You are here

21 May 2015 MAG Meeting Transcript Afternoon Session

 IGF  MAG Meeting (Afternoon Session)
Thursday 21 MAY 2015
ILO Geneva, Switzerland

 

 

 

 The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the May 2015 IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings, in Geneva, Switzerland. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

 

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good afternoon.
 Ladies and gentlemen, I was just advised by secretariat that there are very few proposals that have been submitted to compile information for our conversation.  And maybe we could do the following, that we will talk about open forums for the next 15, 20 minutes and maybe possibly take decision on including those proposed open forums.  And please use this time to submit proposals to secretariat over there.
 And then in 10, 15 minutes, when this job will be done, we could go back to the workshop selection.  If that is acceptable, then we could proceed in that way.  I see no objections.
 Then I would like to ask Chengetai to drive back to the table -- (laughter) -- and introduce the subject of open forums.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Janis.  For the open forums, we do have -- we sent out a call for open forums.  And we do have 20 -- sorry, 27 open forums which were submitted.  20 of those, the secretariat looked at and we deemed that those ones are the ones that actually fit the requirements or the description for an open forum.  That is a government or a major transnational organization that is -- has activities in Internet governance fora.
 So these ones are -- can we get them on the -- we can?  Yes, briefly.
 It's also on one of the worksheets.  So open forums, major transnational or intergovernmental organization engaged in Internet governance or Internet governance issues and also countries, member states, or observers.
 Yes, Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Could you just resend them, the open forums on the mailing so everybody has it?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  It's the same workshop, but I'll resend it.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Which list is it on?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Don't worry.  I will resend it.  It is always easier.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just to make sure I'm looking at the right chart, the list I see has 25 proposals of which 17 were deemed to meet the minimum.  You had different numbers.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The proposer sent them through a different format.  Since it wasn't specified, we had to add them.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Which were the three proposals that met the criteria that weren't on the list?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just hold on.  I will read them out.  So it's open forum by the European Commission, GIPO, open forum by UNCTAD, and also by the Government of Brazil.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So shall I read them out or is it okay?  They're on the screen.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So you can maybe expand a little bit, the picture.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'll just read them out while it's being expanded.  So we have APNIC, APC, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization, Council of Europe, Government of India, DiploFoundation, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Internet Corporation -- that's ICANN, sorry, ISOC, EBU, Cuba, NETmundial Initiative, OECD, U.N. HCR, Senatics, the U.S. Department of State, UNESCO, Government of Brazil, European Commission, as I've said, and UNCTAD.
 The other list is the ones that we did not deem to fit the criteria, is Busoga Rural Open Source and Development Initiative because they're a more nationally focused, non-government organization.  Center for International Governance Innovation, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators for London, Digital Infrastructure Association, The Internet Society of India, Les Anges Du Ciel, and MSH because they were either very small or very locally focused.
 Does anybody have any other comments? 
 Oh, one other thing is we are not giving them an hour and a half slot.  We have decided to give them a 60-minute slot so that we can conserve space.
 Does anybody have any comments on that list?  Yes, Marilyn.  Or do you want to carry on?  Sorry, I was overstepping.  So let me give it back to Janis.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Chengetai, for introducing the topic.
 Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  It is Marilyn Cade speaking.  I have a point of clarification.  As I recall in the very early days, open forums were limited to governments and IGOs.  And I think now you're describing the idea that an open forum could also be organized by an NGO, et cetera.
 I just want to make a comment about the guidance and guidelines for open forums.  We don't seem to -- we do not have the criteria for open forums in terms of representing all points of views or being geographically diverse in the panelists, et cetera.
 So I respect that.  But I also want to understand -- and maybe we do this going forward.  Maybe we need to return to having a little more guidance about who qualifies.  I'm not talking about for the IGF 2015, but who qualifies to submit an open forum.
 Otherwise, I see perhaps a rush of entities and that if I have workshop proposals from the same group or the same group is heavily represented as a speaker in workshops and they also submit open forums, then I'm -- I have an imbalance.  But it is not easy to find that imbalance or be aware of it until after the fact.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Marilyn.  I think this is a very sensible proposal.
 Baher.
 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.  Just a point of clarification.  Is the suggestion to allow open forums one hour instead of 90 minutes?  All of them?  And is this subject to further discussion, or is this in light of some other restrictions?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  It is -- since we have many -- maybe more than usual proposals for open forum, it was calculated within the sort of slots available.  And that is purely limitation based on available space.
 If we increased to 90 minutes, which means then we are carving in workshop numbers.  And we intentionally made a proposal 60 minutes in preliminary calculations.  Of course, nothing is decided.  Everything is in hands of the MAG.  And if MAG will say, no, we need to go for 90 minutes, so be it.  But then we need to deduct ten workshops from the list of 100.  So that's a consequence.
 We have a remote participant.
 >> REMOTE INTERVENTION:  We have one quick request for clarification from Subi.  She's asking about the number of available slots.  And then we have Ginger in the queue.  So the number of --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The number of available slots is 20 as suggested now.
 >> REMOTE INTERVENTION:  20, okay.  So, Ginger, you have the floor.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Thank you.  I am hoping you can hear me well.  This is Ginger Paque from DiploFoundation and MAG.  I wanted to clarify that because Diplo did make a request for an open forum.  But also because of that, I do know a little bit what we used as our criteria.  And you will see on the Web page that it says organizations dealing with Internet governance-related issues are invited to submit a request for an open forum, da, da, da, in order to present and discuss their activities.  The meeting should focus on the organization's activities during the past year and allow sufficient time for questions and discussions.
 And I point that out, Marilyn in particular, because it's not meant to be -- have balanced speakers but to present a project.  For instance, Diplo will be presenting the new -- it is not an observatory.  It is called the Geneva Digital Watch which will discuss digital issues, their complexity across disciplines which, you know, makes that hard to follow effectively so it will offer some analysis as well as the updates and time line and monthly summaries of what's going on. 
 So this is a point where another group like Diplo might be presenting their activities and their project.  So it won't particularly be balanced in speakers, I think.  So I think we should be cautious about intervening in what kinds of presentations because they're precisely for that purpose.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Ginger, for your comment.
 I have Virat next in line.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  As full disclosure, I have been requested by the government of India whose proposal has made it here to moderate the session.  But I just wanted to submit there are four governments who have submitted open forums:  India, Cuba, U.S., and Brazil.  I'm assuming the NETmundial Initiative proposal is by CGI.  I'm not sure whether it is by government of Brazil or -- it is by the government.
 >> (off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  That wasn't mentioned.
 So there's two from Brazilian government, United States, Cuba and India. 
 In view of the fact that we're short on the workshops from governments, MAG might wish to consider a distribution of time slots and 90 minutes for governments and 60 minutes for the others, if that helps.  I'm not saying that we can solve everything with that.
 But I think we need -- it is just very difficult for developing country governments to get the permission to get on the plane and go to Brazil.  And if you give them a half-hour slot or an hour slot, I think they might not get the permission that they need from the ministers and funding that they require to sign off on the files.  So we should just be sensitive about this and not saying we need to take a decision now.  But please keep in mind the difficulties some much these governments have in getting approvals to travel that far.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for this proposal.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I think the staff secretariat has done a wonderful job in differentiating between those that meet the criteria and those that don't.
 I just had three things to say.  I think changing the time slots at this point would be a bad idea.  People proposed to do an hour-long -- people proposed to do an open forum, and I think we can fit them into 60 minutes.
 I think people who were smart enough to submit for an open forum had a much higher chance of being accepted, and I think that's part of the benefit.
 I'd note, though, we do have one place where 90 minutes might make sense.  The Council of Europe has its own proposal, Number 4, and it is teamed up with the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights.  Perhaps combining those two into 90 minutes would make some sense.
 The only thing I would question about the way this has been broken up is that line number 24 among the proposals that did not meet the criteria is for a brand-new organization, an industry organization in the Netherlands that really brings together all the key company sectors.  And I think it's a very interesting project.
 And I would note if they had been smart enough to team up with the Dutch government they probably would have been accepted in a minute.  So I'd like to know a little bit more why the DINL was not selected.  But I think the other ones clearly don't meet the criteria.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I have a clarification.  When we put out the proposals, was it for 90 minutes or 60 minutes?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We didn't specify the length of time.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  But we've always had it for 90 minutes for the last 10 years.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Traditionally it has always been 90 minutes.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.  Okay.  So I just wanted to see -- 
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: And not 60 minutes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  But we have never had so many requests at a time.  Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Okay.  Subi, you have the floor.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  I hope I'm audible.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes, we hear you.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  On open forums, I'm really, really happy that we have so much interest, but I do believe that we have some parameters in place and (indiscernible) or the fact that you've been a veteran at this should not be a quick, easy, and less competitive solution to getting into an open forum slot when you're clearly eligible for a workshop. 
 There has been tradition and there's been documented parameters of who makes it into an open forum.
 While it's fantastic to encourage new proposers to also fill in proposals for workshops, open forums we agree are when initiatives have reached a certain level of maturity. 
 And I also second the suggestion that was just made.  I believe we need to enhance the role of governments and government participation at the IGF, so a 90-minute slot for governments is something that I would second.
 I also want us to be careful because it should not be a case of "I knew about this availability and therefore I applied for it."  I would want to see open forums reserved for governments and intergovernmental organizations, as we have had in tradition, and with very good reason.
 I support Marilyn's comments on those issues.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Subi.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, Ginger just wanted to make a note that shortening the opening forums will likely cut off audience participation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  I think, responding to Subi's last point, the secretariat followed the rules and Ginger read out those rules and there is no contradiction.
 If we need to review principles, that's a different story.  We certainly can do it, but not for this year, because we are not changing the rules of the game during the game. 
 For 2016, we may revisit and see what type of criteria we could put for open forums.
 So after hearing different opinions, may I suggest the following:  That we would accept proposed 20 workshops -- sorry, sorry, open forums; that for the moment we would retain 60-minute slots and would ask secretariat, in case of the possibility, to provide 90-minute slots for open forums with a preference to governments, especially governments traveling very far to Brazil.  Which means that Paraguay government may not have privilege vis-a-vis Indian government, for instance.
 And then a remaining issue, as Michael suggested, on DINL, we would -- we would do additional inquiries and would revert back to the MAG at one of the next meetings and would inform about the results of this inquiry.
 Would that be acceptable?  UNESCO.
 >>UNESCO:  One question.  So you said that 90 minutes for governments.  How about IGO?  UNESCO COE, we have 60 minutes or 90 minutes?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So as I said, for the moment, default would be 60 minutes for everyone, and then instruct secretariat, in case we can carve out some additional time and space, so then we would give additional 30 minutes starting with governments, then following, intergovernmental organizations.
 I see no objections, so then we could proceed in such a way.  Now I would like to ask secretariat to see if we are ready to move on to the selection. 
 We are.  Good.  So then this is what we will do.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Would you like to present them yourself?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we will now put on the screen the distribution statistics on the current situation after 70 accepted workshops.
