2010 IGF Planning Meeting Transcript (Day 2)

IGF Consultation

11 May 2010

Morning Session

Geneva, Switzerland

Palais des Nations

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the May IGF Planning

Meeting in Geneva. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate

due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the

proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

[ Gavel. ]



>>NITIN DESAI:   Good morning.  Let me begin first by spending -- just summarizing where I think we reached yesterday.

Then I suggest we spend a little more time in coming to closure on that.  After that, I'm going to request a few people to work, say, from around 12:00 to 3:00 on the details about the workshops, moderators.  Then we reassemble at 3:00 to see what proposals they have for us.  If we agree, this is the way we can proceed.  Because it's very difficult to talk about which workshops should go where in a big group like this.  It's better if somebody comes up with some ideas to which we can react, you see.

And same thing, the same group of people can also make an effort at identifying potential moderators.  Or in one or two cases, I think we have talked of panels.

So let me first summarize where we are session by session.

We -- our opening will be the "Setting the Scene" session of -- which we have started and we've had in the past.  And the general feeling was, it worked quite well the way we did it in Sharm El Sheikh, and that we will follow the same pattern, structure, and format for that "Setting the Scene" initial session.

The second session after that would be on the regional perspectives.  And, again, we felt that there was probably a case for trying to ensure that the contributions from the region were given in a form which is -- makes things comparable.  And we suggested that the way to do that is to encourage the contribution from the regions to follow the structure of the agenda that we have so that there will be contributions on the agenda items that we have from the regions so that we can then look at it across, without ruling out the possibility that each region we have something more specific to its concerns which it would wish to advance.

There was also the suggestions which have come that this would also be a very good way of tying in with the regional hubs which would be there for the remote participants.  And we should design the regional session in a manner which facilitates this engagement of the regional hubs of the remote participants that would be there.

I think, by and large, these opening sessions have -- more or less well defined.  I'm not sure we need to do too much extra work on this, because there are workshops which we have to tie in, we don't really have to worry too much about moderators.  We can follow the same pattern as the past.

The opening ceremony we discussed.  And it hopefully will be a short one.

We then go on to the substantive sessions.  And beginning on the second day, with "Managing Critical internet Resources."

My understanding from yesterday is that we agreed that this session, as in the past, would be moderated by Chris Disspain and Jeanette Hofmann.  Chris had already made some suggestions on which are the workshops which could feed in into this session.  And I thought there was general acceptance of this.

We still have to look at the other workshops.  And let me just anticipate a bit and say that what I'm going to propose is that we ask some smaller groups to look at each of the sessions and give some indication of which are the workshops which are clearly a good idea, should be given a green light straightaway; which are the workshops where we need to maybe find out a little bit more what they have in mind or where, perhaps -- perhaps encourage them to merge with some other workshop.  Let's call that the Amber light workshops.  And somebody will have to sit down and do that with the list of workshops that we have.  And I'm going to suggest later how we -- and in this particular case, I'm going to suggest that maybe Chris and Jeanette can take on this responsibility of looking at the workshops which are part of this and just give an indication as to which do they think would be clearly a good idea and should go ahead, and which of them should we really ask for more information or encourage merger or something of that sort.

The second session after that would be on "Internet Governance for Development."  This is the one on which we spent a great deal of time on which there was a certain amount of -- how shall I say? -- lack of clarity on what exactly are we trying to do in this session.  It's going to require perhaps a little more discussion.  And maybe we should do that.

My understanding of where we were yesterday was that in some ways, this is the session which is going to see in what way do Internet governance arrangements make it easier or more difficult for Internet expansion in developing countries, Internet reaching people who otherwise are excluded.  So this would include some discussion of what are access issues, but not just that.  There are other dimensions.

But I suspect that we may have to talk a little bit more about this.

My understanding was that the feeling was that in order to set the scene, we do need something in the beginning.  And there was some consideration thought of a small panel which would set -- say what is it that we are talking about when we say "Internet governance for development."  And I do feel a certain obligation to do this session in a constructive fashion, because this is the one continuous comment that I've had from participants and generally stakeholders, that they don't see sufficiently strong focus on development.  I'm not entirely sure everybody has the same thing in mind.  Let's see whether we can do something more with this session.

We go on to the "Access and Diversity" session.  There was this certain understanding that some of the items that are listed under "access" would probably more logically belong under "Internet Governance for Development."  One example is the whole business about whether regulatory regimes encourage investment or not is probably the best place under the "Internet Governance for Development," and that there would be inevitably a certain focus on the access side, not just on issues of access in terms of how many people can get -- have access to the Internet, what's the cost, but also those dimensions of Internet infrastructure which do influence whether or not you have access to information knowledge which is available there.

There is a little confusion there as to how much of that falls under this heading, how much of it under "Openness."  But the feeling was that this is not a big issue.

My understanding is this would be one where we would have two moderators, one for access and one for diversity.

On diversity, there's, of course, a great deal of focus on multilingualism.  But we will emphasize, there are other aspects of diversity, including for the disabled.  There's a whole issue of migrants which was mentioned and one of the workshops involves.  And that is something which we should not lose sight of when we look at the issue and question of diversity.

The fourth substantive session would be on security, openness, and privacy.  And here, I think this we did discuss fairly extensively.  And my reading of what we discussed was that we would have an opening which would allow the issues to be linked with each other, emphasizing not just that there is a competition between security, openness, and privacy, but there could also be synergies.  And a point which was made by, in fact, a lady from the Internet rights group.

But very quickly, we would -- it will be handed over to two moderators, one for security and one for openness.  And I thought there was a willingness to experiment with my suggestion that the security session should be moderated by somebody who's a bit more of a specialist on openness and privacy issues, and openness and privacy session by somebody who is more of a specialist on security issues.  That's an experiment.  Let's see whether it works.  But we can try.

Again I am going to request some people to go into the whole question of which workshop belongs where, who are the moderators that we could ask, and so on.

That brings us to the last day, where we will have the opening session on taking stock and looking at the future.  We did discuss this quite extensively.  And this is not a session where we are thinking of a panel.  We would still have two moderators, more for logistical reasons than for any other.  But we will have an open process of inviting contributions around a set of questions, built around the three questions that were listed in the paper which has been sent to you already.  But making them a little more precise so that we get responses which are helpful.

And we will certainly, say, request perhaps the secretariat to see whether it can draw on those contributions to prepare something like an issues paper for discussion or simply a summary review of what is it that has come from the different contributions on these dimensions.

And the last session, then, would be on cloud computing.  There was --  Again, we discussed this quite extensively.  And this is a session where there was perhaps a feeling that we may need a panel which would have one -- one person who would be there to explain what this is all about, cloud computing; one person who would focus on the issues of governance which arise from cloud computing; and perhaps one or two people who would reflect a user perspective and the issues that users would see in relying on cloud computing for their purposes, for instance, Fouad mentioned issues about this for the public sector in this area.

This is, I think, more or less where we were at the end of the day yesterday.

My suggestion is that we just quickly go through it session by session to see whether there are any second thoughts, and come to closure on the basic structure that we have agreed on and then ask maybe two or three people to take on the task of connecting the workshops more precisely and identifying and suggesting perhaps a list of people from whom we can select moderators or panels as necessary.

So let me begin, then, with -- if you agree, with the -- if you agree, I would leave the "Setting the Scene" and the regional thing as more or less a done thing, because we don't have to identify any specific workshops there or any such thing.

Let's start with "Managing Critical internet Resources."

Here is one where I think we have in some ways come to more or less a closure, and the only thing left is the workshops, the work on the workshops.  Which are the workshops which we give a green light to; which are the workshops which require more consideration, either in terms of the content or in terms of the possibility of merger.

Are there any other reflections, et cetera, on this first substantive session on "managing critical Internet resources"?  Any overnight doubts which people have which we need to look at?  Or can I take it that it's okay if we ask Jeanette and Chris to have a look at the workshops, and we come back to their proposals in the afternoon?

Is that okay?  Good.

Then let's move on to the next one, where I think we do need a little more time to discuss, which is "Internet Governance for Development."   We did spend a fair amount of time yesterday.  But my understanding is that people are still a little hesitant and not entirely clear as to what all this is about.

And, Bill, I understand you have some --  Did you want to say something on this?  No?

Bill?  Who -- oh, Bill -- this Bill, not that Bill.  Okay.  This Bill.

[ Laughter ]



>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   Which Bill would you like to hear from?



>>NITIN DESAI:   This one.



>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   Okay.

Okay.  Thank you.

Yes, unfortunately, I was not able to be here in the morning, when apparently there was a quite interesting conversation about this.  But I looked over the transcript of the discussion yesterday, and some thoughts came to mind that I thought I would share, just responses to points people made and perhaps, hopefully, some clarification based in part on the fact that I've been beating the drum on the notion that development should be more central to the IGF for about four years now and have organized a series of workshops over, now I guess this would be the fourth if it's approved, over four years on the notion of a development agenda for Internet governance.

The first point I wanted to raise was that there was apparently some discussion yesterday about the notion of the relationship between IG4D and ICT4D.  And people were concerned about that.  And I think that part of the problem here is that we, in a lot of these discussions, have never been very clear, I think, about precisely the level of analysis that we're concerned with in the IGF.  I mean, even going back to WSIS, we use the term "Internet governance" in a kind of broad, inclusive way which allows for the inclusion of national-type mechanisms as well as global mechanisms.  I mean, it's hard to tell people that the national policies that are being adopted in a given country are not somehow Internet governance.  They are.  But I think what we are concerned with are those mechanisms that are global or transnational or international, at least, in their extent.

And to the extent that that's the case, the whole discussion about the kinds of issues that normally we would go into the rubric of ICT4D, having an enabling environment, the proper licensing and regulation of independent ISPs, all these kinds of questions, in my mind, would not necessarily be apropos.  I would think, instead, what we would want to focus on and certainly what we've done in the workshops I've organized is to try, instead, to home in on the linkages between global Internet governance mechanisms and development specifically.

So I think if you take that route, you can sort of bracket the whole ICT4D type question and stick to what are the institutional arrangements and the policy procedures they follow and the policy outputs that they generate at the global level and how those relate to development concerns.

And sometimes you'll find that they may not, which is the next point.

I was interested when Bertrand raised the question -- and I think somebody else did as well -- of, well, just what is the connection?  Is there any connection between these two worlds?

And it's precisely -- that's precisely the point, isn't it?  We haven't really talked about whether there are connections or what -- how we might think about those at a level beyond some workshops.  We've not had a broad-based, inclusive discussion about this.  And yet, development was an overarching objective and concern throughout the WSIS process and certainly for developing countries, you know, for years now.  So it seems to me that part of what we're doing, then, is necessarily an intellectual exercise.

