The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in João Pessoa, Brazil, from 10 to 13 November 2015. 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 event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> VERIDIANA ALIMONTI: Good morning to everyone.
I'm the Chair of this main session. I have been a representative of the last term, and we're going to start this second part of the session of Dynamic Coalitions. Yesterday, we had asked the Dynamic Coalitions to present. The participants were encouraged to complete rating sheets broken down on the main issues under discussion. This morning we'll give additional Dynamic Coalitions who wish to do so the opportunity to introduce themselves, discuss their work and encourage participation in their group. The rest of the session will be focused on the discussion and debate of outputs yesterday and the feedback received via the rating sheets will provide guidance for the future work of the DCs. I'll allow the session organizers and moderators to explain a bit more of how we envision this session going.
I would like to give the floor to our moderators, Jeanette Hoffman and Rachel Pollack.
The floor is yours.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. We start with a short wrap‑up of what we did yesterday, and Rachel will describe how we envision the session this morning.
What we did yesterday, first we got a bit of a background by Markus Kummer and Avri Doria about the history of Dynamic Coalitions, the discussion going on of how the IGF could become more outcome oriented and how the two issues are related to each other. Then we got an introduction by Jeremy Malcolm about the concept of the idea of rating sheets. Then we had a presentation, nine really good presentations by Dynamic Coalitions.
Since we had a bit of time left, we already opened the floor for comments, and perhaps not too surprisingly if one knows about the history of the IGF most comments were indeed process oriented. Despite all of the suspicion and discussion in the run‑up to this session lots of people actually supported the approach chosen by the two Co-Chairs of the main session. There were several comments suggesting that we should start earlier during the IGF week with introducing idea rating sheets and also allowing to people to make comments after the session so that people can still use them and comment on the presentations online perhaps between the IGF meetings. We found that encouraging and I'm sure that the MAG will have debates on how to carry on with this approach.
Now I hand over to Rachel.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
Today we'll proceed first by hearing from those Dynamic Coalitions who did not present yesterday, we have at least one and up to three we would like 3 minutes maximum and we'll hear from Jeremy Malcolm about the results of the idea rating sheets both online and the paper versions. We'll open up the floor for debate, keep your intersections to 90 seconds or a minute 30 seconds and we'll do that for a half hour and conclude with responses from each of the Dynamic Coalitions.
Now I give the floor to the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety. You have 3 minutes.
Thank you.
>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR: The Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety welcomes the initiative to stimulate further interactions with the broad IGF community as well as to seek ways to better inform about the nature and scope of our work as Dynamic Coalitions which should be mutually beneficial. The Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety was created in 2007 and currently has 24 member organizations as well as 55 individuals affiliated to its mailing list some representing those organizations and others acting in personal capacities. Provided an estimated 1 in 3 Internet user is under 18 raising to 1 and 2 in parts of the developing world, the members of the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety believe in the importance of advocating for and positioning issues around the Rights of the children within the Agenda of the Internet Governance forum by providing an open platform for discussion and sharing dialogue among representatives of children organizations, governments, industry, academia, other Civil Society groups including those made of young people themselves.
Children Rights and in particular the issues about the link between those rights and Internet Governance should be in the limits of all actors across sectors. It is not the sole responsibility of children organizations. This is reflected by the wide variety of our membership and through concrete outcomes which were imported by a large members of our organization. The Internet Governance is a main actor in the Internet Governance ecosystem. This is why we welcome to hear the views of those attending today whether remotely or in person, on how Internet Governance stakeholder should embed the issues concerning the Rights of children in the digital age in structures and policies. We encourage all interested parties in joining our coalition to contact us and we look forward to cross collaboration with other coalitions.
Thank you for your kind attention.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
I would now like to invite any other new Dynamic Coalitions who have not yet presented.
Do we have someone from the dynamic coalition on accountability? Thank you.
>> FARZANEH BADIEI: Thank you.
We have recently convened the Dynamic Coalitions on accountability of our Internet Governance organizations. The reason behind convening this Dynamic Coalitions is to look at the mechanisms that exist in accountability that exist in Internet Governance organizations and by that we mean Internet Governance organizations that are involved with binding or non‑binding policy making processes. It focuses on ‑‑ it can focus on Internet Governance forum, WSIS, ICANN and other organizations that are involved with Internet Governance.
The importance of accountability comes from the fact that if we need to uphold the Internet Governance principles that we always go on and on about and talk, we want to be multistakeholder, we want privacy, we want transparency, if we want these things we need to have certain accountability mechanism to make the Internet Governance organizations accountable and transparent. If they are not, we should have some form of some process to ‑‑ for redress, for reformation.
We have recently convened this Dynamic Coalition. We're ‑‑ if you have any suggestions, if you have feedback, that would be great, you can be a member other also a co‑organizer and we'll welcome any kind of suggestion and participation.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you very much. Are there any other Dynamic Coalitions freedom of expression, the media, if you would like to make a few remarks, you can come up.
Thank you.
>> COURTNEY RADSCH Thank you.
The freedom of expression and freedom of the media online have a pretty full discussion to set out our Agenda for the coming year. The past 5 years have focused on swish issues of intermediary liability and the Delphi case and we decided after that was ruled on on the next objective to look at the different dynamics of censorship online from the public private, privatization, self-censorship and algorithm censorship and looking at violence extremism, violence against women, child safety online, we look forward to working with other Dynamic Coalitions to make sure that the elements of freedom of expression and freedom of the media are concerned within responses on dealing with other issues.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you, Courtney.
I see that there is a question from Luca, I give you the microphone.
>> LUCA BELLI: Really a bit of advertising, we wanted to create a Dynamic Coalitions on drone governance, if there is any person in the room interested in exploring drone governance, not clearly only from military use but from mainly from a civilian use, come to me after the session.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
Now we'll hand the floor over to Jeremy who will discuss the results of the idea rating sheets.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much.