 Michael, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  While we're filling time, do we have closure on the dynamic coalition sessions?
 I noticed in the worksheet that there's a number of ones that seem to be unresolved.  Do we have updated information on that?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, we don't.  Not yet.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We will revisit this issue.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Okay.  And do we know, are the dynamic coalitions also a one-hour time slot or what was the format for them?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We still have -- (off microphone.)
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Okay.  But during the normal schedule, is that correct?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  During the normal schedule. 
 Carl, would you like to speak and explain?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You need to come to the microphone.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So could -- okay.  Let me try to see that far.
 So when we look to the distribution, current distribution we have on subthemes --
 I can't see.  Sorry.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  For the current statistics, on the subthemes we have -- oh.  No, you have to read them out.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I guess I'm getting close to that age as well.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  11% is --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CARL GAHNBERG: Okay.  So this is just an update of the distribution after the top 70 selections, and as you can see there, the largest subtheme is still Internet and human rights, followed by --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Give the percentages.
 >>CARL GAHNBERG: It's 30% on Internet and human rights. 
 And then we have 20%, if I don't -- I think 20%, yeah, on enhancing multistakeholder corporation.
 Unfortunately, I can't bring my computer up to the mic.  That's why it's a little bit tricky.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CARL GAHNBERG: I'll send it to Chengetai and then he'll pass it around.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  And in the meantime, please, put also the compiled list on the screen.
 So while we're waiting, there is a remote participant asking for the floor?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  Ginger, you have the floor.
 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Thank you very much.  I know this might be a little unusual and probably the moment has passed, but I have been asked to make an intervention by Pat Ryan, and because it involves a specific workshop from Russia, I would like to read his proposal.
 We're talking about Number 58, "Empowerment Through Quality Online Education."
 This proposal is from the Russian academics that are here.  It's a nontraditional group but I've worked with them on their workshop in the past three years and have been very favorably impressed with their work.  They're surely part of the state machine there, as all universities are, but definitely not mouthpieces for government.  The proposal needs support because it's ranked in the lower quartile.  I believe it's worth exceptional effort here because this group is genuinely different and brings a very unusual perspective to the discussion.
 So I thought it was important to include this proposition.  If we can still look at it, great.  If not, I'm sure Patrick understands.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think every -- everything what we need to discuss, we will discuss, and your proposal is noted.
 I was just asking the secretariat to put on the screen those workshop proposals that you have indicated to secretariat that we should discuss.  I hope they are now on.  Not really visible, but anyway, we'll try.
 And in the meantime, Chengetai will distribute the statistics for 70% agreed.
 So let us -- let us now move on and start populating the list of proposals that MAG members think should be considered, in a view of balancing current lists with accepted workshops.
 So who would like to start?
 We heard one proposal, Workshop 85, but I would like to -- to take -- sorry.  58. 
 Yes, please, Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I think those who have recommended that these proposals should come up are in the best position to explain why.
 I suppose we should either hear that explanation -- or I mean --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Absolutely, absolutely.  This is my intention.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  And the question I have is:  Are these proposals ranked below a hundred or below 80?  Below 70.  Sorry.
 Where have these been picked from?  Are these proposals in the first hundred?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm sorry.  You can't read anything here.
 >> It's hard to read it.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Where is the rank?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Let me now establish the following procedure:  So we have now the list of proposals that have been submitted to secretariat.  They are listed on the screen.  The proposals -- the first column is the workshop number. 
 The second column is current score, and that answers your question whether they are in top hundred or top 200, and so on.
 The fourth column -- the fourth column is number of MAG members who have expressed support to that proposal.
 So -- and I would like now to take one by one here and ask those who made this proposal to introduce the workshop and give us the reasoning why you think this proposal is -- should be examined.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm sorry.  The ranking in the first hundred, which column is that?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think it's the second one.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  That's the ranking.
 >>CARL GAHNBERG:  Yeah.  So the second column that says "Rank" there, that is the ranking according to the grading, the total grading that we've been looking on all day. 
 The fourth column, to the right of the yellow column, that illustrates how many MAG members also highlighted the same proposal.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  The one on the left of the yellow column is the one that gives the ranking from 1 to 200, whatever, right?
 >>CARL GAHNBERG:  Exactly, exactly.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So should -- then a question for you, Mr. Chairman:  Should we start with those which are below 100?  Because that -- those are the ones who are struggling to get in.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: If I may interrupt, please.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Could we -- could we just make an explanation for the guys on the remote participation what Excel file this is, what tab we are looking at, so they can find it on their computers?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we -- we're looking at -- at the spreadsheet of workshops that was compiled during the lunchtime on the basis of proposals made by MAG members, and these are the ones that we will examine during this session.
 This spreadsheet, if -- hasn't been sent yet, is about to be sent to all IGF MAG list -- on the IGF MAG list, so in a few minutes you will get it, and as I -- as I see, I think you will understand which sheet you need to look at.  Unless Carl will tell me. 
 What's the name of the sheet?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Can this be sent to us?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It's going to be sent.  I'm sending it. 
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Don't worry, I'm sending it.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: It's on the way.  On the procedure, is -- everything is clear?
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I think one thing that's not clear is that that's not the entire spreadsheet and that if you go down to the next page, you will have those proposals, including many that were between 70 and a hundred, which got one person to support them.
 So I think it's fair to say we have a decision here.  Do we want to start with those proposals where at least three MAG members thought they were exceptionally good and needed to be considered or do we look at the whole sheet and look at everything that at least one MAG member thought was useful.
 So, yeah, here's the rest of the sheet, and as you can see, we have a lot of choices here.
 We have -- what's the total number here?  We've got...
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  How many do we have that people have nominated, total?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we have 50 highlighted or nominated workshops --
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Right.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- and we have 30 -- 30 slots.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Right.  So that's our challenge for today.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  That is the challenge.  And we need to cope with that challenge, and I -- I think it would be just fair to start with those who have been supported initially by more MAG members than just one, but nevertheless, we need to go through all 50 proposals, and after every -- so --
 And actually, I think we cannot accept or make a final definite decision, but we can put proposals -- "preliminary" on them on the list based on certain criteria that will be explained by those who supported and proposed them.
 And then we will see how far we can get. 
 And Flavio, you want to say something.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  So we have 50 workshops that have been highlighted.  It does not mean that we will select the remaining 30 workshops from this list of 50 proposed, because we still have our original ranking from position 70, 71, 72, and so on, that we have to respect.
 So we have to a little bit merge those two criteria.  Follow the ranking, the original ranking, and try to accommodate as many as possible from -- workshops from this list of highlighted ones.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think the most important is to understand why we're doing this.  We're doing this to balance the imbalances that we have identified.  And these imbalances are not sufficient government proposals, not sufficient representation of some of the subthemes that we have identified and not -- or we need to look at very new subjects which have not been touched or discussed at IGF, for instance.  And based on these criteria, we would collectively say we think it is worth considering this or that proposal.
 If we will see that a proposal does not meet any of those balancing criteria, so then, of course, we would not retain it.  And after a certain period of time, most probably at the end of the day, we will again ask secretariat to provide us statistics and see whether our decisions have made any balance or not on the list.
 Please, please, go ahead.
 >> FLAVIO WAGNER:  It was not clear before lunch that we would give preference to a list of highlighted workshops, at least not for me, that we would give preference to this list instead of following the original ranking.  I think we have two competing procedures there, methodologies.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If we would do just mathematics, then we would not need to do this balancing act.  We would take top hundred and that's it.  And then top hundred, we would see that there is not enough governmental representation and so on.
 So, therefore, I asked MAG members to give secretariat proposals which workshops we should look through and examine based on understanding that they would be the ones which we would bring up higher than they are and they would do this balancing job and bring those underrepresented things in the program.
 And if there are 30 -- I think there will be less than 30 because it will not be a beauty contest, I like this and that so I need to be brought in.  There will be discussion, and that will be collective decision.
 Why don't we give a chance and we start this process and then we will see how it goes.
 This is more or less the same thing we did last year as well when we went through proposals by individual MAG members and then decided to add or decided not to add.
 Michael, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just to add to your excellent explanation as why we're doing this, the other reason we're doing this and not just taking the list from the first rankings is because if we were to look at those proposals we have not yet accepted in light of the ones that have been accepted, many of us would change our rankings quite dramatically. 
 In some cases, there were two proposals from the same organization.  They covered similar topics.  We might have ranked them both well, but we didn't want both of them to be accepted.  And so I think that's why we need to do this second round and reevaluate some of the ones that we've -- some of our earlier rankings.
 The other thing that's very important to realize is that more than ten MAG members did not do the full ranking of the proposals.  Some of them are in the room, and this is their chance to make input on those proposals that they think would be useful.  They bring another perspective that, I think, helps round out the criteria for us.  So I think this is a critical, important way to do it.
 In the end, I think the majority of the ones we're going to add are going to be ones that were ranked pretty highly.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  Well, I have a different opinion because the fact that MAG members were allowed to suggest proposals, if two are suggesting the proposal does not mean that this proposal is better than if one is suggesting it.
 It simply means that this proposal deserves to be considered. 
 Now, we have to look back to the ranking, the original ranking.  So my opinion is original ranking was already suggested by one, two, or three.  Should be considered as a priority.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So in any case, we need to go through all 50 proposals.  I would like to encourage us to start this process and see how far we can get.
 Juan Antonio and then Virat.
 >> JUAN ANTONIO:  Thank you. Chairman.  I think we must begin.  I ask my colleagues to give some hand to the Chairman to move this and see how it goes. 
 To begin, I was one that proposed workshop proposal 171.  It's regarding the IXPs.  And I put it because although they say that is the civil society, actually there's some intergovernmental organizations there like the Caribbean Telecommunication Union is one of the sponsors of this workshop.  And also the topic of IXPs, well, we have here our Brazilian friends.  They are going to be to have one expert in this workshop as well. 
 IXP has proved to be an essential tool in order to lower access costs in, well, not only developing countries, also in developed countries.  It's a thing -- Okay.  That's the main argument.  I will stop it there.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you. 
 Shall we move onto the examination?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that it is -- I'm a little uncomfortable with this.  I just want to be clear with this.  28 or 30 MAG members voted a proposal to the same 71st rank.  And two MAG members now propose that we should bring in something that's 180 -- I'm just picking a number -- up into the first hundred.  To remove someone that was actually -- got themselves a score at 71 by 30 MAG members, we're really reversing the stuff on its head at one point.
 Second, the criteria that you laid on governments is completely understandable even though I've insisted again and again that the government representation is proportionate to the proposals submitted. 
 But the suggest that subjects have not been covered, we invited people to submit proposals on subthemes that were identified.  Now we are penalizing those who stuck to the directions of the MAG and submitted straight and narrow proposals on the subthemes in favor of new subjects that are not covered. 
 So I just want to be very careful about what we are doing in terms of just simple math.  But I don't want to take it beyond this point.  I just wanted to lay out some of the downside of rejecting 30, 40 MAG members having voted in favor of a ranking and picking something which is 190 to bring it in.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We need to do this balancing.  Otherwise, let's just take a hundred and go and get criticized from every corner we may expect criticism.  That's why we're here.
