-Saqaf from Orebro University in Sweden.  You'll agree with me that Rome wasn't built overnight.  So the idea here is workshops are not meant to produce something right away.

 They are an added step towards accumulation of knowledge, and if we take that into consideration, I would say that we should focus on first the ideas of what these workshops constitute and where they stand in line compared to the earlier workshops or earlier panels.

 So we build on that.

 I mean, because if a workshop was exactly identical to one that had happened already, so -- we really are starting from scratch again.  So rather than that, look into the panelists, look into the contributors.  What have they done before and what is it within their areas of expertise that have come anew and build on that and use it forward, and that's the way things should continue, I think.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  I think that -- well, Patrick is setting up his computer and I do not want to give you immediately the floor, but one thing is clear, that we do not want to negotiate in IGF, okay?

 That is what -- what I -- what I understand.  All the rest, of course, we do not have full agreement in that.

 There was a proposal to create a MAG working group, informal working group, to discuss these issues, and if we would have volunteers who could do it overnight today and bring the proposals tomorrow morning, how we could enhance the outcome or output of the -- outcome rather than output -- outcome from IGF 2014.  That would be highly appreciated.

 If we -- maybe you -- the MAG members can think about this working group and after a couple of interventions I will ask to raise hands those who would like to volunteer to that.  That may be a way forward.  

 But now I'm asking Patrick to take the floor.

 >>PATRICK RYAN:  Thank you, Janis.

 The intervention that I wanted to make is focused on the contribution that Vint and I submitted last year to the open consultation which addressed this question.

 It's our view that the -- in order to address some of the concerns that have been raised here, we agree that there should not be any form of negotiation, yet there's an opportunity that the IGF has to act as a kind of technology -- sorry, a policy tech transfer as kind of a router of information.

 This address -- has been addressed a little bit here today.  It's been touched on.  But one of the models that we propose would be to use certain workshops and certain main sessions -- we don't even need to start out by having the whole thing transmogrify overnight into this new approach but we could experiment with a few key issues, and to the extent that there's issues that certainly do need to have resolution and need a decision and need a recommendation somewhere, well, the IGF can act as a router and can suggest that the IETF be a good place for that decision.

 There may be certain kinds of decisions that would even be good to send over to the ITU or to other policy fora for -- for resolution.

 And in this way, the IGF is acting as a -- as a way -- as a kind of recommender of actions, and if we aggregate this over time, we can look back and see -- it won't even take that long but we can look back and see how -- how effective that is.

 The -- the addition of summary documents are also very helpful, and this is something that we can certainly ask for and we can impose it as a requirement, but I also want us to be mindful, again, that this is really a resource question.  

 There really aren't yet resources in the IGF itself sufficient to be able to sort of take this kind of thing on.

 If I were looking at it from a traditional business perspective and saying, "Hey, we're going to add a new functionality," I would also be required, I know in my job, to assign the amount of man-hours that would be required in order to accomplish that.  

 Now, they may not be drafting the work, but the -- the secretariat would be responsible for just assuring that there is a -- that there's a format and that the -- you know, the workshops themselves are -- are following it and submitting the summary as required.

 And that takes time and that takes energy, and this gets back -- of course, back to funding and we'll talk about funding later but I just want us to be always aware that all of these new ideas that we have, if they're not backed with a real actionable plan to implement them, they're just ideas and we're going to continue to frustrate ourselves.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  U.K.?  Mark?

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chair, and I just want to commend you, first of all, for your summary.  I think that was excellent.  I think it picked up a lot of the key points.  And then secondly also appreciate the sense of urgency which I think you've imparted with regard to the -- the working group's proposal because it's important we move quickly to pick up the momentum from Sao Paulo and we're also mindful that the CSTD working group's proposals for improvements have been on the table for quite some time.  We should have been implementing them in time for Bali.

 We -- we tried to instill a sense of objective there from the U.K. seat in the MAG to do that in time for Bali.  This is certainly the time now to move forward quickly.  

 So I really implore colleagues not to be getting too much into the hesitant, experimental mode.  We need to move forward quickly with strengthening the IGF.  

 And, when the MAG reviews the workshop proposals, we could move quickly on that, too, with regard to identifying very good workshop proposals with potential which hit on the key themes, key questions and so on, but which need tightening up in a sense of outcomes and read across into the global agenda and how then they can feed into intersessional activity.  I think it's incumbent upon the MAG to scrutinize workshop proposals with very much that objective in mind.

 Istanbul.  All goes well for a successful IGF and it's going to be the one before the renewal of the mandate.  We've got to work hard now to gear up and implement some of these key changes in line with NETmundial and CSTD.  Thanks.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Anriette?

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  I'll be quick.  Because I support what Mark just said and Fiona's comments earlier and Matt's and the suggestion of the working group.  And I volunteer to be part of that.  I think we should park this issue now, and maybe we'll have more clarity about how far we can go with this idea after we've discussed, as Mark would say, after we visit all the workshops and open forums and main sessions and other modalities.  But, in principle, I support very strongly that we do take some risk now.  I think we have more to gain than to lose.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I will -- the last time -- Jivan, and then I will close the debate, the issue right now.

 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  Thank you, Janis, for a useful recap at the end of the last session.  I just wanted to kind of look back at why NETmundial happened and at the same time the web (indiscernible) and all these things.  They were a result of a frustration.  And I think that, if we don't address that frustration properly at this moment, we won't -- danger is not just that the IGF may not exist, may not be reviewed.  The danger I think is mid to long term is breakup of the Internet.  And I think we need to take that into consideration when we're looking at these things.  I think that there is agreement that a negotiated outcome is not necessarily the thing that we want or rather what we don't all want.  But the image of a general assembly resolution needn't be the one we keep in mind when we talk about a negotiated outcome.  We're negotiating it at this very moment.  

 We have to be mindful of two things, I think.  The first is that we need to be a place where good ideas bubble up and good processes.  And there needs to be an efficient way for those ideas to bubble up to the surface and to recognize the good ones and put them at the forefront.  

 And the second thing is to have a way of pushing them forward year after year, process after process.  And, in that sense, we don't have to think of the IGF as something that happens over three or four days, but, rather, something that happens over a year.  And we heard a lot of good ideas in that sense over the past little while on how to move an idea from September to September, from one IGF to another IGF.  So, to your challenge of what can be a good thing to have at this IGF in Istanbul, it could be a successful IGF in Brazil.  This could be a good -- to prepare the ground for the next IGF, to have the topics well-prepared and to have the structures well-prepared for the next IGF to be successful.  In that sense, if we think of good ideas and how to push them forward, I think that we can be successful.  But we shouldn't shy away from the danger and we shouldn't shy away just because things might get dirty.  They might.  In the -- it's going to be tough.  But we have to take this challenge right now.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much.  I think this was a very useful exchange of views.  And I have still feeling that we're talking more or less about the same things, maybe calling some slightly different.  And I'm happily accepting proposal of Vlad to create a working group of MAG members who are willing to spend this evening talking about sort of those intangible outcomes and how to bring the outcomes of NETmundial in the game and to meet expectations of IGF community or Internet community broader and not to disappoint them that IGF would somehow not meet their expectation.  At the same time we think about what I suggested.  And I think that that encompasses a lot what we were talking here.

 Let me also point that organizers of NETmundial had the privilege to select topics and concentrate on two of them.  Though one may say they were very broad.  But, nevertheless, there were two of them.  And the focus was only on two topics -- principles and way forward.

 IGF was created to address all range of issues.  And we have -- we agreed in summary in Geneva on eight subthemes.  And we're bound with our own decision to address eight subthemes with all the consequences that we have.

 If I would say NETmundial was something like surgery, that IGF is, when you go to the doctor, you go to generalist or family doctor first that knows a little bit about everything but nothing really in depth.  And then you go to experts, and the expert does surgery.

 So we may think that some of the items, some of the issues are mature to be addressed in more profound way.  And, actually, we already identified them in Geneva and during the -- the intersessional telephone conferences that we have a number of issues which we'll focus on.  And those issues are -- let me remind you -- those are access and development aspect.  That is IANA transition.  And that is IGF and evolution of Internet ecosystem.  These are already -- I sort of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.  But these are pre-agreed items for the main session.

 So some of them clearly can be identified as an outcome from NETmundial.  IGF and evolution of ecosystem is the same as a way forward.  Very much so.

 The IANA transition topical issue for 2014, and IGF will be putting all emphasis on that issue unless we agree otherwise.

 So I think we're talking more or less about the same things.  And now I'm asking those MAG members who would like to join the working group, informal working group, to raise hands.  And, actually, maybe stand up rather than raise hands.  Then we see each other better.  Please, stand up those who would like to join this working group.

 May I ask -- whom shall I ask?  May I ask Mark to moderate and to report tomorrow on the sort of outcomes of your discussion?  Thank you.  And Fiona, please.  You have a mic now.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yeah, just a question, Janis.  Is the group open to non-MAG members as well so anyone who's interested can go?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, as usual.  So we saw MAG members who volunteered to discuss this issue tonight, and Mark will report tomorrow morning on the either outcomes of discussion or preliminary outcomes so we will see what will be the result?  

 We need to move forward.  We have agenda in front of us.  And I would like also to maybe encourage you to look to that watch on the floor.  We have interpretation until 5:30.  And we will fully use that time.  But, in case we will not exhaust our agenda, we will continue after 5:30 unfortunately without interpretation.  I beg pardon for those who prefer to listen and speak in French, but majority of us speak English.  And we need to exhaust our agenda for today.  And we will do it no matter how long will it take.  So please keep that in mind.  Because tomorrow on that, tomorrow we have other issues to address.  And we need to prepare tomorrow's meeting as well.  So let us move now to agenda item 4.

 Discussion on main focus sessions.  And maybe I will start by asking Secretariat to give maybe a very brief introduction on what has been agreed already in terms of main focus session.  No, no, we're now on item 4.  The main focus sessions.  And -- okay. Then I will -- I will do it -- I started already, actually.  

 So what we have agreed so far, that is in main sessions we would start on the day 1 with an opening session that would entail part of orientation for newcomers.  The second part would be setting the scene and introduction of themes of IGF 2014.  So that would be for the -- for this introductory session.  

 Following with the opening ceremony in the afternoon.  I will tell you there were a number of colleagues who suggested that, since opening session is a sequence of statements, that we may think of splitting opening session in two and bringing also elements of opening session or parts of the statements in day number 2.  But that is something we may want to discuss.  

 Then there is on day 2 main focus session on policies enabling access and Internet engine on growth and development.

 Then on day 3 suggestion is that we would have a main focus session on evolution of Internet Governor governance ecosystem, role of IGF.  That would be a 3-hour block devoted to this -- to these questions. Again, that is something that clearly comes out from NETmundial as a way -- also a way forward.  

 And then day 4 we have a session on IANA transition.  Then we have open mic session. And then we have emerging -- other emerging issues and stock taking before the closing.  So these are proposals that we have discussed and kind of penciled in in the agenda.  Of course, we may revisit those.  And we may fine tune some elements, as I suggested the number of people think that the opening session might be split in two.  Then, of course, we need to see how it fits in the program.  But this is where we are at the moment with the discussion about the main session.  

 Again, please, recall our debates in February.  That evaluation of Bali clearly suggested that we need to diminish number of workshops and maybe not use all time for the main session since there were very little -- in some sessions there were very little participation and very little interest about main session at the time when workshops were widely attended.  

 So floor is now open.  And let me start by asking volunteers who have started working already on sessions maybe to report on intentions in relation to those sessions.  Who will start?  Subi?  Who will take the lead?  Ladies first.  Subi, please.  But, if I may ask you just to be relatively brief, because we read the email that you sent out.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Sure, yeah.  I did, however, think that, since we have members from the community, it would be a great opportunity to listen to input from the floor.  I'll briefly summarize the work that we've done so far.  

 The session is scheduled for day 3.  The next steps and way forward -- and this -- we hope that would be a response to a lot of questions and excellent inputs and suggestions that have been made from the floor today.  

 I want to start out by thanking all the 16 members who volunteered to put this session together.  We received excellent ideas and suggestions and inputs from particularly Constance, Paul, Myron, Izumi, Baher, Bill, Hossam, Felice.  And, Janis, your inputs were very constructive to help us structure key threads around which we can take this discussion forward.

 So we're hoping that we'll have about 90 minutes.  We would like to use all 90 minutes not just for speaking slots but for having an engaged discussion, which would be a mix of a town hall format with panelists who represent these events and processes as well as these organizations to respond to principles, processes, actors, outcomes, issues, the scope and coverage.  

 And, with inputs from Constance, the key questions that we'd like to pose to them, all of them would receive a document in advance so that they know these are the issues that we'd like them to respond to.  So what's broken?  What does the landscape look like?  What are the challenges, issues, and roles of stakeholders?  The processes and solutions.  The paths ahead, opportunities of coexistence and intersessional work, the role of governments speaking from their stakeholder perspective, and how do we take this beyond Tunis.  And, lastly, the vision for the IGF and the ecosystem, inter-linkages, responses to issues like the IANA transition accountability like NETmundial and the future of the broader Internet ecosystem.  We received suggestions from speakers, but I'm not going to walk through the entire list.  They're from a mix of ISTAR organizations.  They're people who have been recommended to respond and speak on behalf of the existing events and organizations but also be positive with provocative speakers from a multistakeholder community representing all stakeholders and engaging with the interventions that speakers make.  We hope not to give them more than four minutes as a speaking slot so that we will leave 15 minutes for discussion.  

 And that's about it.  Thank you.  And we're looking forward to inputs and suggestions from all the MAG members and the community.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Maybe I will take the reports of all the leaders of this -- these preparatory groups, and then we'll engage in discussion.  Virat.

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Posing the idea that you suggested as the first what you call after February.  We have sort of a session planned which combines the issue of access and accessibility as well as Internet development.  One of the names that have come through outsourcing of a dutiful -- well, they all sounded quite similar, but the one that seems to be getting the highest number is policies enabling access growth and development on the Internet.  Six set of e-mails with inviting comments has been sent to various members.  Approximately 16 volunteers came in to support.  We have some excellent suggestions.  And we've also got some very good names already in sessions.  The one thing that we are trying to do differently this time from main session is hold a roundtable.  It's not a panel discussion, which sort of usually lends itself to a session like this and allows us to bring in about 20 speakers, multistakeholder.  We're targeting a lot of developing country multistakeholder representatives, including governments.  Amongst names that have come in are requests that have been made.  Confirmed requests from Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Rwanda, Nigeria, China, Argentina, India, amongst the countries that have already been reached out to.  The latest IT report shows a huge way to go both in Africa and Asia in terms of Internet access.  

 Two subthemes have been introduced by some of the volunteers.  One related to access in public spaces.  The other one to accessibility for people with disabilities.  So those have been included as subthemes.  Policy questions have been framed about 10 at the last count on the note that went out last night.  We're looking to bring them down to about six.  

 And we're on the third version of host meeting and input of the document.  

 One thing that we wanted to do is make sure this is as engaging as possible.  We made a request to our distinguished guests from Turkey to find if they would also bring in some youth organizations, local in Istanbul to participate in the audience to try and make it more relevant for the youth.  And, if there are any disadvantaged communities locally easily to participate, we'd like them to be in this and have discussions and even have speaking slots if we can find innovative ideas.  

 It's been a bit of a mundane session in the past.  But I think we plan to make it more interesting and attractive.  Suggestions welcome.  You all have notes in your in-box.  Those who are observers can just let me know when I can send across a note inviting comments (indiscernible) which would come out after this period.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Let me go through other pre-agreed sessions.  Orientation session I understand -- yes, please.