When I think about IG4D, to me, it's about mainstreaming development considerations into discussions about global Internet governance as one of the set of parameters.  People often talk about cross-cutting parameters like human rights, transparency, and so on.  Well, I know that from my involvement, for example, in ICANN and in other environments that I have followed that in many cases, development questions are never raised.  It's simply not posed.  Hey, what might this mean in terms of development?  The whole notion of taking that as one of the baselines that one would necessarily want to think through when adopting policies on new gTLDs or anything else just hasn't really by institutionalized.  And so part of what we, I think, are trying to do is to establish the presumption that among the factors that one might want to take into consideration, as appropriate, would be what is the relationship to development.

And, again, once we go through that kind of an exercise and look at both the institutional arrangements pertaining to Internet infrastructure, critical Internet resources, and so on, and those pertaining to the use of the Internet for information, communication, and commerce, it may well be that in some instances, we note that there are no particularly significant or special developmental dimensions, that the existing mechanisms are perfectly fine, address development issues in entirely adequate ways.  And that's fine, you can sort of set that aside and say that no longer an issue that we have to be concerned about.

But it might also be the case that one would identify in that process some issues where a development perspective would have been usefully brought to bear or could have been and hasn't been.  And in that case, then the exercise is about, okay, let's put that on the stable.  Let's think about if we look through this through that -- look at the issue through that optic, do we see different dimensions?  Do we see different types of policy implications that might be of concern?  And if there are, are there either -- is there good news to share?  Are there best practices to identify, ways in which institutions are taking steps that are very effectively promoting and enhancing development?  Or are there potentially problems?  Are there potentially ways in which development has not been thought about and perhaps some tweaks, some enhancements could be contemplated that might improve the mesh between development and Internet governance.

So alongside criteria of efficiency and everything else, you would want to treat development as simply one of the -- one element of the mix.  That's sort of what we've been doing in the workshops I've organized, then, is to try to march through the set of issues and to look at, in particular, three dimensions, capacity-building, of course, as something that has to be systematized more; possible institutional issues, including potential barriers to participation and engagement by developing country actors, whether formal or informal, cultural, information overload, so on; and the substantive policy outputs, whether it's the names and numbers, standards, security, whatever, looking at each of these arenas where policies are being adopted and asking, "Has development -- are there developmental dimensions that haven't been brought to bear?"

So I hope that if we have a main session on this, that we can stay at that sort of global level and try and make those linkages to identify the issues that are particularly important.

I'll make one other point, I guess, that I heard some discussion about the notion that perhaps this session should be framed more as being about developing countries and IG.  And Waudo made a very interesting observation that I think has to be kept in mind.  When we talk about development or developing countries, we don't mean just governments.  We mean developing country actors, including the private sector, civil society, and the technical community from developing countries.  We want to think about how to advance development in a people-centered way that engages all of those actors.  And the impacts on those actors may be differential of different policies that are being pursued and different procedures that are put in place.

So I think that that has to be kept in mind.  Certainly governments are an absolutely essential part of the mix.  But we don't want to just talk about the sort of -- I would presume we don't want to just talk about the international political questions as much as we want to talk about development per se.  So that when you talk about the elephant in the room issue, the root, for example, the question is not just have there been political demands about, you know, making that more international and so on, which I would certainly support, but, rather, does the existing mechanism in some way impact development in a way that we can identify?  And if not, fine, let's recognize that.

So I think that -- I hope we can make that kind of international level and kind of systematic walk-through an important dimension of this conversation.  Otherwise, you do slide into an ICT4D national policy thing, and it could become very unfocused.

And, finally, I just want to note, there was talk about background materials and so on, and it was noted, I guess, by Markus yesterday that for the IGF book that's coming out that I'm editing, we're having a series of papers by different people on different dimensions of Internet governance, has this been addressed in the IGF, I just want to note that I'm doing a paper on the notion of development agenda for that -- in that context.  So that will be available as well as perhaps one other input.

But the notion that Brazil put forward of perhaps forming a team of experts that would define exactly what the issues might be, how we might frame this could be an interesting approach as well.  It would be useful to get a number of different inputs, I think, as background to this.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, I think since we have a transcript of what Bill just said, maybe that will give us a starting point for this paper that we want.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah, I think since we have a transcript of what Bill just said, maybe that will give you as starting point for this paper that we want.

No, I think that's very helpful.

Any further comments, et cetera, on this?

Yes, Miguel.



>>CSTD:   Thank, Chairman.  Just to refer also to the national level, Bill was very to the point when referring to the international level.

In the national level, I will -- as a person that has been a struggle with this relationship for years already, I can cite examples of Internet governance and development relationship at the national level, radio frequency management, infrastructure sharing, and also Internet exchange point.

Also, you have regulatory issues, mainly because of convergence.

These four areas definitely impact access and connectivity.  And most of the time are at the national level that they are taken.

They are also taken at the international level, but you can do a lot at the national level with them.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Ayesha.



>>ICC:   Just a brief request.  Would it be possible for Bill to share with us who all of the people that are going to contribute to the book so we can perhaps help to provide input on which of the contributors to the book might be a good combination for the panel and whether also see whether there might be, outside the authors of this book or contributors, other people who might be good for the panel of this session?



>>NITIN DESAI:   I think, may I suggest it's very difficult to discuss names in a big group like this.  I am actually going to suggest or anticipate that I am going to request Bill, maybe Alvaro and Fouad to really have a crack over the morning at connecting the workshops, identifying names, et cetera, and come back to us this afternoon with some specific suggestions.

And three of them can -- and Alvaro, is he here?  He is sitting there.  So if the three of them can have a crack at looking at how do we do this in terms of who are the people, which are the workshops which we connect with this, that would be very helpful.

One of the things that is leading to this confusion and problems in this whole area of Internet governance for development, is it that or is it ICT for development, is that in some ways ICT for development is too undifferentiated.  There are at least two distinct categories there.  There are a class of public-policy applications for education, for health, for governance which typically remain within the control of the government departments which are also responsible for Internet infrastructure.

The Department of Information Technology has a responsibility both for the management of the Internet infrastructure and usually also has a certain role to play in public-policy applications of the Internet.

Now, those public-policy applications of the Internet report in the "ICT for Development" basket which also includes what I would describe as private applications of the Internet, for commerce, for whatever.  Media, whatever it is, which I would describe as essentially private applications of the Internet.

And that's the problem that arises, that the government departments are really combined.  They have looked both at the infrastructure issue as well as at the use of that infrastructure for public policy.

And particularly when you get into issues of e-governance, then I think that the governments find it difficult to say, "Why are you saying this is not part of your agenda?"

And also the point which Miguel raised that we do need to ask the question, are there ways of managing the Internet at the national level which is positive or negative for development?  And there are issues.

There are ways of managing the Internet at the national level which could be negative for development.  And there are ways of managing it which could be positive for development.

So if we are talking of Internet governance for development and not just global Internet governance for development, then I think it is legitimate to include somebody there in the panel or wherever it is who will be able to talk about national Internet governance.  And I do hope, Alvaro, you can look into this because a lot of thought has gone into this particularly in Brazil.

Bill, you wanted to comment.



>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   I wanted to respond real briefly.  First on Miguel's point, it is certainly the case that if you were to try to sit down and figure out what's most important to developing countries, probably getting the national policies right is 70% of the game; okay?

So I am not in any way suggesting that national policies don't matter, but those kinds of national-policy issues, the enabling environment type issues, are discussed in a lot of other institutions, whereas there's no place in the international system of organizations to talk about how the global Internet governance mechanisms relate to development.  So that's part of why I tried in what we are doing to keep the focus there.

But certainly one could find a way to mesh those two sets of concerns, but it does, then, lead one towards a much broader discussion of national economic policy and so on.

Then I just want to make sure I understood.  Ayesha was asking about the authors and the chapters of the book.  They are not all about the development.  There's only one chapter about development.

I can certainly tell you about the authors in the book, but I don't know that that would necessarily mean that those are the right people for this particular panel.

So I can do that off-line, if you want to.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, Fouad.



>>FOUAD BAJWA:   Fouad, Mr. Chairman.

I echo what Bill has said and I echo what Miguel has said.  And yes, I also support your recommendation.

And last year I put up a small mailing list on google.com/group/IG4D which was to bring in people to discuss the subject, they were the broader stakeholder focus.  And like many of the searchers joined up.  And I think this is one place to start up involving people and their comments online.

So this list is available, and I can circulate the address.

Second thing, obviously like every Internet governance issue has a developmental aspect, and that's why we are running into the cross-cutting and the overlapping issue.  But at the same time, the precondition is actually having the Internet in the first place, then it being available to everyone across the country, and then the effects and impacts it can have on people's lives.  Obviously that is ground with Internet policy development and issues of development.

But, again, it is goes into coordination.  They are moving towards coordinated efforts in aspects of IG and not the supply side such as telecommunications.  That's why we keep on bumping into that ICT4D issue, because people tend to take it too much towards telecommunications.

And I think it's the access to the factors shipping the use of the Internet that are central to the features of the development debate.  And again, many things come into it.  When financial aspects come into it, human development, the access issues, definitely.  And I think the way we moved the session in the beginning actually creates the foundation for later-on discussions.  And then I am hopeful that as the mandate is continued for the IGF next year may have a very large amount of particular input from people.

So this is a step to go forward, and yes, let's get all the actors together and come out with a background document, because that is necessary.

The one in the IGF report will be substantial, and at the same time, more documents on the subject.  Because this is one way we should start going in the IGF, that you know certain background papers which are not like making recommendations but discussing the issue, and creating the background material for setting the scenes of these main sessions is a very good approach.  And I think we should go about this support.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Thank you.



>>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN:  Thank you.  I just wanted to pick up on your comment about national policies.  And I attended Bill's workshop last year and I thought one of the interesting parts of the discussion was thinking about ways to expand the multistakeholder dialogue that occurs at the IGF and translate that into ongoing capacity building and discussions that may help national thinking on Internet governance.

And I think there maybe is a process way to talk about the issues instead of just the substantive issues of development, but also it was kind of a thought that there's an interesting model emerging here that can help with development as well, and what can be done to help promote that and foster that at the national level and bringing the IGF process to kind of back home to national and regional issues.



>>NITIN DESAI:   (Speaking off mic.)



>>M. KATUNDU:  Thank you, Chair.  You can call me Michael.

Thank you.

What I wanted to -- I wanted to add my voice on the discussion of IG for development, and it's true that there are two perspectives in this IG for development.  Someone at the global level where we end up drawing best practices and so forth and policy issues, but we also have the IG for development at the national level.  And the linkages have been coming out from the regional IGFs.

From this point of view, my suggestion is that, yes, we need a panel to set the scene for this very broad session, and the panel should draw the representatives from the various multistakeholder.  That is the private sector, civil society, the government as well.  And we could have some of the panel participants in this session drawn from the regional IGFs so that we can be able to take advantage of some of the issues which are the regional levels.  And most of the time you find these are the same issues which are also at the global level, especially when you talk of issues of access, there are also issues of Internet exchange points, issues of infrastructure.  And all those issues, they trickle from the national level to the global level.