Despite the fact that we left almost no time for people to complete the idea rating sheets we still have a few interesting results, not so much results in terms of a clear consensus on any of the substantive points but more results in terms of how the different idea rating sheets were received and which approaches to drafting them have been more successful. I guess the topics that are contention, most popular ‑‑ contentious and most popular. Clearly the most contentious and/or popular of the Dynamic Coalitions based on the number of responses received are net neutrality and public access in libraries interestingly.
This could reflect a number of things, it could reflect the fact that those coalitions did the most outreach, it could reflect the controversial nature particularly of net neutrality. We also find that all of the eight topics ‑‑ all of the seven topics, but two, received only positive responses or neutral responses. There were only two Dynamic Coalitions whose ideas received any negative responses at all, one of those, again, net neutrality. The other one is core Internet values. Core Internet values, we received an hour prior to the opening of yesterday's session a new set of idea rating sheets for that coalition which we weren't able to put in the paper version so the paper version only has one question covering the entirety of the core Internet value topic. That clearly wasn't successful because we can see on that sheet virtually no one responded either online or off line and amongst those that did. There is a real spread from disagreement to agreement with no pattern at all.
But for the revamped online idea rating sheet for the core values coalition we have a much more useful output in that there is a much more interesting spread of responses, more responses and so I think that the lesson for that, from that, for the Dynamic Coalitions is don't just have one question. Split up the question, your ideas, into ‑‑ we had recommended 5 and 10 questions.
The one question on the core values sheet which received negative response from some was on the end‑to‑end architecture which probably makes sense which was stated in the session yesterday that this was something that was compromised in the Internet as we know it today. That's feedback that the Core Values Coalition will be able to go away with and think about maybe how they reframe that question or present it next year if they wish to could do so.
Core values, they had a mistake of too few questions, another coalition had perhaps too many, because there was only one response, and that was Internet Rights and Principles. We didn't have a paper sheet for them because there were 21 questions. Even on the online version that was by far the least responses that any coalition received.
The most responses, sill not high, 18, we're not talking representative in anyway. That may show that there needs to be a balance struck between having too few and too many questions.
What else can I say, gender, probably not too much in terms of the number of responses that I can talk about the results.
Internet of Things, not enough to be representative.
Net neutrality: In the net neutrality coalition we had 5 Civil Society responses, three private sector, 4 technical community and 5 academic community which is not a bad spread I think.
The most contentious questions which the Net Neutrality coalition has to go away and think about were 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2, the net neutrality that Internet traffic is treated with no discrimination, et cetera, et cetera.
The next question, which is also controversial, it was deviations permitted from the net neutrality principle.
The next one, which was the ISPs should be able to give force to court orders or legal provisions to bypass the net neutrality principles and the one following that about publishing or interestingly, I don't know why that was controversial, ISPs should publish meaningful, transparent information on the net neutrality practices.
The idea rating sheet with the biggest spread amongst the stakeholders was the platform responsibility coalition. We had an Internet governance stakeholder respond to that and others, that seems to have the potential to be quite popular and quite consensual, there was no negative responses, most were positive. That's a good sign for that platform, responsibility coalition to continue its work and to maybe next year when we repeat this exercise if we do on a larger scale, they may be able to reach some message from the larger IGF community that supports the platform responsibility principles.
Likewise, the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries, they can be happy, there was not a broad stakeholder spread, but the very predominant result from that coalitions' idea rating sheet was strong support, they can be very happy that they're going in the right direction and once again, if we do reach a point in the future where we have a more representative sample it might be that they could ‑‑ there could be a form of rough consensus emerge around their principles.
Having said that, clearly today we're not in a position to judge any rough consensus for any of the documents discussed because we didn't give enough of an opportunity or get enough participation. I think at least from my perspective we have made a good proof of concept here and hopefully we can run this on a larger scale next year.
Meanwhile we'll leave the online rating sheets open and I'll be provided access to the raw data from those to the Dynamic Coalitions organizers and give them copies of the paper idea rating sheets which apart from the numbers also have a lot of useful comments in the strengths and opportunities and weaknesses and threats fields.
Regardless of the limited nature of the trial, I think it is definitely proven itself to be promising and hopefully will be useful to the Dynamic Coalitions in their ongoing work over the next year.
Thank you.
A question?
>> For the record to remind us, could you tell people where they can go for the online access for the rating sheets?
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: On the main website under feedback on the IGF site, if the screen is wide enough, it is the right‑hand side of the screen towards the top. The label again is feedback.
Yes?
>> Thank you.
How long are these going to be open for?
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Yesterday it was suggested that they will be open indefinitely. We don't have a date. We can get interim results at any time. If the Dynamic Coalitions want to start working on the results next month, we can give them the results but leave it open for as long as we want to.
Yes?
>> LUCA BELLI: A question.
Who is allowed to use the rating sheets? Everyone or only the IGF participants?
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Well, the IGF community in theory is the whole world, right?
People have to sign their name, they have to give their name. They have to give their afill ‑‑ not the affiliation but the stakeholder group. At this point we're not going any further to accredit them in anyway.
It is really open.
Any other questions on the idea rating sheets? before we move on?
Back to the moderator then. Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you, Jeremy.
I think this is an interesting exercise and provided helpful feedback and lessons learned if this exercise is repeated next year. I think that Avri Doria would like to make a few remarks.
>> AVRI DORIA: Most remarks I wanted to make were covered. I wanted to thank Jeremy who has put in a fair amount of effort in this experiment and has been adaptable moving forward.
The other thing is, I have asked Jeremy to add one more rating sheet and that is on the notion of rating sheets. As people go to the survey button, it won't be on the paper ones, but as they go to the survey, if they want to comment on the whole notion of rating sheets themselves, it will be possible to do that. The paper ones will certainly remain up for the rest of this session, but when the walls or whatever are torn down for this room to change, they'll go away. Until then, they'll be available for people.
Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
We'll now open the floor for debate from the audience. If you could please lineup at the microphones we have someone on both ends and we'll gather all of the questions and comments at once and then for about a half hour, again, 90 seconds each, and at the end we'll give time to each of the Dynamic Coalitions to respond.
Thank you. You can begin here.
We're having a problem with the microphone. If you could please state your name and affiliation.