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  One point.  I think I'd seen a timetable in the morning session on day 2.  (indiscernible)  We're making requests based on the morning sessions because speakers can come in, especially government speakers might leave by the afternoon.  So that slot is there for the Secretariat.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  So you're suggesting to move it from afternoon of day 2 to morning day 2?  Okay.

 Let's go systematically through the proposed sessions.  Day one:  Orientation session.  That was Vlad who volunteered to prepare.  He is not with us today.  I hope that things are on track with that part.  Can he speak?  Okay.  Let's see, Vlad, if you hear us and if you are ready to inform us where you are with the orientation session, we will give you opportunity to speak.  Hopefully, that will be feasible.

 So on the setting the scene.  Who was volunteering?  Anriette, please.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Janis.  My apologies to everyone that I haven't e-mailed an outline.  In fact, I kind of deliberately wanted to look at the workshop proposals and also get input from all of you.  Just to remind you, the idea is that it would be a panel where we have speakers -- and ideally some quite good speakers -- that would talk about some of the key things that have happened in the Internet governance universe.  But that they would also serve to be testers for what will then be addressed for some of the main sessions?  What I've come up with are some draft topics for us to discuss in that session.  And I really would like feedback from everyone.  So the first thing I think is Internet governance one year post the Snowden revelation.  We had a very good session on surveillance in Bali.  And I think having a bit of a stop tick and reflecting on that.  Having somebody -- you know, this is not a workshop.  Just a bit of an analysis of what has happened.  And there's been a lot of work done on this.  There's been privacy, civil liberties, oversight board.  There's been WIPO investigation.  There's been German work and so on.  And there's been NETmundial.  So just a reflection on that.  And then the next topic is NETmundial and what that means for us.  There again, we can just give a little bit of an overview, have someone speak about it.  And then there will be much more in-depth discussion in Subi's session.  

 And IANA transition.  I think, again, at an opening session, just having somebody talk briefly about that, why it's so important, what the implications are, what it is and what it's not.  Just to set the scene, because there are a lot of workshops on it as well.

 Then the next topic I had is trends and access.  And I'm basing this on workshop proposals as well.  What are the challenges, new inclusions, new exclusions.  Then we can ask Virat to just give a tester of what will be addressed in the main session.  So it could be quite a brief tester for the main session on access and possibly best practice forum.  

 Then I thought we have to deal with blocking.  Censorship and blocking.  There has been quite a lot that has happened in the last year and lots of workshop proposals.  I think they're different issues.  I learned -- I was in Emirates recently.  And there's an instance where the Emiratic government is having a conflict with Twitter that is not -- which is a classic jurisdictional issue.  

 Then there's censorship at national level in some countries.  Again, I think it would be good to talk about that without going into too much detail but having a bit of a bird's eye view on what the conflicts are, what the issues are, and what governments are struggling with and the government perspective on some of these actions and then the rights perspective.  

 And then the final topic, I mean, I wanted to ask the technical community how you feel about IPv6 and if you think it's worth putting that in scene setting or not.  

 And then I think another topic that I think has come out as a huge issue in the last year is multistakeholder participation or the multistakeholder approach.  And what do we mean by that?  That can reflect on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation.  Some of the processes that are happening at institutional level.  Transformation at national level and maybe also within other institutions.  Really just a bit of an overview of what's been happening and what the status is.  Because I think we've reached a point where many people are beginning to question exactly what we mean by multistakeholder approaches.  Is it the same as bottom-up and inclusive, or is it something more bureaucratic that needs representivity from different stakeholder groups and more structure.  So those were the topics that I had as scene setting topics.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  And, of course, all of them are linked with the subthemes of the meeting.  So that is important.  We're introducing eight subthemes of the meeting and those need to be clearly identified because that's the meaning of the setting the scene session.  In-depth discussion on a number of questions will be during, for instance, a session Subi was talking about, the ecosystem and IGF and all this.

 Good.  Now, IANA transition, who is preparing that?

 Please.  Carolina, please.

 >>CAROLINA AGUERRE: Hi.  Okay.  So we are a bunch of -- half a dozen people, myself, Constance, Susan Chalmers, Baher, and we -- we have been working and discussing the issue and we do have kind of a -- like a very draft outline or text for -- to send forward to the MAG list and see what kind of input and how we can enrich the sessions.

 But our first preliminary proposal is -- addresses something that Anriette just mentioned, I mean, and it is, okay, the -- setting the brief background on the IANA technical functions, what they do and do not include, and then a second part that will be a very short part of the session, and also we are supposing that since there are more than two or three workshops which are already addressing the issue of IANA transition and what are the IANA functions, to see whether we can recover some of those workshops that are being currently proposed, and see -- and then get the feedback for the process, and for the panel itself, which will -- we are considering to -- in a panel which addresses both the transition of the NTIA stewardship role and the IANA -- the ICANN's accountability process.  Because we see that in our -- in a -- they will suddenly begin to intermingle and they will -- it's inevitable, but if we can sort of say, "Okay, we will be addressing both but let's channel both kind of discussions within the same session but in different timings at the same time -- at the same session."

 So this session will encourage this discussion, and some of the possible questions that we have, I mean -- and please bear in mind that these are preliminary, that we have to share them with the overall MAG group, and that we may have to revisit them closer to the date, but in order to contact the panelists, et cetera, is what is at stake for the affected parties after this announcement, what are the strengths and weaknesses of various proposals for the new IANA stewardship, how will the various parties involved within the IANA functions be affected by these proposals, how is the process evolving in terms of participation, openness, and matters relating to accountability, what are the underlying principles on which the evaluation should be based, and what are the expectations with respect to the time line and how could the process improve to meet the deadline.

 Okay.  So -- but we will be sharing this with the MAG list and see whether -- I mean, this is -- fits with our colleagues' expectations and how we can enrich this session proposal and start consolidating it.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  And then the -- finally, emerging issues -- stock-taking, emerging issues, who is -- who is coordinating that work?  No one?  

 Constance?

 >>CONSTANCE WEISE:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Chair.

 So for this specific main session, we were waiting to have confirmation of the themes of the best practice forums -- two, three, four best practice forums -- that will then feed into this final main session where we'll have an update, a gathering of the main outcomes of those various sessions.

 Should I give an update on the best practice forums here or later?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  Maybe later.  Let's take one by one.

 Now, we heard the presentations of where we stand now with thinking about the main sessions and state of preparation of the main sessions.

 Without prejudice of the outcome of the working group we just formed, may I suggest that we would pursue -- in preparation of those sessions, we would pursue the same kind of template.  That we would have the -- except for the "setting the stage" session, we would have an issue paper which would outline what the session will address, what type of issues the session will address, we will have clearly identified policy questions which session will aim to address.

 For those issue papers and policy questions, we would need to finalize them the latest by end of July -- latest -- because people need to know, they need to come to prepare and they need to have a chance to read those papers.

 And then as a result of the session, we would aim at sort of writing up a good report outlining convergence and divergence of opinions on those issues.

 So can we agree on that type of approach?  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Chair, thank you.

 I think that sounds excellent.  Marilyn Cade speaking.

 But I actually had a related question.

 In particular, for the main session that Subi is coordinating and I am a part of, as I've considered the open forums, I think that not only workshops but also open forums which may include reports from WSIS+10, CSTD, et cetera, are going to be very much a part of the landscape, reporting both -- both giving a good understanding of what is happening in those settings, and so may I just ask when we will be talking about the open forums?  

 Because again, I would say for our paper in particular, there will be a need for us to reflect on a range of activities in order to be sure that we're covering the Internet governance landscape as it exists and as it is evolving.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So about open forums, we will discuss under next agenda items.

 So Ricardo?  Ricardo, you were asking for the floor?  No?

 Virat, please.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So this issue-based paper that we must circulate, both for the participants and I thought for a wider circulation to the participants of the MAG well in advance, perhaps in the form of an eBrochure or something we could sort of place on the -- on the desk that kind of circulates what's going to happen, what are the -- what each of the sessions look like, and we can get into that.

 But -- and I think it's an excellent idea to increase participation, anticipation, and have specific policy questions, so thank you for that advice.

 Any suggestions on how sort of exhaustive -- because this is also pretty academic so it can get into a long-ish document.  What would you like it to look like?  A couple of pages?  Four pages with -- including questions and names?  

 You know, just some idea on what it should be, so that we have a common document idea that everybody can produce for these sessions.

 And the second question is that we would like everybody to contribute based on the short background notes that's included in the document that has been circulated to enrich further the existing document.  The document that has been circulated called "Notes for Comments" includes a brief background note and includes 10 proposed policy questions which have come in from volunteers.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think that it was one -- one of the famous British authors who said, "Sorry, I didn't have enough to write a short letter," so that would be the answer to the question.  

 I mean, the notes should be as -- as short as that it explains the main thrust of the session and gives a background and actually answers the question, "Why should I go to that session?  What I will get out of that session?"

 That is, again, most probably three, four pages max because people tend not to read longer documents than that.

 Certainly the secretariat may be of help in -- also in drafting those background notes, because again, it doesn't make sense to produce them really two days before the meeting.  Nobody will read them.

 If we will produce them well in advance, we have a good chance that people will look at them when they're thinking about the meeting and they are preparing themselves and when they make decision which sessions to attend, because competition will be there.

 So any further questions?  Subi, please.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  Subi Chaturvedi.  

 Janis, you put out an open call for inputs on the impact that the IGF is having.  

 I am wondering aloud when we look at the role of the IGF, would this be a good place to share the synthesis paper and the value that the IGF has been able to bring or are we going to look at a different time?  Because that is an important contribution that they're making as a community and it's also a great opportunity for the IGF to also be able to share the value that it brings.

 My second suggestion was, if we can find some space on the Web site for all the main sessions, not one or two, and talk about the issues and just as a simple concord that this is what they will deliver.

 I think one of the issues that we've struggled with is in terms of participation, people assume that it's going to be top-down, there will be people on the panel, and that's what they'll -- they'll come and listen to lectures, and we're trying to change that.  We're trying to make that interactive, with even changing and experimenting with formats of engagement.  

 So if we can look at disseminating the shift that has happened in the main sessions, we need to be able to do that and find some space for that.

 And just the third short point, on regional and national IGFs, I -- I still see empty spaces.  And we did discuss that last year.

 I don't know if it lends itself to a best practice fora, and possibly we'll agree with that, or we could even explore the opportunity of a main for regional and IGFs, because the inter-linkages that the global IGFs establish and the kind of learnings that they bring into each other is quite a synergy.  So thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 On the space on the Web site, that, of course, is a question that Chengetai can answer.

 From my previous experience here at UNESCO where UNESCO entertains knowledge society -- knowledge society community -- a knowledge communities Web platform, it works well when there is a very active discussion manager.  Nothing happens just by itself.  There should be somebody who really pulls out the information and inputs from different stakeholders.

 So this is -- this is how it -- how it works.

 But Chengetai, please, you can answer that at a little bit later stage.  We can --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  (off microphone)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Constance.

 >>CONSTANCE WEISE:  Thank you very much.

 Just a suggestion.  

 Looking at the structure of the IGF week, if all the main sessions are to feed into the "taking stock" session at the end, and if we agree that each main session should follow some sort of common format looking at policy questions, identifying areas of consensus, identifying areas where there's lack of consensus, perhaps would it be easier to work with a common template that the chairs or the people assisting the chair of each main session could fill in?  And all this to facilitate the reporting in to the "taking stock" and identifying the -- the outcomes of the IGF?  

 And I'm happy to work with Anriette, who has volunteered to identify ways to extract outcomes of the IGF.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Tero?

 >>TERO MUSTALA: Thank you, Chair.  Tero Mustala.

 After listening to these descriptions of the main focus sessions and trying to think back to the Bali session and what the Chair said about the success of the big sessions in Bali, I think now we really have to think how to, you know, invite more people in there.  And I would very much agree with what Subi was just telling, and I think we should even further think how we get the big sessions more interesting.  Because there is the competition from the workshops, and it's kind of sad to see a big hall with a bunch of people because if there is a bunch of people they won't come anymore.  If the hall would be full, people would be looking in and thinking, "Oh, there has to be something interesting here."

 So I would really call for new innovative ideas how to get this in better order.  I agree that we should put the synergies on the Web page if that's possible.  I'm testing whether we should start some kind of discussion already before the event or something, to get the people interested in these focused main sessions.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Paul?

 >>PAUL RENDEK:  Thank you, Chair.  I'm Paul Rendek, from the RIPE NCC.  First of all, I just wanted to thank all our colleagues for all the work that has been put into these main session proposals.  I realize that it is quite a bit of work to get that together, so that's fantastic.

 It gives us something to chew on, though, so I would like to provide my comment, if I could.

 Firstly, when I looked at the session proposals, I think generally I could see that -- that they made quite some sense.  I think the bit that really got me and I kind of tripped over the carpet at home was when I saw the list of names that were proposed in these areas.

 In my opinion, it's not good enough.  I'm seeing a list of characters that we're putting into these sessions and I already know exactly what these people are going to say.

 So for me, I think that as part of this group, I would find that slightly unacceptable moving forward, if we want to have the impact that we're trying to achieve.

 So what I suggest we do is that we try to work as a team.  We need new faces and perspectives here and I think we've got enough of the range within this group that we could spread out and come up with the names that would make things a little more interesting and get different perspectives.

 The other point I wanted to make to Anriette's proposal, she listed a few areas in the "setting the scene" area, which I thought were -- were very good.

 Particularly, the word "multistakeholder" that came up, because more and more as I'm going to different events, and particularly the technical kind of events that I do spin around, I'm seeing a lot of question marks going behind the word "multistakeholder" these days.

 So I do think this is something we need to pay some particular attention to.

 This definition is not very clear, or if it is clear, it's not in any synergy across any of the different sectors or groups.

 And I think there's the potential for danger there, so I think we need to understand from which point we're starting from, in looking at that point.

 The other one was the blocking and censorship.  I think this is topical.  I think it ranges throughout all of the areas and I think we can have more kind of the human aspects of this together with the technical aspects which makes extremely topical discussion.

 So I was very happy to see that come in there.

 The question on whether or not IPv6 should be in "setting the scene," certainly I think that CIR would feature in there, the critical Internet resources, and I think that we need to see the workshop proposals a bit, where we are with the grading of them, with what people probably thought was a little bit more topical, and bring the technical community members together -- and of course anyone else who's interested -- to bring up these topical proposals that we can concentrate on in "setting the scene."

 We don't have to have them all right now.  Right?

 I think we still have some other work to do.

 And the last thing that I would like to say is I would very much like to support what Subi had just mentioned.

 I would like to see more coming -- more emphasis coming from the regional and national IGFs.  I look at this fantastic timetable that's been put together and the one thing I'm missing there is the national and regional IGFs.

 They should be a driver in this.

 I think that, you know, as someone who does support many regional IGF efforts, I think that it's just a way to give some prominence and spark some movement and engagement from that local level which I think is so important in letting us engage together globally.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Paul.  I think this would be really worth taking on board one thing you said.  At least one thing you said.  Sorry.

 [ Laughter ]

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  No, no.  At least one thing.

 Because sometimes myself, I have a feeling, sitting in Internet governance meetings, that we're preaching to the converted.  All of us, we think in the same way, and what would be really useful is to identify people or organizations who have different perspectives, who think differently, and invite them to the -- to those sessions, listen to them, discuss with them.  For instance, multistakeholder versus multilateral intergovernmental.

 We know that there are a number of governments who simply do not support the multistakeholder approach by definition.  Why don't we reach out to those governments and we invite them to the session and discuss issues, listen to their opinion, sort of -- and engage in discussions without, of course, offensively putting them on the spot, and that -- because we really need to support also a variety of views and opinions.

 Netherlands, please.