So I think, yes, I hear Bill, but at the end of the day, some of these national issues, they symptom need to be able to be discussed at the global level so that we can see how we can link them with the global perspective of the IG for development.

Thank you, Chair.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, Adiel.



>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN:   Thank you, sir.  I just wanted to comment that the IG4D has scope that goes from national to regional, and it's good because we can get it both ways.  We can contribute from the local knowledge to the global, and also improve our best practices from the global to the national.  So that's good.

The one thing that concerns me is I think ICT4D is distracting.  It takes us way too far from our focus, and so for that reason, even if there are overlaps, I don't want to see T I think I want to focus on our Internet governance and provide development through that.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah.

I think that point is well taken.  Nobody has disputed that our focus should remain on Internet governance for development.  We should not stray into ICT for development, even if they are public-policy applications like e-governance, e-education, e-health because that will take us too far afield.

I just want to mention why these issues crop up, because the same people are usually doing both at the national level and therefore confusion arises.  But I would completely agree.

Can I suggest, I think we are getting closer to what I think we expect out of this session.  And Michael, maybe you can also joint that group.

And what I would request of the four of you, which is Bill Drake, Michael, Fouad, and Alvaro, is to have a look first at the workshops, she which one clearly fits into this, which are the ones where we really have to get more information or encourage merger.  The whole idea of the background document, how would that be done.  The panel.

I think one of the things that I hear is the importance of reflecting, if we like, some comparative national experience in the discussions because in some ways, this may be the most important take-away for people who come to this meeting.

They go away, say, oh, I found out about how they handle this multistakeholder dimension in such and such place, or how they handle the whole issue of the interface for telecom regulation in that country and so on.

So I think that might be a valuable take-away for people.  So let's see the panel that we put together for this includes somebody who can talk well about the national dimension of Internet governance also.

And maybe the regional dimension, as Nii was mentioning, because the Number Resource Organization -- the real interface of the Internet Service Provider is through the regional organizations, with LACNIC, et cetera.

The other ones who are the primary contact points with ISPs at the country level.

So let's do look at this and maybe come back to us in the 3:00 session with your suggestions on how -- in terms of people and workshops.

Okay?

Is that fine?

Can we move on to the next session, then, "Access and Diversity."

Now, "Access and Diversity," as I said, is something which will have to take on board what will be discussed in the "Internet Governance for Development," but the broad understanding was that we really have to look for two moderators, one handling the access side, one handling the diversity side.

And are there issues which people want to pick up there or which -- I also want to emphasize that we do have to have a closer look at the subheadings under "Access and Diversity" and see which of them should be shifted really to "Internet Governance for Development."

And I would request whoever we ask to do this work on the workshops, et cetera, also to give some ideas.

Olga has already done some work on this.  Olga, could you tell us a little bit about it.



>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Yes, chairman.  I have been reviewing two documents, one the workshops proposed for diversity, which was requested by you yesterday, and also I have been reviewing the subthemes under "Access and Diversity."  And I have noticed that most of the subthemes included under "Access and Diversity" mainly are for access.

There are a few of them at the end of the list which are related with diversity, which are mainly multilingualism and gender and some other issues. And in the revision of the workshops, there are 12 about diversity.  Four of them, in my modest opinion, are not so much related with diversity; mainly more related with openness or some other issues that I cannot really identify.  And eight of them, four are multilingualism and four are gender diversity, migration of populations, and some other issues.

So I would say eight are focused on diversity and four of them may be merged or put into another issue.

And my comment about the subthemes in the main session from "Access and Diversity" are that most of them are for access, and few of them for diversity.  So I wonder if some of the subthemes should go into development or we should perhaps enhance the subthemes about diversity.  That's my comment.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

Are there any further reflections, comments on this?

Then can I suggest that in terms of -- this is where we have to identify names for two moderators.  We have to do the sort of restructuring of the themes which Olga is suggesting, have a closer look at the workshops and how we connect the workshops with -- Yes.



>>GINGER PAQUE:   I would just -- I agree with you, and I think the work that Olga is doing is very important.

I am willing to help Olga work on it.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.



>>GINGER PAQUE:   So if there are other --



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Olga, Ginger, maybe one more person to do this before 3:00.

Yes, Tulika and --



>>TULIKA PANDEY:  I volunteer myself.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Sure, Tulika.  And I think there was somebody there at the back, yes, certainly, please join.

Do you want the floor or do you want to join in the group?



>>SENEGAL:  Join the group.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay; join the group.

Yes, Olga.



>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Chair.  What's mandate for the group?



>>NITIN DESAI:   What I am suggesting is I am going to try and see whether we can come to closure on this before 12:00.  After that, I am going to request the three, four groups that we would have -- more than four.  Probably five groups that we will have to meet here after 12:00, and we reassemble as a full meeting at 3:00 and we'll just go through the suggestions which come.

The task of the people that get together is to identify people for moderators and any work that has to be done on themes, if it is possible to do that, and most important on the workshops.  Which are the workshops which we will treat as being feed-in workshops and therefore have to be scheduled before the session, which are the other workshops which still look a good idea and we give a green light but with a certain openness in the timing.  And which are the ones where we give an amber light in the sense that we want to find out more or encourage merger.

That's what you have to come back with.

And I think that would be sufficient for the present because we -- and that will -- it's good enough if we do of that.

So the idea is it's 11:15, we still have a few more sessions to look at, and I will try to end before 12:00 here, and then you have about three hours to do this.

So -- And then we come back with this.  And you can meet here, you can meet in the coffee bar.  You can meet wherever it is convenient.

And we, all of us, reassemble at 3:00 for this purpose.

That's on the access.

On the "security, openness and privacy," there I think we -- security, openness and privacy we had already had a certain clearer understanding of what we want.

I don't think there were too many issues about subthemes there.

I would encourage that we simplify subthemes.  We try and avoid subsubthemes so that the number of items is limited under the big heading.

We can't change the major headings now because they have gone out in the invitations already.

Are there any reflections, comments, further reconsiderations on the "security, openness and privacy" dimension?

Katitza, she was not there yesterday, so I'm sure she will have some.



>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   No, I will be very briefly.

I really like the approach that you, Nitin, mentioned yesterday during the meeting.  I read the transcripts, and I think this idea to link all the three areas are very productive.  And this is how we have to handle, because we cannot work in silos.  For example, within the cybercrime discussion and the security discussions, the issue of freedom of expression, due process and privacy are linked.

So it's really interesting to have this exercise during this session.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Thank you.  Again, we need to identify people.  In this particular case, we require two moderators; am I right?  Two moderators.

Lisa -- Somebody has looked into the workshops already?  You have?  Liesyl?  Which of you.  Come on, Liesyl.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Well, we looked at the workshops from the standpoint yesterday of which might go before the main session, and we also started to look at which might be candidates for mergers.  So as we go forward today, I suppose that's what we will continue to do; is that right?

But separately, I just would like to respond to the discussion earlier about moderators for the session, for the main session on security, openness and privacy.

I am a little bit concerned about the experiment as you laid it out because of the -- with the suggestion that a privacy and openness expert would moderate the security piece and vice versa.  Am I understanding that correctly?

I guess my thought about that is in -- the three topics are very robust in and of themselves, and at least my view of the main session from last time, from last year was that there wasn't a very even split, shall we say, of the discussion amongst those three issues.  And I just think we need to be careful that we don't impede that again this time.

So if there's a way to have moderators work very closely together to make sure all three aspects are covered equally in the course of the main session, whether they embody that experiment or not, would be just something I'd want to try and make sure is infused.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Well, one advantage of this upside-down system I am suggesting is that the person -- the openness and privacy person who is moderating the security discussion will want it to end quickly so they can get on with openness and privacy, and vice versa.

But look into this.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:  I suppose that might depend on who it is.



>>NITIN DESAI:  What I would then suggest is, again, let Liesyl, Colin and now that Katitza is here, she can join in this group also, do this same exercise of identifying people, and they should complete the tasks on the workshops that they have already begun, and the same process, which we have thought of for the others.



>> Liesyl:  And just another comment.  Lisa Horner is not here today but she was here yesterday, so she might be online with us as well during the day.



>>NITIN DESAI:   I am just suggesting three or four because it's much easier for three or four people to get together.  Everybody else, in any case, has a chance to contribute in the full session.  But as I said, these are not rigidly set groups.  These are the people whom are tasked, but if others join or if they want to call on others, please feel free to do so.  There's nothing exclusive about any of these groups that are being set up.  It's simply they are the ones charged with the responsibility of coming up with an answer and that's the real point.

So we have done the fourth substantive session.

On "Taking Stock of Internet Governance and the Way Forward," here the main task is to identify two moderators.

Now, in this particular case, I think the moderator we are looking for is basically a facilitator type.  Not necessarily somebody with a lot of domain knowledge, but somebody who is just good at encouraging and stimulating broad discussion.

This is -- Because, really, the theme is very broad, taking stock of Internet governance.  It's very wide.

We do need a process for getting the background document done, which we discussed this at some length yesterday, and the idea that we invite contributions.

My suggestion to you is that the responsibility for preparing something like a summary review of the contributions be left to the Secretariat.  They have done this in the past, and it probably is the most acceptable from -- And the past experience has been it has worked well.

There have been no complaints about bias or anything.

So I thought that we could do that.

The two moderators for this, my suggestion is, would be basically facilitator types.  We look for people who would be good at getting a debate going rather than necessarily look for people with domain knowledge, because it's rather difficult do it here.

Is that okay?

If that is the case, then I am not going to suggest any group -- There are no particular workshops here which we are to feed in.  So I am not going to suggest the constitution of any group to go into this, because it's -- I think the Secretariat can probably look around and see who they can get who would be a good facilitator for this type of process.

Yes, Ginger.

Ginger, you are going to join that group also; right?  The security and openness.



>>GINGER PAQUE:   No, no.  I am working on access with Olga.  Access with Olga.

But I got the idea were you going to say we can -- before we go into breaks, Markus, can we deal with -- because it might be interesting if these groups can deal also with the remote moderation issues.  Could we deal with that now or afterwards?



>>NITIN DESAI:   No, please come -- tell me what -- can we just complete this session and then go to that?  Because this applies to all of them.



>>GINGER PAQUE:   All of them.  Should we do that now or afterwards?



>>NITIN DESAI:   So we can spend end time on the remote moderation issue a little later because that cuts across all of the sessions.

And I would then say that if you agree, we can -- any suggestions that people have, because there we will probably have to go by who is available at that time to come to Lithuania.

I'm not sure that it makes much sense to go into names right now on that session.

The final session on cloud computing.  Now, this is a more technical session, and I think there was a clear sense that we do need a panel here.  Maybe a small panel, not more than two or three people, but something which would make the technical dimension clearer, something that would make the governance dimension clearer, and something which would at least begin the process of bringing in a user perspective.  Ultimately, the user perspective will come from the participants, the other ones, the other ones who are users.  So they will give us the user perspective.

But just to help matters, we may have one person or something.

But I would suggest not more than three for this session, because -- and particularly because it's the last session, I think we should really leave enough space for the others.

