21 May 2015 MAG Meeting Transcript Morning Session

 IGF  MAG Meeting

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.

 

 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for coming back for the second day of the MAG meeting.  Today, we are -- today, we will be dealing with workshop selection, and I think that this is one of the most important tasks that the MAG has been entrusted by the secretary-general.

 But before embarking on this path, I would like to thank all those who contributed to open consultations and MAG meeting yesterday, because yesterday we also advanced on other issues.

 We had a very good conversation on main sessions.  Based on conversations and inputs, the secretariat will be reworking the draft schedule, and I hope it will be circulated by the end of tomorrow.

 We do not have a rush with this, but just that we leave with a proposal based on our conversations and also some modifications that I had to introduce simply because of circumstances.

 And the main thing that will be changed in this new schedule is that the opening ceremony and opening session technically cannot be organized in the first part of the first day, in the morning of the first day, because we are risking not having dignitaries who may want to participate in the opening of the session.  Likelihood that high officials would spend the night in Joao Pessoa and participate in the morning is relatively low, but likelihood that they would fly in in the morning and participate in the afternoon is much higher.

 So therefore, the opening ceremony and session should be organized in the afternoon.

 This is purely technical reasons.

 Secondly, we had also yesterday a good discussion and we endorsed in principle an approach related to intersessional activities, and I hope that by the end of MAG meeting, we will have a final version that may be circulated outside.

 I also was very pleased yesterday, listening to the reports on progress on best practice work streams.  This was really encouraging. 

 Maybe a minor remark from my side.

 I think it would be useful to align the timetables of all work streams and to agree on a cutoff date that we could circulate proposed text to the community prior to the meeting.

 There are different traditions, if -- but one, if we could meet, let's say, a deadline of six weeks prior to the meeting as a circulation of information, it would be very good.  It is not a requirement, it is just a best practice, and this is a courtesy to participants who may need some time to review all the documentation that we are proposing for IGF meeting. 

 So I would simply like to encourage coordinators of best practice work streams to try to factor that in.

 And of course for those who have advanced already a lot in the work, that may be easier.  For those who are just starting, that may be slightly more complicated.  But nevertheless, please try to factor that in.

 For the task to select workshops, we have allocated ourselves nine hours, and I think that we should do whatever we can to use those nine hours in the most rational way, starting with a punctual beginning of sessions. 

 I noticed today that we started 10 minutes late, and I think this is just lost time. 

 But also, we need to be as flexible and as cooperative as we can, because of course all of us, we have certain preferences, we are coming from different perspectives, but our task is to find consensus on the workshop proposals and consensus in -- in two-way consensus, whether we -- all of us, we're happy with the result or all of us, we're equally unhappy with the result.

 Every deviation from these two options means that we have not reached a reasonable outcome.  If somebody is extremely unhappy, it's bad, and therefore, let us work collaboratively and show utmost flexibility --

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Hi.  Can you hear me?  Check, check.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- and listen to each other because everybody has their own reasons to do what they do and propose what they propose.

 So coming now to the methodology, I hope we will not spend too much time on that, but since you asked me to circulate a proposal at the -- during the last conference call, I did it, and the comments that I heard were encouraging that the proposal was, it seemed to me, accepted, and let me recall it.

 That we would take automatically 60 first workshop proposals that have been submitted and during the evaluation got the highest scores.  And we have full statistics of those proposals.

 And then we would do a selection of the remaining, as we agreed, 40 workshop proposals based on highest scoring, but equally, looking at necessary balance that we're willing to achieve in the program, and balance of a different kind.  Balance of representation, balance on thematic -- or themes or subthemes that we ourselves have identified, balance of proposals from developing and developed countries, first-comers and old-timers and so on.

 Again, most probably the result will not be ideal, but it is feasible.  Last year we reached consensus and I think we were not blamed for failing in our task.

 So that's my proposal, and I would like to see if there is -- there are any comments on -- in that respect.

 And I see that there is Marilyn, Virat, and Michael, and Avri, in that order.

 And Shita.

 Please, Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 My name is Marilyn Cade.  I -- good morning to all colleagues, or good afternoon/good evening, for those who are participating remotely.

 I want to make two comments and ask a question for clarification.

 I, first of all, want to thank the secretariat for the analysis that they did which helped to put into perspective the number of workshops that we put forward in 2014.  Not the -- just the number received, but also the number that spread across the subthemes.

 We have that same information for this year that helps us to understand how many workshops were presented against the subthemes.