 And I see no reason why we shouldn't -- or why we couldn't go through these proposals and to see how many of those 50 which have been suggested are acceptable.  It may happen that there will be only five.  And then we'll take 25 from 70.  And so if we will identify that there are ten, we will take 20 from the highest rankings and add those ten.  But if it will appear that there are 30, then we will need to discuss what to do in that case.
 Then your argument how -- whether we should do it or not because it may happen that these proposals would not change anything and would not meet any criteria, simply we think it would be a good idea.  So then, of course, argument that good idea does not substitute a high ranking by 40 would apply.  So that's why I think we should continue.
 Giacomo, please, you are asking for the floor.
 >> GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes, it is a matter of method.  Because when I made the evaluation, I also made some suggestions for merging of workshops.  And now I didn't recommend it to add other workshops because I still wait to know if this merger proposal will be considered or not.  If we are starting to evaluate a single workshop by single workshop without knowing that there is any chance that this will merge, then it is proceeding the other way around.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So, Giacomo, we have spoken about mergers many, many, many times.  And we may propose mergers, but it does not necessarily mean that workshop organizers will accept either from one side or another side.  So that has been our historic experience.  And we're always going this path.  That is not necessarily something that works.
 I would like -- still insist let's give a try and let's do not spend too much time on every of those proposals but just go through them see what are the arguments by those who propose those proposals.  And after five or six, we will see whether our method is sustainable or if we need to review it again.
 Shita, you are in agreement with me, right?
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Yes, Chair.  My name is Shita from Hivos.  I would like to go directly to the proposals that I support.  I support proposals number 153, "The freedom of expression on land gaps in policy and practice."  I support this proposal because there are some stories which are very relevant for the bigger discussion in southeast Asia region regarding the implementation of freedom of expression.  The plus point is that this session also has a voice from Malaysia and Pakistan. 
 My suggestion for these workshop is to add more government representatives in the sessions.  They currently have a deputy to privacy commission from New Zealand.  But I would like to recommend to add another government representative from southeast Asia, though perhaps it's challenging but possible.  That's one point.
 The second point is actually I don't know -- I did not know that we need to get support from other MAG members.  But, yeah, but it's going on.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Shita.  I will ask you to repeat everything you said when we get to the workshop proposal on our list.  This is more or less what I expect from MAG members when they introduce the text.  Why?  Based on criteria and what's the reasoning behind it. 
 So let us start with a topic that's 171.  Could you enlarge a little bit this thing?  171.  Your proposal?
 >> GERMAN VALDEZ:  I strongly support 171 as these workshops about IXPs are critical infrastructures with a direct positive impact in the concept of connecting the next billion.  Additionally IXPs are directly linked with building code infrastructure for developing countries.  Sorry.  Also help with the development perspective. 
 And, furthermore, there are currently no other IXP-related sessions in the workshops considered so far.  So it will contribute to a variety of topics.
 Looking also at the list of speaker, I can confirm that they are top-class speakers and also there is a good balance geographically and gender balance in this panel.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Any comments on 171?  Mark, Susan, Izumi, but very quickly, please.  Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chairperson.  I support this.  I also recognize its strength in terms of geo diversity and panel expertise.  And this has the makings of the session at the IGF on IXP-related issues and intersects well with the best practice forum on IXPs.  So support.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  I'd just like to second what both German and Mark have said.  I also strongly support this workshop.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That would balance out the presence of technical community proposals on the list.
 Anybody opposing?  No, okay.  Let's -- everything I say we retain.  We retain preliminary.  Nothing is decided until we get better understanding whether the method is right.
 207, please.  Who is speaking on 207?  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is, I think, an important one for several reasons.  It brings in more economists to the discussion, and we don't have a lot of economists proposing things this year, nor did we last year.
 I know people involved in this.  I don't agree with their politics.  And I think most of the people in the room would be more liberal than they are and want a larger government role.  But I think it's clear we need to be more open to people who take a more cyber libertarian intervention approach.  So I would strongly recommend we take this. 
 The proposer put in two proposals.  This is one of the two that I think is certainly worth taking.  And rejecting both I think would be a bad idea.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I didn't hear which of the balancing actions we would have with accepting this proposal.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  We're looking for more viewpoints.  Economists are not well-represented in our present program.  It's also political diversity.  And if you look at the political viewpoints of most of the people speaking at IGF, there tend to be more Democrats than Republicans.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It means these guys are not converted yet?
 [ Laughter ]
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  They are not Swedish socialists.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I also support this proposal.  And I would also note, I know others have said earlier that we could use some more bulking up under the "Internet economy" theme or subtheme.  And I think this proposal may be able to also assist with that.  I thought it was well-written and I thought there was good balance, and I do think that this is a key topic that's going to feed into some of the other work I'm doing.  So I support as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Lynn.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I support it as well, Chair, and specifically because it does help fill the gap on Internet economy.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Dominique?
 >> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  I absolutely support it because it does bring economists to the table and also provides an outlet for a lot of the research that I don't think we've seen yet.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  So can we get back to the list?  Okay.  So that is not also very far from them.  It's 84.
 And Marilyn?  No?
 Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Support as well, but with an additional comment of maybe, if possible, to get a government perspective into the list.  That would be great.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So for the moment, we are retaining it.
 Let us move to the next one as 70. 
 70.  Who is speaking?  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I spoke earlier on this one.  This is a very important topic having to do with what happens to your personal information when you die, and this is a very hot topic developing in the U.S., and as social media spreads and people put more of their life on line, it's going to be more important in other countries as well.  And I thought it was very well -- it's a brand-new topic.  We've never looked at this topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we know that this is a brand-new topic.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 I found the topic interesting, but I'm -- I think it is one of those that -- I know you don't like to hear the word "merger," Chair, but I'm going to use the word "merger." 
 I think it is one that possibly could be merged.
 The issue is emerging, and I agree with Mike on that, but I -- I also think the title actually, while it may be factual, "Death and the Internet, Managing Digital Legacies," I'm not sure that translates, so that probably fits more in the category of a more informative title but I'd like to be a little cautionary and see whether it fits into another -- with another workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  There is some doubt. 
 Ephraim?
 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Okay.  For me, I think I like it, but when we retain -- in case we retain it, we should recommend that they should include governments because to this -- to get a government perspective, because I'm looking at the list of invited panelists, but it will be interesting to get a government perspective on that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  German, are you in line or are you -- please.  Now it's your turn.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I had my doubts. 
 Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Well, thought-provoking topic, yes, but I -- I was very critical of this.  Lacked diversity of participation and I didn't think it was a well-presented proposal, so I've -- I'm in the sort of "question mark" category for this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  There are some questions raised on this particular issue. 
 Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  There was just a note from Ginger and Subi that they are against merger.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good to know.  So thank you.
 Ephraim? 
 I -- I saw Hossam instead of Ephraim.  My apologies. 
 Hossam, please.
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair. 
 Well, I just want to highlight that there is one workshop related to the right to be forgiven, which is --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Forgotten.  Okay.
 [ Laughter ]
 [ Applause ]
 >> (Off microphone.)
 [ Laughter ]
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  So --
 [ Laughter ]
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  -- let me just remember which number.  It's 142, which is, I think, like seventy- -- what is it?  The right to be... I just lost the count.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  142, so...
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes.  So it comes higher on the ranking and it's the same subject. 
 Am I right?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It's related, but not exactly the same.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Let me suggest the following:  For the -- I would suggest for the moment to park Workshop 70 on the "maybe" list.  And again, nothing is decided.  We're just -- there were doubts and we may revisit the question afterwards.
 We see that Workshop 70 was relatively high graded.  It was -- mathematically, it came 75th.  So -- but let us -- let us move now to next one, 160.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, just a quick note.  I see on the chat that Subi and Ginger do support the Workshop Number 70.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  For 160, I think that's a winner, you know.  You have "security risk" and "sustainable development" in the title.  It's a winner.  When you see, the panelists are really top-notch panelists and it's a subject that -- well, the title says it all.  It's current, it's pertinent for Joao Pessoa, and that's it.  It's a good workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No doubt, I think every from 240 are very good ones.  We need to select simply the best and that is the challenge.
 I -- once again, I would like to ask proponents or those who introduced the workshops to tell to everyone which imbalance, in your view, this proposal addresses.
 So I see that this is intergovernmental organizations, but please state that, because we are looking for proposals -- we're doing this exercise to try to balance out the program, to make every representation right.
 So therefore, this is the criteria.  Not because the workshop is good or not good.  Of course that's also important.  But for the moment, we're looking for the right balance.
 So this is -- this would -- is a proposal from intergovernmental organizations, so that's --
 >> And technical -- technical sector.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So any comments on 160?
 Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm not a big fan of this proposal, but since we have to balance on the intergovernmental, I think it should make the cut.  I'm not a big fan of what's out here.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ephraim?
 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  I'm not a big fan of mergers, but I would suggest on this to look at Workshop 265 to find a way of working between the two workshops, because I'm seeing both of them are -- MAG members have highlighted as some things we should discuss.
 I think there's a way in which the two workshops can work together because they're some- -- discussing something similar and -- yeah.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Can we get on the screen 265? 
 In the meantime, Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yeah.  This proposal, I support.  I think for the reasons that we're establishing.  That it -- it's an IGO proposal, well-developed, hits on IGF at 10 themes, so I think it merits addition.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any -- any idea on proposed merger or suggested merger?  Ana?
 >>ANA NEVES:  Well, actually, I -- when I scored this one, I put that it should be merged with the others that deal with the CSIRTs and CSIRTs.  I don't know by heart which are the other ones, but my notes say that it should be merged.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  I see no over- -- big enthusiasm about this one, but since this corrects --
 Segun, please.
 Since this corrects intergovernmental imbalance, most probably we need to retain for the moment.  But Segun, please, you have the floor.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If you would use microphone, because otherwise, no one hears you.
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE: Yeah.  I just want to provide a little comment.  I think this topic should be merged with the first one because this has to do with Internet safety which I believe would be covered under the previous one, "Cybersecurity for Sustainable Development."  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  You are suggesting that 160 should be proposed to merge with 265.  Okay.  Let us then -- Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chair.
 There's a number of proposals having to do with cybersecurity capacity building, and I like this proposal.  I actually had ranked one or two others higher.  This might be one where at the end we want to go back through and take another look to see if we don't have a reverse gap, as in oversubscribed in a couple of areas.
 So I do like this one but I would like to make sure we're not oversubscribed in a very narrow cybersecurity development role.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 
 I'm not against mergers.  You know, I've always been supporting mergers because this includes more people in.  But I call the attention of my colleagues to look at this proposal in 160 and the -- vis-a-vis the other ones.
 This one, as you can see, it's more general because it addresses principles regarding cybersecurity and development, and the other ones that you're suggesting merging are more technical, because they are ways of doing it, the CSIRT, the other one 245, has Mozilla, because it's a way of implementing.  It's -- I don't say that it's not important, and if we want to merge, merge, but it's like, you know, merging an apple with an apple pie.  It's already made and cooked and here we're taking the apple from the tree.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for the allegory.