Is this okay?  But we do need to identify the panelists for this.  And it's not easy.

And if we agree, ways going to ask maybe Patrik, Daniel and somebody else to sit down and do the same exercise.

There are, incidentally, some workshops proposed for cloud computing.  You may want to look into that.

So maybe Daniel, Patrik.  Who else would join in on this exercise of -- yes, please.



>> I would be happy to join.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

So let's do that.  And you come back to us with who are the -- But my recommendation is don't -- see whether you can keep it to three, the panel, just to make sure there's enough room for everybody to participate later.

And it's important that the panelists not be as people who are necessarily speaking for one or the other version of the cloud computing protocol.

Okay.  Remote moderation.

Would you like to tell something about it?



>>GINGER PAQUE:   I was talking with Lee and with Waudo and the Remote Participation Working Group.  And we checked with Markus, because we do, of course, want to build on the experience that EuroDIG had, take the good example.  They had some good ways of dealing with remote moderation.

There is a statement from the Remote Participation Working Group, and to save time, I'm just going to read the last paragraph, which backs up what the IGF secretariat has been working at.

That the hub organizers were very happy, and everyone appreciates the emphasis on remote participation.  We've agreed yesterday theoretically that we all know we need remote participation, not just remote observation.  And the new technique we want to implement with remote moderators addresses the point that the Remote Participation Working Group at the end of their statement says that "on the other hand, when remote hub organizers were asked if their questions were satisfactorily taken into account by panel moderators and panelists, their answers were not so positive and ranged from satisfactory to not satisfactory.  This suggests that the quality of interaction needs to be improved.  We believe that this conclusion is also true for the IGF.  We would like to suggest that the IGF secretariat works to sensitize and raise the awareness of workshop organizers about the importance of remote participation.  This could more efficiently be done early, on the phase of shaping the workshop proposals.  Workshop organizers and moderators -- and the moderators of the discussions have to be clear about the role played by the remote moderator during the sessions.  In the past IGFs, the importance and feasibility of remote participation has been proved.  We urge the secretariat and the IG community to focus on how to improve the quality of interaction.  We continue to offer the secretariat our support on this endeavor.

This is from the Remote Participation Working Group.  And I think that what Markus and I have been talking about and building on the experience at EuroDIG, if we build a requirement into the workshops the same way the workshops propose who is their moderator, who is their rapporteur, who are their speakers, we must know with the final workshop list by -- I believe Markus said by May 30th who the remote moderator on your panel will be and their contact details so that the Remote Participation Working Group can work with them on guides on the best way to facilitate.  We will take their input, give our input, and do some training, some actual training with the platform and guidelines for interaction.  This is not easy.  I hope you perceived an improvement in my moderation remotely from the last planning meeting to now.  We have to learn how to do it.  We don't know how to do it.  So we need to learn from the EuroDIG experience.  We need to work with the moderators to make sure that we have remote participation, not just remote observation.

So Markus has confirmed that that is a requirement for the workshop planning and the proposals.  And I ask that anyone who has any questions contact me about it.  But we need the remote moderator on each panel.

This is a great opportunity, while it is an additional detail to take care of, it gives you an opportunity to include youth, to include gender balance, to find other ways to include more people in your panels.

So if Markus will confirm that, did I miss anything on that?  If Lee has any suggestions.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Lee.



>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:   Just to confirm it was very well received by many people, the remote participation in EuroDIG.  We had about ten hubs across central and eastern Europe, but not just that.  It's something that needs to be nurtured, there was training involved the day before the event.  So it takes time to plan.

One thing which was very good was that we actually asked remote participants to register as well and to indicate that they were remote so you could see very clearly who was -- in the full list of persons going to the IGF or being in the IGF, useful who were remotely connected, too.  And that helps to distinguish.

So, yes, it takes time.  And I agree with Ginger fully that it's something that needs planning.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  No, I don't see a problem in this, in asking everybody to specify well in time a moderator for the remote participation.  There shouldn't be any problem.

And we can certainly do that.

And it's also a question of now that we are reducing the size of panels, et cetera, it also creates more space for this type of remote participation.

Otherwise, earlier, when the panel took up one hour, then the people present in the room wanted the rest of the time.  Now there's more space available.  So I hope that that will help matters.

Are there any other issues on the -- on what I have just summarized earlier and the further comments that we've had?  Or can we treat this as done and then get on with the task of looking at the workshops and the moderation so that I can then ask the groups to start working?

Are there any other issues that you need to pick up right now?  No?

And so the -- our schedule -- yes.



>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   I have a comment.

I didn't understand who was in charge of the cloud computing panel.  Sorry.  I'm returning back to the past panel of cloud computing.  It was not clear for me who was going to be in charge of that panel.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Cloud computing, there's nobody in charge.  This is just work assigned for the next few hours.  And to come back at 3:00.  It will be Daniel, Patrik, and Nii.  The three of them.  Anybody else is free to join. These are not exclusive groups.  The idea is to identify potential panelists.  In the case of cloud computing, we felt that we would have a panel.  But probably -- I am trying to encourage the idea of not more than three so that we have space for people to participate in the process.

Yes, Jeanette.



>>JEANETTE HOFMANN:   Could you perhaps ask who will join which group so that we have an idea of how many people we can rely on?  We now -- we seem to all divide into groups now, yes?  Is that how it is?  Or just --



>>NITIN DESAI:   I think in the case of your group, it's more or less done, because we have decided on the moderators on the "Managing Critical Internet Resources."  It's only a matter of now looking at the balance workshops.  So it's a relatively straightforward job on the "Managing Critical Internet Resources."

In the other ones, there's a little more of planning work which has to be done.  And may I say that maybe if -- normally, these things are fairly like an amoeba in a dish, it's fairly self-organizing.  It gets done.  People know where to find us, you see.  But if there are others who want to participate, I would strongly encourage those who don't wish to go and enjoy the sun outside.

It's just that the work has to -- it's very difficult to do work about names and so on in a big group.  Somebody has to come up with names.  And then we can start reacting, saying yes, no, why don't you look at this type of thing.

So why don't we do this to start with.  The four groups just assemble here at these four corners.  Anybody else who wants to join is welcome to join.  You can continue meeting here.  But if you prefer to go out and meet in the garden, go right ahead, do that.  And wherever you meet.  But reassemble here at 3:00.

I suppose it's probably safer if I name one person who is a convenor for each of the groups; right?  Can we -- let's vote on that.

What was the first one, Internet governance -- Bill, you are the convenor for that.  Yeah.  Yeah.  So Bill, anybody wants to work, contact Bill.

The second one was access.  And -- was "Access and Diversity."



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Olga.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Olga is the person -- is the convenor for that.  She's already been working on that.

Then we have "Security, Openness, and Privacy."  And that was -- mm-hmm -- Lisa can -- Liesyl.

And on cloud computing, can I request Patrik?

These are the four people who you can contact.  To repeat, on Internet governance, Bill Drake.  On access and -- access and diversity, Olga.  On security, openness, and privacy, Liesyl.

And on cloud computing, Patrik.

So whoever wants to engage in this exercise, please contact them.  And I will turn to these four to report in at 3:00.  And then we can take what they propose and come to closure on that.

And let's try and see whether we can end by, say, around 5:00.  Okay?

Good.  Thank you very much.  We reassemble at 3:00.

Oh, Miguel.  Sorry.



>>CSTD: Thank you.  Two things very quick.

The first one, I want to confirm that remote participation has been improved.  I participated in Sharm El Sheikh remotely.  And probably the biggest problem that remote participants have is that they are not aware of what is happening in the room.  I know it's very difficult to create this type of interaction, but it's really a problem, because you don't know how many people are before you asking questions, for example.  And then you don't know if you will get an answer or you won't get the answer to your questions.

That's one.

The second one, I wanted to announce that next week in my new capacity, I want to announce that CSTD will meet next week.  We will discuss a lot of things, but pertinent to this group, we will discuss Internet Governance Forum continuing.  And as you know, there has been released the advanced copy of the continuing IGF from Undersecretary-General Sha.  And we will also be discussing, among other things, enhanced cooperation.  And the preliminary program, copies of the preliminary program are on the table at the back of the room.  At the -- where you exit.

Thank you, Chairman.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Thank you.

Yes.  And then Wolfgang.



>>:Hello.  This is Roland Perry from the NRO and RIPE NCC.  I'd just like to say that we've been trying to make an offer to help with the remote participation, in particular, the issue mentioned just now of being able to describe what's happening in the room to people who are not necessarily watching on the webcast.  So --  And I would like to talk to anybody afterwards who would accept assistance on that.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Ginger is the person you should contact.  She --  There's a remote participation group.

Yes, Wolfgang.



>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   Yes, thank you.

This preliminary report which was distributed this morning is an interesting new document.  And my question is whether we could use, let's say, half an hour of this afternoon's session to have a first look on it and to ask for something.



>>NITIN DESAI:   No.  It's not our job.



>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   Okay.



>>NITIN DESAI:   It's not our job.  We have done our job.  This has been done by the undersecretary-general.  He has not asked us for our comments. And you are free to have your private views.  But as --  As the MAG, we have no role to play now.



>>GINGER PAQUE:   Thank you.  This is not as IGC, but as remote participation.

We do have a remote comment that goes very much with the two comments my colleagues just made, that it is important to emphasize the interaction between the session moderators and the remote moderators.  And this will help solve part of the problem that arose in Sharm El Sheikh that the remote participants don't know.  Part of the work that the remote moderator will do is to talk to them, to explain where we're only going to take five comments.  There's not going to be.  And the remote moderator will also differentiate between what are comments between remote participants and what are substantial comments that should be made in the large room.

So we will take into --  i would like to speak to both Roland and my colleague to take that.  But the remote -- the remote moderators will take on this role.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

Good.  Thank you.

Go and enjoy the sun and the rest of your work.

(Lunch.)



***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***



IGF consultations

11 May 2010

3:00 p.m.

Geneva, Switzerland

Palais des Nations



[ Gavel. ]



>>NITIN DESAI:  Can I --

[ Gavel. ]



>>NITIN DESAI:  Welcome back from lunch. 

One apology.  The projector seems to have backed up.  So we can't see the thing up there.

Reminds me of a long time ago when -- way back, one of my friends had a calculator.  And the calculator just wouldn't show -- he sent it to the repair shop and it came back saying it's fine.  He tried it.  Nothing was working.  And it kept -- this happened two or three times.  So he got very angry, called the man, says, "What's happening?"

He says, it's working, it's just the display is out of order.  It's calculating away like mad inside, but you can't see what the answer is.  It's your problem.  So what we're going to do, then, is we're going to continue with the whole business of transcription, so you can't see it, but --



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   On the Internet.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Oh, you can on the Internet if you're on the Internet.  But you will not be able to see it on the screen.

So if you want to follow the transcript, then you will have to do it on the Internet here.

I don't know why this has backed up, but it has.

Well, let's go straight in and let's perhaps just begin with the first group.