 One comment I have is that I want to take note, for us to come back to in further consideration, of where we may have significant duplication.  Even though we may have workshops which are rated very high, I believe there's some significant duplication in some of the workshops that are in the -- perhaps I'll call it the initial "high" category, and I just want to reserve the opportunity for the MAG to consider that, since inclusiveness might lead us to consider how we might be able to encourage merger of some of those.

 My second comment has to do with the topic of Internet economy and its linkage to the main theme of sustainable development, and I wanted to just call colleagues' attention to that as a -- perhaps something for us to consider on how we make sure -- even if there's a low number of workshops that are in that category, that we try to make sure in our balance discussion that we do reflect the participation -- the recognition that Internet economy and its linkage to sustainable development may deserve some particular focus from us.

 Now, my final question, actually, Chair, has to do with a discussion we had yesterday, and that is:  Possibly that if we limit the closing session to 90 minutes, we might recoup a small number of additional workshop slots, and could I just ask clarification on that?  Because that might help us in terms of thinking about whether we have a little more flexibility.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Those 10 workshops of the afternoon of the fourth day have been already factored in in the total number of 100.

 Virat and then Michael and then Avri.

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

 Are we going to discuss the criteria and the discussions on the workshops just yet?  Because it's listed after lunch. 

 In the agenda, in the first half, it's overview of the open forum submissions, comments from the floor in the open forums, dynamic coalitions, et cetera.  So are we changing that?  Because I wanted to post some information about the analysis and some further -- but I held it back until the lunch, given the starting at post-lunch on the workshops.  But if the chair plans to bring that up, then I --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, Virat.  I thought I yesterday mentioned that since in the last conference call it was specifically requested to reverse-order and to do selection of workshops first and then a discussion on open forum and way forward second, so I -- yesterday, I said that we would start with the workshops and we would do workshop selection today and tomorrow morning and we would discuss open forum tomorrow in the second part of the day.  Forum -- what was suggested, forum, dynamic coalitions, and interregional dialogue, that would be at the end, as well as the way forward and next steps.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.  In which case, I just wanted to -- I'm sorry, I can't post that thing because it was -- it's under preparation, but let me just make a few comments.

 You've recommended starting at 61.  Taking the first 60 and then going 61 onwards. 

 I just want to note for the MAG where we are in terms of what we have set ourselves in December, because that will help us decide the focus of where the intervention should be and also perhaps at what level we should come in, whether it's 61 or 71 or later.

 The three objectives established for the MAG in December, with regards to the workshops, were:  increase the number of workshops from developing countries; increase the number of workshops from first-time proposers to encourage new voices; and increase the diversity of platforms, since nearly 90% tend to be panel discussions which was not considered ideal for delegate participation by a few of the MAG members. 

 With these objectives, the process for selection and guidelines and criteria were written.  MAG members have recommended several corrective actions to help achieve these three objectives, and the final document produced by Susan and Fiona included those selections.

 There was a clear preference expressed in the six translated invitations in local languages for developing country proposals, first-time proposals, and an additional hurdle was set in by way of an accompanying note for panel submissions.

 Each of these actually yielded excellent results. 

 Where the developing country workshops is concerned, in the top 60, it's up from 12% in 2014 to 37%, an increase of 200% over the last year.

 This number actually improves to 39% if you go to the top 80, in terms of calculation. 

 Where workshops from first-time proposers are concerned, in the top 60, they're up from 15% in 2014 to 38%, an increase of 150%.  This number decreases very slightly if you go to the top 80.

 Where subthemes are concerned, it's fairly even, but given that 65% of the workshops are in the top 60, and top 80 are from civil society, the leading theme remains Internet and human rights, followed by enhancing multistakeholder cooperation, both in the top 60 and in the top 80.  However, no theme dominates beyond 30%, which is an excellent result again.

 It's only where the stakeholder groups are concerned that we see a variance in favor of civil society proposals, both in the top 60 and 80, vis-a-vis the total proposals received. 

 The civil society forms, I think, about 55% of the total proposals sent in, but it's up to 68% of those who made it in the top 60, and 65%, so that is a positive variance in favor of civil society, but that's probably because of the quality of proposals that were written.

 Finally, very important on format, there is tremendous success, since panels are down to 12 or 14% in the top 40 and 60, roundtables are dominating now with 63% in the top 60 and 58% in the top 80.

 My request, Mr. Chairman, given this, is that the merits-based evaluation process, which does have within itself corrective versions to take care of variances that various MAG members don't score at the same level, actually allows us to take the results all the way up to 80 and only seek intervention in 20.