 So let's retain for the moment this 160, and as Lynn suggested, just to review whether we need to propose further mergers on the topic.  But we retain because of intergovernmental proposal.
 So let us now go to 241, which is currently ranked 87th.
 Who is introducing 241? 
 Juan Alfonso, please.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm sorry to take the floor again, but this is also one of my proposals.
 Here it's not only the topic of -- the balancing part here is not because of the stakeholder but because of the economics that -- as was argued before, it's one of the subthemes that is very important and relevant and unfortunately have been absent in the global discussion regarding Internet.
 And as you know, the revenue streams of Internet, now with the auctions of names, of languages, and all that, you know, it's a very interesting thing to examine.
 I have -- I am -- I have published academic works in this, and I always -- and some colleagues, academics, in many countries agree that the Internet economics is still in the infancy, so whatever discussion is surrounding this --
 I'm not against merging this with some other of the same.  As a matter of fact, there's some other, I think, proposal by I think it's -- it's Netherlands, but that is already in the 70 selected.  It's similar because it's about funding, innovative funding, and so on.  I'm not against merging but the topic I think is important.  The reason for the proposal here is the topic, not the stakeholder, although we can put governmental or intergovernmental organizations here like UNCTAD or some other that has to do with financial things to improve this workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any reactions? 
 I'm looking to distribution by subthemes, and seems that Internet economy is in themes.  Actually, it's not overly underrepresented, but this is just statistics.
 Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 This is one that I had noted as well.
 The one area that I think could strengthen it would be to use an economist.  And I've noticed this.  I'm just going to mention it.  But I noticed that in several of the workshops, it's the same companies and the same economists from groups.
 I do think this is a good workshop, in that it will -- a worthy workshop, that it will attract attention from some of the developing countries who are interested in what the barriers are to growing the digital economy.
 I agree with Juan Alfonso.  It could be merged.  I think it's pretty robust.  And I -- it has OECD in it, as well as some governments that are not represented -- sorry, not confirmed.
 I did reach out to the organizer, who tells me he does have -- he has contacted the governments, but until he knows for sure, since it involves travel funding, he is not -- he has tentative names but they're not finally confirmed.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  I'm in favor of this.  It's a three -- a very interesting three-country comparison, and it intersects well with the sustainable development theme and, you know, economic aspects of it, so I think it's hitting on I think an underrepresented thematic area of the IGF, and, yeah, I would support this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Let's then keep this for the moment.  241.  And let's move to the next one.
 Next one is 200, which currently is scored 89.  200, I think.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think title itself merits to be retained.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So who is speaking on this topic, please?
 If no one is speaking on the topic, we are not examining it.  Juan Alfonso, please.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I proposed this more or less around the line of the other, but because of the -- of the topic, although I recognize that I don't really know the panelists that's going to be here.  But it -- I think that it addresses one of the hot items of Internet nowadays.  That is taxation.  And when you were talking about leaving holes -- you know, the Swiss cheese analogy -- thinking of the hot items that could arrive in November, well, that is one of the hot items right now.  I don't know if it's going to be in November.  I presume that it may be still in November.
 So, again, it can be a candidate for merger, but I like it.
 Also, it's been -- many of the sponsors are from the host country.  I always have some positive discrimination in favor of the host country because they're already there.  So -- and the title is irresistible.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.  Please, Benedicto.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Okay.  Thank you.  Well, I'll make a comment and I'll -- I'm refraining from commenting on proposals that involve Brazilian nationals.  In this case, it comes from civil society.  But just to concur with Juan that this issue is an issue of particular interest from the perspective of governments.  I think since we are trying also to balance governmental interests, like I'm sure and confident that this will, indeed, be a very -- a theme that will appeal to governments, like others which have not been included in that list that were proposed by civil society organizations or other institutions not led by governments. 
 But for example, I would refer to Proposal Number 135 that was ranked 83.  That deals with the issue of jurisdiction, which is also something that is very much appealing to governments, so I would concur and support what Juan has said.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I have a question over this.  It seems to be too far removed from global Internet governance to me, national taxation policies in respect of Internet services.
 I don't support it.  Sorry.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Okay.  So before I give floor to Subi, I'll read just a note that I got from Li Jun Han who said that the selections should also pay more attention on the proposals from technical communities.
 And now, Subi, you have the floor.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you.  I agree with Mark's comments on this particular proposal.  I just also want to articulate that general principle.  I would support whenever possible proposals from local communities, whether it is civil society or governments, because that is the reason that we take the IGF to new regions or a new location each year.  So whenever possible, let's also try to facilitate proposals from the host country.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ana, the last on this?
 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you.  So I think that the beauty of the IGF is to discuss very sensitive issues.  And this one is very sensitive.  So I think that is a very good one, and I fully endorse it.  Thank you.
 >> BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Just a quick comment.  I think that issue, if you will recall, NETmundial Initiative made a call for the particular issue regarding jurisdiction to be further addressed by the community.  There is a particular call in that regard. 
 And I think that the reason for that is that although that refers not to the global Internet governance but it is at the heart of the tensions that permeate Internet governance, that there is this tension between national jurisdiction, the global nature of Internet governance. 
 So I think this is an issue that really should be further investigated.  There was rough consensus emerging from NETmundial that, indeed, this is a matter for further consideration.  Of course, it is up to the MAG to decide on that.  But the issue is on the table.  It is not something new.  It is not something being proposed out of the blue.  It reflects a need that was perceived and is very well-articulated in the NETmundial outcome documents.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Let us retain but with a bit of a marker that there were some doubts expressed about this workshop and let us move to the next one, 35, which was initially scored at 90.
 >> REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Excuse me, Janis.  Just a quick note Subi said that she would like to revise her comments and she supports the previous proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So proposal 35, who is speaking on this?  "Local infrastructure is local development," private sector.  Who is speaking in favor of this?  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm sorry to take the floor again because I propose this one.  It's the same.  It's about the economics and local development.  That is one of the key issues of this sustainable development, even the post-2015 development agenda, local development.
 And, also, the presenters are a very, very high rank and from a broad fan of institutions and opinions.  And that's why I suggest -- but I'm not so easily defending this like the one before because I recognize there's no government there.  So maybe if can be improved with some government.  If it doesn't pass, it's okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  If presenter says it doesn't pass, it's okay, then it most probably shouldn't be there.  Right?  At least not on this list for the moment.  So that's why I would suggest to put it aside on the second list constituted.  "Maybe" list.
 189, currently scored 95.  Who is speaking in favor and explaining the reasons?  Please, Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm sorry.  I again propose this.  Not only because it is the Americas, it's some government there.  It's one that was proposed for merging and it's a government and it's -- the panelists are mainly from government, all of them.  And it's a topic of interest. 
 I know that last year it has a best practice forum on this, no?  Maybe -- I don't know if we need to repeat it again or if it's interact.  I leave it to you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Other interventions? 
 Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Just on that last point, this is an overlap with the best practice forum.  And if we are agonizing over additional substantive workshop proposals, I think we ought to bear that in mind and perhaps put this in the category of an input into the best practice forum, perhaps as a side event on regional cooperation of SIRTs.  That's my suggestion.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Xiaodong.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I think it is a good proposal.  The experience from government in the region would be some very good experience which can be learned for other regions.  So I think -- it's also from the government stakeholders.  So I think it's nice to consider that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Hi.  I hope I'm not estopped from saying something about the previous one, number 89.  I may have lost my chance.  But I really do think it would be a good workshop, more than a maybe, I think, on the local data center development because there are new faces.  And I think it's a really important issue, building local infrastructure.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Susan, please follow the sort of theme.  Otherwise, we'll be jumping.  Your intervention is noted.  That was on the previous workshop.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I support the idea of making this a feeder into the best practice forum.  There's another workshop also on IXPs that is, I think, 123 that we probably won't get to.  And I think those that are so specific but they're very informative but they're also specific to regional could be really good feeders into the best practice forum.  So I would support that suggestion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I wanted to support the idea of making this part of the best practices forum but also asking about posters because this is a topic that I think would be one that if they had a poster and some of the panelists were willing to spend a few hours at the poster you'd have some very helpful discussions with other governments who are facing similar problems.  And it might be even more effective in reaching the target audience than doing a panel discussion because people could have one-on-one consultations and share lessons.
 Are posters available for free for people who we don't approve as speakers?  What's the financial arrangement if someone wants to have a display to share their insights?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We've had poster sessions before but then would have to speak to the host country if they are amenable to provide poster stands.  It depends how many poster sessions you want.  We just have to look into the logistics of it.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I've run lots of academic conferences, and often the consolation prize is a poster which people can often find more useful than doing a presentation, particularly if they are in an awkward presentation time opposite some really popular session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  I would just like to come in on Michael's request to support posters.  They are extremely useful as well, and it could be a good way to get further, deeper engagement on a few topics.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Markus, what do you think, whether that would be a feeder or part of best practice discussion?
 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  We could definitely get in touch with them and build it into best practice forums as case studies have been seen as one possible priority for them.  So let us get in touch with them and see how we can incorporate.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Maybe we can park this proposal and propose that this becomes part of the best practice potentially and do -- explore possibility of having a poster session on this.
 Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi and Peter Dengate Thrush also support this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  My proposal, thank you.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Regarding the posters.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Proposal 64.  Who is speaking in favor of 64?  Currently on 101 rank.
 No one is speaking on this?  I see immediately that there is -- this would not really balance anything.  And I would like to suggest not to retain this.  Objections?  I see no objections.
 So 141.  Who is speaking on 141?  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I mentioned yesterday how important this topic of encryption is.  This is right to the heart of the issue, which is will encryption make the job of law enforcement much more difficult and is there a need to have weaker encryption?
 This is not a debate that will go away.  I was personally very involved in this issue at the White House 20 years ago.
 What was very impressive about this proposal was they were bringing in people who are not typically attending IGF.  They had confirmed speakers from law enforcement.  And I just -- I proposed yesterday that we consider doing encryption as a main session.  This one could be combined with another encryption session and be a main session.  But I think this one is unique.  It has new people, new topics.  And, again, the issue is only going to get more attention in the next few months.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  It's also from technical community and representative -- Flavio, please.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  There are some other proposals on encryption.  They were in the comments from the evaluations, there's some proposals for merging with other workshops.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I think this has merit as cross-community.  The balance I think is important.  If the law enforcement agencies are confirmed, yes, certainly.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So maybe we could retain it with the potential of merger with others on encryption on a similar topic.  We'll retain for the moment.
 So 228.  Who is speaking?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Janis, could we please have a remote participant for the previous one?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi, you have the floor.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  I completely support my (indiscernible) on workshop.  I do believe that it is a very good proposal, and it is extremely difficult to get people from law enforcement to come in on this perspective.  It is also a (indiscernible) which would still need a lot of work.  I very strongly (inaudible).  And thank you for (inaudible).