Somebody's trying to fix it.

The -- let's go to the first group.  Jeanette, will you -- Jeanette, are you going to tell us what's -- anything to report on the first group?  Or Chris?  Chris is -- oh, Chris is surfacing.  Emily.  Okay.

Emily, would you.



>>EMILY TAYLOR:   Yeah.  We had a high level of consensus in our group.  And the following workshops were selected as main-session workshops.  I think Chris covered this a little bit yesterday.  But just to recap, 61, new gTLD and IDNs for development, importance and obstacles; 63, strengthening ccTLDs in Africa; 87, IPv6 around the world; and 28, priorities for the long-term stability of the Internet.

The following workshops were -- we thought should be accepted, but it doesn't really matter if they don't happen before the first -- you know, before the main session.  So those are number 90, maintaining the open architecture of the Internet; number 141, DNSSEC in a territory, with a suggestion that this merges with 113; 158, Internet resource certification, with a suggestion that this merges with 147; and I think that is -- yes, so we've done 113, which we agreed should merge with 141.  And also, we identified a critical Internet resources best practice session as 157, which had been categorized under capacity-building.

So I've sent the spreadsheet to Markus, which includes our comments.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Any views on the suggestions that have come from the group?

Good.

So we take that.  So we now, in the case of --  We have the moderators, we have the workshops structured,  and we are in good shape for that first session.

Can I now turn to the second one, Internet Governance for Development.

Bill.



>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   Thank you.

We had a fairly interesting and robust conversation.

We talked about the challenge of trying to do a session on a sort of cross-cutting theme like this, which touches on some of the subjects being addressed in other topics, and we tried to focus in a way that would differentiate it from, say, the access and other sessions.

We decided -- we suggested the following, that the event should be structured in three parts, a first discussion about the nature of Internet governance for development and why it matters, including questions pertaining to the differential benefits or differences in the benefits obtained from governance processes by different actors.  We thought, secondly, that we would then talk about some key global Internet governance issues and institutions from a development -- through a development lens and try and identify issues, both procedural and substantive policy outputs related to them.  And we suggested as a starting point perhaps to focus on names and numbers, standards, security, interconnection, and intellectual property.  That may be too ambitious.  This is to be refined, of course.

And that, third, the discussion might finish with a section about sort of taking it forward and how to build out a focus on development issues in the IGF and related contexts.

So the group is imagining, essentially, a three-part kind of discussion, with the mid -- middle part being the main meat.

The workshops that were identified as being directly related to the session and perhaps suitable as sort of inputs into it included 165, the development agenda, names and numbers; 174 on lenses for viewing Internet governance.  There are two workshops, 74 and 146, proposed on Internet in Africa, which we thought might be combined in some manner.  That's for those people to sort out.  And if so, if they -- it has a governance orientation, then that could fit in.

It was suggested also that the Internet governance caucuses proposed workshop on transnational enforcement might feed in, and also the caucuses proposed workshop -- that's 56.  And also the caucus's proposed workshop 54 about revolutionary ideas in Internet governance.

And, finally, there were two proposals by a particularly prolific proposer, 80 and 86, that pertain to trade and development, but clearly need to be spelled out more.  So depending on what, if anything, happens with those, they might feed in as well.

There were other workshops that, of course, were interesting, but they did not seem to directly fit into -- as an input into this session.

The group suggested that I should moderate.  I suggested that, having a North American moderate the session on development might not be ideal, and that at a minimum, we should have a second moderator from a developing country.  And the group rather diabolically suggested maybe Parminder and I might do it together.  And Parminder and I discussed whether we could do it without killing each other.

[ Laughter ]



>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   So we'll see how well that goes.

But, anyway, that's sort of where the discussion is at this point.



>>NITIN DESAI:   There's no reason why you -- it could make the session quite entertaining.

[ Laughter ]



>>NITIN DESAI:   So don't hesitate to fight.

But -- Fouad.



>>FOUAD BAJWA:   And continuing the discussions, the Google Group that I mentioned earlier this morning, we're going to continue with that.  Initially, this group is going to be added to by the end of the day, and anyone who wants to join into the discussions.  And the other networks that we communicate with, they will also be invited to comment so that we have a broader stakeholder participation in creating some background information on IG4D.



>>NITIN DESAI:   One question I have is that there was some talk in our earlier discussion of trying to do something more than just to open it up for discussions in order to set the stage, so that there is some clarity as to what is -- how is that to be handled.  Would it be done by the two moderators or how would that be handled?



>>WILLIAM DRAKE:   After lunch, I am not always the best and most coherent presenter.

I have overlooked to say, we talked about the possibility of having different resource people sort of lead, frame each of those different topical areas I mentioned.  So you might have one person who would draw together some points on names and numbers issues to pose to the group, and somebody else who would do it on interconnection, et cetera, so we'd have a little bit more decentralized participation.  Rather than having just the two moderators, there would be a few people on the stage who would bring in and frame discussion around some distinct discussion points.

I should add also, actually, in our conversation, we did not -- it just occurs to me you probably are going to ask me about this next -- we did not talk about whether to try to also get into national -- purely national-level issues, which I think a lot of those probably, if there was going to be discussion of that, might fit better in the access group, because those issues might have more to do with telecom regulation and treatment of ISPs and such matters.

But this is an open question as well.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Comments?  Any comments on the proposals?

Summarized, there will be this three-part, tend to have it in these three parts, which he mentioned, Bill Drake and Parminder moderating.  There would be some resource people who would speak to each of the three parts.

Any reflections on this?

And as Fouad said, there is a continuing process through the Google group which would presumably be working towards getting some sort of documentation, presumably.

Am I right, Fouad?



>>FOUAD BAJWA:   (Nod of the head.)



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah.  Okay.

Good.  Let's turn to the third one, which is access and diversity.  That is Olga.



>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Chair.

We had an interesting meeting in the morning.

We already sent Avri and you the -- the selection of the workshops.  There are not many under access and diversity.  They are about -- there are about ten workshops that we gave them green light.  Some others were suggested to merge with other issues, like openness.  And some others were Amber, so maybe -- or we requested some more information or we just let them know that they don't fit.

And then we had some discussions about how we could organize the main session.  There will be two moderators.  One will be Nii Quaynor and myself.  And the other idea is to have, at the most, five panelists.  And each panelist would have a broader vision for access and diversity themselves, each of them.  We thought about one name, which is Manal Ismail from Egypt.  She's very much related with access issues and also with IDNs.  So we thought that she could be -- we haven't talked to her, but we thought that she could be a very good panelist.  We don't have other names yet.  We are thinking about that.

And the idea is to have a very brief presentation from each panelist, like five minutes, and then open the dialogue, moderated by us, provoking some reaction from the audience, having perhaps with preparation before with the speakers.  And then some debate, and then another presentation, very brief, and then some debate.  And so not all the presentations together, but mixed in between some spaces for debate.  We will have to be careful about timing.  So we will need some preparation before the main session.

That's what we discussed in our meeting.



>>NITIN DESAI:   So let me get this right.

So the -- what you call the panel will not be speaking together; they'll be speaking at different times.

Why don't we call them resource persons, just to avoid -- normally, when you say "panel," you expect that they will interact with each other.



>>OLGA CAVALLI:   That would be great, yeah.



>>NITIN DESAI:   So let's use a standard terminology for something like this where we are going to use people more to explain an issue rather than sort of debate with one another, as resource people.  That means you have the flexibility that you can call one person now and another person half an hour later.



>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Well, the idea is that they have an expertise in both fields, in access and diversity, so that the challenge is finding them.  So we don't have ten panelists; we have just five people, with some regional diversity.  That's desirable.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Can I also ask, in terms of -- since you are the two moderators, which one of you is the policeman?



>>OLGA CAVALLI:   I am not.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Because, remember, the thought was, ask the policeman to look after the privacy and openness, and somebody else look after -- so which one of you is going to play the part of the policeman?  Nii, obviously, you're going to be the policeman.  Good.

So this is the thing.  Okay.

Any reflections, comments on this, please?  Yes.  Bertrand.



>>FRANCE:   Just one brief point -- and I'm sorry, I was not here this morning -- to see and understand how much the notion of access to content is being taken into account or not.  But we can discuss afterwards.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Well, in fact, this was discussed in the morning.  And I referred specifically to the point that you made yesterday.  And, hopefully, this will be reflected in the resource people that we call on for this purpose.

Any other comments or reflections on this?

And the workshop is taken care of.

Yes.



>>CHINA:   The government of China does disagree with the idea of putting access content into access themes.  Actually, I am very confused about this idea.  Why should we put it in? 

As you know, we can access to IDN, access to open software, access to WHOIS database, even access to spam themes.  Yes, we can have access to everything by Internet.  Every way access to go.  Eventually, we put everything in this theme. 

Of course not.  So we suggest keep the theme of access its traditional meaning, not including access content, which should be in openness.  That's my opinion.



>>NITIN DESAI:   (Off mike) so you are talking of the session on security and openness?



>>CHINA:   Yeah.



>>NITIN DESAI:   And you're saying that -- I'm not entirely sure I caught your proposal.  That you wanted to restrict the discussion to?



>>CHINA:   My opinion is to put access to content-related issues into openness, theme of openness, but not in the access theme.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Oh, content-related issues under openness, not under the access discussion.  Am I right?  Is that what you're -- which was an issue which came up in our discussion also.  Am I correct?  Is that what you are saying, that the content-related issues should be dealt with under openness?  Am I right?



>>CHINA:   Yeah, yeah, yeah.



>>NITIN DESAI:   That was the intention.

We come to that in the next discussion on security, openness, and privacy that's coming up.

But it is my understanding that it would be there.

What Bertrand was referring to was something slightly different, which is where infrastructure-related questions of access arise, not content-related questions.  So that is more on -- that is a type of issue which we discussed under access.

Whereas what you're talking of, content-related, would clearly fall under openness, the next thing that we are going to take up.

Okay?



>>CHINA:   Okay.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Any other questions on this access and diversity?

Yes.



>>FRANCE:   Nitin, without wanting to continue this point too much -- and stop me if I'm continuing the discussion further than you want it -- I think it's an important point.  And I listen carefully to the concerns of the Chinese delegation.

I understand that there is an overlap.  However, the problem we're facing is that the privacy, openness, and security is actually a session that is very loaded with a lot of topics, very naturally.

The access dimension, when we talk about access to the infrastructure, it has been covered regularly in the past.  There's a global understanding, and I think that has grown in the context of the IGF, regarding the need for an enabling environment that provides the capacity for access to be there.

This year in particular, the Internet governance for development will also put an emphasis on this notion, especially from developing country angle.  And therefore, the question of access to the infrastructure is one element.  But there are other issues.  One issue that I mentioned yesterday and I think is important is, for instance, you have a certain number of platforms that are now playing a role of gatekeeper.  It can be a hardware platform, like the iPhone or the iPad or any kind of tablet, or it can be a major operator, it can be YouTube regarding the content that is on YouTube; it can be social networking platforms.