 It will save us time and it will yield us all the results that we had set ourselves:  Higher number of developing countries, very high number of first-timers, excellent distribution on subthemes, and an excellent distribution on formats.

 The only thing that we are still concerned about is the number of civil society proposals, which dominate at 65.  I'm not opposed to that, because they did submit the highest number of proposals, but it is higher than the percentage.

 So corrective action can be taken in the remaining 20, if we start at 80, bring in non-civil society proposals, and that will bring the number of civil society proposals to 50% of the total 100, and every other objective would have been met.

 So unless there is a real reason to intervene and change the merits-based process, we can actually save ourselves time, reap the rewards of the corrective process starting in December, and start with 81 rather than 61. 

 This is my proposal.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Virat. 

 As you know, I'm always very attentive and flexible in that.  I would like to hear reaction to the proposals starting not at 60 but at 80.

 We have Michael, then Avri, and then I will take a remote participant and then we will continue with Shita. 

 Please, Michael.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you very much. 

 I would strongly oppose changing the procedure which worked so well last year.

 One reason for that is that it's going to look rather arbitrary to the people who suddenly find that they are now not part of the final selection, whereas somebody -- somebody at 79 will be in, somebody at 81 has a very low chance of being in because those last 20 people are in competition with 100 good proposals further down the line.

 And I think that the reason that we're doing the selection the way we are is not to achieve the statistics that Virat is talking about.  It's to incorporate new topics and new people which otherwise will be overlooked.  And if we only allocate 20 spots to bring in those new topics which didn't score so high, often because they were new topics that people were not familiar with, we're going to miss the chance to bring in some very exciting new topics and new people.

 I think in the end, we're not going to save any time if we do what Virat proposes.  We'll just argue twice as hard, perhaps three times as hard, about those remaining 20.

 I also would suggest that we think a little bit about the top 60.  Marilyn made one point, which is that there is some duplication.  I don't think that's a bad thing.  In some cases, we have two really strong proposals on a given topic and they bring different looks at it.  I don't think we need to spend too much time on duplication.

 I do think we need to consider some of the comments that were made in the evaluation process.  If you do a search on the comments, you'll find that the word "flash" appears 108 times.  And that's because many of us ranked proposals quite high but said, There is no way this should be a 90-minute talk.  This is a good, strong 30-minute talk.  We definitely want to do it.

 So I think we need to make sure within those 60 proposals, we don't have a number of proposals where two or three or four of us all strongly suggested a shorter session.

 I think in particular we should avoid giving people 90 minutes to talk about a report that they published a year ago.  There is a number of those proposals this year.  They're important reports, but they don't deserve 90 minutes just to highlight something that's already been widely distributed and isn't even new.

 So I think it is very important we do go and take a look and see if the proposers will be amenable to shortening the length, as that was the recommendation of many of us.

 And the last point, again, several of us wrote extensive comments.  There were some highly ranked proposals which I ranked very highly but there was a lack of balance.  One example was a panel of 12 people criticizing ICANN and nobody from ICANN was invited.  There's other cases where you'll have eight people all saying exactly the same thing, all singing the same song, and nobody from the two or three other perspectives that are important.

 And so, again, I'm not asking that we throw some of these panels out.  I'm just asking how will we make sure that we not only have a balance in proposers, we have a balance in panelists.  This wasn't a problem with most of the proposals but I think a number of us did comment on some of the proposals that needed additional panelists.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  It is my intention to allow comments on 60, seeing which would need to be shortened or merged, if there will be any proposals of that kind.

 Avri, please.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.  I wanted to just bring up a couple of things I had noticed, and one of the things you remarked on was the number -- or somebody remarked on, the number of panels versus the larger formats.  And I think in many cases we found somebody taking a panel with lots of people and giving it a different name.  And in some of those, I think it's reasonable to perhaps make recommendations if they happen to be in the ones that are selected.

 I was very taken with Virat's proposal of the extra 20.  But taking into account what Mike has said, I think it makes sense that in that next 20, they are strong candidates perhaps for moving forward.  But there is perhaps a little bit more give and take in whether something is moved.  In the top 61, there seems to be a presumption, and I think a very good presumption, that those go forward.

 Finally I want to add two things.  On the civil society, I think it is also important to look at how many other groups became partners in putting something together that just because somebody takes the lead in putting in a proposal does not mean that there haven't been other of the stakeholder groups participating.  And so I think that's important.