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I understand you were talking about 141?  Can you confirm, please, Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Yes, I confirm.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 228.  Who is speaking on 228?  Lynn, please.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I'd like to support this proposal going forward and also look at a potential merge with 208.  The title of that one is "The woman's role in the Internet governance over the years."  And in light of our themes and desire to get greater participation, I think this is an important topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Merge with 208.  There was consensus in the comments about that.  That's the best approach for this one, I think.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Yeah, I think it is an important topic.  But I would suggest that maybe the workshop proposer get in touch with the agenda dynamic coalition to work on strengthening the proposal a little bit more, considering the topic.
 And, too, it was -- on principle, I really want to support it.  It felt really poorly written by one person, and I wasn't really sure whether the participants were being identified or not or whether it was simply just sort of names picked out. 
 Maybe if they can have a conversation to mutually strengthen each other's proposal working together with the DC, it might work.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  208, do we have -- retain 208?  Okay.  Thank you.
 Honestly, looking to proposal, though, I acknowledge the importance of the theme.  I do not see how this would provide additional balance.  And on that grounds, I would like to put it on the second list.
 Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Just looking for clarity as to whether you're proposing 228 or 208 or both go to a second list?  Because we were discussing 228. 
 I'll also point out that 228 and 208 have a high degree of overlap in panelists.  So it should be a relatively easy merger if we decide to do that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  We're examining 228.  Again, we are doing this exercise with one thing in mind, not to bring -- or decide whether that is a good or bad workshop.  All proposals are good.
 What we're trying to do is to balance -- identify imbalances.  And honestly, I do not see that this would contribute to a sort of balancing exercise.
 Jac.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  For 228, if the proposal organizers were intending to work with national and regional IGF organizers, then in that way I think it will address some of the key imbalances that we were thinking of.  Namely, to bring in more national and regional perspectives.  But I'm -- but it's not clear how, but maybe that's the question or the direction in which we will ask.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  So I want to note that I'm listed as a co-moderator.
 This is a focus on data gathering from national and regional IGFs, as you see in the write-up that there's an intent to do a questionnaire about participation of women in leadership positions at the national and regional IGFs.
 I suppose there's another way to approach this, and that is to think about it, encouraging participation in the interregional dialogue of the national and regional IGFs.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  No.  Just to point out to the secretariat that there are other six workshop proposals that deal with this topic.  Not only 228, but 208, also 196, 144, 107, 59, and 20.
 This is the second cluster of workshops behind youth and child issues. 
 I -- I also -- I always said that this is a candidate for one of the many main sessions because of the, well, popularity, if we can speak it like that.
 So I only want you to take note of that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I would suggest that we, for the moment, put it on List 2, "maybe" list, and move to the next one.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  There is a note from Ginger on chat.  She said, "I support 228 with help from the gender coalition and perhaps inviting the collaboration from 208, but 208 not on any lists."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think also the dynamic -- not dynamic coalition, but the best practice forum might -- on gender may consider sort of --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  Sorry.  I'm withdrawing my proposal.
 No further comments. 
 Let us move to the next agenda.  Next item.  134.  134. 
 Who is speaking on that? 
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I think that one of the good things of IGF is plurality of opinions and diversity of participants.  This 134, as you can see, is about a new initiative that is the Internet social forum, and taking into consideration that the world social forum, as the general, as the parent movement, was born in Latin America, it's -- especially even in Brazil, and it has -- throughout the years has been very important for the grass-roots civil society movement in Latin America.  And taking the thing that I think the IGF should be open to different viewpoints, I think it's important to give space to this organization.
 I realize that maybe they will have logistics because the organizations that support this are not well funded, but in any case, it should not be us, the one who shut the door to this initiative.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  You didn't mention anything that would go towards our goal to balance things. 
 Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  I mean, exactly that point.  I don't see how this will contribute to filling any gap in balance.
 I think this is an interesting initiative that does deserve some visibility, if you like, but not a 90-minute workshop, in my view.  Perhaps a flash session approach or something like that.
 But it's not serving, as you say, our objective here now.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade.  I was going to propose a flash session or a poster session where people would be able to seek out the organizers and spend time dialoguing with them.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I would propose not to retain, but propose if we -- we will have poster -- poster opportunities, that organizers would have this opportunity, if they wish so.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Please, Chairman, the balance -- we need to balance -- the more important thing that we need to balance in IGF is we -- viewpoints, and we should not let IGF --
 Because the stakeholder categories, it's -- is secondary, compared -- I don't -- I don't -- it's more important to have different viewpoints than even geographical. 
 For instance, it's not the same -- it's not important to have somebody from developing country if it represents the elites or the rich persons in developing country.  I think that the most balanced -- balancing that we need to do in Internet governance -- and by the way, it's one of the criticisms that the working group for the improvement of Internet governance pointed out -- is that it should encourage the diversity of view, not to be captured with one general concept of the Internet.
 So I think that this is an important balance to be done, so -- and this is not for a poster.  Maybe as has been suggested, a 30-minute session, but give them the space.  Otherwise, we are being exclusive for ideological reasons.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Remote participant, please.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  There is a -- there is a note from Peter and Subi supporting a flash session or a poster for this, and there is also a request for the floor from Subi, so...
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Subi, go ahead.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  So Subi, please go ahead.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I -- (audio issues) -- session -- (audio issues) -- but if that is not possible, I believe -- (audio issues) -- be acceptable.  In this case, I think it's -- (audio issues) -- but it's not acceptable -- (audio issues).  I think.  -- (audio issues) -- in any case, I think it shouldn't be -- (audio issues) -- thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Honestly, I didn't understand anything.  Would secretariat make sure that we have a better sound quality?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes, Subi was breaking up.  We couldn't hear you.  Could you please perhaps send it on the chat and I will then read it out loud.  Okay?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I only nominated a handful of sessions that I thought we needed to consider, and this was not one of them, but I did give it a 5, even though I'm probably not going to go to it and my politics are not the same as these people's politics.
 But I think it's a useful new format.  I do think we should think about the politics here a little bit because this is a group that might very well make a big stink, and like we had in Istanbul where, you know, since we didn't take some proposals, people went out and created their own alternative IGF.
 This group is a grass-roots group.  Why don't we foster it. 
 I don't think it needs 90 minutes, but I think we could call it an open forum and I suspect if we had called it an open forum, there would have been a lot of support for it.
 I think the lower ranking was probably because it was not seen as very diverse, either geographically or ideologically, but open forums don't have to meet that criteria. 
 The other thing that I would suggest is that you -- whenever you -- if we do accept it, schedule it at the end of the day so people can have their meeting and then go off and continue the discussion, because that's the kind of thing they're trying to foster here.  They're trying to get a community organized to do something, and that often requires a trip to the bar.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I'm not buying the argument with the stink, because one may -- one group may do a stink, but there are 140 other groups that may also do the stink, and then the smell will be much stronger.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  My -- that was just, again, to say if we don't welcome all -- if we're not perceived as welcoming all political perspectives, we are not doing our job, and we failed to do that in Istanbul and I think this is an example of if we think these people are too far away from the mainstream and we exclude them, they'll have a good -- they'll make a good argument.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  More interventions.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  With the exception of the open forum part of Michael's intervention, I do agree in principle with what he says.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Any other opinions? 
 I -- simply I don't feel the temperature in the room on this.  I do not want to stand against it, but I feel that this does not respond to the objectives that we are trying to achieve, to balance.  Now, I hear arguments that there might be also alternative opinion that might be an argument.  I need to hear opinion.  Please.  Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi said a flash session or a poster, it's a valid criticism, just not acceptable here, and we really have done our utmost to strive for diversity and plurality.  I agree with the chair but we refuse to be held to ransom either.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.
 My -- I gave this a very low rating, but not because I disagree with anyone's political position, but I did not feel that it really added to the entirety of the program.
 I can support giving it a flash session.  And all are welcome to come to the IGF, so I think it's not really fair --
 But not everybody is going to be able to hold a workshop or be in a main session.  I think we have to recognize that our principle of openness and inclusiveness is about being able to attend and participate.  Many of the participation opportunities are from the floor.  They're not necessarily a right to run a workshop.
 Secondly, I would just say, Chair, that I really support your point of view.  I don't think it's fair for any group to say, "If we are not given a speaking slot, we're going to protest."  Otherwise, we would have all of us protesting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I -- my sense of the room here is that -- is not to oppose the opportunity for this group, so I mean, is there a consensus here of a short session -- you know, 30-minute, flash -- as the solution for this discussion we're have- -- resolving this discussion we're having now?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Two last interventions. 
 Lynn and then Jac.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I'd like to echo Marilyn's comments as well, and perhaps we could actually have a flash or a BOF.  That's the other sort of session that's ideal for this.  But whatever we go back with, whether it's a no, a flash, a BOF or something else, I think if we can stress Marilyn's points about the inclusiveness and participation and we do welcome diversity of views and they need to be spread throughout the program as well, so I think if we can make those points back, I'd support any one of those decisions.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I actually ranked this quite high.  Not super high, but quite high.  And I'm -- I think it's one of -- you know, it's one -- it's quite an important initiative that came up this year that's sort of maybe they are really trying to -- it's similar to many other sort of important projects that people want to bring to the IGF in order to share with the broader community.
 Sort of rank -- and I looked at it in a similar way.
 And in terms of the stakeholder groups, it also seemed to be quite a nice mix between technical community and governments because -- as well as members of the -- of civil society, so I'm not quite sure where the imbalance is as well.
 But saying that, I'm -- from the comments, it seems to be lacking in clarity in terms of actually what is this workshop session trying to achieve.  If it is trying to be an outreach session, how is it aiming to do that.  And maybe 90 minutes outreach session without more information is not going to work very well.  So I would support maybe a proposal in changing of format.
 And on another similar note, in terms of organizing parallel sessions or parallel work- -- parallel IGFs, I suppose, in order to be able to hold conversations and discussions that may not fall into the formal Internet Governance Forum process, I don't think that's a bad thing.  In fact, I think it should be encouraged.  I think alternative spaces that is being organized in parallel to IGFs is actually a good thing and an indicator of how important this space actually is in order to bring different groups of people together to have conversations around a topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Not because I'm afraid of alternative opinion, but because MAG thinks that there is some merit of retaining it for the moment, but not as a full session but as a flash session, a short one, at the end of the day, that people then can go and have a drink afterwards, as it was put by some -- one MAG member, so we would retain it for the moment.
 I would personally not go that way, but if that's the wish, then we can do it, and then please go to the next proposal.
 I think this time it is not accurate reflection of what I said.  I said retain as a flash session, not proposed to go to a flash session.
 263.
 Who is speaking on 263?
 No one is speaking on 263?  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I thought that 216 was before 263, but anyway -- in the -- in the list.  Can you put the list again?  It's 216, the one we are -- have to look now, no?  Because --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Sorry.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- retain -- you have a wrong --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Sorry.  I made a mistake.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  So --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We are talk- --
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- (off microphone) -- back to 216 then.  No.  Because retaining a flash session is 134.  I think you missed --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Please.  My apologies.  We are now talking about 216.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Why not?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  216.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Oh, now 216.  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  My apologies.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Okay.  So -- so I proposed 216 because it really balances.  It's governments is mainly the panelists.  Also civil society, but also governments.  And it's also a topic of the -- the topics that are, you know, economics and development.  That is one of the most interesting thing for governments.  And this really balance.  You can see the panelists are mainly government.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I would seek opinion of others. 