 >>NETHERLANDS:  Thank you, Janis.  Arnold van Rhijn, Dutch government.  

 I would like to echo what the person from Finland in the prompt just said.  We need some more information -- innovation in the whole process.

 Looking at the topics, it's all fine with us, but I think we need a better interaction between the workshops and the main session.  I will give you an example.

 I know IGF had a workshop in Baku on cyber-security and law enforcement.  This workshop ended up with seven recommendations, and these seven recommendations were taken up again in a follow-up workshop on cyber-security and law enforcement in Bali.

 The moderator came up with conclusions where there was consensus, but there was also diverging views, and he got the time slot at the main session to present his views.

 Then the chair returned to the discussion again on the theme.

 So in fact, the conclusions of the moderator of this workshop were -- were evaporated, and that's disappointing.

 So how can we improve this interaction between the workshops and main sessions?

 I'll also give you another example, what (indiscernible) does in preparing the IGF.

 We have several workshops -- at least very few, not as many as at the IGF -- but the conclusions of those workshops will be presented during the plenary where there is a panel and the panel can respond to the recommendations coming out from the workshop.

 Then there is the possibility that the audience can interact as well, when they've heard the views of the panel, and I think is that perhaps a way forward to -- to -- as a small step to present such a new process during the IGF where there is an interaction between the moderator and the panelists as well as panelists and the audience, so to take off further on the issues which came out of the workshops.  It could be cyber-security, it could be privacy, anything.  At least there's a better interaction.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for those thoughts.

 Again, I keep repeating this all the time.  When IGF was proposed during WSIS, the idea behind this proposal was to create a space where issues could be discussed, a better understanding obtained, options sort of sorted out, and then the issue should be taken to the place where a decision should be made.

 IGF will never decide on anything, and this is not the right place to decide, but issues that are discussed in IGF should be decided somewhere.

 That also is the meaning of idea of having this compilation of actions which has been taken as a result of the discussions at IGF, and that is also meaning of proposal of having proactive marketing of the outcomes of IGF.  You rightly said about security.

 So which organizations or bodies are dealing with security issues?

 So IGF needs to identify those and secretariat needs to send to those organizations, "Hey, these are the outcomes of the IGF.  Please take them on board if you consider that they are -- they are useful."

 And maybe with -- with that in mind, we may raise more visibility and the IGF may become more action-oriented.

 IGF was made based on sort of model of World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos where people come and discuss issues, important issues for the world, and then they go home and they bring that Davos spirit and knowledge to their daily activities.

 When a very similar initiative was proposed by President Clinton, he went a step beyond and -- the global -- Clinton Global Initiative -- Global Clinton Initiative differs from the World Economic Forum annual meeting that their -- those who made a commitment in the previous meeting are not accepted if they have not fulfilled that commitment.  So it is more action-oriented.  

 So maybe we need to move IGF to that sort of next level where we have full information what has been done from -- on the issues that have been discussed in the previous.

 For instance, we had the discussion on surveillance.  Now we need to bring information what has been done in one year by those who needed to address those issues.  That's the meaning behind this -- the proposal on bringing that information to IGF.

 The same, actually, with NETmundial.  We discussed Brazilian host.  If Brazil will not take initiative and would not market and would not actively promote NETmundial outcomes, they would land on the shelf, as many other documents in -- in this area.  Not only in this area, in any area in general.

 So that, of course, is up to us and that is the question of our capacity, capacity of secretariat, to do this outreach.

 So we have a lot of -- a lot of flags up.  I don't know why.  Sorry.  I'm joking.

 I'm looking at -- Veronica, please.

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  Veronica Cretu, MAG member, open government Institute for Civil Society.  

 I think I'm jumping it a little bit late on the on orientation sessions, because we were expecting Vlad to jump in.  But whatever infrastructure he's using does not allow him to speak.  I wanted to briefly share with you the main developments on the orientation sessions as well as share some of the specific minor elements that we could add to bring more dynamics and more interaction into the IGF in Istanbul.  So, to the orientation sessions, I think it's important I highlight that they started well in advance of the IGF with a number of pre-orientation webinars which are going to be organized by (indiscernible) in partnership with ISOC.  They're going to be also multilingual, providing opportunity for people from all around the world to have access to the important issues and elements of the IGF ecosystem.  Webinars are going to over topics issues of diplomacy like due process, topics of this upcoming IGF, what is IGF in general and the ecosystem around it.  So, basically, those webinars are going to be transposed in a face-to-face format during the IGF in Istanbul by providing opportunity for the newcomers to be engaged in the debates during the IGF itself.  

 So the orientation session is going to be highly interactive, participatory, based on constructivist learning theories, some situational series as well.  Creating space for everyone to actively engage and really get to understand what IG is all about.

 This discussion is going to continue during the fourth day during capacity building session where the key takeaways of the capacity building track are going to be discussed.  And there will be some possibility for those engaged in capacity building initiatives to coordinate their efforts for the upcoming year.  So there is a lot of effort that is being put in place by those of us who are working on the orientation session.  And we'll make sure we will maximize the opportunity for the newcomers to really have their hands on the IGF.  

 On a different note, some of the specific comments as follow-up reflections on what some of the colleagues said, particularly Subi mentioning the fact that we don't have that much space for the national or regional IGFs.  I think there is a possibility for us to look into the space that we are going to have in the meeting venue, particularly the space outside the workshop room.

 So transforming that space into a festival area where you can have a stage that is always taken by someone who has a microphone there who can share whatever initiative they have at the country level or regional level.  That space can be organized and arranged in a participative manner so, during the coffee breaks, during the lunches that could be an agenda for those -- for that space to be utilized.  

 Another idea, I think we often go to IGF, but we don't know what are the expectations of the people who come to the IGF.  And I think this is very relevant data that we have to explore.  Because that data would help us to continue building and improving.  And one way to collect the data about expectations, I think it's, again, getting us to the open space, having something like an open wall where people could stick some of the colorful notes writing their ideas, wishes, expectations during IGF.  If it's done during day zero or day 1, we, as MAG members, would still have access to those and we could make minor improvements for the day 2, day 3, for example, so we could still answer to some of their expectations to the degree possible.  

 Another element we could add to the main sessions is to embed some online space for people in the room -- you know, while I sit in the room and I watch and I listen to the speakers, I could also be online in the same kind of space discussing the same issues where I could leave my opinions, my ideas. And the moderator or co-moderator could have a look and get input from the audience, so those who are not that, you know, open to jumping to take a microphone, they could still express their opinion.  And I think we have to utilize the potential that technology could play in bringing more participation and more voices into the session.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I saw the light shining in the eyes of Brian now.  He's our Twitter guy.  

 I have a number of people asking for the floor.  Olga, please.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair.  I want to thank all the colleagues that have been working on the main session.  For some reason I only ended up receiving information (saying names)  So my apologies for not contributing to the other ones.  And I was kind of busy, and I couldn't follow up myself.  

 Some experience that we did in Hyderabad -- I don't know if some of you were there.  We avoided the panels for the main sessions.  We had a moderator.  We had some key issues or themes that wanted to be discussed.  And the audience just made the questions.  Paul made a very good comment.  Who would like to hear the same comments from very well-known people?  But maybe the audience wants to make questions to them because they're very relevant people.  And maybe they want to know what the audience is thinking about something.

 So that format went very well.  For some reason in Tunis we came back to the panelists.  I don't remember why.  So that is my comment about format.

 About setting scene main session, I would like to suggest to Anriette if we could add net neutrality.  That was one of the issues that was suggested by some countries at NETmundial to be addressed in the IGF.  And I think it could be interesting to have it there.

 And about the feeding.  We tried several times to make the feeding from the workshops to the main session.  That doesn't work at all.  Because people want to start the session.  They are not eager to listen to workshop reports.  So it's a good idea.  It's how to implement it.  We have to think about it.  So we have some experience from before.

 About the tweeting, I organized some meetings where the tweets to appear.  It's very interesting.  You see them in an application.  Brian, you have a tool for you.  I'm going to stop here.  Thank you so much.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Virat.  Please, Virat.

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So I want to thank Paul for sort of asking us to get out of our slumber and think innovatively about the sessions.  I anticipated some of that stuff, and I hope this comment is based on the right handout.  And we do have some interesting names there.  But what we wanted to do -- one of the ways to make this interesting, the first thing we did was to go over the roundtable in a main session than I have seen in a long time, which allows for interaction and engagement.  So that's one innovation in the format.  This allows us to get almost 18-20 participants.  Multistakeholder gender balance across the region.  Those of you who have seen the board will see how it's structured.  

 The third thing is we're trying to get a lot of developing countries to get speakers in.  Africa, Asia, big focus Latin America, and others who are investing in this type of work.  

 Tweeting.  One is the point made this morning about setting the stage when the opening occurs, people in the room -- we can tell them why they should attend these sessions.  That's an interesting point that we'll try to make that be an exciting 5-minute presentation.  The other, if I could request -- I don't know how this would work for everybody.  But, if we could get a list of those who resisted to participate at the IGF, say, two weeks before the IGF, then we could broadcast sessions across those who are participating.  Usually we tend to send this information out to those whose email IDs we have and who expect to be there.  If there could be some sort of interesting sort of online campaign to get the information out, that would be helpful.  I'm not sure how practical that is.  But, say, two weeks before the session organizer can get the information, then maybe one week before.  So apart from the Web site people get something in their in-boxes.

 The last 200-300 people at any given point in time standing in the corridors not attending any sessions.  We've got to make some interesting facts for them, announcements to try to get them into sessions that are going on.  Whether that's live Twitter or comments being made or discussed, I think something needs to be done.  That's second last.  

 Last is a point that Olga made.  Sorry.  A point made by my distinguished colleagues from Brazil which about getting the stickies in the day before.  Getting a white board out there with people writing their comments and what they'd like to see in the sessions based on the email you send out, so that we can try, to the extent possible, to incorporate some of those comments.  Some may not be possible last minute, but some of that stuff can be done.  It would seem that those who are attending are seeing themselves as participants.  Email these people, invite them in with comments, day zero, day 1.  Of course, the sessions on the last day will have the most advantage because people have stayed until that period.  So those are things that what we can do.  

 The last point Paul made about names.  We sent out requests.  I reached out now -- has to be a balance between some of the big names in government officials who have big stakes in the access piece.  And, therefore, that by itself would be relevant.  China, African continents, Arab states.  And also a combination of some new faces and new sort of new participants and people with new innovative looks.  So that's how the names piece can work out.  But please, please, do send out names.  I've reached out to several here already.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Just a kind reminder about the time limitation we have.  So we have a long list of speakers.  Brazil, Walid, Anriette, Paul, Marilyn.  Maybe then we can move to the next agenda item.  So Brazil, please.

  >>BRAZIL:   (Speaking in a language other than English).

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.

 >>WALID Al-SALQAF:  I'm also -- I've been a MAG member of Arab IGF twice.  And first and second.  And it's truly a great opportunity, actually, to bring in new thoughts, new ways of thinking of how governments usually deal with such issues.  

 However, I wish to raise two aspects now.  One of them is the opportunity, which, thanks for our colleagues, Ann and Christine and many others, have pushed very hard to bring in this multistakeholder in quotes idea in the Arab world.  And it wasn't easy, I must tell you.  

 The other thing is the dilemma.  The dilemma is because the way the IGFs are organized is mainly through the host country.  So, in countries like -- perhaps more authoritarian countries, in quotes, the way the event is organized makes it very much discouraging for local civil society representatives to be in and participate in open fashion.  This is up like the case in the international IGF where you can actually have more of a say.  But in such venues, there is the challenge -- and I agree totally with the notion that we need to engage government.  Trying to distance ourselves and trying to perhaps put some pressure on them is not the approach.  So what is needed, perhaps, is to get the governments in the Arab world in my region to become more and more aware of what it means to become somewhat part of this multistakeholder model.  And, if you have some sort of formula to identify for us to convey to our governments, it will be much more constructive.  Right now, as Paul rightly said, the idea of multistakeholderism is vague.  And we're really not able to -- otherwise, the government would simply say okay, we are 30 government representatives, 2 civil society representatives,  1 business.  And that's multistakeholderism.  What is it that makes sense in trying to build a new approach to this?  And, if anything comes out of this meeting or these activities in that sense, would very much be -- strongly used in our region.  So that's a point to raise.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Since Turkey is close to the Arab region, maybe we can thank the Turkish host to extend invitation to all Arab states and encourage them to come to participate in the discussions.

 >>AHMET CAVUSOGLU:  Thank you very much.  Actually, we have -- Turkey is close to Arab region, yes.  Countries, yeah.  But you know, Arab countries are (indiscernible) -- but it's not -- Africa are representatives.  Also Mauritania and also Comoros, Macedonia is considered Arab states.  And in Arab 22 countries.  And turkey has very good relations with all other countries.  And in ITU, we are very much involved in ITU issues.  We have very good relations with ITU.  There are some groups.  Turkey in European group but Arab group is also an important one, and we have very good relations with Arab groups.  So, just for coming here last week, I was in Geneva in ITU, and we had to make good communications with our Arab colleagues.  I invited most of them one by one to IGF.  I invited Saudi Arabia.  United Emirates.  There was a consultation meeting last week and the week before last.  Of course, only council members are participating to that meeting.  And from representative in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Emirates.  Invited all of them one by one, and in each meeting when I see our Arab colleagues, not only them but many other colleagues, I always invite them to IGF that's going to be held in Istanbul on September.  And I hope I'm going to have some other representatives to meet with our Arab colleagues.  And I'm going to invite them one by one in each case.  When I see them, I always mention the IGF and invite them.  And, furthermore, at the end of June, I think we're going to send invitation letters.  And, of course, we're going to send the invitation letters to all countries participating in the U.N.  One on the five states in U.S. we're going to send all of them.  But for the Arab region of course when we have -- on June there's a GSF held in Bahrain.  Most probably I am going to attend that.  That meeting, since it's in Bahrain, I can see and I'm going to encourage -- I'm going to invite them to IGF again in June, in the first week of June.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Paul.

  >>PAUL WILSON:  Thank you very much, Janis. I want to agree with my namesake Paul Rendek on quite a few of the things he said.  Just some general comments about the program and the structure.  Repetition of speakers and speeches throughout IGF is a pattern that really needs to be broken in the main session and workshops.  I recommended last time that we make a suggested limit, maybe a soft limit on the number of times an individual should appear in IGF.  It's occurred to me in the past that, when you see one or two people appearing at 6 or 8 sessions each, it starts to look like an Internet governance ego system.  Not an ecosystem.

 [ Laughter ]

 I've been waiting to use that.

 But it's a style, though.  It's a style and an atmospheric thing as well.  Statements and reports is just not engaging.  I think whether it's the overall event or plenaries or workshops, it creates a really slow start.  The IGF sessions spin their wheels for a while while we sort of hear the same old stuff over again.  And I really think we need to avoid repetition of introductory information.  Even on a technically complex topic, for instance, the IANA transition.  I've sat through a number of sessions about that where so much time has been spent on background information, there's not enough time for the latest information let alone discussion on the floor.  This takes some management, but I really think we should make sure the workshop organizers are pointing to introductory information that needs to be prepared.  And we ask participants to prepare for sessions a little bit at least.  And, if they're not clear on what's actually going on because they haven't prepared or they don't understand, they should ask questions.  I think anything called orientation should happen on day zero.  Setting the scene is okay.  But really, for that first session, I wouldn't really call it orientation.  People need to orientate themselves.  We need to help that on day one.  Let's help the wheels spinning when the IGF gets underway.  