>> AUDIENCE: I will. I'm Roger Matthews and I represent the certain operators association of India representing the mobile operators in India.
My comments are related to the DC on net neutrality and my comments are as follows: First of all, please, I would like to be on record that the DC does not fully represent the perspectives of the industry certainly from India. We have subjected the comments and they have submitted them and there is no result and feedback given to us as to why some of our comments were rejected, the transparency is in question. We adamantly are not in agreement with many of the points that have been eye lighted by the DC and we don't believe it is fully transparent. It appears to be a top‑down kind of push trend, exercise for that reason we stand opposed to many elements that are enumerated in the DC. Certainly the process is as I indicated, it requires improvement in terms of involvement of the community, all aspects of it, we're opposed to the IRS document being used and I'm glad that that alternative has been provided. Our objections are indicated in a document that's been submitted. I'm not sure why 100,000 dollars needed to be spent when survey monkey could have done it as equally or adequately as well ‑‑
>> RACHEL POLLACK: You have 10 seconds.
>> AUDIENCE: I close with one thing, saying that, please, IRS should not be an instrument for gorging consensus.
Thank you.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: We didn't spend any money at all. You may be confusing this methodology with the deliberative polls, I don't know how much money was spent on that either. I'm sure it wasn't that much.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Luca Belli is asking for the floor.
>> LUCA BELLI: I think some of the participants may be confused providing comments and having their comments considered and integrated with copying and pasting or they wish to have in the statement. For instance, I wouldn't say that the comments from the gentlemen has been ignored and indeed one of the exceptioning ‑‑
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Excuse me. We're gathering the comments and questions at once, if you can keep your remarks ‑‑
>> LUCA BELLI: One of the comments has been provided by them is one of the exceptions included in the paragraph 3.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Please don't get into the details of the response now.
Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBOLD: As a matter of the process, integrating comments into the documents that have been presented, certainly with regards to the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values we're gathering comments. No work has been done on actually integrating that on the document because we would rather have all of the comments in or a large number of comments in before starting to make amendments and we would certainly not be modifying the page and so on based on the comments received. We would have those discussed on the mailing list to be able to involve everyone in the coalition.
Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
Before you reply, this open mike session was meant to focus, to address the presentations of the Dynamic Coalitions we have received so far. Those in the audience, we would be grateful, I'm sure that all of the Dynamic Coalitions would be, if you care to give feedback on what's been presented yesterday and what can be found online.
Thank you.
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: I just wanted to follow‑up again with the comment on how we plan to use this and the idea rating sheets going forward based on what you said actually.
I think from our perspective for the coalition it would be really useful because the ideas are actually for many people easier to digest than going through the entire document. Particularly if we think of the Internet Governance community as all users, right, essentially. What we were trying to do over the next month is actually use our mailing list, use the platform as well as the idea rating sheet survey to see whether there is enough consensus for our work so that we can use it to sort of really shape our Agenda for the year ahead.
I just want to say that.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Please go ahead, introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: European broadcasting union. We participate in four of the Dynamic Coalitions, we have a broad view on the various activities and we're very happy of the work that's done there because I think that the Dynamic Coalitions mainly help to focus on specific aspects, then some of the aspects suddenly become trendy and fashionable, but the work has been done during years in which was not so trendy and fashionable. It is very important, the tool for the IGF and for the future of the IGF.
In this sense, I think that the reason ‑‑ the discrepancy between the way that the work ‑‑ the way we work at the MAG on the organization of the workshop and the Dynamic Coalitions, there is a gap. Sometimes the work that's done within the Dynamic Coalitions and the process to assign the workshop is totally separate and split. We have duplication, same thing coming over in various workshops, et cetera, et cetera. I'm wondering if among the things that we add to the shopping list of work we have to do there is not a possibility to work a bit more on that. I'm sure that Markus from his wisdom, he could suggest a way to do so.
Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: I'm sure the MAG will take note of this recommendation. Are there more comments on actually the substance of the Dynamic Coalitions? From the audience?
Otherwise, go ahead.
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: We're the guilty party for providing 21 questions. The reason being, we have seen the rating sheets at an opportunity to present what's quite dense material in another way. I would like to applaud the IGF and also Jeremy for actually providing a multifaceted way of feedback. There is the paper form, in which case our approach is perhaps not the best, but the online rating sheets, they're really quite fun and I think this is a way we can actually communicate and spread the idea of getting people to engage in our material in another format and another kind of length, another modality. We certainly are looking forward to the online aspect of this exercise in turn. I think that's important to carry on.
The online platform itself for the substance for all of us, I have great respect for, we have something really important there for a long‑term wider form of feedback. If you look at what the students from Syracuse already are providing, I think we can say this is a huge success online and off line.
Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Do you want to go a bit into the substance of the feedback you have got?
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: It is an enormous amount of feedback from the students, from Facebook, we have had pertinent points on phraseology, phrasing, we have responded in one case and they suggested that we should change a phrase to innovative business models and in those cases we responded with the fact that the text covers that idea and is another section that we will take to the coalition.
We're not thinking so much of rewriting the charter at the moment. I think that's something that could happen.
As for the students, very briefly, their comments are very wide ranging, what's really striking is that they're speaking very self‑consciously as the digital natives. This is our communication. This is for us. We think at our age that privacy should be respected, there is pertinent comments on consumer rights, about education, cultural diversity. They're very, very concerned about their freedom of expression being constricted but they have looked at the text of the charter and also of other DC coalition input. Sometimes they have written essays, I can't quite summarize it today. Some are direct interactions with the texts from an editing point of view and some are general responses. It is a lot to take on board. It is an extraordinarily successful exercise. Thank you.
I hope that's enough for now.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Who knows!
I have been wondering whether the Dynamic Coalitions actually would care to comment on each other? One of the things I found striking while listening to you yesterday is there is considerable overlap between what you are doing, sometimes reinforcing each other's messages and sometimes also contradicting each other. Would you as long as there is no comments from the audience want to comment on each other?