 I have a feeling that we're overemphasizing, in this exercise, economic issues here, creating another imbalance, but that's my -- my feeling.  I don't -- please.  Who wants to speak on this topic? 
 Michael, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I just wanted to comment.  The fact was that a number of the economics-related topics were just below the cutoff or, you know, in the -- in the zone that we did not select.  There weren't a lot in the top 70, so we're not over-emphasizing.  We're, if anything, making up for that group.  But I'm not going to speak out on this one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So -- and what's the opinion on 216?  Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  There are a number of proposals that deal with zero rating in the course of them, and I was trying to look quickly to see if we had covered that in any aspect.  That is a pretty topical conversation at the moment.  Maybe there's an opportunity to merge the other three or four that also focus on this into a proposal.  But I don't have anything concrete to add.  I was trying to run through everything.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please keep -- keep looking.  We will be a few minutes on this topic.  Giacomo, please.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yeah.  This is exactly one of the topics I was suggesting for merge.  There are four -- four different workshops on the same topic.  One has been retained.  It is Number 156.  And there are other three that are not retained.  I think that according to the various angles, I think it's very easy to merge all of them.  So my suggestion is for this, as for Number 79, as for 156 -- no.  156 is in.  For 204 and 206 to be merged all together.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think that is maybe sensible proposal.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi agrees on the merger.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we do not retain as a separate proposal, but we suggest to 156 organizers consider merger with others on similar topic.  That is decided.
 263 then.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Sorry.  263 is a governmental organization there, ECLAC.  It is a key economic commission of United Nations and it has been very active in Latin America in economic issues and ratings.  And I think that the topic is very relevant, being held in Latin America this IGF.  And I think it could contribute for balance.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Question to the secretariat.  If that is ECLAC, why is it mentioned as a private sector initiative?
 While secretariat is looking for answer, anyone speaking in favor, against this proposal?  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  ECLAC is a -- is a governmental group.  So I'm -- I don't know.  I did not notice that it was labeled as private sector.
 The interesting thing about all of the regional organizations are that they bring together -- and in this case they should be able to bring together a different set of government-level officials.  "A different level" is the wrong word.  Different ministries than usually attend.  So I'd like us to at least consider how it fits.
 It is in the region.  That is, ECLAC is from the region we're in.  And that may be attractive for that reason, that some of the economic ministries would be able to join us.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any other reactions?  Personally, I see that this does not add -- or does not meet the criteria for exercise.  And I would seek further comments from the MAG.
 Please.  Makanye.
 >> MAKANYE FAYE:   Makanye Faye, ECA.  ECLAC is our sister organization.  The proposal I have seen is from the private sector, and ECLAC is sending one person as a speaker.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I also don't see ECLAC as an organizer.  That is a group which self-identified itself as a private sector.
 >> (off microphone).
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Please, I can explain.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please.
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I don't know how many of you were last ten days in the CSTD session.  I see some that were here.
 In this workshop, we're going to be fortunate to have one of the leading world experts in the impact economy of Internet.  This is Raul Katz, professor -- it is Argentinian in origin but it is from University of Colombia in New York.
 Also, this work goes very well with what ECLAC is doing with the project ALAC 2015.  Now it has been changed to ALAC 2018.  That is the governmental plan.  Here somebody could speak about this, the Brazilians.  That is the regional project for use of ICTs in Internet economy.
 Also -- and that is confirmed, the participation. 
 Also is confirmed the participation for the Andean Committee (saying name), SCAF (phonetic).  It is also an intergovernment investment organization of Andean countries.  So you were asking for high-level government participation.  And this -- that also relates to Latin America and also it has top-notch panelists, even the best in the world at the moment.  You can Google Raul Katz if you are really interested in Internet economy.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  So I don't say to have the conclusion that this is not relevant.  I think we should think a little bit more about this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso, if we would not have any limitations, we would be happy to provide opportunity for 240 workshops to take place.
 >> (off microphone).
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, I happily repeat.  If we would not have any limitation, we would provide opportunity for 240 workshops to take place.  But we do have.  And here we're doing a balancing act.  This proposal was scored relatively low.  It is in the middle.  151 out of 240.  So we have limitations for a hundred workshops.
 I do not see what of the balancing things we're talking about this would address if we would retain it.  So, therefore, it should be scored on the merits of the ranking.  This is my position.  And I seek opinion of other MAG members because I heard only one.  And I do not want to make any ruling without having opinion of the group.
 Mark and then remote participant.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  This was a bit tricky to evaluate actually in my view.  It provides a valuable regional perspective, an evidence base on ICT's contribution to sustainable development.  But it's a regional -- wholly regional proposal.  So it was scored down for lack of geo diversity.  So I think that's the reason why the scoring was kind of placing it in the middle -- middle area.
 I'm sort of edging towards support because it does provide that important regional perspective on sustainable development which is a key IGF theme.
 And maybe if they brought in one or two external panelists to sort of reflect on the regional perspective, that would certainly enhance it in terms of scoring, I think.  So it's a bit of a tricky one to determine the future of, I have to say.
 But I'm sort of going in favor of it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR: Apologies for taking the floor so often but trying to help with some input.  I actually scored it quite high as well while noting that it obviously lacks diversity. 
 I scored it quite high because I think we should expect when we hold conferences such as this in a region that there are going to be regional groups and efforts that want to both get more global visibility and, frankly, it's a good opportunity for them to build their own networking in region which I think is something we want to support as well. 
 I actually ranked it quite high while noting that it did lack diversity.  But I also couldn't think of any concrete way to bring the diversity in without changing it fairly substantially.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said that she doesn't support its inclusion.  It lacks diversity and doesn't add to the present exercise for balance.  Professor Katz is hugely respected but this does not make for a workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I yesterday mentioned that I wanted to work with others on putting together a main session on -- that was related to our theme "sustainable development." 
 I understand the concerns raised by colleagues.  I think there are aspects to this workshop that have merit.
 I think it is a candidate for merger or incorporation into an existing workshop as it is incomplete in some ways.  So I'd like to park it for now with fate undetermined but not just reject it out hand.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Then maybe we could retain it on list number 2 as maybe.  And then we can revisit it once we will see the global picture.
 Juan Alfonso, please.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Chairman, I'm not going to defend this workshop anymore.  But I'm worried that we're moving the standards of the inclusion of this last -- well, these proposals on this list because we have included some other workshops just because they have government participation.  And this that has government participation and also has brilliant other world-class panelists confirmed, then we're not accepting.
 So I think we have a different standard.  We should revisit some of the earlier that we accepted.  With the criteria flimsy like this, maybe it is because of the effect of piling up, but I think that as time goes, we begin to change our criteria.  Then this is not a serious way of doing it.
 Please.  We accepted some other because government participation.  And here at least there are two government participation.  And as was mentioned by "high level," also they say they're going to reach to other governments to participate.  I'm sure that many other governments that have very good relations, we act like we happily participate in this.  The Government of Colombia, maybe the Government of Brazil they are asking.  Or maybe even, well, if they want, maybe our government representative there.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I would like to very strongly reject what you just said.  We're not changing criteria.  This exercise is to -- not to bring one or another workshop up but to do it with balancing objective in mind.
 This workshop was scored relatively low, in the middle.  There were a number of people speaking in favor.  There was a number of people speaking against.  That's why we're saying let's put it on the "maybe" list because this does not meet criteria as we established for this exercise.  That's point number one.
 Point number two is we have examined about 20 proposals, and another 30 to go.  And we need to be much more selective and strict in applying criteria for this exercise, to balance out an imbalance.  Otherwise, we would take the hundred highest scored proposals and that's it.  That would be pure mathematical exchange.
 I don't want to go that route.  And that's why I would like to have ask your flexibility and see how far we can get with this exercise.  Thank you for understanding.
 Proposal 19.  No, this is over.  On this topic, it is over.  Proposal 19.
 >> Just one kind request that you -- for Juan Alfonso not to speak so loudly over the mic.  This is from a remote participant.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I will keep that in mind.
 Proposal 19, please.  Who would like to speak in favor of this proposal 8?
 Lynn.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I actually ranked this one quite low because it gets very specific.  But I think it could be merged quite easily with workshop Number 94.  And I actually think the notion of internationalization, whether it's IDNs or multilingualism, endangered languages, does support our theme of inclusiveness and diversity.  So I would support it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Opinions?  You did not say whether and on what criteria we're talking about.  Diversity is sufficiently represented or is not?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I actually didn't put this on the list.  I was simply trying to get the discussion going.  If it fits -- the subtheme it fits under is inclusiveness and diversity but frankly I'm having a hard time tracking what's overrepresented or underrepresented.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It means if no one defends it, it was put on the list by mistake.  No. 
 Susan.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair.  I didn't put it on the list, but I would just like to raise a point which can be taken or dispensed with.
 If it's the only workshop on IDNs, I think in terms of balance it might be useful to include it for a thematic balance.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Question to secretariat.  Is this the only proposal around IDNs?
 In terms of methodology, we agreed that the MAG members would be prepared to speak for the proposals they put forward.  If there is no MAG member speaking about a proposal which is put forward, then we're not examining that proposal because we need to know the reasoning.  We need to understand the reasoning and not to invent the reasoning.  Those who put forward proposal should speak about it. 
 Please.  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  I just suggested this when you asked at the beginning, but now I don't know, because it has intergovernmental organizations among the sponsors there.  Somebody from UNESCO is confirmed to be there, also, from the European Commission is going to be there.  And that is why I placed it there.  Also, because of the topic.
 But mainly because there are two intergovernmental organizations present.  There's going to be panelists there that are confirmed.  That was the reason why I included.  If you don't want to include it, okay. 
 Did I speak low enough?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael, then Mark.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is a rare occasion when I don't agree with Juan.  I think this is a topic we've covered a lot in IGFs, and there are two other panels that touch on linguistic diversity.  So I don't think we need to include this one.  We could talk to the other panels that have more support and not require a merger but indicate that there are some other interests, other panelists who might be able to join their panel.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  I agree with that last intervention.  The only other point I would add is that there is a -- as is up on the screen, the report by EURid and UNESCO.  Maybe that could be the topic of a flash session to give some visibility to that report which would be valuable.  I don't see the balance question here for the reasons just described.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Let me suggest that we propose a poster opportunity for this proposal, because that is not supported by the majority that it does not contribute to the exercise we do, it was scored as it was. 
 And though the report of EURid and UNESCO was started when I was at UNESCO, we started together, with a hurting heart, I make this proposal and propose to move on.
 I see no objections.  We are proposing a poster session for this report.
 45.  Who is speaking in favor of 45 and explaining reasons why we're looking at it?
 No one is speaking in favor?  Juan Alfonso. 