This notion that there are new gatekeepers regarding content is also a dimension of access.

I think, for instance, if I try to entice our Chinese colleague to understand better what we're trying to raise as a topic here, the topic of how do you manage platforms that host content on the global level that provide access to it and how it interfaces with the national frameworks, with the national jurisdiction and so on, it's partly hardware and partly infrastructure, but it is also partly regulation and the rules inside the actors themselves.

I think it was a point that was coming very strongly out of last year's IGF.  We had the emerging issues on social networking and so on.  And provided that it is formulated in a way that covers common concerns, I think this dimension of access is actually showing that the IGF can move forward and go beyond the traditional way we understand access and address the real policy issues that are related to access to content.

So I think the dimension of content is and should ideally be addressed also in the -- in the session of access, if we can.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Well, normally, we have been handling issues on that under openness.  And that is where -- it is correct, it is largely under openness that this class of issues has certainly been discussed.

Now, frankly, if somebody wants to take up an issue under access, we are not going to -- nobody is going to say, "Stop talking now.  Wait until the next session."

So it will continue.

But in terms of describing and looking for people, the -- I was just wondering whether Olga and Nii had given some thought to this.  Yes, it is true that security, openness, and privacy session has a large agenda.  And -- but nevertheless, it's very important -- the openness is very much there.  And we will obviously have to have some time discipline to make sure that it gets adequately discussed.

But let me ask whether Olga and Nii, whether any thought had been given to the point Bertrand raised, which our Chinese colleague raised also.

Olga?  She's not here.

Nii.



>>NII QUAYNOR:   I think I don't have any reaction here except to say that we should try as much as possible to bring the emphasis where it ought to be.  For this case, my understanding is that we leave the openness to be discussed on the security side.  So we should carry on with that and look for other issues that may be more important directly.



>>NITIN DESAI:   The point Bertrand was making was, regardless of that class of issues you discuss under openness, there is a different set of concerns, for instance, with hardware which limits access which are coming up.  That is the point that he is trying to make.



>>NII QUAYNOR:   I think --



>>NITIN DESAI:   You know, like iPad.



>>NII QUAYNOR:   Yeah, those are fine.  But I guess we wouldn't want it to become a discussion on security.  That's all.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah.



>>FRANCE:   But there's no point on security there.  It's a question of access to content.



>>NITIN DESAI:   But the intention is that the major discussion of content will take place under openness.  The only point that was being raised by Bertrand is a limited one of the extent to which certain dimensions of hardware do impinge on access.  That's all.  But it was very correct that openness is where it would get discussed, as you were suggesting.

Any other reflections?

Okay.  Let's move to the security, privacy, and openness.  Sorry.  This was the one where we had to have that crossover.

Liesyl, you're going to --



>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Yes.  I'm not sure that we completely addressed crossover of what I think was characterized a little bit as a content issue between access and openness except to acknowledge that there were several workshops under openness that addressed the content issue.  To the extent that there should be further discussion about that or people have thoughts about how you might want to address that, we'd be happy to be engaged this those.  But we did not separately parse that out.



>>NITIN DESAI:   No.  But in terms of the session itself, the security session.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Okay.  With regard to the security, openness, and privacy session, we had a very good discussion, starting from the premise of trying to structure or propose a structural outline for the main session and then identifying what we need to do as next steps for that.

The observations that were made and the discussion are that we had three very distinct, robust, and interrelated issues for this main session, which is not -- not any different than it's been other years.  But there was a general feeling that it would not be productive to address the three issues separately in the main session, but, rather, to look at topical and timely issues of the day that are in many cases, of course, put forward by some of the workshops in this category, and then dissect the three themes within that issue or question or topical issue of the day.

So, therefore, we thought that it might be better to have three moderators rather than two, one for each of those three robust areas.

So that as the main session discussion goes on, those moderators could pull out the security, openness, and privacy aspects of any particular question or issue rather than separating it out.

So with -- I think that was generally agreed upon by the 12 of us that were discussing together today, so that's what we would propose.

Given that, we have some next steps.  One is to identify the topical and timely issues in advance of the IGF, and part of that would be to do an analysis and outreach to the workshop -- analysis of the workshops and do an outreach to the workshop organizers in this topic to have an understanding of what those topical issues might be.

We certainly need to identify moderators in advance and then engage those moderators as early as possible so that they have a sense of what those issues are.  And so we do have some initial proposals for moderators coming from the group, but it wasn't limited to only three.  So while we can't suggest those now, I've asked the group to provide suggestions, and we'll take a look at it as a group and review those and get those to you as soon as possible.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:   The next thing is that, of course, we need to look at the workshops for the same suggested green lights or suggested mergers, but there are 40 of them so we didn't have time to go through all of them and make those kinds of suggestions in the time we had this morning.  So we're working on that now.

I had provided some, by virtue of the conversation yesterday that we thought could build into the main session that I can provide to Avri and Markus, but that are dealing with the issue in a very general way or transnational way or addressing all the themes at once.  But that's like four out of the 40, so we definitely need to do more of a group analysis of that and get that to you.

Again, in engaging the moderators and working with the issues of the day, that's sort of the next-next steps over the course of the months in between now and the IGF.

So a list of possible moderators, and then I'd also identify resource people that will be able to address each of those three aspects of any particular issue will be important over the next coming weeks.

We have started a listserve of the 12 people that were engaged in this planning session, so we'll be able to continue the work now and in the next couple of days to get you the information that you have requested now.  Of course, some people in the room were listed as possible choices for moderators, and people had suggestions, so we'll work on that and get it back to you.

Anybody in the room that was in the discussion want to add anything that I may have missed?

Okay.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Any comments, questions?

So basically we are going to -- Yes, Stephen.



>>STEPHEN LAU:   Just purely for my own benefit, to understand it more, the three topics of security, openness, and privacy, and now we're going to have -- and what's proposed, we have three moderators, each looking after a specific -- I mean, each will look after one specific issue or topic.  But the fact that these three are really -- knowing that they are very much intercorrelated or related, but sometimes they could be seen to be in conflict or opposition.

So I just want to understand we are going to have three distinct, we call moderators, what would their role be?  Because it seems to be the way they will play is like they play a policeman's role or proponent's role.  I am for openness, so I am now going to speak on behalf of the needs, benefits.  And the same for the privacy, and the same for security.

I don't mind that.  I just want to understand this is the way the group has fine-tuned this towards.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   I think partly, in a sense, when we've had two moderators, it's not as if the two moderators have done different things.  They have done the same things, but they are sort of, in a sense, one is watching the audience while the other is working, and then they switch roles.

So let me stress that I don't think the issue is one of having a moderator for a theme, because -- and this is why I'm a little concerned about three moderators, because I think with two, it's easy for them to interact.  And with three, it becomes a slightly more complicated affair.  You have to have somebody else say, okay, now you take over.

You have to have another party who says, okay, now you take over.  And if it's two, they can just interact with one another, "Okay, now you take over."

And I'm a little concerned about how the three-moderator system could work.

I would be quite happy to have more resource people who are available and accessible to explicate, clarify the technical or substantive issues involved.  But in terms of actually managing the flow of conversation, I don't know how the idea of having three people doing it together will work out.

Let me -- I am going to explain what was emphasized by the people that would -- Were you expecting them to do it sequentially, breaking the session up into three parts?  But at the same time you said no, you want the issues to be discussed together.  You don't want them to be in silos.  So how would it work?



>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Well, let me try to address that question, and then perhaps others can weigh in.

Because the three issues are interrelated and can't really be discussed in -- discretely, the idea was not to talk about each issue, necessarily, sequentially.  For example, I suppose the most simplistic way to describe it is we have three hours for the session.  Would you do the first hour on security, the second hour on openness, and the third hour on privacy.

That seemed to be nonworkable -- unworkable, actually, because these three issues are so interrelated, and that wouldn't necessarily provide a robust dialogue.

So the idea was to address topical issues of the day and extract, is maybe a better word, extract the security, the openness, and the privacy threads, concerns, aspects of that issue of the day.

And so, therefore, it wouldn't be done in a linear way, necessarily.  But that is also why there would be a need for three moderators.  One to cover each of those three themes, and any particular incident, instance, issue, or example.

I don't think the idea is that one would be a policeman, in a sense, or that it would necessarily need to be a back and forth.

I think the back and forth, Nitin that, you described can be handled with three people as well as two, particularly because each of the issues need to be -- probably need to be -- what's the word?  Extracted from each of the issues.

Lee, I am going to look at you for some help in describing that thought, if you don't mind.



>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you, Chair.  Thank you.

Liesyl.  Yes, I was part of that discussion earlier.  First of all, just one or two other points before this point.  There wasn't any -- there wasn't any strong feeling to have a panel, so it's quite clear that this is a dialogue through the audience.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Yes, good.  Thank you.



>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  So there will be resource persons in the crowd, of course.

I do think that three hours is a long time, and it's going to be a big room, like it's always a big room.  And for one moderator or two moderators to cover the space, it's quite difficult.

So if you are having a dialogue with the audience, I think three, given the three pillars to this session, it would be quite fruitful to have them walking around and to -- if you like, they would be -- they are experts in their own field, but they actually act as a cross-check on the quality of the discussion from the three pillars.  So if it goes to stray into one particular field, I guess the other moderator would rein the person back in and have this, sort of, "Hang on a second, there's an openness issue here," and maybe pulling on the dialogue of the audience to bring it back into a more balanced approach.  And that's why there's a need for three moderators, also to cover the space, also to cover the fact there's no panel.

In addition to that, just to add what Liesyl has said, is that -- and I think this could apply to all the main sessions, is the -- I think many of us were agreed that a lot of time and effort should be spent in crafting the issues and the questions to be put to the audience, and making sure that they have the right balance, they have the right impact when they are dropped and they create a discussion in the room.

So a lot of time could be spent on crafting very carefully those questions or those structural questions which break the session down into different parts, and also to make sure that the moderators have clear lines of response and counter questions or concerns they want to raise in response.  Sort of anticipating, somewhat, and being very prepared.

So really a scenario, almost.  An annotated agenda for the session through the three moderators.

And this will be brought together by the organizing team, the 12 people or so, which could distill the issues, anticipate the questions, carefully script, work it out together and then validate it.  Then it would be up to the moderators to sort of carry it out.

So no problem having three moderators.  No problem making sure there is a real dialogue.



>>NITIN DESAI:  Bertrand.



>>FRANCE:   I find the discussion very, very interesting, but it highlights the difficulty of articulating the three elements together, while at the same time they are connected together.

I was wondering whether, given the fact that there are three hours, it couldn't be possible to choose or pick three issues that we have, three concrete policy issues that would illustrate one side of the triangle.

Let me give an example.  Anonymity is obviously something that is very close to privacy.  However, it is sometimes a huge security problem.  It is -- has tension with openness in terms of who is talking.  And there is a debate about what are the benefits and the dangers of anonymity, when should it be released and so on.