>> LUCA BELLI: More than comment on each other, I think that yesterday afternoon was an excellent occasion for the first time to meet and understand a lot of synergies could be created, a lot of duplications could be avoided. A lot of work could be done together. Naturally maybe because of the proximity on this side of the table we have already started to think about some potential actions that could be developed together.
I think that regardless of the format we will use in the next years, a meeting for Dynamic Coalitions, the coordination, it is essential to me.
>> My comment goes in the same direction. I like the idea of having a coalition of Dynamic Coalitions so yesterday as mentioned, we had already some ideas of collaborations following this meeting.
I want to also put a plug in for the work of Dynamic Coalitions net neutrality in the sense that, A, regarding the comment that was made earlier, they did develop a code outlining the process that will need to be followed in order to have something to be considered as an output of the Dynamic Coalitions, not all Dynamic Coalitions have a process and bylaws. I'm wondering maybe this coalition of Dynamic Coalitions could also work together towards some kind of code of conduct that will be useful next year if you want to have something validated as an output of the Dynamic Coalitions.
Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Avri Doria, please.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
I wanted to basically give some thought on this Dynamic Coalition of Dynamic Coalitions. In fact, in a sense, I think the group we started pulling together to come up with this pilot is such a thing. I think it would be quite beneficial for that group in its own bottom‑up way to basically start developing methodologies for defining what is an outcome that sort of comes out relatively uniform across. Obviously it is something that takes greater discussion, consultation perhaps with the MAG in terms of methodologies, I think that's actually ‑‑ that would be a very good outcome from this pilot exercise to look at how to go further with developing this process.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you, Avri Doria.
Please introduce yourself.
>> CHERYL MILLER: I'm Cheryl Miller. I'm a MAG member. Thank you for all of the ‑‑ MAG member. Thank you for the work you have done in the respective coalitions over the years. I know you don't get paid to do that. It is a heavy lift in many instances.
Thank you for that. Also thank you to Avri, Markus for their work with the Dynamic Coalitions.
I agree, I think perhaps next year, moving forward within the MAG we can try to talk more about the process. Maybe it would even be an interesting project for future intersessional work to find a way to engage people and talk more about how we may move forward with that.
Thank you very much.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Yes.
>> FARZANEH BADIEI: Thank you.
More on issue specific. I can see that Dynamic Coalitions normally come up with principles and what's accepted as a principle, as a whole. I think in Dynamic Coalitions accountability we're trying to come up with mechanisms and how to uphold the organizations answerable if they actually break those ‑‑ if they don't uphold the principles that are being made in other Dynamic Coalitions. I might be wrong, you might be working on mechanisms as well. I think the way we complement the other Dynamic Coalitions that work on principle is that we will look at how to enforce and uphold those principles.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Please introduce yourself again.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Not only working for us, but also recognizable for other participants. A discussion that we had with the Dynamic Coalition on Internet of Things yesterday, it was how would it be if all of these things would have different interfaces for the same thing that one time you need to give a voice, you put a finger in the ear, whatever you need to do to make something to happen. Basically I can see the challenge for people at the IGF to interact with Dynamic Coalitions that all have their own ways. If there is recognizable patterns that still work for us, that would be great.
That's the first thing.
Second thing: Yes, we are so busy doing our thing that we have too little time to listen to each other. Subjects like data, privacy, they're something that touches upon many of our different Dynamic Coalitions. I have heard some sensible remarks about it. It is different, the discussion, if they're not connected, maybe also we can identify a couple of issues that we need to discuss in this coalition of coalitions.
I hope this helps.
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: That's one possibility. Another possibility is also to consider the Dynamic Coalition representative on the MAG, either as elected representatives from the DCs on the MAG and that could integrate and communicate our work better between us and who is doing what kind of work and where the work overlaps or resonates, I think we have started to understand just how we work in terms of our priorities. I would urge caution on over hasty programs of standardization. The Dynamic Coalitions are very diverse and their concerns are diverse and require different approaches. Some approaches require clearer forms of enforcement, mechanisms as we call them, other approaches are about awareness-raising, learning to understand a different point of view in the instance of disabilities, I think we have to be careful about being too standardized too quickly and move forward with the diversity.
Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: The freedom of expression coalition would like to agree with that approach.
I think as you pointed out there are many different things that the Dynamic Coalitions are trying to achieve. Sometimes it is about exploring different options and understanding the issues. The standardization is probably not the best approach. But the idea of coordinating with other Dynamic Coalitions we strongly support.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you for all of your comments.
Just let me remind you that we were supposed to talk about the content produced by Dynamic Coalitions. For whatever reason IGF participants easily get worked up about process, but have problems to focus on content. I know that you all want now to discuss the issue of standardization and some principles for Dynamic Coalitions, but I would still like you to think about the substantial overlap between you. I think if a coalition, a Dynamic Coalition of Dynamic Coalitions emerge, it should not only talk about process but also how you take each other into account in terms of developing principles and standards.
Perhaps you could sort of propose some ideas about how to go about that substantial overlap?
Thank you.
Who is next? Olivier Crepin‑Lebold and then Andrea. Andrea first.
>> ANDREA SAKS: Thank you.
Since we actually did produce what could be considered a standard, and I'm actually going to comment on what we presented yesterday and about the overlap.
We effect everybody. We overlap definitely, every single Dynamic Coalition has an issue where accessibility for Persons with Disabilities would in fact impact your work.
Also, we do things in two areas, we deal with actual access to the Internet and some of the different kinds of problems that people actually encounter in trying to use the wireless Internet and different programs, including platforms.
Also we find it a place to give ideas to the industry that comes here on how to better serve not only Persons with Disabilities but everybody who uses the services that they provide. I mentioned yesterday about what we call conferencing tools that we use remotely, remote conferencing tools that not one of them really satisfies the accessibility needs of the community and what we have found is that ‑‑ captioning is probably the best example.
There ‑‑ they fought it like mad like some of us are fighting Dynamic Coalitions. Everybody uses it. We found that there were non‑disabled, quote, able to use that politically incorrect term, we found that was useful.