 I agree very much on the importance of national and regional IGFs.  But a session on those is also a great opportunity for an extended reporting session that really doesn't help very much with engagement.  So I prefer the content from those events to be mainstreamed into the IGF.  If something fascinating has happened on IPv6 transition in the Asian Pacific region, I'd prefer to bring that through the IPv6 transition topics throughout the IGF than to sort of isolate it in a separate report which won't necessarily attract the right people.  

 Finally, agree very much with what Veronica said about the use of technology.  That's something we could have more engagement and more sort of excitement and dynamism in the event with better use of technology.  It's another thing that requires much more management from the secretariat.  But, hopefully, that would be something possible if we're able to mobilize much stronger IGF support and financial support in the future.  Thanks.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Paul.  Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I -- years ago, when I was a very young social worker, I was trained by Saul Alinsky.  I don't expect anybody for you to recognize who that is but he was a very famous street gang worker from Texas, and he had a -- he made a very big impression on me as an impressionable young person.  First of all, because I was terrified of working with gangs.  But he said something that I've always tried to remember, and that is, "You can never really interpret for the other.  You must ask the other and ask the other."

 So I think this is an absolutely great preliminary discussion about how different stakeholders or individuals take value out of the IGF, but let me mention a value that I have seen and have helped to catalyze and have heard about, and that is the growth of the side meetings and engagements that are growing up that are not formal.  And I want to use what may be an intergovernmental term but to apply it to all of us, and that is bilateral and multilateral exchanges that take place spontaneously in the hall because someone learns about something in a workshop and finds that they want to build on that and to share information and to continue the networking further.

 I've seen governments increase their interest in coming to the IGF because they can meet with fellow governments but also with other stakeholders informally.

 So one thing I'd like to just park is the idea -- and the secretariat has done this in the past -- is to have a small number of small rooms that are available for ad hoc scheduling for these conversations.  

 Looking in some of the main sessions in the meetings, I do see a lot of people sitting in the back of the room doing their email.

 However, I also see a lot of people in the hallway having very productive exchanges.  

 So I'm not so much with my friend back here who wants to herd everybody into the main sessions as I am to think that perhaps we also think about some kind of a light exit survey to ask people what most met their needs and what advice they would give us going forward.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think that the value of those forums also lies with these discussions in the corridors and in the evenings and the mornings, and that's for sure.

 So I really would like to finalize this agenda item and I still have two organizations willing to speak.  

 UNESCWA and UNECA.  

 UNESCWA first, please.

 >>UNESCWA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Just a very small input regarding an idea that in NETmundial, well, it has been postponed, it was clearly postponed, when they said this topic has to be discussed in other venues, and I think that we may be other venue.  This is the core idea of defining the roles of -- the respective roles of stakeholder groups within the multistakeholderism.

 And this is core.  And this answers the worries of my colleague here, Walid, when he spoke of their experience and the lack of interest in governments in certain parts of the world, which is the Arab region.  So the idea of attracting governments, we have a problem in the Arab IGF to attract governments.  The Arab IGF in the Arab region is dominated by nongovernmental actors, which for us is something that is worrying.

 So his question I'm reiterating, the interest on finding ways to attract governments or governmental actors, state actors, and the other point is adding somewhere maybe a session setting the scene or the evolution or whatever, a subtopic on this issue of stakeholder respective roles within the multistakeholderism, because it is -- I think no other venue is accepting this topic, so maybe we are the one for that orphaned topic.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  UNECA.

 >>UNECA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  On the issue of the national and regional IGF representation, I believe that in 2012 we had works on regional IGFs.  In 2013, we said, "No, we are not going to do that, because the 2012 workshops, the result was on the workshop you'll find, in fact, the same person organizing the other IGFs sitting together and discussing among themselves," and of course it was not worth it to bring them again in 2013.

 I really believe that what was suggested by one colleague who spoke before ESCWA was to mainstream, to find ways to have one representative from each continent to be part of each of the workshops, so that they can bring what has been the key aspect of what had come from the continent, and also to make sure that those issues are also taken into account into the best practices session.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much.  I think that this was a rich exchange and the secretariat will need to look through the -- all the valid points which were mentioned here and think how to streamline the best -- the main sessions.

 It is easy to say.  It's maybe not always so easy to do.  But certainly we need to strive to bring all our imagination to make these main sessions attractive and interesting for people.

 So what I feel that -- when we heard the reports on the state of preparation for the main sessions, we can conclude that we are on the right track but we are not yet there.  We need to continue actively working in preparation.  We -- we discussed and it was not really objected that some structured preparation in terms of background paper, policy -- formulation of policy questions be undertaken, and those doc- -- those documents or those papers would be published not later than end of July.  Earlier, that would be even better.  And so we would focus on -- also on the quality outcome of those main session discussions and would see if we can formulate any policy recommendations and dissenting views from that debate.

 So let us move now to the next item and I would like to suggest to take both items together.

 That is, open forums and dynamic coalitions.  

 That is the tradition in IGF to provide space for those events, and I would like to ask the secretariat to introduce that question.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.  If I can just have the slide, the PowerPoint?  The first slide.

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The one that says "Palais." 

 Oh, by the way, while we're doing that, I'd just like to introduce Nick D'Agostino.  He's our intern, our new intern.  He's going to be with the IGF secretariat for three months.  He came at a very interesting time.  I'm sure he's somehow wondering what he got himself into.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That's good.  And I'd also like to introduce Sorina who most of you know.  She's going to be with the secretariat.  Sorina Teleanu.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So for the open forums, we received those requests.  

 As you know, open forums -- as Janis just said, open forums is the opportunity for organizations and countries to present their Internet governance initiatives to the IGF.

 I think this is in part with us and also with the request for improvements that we are interacting with organizations that have Internet governance activities and are given a chance to present what they have done to the IGF community.

 So we received a request from the host country, the United States government, ICANN, World Wide Web Consortium, Korea, Netherlands, ISOC, Council of Europe, the ICANN GAC, UNESCO, and the OECD, and new this year, we've got World Pulse, which is the first time they've registered, and if -- you can just do a Google Search for them.  They seem to be -- they seem to qualify, in my opinion.  

 They're a world organization.  They deal with women issues and they've got quite a few interesting projects which are dealing with Internet governance issues, especially on the gender dimension.  

 And then we have the Internet and Jurisdiction Project which they have also applied for one.  I'm not too -- I have to ask your opinion on this, and they can also give -- where is he?  Is he -- is he here?  Bertrand?  Oh, he's not here.  Okay.  Well, he's applied.  He's -- yes, he's not a major organization, so --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  -- I would just like to have given him the opportunity to just say a few words on that, but let's just go to the next one.  

 Yeah, so those are the organizations and I feel -- well, sorry.  The secretariat thinks that those -- at least the first 12 are, you know, valid, they have -- they are important organizations, and it's good to hear from them.  And then for the -- 

 Next slide, please.  

 For the dynamic coalitions, we have seven dynamic coalitions that have applied for slots, and we -- as you know, dynamic coalitions are one of the things that came up organically from the IGF with a number of stakeholders coming together to focus on one issue.  You know, Internet and climate change, access and disability, et cetera.

 And the -- in order to be given a slot for the IGF, for the next IGF meeting, in the next IGF meeting, they have had to have produced a report detailing what they have done during the past year.

 And so these are the seven dynamic coalitions that are up-to-date and that have also applied for a slot.

 And since it's been our tradition and these are the dynamic coalitions that came out of the IGF, I don't really see any reason why not to give them the slots that they request for.

 Then we can just open it up for comments.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  I would like to ask all those who are not willing to speak on this agenda item to put their flags down.  Otherwise, it's a bit confusing for me.  I have United States, I have European Commission, and I have Marilyn Cade.

 United States, please.

 >>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, Janis.  I just wanted to make a clarification about the open forum that is listed under USA.

 If I'm not mistaken, that is the open forum for the Freedom Online Coalition that just happened to be submitted by someone from the U.S. government.  Am I correct?  That's your understanding?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  We just looked at the submitter and the submitter was Department of State --

 >>UNITED STATES:  Okay.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: -- United States government.

 >>UNITED STATES:  Okay.  But for this purpose, it might be useful to list it as Freedom Online Coalition, okay?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Freedom Offline.  Ah. 

 >>UNITED STATES: Okay?  

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Freedom Online, not Freedom Offline.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Online.  Yeah.  Okay.

 >>UNITED STATES:  The Freedom Online Coalition, just to clarify.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.

 >>UNITED STATES:  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  European Commission.

 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:  Yes.  Just briefly to ask whether it would still be possible for the European Commission to have an open forum.  If possible.

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:  Yeah, but I see that we are not on the list so we would to be there.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking.

 I have a couple of views that I would like to share, and one is that when we established the open forum criteria, the open forum criteria does not put the proposer in competition in an evaluation of whether it is multistakeholder or it is graded.  It is -- it is a unique approach that we agreed on and was focused on regional organizations, IGOs, et cetera, and I strongly prefer that we stick with that -- and governments.  And I strongly prefer that we stick with that at this time.  

 Any parties who don't fit the original criteria could have submitted a workshop proposal, could have met the multistakeholder requirement, and could have competed with all other workshop proponents who worked hard to do that, so that's my first point.

 I do think that the advantage and the opportunity for governments and IGOs and other recognized international organizations to provide an open forum is very important, but it is often and usually an informational session.  I welcome hearing that the European Commission is interested.  I continue to hope that perhaps UNCTAD will be interested as well.  So that's the point on open forums.

 On dynamic coalitions, my experience with the dynamic coalitions is they are often, but not always, a meeting among the members of the dynamic coalition to further advance their work.  So they don't always compete for attendance broadly.  Sometimes they really are a space that the dynamic coalition proponents and those who are involved need space to work.

 So I do support the idea that the dynamic coalitions be offered that space, but I don't -- I strongly urge we not count them against workshop participation opportunities unless they actually are such an opportunity.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  My question is to the secretariat.  Those open forums that are listed now, have you evaluated against the criteria that Marilyn --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  As Marilyn -- as Marilyn said, they're not -- I mean, for workshops, for instance, they have to be multistakeholder, they have to have regional representation, et cetera.

 For the dynamic -- for the opening forums, that is not the case.  If the Netherlands wants -- sorry, I should pick somebody who's not here.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Well, everybody's here.

 If one wants to have an open forum, it's to showcase the activities so it doesn't need to have that regional representation, et cetera, because they are informing the public of what they are doing, and actually feeding back into the IGF, and it's one of the conduits where they can advertise what they're doing, so it was not evaluated on that -- on those criteria.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So there are criteria which are established by previous MAGs to apply for open forums.  My question is --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, yes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- yes or no whether --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, they follow the same --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- whether the secretariat has evaluated those 13 proposals against criteria.  Yes or no.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  But I have my question on Number 13, which doesn't seem to meet my -- meet the established criteria, as such.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.

 So the question is whether the proposal listed 13 from Internet and Jurisdiction Project does not meet criteria.

 The question is whether this MAG would follow established criteria and reject proposal.

 Fiona.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  So thank you.  I'm not aware of the criteria and I haven't seen the proposal, so I don't feel like I can answer your question because I don't have either piece of information.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So criteria most probably can be found on the Web site.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry.  It can be found on the Web site.  There's a program paper which has criteria in it and also the open forums are available on the Web site.  If you look on the left-hand side, there's open forum requests.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much.  And I thought the applications were closed, but seeing as you just reopened it, actually Council of Europe and APC would like to do an open forum on the code of good practice for public participation and transparency because we started reviving it, so just to flag that, and that's what happens if you break your own rules.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  But my question is really:  When I was reviewing the workshop proposals, there were some workshops -- for example, there were workshops from a conference, and I can't actually remember the exact name now, but where people wanted to discuss in the workshop the outcomes of a particular conference.  It might have been on child protection or digital literacy or content creation.  I can't remember.

 And it seemed to me that that would lend itself to an open forum as well, because it's sharing information.  In terms of the criteria, I understand the criteria.

 So I would just like us to -- to have an opportunity to talk about that, because sometimes I think if a workshop is not really addressing policy questions, if it's just sharing information, my understanding is that it then is an open forum, rather than a workshop.

 So I hope we can get a chance to talk about that.  Although it might not solve the problem of having too many sessions, I still think it's important for us to -- to keep that separation between what is an open forum and what is a workshop.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I have Brazil and then U.K.  Brazil, please.

 >>BRAZIL:  Thank you.  So based on the answer related to Council of Europe, I understand that applications are not closed, so considering it, Brazil would like to require to -- to be -- to have an open forum on its experience on the NETmundial.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I -- okay.  We just -- we just stepped on a very slippery sort of path.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Answering the question of Brazil, I think you will have an opportunity to present outcomes of NETmundial during the main session, and believe me, that will be widely discussed during that main session.  You may not need an open forum for that.

 And it is -- let's maybe think overnight whether we want to break our own rules and open the applications for open forums.

 And let's revisit it maybe tomorrow morning as a -- in a very brief period of time.

 United Kingdom, please.

 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you, Chair.  

 I'll have to add to the list, actually, because the commonwealth proposal for an open forum was in preparation, but we -- there's a hiccup.  We didn't get it in.  But it's near complete.  It will cover IGF best practice.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  So let me -- let me propose the following:  Concerning Item 13 on the list and the question of reopening of the open forum proposals, let -- let -- let us put this question on ice for the moment, and discuss it once we will agree on number of workshops.

 I think that that would be an appropriate moment to see how many additional slots we may afford.  And for the moment, as I understand, we are in agreement on 12 first proposals and the additional eight -- or seven on the second slide -- how many?  Seven.  So which takes 19 slots away from 120 slots available for IGF in Istanbul.

 So it means we have a hundred remaining slots in theory.

 Are we in agreement?  I see no opposition.

 Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  It's not opposition, Chair, but -- Marilyn Cade speaking -- I just want to reinforce the idea that all of us as MAG members have the responsibility to be very familiar with the criteria that's laid out in the program paper.  That is not new criteria.  I am new to the MAG but I am probably very expert in studying the program paper for the past seven years.

 So perhaps overnight also, colleagues might want to examine the information that has been -- that is available that identifies this.

 And my final comment relates to the point you just made.  I'm very concerned about -- you know, the workshops are a bottom-up process that enables the broad participation, the diverse participation, and I'm very concerned about our creating a limitation of space that is more top-down.

 So I will restate my question about the dynamic coalitions, and that is, if they are described by the proposer to just be a meeting among their members, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to count them against the participatory opportunities.  Just an idea.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for that question.  And, as I mentioned, let's revisit those issues once we will see how many workshops we will have during this session.  So, if there are no further questions, shall we -- Olga, you want to say something?  Sorry.  UNESCWA.

 >>UNESCWA:  I just wondered if there was still a chance for open forum.  Maybe UNESCWA can have a forum on regional commissions as a body, if possible.  Because we're not aware with that category this year.  We're told that just only the workshops.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: As I said, it seems to me that breaking our own rules brings us, really, on very difficult -- leads us on very difficult situation.  And maybe it is better not to break the rules and sort of stick to the deadlines we have imposed on ourselves.  Olga.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair.  Very briefly.  See the same slot as workshops, right.  So economic conditions and open forums.  It's all the same stuff?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yes, they take the same -- they take the room.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI: Same room.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We have 10 rooms for parallel sessions.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you.  So let us move to the next agenda item:  Best practice forums.  And what we would like to achieve during the discussion is agreement on number and topics which we would address during the best practice forum.  And, consequently, would produce output on those substantive topics.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If I may, I just received a message that one of the remote participants wanted to have a floor but not got through.  So, if you could kindly enlist that.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So remote coordinator, can you confirm?  

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Avri.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Let us -- yeah, Avri, we will --

  >>AVRI DORIA: I could try to speak.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Oh, please, Avri.  It's good to hear your voice.