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Chairman, I'm checking because I have 45 here on my list, but I don't recall -- no.  It's what -- maybe my mistake.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We do not retain this, for the moment.  We move on. 
 56.  Who will speak in favor and explain the reasoning behind it?  Nobody?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So if no one speaks, then we can move on.  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  This is my list.  I put it because somebody said also the technical community was underrepresented and it has some technical community from Asia, China, and some other countries.  That -- and that's why I put it.  Not -- I'm not defending it for anything special.  Just for that reason.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify for the end of time that the technical community is not underrepresented.  They are the single -- second largest sector -- I know that impression has gone on since morning.  They are the second largest stakeholder after the civil society.  We should be careful.  We should certainly bring up governments and IGOs, but the technical community, it seems, has taken good care of themselves.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Then I propose to move on.  Xiaodong, please.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  This proposal is from China but -- and I'm also from China but I think I just speak as a MAG member. 
 So even this proposal was from civil society, but you know that the panelist is from the technical community and private sector, so I think it's -- (indiscernible) mobile payment and -- you know, is very hot topic in China.  I think it can bring some new ideas and new information to this forum.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Very much in a similar vein, really.
 This is, from memory, a unique proposal on mobile banking and, you know, its criticality for the digital economy, and we've seen the impact in Africa of the IMPASO (phonetic) and things like that, which the proposal lacked, I think, participation from sub-Saharan Africa, which was -- so it was a -- that was a deficiency, but, you know, I -- I value the merit of the -- I recognize the merit of the proposal and it's addressing an important aspect of the Internet economy, which the IGF would be, I think, deficient in not covering.
 So I see a balance issue there.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I was going to just recommend, should we take a two-minute break, hold off, just check the ones that have made it for sure, and see if that covers a sufficient number of governments and IGOs?  Just a rough number to know where we stand at this time?  Are we at the halfway mark or, you know, will we have 50?  I don't know how many we've covered.  I can't tell right now.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Neither me.  I'm trying to ask and --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Just to check if we've got enough governments and IGOs in or is that still an area that we need to now look at in the remaining or do you think it's worth just going on?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Let me make an inquiry, but please do not leave the room because if we break, then we are in trouble.  And moreover, there will be -- you requested yesterday more information about this deliberate polling, and we are trying to arrange a very brief session, 10 minutes to 6:00, with -- remotely from Stanford, that we have an opportunity to listen briefly what this initiative is about and why they are chosen to -- asking to do it during IGF.
 While secretariat is counting, please Michael, go ahead.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I think that mobile money is an incredibly important topic and I care passionately about cybersecurity.  I just don't think this proposal is the one that we want to support this year.  I'm involved with the D.C. chapter of the Internet Society.  We're doing a session in two weeks on digital money because it's a very important topic, but again, I don't think that as structured, this is a very strong proposal, and when you look at the rankings, there was a grand total of one person who thought this was a 5, so there seems to be broad consensus that this is not the strongest proposal and I would hate to have a great proposal next year that we decide not to do because we covered it this year with a proposal that's not as strong.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Izumi?
 >>IZUMI MATSUZAKI:  Izumi speaking.  Thank you, Chair. 
 I'm very much in line with what Mark has expressed and I think this is a very good topic to cover.  While I really don't know the speakers too well, so it's a little bit difficult to judge -- on my side to judge the quality of the -- of this workshop and this topic, but I do have a favorable opinion about covering a workshop on this topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that we're -- I see that we are split on this particular question.  Maybe while I'm asking also to get one of those candies that are now distributed in the room, I would ask Shita to help me with the conclusion.
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Chair, thank you. 
 I just would like to make a clarification that this proposer has submitted like five proposals to the -- to MAG, so it's not -- based on diversity, it's not really supporting.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Let me -- let me suggest that we would park, for the moment, this proposal on the "maybe" list and see what -- where we are now with the balancing -- balancing act.  Chengetai, are you able to tell us now something?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  Those numbers were correct, actually.  We've gone through -- (off microphone) --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please.  The microphone is here.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We've gone through 16.  We've retained 8.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  For those left that we have to go through that more than two MAG members commented on is 6.  6.  And then where one or more -- where one MAG member has commented on, it's 34.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  28 that's remaining.  28 that's remaining.  That's where one MAG member has commented on.  So maybe we could make a -- (off microphone) --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  May I ask:  Of the 8 that we have said "yes" to, how many are government or intergovernmental?  Do we know that?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.  Okay.  Thanks.  We can move on.
 And also if we could -- you know, how many of them were within the hundred anyway?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  First four were in 80, in top 80.  I don't have information which is the next -- next we need to look at.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  131.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, so we are effectively at 78 now?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I'm trying to understand where we are.  Could you increase the -- the picture?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So let us -- let us go to 131 now.
 131.  Who will be introducing and explaining the proposal?
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Chairman, again, I proposed this because it's a purely intergovernmental workshop.  It's -- as you can read the proposal and how it's going to be carried out, it's a commonwealth organization that they -- they are going to do some sort of briefing with the member countries, and that is why I suggested it. 
 I don't know the participants, but it's a purely intergovernmental workshop.  That's why I put it in the list because you asked us to do that.  I try to follow your instructions --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- to the best that I can.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much. 
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  I support.  Commonwealth is 53 countries.  Population is 2 -- 2 billion.
 The session perhaps could be reduced.  I think a number of us made comments about perhaps a flash session, as a specific --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Oh, sorry.  It is already a flash.  Sorry.  I'm behind on that.  Okay.
 Well, as I say, the merit is the number of governments involved and the topicality and the global reach of the topic.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Any opposition that we should not retain a flash session, on intergovernmental organization?  No?  Yes?  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  It's a -- Mr. Chairman, it's weakly written.  The names and affiliations are partners are fairly -- they're almost missing.  There are no names there.  But it is one of the higher-ranking intergovernmental proposals after the cutoff of a hundred, so I suppose it can be on the "maybe" list, but if you read through what they have submitted, it's a bit of a lazy proposal, I'm afraid.  We'd like a little more detail to be able to make it.
 But it does balance on the intergovernmental, so you might wish to retain it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I wish to retain it.  And German will confirm it.
 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  Well, you asked for any oppositions, and my comments go along those lines, that the proposal is poorly written, and if we're going to start accepting these sorts of proposal, then we are becoming extremely flexible in what's going to enter at the end of the final list of workshops.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we then suggest that we would retain on the merits that this is from intergovernmental organization and that we strongly advise and will help to improve the quality of the proposal and make a meaningful discussion on national cybersecurity strategies and on the case of commonwealth countries? 
 Lynn, you are in agreement?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I am.  I also just wanted to point out that it's a new proposer and one of the things we had wanted to do was to support and mentor new proposers with different workshop proposals.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Then we retain this one and move to the next one.
 Proposal 33, Workshop 33, who would like to speak in favor of this and explain the reasoning why we're examining this now?  Ephraim, please.
 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Okay.  I think this is -- I looked through the proposals and I didn't see any on data retention and it's a new emerging topic.  That would be the rationale.  I don't know if anyone else would think something similar.  Because you've seen what has happened in recent history of some countries, like China, Russia, on data retention and the impact on all those users.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I did not nominate this one but I did give it a 5 ranking.  Data retention is a growing issue.  We have some people involved from Latin America who probably will never be able to come to an IGF if it's not in Latin America.  So I thought it was a strong proposal and a very important topic, and I was astonished, actually, that the ranking was so low.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Other opinions?  It does not -- it does not really add to balance in terms of geography and government participation on the topic.
 I see that Jac is asking and Virat.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  It is an important topic and I also note that in the speakers that were suggested, that included within them is someone from the law enforcement as well as a member of judiciary, which I thought were interesting points of views.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yes.  I think there is one positive, which is it's an important issue, very important growing issue, but also I think it's coming to the theme, which is human rights, which is probably the most oversubscribed theme of all the themes.  IT'S dominating with 30%, so I think -- and it's scored very low, 178, so we should kind of probably put it on the second list and see if we can accommodate it, and it doesn't help the immediate criteria for this round.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for your proposal.  I think we should go for this and put it, for the moment, on the List Number 2, "maybe." 
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, I stress that there are people on this proposal who just would never come to an IGF, people from law enforcement, people who are from Latin America who would never -- I mean, I know we look for geographic diversity, but on some issues we're bringing new people in and you're never going to convince the people who aren't part of the IGF community to fly a full day.  I think we should think seriously about the diversity that's added by bringing in a law enforcement perspective, and I was critical of some of the other human rights panels because they did not have a law enforcement person to balance the concerns about privacy and data collection, so I thought this was more balanced than a lot of those.
 But again, I suspect it got very low rankings because it was so bias- -- or so -- there was so much -- so many panelists from Latin America.
 But again, that's also because we are getting unique people from Latin America.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Aida.
 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: On the other hand, I would like to stress there are people who are listed even as confirmed that have no idea that their name is there.  I don't know if that can be an argument or not.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Of course, we do not know that.  But we have gone through the discussions and asked specifically do not put anyone confirmed if person has not confirmed really.  I would still suggest we put it on "maybe" list and then revisit depending on the situation we're having at the end of this conversation.
 No one objects.  Thank you.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  I understand we are examining proposal 202.  Can we hear comments in that regard?
 Yes, Juan.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I propose this to be merged with the previous that we had on measurement.  But I don't know if we are doing mergers at this point.  But I proposed.  I give it on the list with that intention, to be merged with the previous one that we had on measurement.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Okay, thank you.  Anyone else would like to comment on that particular proposal?
 I'm not sure at this point.  I thought -- I think with the criteria that Janis was trying to apply that he would like to seek feeling from the room whether there is support for the idea that by accepting this, we are kind of balancing, addressing some gaps.  But I don't feel this is the case in regard to that particular proposal.
 Mike.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I know this area very well, and I don't think this would add a lot to our conversation.  I also think there's a lack of geographic balance and even more important lack of private sector balance.  And I don't think that merging this to the other much higher ranked proposals would strengthen those other proposals so I would wait until next year and encourage these people to come back with a broader -- with a more -- a broader panel, more focused.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  I think then we could leave that aside on that note.
 Could we move to the next one, please?  So now we'll focus on Proposal Number 21 that was ranked 74.  Is that correct?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah, 74.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  "SIDS roundtable on free Internet."  Would anyone like to comment on this?
 Just for precedence for secretariat to clarify what does it mean to select stakeholder group?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It just means the proposer did not select which stakeholder group they belong to so we cannot define exactly which stakeholder group they are.  We can also judge it on its merits if you feel.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yes, Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  Actually I had a question about this one and a couple other ones where the workshop was not identified and the stakeholder group was not identified.  I find that challenging.  So when you say we are evaluating something on the merits, I think we have an incomplete proposal.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  I will turn back to the Chair.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I think this brings -- this proposal brings to the IGF focus on the issues facing small island developing states.  And that should be spelled out, that acronym, SIDS in the title, if it goes through.