We have, in fact, written the standard, we called it the Dynamic Coalition guidelines. We would like to see several things with this: One, we want an output document, we want to be able to produce an output document. We do feel that the MAG should take a look at this possibility. We want something that we produce to be useful. We want the community to input in it, on it if they don't like it, they want to add to it, be able to encourage people to come and tell us what we have done well, or not well.
Standardization is my bag. I standardize everything right in standardized language. I think when you write a standard, then everybody knows where you are. The IGF traditionally has not produced output documents from my knowledge if Markus can correct me if I'm incorrect. One camp, we shouldn't put them, a dialogue situation this should be, the other side, well, we should.
We have a clear view that what we have done, whether we call it an output document, whether we call it a standard, we have a clear view, we called it guidelines to kind of be politically non‑controversial to make the IGF probably one of the more accessible units in the UN system. We want very, very much to have more input with other Dynamic Coalitions, but it is not the only thing we do. We want to be able to have a person on the MAG who either is a person with a disability or someone who is knowledgeable about ‑‑ let me wind it up.
She speaks sign language! I love it!
We want somebody on the MAG who represents this area, and we want to be able to have more input into the policy making on how we do things to include people with disabilities, including fellowships if that can be done.
Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBOLD: I think when you look at the different Dynamic Coalitions and their coordination of course it hasn't been formalized so far, it is a mistake to think there's been absolutely no coordination at all.
I guess in the early days when the coalitions were created there was a time when the coalitions looked at one another saying why is this one on, we're doing something similar, certainly in the Internet rights and principles coalition and the current Internet values there was overlap. Quickly, I think that with some people being in both coalitions there was some bridging of discussions and we ended up with each coalition finding its own bed as you would say.
The overlap was basically more of a collaborative nature rather than an overlap being of a conflicting nature. Certainly the meeting we had yesterday was ‑‑ I think was extremely good in that we were able to have all of the coalitions in the same room and as you know, IGF meetings are so busy and intense, it is difficult to get sometimes everybody in the same room.
As far as the network neutrality, I had a conversation with Luca Belli and great aspects of their work, it would feed into the core Internet value coalition and the other way, some that go along over with the network with the Internet of Things coalition with the Internet values related to this. I think this is a first step to having a more formalized collaboration between the coalitions.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: So perhaps one way to go forward is to ask each Dynamic Coalition to sort of point out statements of other Dynamic Coalitions that they really fully subscribe to?
>> AUDIENCE: Can I add a point ‑‑
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Introduce yourself.
>> MARIE‑LAURE LEMINEUR: Dynamic Coalition on Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety, Marie‑Laure Lemineur.
In addition to us Chair, sort of speaking to each other, establishing mechanisms, there are cases where people are participating in different coalitions, so the cross feeding, so that's also to be taken into account.
We as Luca was saying in response to the question, to your points, we after the session yesterday we sort of agreed that there is a section on Children Rights in the document that you have been producing in your too so that we would sort of work together and the Dynamic Coalitions members of the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety would look at and agree on and work together.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: You worked on that now?
>> MARIE‑LAURE LEMINEUR: We agreed with that after the session.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: I'm trying to drag you more into substance. It is not easy!
>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR: I can't say it. We had a brief conversation with Luca saying that there is a section on children's rights. Maybe explain further.
>> LUCA BELLI: I'm also the Co‑Chair on the Dynamic Coalition of Platform of Responsibility, that was referred to, the platform responsibility section, a section on Children Rights. The proposal was to further review that section with the help of the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety in order to strengthen it. If I can add another elements, I think it would be excellent for the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility to work with Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values and also Internet of Things, knowing that the majority of things ‑‑ half of the Internet traffic in ten years will be produced by things, so maybe it would be interesting to check how the traffic could be shaped with their colleagues.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Why don't you just take a few minutes, improvise two, three sentence, read them to the audience and then we get some feedback while I hand over the microphone to the lady of the Coalition of Public Access and Libraries, DCPAL.
>> CHRISTINA de CASTELL: There was opportunities to get feedback from others on our statement in particular in the areas of accessibility and in the areas of freedom of expression or technology infrastructure approaches.
I think that to really engage we may with our different membership groups we may need a point of entry.
I suggest that each of you draft sentences that we could circulate to our respective lists with the idea rating sheets in order to keep that work going. I think we do ‑‑ we have interest but we need people to have an entry point. Certainly with our Dynamic Coalition we have stronger participation from the Civil Society sector although we have members from all stakeholder groups and that that means that we need some additional feedback to have more diverse voice and other Dynamic Coalitions could help with that.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Please introduce yourself.
Thank you.
>> NAVEEN TANDON: My name is Naveen Tandon.
I have a question. Before that, I would like to congratulate the Dynamic Coalitions for the tremendous work they have done.
When they respond at the end of the sessions, can they also consider responding to whether they're willing to accept a single standard process and procedure of working in agreement with the MAG and the wider Internet governance community which applies all across all Dynamic Coalitions or do they prefer proceeding in 2016 continuing with the internal rules of processes or standards?
Thank you so much.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
Anybody wants to respond to that?
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: I want to return to content.
I think we're beginning an important process. All of the Dynamic Coalitions material, it is up on the consul day active platform. We're starting to read each other's material more closely.
That's important.
Secondly, the rating sheets, they're available online which also allows the wider community to respond.
From the point of view of the individual Dynamic Coalitions I would like to suggest that we take the time to consider the responses and comments so far to our own work and then a second stage would be ‑‑ I don't want to make more work.
I'm sorry, but the second stage ideally is to start to interact with each other's work.
I personally did actually post some comments on other Dynamic Coalitions outputs because I sort of thought that's only fair and this is a chance to do so.
At the start of a process, we're actually getting into the content and I hope we can continue that and really start to substantiate things.
I think that cooperation needs to be cemented and again I would like to stress that representation on the MAG would be a very clear and coherent way to create the lateral interconnections we need at the immediate IGF. That's my response to the gentleman who just spoke.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: You go ahead.