  >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.  I didn't know we were allowed to speak.  I really had two points I wanted to make.  One of them had been on dynamic coalitions.  I had asked the secretariat in the past when the time to register for those was.  I was told the time had not come yet.  And yet I wanted to get the dynamic coalition on Internet (indiscernible) on the schedule.  It's not there.  I requested it be added.  I don't know whether this constitutes breaking one of your rules or not.

 On the other thing -- and I know you've got the whole discussion of whether to add open forums or not.  I just wanted to indicate that an open forum on NETmundial as an ongoing activity is a very good idea.  It's one way to capture all of its methodological lessons.  So I think, actually, that is a critically important one to consider while you're looking at whether you open the door further.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Avri.  When you mentioned open forum in NETmundial, you meant open microphone or open forum session?

  >>AVRI DORIA:  No.  I was going along with the -- thank you for the clarification question.  I was referring to the suggestion that I believe Brazil had made about an open forum on NETmundial itself.  And I was trying to support that as an excellent idea for learning its methodological lessons. Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you, that's clear.  Let's move to the next agenda item.  Constance, if you could introduce.

 >>CONSTANCE WEISE: Thank you, Chair.  Since our last physical MAG meeting and series of WebEx session, we had with a group of volunteers, we've been working on the initial themes that had been identified, which were very broad.  They were felt as being too broad for best practice forum.

 So what we have done, consequently, is narrowed the scope of these themes.  And then we identified the preferred themes for these best practice forums.  In order of preference, the following themes were identified for best practice forums.  First of all, developing meaningful multistakeholder participation mechanisms.  Very successful.

 Second theme:  Regulation and mitigation of unwanted communications.  That is spam, for instance.  

 Third possible theme:  Establishing and supporting certs for Internet security.

 And fourth possible theme:  Creating an enabling environment for the development of local content.

 So, obviously, the preferred theme was developing meaningful multistakeholder participation mechanisms.  And allow me to say that the other ones were very, very close.  As soon as we decide which themes are suitable for best practice forums and, given the tight time frame, we will have to work with the Secretariat on involving relevant stakeholders starting to document existing best practices, making the information available on the Web site.  And, if possible, identifying common ground among existing best practices.  I have also received some very useful feedback on the proposed common reporting template for these various best practice forums.  The idea being that through this common template, we would be able to easily extract tangible outcomes that would feed into the main session at the end of the IGF on best practice forums, et cetera.  In a nutshell, the reporting template proposes to define the issue, look at regional specificities, existing policy measures, and private sector initiatives.  Then look at what worked well.  And then unresolved issues, insights gained as a result of the experience and, in conclusion, proposed step for multistakeholder dialogue.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Could you repeat, please, those themes that you're suggesting?  

 >>CONSTANCE WEISE:  In order of preference, the first one being developing meaningful multistakeholder mechanisms.  

 The second one being regulation and mitigation of unwanted communications, for example, spam.

 The third one being establishing and supporting certs for Internet security.  

 And the fourth one being creating an enabling environment for the development of local content.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Constance, for all the work you have done for this and those MAG members who have also helped you and actively participated in this discussion.

 So floor is open for any comments and suggestions.  As I mentioned, we will need to formulate how many best practice forums we would have.  So, for the moment, we have distilled to four.  Whether that is not too much, because again, taking into account the capacity of secretariat in producing the documentation and whether the themes which are suggested by this working group that was led by Constance are the ones that we may support.  Anriette.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Janis. And thank you, Constance.  My point was when I worked through all 224 of the workshop proposals, there were more that I felt should be best practice forums.  I felt that the online child safety, for example -- many of the workshops held on online protection and child safety seemed to repeat what had been discussed at previous workshops.  I thought that a best practice forum is maybe a better format for people to come together and share best practices on how to ensure child online safety.  

 I think there were a few topics like that.  So I'm kind of repeating what I said with open forums.  But I do think we want to encourage this modality, if we want the best practice forum to work and for people to be attracted by it.  I do think we should identify those workshops that are sharing best practices.  

 Constance, I agree with all of those things as well.  In fact, there were several workshops that would fit perfectly.  I don't want to repeat them now, but I think, when we work through the workshop proposals tomorrow, it would be good to revisit.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  I think we need simply to understand that there are practical limitations.  These are not sort of -- we most probably would want to have 15-20 topics to be covered by that which are already mature.  Simply we do not have capacity of doing that.  Michael, please.  

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I just wanted to say that I think this list of four is an outstanding list.  I do agree with Anriette.  We're looking at a 5th, it might make sense to look at child protection.  But I wouldn't necessarily eliminate a couple of the panels proposed because they were not really aimed at practitioners into the field who would go to sessions.  Those are aimed at people who are aware there's a problem and don't know what's going on.  So I think that, rather than shifting from a panel to a best practices session maybe -- and both.  I'd also say, whatever we do for best practices, I think we could do a lot of good by getting the discussion going ahead of time around each of these issues.  One of the greatest outputs of a best practice session would be a list of here's 25 things people are doing.  Here's where you go to get more information.  That could be built up over the weeks before Istanbul.  But good job, Constance.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Ricardo.

 >>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS:  Thank you, I wanted to echo Anriette's proposal of trying to review the workshop we're going to review tomorrow into the best practices.  I think the main advantage of doing that is we can respond to the expectation of bringing new types of outcomes from the IGF.  And for me, having handled dozens of them will be a clear message that we're trying to respond to that expectation.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Again, once again a reminder, that is a capacity issue.  Because what is -- what's the difference between the workshop and the best practice forum?  The difference is that best practice forum produces a compilation of practices existing and analysis of those practices and suggestions how those issues have been addressed in one or the other sort of environment.  A workshop does not produce more than concept of the workshop and the report that at the end, which is 1-pager or maximum 2-pager.  So that is really a difference.  And the secretariat has limited capacity.  And we maybe three, maybe four, we could handle.  But we certainly -- that would be the limit.  And that's why this imposition of the number.  Subi, please.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: I reach out already.  Part of the team that has been working with Constance.  And a lot of structure came from Constance's crystal clear vision.  And, for that, I thank her.  These four topics lend themselves to best practice.  I agree we need to do many more, but we approached them with a solution approach and especially multistakeholderism.  This is an important question that we hoped this fora would address.  

 Second was format and interventions, which is why we need to close this soon.  Because that's a lot of outreach that we planned to go back to the community and seek input.  Third is what Olga mentioned, in terms of engagement and participation among people. She mentioned the IGF in Hyderabad.  And (indiscernible) and argumentative have been synonymous and which is why you would share more articulation and input when we thought this is also a space where it lends itself to formats of innovation.  That's really the thought behind it.  I see where Anriette is coming from, and I tend to agree with her.  But that's a lot of commonality between workshops.  But the way we intend to structure them is going to be different in terms of maximizing value.  So thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Any further comments on this topic?  I didn't hear any proposal to cut one of four items.  There was proposal to add one.  Maybe we could then agree that we would work on the basis of four proposals, which -- four topics which Constance outlined.  And we may come back to the question after talking and deciding on workshops and see if there is any sort of dream of workshops or theme of workshops which could be turning the best practice forum with all the consequences, bearing in mind the limitation of capacity of secretariat introducing those best practice's compilation that we're willing to produce for these sessions.

 So thank you for this.  We can now move to the next agenda item.  And that is interregional dialogues and how to bring better interaction between national and regional initiatives and IGF.

 So let us engage in maybe 15-20 minutes exchange.  If there are any that wish to talk about it.  Ricardo is first.

 >>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS:  Thank you, Chair.  I had the privilege with some other MAG members and non-MAG members to lead last year two workshops on national regional IGF.  And one was at the beginning of the week, and one was close to the end of the week.  And the idea was to get input from the national regional perspective on the themes that we're going to be talking through the week.  

 And the purpose of the second workshop was to try to come with some main lessons and outcomes that they will bring into their national and regional IGFs.

 I believe -- and I'm trying to echo the report we submitted with the team -- that there was a huge expectation from the national regional IGF to continue this kind of inter dialogue.  So I just want to propose to keep that ongoing process of dialogue between the global IGF and the national, regional IGF.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So Egypt, please.

 >>EGYPT: Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  

 Also, as I was part of the interregional dialogue last year and the year before as well, and I want to join Ricardo in saying that this was a good practice that we should continue to do, I think reinforce.

 I think one of the weaknesses that we may have faced and that are maybe challenging how much regional IGFs are -- and nationals are engaging in the process is that more people that are actually participating in those local events be at the global events and then participate in those interregional dialogues.

 So we did have a very good discussion.  However, the number of participants were kind of limited and we could have had more people if we had them coming in.

 So I think we should look at innovative ways of -- of getting people funded, maybe, from -- especially from developing areas.

 I don't know.  Possibly -- I mean, coming from Africa, coming from Arab region.  I would think that we should find ways how to engage those people in terms of funding but also in terms of drafting the topics that are being tackled within those -- within those regions.

 Because personally, attending the regional event and attending the global event, I think there's a lot of detachment between both, and I don't know if other colleagues would agree to that, but it is not -- it's not the same wavelength that is happening, and so we are not really making the link here.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 Marilyn Cade.

 I had the privilege to act for a number of years as the chief catalyst of the IGF USA, and we're taking a relaunch of the coordinating platform so I will not say more about that.  Instead, I want to give a quick overview history for everyone about how we have addressed the national and regional IGFs over the years.

 We started out with each of those who were interested being able to ask a room to do a short report, and that was in Lithuania, I believe, where we had room to do that, and we had a lower number of national and regional IGF initiatives, by the way.

 We also at the same time created a coordinators group and we do have a coordinators list, and I am here to report that the coordinators do not use that list very actively for the kind of sharing that has been mentioned.

 So I will just say that all of us should perhaps restart our interest in information sharing in that mechanism.

 The following year, we had a very large room that was, I think, about the size of this room, and we had two back-to-back panels of participants from the national and regional IGFs and we were actually able to cover all of the national and regional IGFs.  We asked questions about what the priority policy issues were, so it wasn't so much a reporting about your organizational structure but about the priorities.

 The year after that, we did something slightly different and we split the event that -- the two 90-minute sessions.  The first session was very well attended, the second session was not.

 Last year, Ricardo had spoken about an approach.

 I think that we should give -- we do have and we're missing at this time -- we often have a coordinator's gathering in conjunction at these plannings at lunchtime, and I think we should resurface that and think more about the sharing of logistic information, those kinds of things, outside of the concept of presenting at the IGF.

 It is in those working sessions that the coordinators generated a set of best practices about what you needed to do in order to be listed on the Web site.

 So I think there's been a lot of work.  I would just say also, having been privileged to attend many of the national and regional IGFs and to participate in a preliminary study by Dr. -- that was done by Dr. Demi Epstein from Cornell, each of the national -- the implications at the national and regional level is the ability to really reflect what is important to that organizing group and to that country.

 And it is -- it is perhaps one of the most unique things about the outputs or the outcomes of the IGF.  Each year, the number of national and regional IGFs grows and the sustainability of the national and regional IGFs is quite remarkable.

 So I like the idea of trying to -- let me use the word "data mine" -- the national and regional IGFs to reflect into the workshops and the main sessions.  I realize it's impossible to give each of the national and regional IGFs a space.  I like the idea that I think Veronica was proposing of maybe a stage in the -- sorry, the Internet -- the cafe area, the booth area, where people could book a time and they could -- there could be enough seats that there could be a small audience, so I'd like us to experiment with something like that since we obviously can't have -- I think it would be close to 30 special sessions on the national and regional IGFs.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Brazil?  No.  Sorry, Brazil was already there.

 Martin, you -- Nominet, please.

 >>NOMINET:  Thank you, Chair.  Martin Boyle from Nominet, but in fact here talking for the U.K. IGF and we were involved in the -- I think it was three sessions that were held in Bali to talk about cooperation between regional and national IGFs.

 I see as quite a useful theme here to try and link more clearly through from the Internet Governance Forum and what comes out of it into the work of the national IGFs in helping them understand the policy issues and the policy concerns that have come out from the discussions in the IGF, and that was, in fact, one of the main motivators originally for the creation of the U.K. IGF.  But as time's gone on, it's become more and more clear to us that some of our priorities are shared by other national and regional IGFs around the globe and we do actually have quite a -- quite a difficulty in building those bridges from our own little islands through to some of these other initiatives where, in fact, they might well have got some good ideas that we as Brits can steal.

 I think one of the interesting things that comes out of that, though, is also the fact that if we work between IGFs, if we start coming up with specific issues that are of very much wider concern than just to us as a country or us in our region, that in its own right should draw in new participants into the -- into the IGF if those issues are quite widely spread, widely shared.  

 So it does seem to me to be quite a good opportunity here of using the national and regional IGFs as a path of a much wider process so that we can feed into it and we can also draw out from it and, in so doing, identify what are key issues shared more widely, and in particular, identify the people who are not involved in the discussions at the moment and who ought to be.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Martin, for this input.  Indeed, I think that IGFs can -- national and regional IGFs can serve both as sort of places where global issues could be discussed from national and regional perspectives or as a generator of the topic which could be then brought into national IGF and discussed there.

 That is both -- both options are viable.

 Michael.  

 Thank you.  Matthew.

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thank you, Chair.  You've actually just said what I was going to say, which was I think there are ways of structuring this so there's much greater relevance at the national level for national policy makers, much greater relevance at the regional level, et cetera.  

 If you want to really structure it, the issues of regional interest should feed up from the national IGFs into the regional IGFs and similarly into the -- into the global IGFs, and that -- those should form the basis of the agenda-setting for those events, and then there should be a loop back through the regional and national IGFs.  And I think that's one way of actually getting much more relevant issues brought to the global IGFs that actually reflect concerns and practical issues and challenges at the national level that have some -- undoubtedly some kind of resonance at the global level.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  UNECA.

 >>UNECA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 As indicated by colleagues, in Africa we work at both national and regional level but also have the subregional IGFs.  That means a group of countries are between the national and the continental level.  So what we really do is to work around IGF themes and come up with key recommendations and also at the end of the regional workshop, usually we have also recommendations which feed in the regional IGF, because the themes of the year, for example, when they were being developed, we had some consultations among the Africans and based on what was recommended at the regional IGF of 2013, we came up with key issues which were put forward at the MAG meeting in February.

 The main issue is -- at the interregional dialogue was poor attendance, as indicated by Christine, because those organizers of national IGF, usually they don't have funding to participate in the global IGF, and we have funding issues and there were key issues we would like to share, the challenges, the successes, and so on mainly that were reflected because they have definitely some representative at the -- from the regional level but if they had participated themselves, they may be able to interactive with participants and be able to better work at the next year in their national IGF.

 So I recommend that if funding is available to sponsor one participate of each country to organize a national IGF.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We have now Paul Wilson.

 >>PAUL WILSON:  I'm not sure this comment will be seen as strictly relevant here.  It's not so much about interregional dialogue or the place of that discussion in the IGF itself, but it's about the role that's played by regional and national IGFs which is sort of intersessional IGF process.

 The regional and national events are the only kind of intersessional activities that we have, and I think they play a very important role in that, but what they involve is sort of a progressive subdivision of the global IGF kind of model into these subdivide- -- these divided -- geographically divided regional events and we've got the sort of -- the idea of reporting into and out of those events from IGF and vice versa and I'm just -- as I say, it may not be relevant to this discussion but I would like to put on the table the question of interregional IGF process which is not merely the -- the regional and national events but something that's more global and inclusive, and I think I've put forward and I think many have, actually, the need for such a thing, and also specifically the opportunity that we have to use the 1net platform, to turn the 1net platform towards that -- towards that purpose.

 It was -- it was established prior to NETmundial and in a way it became tied up in NETmundial but I -- my knowledge is that it was not solely put forward for that purpose but it actually was intended as an encompassing, inclusive global dialogue on -- basically on Internet governance.  