 But I also very much agree that giving advice on how to improve the workshops and add people and balance speakers and such is a very good thing for us to be doing.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Avri.  I think we already introduced that practice last year when, after selection, MAG members who volunteered were given certain number of workshops.  And they coached the organizers and advised them how to improve the proposal and how to improve the workshop.

 Let me now turn to remote participant.

 >> Okay.  Subi, please go ahead.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair.  With all the power of the words at my command, I submit this to the floor, that we do not review the criteria at this late stage and change the numbers from 60 and take that up to 81.  There are statistics -- and thank you for those excellent in-depth analysis of those statistics.  But then there are lies and then there are non-lies.  Excuse my French. 

 I have been a teacher all my life.  And I believe that grades are not an adequate reflection of either the content or the substance.  In the interest of time and process, I recognize that that is a good way of evaluating things but it is not perfect.  I believe a lot of time rested in the process.  And the review that happens together in this large main hall with all the MAG members contributing is stage two of the evaluation process which builds on the quantitative inputs that we provided to workshops. 

 As somebody from a developing country and an emerging economy, we've seen -- we've come a long way.  And I thank Susan, Fiona, and all the colleagues who have contributed to improving the ratings and evaluation process.

 But I still believe when we look at a cumulative score of 1 to 5 when we have about six or eight parameters, we do end up not giving adequate ratings to either new participants or new topics or diversity.  We do tend to, at least in our heads on occasion, get swayed by excellence in presentation writing, clarity of the proposal, which is not necessarily a guarantee that they are inviting new voices, they are also innovating on formats, or building on innovation.

 So I, therefore, submit and strongly urge that we continue to retain the principles that we posted online and the Chair had initiated this discussion on retaining the methodology of looking at 61 upwards.  And we also look at mergers and possibilities of even those that make the cutoff clearly because I agree with Mike's comments 100%, that we see possibilities of collaboration. 

 And also as a MAG member, I see our goals as mentors.  And I'd be happy to continue to work with proposals to see how we can make that better.  That creates more value for participants.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Subi, for your comments.

 Shita, please.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Shita Laksmi from Hivos.  I would like to seek a clarification on the agenda template sent by the secretariat because the agenda was made based on 90 minutes where we also have flash sessions which is only 15 minutes and birds of a feather which is only 30 minutes. 

 Perhaps if we could allocate as well sessions below 90 minutes, we could have more than 100 sessions.  I don't know.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You are right.  This is just mathematics.  And, indeed, if we will see if the MAG agrees to shorten some of the sessions, we may increase the number of selected workshops from 100 upwards.  That's one point.

 Second point is, as you recall last year, we allowed secretariat to -- discretion of selecting two, three additional workshops because there always are circumstances that need specific attention.  And secretariat was given such an authority, bringing in two, three workshops.

 That also would be my request to the MAG, to continue this practice and allow secretariat some discretion on a very limited number of slots.

 And, thirdly, I would suggest that we may also work on the reserve list which would be a given slot as a result of possible mergers or other deviations that may happen after the meeting.

 So these are just additional elements that I would suggest to consider.

 Juan Alfonso.

 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I don't want to repeat here what I stated in a rather long email that I circulated a few days ago.  I only want to reiterate that I support your proposal.  And either I think that 40% intervention is a bit low, but I think we can begin that.

 I only want to add what -- a suggestion that came yesterday, the possibility of using half of the main sessions, the main sessions of 90 minutes to promote workshops to the main hall in the case of mergers.

 If that is the case, we could only -- we should also examine the first 60 to see if one of those workshops merge with some of the other that are below the 60 could be promoted because I think that even those in the first 60 that will pass to the main hall, it is a promotion for them.

 In this case, I asked yesterday some concept of main sessions that are organized by MAG.  In this case, if -- I suggest that if one of the 60 that are promoted to one of these half main sessions, it could be a joint organization between the proposers of that workshop and the MAG.

 Please, I ask to take this variant in consideration because it doesn't diminish.  I think the workshop proposer will happy to have a wider audience and also incorporating some participants of other workshops of similar topic.

 And I want to reiterate what I said in my email, and Subi just said, that we have to take this initial grading by points as a point of start.  It's a very useful classification, but it is not the end in itself.  Our responsibility is not to automatically grade workshops and select.  Our responsibility is to have an IGF forum that is interesting to everybody because of the topics, because of the speakers, and because of the inclusiveness that everybody feels represented and that everybody can get out of when the forum finishes feeling that this forum is useful for them, for the stakeholder groups, and for everybody.