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: I'm from the Dynamic Coalition on gender and Internet Governance. I wanted to follow‑up on the thread of working together with other Dynamic Coalitions, this is on the action plan for the year ahead. Simply, we, too, feel that gender is a cross‑cutting issue. Perhaps it is the kind of issue that there is a tendency to assume that it links more directly with certain Dynamic Coalitions and a tendency to assume it is far removed from others. While we totally agree with many suggestions so far for working together and would like to do so, I think in the case of gender it also means perhaps slightly more intensive one on one interactions with some of the Dynamic Coalitions to understand the links without being artificial and, you know, if there is genuinely no link, there is genuinely no link.
We really want to explore some of these dimensions. We also feel, for example, if I may use the Internet of Things as an example, I think we could seriously influence our own understanding within the governance sphere and really think about doing a paper on gender and the Internet of Things even though it sounds totally different at this moment if you know what I mean. It helps us to take the concepts back to our own coalition so that people that are members ‑‑ because there is a tendency sometimes in our coalition to avoid or not have enough information on some of the topics that are considered more technical.
That, too, would help us with our, you know, constituency in many different ways. This is something that we would like to do. Going forward, there is another question that I would like to ask all of the coalitions. It may sound a little odd, but because most of the conversations around Internet Governance is confined to the IGF community and that particular website, I'm curious about whether any of the coalitions have considered taking some of these issues to wider platforms including social media, in terms of just building, you know, a broader constituency of governance, not necessarily people that will come to the IGFs, but who are definitely like Internet users, that are concerned on these things and what people's views may be on this.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
First of all, that's not why I raised my hand. That's wonderful. I think that many of the ‑‑ I also am on the list for many, I'm a lurker pretty much on most.
You know, they're already doing that outreach, that's what we're bringing in or what they're bringing in for many cases. I think expanding that is really quite good.
I wanted to go back to the gentleman who asked for a pledge. Almost reminded me of a political campaign. Basically I think that that would be problematic in a sense. I'm hoping that we don't get a pledge because an essential nature of the Dynamic Coalitions is their bottom‑up nature. The fact that people come together from these broader communities, they're not a top‑down, the MAG will sort of determine and speaking as member of the MAG, while I hope that the MAG works with the Dynamic Coalitions and I actually think having whether it is liaison, representation, what have you of the Dynamic Coalitions on the MAG is a really good idea I would think it unfortunate if the MAG somehow became a determinant of what was the one‑size‑fits‑all that was imposed on Dynamic Coalitions. I think we need to integrate them more into this community but I think we have to keep that bottom‑up energy where the kind of coalition it is, the topic that it works on, the population that it is outreaching to has a lot to do with determining how it does its work.
Certainly at the IGF level, when we're talking about do we want to decide something is not output from the Dynamic Coalition, that they should do on their own, but output from the IGF, then certainly, there is a certain amount of give and take between the coalition of coalitions and the MAG and the larger community. I would really like to avoid making the MAG a top‑down determinant of how Dynamic Coalitions should work and asking people to sign pledges while we're still trying to form ideas would seem problematic to me.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
Cheryl?
>> CHERYL MILLER: I want to take a step back, I don't know if I consider the gentleman's comment a pledge. Earlier I talked to some of the youth that are here at the IGF and they were asking about the Dynamic Coalitions, I think from a perspective of a newcomer, I was and I probably still have, having a certain amount of process, it is really important. People don't really know how they can engage and in what ways they may engage. Now there are a number of Dynamic Coalitions, you are growing, there will lob probably be more next year. I think it is important. I agree, you don't want something so strict and prescriptive, but when you're working on documents and, you know, you're moving towards wanting outputs, other things, it is really hard as a new person coming to the IGF and wanting to join a coalition to know, okay, first of all, what the heck is it, you know, you have been seeped in this.
I just raise it from that point of view to have you chew on that. Think about that.
Thank you.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Some of my colleague, maybe I'm more technical than others and I'm a business economist by the way.
I talk about interaction, which is like making it easy for the outside world to understand what's going on with us. That's not determining how you manage your internal processes at all I think. It is making it easier for the outside world to connect and to be able to contribute. It is making it easy for me to find out what the Dynamic Coalitions are all about rather than having to dig in and to do a lot of work to get what it is really about first.
That's an important plead.
The second thing ‑‑ I'm sorry for being 10 minutes late. I was 10 minutes late because there was actually a workshop on Internet of Things here at this IGF, I don't say that Dynamic Coalitions should be the only one having a workshop on IoT but it is good that these are also cross‑informed if not set ‑‑ I'm not setting about setting the Agenda but talking about the cross information beyond the Dynamic Coalitions also. Workshops, they're not supposed ‑‑ not expected to work intersessional, yet they do important work too and that's considered too.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
>> NICOLO ZINGALES: I wanted to add a further remark, I'm from Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility. On the question of substantive overlap, I wanted to mention that I think that there are two Dynamic Coalitions which would work particularly well in synergy with ours, one is, again, Internet of Things, one of our concerns with platform possibility is to make sure that Human Rights are respected moving towards a more hyper connected and increasingly automatically enforced work where rules can be implemented by machines that are connecting to each other.
There in our rules we try to preserve the autonomy of users and in particularly making sure that they are given the due process before any content removable and that any use of their data only follows after they have given their consent or they're adequately informed on the way in which data will be used.
With regard to the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance, this is one of the hot debates I think regarding, you know, the extent to which intermediary is an online platform that should proactively, you know, protect minorities to that extent it goes also to the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. You know, in this respect, I think we could work together towards some joint statement. Of course we can comment on each other's work but we could also find areas where we can come up with something that has broader, legitimacy because it is joint work of multiple Dynamic Coalitions.
Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Yes, I think that captures it quite nicely. That Dynamic Coalitions benefit from each other if they collaborate.
Andrea.
>> ANDREA SAKS: Naturally, we would love all of the Dynamic Coalitions to listen to us for sure. I want to bring something down to a practical level in how we could work ‑‑ am I not speaking properly ‑‑ I think I'm so loud and I don't need a mike. Thank you.