So why not have a first moderator for the first hour that picks this topic, and the two other moderators basically would be, if we keep the idea of three, would be counterpoints on the other two elements, and we would have a first one on privacy.  Then you take a second one on security.

One fundamental challenge that we have is when we need to fight cybercrime, you need law enforcement cooperation.  However, this is usually contradictory with openness because it needs to be done in a cooperative manner among law enforcement agencies.  And in many respects, it can be leading to infringements on privacy, but on the other hand too strong privacy protections can prevent the law enforcement actors to work collaboratively.

So the second topic could be cooperation among law enforcement agencies in fighting cybercrime, and the discussion would revolve around how to find the right balance.

I leave open the third topic that could be about jurisdiction, regarding openness or social networks or whatever. But the idea would be to take three concrete issues that we have to deal with and have one moderator basically driving the issue while the two others would provide the counterpoint.

Suggestion.

By the way, I'm sorry, I take the opportunity to mention that on access and diversity, there is a subtitle that was called "Filter and Blocking Access to Content and Services" in the program paper.



>>JEANETTE HOFMANN:   What I find slightly confusing about this approach is it seems to strengthen the role of the moderator at the expense of the audience.

What would make more sense to me is to stay with two moderators and name resource people who bring out these tensions that come with each topic and make sure that it's adequately presented by people in the audience.

This three-moderator approach seems to put the moderators in the driving seat.

I think that it's a bit unpredictable because one never really knows who will speak up and with what passion they drive a discussion in what direction.  So I don't think that three moderators will increase the -- (phone ringing) -- oh -- will increase the control over the discussion.  It's better to have people in the audience who sort of create the balance that we want for each point of discussion.

Thanks.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Any -- Yes, Liesyl.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:   I just want to add to the discussion here that the intent, at least, in the discussion that we had about this was not for the moderators to have control over the discussion but to be able to bridge, shall we say, the discussion as a moderator should -- you know, would do to facilitate the discussion.

So I'm not sure if it's just an incomplete description of the way that we had the discussion about it or if it's just new, but we're happy to talk further and see what would give people that comfort.

I will say from my own personal perspective, and I said this in the group so it wouldn't be new, and I think I said earlier as well that going to Lee's point about making sure that if there's a tug or a pull in any one direction, moderators that can sort of represent one or the other two aspects of the topic area can help balance it out.  That's the only -- That's the only aspect of, I think, guidance that the -- that I would envision, necessarily, the moderators having in this kind of role.

So it's not really a topical control.  They should be just as impassionate as any other moderator would be.  They just might be able to guide or facilitate the discussion or draw out discussion in the three areas, which is why people suggested that there be three.  But there's no intent for it to have more control than any other main session, and certainly foster as much audience participation as possible.

But on all three topics, not any one being dominant.

Which is important, I think.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, Nii.



>>NII QUAYNOR:  I think I want to support Bertrand's view that the questions are most critical, because given the example of anonymity, the privacy people will come to a point where they wish they were not anonymous.  Meaning that is the question now create a debate that would tie the things together?  Because I'm not sure I want to be anonymous all the time.  There will be a time when I want to give in my anonymity because I want public support, public interest.  So it's not the question that will bring the two sides against one, if in that one itself on occasions would find it unacceptable.  So those are the questions.



>>NITIN DESAI: Okay.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Sorry, this is Liesyl again.  Just to address the topics, perhaps, Bertrand.  The discussion that we had was to try to use the topics in the workshops that were provided and the hot issue areas of the day.  I was asked not to use the word "hot."  Timely topical issues of the day that are drawn from the workshops.  None -- I don't -- I haven't looked at them closely enough to know if anonymity in itself is one, but it certainly brings out all the areas, as Bertrand illustrated, which is exactly what we were talking about.   That you can look at any issue -- well, you should choose issues that you can look at from the three perspectives and draw out that debate.

Anyway, the context was to look at the workshops and see how that drove the topic areas for discussion.  And it might not necessarily have to be only three, you know, but it needs to be manageable.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Bertrand.



>>FRANCE:   Yeah, just -- sorry.  Just a precision to answer what Jeanette was saying.  Unfortunately, she is not there.  But to confirm that the idea was not at all to have the moderators or the animators take a complete leading role in terms of substance.

What I noticed in the session on critical Internet resources is that it was very good to have the moderators relaunch the discussion or ask a question to make sure that all the dimensions are taken into account.

So the idea here is that we have three very specific dimensions.  The moderators or people who would be in charge of taking care of one specific angle would call upon either resource persons or ask questions to the floor to make sure that the dimension that is missing is really taken into account.

Second, to follow what Nii was saying, I think it is a particularly good example when we have a situation where the same person is in favor of something or against something, depending on the situation.

What we need to avoid in the environment of the IGF are very clear-cut situations where there is one camp and then the other camp, and they can go on fighting forever.

What is beautiful about anonymity for instance is that the very same people who defend it in some cases would be completely supportive of having it released or not implemented in other cases.  And this is where the IGF brings the best added value, because it allows everybody to see the different pros and cons regarding specific topics.

Finally, regarding what Liesyl was saying, of course it would be good to pick from the -- from the workshop list.  The thing is that the workshops' titles usually have relatively broad issues, and they are covering things that are not formulated in terms of a public-policy issue or a real question.  And so I am not attached particularly to the examples I gave.  They were merely examples.  But I think the IGF, especially this year, must show that it can go to concrete problems.  That it can address things that are meaningful for everyday users, as the mandate of the IGF is requesting.

And so I pick those examples because these are problems that the different actors are facing.

Governments today are being requested to choose between enforcing registration with national identities or allowing anonymity.

Today, it's a binary choice and it has pros and cons on both sides.  How can we highlight this choice?  How can we make sure that all the different actors are involved in this debate?

Likewise for cooperation among law enforcement agencies.  There can be other topics.  But we are all confronted, even as users, with the desire on the one hand that cooperation among law enforcement agencies goes very quickly when there is a problem, but at the same time that it is not done in such an opaque way that there are infringements on specific rights or privacy and so on.

So these two examples -- and we can probably find others -- are topics where everybody, if this person is really looking at it sincerely and rationally, must be torn between pros and cons.  And these are the subjects, I believe, where the IGF can make the most progress.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes, Katitza.



>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   I want to echo Bertrand's comments.  Actually, I have nothing else to add.  I just want to say that I have shared the same thoughts within our working group.  I think that's the way we should go forward.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  So we stay with the three-moderator concept.

I see people nodding.  So that's fine.  We stay with that.

And the question of workshops and specific names, the group is still working at.

This is one where there is clearly a great deal of interest if you go by the number of proposed workshops and so on.  And in a way, it's a pity that our structure does not allow flexibility where we say, okay, there's so much interest in this, let's have more than one session.  But we can't do that.  And we don't have the time and the space for that.

So we have to see how we maximize the use of these three hours that we have for this session.

So I would urge, then, the group to continue working on these two issues of the workshops, and because there are 40 of them and we really do need to have a closer look as to how many of them do really feed in.  Some of them could be merged.  And, of course, in terms of the names of the resource persons as well as the potential moderators.

Any other reflections on this?

Okay.  Then let's move on to the next one, which is the cloud computing, Patrik.



>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Thank you.

So one thing that we thought was, of course, was that it was one workshop listed under -- well, two workshops listed under emerging issues, but one of them explicitly mentioned the name "cloud," although there were many other workshops that had the word "cloud" in the name.

So the first thing we did is we had a look at all the workshops and we sort of assimilated the others.  So we discovered that we have sort of eight workshops now that has to do with cloud.

Also to help with the problem that you just mentioned, that there is certain main topics that there are so many workshops on.

We then looked at those workshops and to be able to discover what people really would like to discuss regarding emerging issues in the cloud, and we came up with three different areas.

The first one is about the general concept of cloud, what is -- what do people mean by "cloud," what can it be used for, why can it be used for it, specifically talk about cooperation and the general need for it.

The second main part of the discussion had to do with infrastructure, low-cost hardware, environment, physical stuff, those kind of arguments for cloud computing.

And the third, last issue which might have to do actually more with emerging issues and specifically governance is when we come into privacy, integrity, confidence in the cloud, public policy and potential regulation and those kind of things.

And what we saw when looking at the workshops is that the main session, to be successful, probably have to cover all three of those areas, which are a little bit different from each other.

We then talked a bit on how to achieve this.  And we thought that the best thing to do, do this, is probably have as much discussion as possible, but on the other hand, we need to have some way of actually leading the discussion forward.  So we also think that we already earlier talked about this session having very, very few panelists, let's say three or four maximum, and they are the ones that sort of lay out the theme for each one of those three discussion topics..  And then we would like to have as good discussions as Jeanette managed to do, but we don't think we actually managed to do that in such a good way.

So one idea we came up with is to have the workshops before the main session.

If we're able to have the workshops before the main session, then we can ask the workshop participants, instead of reporting back, to be on the floor and be the ones that sort of, after the main panelists have given their -- sort of their view, very, very short, a minute or two, proposing the three, the workshop participants are the ones that start up initially to -- they are the ones that start the discussion.  And they sort of test their findings.  It gains the panelists.  So the panelists are not the ones who should be part of the workshops.  And then the moderators make sure we have that dialogue, and then the dialogue can also be open with other people in the audience.

That's approximately where we are.

We have started to gather some names for panelists, but just because we want four good names and also, of course, both from all different kind of stakeholder groups and diversity in different countries, we would like to have more examples of good candidates from people.  We also have a mailing list that we have opened, and a lot of people are added to that when people want to.

And so that's approximately where we are.

One thing about the workshops.  We're a little bit concerned that some of the workshops -- first of all, of course, can be merged, but it's also the case that we think that the workshops, some of them are very weak regarding diversity and coverage.  They are more like, "We want to report a little bit on what we are currently doing about this new buzz word 'cloud' that we think is very cool," and not really something that can probably add serious things to discussion.  But on the other hand, if we are merging or if they are participating in the discussion, then things could end up being more interesting.

Anyway, we would like to think a little bit more on those workshop things and see where we are.  But we would like to have more proposals on people and see what people think on it.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yes.



>> I just wanted to add also that Patrik created a mailing list, so we will continue to shape this session and we'd like to incite others to -- who have an interest in this to join that mailing list.  But I presume you will send that out, Patrik.



>>NITIN DESAI:   That's fine.  I wasn't expect we go all would come to complete closure on everything today but we don't have much time.  Remember, we are meeting in September, so we really should give ourselves a deadline for these groups.

What is a reasonable deadline for the groups to finish their work?



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   30th of May.



>>NITIN DESAI:   30th.  Because we do need to have enough time to be able to contact people, get them, get the things organized.  Even simple things like printing the program of the meeting.  That has to take place in the -- (phone ringing) -- oh, sorry.

That has to take place -- requires some time.

So I would urge that the groups do the work, but try and complete it by 30th of this month.

Now that brings to us the end of this particular round of discussions.

Yes, Ayesha.