 So they are bringing something important to the IGF that should be there.  I know from speaking to colleagues representing small island developing states that their voice is often not center stage.  And this -- and there are a lot of them.  So this brings that.  So I support this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I think that there is a good merit in supporting small island developing states just on that merit if we do not have any other workshop on that.  I would propose to retain -- and I see the body language suggests that this would be a good thing to do.
 And I would put it on provisional list of retained proposals.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  I recognize the importance of including the SIDS.  But I would just like to say that if you look at the content of the proposal, it focuses on zero rating in developing countries.  So I think that if the proposal is specific with respect to small island developing states and zero rating otherwise, I think it would be a good candidate for a merger with the proposal that Lynn suggested a merger with.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  But let us look.  This was mathematically scored at 74, 74 in terms of ranking.  So I think that also on that merit, it is relatively high scored and we need to acknowledge that.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON: I also, I think, strongly agree that small island perspectives are valuable and I'm sure that's why it got a relatively high ranking.  But I think this topic could be covered in 60 minutes and perhaps even a flash session.  It is really very narrowly focused on one particular paper coming out of one particular conference.  It's not a broad discussion.  It doesn't pretend to have all sides of the view of the topic.
 So if we're looking for diversity of opinion, we are not accomplishing that here.  I do think though -- I would strongly support a flash session and as a compromise 60 minutes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Avri, sorry, I overlooked you.  My apologies.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I support leaving it in and retaining it and leaving it in at its current length.
 If you look at the full writeup, yes, there may be issues with it not having had the name of the proposer in the right place.  But if you look at it, you see it is people from three island states proposing it.  It has got a diverse panel.  And I believe it really should be retained in its full format.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  I think we will retain it to our list one.  We will see if there should be shortening.  But for the moment, it feels to me that this is something we could go along with.
 So here I would like to suspend our exercise since our colleagues from Stanford University are online.  And I hope the technology will not fail us.
 And I would like to invite proponents of Deliberate Polling 2015, in five minutes explain the project, the highlights of the project, and leave a few minutes for questions.
 We cannot go beyond 6:00 Geneva time.  So, therefore, we have about ten minutes for this exercise.  The floor is yours.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Please unmute yourself.  Okay, James, you can go ahead.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Seems we have a technical problem.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  James, we cannot hear you.  Could you please disconnect and reconnect audio in Webex.  You can find this on the "quick start" tab.  Okay.  We hear you now.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Can you hear me?  Can you hear me knew?
 >> Please go ahead.  We hear you.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Excellent.  Thank you.  So the idea is very simple of deliberative polling.  We have done this in 23 countries around the world, about 70 times usually with citizens rather than netizens, or usually with citizens rather than stakeholders.
 But the basic idea is very simple.  We take a random sample.  In this case, it would be a stratified random sample of the IGF.  Our presumption in this project is that the IGF is a relevant population for Internet governance. 
 We will take a stratified random sample representing all sectors and geographies and engage it in a serious deliberation.  About 300 people.
 We will also give the same survey to the other members of the IGF before and after.  We have a distinguished advisory group that is clarifying key questions that are ripe for discussion in Internet governance in three different broad policy areas.  And we're working with the advisory group to clarify those questions.
 The idea of the deliberation is to have small group discussions for several hours alternated with plenary sessions during which questions from the small groups are answered by panels.  The question is what would people think if they really had a good chance for thinking about it?
 Obviously the IGF participants are well-informed but they are siloed.  They are -- the different groups could engage in greater cross-sector, cross-geography discussion.
 The question is:  We get the final results of the deliberative poll in confidential questionnaires, and we see the changes of opinion from the initial questionnaire.  Usually we get pretty big changes.  But in addition to the changes of opinion, we get a sense of why people change or why they don't change, what policies would they really support.
 So instead of a bland consensus statement of general principles, we will have -- we think further the dialogue with this process and pilot a further specification method of deliberative democracy in Internet governance.
 So, if it's done right, it will be extremely inclusive and also extremely thoughtful and it will cross all the barriers that now limit the discussion.
 So that's -- that's the basic idea.  I don't know if -- There's some interference.  I don't know if you were able to hear me.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, James.  We did hear you.  And one question is if I understand correctly, you will be doing this experiment on the margins of IGF, and this will not interfere with normal process of IGF.  You will have a meeting before --
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Yes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- before IGF and you will have a meeting before IGF and you will organize a meeting after IGF.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  That's the plan.  Our plan is to do it -- is to start with a dinner on the minus one, to have all day on day zero, and a bit of the morning on day one before your opening session.  And then we will then collect the results and present them and try to engage with a discussion about the results at the conclusion of the IGF. 
 That's the reason for the workshop proposal at the end, to not only present the results but to start a dialogue about them at the very end.  So we're very at the beginning and the very end.  But the rest of the IGF, we will not interfere with the rest of the IGF in any way. 
 But, in fact, if we succeed in doing what we hope to, which is to have a random sample deliberating, a stratified random sample, and we can share the questionnaire with everybody else, this becomes a controlled experiment to see what is the value added, if anything, of the intensive, balanced, hopefully thoughtful deliberative process that we are doing compared to the rest of the IGF because the other participants will have gone through the rest of the IGF.
 So this is meant to -- we hope to add something.  But, of course, it is a pilot or an experiment.  But if it works, we would hope to do it at other IGF or IGF-type events because a lot of people involved in Internet governance on our advisory group think something like this could add something.  And since this is now a well-tested method, it's been used around the world, we could -- we hope to pilot in this context.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Marilyn?  One question and then we will suspend the session.  Thank you.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking. 
 Perhaps I pose my question.  It's really more for information and then perhaps information could be sent to the MAG list.
 A couple of questions.
 Is it -- are the names of the advisory group members available in a public way so that we could see who they are?
 Secondly, I just want to ask a question about -- it's a complicated question but since there's an effort to do a stratified group, that means it will have to be drawn from the registered attendees, and if that is the case, actually I do have a concern that we can address off line.  People are coming because they are booked to do other things all day on day zero, and the morning of day one actually interfere with the rest of the purpose.
 So I just would like to have an opportunity to take it up maybe on line and hear more.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Yes.  First of all, the list of the advisory group is public.  I'm not sure what was sent to you, but we can certainly send that.  And I think you'll agree it's a very good group.  And of course we're open to suggestions.
 In addition, the -- we're wrestling with that about the stratified random sample.  We hope to actually begin also with -- on a rolling basis with previous attendees.  We hope that some people who are willing to accept the invitation will -- yes.  I mean, there are a variety of pre-conferences that people could go to.  Think of this as another pre-conference.  But if people don't want to do it, we will continue with stratified random sampling, asking people until we get a reasonable representation.
 People will hopefully understand that this is a unique opportunity, if they've been randomly drawn in the sample, but we will not interfere with the regular IGF process.
 Perhaps there's some way that we can correspond by email or phone afterwards.  I'm James Fishkin.  That's [email protected].  And maybe we can send contact details about all the advisory group members and the working group that's trying to implement this, and we're happy to follow up at your convenience to try to get your counsel and advice to make this work without interfering with other processes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, James, and then maybe another question from remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Peter asked how this proposal came before the MAG.  Was there an internal champion proposer?
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  I'm not --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I can answer, James, on this.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I was suggesting that since this is experiment linked -- well, not linked but which will take place on the margins of IGF, I suggested that information should be given to MAG in this respect.  And I can tell you --
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- I am on -- also on advisory group, and Hartmut also is on advisory group for the experiment.
 So thank you, James, for --
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- for this presentation.  It would be good, most probably, to send the materials to the list, MAG list, so that people are informed about the substance of the experiment.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Great.  We'll be very happy to do that.  And thank you for the opportunity to be part of these discussions.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, James.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we have reached the limit of today's session.  It's 6:00.  We need to break.
 We have not concluded the full examination of proposals.  We will continue tomorrow.  Tomorrow morning we will have full statistic -- actually, tonight, the secretariat will send out full statistics on decisions that we have made, but since we cannot stop this exercise in the middle, we need to get down to the list, and I hope that tomorrow in the first part of the day we will get through all proposals, and then -- if earlier, even better, and then after lunch we will make final decisions.
 For the moment, I was told that we have -- we have made improvement on balance by bringing two additional proposals from technical community, three from intergovernmental organizations, three from civil society, but on topics, not on civil society, and that makes eight.
 Remaining is undecided, so...
 Questions?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  What's our count at the moment?  This is Avri.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Count is 70 plus -- eight or nine?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Nine now.
 >> Should be nine, yeah.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Nine.  So for the moment, we're 79, but we need still to continue examination of the list because we have not concluded it and we will continue tomorrow.  Dominique?
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Yeah.  I just wanted to say after this meeting, there's a common outreach group meeting right here, so can we just gather here?  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lea?
 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you.  This is Lea speaking. 
 Just a question about tomorrow's agenda, if you're going to address that later, and I would just like to stress something that I've posted on the MAG list, and that is whether it would be possible to pivot back during the session tomorrow to the conversation about the main sessions.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So that depends how quickly we will conclude our work.
 Certainly I intend to circulate interim proposal for main sessions tomorrow.
 Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Just wanted a quick clarification.
 So the list that Chengetai sent out earlier, the Excel sheet that we've been working off of, are those the only proposals that are for discussion? 
 So if we submitted proposals and they're not on that list, does that mean, for whatever --
 So they didn't make it.  Is that correct or --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This is what we discussed, that in order to facilitate, that MAG members should submit information to secretariat and that was compiled in one list of 50 proposals that now we are going through.
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  So the cutoff was at 50, so -- okay.  I understand.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Cutoff was not determined.  It was just those who were submitted, we're now working on the basis of submissions.
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  So I had some --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  Is there a number missing?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Yeah.  There were some numbers missing.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Just come and see me and then we'll --
 >>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I posted to the MAG list but I -- this is just a reminder that the WSIS+10 main session or sessions will meet tomorrow morning at 9:00, assuming I'm not interfering with your meeting, and everyone who's already said they're interested or hasn't yet said they're interested should come along.
 We'll talk about the scenario options, which I think we covered in our discussion, and that is, if it's a three-hour session or if New York participates, but I really welcome even if you haven't indicated your interest, you should come.
 We'll meet here, unless Chengetai finds me another room.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Peter Dengate Thrush made a comment on chat probably regarding the -- Mr. Fishkin's presentation.  He asked:  Does it need MAG blessing or we are just being informed about the peripheral activity?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think it is more information because this is not part of IGF, but it is organized on the margins of IGF.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, can we make two requests from the secretariat? 
 One is if they could provide us the list of the nine that got through, just so we know that that's 79 then.
 And then when -- just a start point of where the list begins tomorrow.  From the 50, I think we've -- if we could --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The list begins where we ended today.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So that will be?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I just wanted to get a confirmation on the number.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So 151. 
 So we omitted 53?  Seems we omitted 53.  We decided on -- (off microphone) -- so we will start with 153 and we will continue with 151 afterwards.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Thank you for your diligent work, and have a good evening and we'll see you tomorrow at 10:00 sharp.  Please come here at 10:00 sharp. 
 Thank you very much, interpreters, for helping us, and scribes transcribing our conversation. 

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411