I want to bring it down to a practical level. How do we work together over the distance that we all live? We have a solution, and I'm going to bring it down to accessibility again, we caption conference calls. That's the easiest way we can do it. One of the things is that, okay, we can wait to meet at IGF, we can do it by e‑mail correspondence, but that is very, very difficult unless you're disciplined and you appoint somebody specifically for that Dynamic Coalition to work with somebody else. That's one thing.
Do a budget for that? We are supported by the ITU and we have a budget for captioning. That's one thing.
Second thing, the technical aspect, Internet of Things is very, very dear to us. We need to communicate with the standardization bodies that there are problems in not including Person with Disabilities, I'm technical, there are a lot of other issues. You're quite correct, the speaker just before, that the gender issue would be an important one. I don't know how we can do this if we want to work together, we have to come up with a way we do it, not just talk about it. We have to maybe work together to find a way and like I say, do you have a budget for captioned phone calls?
Thank you Jeanette Hoffman now it is Olivier Crepin‑Lebold I think.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBOLD: Thank you.
Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values. A few points. First I support the points made by Avri on the dynamic nature, the bottom‑up nature of Dynamic Coalitions. We have had a different type of inception, the way that we're built is probably different structurally wise, so on. Trying to put a top‑down standardization on the output, the organization, it is probably not particularly positive.
Regarding the commenting on the ideas presented by each other's organizations, coalition, I know that you would like us to comment here, but it is a bit difficult because apart from the ones that I know pretty well having been involved with some of the work, I learned about the work of the other ones personally and it is hard and after a week like this, it is a bit of a haze and it probably would be better to comment a bit later on perhaps by ‑‑
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Feel yourself challenged!
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBOLD: I'm already challenged enough.
Thirdly, there is some process with regards to the actual feedback. We have this ability to have all of the differentiating sheets on the same page but the documents to which the rating sheets are relating to, they're not actually linked from that page.
It would help to have that. I think at that point all of our coalition members could actually access all of the documents of all of the coalitions and then submit not only feedback on their own coalition, but feedback on all of the coalitions that are there.
That would really help.
Finally, just a quick point on the idea rating sheet itself, apparently one of our members has said when you hit return it actually submits it. There are some incomplete studies out there. You may wish to look at this, Jeremy. When you hit return, when you're in the text field, it submits it without ‑‑ if you want to go back, then it erases everything that you have written before. That's a bit of a problem.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: As we only have about 15 minutes left in the session, we really would like to have some substantive discussion if at all possible, we're going to ask each of the Dynamic Coalitions to please give a sentence, a comment on getting feedback then we'll have more discussion. We'll start with the gentleman from the Internet of Things.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Feedback I want from the audience is what you intend? That's a very general question. What do you think of our ideas basically? This is why these idea rating sheets are there.
Difficult to ask it for one specific subject I would say. Read the paper, come back.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Just choose one that's really dear to your heart.
>> LUCA BELLI: I don't think we can choose one as a coordinator. If we're really a bottom‑up structure we can choose one single point, we can pick a favorite point F we want a point on a feedback, an idea, we should consult with the other Dynamic Coalitions members before taking an initiative.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Perhaps you didn't understand.
It is not about privileging one point overall others that your Dynamic Coalitions is covering. It is about choosing one thing that you would like the participants in this room to comment on. I cannot imagine that you need feedback from your whole Dynamic Coalitions for that.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Andrea, one thing.
>> ANDREA SAKS: We want to be in the MAG and influence the IGF to use our knowledge. That's my favorite thing.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
Child Online Safety.
>> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR: In the statement I read earlier, I asked a question to the audience. I would like to again reread it and ask feedback from the audience how Internet Governance stakeholders should embed the issues concerning the Rights of children in the digital age in Internet Governance policies and structures. We would very much welcome feedback from the broad community now or at a later stage.
Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Coalition on Public Access in Libraries.
>> CHRISTINA de CASTELL: We want feedback using libraries where they exist to initiate the access for communities that are not yet connected as this would be a starting point in a community that's not connected that brings the greatest access the most quickly.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you for that.
Who is next?
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: Freedom of Expression would like feedback from other Dynamic Coalitions on how to balance freedom of expression for different populations so from the Dynamic Coalition on online safety, gender, disabilities, this is a cross‑cutting issue, when we talk about freedom of expression, whose freedom of expression and how to balance those different things.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights & Principles.
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: We want to invite you to interact with our comment and to the general comment in the room and those listening by remote participation, to potential participants, I will read from the last part of the preamble of the charter of Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights & Principles, we bring this as a standard comment of achievement for all stakeholders in the Internet environment, every society should act to promote the rights and freedoms and by local and global measures to secure the universal and effective recognition and observers, observants, I hear by submit the charter of Human Rights and principles for the Internet to be adopted as output for this session so that we can continue the conversation together where we overlap and where we differ.
Thank you.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: I thought you are ‑‑ gender, sorry.
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: Two ideas, gender, meant to think women W want an expansion of that category to include all genders, especially transitioning genders. We're proposing a policy for the first time or sentence or statement or something around sexual harassment whether we call it a friendly space policy, whether we put it in the code of conduct, whatever.
That is something that we would really like feedback on. It is the first time that this idea has been proposed by the gender DC.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: I'm prepared now if I have a chance .
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: I think it is Luca Belli first if I have it right, if you have the patience now.
>> LUCA BELLI: I think that two core ideas anchor elements of the world that we have been developing over the last three years is that the net neutrality principle is a non‑discriminatory principle and is instrumental to foster the full enjoyment of Human Rights and to preserve Internet openness. I would like to have the feedback on these two points.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
Now Nicolo Zingales.
>> NICOLO ZINGALES: I was going to go with one statement but since everybody has two parts, I'll expand.
The first one: Really the concept of responsibility. I mentioned this in the first day, that we recognize that sometimes companies are required to comply with laws that might not comply fully with Human Rights standards. To that extent I would like to hear the feedback about the concept of legitimate law that we find whereby companies would only be required to comply with those laws that are a result of a democratic process and that they're not disproportionate to obtain a legitimate aim. This is a first part.
Second point, it is on the idea to have users informed at all time in a clear, transparent manner about everything that the platforms are going to do with their data.