>>ICC:   I'm sorry, just to clarify.  I was listening to some of the proposed souls that are being considered for moderators and other focal points, et cetera, for the sessions.

I have noted that there is a little bit of imbalance, for instance, in the "Internet Governance for Development" session.  There's two civil society moderators appointed.  I know that we -- or at least put out there as ideas, and I think we need to be careful about balancing moderators from different stakeholder groups.  Perhaps there isn't somebody from the business community who was ready to stand up to be a part of that group this time, but I'm sure that there are people out there, and I would be happy to try to identify somebody.

I also know that out in the community, there is a sense that there's a repetition of some of the same people over and over.  And in some cases, that is a wonderful idea because it builds on their experience, and they are able to very effectively moderate.  In other situations we should just be sensitive to the fact that when it's only MAG members or repeats, people in the community sense that that's not as effective way of being inclusive.

So as we go forward to finalize, as you are encouraging, a pretty quick turnaround on things, I just wanted to voice that sensitivity.  Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   No, I think this is a fair point and I think it's important.  I would urge the groups when you are looking at resource people, moderators, particularly the visible part of the management, do not restrict yourself to the people who come here and meet here, because we are -- we do have a constituency out there which is much larger.  And it's very important that it doesn't -- the exercise doesn't -- is not seen as just something which done by a small group of people for a small group of people.  So look out and see where you can get, you know, people engaged.

Sometimes, you have to take a chance and engage people simply to spread the network a little bit more.

Yes, Fouad.



>>FOUAD BAJWA:   Fouad comment on Ayesha's point.  The idea initially was the moderators just keep the discussion focused to IG.  And the opportunity is still there to, if you wanted to request, like -- these are just initial names.  If you want to have more interests included, it's open.  Second thing, all three stakeholders are going to work together to have a balanced set of people who will lead the discussions.

And then I have already included, like many members to the list, and I have sent out an invite to the MAG.  And we actually are sending it out to as many people who can join in, and the discussion is continued online.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

Yes.



>>HUNGARY:   I am Peter Major.

Just one point concerning access and diversity.  I'm not sure that we have touched upon the workshops.  Or I might have missed something.



>>NITIN DESAI:   No, I think we have -- Olga had mentioned that they had gone through the list of workshops and they have identified some which clearly (speaking off mic) theme of "Access and Diversity."  Some others will go ahead and others which (speaking off mic).  And it's a pretty long list.  Particularly there are quite a few workshops.  15 or 16, I think.

Do you want to go through those individually or --



>>HUNGARY:   No, no, I don't really want to do that.



>>NITIN DESAI: But it has been done.  They have sent something.  Am I right?  Yes.

Jeanette.



>>JEANETTE HOFMANN:   Thank you, Chair.  Being civil society myself, I would in this case really support Ayesha's point.  Just to remind you, I became a co-moderator for the "Critical Internet Resource" main session because we complained that there was only somebody from ISOC moderating it.  So I think she has a fair point here.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Yeah, I think I would urge the groups who are doing this to keep in mind this dimension, that we have to spread the net and get -- always get new people involved.  And I think this is an important requirement that we should keep in mind, that there must be a sense at every IGF that some new people have gotten engaged in this process.  And also, I hope is a sense that some old people have stopped off.

But I would request the groups to address that systematically and see how we bring in new people into the process.

Good.

So we have -- Yes, please, Stephen.



>>STEPHEN LAU: .

(speaking off mic).



>>NITIN DESAI:   Mic, mic.



>>STEPHEN LAU:   Sorry, yes.

Just an observation on the "Emerging Issues" session.

So far this year, we have discussed this particular issue.  In the past, the session has -- is quite panoramic.  It cover a multitude of major, major emerging issues.

This year, it seems to be we have only one issue emerging, and that is cloud computing.

Don't get me wrong, I think cloud computing is a really, really very crucially important topic emerging for discussion.  But I just want to make sure that the consensus here, or in terms of design for this year, will have only one issue that is worthy of really a three-hour discussion.  Because I think there are other issues, might not be regarded as of equal prominence or importance.  We have talk -- I mean, in the past, remember, and currently it's still a very hot issue, climate change and the environment, Internet of things.  In fact, we are now going beyond, a lot of significant discussion has gone beyond looking at the Internet of things which is pervasive to the Internet of people, whereby we have the embedded chip and all that and monitoring, privacy and all that.

So I am saying that there is still a multitude of -- quite a number of important emerging issues, but if you are going to pick one, that means we are going in there with our eyes open and say this is the major issue that the IGF will cover.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Can I say it's not the first time.  Last time also we tried to focus on Web 2.

There has been a certain -- Because it's not a short session.  It's not a three-hour session.  It's more like a two-hour session because we have to leave time at the end for the closing ceremony.  So it's not a full-fledged three-hour session and we have been giving themes for this and trying to focus a discussion especially in terms of bringing resource people and so on.

And in any case, in this one because we discussed this earlier, it has already been announced in the program.

So there has always been something which has excited attention at every given IGF.  In fact, I was trying to think of five years of IGF.  It's clouds this year.  Last year it was Web 2.  And we can make a list from Athens onwards as to what was considered the hot issue of that particular IGF.

It was Web 2, I think, last year.  And in Hyderabad it was largely a matter of will we get anybody there after the thing (laughing).  So it will be interesting to go back and see what was considered the hot issue at each IGF from Athens onwards.

What was it at Athens?  I have forgotten.



>>PETER HELLMONDS:   Reporters without frontiers.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Ahhh.

Oh, yes, yes, yes.  That was the time we had the ten young people telling us what we should be worrying about.  And it -- That did work.

Okay.  Now what is the next task, Markus?

What I would say is this:  That please look ahead and see -- there is --  Yes, Bertrand.



>>FRANCE:   Sorry.  I was waving the -- the flag.

Regarding this question of whether the emerging issues session should be focusing on one topic or on several, I do get Stéphane's point.  However, we can consider that it should be the responsibility of all the different main sessions, and including the workshops, to have almost one element in their reporting that sales the new elements or the new emerging issues, if any, that have emerged on that topic this year are.  And the "Emerging Issues" session in the end, because it's a short one, has a multiple function.  There is some level of awareness raising, which is not completely capacity-building, but it's sometimes picking on the different workshops to give the essence of what the evolution is.  But one thing that could probably be done better is to try to come out of the emerging issues sessions with some specific policy issues, like concrete questions that could be fed into not only the next IGF, but also into the regional and national meetings.

There is a huge educational value if the international IGF says, "We should all be looking more closely at the following topic," and so all the regional and national ones could pick that during the year.  And when they come back the next year, they would give feedback.

I think we failed a little bit on that -- in that respect regarding what came out of the discussion last year.  There was a strong emphasis on social media.  And I think this year, it has disappeared a little bit.  It's a little bit buried in the -- in the general themes, and it could have deserved to be more visible.

But for cloud computing, I can expect that next year it is weaved into more topics.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Social media has been displaced by cloud computing as the concern of the day.  So that's why it --

Okay.  Yes, Miguel.



>>CSTD:   Just a small comment.

I believe that the observation by Bertrand will be corrected as we progress and try to link the regional and the national processes with the global one.  So it's a matter -- for me, it's a matter of time to do that better.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  Then let me --  The way we would work now is that some of the sessions are now fairly well defined, like the "Managing Critical Internet Resources," we made, you know, very good progress on the "Access and Diversity."  It's mostly done.  We -- I think we would -- on the other sessions, there are some loose ends still which need to be tied up.

So, one, I would urge all the groups which are working on this to complete their work by the 30th of May.  And this will come to --  And on that basis, I think there is now enough for the secretariat to be able to put a program together.

There is a possibility of meeting towards the end of June.  I'm not sure we need a full meeting then, because at that point, largely, it's a matter of the more detailed work, reshuffling workshops from here to there, and that type of thing which needs to be done.

Let's keep it --  We need not surrender that slot, but let us take a view on whether we need a -- a meeting a little later.

What is your feeling, Markus?



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Based on last year's experience, I think it will be needed.  And I think it proved very helpful to have workshop organizers actually physically present where we could discuss with them, you gain much time if everybody is there.  You can coordinate, agree to have your workshop here or there.  And we can then really nail down the program.

Whether or not we need to have a kind of --  We have reserved basically two days for this open slot.  We can see based on how the online process will progress whether we need the full two days.  But at this stage, I would urge to keep the possibility open, and you get much more done when people are actually physically present that you can then really sort out the details.



>>NITIN DESAI:   So there is the possibility of a meeting.  But -- the possibility of a meeting at the end of June, but we will decide a little later, closer to that.  It costs a lot of money to have these meetings.  So before we have, we have to make sure that we really need that meeting.  Because it's not just the money that the secretariat spends.  It's also the money that all of you spend in coming here, you see.

So I'm conscious of the fact that each one of these meetings costs a lot of -- ends up posing a significant burden on the different organizations.  So let's take a view maybe at the end of May, when we know what we want.

Yes, Olga.



>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Chair.  Just a brief comment.

Some of us participate in ICANN meetings.  And there will be an ICANN meeting in Brussels at the end of June.  And for coming, for example, from Latin America, it's not worth to go and come back for the two meetings.

So I already have a ticket for staying and coming to Geneva.  Just if you come from a long distance, then you have to plan that in advance.

So the sooner we know, the better for us.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

Any --  What else do we have to -- do we have?  Anything on the logistics side or anything that we need to do now?

The logistics end at Lithuania is under....

Okay.



>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   (Off mike) the local Web site.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   It was up.  The host country Web site.  We have a link on our Web site.  There's a link on our Web site to the host country Web site.



>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   Ah, here.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

Yes.



>>ITALY:   Good day.  I just wanted to use the opportunity under the "other issues" to announce that the European EuroDIG next year will take place in Belgrade, in Serbia, to invite all of you, of course.  And to ask you, because we are still considering the most proper, most appropriate dates, which at this point might be 2nd and 3rd of June, 2011, in Belgrade.  But if these dates are conflicting with any of the major events that you might know about, business, stakeholder, governments, and so on, regulators, please let us know, either me or Lee or anyone that you can catch around or just send us an e-mail.  Otherwise, we will definitely let you know, and we will welcome you in Belgrade next year.

Thank you.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.

Good.

So thank you very much.  You have been very productive and completed work one and a half hours in advance.

So we -- the MAG meets tomorrow, 9:00.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That's what we said.



>>NITIN DESAI:   And where?



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yeah, we are in room XXIII.

We did say that because our chairman has to catch a plane in the noon, that we will have unusual meeting times from 9:00 to 12:00 and then from 1:30 to 3:00.  And we would close at 3:00.



>>NITIN DESAI:   Okay.  So 9:00 to 12:00 and 1:30 to 3:00 for the MAG.

Thank you very much.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   And could I ask the various convenors of these subgroups not to disperse, but to stay on just to make sure that we are all on the same page, that we include everything, then, in the updated program paper.

Thank you.

(4:25 p.m.)

***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***