 So again, maybe not for now, but I am interested in putting that on the table -- hearing responses, if it's appropriate, or putting it on the table for later.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Janis.

 I think these are all good ideas.

 I have just two, and the one is linked to the process you started a few weeks ago, which is the stock-taking, trying to assess what the outcomes or the impacts have been of the IGF thus far.

 And maybe that's something we can do to provide a learning opportunity and also to -- to try and capture a lot of the learning and discussion, as Marilyn pointed out, that has been taking place.

 So what I'm thinking of is some kind of regional and national IGF stock-taking exercise or evaluation exercise.  It can either be crowdsourced, a simple on-line survey and targeting participants, or it could be that the IGF simply asks all the organizers of -- of regional and national IGFs to conduct such an exercise.

 And I'm thinking in terms of what we heard from EuroDIG, feeling that they've reached some kind of wall, and if they don't change how they work, they're not going to progress.

 So it may be this is something we can offer the regional and national IGFs.  It can be a simple after-action review format, what worked, what didn't work, what should be done differently.  So that's just one idea.

 Then the second idea is can't we bring them in -- I realize that participation is really difficult but can't we focus remote participation?  We had very effective remote participation at the NETmundial through hubs that were well-organized and supported, and I think one lesson we've learned is that really effective remote participation requires some resources.

 We saw that from NETmundial.  So maybe that's -- that's something we can do with the regional and national IGFs, to involve them through more financially supported remote hubs.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Fatima?

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  This is Fatima Cambronero from (indiscernible) Argentina, and I am also member of the committee of (indiscernible) of IGF.

 I would like to announce that the last IGF will take place from 15th to 18th July in San Salvador hosted locally by the NGO connection Salvador.  We have great challenges to come up with a date but we have finally reached a consensus between all the stakeholders involved in the committee coming from civil society, academia, government, business, and the technical community.

 The experience of some national IGFs -- sorry -- on innovation will be able to feed into the regional processes and elaboration.  We look forward to having more national experience in 2014 and 2015, to feed into both the regional and the global process.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Fatima.  Veronica?

 >>VERONICA CRETU: Thank you, Chair.

 Well, some reflections on this issue based on my personal experience in trying to modelize national IGF platform back in Moldova, and I think that the issue is not always with the funding, and I think there could be other ways that we could brainstorm and think about other ways how to incentivize more participation and how to deepen and broaden the national debates around IG.

 One of the ways I think is promotion and making the efforts of the -- of the national platform -- platforms more visible.

 I think as IGF, as a global IGF platform, we have to create more space for the visibility of those efforts.

 Because at one -- at one point you have a national IGF.  So what?  Where does it feed?

 So it's important that the IGF Web page itself has a more visible space for -- for the local initiatives, so that people at the local level are motivated to participate.  They know that their report is being posted on-line, it's being considered, there is an article or there is a post, a blog post that someone could write based on their national experience.

 So my perspective is that incentivizing national IGFs through other means, in addition to the, you know, funding element, is extremely crucial, so it's something -- it's something we have to explore.

 Yeah, and there was a comment by Anriette on remote participation.  I think, again from my personal experience, I have seen several challenges of the remote participation the way it is now in the context of the IGF and in the context of other like EuroDIG.

 Having pre-events before the global events really is -- is really a -- from my perspective a better tool to provide more space and more voice from the local communities, because it's not -- when you bring people for remote participation sitting in the room and watching something that is life-changing, this is one thing.  It doesn't allow for that high-level participation and interaction, and we often miss to have governments come and join us for this kind of remote participation event.

 Pre-events -- and we did it before the NETmundial, for example -- was really very dynamic and it was the government who fully supported it and who said because it's a pre-event, we are going to make it.  So I think we have to look at different scenarios, a different models that we could put in place, so that we indeed maximize the potential of the national platforms around IG.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I think we need to wrap up this discussion.  

 Subi and then Brazil and then Council of Europe.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  Subi Chaturvedi.  

 I have no hesitation in saying that I think we have failed national and regional initiatives.  There is just so much more that we need to do.  And for me, the IGF at Baku was my first IGF and the first session that I attended was a roundtable that Nnenna and Marilyn were moderating.  It was a learning experience for a lot of us but then -- (no audio) -- but deliberation did not happen.  In terms of review mechanisms, I think it's a great idea to have three sessions, but the sessions that Ricardo talked about, Session 1, Session 2, we had coordinators from initiatives and they -- they responded to questions.  Session 3, there were just 12 coordinators in the room.  No participants.

 I mean, over the course of the years we've experienced people asking for templates for regional and national IGFs.

 For starters, I -- if we could just de-hyphenate "national" and "regional," because they're not nearly the same things.  When workshop proposals come for national IGFs they're very diverse and the questions and the outputs that we got from these sessions, one of them translated into a subtheme as we look at this year, local policies enabling access, and I remember this discussion taking place at one of these roundtables.

 The second input that we need to be able to recognize and do more is the page that Veronica mentioned about, and there are three conditions.  

 One is to submit a report; two, to have a Web site; and three, the event should be multistakeholder.

 -- (no audio) -- democracies were about countries where people expect that the IGF would only be publicly funded or it would have to be housed by the government.  -- (no audio)  -- and with all due respect to remote participation, for national and regional IGFs it's like watching TV.  You're not in the room.  You're not being able to engage.  

 So we have to do more for these initiatives and if we could look at it as a main, we don't -- I don't see space right now for national and regional IGFs.  Thank you.  Thank you, Janis.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Now we have a dissenting voice.  Not dissenting voice but disappointing voice.

 Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Brazil sees -- endorses initiatives that would allow IGF to find -- organize the finding of the participation of developing countries in the initiatives related to the Internet.  This -- as was mentioned before, it would be very inclusive and we would like to take part in every discussion in order to amplify the number of countries present in these meetings.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Council of Europe?  Lee?

 >>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you.  Thank you Mr. Chair.  I'm speaking on behalf of the EuroDIG action of the European IGF.  

 Just to clarify what Anriette said, what I said before was that every year we -- the EuroDIG tries to innovate and it tries to change the way the format works and how we engage in dialogue.  So, you know, we don't like to go -- do two things the same.  We don't go year in, year out with the same format, so we've really tried to change that.  That has not happened yet so we're really trying to innovate every year.  That's a best practice for us.

 And there's lots of other best practices coming through, but we believe a lot in the transparency of the process.

 So I mean, I think it depends what we're talking about here with regard to national and regional IGFs.

 I mean, one thing is the -- the process of doing it and the other thing is the substance.  So, you know, they're two separate things for me.

 If we're talking about the process, we're talking about how -- it really is about best practice and how you can help each other, how you can help each other to help regional -- to even help the global IGF do its job better.  So it feeds in and it feeds out.  So, I mean, to have that best practice exchange, that's a certain format.

 But with regard to substance, then I think that's also very important and I think that it would be good to try to look at the agendas of the -- of the national and regional IGFs, look at them, compare them, and see what's not on, and what's not on the global IGF's agenda and see how that fits together.  And I think it would be very good from a substantive point of view for -- to try to build in that substance into the IGF.  I think it would be great to try to at least have a voice from national and regional IGFs in the main sessions, for example.

 And also, as -- at least from the point of view of EuroDIG is that we try to bring the host country every year which hosts the event, because it roams, to give their voice to see what they benefitted from as host, what was their experience, what did they gain from it, et cetera.

 So I don't know whether that's the case for other regional IGFs, whether they -- whether they have roaming hosts, and whether they actually can recommend key actors in the process or speakers who should be brought to the global IGF to bring in new faces and rising stars.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  This -- this time, I'm really closing the speakers list because we need to finalize this agenda item and I have Kossi, I have Izumi, and I have Ana on the list and then the list is closed and I will try to sort of wrap up this discussion.  Kossi, please.

 >> (Speaking in a non-English language.)

 [ Scribes not receiving translation ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for your intervention.  Izumi, please.

 >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  This is Izumi Okutani.  

 So I think it's -- it would be good to encourage more people to participate in the global IGF.  But in reality not everybody can physically attend.  So I really like some of the ideas that were put on earlier, for example, what Veronica mentioned about listing some of the discussion on the national IGF and sharing those on the global level.  That motivates more people to say I cannot physically attend the global IGF, but I can actually participate and give input on the discussions.  I think that's very helpful.  And I also like the points that Paul Wilson has mentioned earlier about not just keeping one time global IGF but have, like, a better collaboration with national and regional IGFs and have more intersessional discussions that would keep people continue momentum of what was discussed in the IGF and then probably have a better feedback between national issues and the global issues.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And, finally, Ana.

 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much.  Bearing in mind the earlier experience that we have had on this theme and acknowledge that I think it's very important for the national coordinators or persons involved at the national, regional levels to discuss these themes.  The way I see the discussion at IGF is it could be a roundtable.  The people involved both at national and regional IGF initiatives and having you on behalf of the global IGF was rating this session.  So I think it would be a small session because -- well, again, bearing in mind the other experience I had, I don't think that we reached a certain level to be better on this field.  But I don't think that we should not take advantage to be all or almost all there and to discuss how we are building these national and regional IGFs.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  I think it would be time to conclude discussion of this point.

 What I -- I think that we made actually already good sum up.  Because we need to look at national, regional IGF interplay with global IGF on two levels.  One is exchange of existing best practices and organizing national and regional IGFs, which is useful to share that knowledge in order not to reinvent the wheel and to understand what is working and what is not working.  

 And second level is to engage on substantive issues and try to understand how the one issue is perceived or what impact one issue has in different regions of the world.

 And if we have more or less explored sort of the first issue of exchange of practices how national and regional IGFs have been organized and what are the strong points and what are not so strong points in those gatherings as we heard, for instance, in Africa, that might be a quality -- quality of speakers, quality of remote participation and so on.  In other regions that might not be a big issue.  

 At the same time on substantive questions, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a real interaction between global and regional and national IGFs.  Therefore, what I would like to suggest maybe as a way forward is that we would schedule one interregional session in Istanbul to exchange views and exchange experiences on organization of national regional IGFs.  That would be ongoing dialogue.  And, as I suggested again without prejudice to possible improvements coming out from informal working group that Mark Carvell will be convening and reporting tomorrow, maybe to task -- not to task but to invite national regional IGFs as a result of Istanbul meeting to address some substantive issues that would be identified in the chair's report.  And then to roll back that -- those perspectives, national regional perspectives in IGF 2015.  So -- and to see whether that interaction and this loop would really work in 2015.  So let's try to do that, if you're in agreement.

 So I see no objection.

 Secretariat, please take note of that.

 So, at this point, I would like to thank our interpreters.  Thank you very much for helping us understand each other better.

 [ Applause. ]

 We hope to see you tomorrow at 9:30 when we start again.  But that is not farewell to you.  That's just farewell for interpreters.  I would like to say I left the dessert for the end.  

 And that would be maybe a brief exchange of views how we will address topical issue of tomorrow and day after tomorrow.  How we will select those workshops.  Methodology.  Let's put it in that way.  Maybe if I may sort of ask Chengetai to tell us how it was done last year, just to have some idea.  But before that, Mark Carvell is asking for the floor.

  >>MARK CARVELL: Yes, thank you, Janis.  I'd like to invite the colleagues who volunteered to join me, who want to join the ad hoc group maybe after a break, comfort break, in 10 minutes or something.  I haven't booked a restaurant.  Here, I'm afraid.  And we'll see what we can do in terms of trying to cover our work as early as possible in the evening to let you all off after a hard slog today.  Thanks to Janis's excellent chairmanship.  Thank you.  10 minutes here.  That would be 5 to 6:00.  Depending what time we actually finish.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Translating what Mark just said, 10 minutes after we will close the session.

 So, Chengetai, can you tell us how it was done last year?  Or not yet?  Until Chengetai is searching in his memory, let me maybe share some just thoughts.

 When you look to the schedule of IGF, we have simply limitations in space and in time.

 For the moment we have identified 10 rooms where parallel sessions can take place, and we know that no parallel sessions should take place during the opening and during the closing sessions.  So that brings us to a total number of workshops or parallel sessions whether they're workshops or whatever we call them to 120.  

 So this year we have identified eight subthemes.  And, of course, we see from the agenda that not all subthemes have been equally popular among participants or organizations.  And we have not received, let's say, comparable proposals in terms of workshop proposals.  We have 9 for content creation.  We have 2 for others.  We have 23 for policy enabling access.  We have 19 for emerging issues.  We have 12 for critical resources.  We have 34 Internet engine growth and development.  IGF ecosystem 32.  Digital trust 23, and human rights 55.

 So these are really even numbers.  Nevertheless, we need to sort of fit all and have a fairly balanced agenda.

 As a result, we need to find a right way how to address those issues.  And, most probably, we need to think what would be the starting point and how we would do that.  And Chengetai now is ready to maybe ready to provide some background information on how it was done last year, Chengetai, please.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Janis.

 So last year what we did is that we broke up into groups.  We, first of all, started off with grading.  And also we had a similar thing which I'm going to explain just now about the percentages of the number of workshop proposals within each theme.

 We also broke up into groups and had a selection process then where also the MAG members said which ones should merge and which ones shouldn't.  

 For a comment on the mergers, it's very, very, very difficult to have agreement on mergers.  There's three instances of mergers.  There's one instance where we have a high-scoring workshop merging with a low-scoring workshop, which we, of course, asked the high-scoring workshop if they wanted to merge.  If they didn't want to merge, it was too bad for the low-scoring workshop.  In most cases they didn't want to merge.  If so, the low-scoring workshop lost out.  And then we had the case where we had two low-scoring workshops or even three low-scoring workshops, asked them to merge. And, if they merged, they'd get a slot.  If not, they wouldn't get a slot.  Some worked.  Some didn't work.  

 And we had two high-scoring or medium-scoring workshops where they asked to merge.  They also had -- it was also very difficult to get them merged because we -- the secretariat received a lot of e-mails saying even if it's exactly the same title and there's a comma in the title, they'll say it's totally different and can't you see the difference?

 [ Laughter ]

 And we really couldn't, but they could.  So -- yeah, so we really had to think about that.  Merging is not as -- seems an easy issue in the room.  But outside it's very, very difficult.  And we have to have strict guidelines of what would happen.  Who gets the preferences?  And, if they don't merge, exactly who loses out and who gains?  

 Also last year there was a little bit of concern the workshop proponents that were in the room had an advantage from those that were outside the room because they could actually lobby for their workshop and explain what they meant by this or the other.  So they were at a bit of an advantage there.  So we should look out for that as well.  Not to favor those workshops unnecessarily.  

 And then we had the option of flex sessions.  The workshops that didn't make the grade, we gave them 30-minute flex sessions.

 

 Now, for this year, as you can see from the graph, the secretariat -- actually, this is Nick's work here, which is very good of him.  I just want to give him credit for it.  

 So we have the proposals by subtheme.  And we have the percentage of the proposals for each proposal by subtheme.  As you can see, content creation dissemination and use was 5%.  The others was 1% and 12.  

 And then on the first table on the left is actually the number and -- it should have the percentage.  I don't know why that isn't percentage.  But they're down on the lower thing.  So 11 equals 5.3.  So, if you're working on 98 as a rough figure, if you have 98 slots, then 4 content creation.  Then, if we were to select a quota, then it would be 5 workshops from that quota.  From that would make it -- proper quota would be 5.2. And then, as I sent out the email on Friday, we said that there's -- the amount that we're over, the cutoff line, if we just had them in descending order of the evaluation, would be 8, so 3 would lose out.  And that's a difference of 3.  And then, if we adjust it -- if I'm correct -- adjustable to 7.  And then for the other it's 2.  So that's 1%.  So they'd get only 1, and there was only one over 3.625%.  So for the other workshop that's perfect.  There's no worry about that.  