This doesn't mean necessarily consent is required for everything.
To the extent that there is a legitimate interest that the platform may want to pursue with the users, the users should be informed in advance of the types of the categories of users that are going to be made of their data.
Thank you very much.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you for this opportunity.
First, for all, meaningful transparency, what does it mean to you?
How do we get meaningful transparency in a world that's increasingly digitalized. The second aspect, how do we balance the use of data while respecting privacy, how do we make sure society can benefit from all of that data out there?
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
I have been informed that the Coalition on Youth would like to ask for feedback.
>> EPHRAIM KENYANITO: This is Ephraim Kenyanito.
I would ‑‑ we didn't participate actively in this because we are going restructuring, we would like feedback on how to ‑‑ expertise from other coalitions especially on doing transitioning processes how to have a smooth transition, Steering Committee and apart from that, we're doing elections and we want to do elections for the new Steering Committee and we would like as part of the revamping effort expertise from other coalitions especially infrastructure to do the online elections and all of that. To really appreciate the mentor ship from other coalitions.
Thank you very much.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBOLD: Thank you.
I think there is only one point which we would like some feedback on, it is a bit controversial. The current Internet values could be deemed as unalterable core values. The word unalterable has raised eyebrows.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
I think we have heard from freedom of expression, you have spoken unless there are comments from other Dynamic Coalitions? I see we have one from the floor.
>> ROHAN SAMARAJUA: Rohan Samarajua again from India.
An area that net neutrality needs to engage with is the government, being subject to license, license conditions and governmental oversights, governments are not comfortable with multistakeholder approaches, they don't function in that environment. I would like to see the IGF through its UN affiliations, others, begin to start educating governments as to how they function in a multistakeholder approach in terms. Laws and regulations that emerge that are enforced upon licensed operators such as ours.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
I believe Freedom of Expression wanted to make a comment.
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: Another request for feedback especially given if there is remote participation. Our specific case studies to understand the dynamics of censorship and the balancing between the Human Rights and other rights from specific examples from as many different countries and the issue, we'll be compiling those in the next year. So some of these ‑‑ you know, this idea about legitimate law I think is something that we would be interested in talking about as well.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
If you could please, this is the last question or comment from the floor.
Please introduce yourself.
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: I'm Dominique Lazanski, a MAG member, and I work for the GSMA which represents 800 mobile, operators and 250 ecosystem players. In response to the net neutrality Dynamic Coalition, net neutrality as a term is very restrictive, negative and prescriptive as we have seen throughout the debates here this week. However, we believe that the open Internet is a better term because it actually will be more encompassing and it actually will preserve Human Rights among other issues interconnectivity, security, stability of the Internet.
So both NETMundial output and the Council of Europe has been using open Internet and we think that would be a better term.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
We have one last comment.
>> [Applause].
>> RACHEL POLLACK: A last comment from Luca Belli and we'll wrap up the discussion. I think ‑‑ yes, before it will end, we'll hand over the mike ‑‑ I'm sorry. No time for Luca Belli I'm told.
>> LUCA BELLI: Can I exercise my right to reply?
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Yes, a short reply. 30 second reply.
>> LUCA BELLI: To point out the NETMundial statement and the Council of Europe, they use the net neutrality wording. It is both in the NETMundial statement and in the 2010 declaration of the Council of Europe, I suggest a careful reading of the actual document.
Thank you.
>> RACHEL POLLACK: Thank you.
Now we invite the Chair of the MAG to give some remarks ‑‑ as he's coming to the microphone, I would like to say that the discussion should continue as we have said, the idea rating sheets will be online and now I think we have a good summary of what are really the key issues of where Dynamic Coalitions are looking for feedback.
The floor is yours.
>> JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you very much.
I would like to start by thanking the representatives of the Dynamic Coalitions for this exchange, very useful.
I was listening carefully because the question of how to engage and how to benefit from the wealth of experience and knowledge that the Dynamic Coalitions accumulate in their activities intercessionally was on the Agenda of the discussions of the MAG, we maybe didn't have the sufficient time and we also decided not to change the rules of the game during the game but certainly I feel that there is a need to look at the question of engagement with Dynamic Coalitions when we hopefully start the third set of round of IGF, if that will be decided by General Assembly, hopefully.
The only element that I would like to remind ourselves that IGF is convened by the United Nations Secretary‑General. The MAG is acting on behalf of the Secretary‑General as an organization Committee and reporting to Secretary‑General through United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs which is a focal point in UN system for organization and successful sort of functioning of multistakeholder discussion forum named IGF.
I can promise you, if mandate will be renewed, we will address the Dynamic Coalitions, the engagement question with the Dynamic Coalitions in vet open fashion in consultations as we usually do because MAG as such is not parachuted from somewhere, the MAG is formed by the Secretary‑General based on recommendations of different stakeholder groups and making sure that there is a proper balance of geographic representation, gender representation, so on, and certainly everyone will be able to participate and express themselves in the discussion.
The transcripts of today's meeting will be very useful also for us to start.
At the end I would like maybe to say one word of caution, and I plead to the Dynamic Coalitions not to over step the boundaries of acceptable and follow existing rules. I noticed that some are using logo of United Nations and believe me, logo of United Nations, the use of the logo of the United Nations is highly regimented, some may be in breach of that, please use maximum care of that. I'm not saying about logo of IGF, which use of logo of IGF is not regulated, but use of the logo of the United Nations is highly regulated.
Thank you. Thank you all for this conversation.
>> JEANETTE HOFFMAN: Thank you.
Thank you all for attending this session. I thought it was a promising start to be continued. Actually we got more outcome of it than I would have expected. With these words, I hand over to our Chair.
>> VERIDIANA ALIMONTI: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for a very informative session about the work.
Thank you to the moderators, to all Dynamic Coalitions that have presented. I would like to invite you to watch a video raising awareness about the threats to Marco da Civil, the Brazilian Civil Rights framework of the Internet approved in 2014, you can access it at br/video. My sincere thank you for all of you being here this morning.
It is now time to close the session.