 But then, if we go down -- I won't go through every single one of them.  But, if we go down, we see that we do have a slight problem here.  9 were over 3.625%.  But, if you go to the quota level, it's going to be 11 chosen from that, if we're going to give the exact representation of the proposals that actually came in.

 Now, as I say, this is just a starter just to decide how are we going to do it?  And this is not taking into consideration workshops from developing countries.  I mean, how are we going to swap it?  It's quite a complex task.  And we cannot really do it scientifically, I don't think.  I mean, we do have to make a little bit of subjective choices as we get along.  As we go along.  

 Now, if we can open the other Excel sheet.  Okay.  Let's just start with the standard deviation that Michael asked for.  That's easiest.  That's the actual score, and that's the standard deviation after score.  That means the difference between some people gave the workshop 1, and some gave it 5.  So it's a difference between the mean score.  So that's the highest differences between -- so there was a widespread of scores for that workshop, and it's going down.  Is that easily understood?

 Okay.  So let me try and remember what my teacher said.  For the chair -- right.  

 Now, the standard deviation -- each workshop is graded by -- I can't remember -- 30 people, let's say.  Okay.  They each give it a score between 1 and 5.  Now, the standard deviation takes the mean score or average score -- mike can correct me, if I go out.  So let's say the average score is -- the mean score is 3, let's say.  But then some people gave it 1 and some people gave it 5.  So that's a very wide spread.  So the standard deviation number would be wider.  If the average score was 3 and some people gave it 2 and some people gave it 4, it will be smaller.  The closer you get to the standard score, it would be closer to zero.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Very good explanation for the non-technical.  The reason to do this is because, if everybody gives us a proposal at 3, then we know that's pretty clear what we think about it.  If half the people give it a 5 and the other half give it a 1, then we probably want to talk about that and flag it.  Because, obviously, some people felt it was important; and some were very much opposed to it.  And sometimes those are the most exciting and interesting panels.  Or sometimes the people who gave it a 1 didn't understand something important about the proposal.  And people who gave it a 5 might be able to explain it.  I really appreciate you doing this exercise.  If you go to the bottom of the list, there's some with half a standard deviation.  They got a standard 4, almost everybody gave them a 4.  These in contrast were more interesting and had a larger variation.  It's just one more thing to consider as we try to decide about those critical ones that are in the marginal zone.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  So, basically, the lower the standard deviation, the more the MAG agreed whether or not it was a good workshop or it was a bad workshop.  So, in fact, it may be a good idea, if you want to kind of visual workshops, you go to the top of the list.  If you want ones that everybody agreed were either good or bad, we go to the bottom of the list.

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

 Yes, we did say 3.64.  Yes.  If we were to select, just generally, the best to the least, then that would be the starting point.  But then the problem with that is that then a large number of subthemes may be totally cut out.  So we just have to -- yes.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Chengetai.

 >> Chengetai, just one question, short question.  Calculating the number what fits, did you have some assumption of the length, 90 minutes of each and every workshop?  What I remember is some proponents they ask for less time and more time.

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Some proponents asked for 60 and some for 90.  That further complicates the scheduling issue.  If we 1.5, they fit very nicely into the breaks and lunch, et cetera.  If we want to take that into consideration, then yes, it would further complicate it.  But, of course, we can't.  That's what we're here for.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: We also need to understand that we have made a decision because of remote participation that we would not -- at least we would not -- we would try not to split the MAG in the groups.  And we would do all the work here in this very room allowing our colleagues follow and provide input to this process.  So process will not be simple, and this will be a balancing act.  That said, I would like to hear maybe the one round of opinions but briefly how we could deal with this, these issues.  How you see this process should be organized, taking into account that on Wednesday afternoon, we need to finalize and we need to provide full guidance to secretariat who then would contact workshop organizers and would do the sort of nitty-gritty leg work to file the agenda and provide agenda by 30 June as a final one.  

 That is our objective.  That is our task.  We have no choice but to succeed Wednesday afternoon, so that's why we need to be on the same page and agree on methodology and now it would be time to sort of share your views how we could do it.

 Let me start by those who haven't spoken yet, and we don't have any of them in the room.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That is good.

 So let's take Olga first.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair, and congratulations to Chengetai for doing such a great job with the spreadsheet.

 We expect to have workshops from all the -- all the interested subjects that we are having this year, right?  Is that the idea?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, we do.  We have eight subthemes --

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Yes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- and we need to structure our discussions around those subthemes.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Yes.  So I suggest that we should divide -- we should divide them into the subthemes and then work on the grades in between each category, and we should decide how many at least we want from each subtheme.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So just very quickly, the other worksheets, the first worksheets I sent out had this one and if you look at the tabs, they're divided into each subtheme and there's a master list as well.  That's the Excel sheets I sent out on Friday that people can -- if nobody -- if somebody doesn't have it, I can resend it as well.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Fatima?  Do you want to speak?  No, it's not your --

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Sorry.  Ah, it's Council of Europe.  Please put it down, then.  Sorry.  Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  I think as a general principle, it would be useful for us to try and accommodate as many as possible.  I think if there are workshop proposals that were really bad, and if there is -- I think that's why it's very useful that you do the weighting, and so thanks very much, Chengetai.

 And then we don't have to discuss them.  But I think if they are rejected workshops where there was divergence of view, it is worth discussing them, because we do want to bring as many people into the IGF as possible.

 I think before we start our work, we need to clarify certain criteria.

 Do we apply quotas by theme or not?  Which I think, Olga, you might have suggested.

 And I think that would be really quite problematic, if weaker proposals get in simply because we don't have many proposals under that theme.  

 In fact, the fact that there were 52 proposals on human rights and the Internet possibly means we didn't define that theme well enough.

 Maybe we defined it too broadly, and it might be worth looking at that.

 But I think discriminating against all those proposals simply because we have so many to the ones that scored well under human rights is problematic.

 Then I think we need to clarify modalities, so I think we need to talk about -- we started the discussion today, but about what is a best practice forum, what's not, what is an open forum, what's not, and what is a flash session.  

 And one suggestion I want to make is that we try something new this year, which is to have linked flash sessions, to use something such as Open Space Technology or un-conference format.  I'm not sure if people are familiar with that.  If we have many workshop topics that are similar or on the same issue, we put them in one big room and we give them a facilitator or we help them facilitate the process so that they can discuss their similar topic in separate groups but then also come together.  So that is one methodology for dealing with -- with similar workshops.  

 And then just the final point that I think we still have to discuss as far as modalities are concerned are roundtables.

 It wasn't in the agenda, but we did discuss it in February, that it is a method we've used in the past with some success when there are similar workshop topics.

 So one option would be to have a roundtable where people discuss workshop outcomes, but maybe there are also some similar workshops that can be clustered together in the form of a roundtable.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Desiree?

 >>DESIREE ZACHARIAH:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 One of the suggestions could be we already have 98 workshops and we can probably look at the first 90 and rank those.  The top one is the 90th one and then the remaining eight could be used to identify unrepresented areas.

 So for instance, if you wanted to have persons who -- with disabilities who had submitted ones which would not have been represented or from -- workshops presented from developing countries and those kinds of areas.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Hossam?

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  

 Well, first, regarding standard deviation, usually we do it with a percentage so we can really know the standard deviation related to the score itself.  After that, we can really evaluate if it is a large standard deviation or not.  

 But other than this, I just wanted to ask Chengetai:  The quota that you have put here, was it after the cutoff or before the cutoff?  The 3.6.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  -- (off microphone) -- at the cutoff.  In fact, it's one more than we actually can accommodate.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  The first one?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Depending on the 200 and something before --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  So we just listed them by grade and then we just cut it off at 98 which would fit all the rooms except for one.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Okay.  So you made the cutoff regardless of different subthemes, et cetera?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  It was -- yes.  It was purely by grade.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  So shouldn't we have something related to each subtheme?  A minimum quota for subthemes?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Well, if -- sorry.  I keep on -- sorry.  It's a bad habit.  

 If you look at the first Excel, so first of all, this Excel sheet is by theme and also by grade, and then if you look at the first Excel sheet that I showed you, we have the number of workshops that would fit the quota.

 So we've -- we've got the quotas.  So what we can do if you want to go by the quota system is that when we look at the -- sorry, the -- the workshop, the other one -- 

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  So we look at the quotas that we have in the first thing and then we say, "Okay, five from this theme."  

 So we can look at the first five and then go on.

 If we want to make an adjustment and say, "Okay, we will reserve nine spots or 10 spots for developing countries," then we just adjust the quota.  I mean, if it's let's say 10.  10 is a good number.  And then we can say, "Okay.  So we subtract -- for those whose quota is five, we subtract two or we subtract one, and for the larger quota we subtract more," and then we have 10 that we can choose for developing countries.  

 And the third option is that we have to have a certain number of developing countries or underrepresented regions in each of the themes and then we just take the bottom two and swap it out.  

 So we can do that fairly easily, I think.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  I was just going to say if we have in content, for example -- which is a very important subject -- only nine applying, by applying this rule we are really discriminating the potential of workshops related to such important themes.

 So we are hurting a little bit what we want to do.  It's only because many people wanted to submit in another theme that we are coming back and discriminating a theme where only nine might-be-very-good-ones are submitting.  

 So I think we need to find another formula where the cutoff is not related to the total number of submitted proposals because a submitted proposal in an area is not comparable to another submitted proposal in another area.  This is what I'm trying to say.   

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: (Speaker is off microphone) -- because if we have the nine workshops, we see how many are above the cutoff point because each theme has got -- we know that the cutoff point was 3.64, and then we just check and see if -- in those nine workshops, was it eight, you know, out of nine or was it just only two.  

 And then we know that judging by the quality, the MAG thinks that only these numbers are of the quality and then we can work from there.  

 Again, I -- I mean, we've got lots of options but once we stick to one, I think we can systematically go through it quite easily.  It's just a matter of sticking to- --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So if you would allow me now.  

 Now we are losing also transcription.  Now it is real time to get to the business --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- because no one can hear us outside this room.  No.  I'm joking.

 No, no.  That means that we really need to get -- we need to get to closure to this session.

 And if we can agree to work another 20 minutes, not more than 20 minutes to have this round of views and then to see what kind of modalities we will -- we would apply.

 When -- when you are talking about your ideas, please think also in terms whether we would leave any kind of buffer for ourselves in order to do a little bit of value judgment as a result of this session or we go with, as secretariat is proposing, 98 workshops and no reserve whatsoever.  

 So -- and go just with the -- with the pure mathematics and then juggling it as Chengetai explained it.

 So please think about it as well.

 Marilyn, please.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I like the idea that I think Anriette was putting forward that we want to be as inclusive as possible, and I want to say a couple of things.

 I participated as a non-MAG member in last year's rating and ranking exercise, and none of us should be proud of the confusion there.

 We all did the best we could.

 I know we tried to come up with clearer criteria, but the reality is, when you have one person who ranks a workshop or rates a workshop at 1 and another at 5, it's very clear there is a lack of clarity or certain other subjective factors may have come in, such as familiarity with the topic, perhaps, I'll say. 

 I think that we need to be as inclusive as possible, including considering the idea that some sessions may be scaled back to very short sessions or follow the idea that Anriette put forward or even look at asking certain proposers to consider taking a slot on day zero because they are so common or are so advanced.

 I will say one other thing about CIR.

 I think there's a reason there are only 12 CIR workshops, and the reality is this is a bottom-up process and we should, I think, understand that some topics are very -- are maturing and are very mature, and so I'm not happy with the idea that we have a cutoff of a particular number that is based at 3-point whatever because it is based on the combination of the rating because I strongly suspect that if I sit down with any of you, none of us used the same assumptions to rate.  We all did the best we could.  

 Having said that, I assumed -- and I will say this -- that a 3, which gave me the opportunity to write comments about how to improve -- and I did that, and I wrote comments on the 4s as well.  So my own view was by giving somebody a 3, I was giving them a mid-rating and then telling them how to improve, but I was putting them in play, and I'm very disappointed to hear that may not be the case.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Paul.

 >> Thank you very much, Chairman.

 I'm really keen on the suggestion brought forward by Anriette about some kind of moderator that we can use where they have differing ideas or having to bring large groups together.

 Maybe we haven't done our work very well in deciding the themes because we have -- we clearly have large groups of submissions under a certain area.  I think if we're trying to find a balance, it's difficult to say that one theme would be -- be stronger than another, but I think -- 

 I'm not really agreeing with Anriette, though, on what she said about penalizing one group and another.

 I think that if you look at the human rights area, it is very vast and I think the submissions that are there kind of -- most of them aren't really even touching on human rights.

 I think the best -- I think the best way forward -- and that's -- and that's difficult because then you honestly would be penalizing somebody who probably has a good submission.  It's not really a human rights submission, though, is it.

 But I think -- and I know that this may not be so popular in the room, but personally I think we have a lot of people with expertise in certain areas and the best way moving forward is not trying to design this by committee here in the room but actually breaking up into the areas of expertise where you think you can actually have the largest contribution of what that particular area should look like.

 I think that then you would probably see that we would be able to break down and see where things are probably just a presentation or the workshop -- or a workshop or should be a roundtable, and I think that having these -- this -- this set of expertise kind of branch out and do this work will probably be a little -- will lead you to results a little faster than trying to do this by committee here.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We have a remote participant.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  We have Avri Doria.

 We don't know in which low scoring have high standard deviation.  I think low scoring workshops with a high standard deviation should be given a chance to clarify and be reconsidered.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 UNECA?

 >>UNECA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 I -- I know that it is very difficult for everyone to agree on these MAGs, but what I know is that criteria were set up before the MAGs were given and I don't see anyone rejecting those criteria.  So I think we should try to abide by the maximum possible to those criteria and agree on a cutoff score.  

 And as said by Anriette, I don't think if you don't like that, you go for a (indiscernible) because some good workshops that have been vetted well will get lost for the benefit of what you call positive discrimination where we can come up with a workshop which also at the end will not serve the purpose of the IGF and MAG.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I just want to support what Marilyn said, and I think it's really important, because otherwise, we're sending mixed messages.

 We did say in February that we would encourage new proponents and that we would offer help to strengthening proposals.  

 So how we do that, I'm not sure, but I just want to support what Marilyn said.  It's very important that we don't drop that completely.  Otherwise, it's unethical.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I thought we should just take a step back and some of these themes firstly lend themselves just by definition to a wide number of proposals, as has been stated.  Human rights is one of them.  We probably said it in a way that lots of people can come in.

 Secondly, human rights would be a concern for almost everybody.  

 And then access, which is another theme, we're hoping it's the concerns of those who have access, and so then the number of proposals is, therefore, fewer.

 I don't favor the point of quotas, but I think some sort of a balance by way of reservations where every theme must have a minimum set of workshops in the door.  That would mean, as has been said by some colleagues, not perfectly written or below-the-mark proposals, but I think we need to sort of dig down and pick those proposals from a theme that may not have received excellent ranking but needs minimal representation.

 So if we can work on the concept of minimal representation, either as a percentage of number of proposals received or by any other formula, then at least that theme will be appropriately covered.

 It would be wrong if we had, let's say, 50 workshops of which 35 were in human rights and two were in access.  I mean, that would not be the right picture in terms of the concerns of -- of the world.  Not just this room.  Because I think we need to take it up to where the real concerns are.  So I'm just going to leave that thought about a minimum reservation which goes beyond traditional markings.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Fiona.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER: Thank you.  I have a question or suggestion and an observation, some of the workshops have heavily subscribed.  Maybe that's what people are most interested in the moment and this year.  If we were to go back and look, different themes would have different numbers.  At the beginning of the IGF nine years ago, the CI was very popular and had lots of topics.  That could be a reflection of the agenda.  If the CI is not as popular this year, doesn't mean it isn't going forward.  Could you actually do a percentage based on the subscription rate?  Whichever theme got the most number of workshops submitted got the most number in the thing.  And we could know it doesn't mean one thing is more important than the other.  Just what's topical for today.  It's a natural evolution of what's being discussed.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.  Michael.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you.  This is always the toughest part on any program committee.  I've been on dozens of them over the last 20 years.  It seems to me we should really look hard at Desiree's proposal, which I think is efficient, fair, and easy to explain.

 When I've been on program committees, I always worry about how the program committee will be judged at the end of the conference.  We will be judged poorly if we have even a few stinker panels.  That makes an impression if someone goes in the room and it's just a fiasco.  Not the right people, not a good presentation.  

 The second thing we'll be judged poorly on is if it's clear that really good proposals have been rejected because we've let those in for whatever reason.  And the third reason we can be criticized is if we end up with very good panels talking to empty rooms.  So I think we really should listen to what the proposals are telling us about what topics are interested.  I don't think we need to think about quotas for each topic.  The fact that there's a whole bunch of human rights proposals is because privacy and surveillance and censorship are hot topics.  I think just going with the proposal that was made, look at the first 90, we probably can take a few of those and say that's a 30-minute flash presentation and combine them, like Anriette said, so we'll probably get 85.  And then look at the next 20 and figure out how we can get more diversity of geography, get more new people in.  Because a lot of us didn't really give people higher points if they were new.  We figured that was an independent criteria.  That way we just have to look at 20 proposals.  We know the stinkers are off the table, and we can defend our decisions very easily.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  Thank you.  Anybody else wants to intervene?  Subi and then KISA?

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Janis.  So I teach.  And grading is a large part of what I do for a living.  Some of the brightest students who score a straight A are not often the most relevant.  And I thought one of the reasons why we undertook a ratings evaluation and a grading process was to make sure that we look at inclusivity.  We look at issues which recognizing your voices.  And I would like this program to be fantastic and of great quality.  But, when I was going through the evaluation process of the proposals, there were several workshop submissions that said they need help with speakers.  I responded in a certain manner to those proposals.  There were others who asked for shorter slots.  And they were responding to efficacy.  I sat through workshops which could have easily ended a good 45 minutes before time.  But they didn't.  And they had 90-minute slots.  

 I think applying mathematical cutoff, then none of us would have to be here.  The fact that we're here -- the fact that we're here is to respond to them and to make sure that I'm not judging a bright student with great mathematical abilities for their language skills.  And there are many proposals which are being judged that way.  

 So, just going forward, I agree with Chengetai that nuances and subtleties work and mergers don't.  There's only so much that we can do and say.  And, unless we do this process not in retrospect, but we're saying we allow you to have a slot if the two of you work together, they don't.  In terms of authority and mandate, there's only limited authority that we have.  

 And I see nothing wrong in reserving slots, Janis, as you suggested, to apply this leeway and the faith that the community has invested in us as MAG members and use our discretion.  

 And also these themes didn't come out of nowhere.  We went to the community.  We sought inputs, and then these subthemes were created.  I think it's only fair that they're reflected as workshop proposals in the agenda.  So developing country proposals and also honest proposals which are not claiming to some confirmed speakers should not suffer.  So that's about it.  Thank you.

 >> Two real quick points.  Do we have any data on how well attended the different themes were attended last year?  We don't know how many people are in the room?

 The other point is we need to remember that some of these people probably struggled to figure out what theme they really belonged in.  So that's a reason not to have a quota per theme.  Because they might have fit into three different categories, and they picked one.  They shouldn't be punished because they picked the wrong one.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  We have KISA, Indonesia, Jivan, and then Olga.  We're approaching the time when we need to finalize.

 >>Soonjoung Byun:  Thank you, Chair.  Thank you, Chair I also donít agree with the idea that just cutting off based of rating that has been made in advance. to encourage newcomerís participation and developing countries, minimum reservation for them has to be there. I totally agree with what Marilyn said. it would be so disappointing if there's no assistance from members who already know the rules how to be selected well.

rating would be just good reference when we discuss the components under each subtheme. Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Indonesia.

  >>INDONESIA: Thank you.  Moedjiono from Indonesia.  This is not easy, but I agree with editing criteria I presented and also representative of the subthemes.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Jivan?

  >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  Thank you.  I think that we've committed already with our choice of subthemes.  So we can't move away from that.  We need to have something present in some form.  We've also committed with the grading system.  I think we should do that.  I find the standard deviation and the whole breakdown very useful at this point.  We went through an evaluation process.  We have the numbers, and we should use them.  I would even say that by tomorrow we should clear out 70% of that.  We should make a decision that 70% of -- first of all, we will have quotas that each of the subthemes will be present.  And that we will go by the points.  And that the first 70% that get into it will get into it.  And we won't even discuss them.  And then we discuss the rest of the 30 for each of the subthemes and for the whole thing in general.  Let's make it easy on ourselves.  And we work with 30, 40 project and we see where they are.  Not with the whole 120 or 130 or whatever.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Olga.  Olga, please.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thanks, Chair.  I just wanted to clarify.  I just said exactly the same.  So I never meant to discriminate anybody.  But, if we are going to use the subthemes and we are going to have workshops for subthemes, we have to make a decision.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So you see how difficult it is.  And everything that we have done so far was easy actually.

 Now, we're getting in this really difficult and very sort of responsible task to select the workshops.

 We may -- we may be on the right path.  We may be on the wrong path.  But we need to start somewhere.

 And we had in February discussion about selection criteria that was applied by all MAG members who did evaluation.  If that is the case, we need to assume that the highest scoring workshops are the best.

 So now, if we look backwards and see that we have 120 slots and we have 208 submissions, that means automatically that 50% or around 50% will need to be disqualified.  And this is the reality we need to face.  And we can't do anything.  We cannot be more inclusive than the number of the rooms and time allocated for the meeting we have.

 So, as a result, our task is difficult and, in a sense, also unpleasant because we would like to have all of them be able to carry on with the workshops.  

 So all I'm saying is that we need to find the best way to proceed.  And maybe the best way to proceed is to try to combine both of what we have and go step-by-step.  And, if I would say that 40 workshops based on -- and 40 is totally arbitrary.  I thought 50 may be too much if we want to think about balance.  But 40 is fairly safe saying that 40 highest scored workshops we would have tomorrow morning.  And we would go them very quickly through actually without discussion. And we would have also then the picture on -- from which subtheme they come and how they fit and what is our balance based on those 40 first.  Okay?  That would be maybe -- that would take us about 20 minutes to review those first 40.  

 And then, based on information we will have on that, we will decide how to proceed.  And these options would be seeing if there is still more or less balanced proposal, we would go subtheme by subtheme, 1 by 1, and to move down until we will reach the magic number.  And this magic number is something that we need to agree.  Whether that is 98, as suggests secretariat, or that is maybe for the moment 80, which would then give us a bit of a leverage to see at the very end of the process whether we could bring some additional workshops in or not.  Again, today it is maybe a bit premature to say.  But, if I may suggest that tomorrow secretariat -- actually, already tonight, not tomorrow.  Tonight secretariat sends us a lit of 40 first highest scored workshops with a percentage how much of those 40 belongs to which theme that we can see that each themes are more or less represented or one theme is not represented at all.  So -- and tomorrow morning we will start with a very quick look through that.  And after that, we will go -- we will add one by one based on certain criterias that we discuss today.

 Please.  Because you saw that we need to allocate also some time for open forums and for dynamic coalitions.  And all that is -- we have 120 slots.  And, again, we need to decide whether we use all 120.  Because remember the evaluation of Bali meeting told us there were too many workshops.  Too many.  There were only -- there were workshops where only presenters were in the room.  A number of spectators or participants was less than the number presenters.  I was myself in one of those sessions.  Very unpleasant.  Very unpleasant.  

 Again, we really need to strike the balance.  And today we're just at the beginning, and we do not have this feeling.  We have raw data.  We have evaluation results.  And I would suggest to proceed sort of gradually and cautiously.  And see where we are at maybe at lunchtime tomorrow.  And then we will see whether we need to adjust our methods or not.  Hartmut.

  >>HARTMUT GLASER:  I was not part of the February meeting.  I remember in Brazil 2007 we received a request from the secretariat to organize extra translation to have extra time not only six hours every day.  Is this the case again, or are we working only with six hours a day, 9:30, 12:30, 2:30, 5:30, only six hours a day?  

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: For the translation, it's only for the main room, the main focus session room.  That is definitely only six hours a day.  If we go above six hours a day, we have to get the whole new team in. And that will double the cost.  So we can't go -- we'd rather go 6 or 12.

  >>HARTMUT GLASER:  Let me again go back.  We in Brazil supplied an extra team to allow to have more programs, more workshops.  So we bring in an extra team.  We bring one team from Geneva, and we hire a second team so that we work eight hours a day.  We can use more time, if we put money together and have extra translation.  I feel very concerned that we are under the pressure of the translators and not how we -- as we say, work with our content and our workshops and our material.  If we can put together an extra team, we can have 20 or 30 other workshops.  I am against to have 150, 200. But now in the middle of the process to change the rules is too late.  So I prefer to have extra translation so that we can work 7 or 8 hours every day.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think that is more a question addressed to the host country how much -- how they feel about extra locally hired team of interpreters.  So one thing, of course, I can tell you that there is a perception that only UN certified interpreters are capable to translate.

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

 So in Brazil, maybe there are -- or at least in Latin America, there are U.N. hubs.  And probably you hired them from there.  I'm not sure whether there is a U.N. hub in Turkey.

  >>AHMET CAVUSOGLU:  In Turkey there is no U.N. hub.  So we have already -- it's already a difficult issue to double the number of translators for the time being. Because up to the moment for all IGFs, there was only one team of translators.  So we want to comply with that tradition.  Thank you.  

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  Only to repeat with exception of Brazil there was one team not two teams.  We had an exception in the past, and there was a way to put this together.  I like to underline that was the case in Brazil.  And we fulfill the expectation to work longer to include most of the workshops that we received.

 >>AHMET CAVUSOGLU:  Let me correct.  We want to comply with the majority of the meetings 

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Again, please be cognizant that there are also limits for human attention.  So just remember yourself in those meetings when you need to attend four sessions a day, it's one thing.  When you need to attend six sessions a day, that's a different story.  How much attention you can spend or give to any given -- there are some limits as well.  We need to be reasonable.  And we will be blamed also if we overcharge the session.  We need to find the right balance.  Australia.

  >>AUSTRALIA:  Thank you, Chair.  Andrew Maurer from Australia.  I wanted to say I like your proposal on a way forward tomorrow.  In fact, I would be happy to have 50 or even 60 workshops identified.  The idea is we need to get a rough idea of what IGF in Istanbul will look like.  It's not perfect.  It's going to be a fairly rough measure to start off with.  I think there would be -- should be an opportunity to do what's called a sanity check afterwards.  Are we going to have the same workshop with commas listed.  And we've all loved slightly different variant of that workshop.  But first we need to get a sense of what the overall workshops would look like.  So the suggestion of do 70, get through those, and then figure out what the remainder are.  That could work.  If we want to go for a lower number, by all means and go for the 1 through 3 very different standard deviations, go back with the ones in the envelope that look similar to each other and see if we can do it there.  But let's do a sanity check afterwards, after we had a rough idea what it looks like.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So I really want to finalize because there is also a limit of -- a limit of human capacity to contain liquid in the body.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This is -- shouldn't be repeated, but that's -- but that's the reality.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I thought that I disqualified scribes already 35 minutes ago.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So okay.  Anyway, we would -- we would -- I will take two more comments, Michael and Virat, and then we're done.  

 Please, Michael.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I was wondering if you might do a reverse auction and start at 40 and just go up, because we heard 90, I said 70, you said 60.  

 If you look -- I did an eyeball calculation, and if you look at about 60, it actually works out pretty well.  You have a nice distribution.  You don't have to work very hard to get things to work.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Just a question for the secretariat.  

 Chengetai, how many did we have last year?  Just numbers.  How many workshops?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That's a good question.  I'd have to get back to you on that one.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I think it's about 70.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  I think it was like -- it was close to 80, I think.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  84?  Yeah.  I have to get you the right one.  But I just wanted to also say that the number I was giving you was the maximum number.  I wasn't giving -- I wasn't saying that we should have that number, but a buffer is very good.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Right.  I just wanted to -- I think we're confusing inclusivity with exhaustivity.  I think we need to be inclusive and we can do that even in 60 or 70.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  We don't have to go to 120.  Because by that definition, we can have the IGF for 10 days and everything can be accommodated, or we can have it for nine hours a day and everything can be accommodated.  While my colleague has said he'd sort of like to slit his wrist, we don't want to do that.  That's not something we want to do.  

 I think we should pick.  On an average, a participant would sit through three, maximum four sessions in a day.  Some smaller, some bigger.  And that still puts them through about 14 sessions, leaving the closing and opening where there are no sessions -- 12 to 14 sessions in four days.  That's a lot.

 So if we can cap this around 60 to 70 effective sessions, have representation in each one of those, make them representative of the subthemes, and -- and base it on the criteria that we fixed in Feb, because we did agree on the criteria and the criteria was floated as a scoring point for all those who submitted it.

 We can't change that now.

 Unless we're looking at, you know, an exceptional piece that is sitting there which can be brought in.  

 So let's make it simpler.  We said if there are 60, let's go with 45 who are in and then the next 15 we can debate and discuss and bring them in on the side.  That will probably be the way to make our life easier and our job easier.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So to my knowledge, the narrative report on Bali IGF states that there were 134 workshop sessions and --

 >> (Speaker is off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah.  So Chengetai, there was one question?  Or you wanted to say something?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, no, no.  I just wanted to underline the point that I am not advocating that we fill in everything.  I think a buffer is good.  

 And also, the more people we have in the room, the more conducive it is to a good debate and that's what the IGF is about, so yes, I'm with less than more.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  So let me then suggest the following.

 Tonight, how much time do you need to do -- to do this work?  To send out a spreadsheet listing 50 workshops, the highest scored, plus the division of all those workshops according to subthemes that we can see how these subthemes are represented, as well as a rough estimate from where these workshops come, meaning developed/developing world, that criteria that we need to -- also to observe.

 So how much time you need for that?  

 Yes.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Two hours.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Two hours.  So at 9:00, we would -- we would receive an email with that -- with that list that we can have a good night reading or reading tomorrow morning, depending on time zone where you're coming from, and we will start with a quick reading of those 50 proposals tomorrow morning.  We'll see what balance we have, whether something falls out completely and we need to readjust, and after that, we will take one by one and we'll add to -- to the list and then we will see how far we will get tomorrow in this discussion.

 I see there are no objections.  

 You have objection, Hossam?

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Just I've seen differently in some other venues where we choose the best two for each subtheme first, or best three for each subtheme, and then we take according to the normal scoring for that, because we need to secure first that we have the best in each subtheme.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  I agree.  I agree.  And that is why I was asking to see how these subthemes are represented in that listing.  We need to ensure that all themes are addressed, but these themes need to be addressed in a good way, in a good manner.

 So thank you very much for today.  It was a very productive session.

 Now, I will hand over initiative to Mark, who will then coordinate the discussion about outputs of IGF.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thanks.  I think we all deserve a break, a comfort break, as the chair was inferring, so if we could come back at 5 to 7:00, if everybody's happy with that, and we just group around here in this room.  And then we'll see how far we can get.  Thanks. 

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much and see you tomorrow at 9:30.  We will start sharp 9:30.  Thank you.

 [ Break ]