 In this sense, also, there was a very interesting email circulated by Ana.  I suppose that she could speak about that.  She could voice the concern that one special stakeholder group, government, has a very low representation.

 I think we should pay attention to that, especially bearing in mind that this is the year of the renovation of the IGF.  And we should take special note that this stakeholder group finds that the IGF is useful for government as well, not only for civil society and business and academia.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  If I may ask -- go straight to the point because we're really burning our time on this conversation.

 Mark and then Ana and then Fiona.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  And good morning, everybody.  First of all, just quickly to express support for Mike Nelson's points about ensuring that we maximize opportunities for enriching the program through reformatting and fixing problems of supportable proposals that are deficient in some respects.  And I appreciate your acknowledgment of that in our work today and tomorrow.

 I just have a quick logistical problem.  Is it possible to log in to one's own evaluations?  I tried to do that and I couldn't this morning, so I can remind myself of what I said actually on individual proposals.  Is that not possible anymore?  Because I didn't print it off or anything.

 Secondly, the spreadsheet Chengetai circulated, for me, that only goes -- of evaluation comments, only goes up to about 35.  Is that just a problem on my end?  Or could the spreadsheet of the comments be recirculated, at least for my benefit?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, secretariat, look at that.  Until then, Mike.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Two answers to that question.  The first was that only about 35 MAG members responded.  That's why there is only 35 evaluations.  Are you saying only 35 proposals or are you saying -- within each proposal, you'll have 35 different reviewers.

 If you go to the top, you'll see the number of the proposer -- proposal and you have to find the proposal you want.

 But to find your own comments, you just have to figure out which of those reviewers is you and then keep going back to that.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We can give you your number, if you want.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  You can give me mine.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we can give you one.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just don't give out my number.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, no, no.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ana, please.

 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you and good morning.  Well, I have several comments.  And I hope I will not burn time, but I think I have to highlight these points.

 First of all, I think I have to highlight the problem with governments.  I don't think it's normal that governments are not so involved.  I think it's something that we should think about it because at the end of the day, it will be governments that we are going to decide the future of the IGF.  So we don't -- I think that we have to pay attention to this.

 Another thing that I would like to highlight is the lack of the balance of speakers, is something that I raised, I think, in 80% of the evaluation.  I don't understand why the proposers didn't propose a balance of speakers, a lot of people from civil society and companies and not a mix.  I don't understand.  So I think that we need to improve that a lot.

 On the flash sessions, it's a totally different thing, I think.  So we are talking about sessions that are 15 or 30 minutes.  So the time that we have to allocate, it's totally different.  And I don't know if the logistics is the same as we have to have for the other formats.  I don't think it is.  So I think maybe we have room here to have more sessions.  And I think that's it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  On room allocation, please don't worry about that.  That is a secretarial job.  Our job is to agree or advise that we will have, for instance, ten flash sessions, ten sessions of one hour and remaining 90 minutes.  And then that would be secretariat's job to find the appropriate place and do this thing.

 We would, of course, take that into account.  And the decrease in number -- decrease in time of session would allow additional workshops, especially if that workshop also would have shorter than 90 minutes time slot.

 Fiona and then Xiaodong.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you, Janis.  Just maybe to start with the last comment.  I would agree strongly with the comment that Ana made.  I was quite surprised when reading the 250 plus proposals, the lack of stakeholder diversity represented on all of the proposals, in particular the lack of government participants in the sessions.

 So maybe when we're done with all of this, a suggestion or even a requirement can be made to proposers to make sure that their sessions are actually balanced and have all stakeholders.  But in particular it was surprising the lack of government speakers that are involved in the sessions.

 Why I wanted to take the floor was just to remind participants in the meeting the process we had agreed to last December and then what we worked on for the two months January and February.  You know, Susan, to her credit, did a lot to make all this work. 

 We are actually in the third stage of our evaluation process.  This is something we all talked about.  This is something we all agreed about and spent many phone calls and emails discussing.

 And if you actually look at what's on the IGF Web site and look at what's on the MAG page, it says we are going to take the last five or ten slots and make sure we use those to have balance.  So I would strongly agree with the comments made by Virat and appreciate the statistical analysis. 

 But for the sake of compromise and make sure we can go forward and actually get going, maybe we look at 70 or something or just -- but I think it would be important that we actually just move forward and go forward. 

 I would suggest to people that if these are concerns that you have for next time, make sure you have this conversation when you are developing the new criteria.  After the fact establishing quotas is not particularly transparent.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Xiaodong?

 >>XIAODONG LEE:  This is Xiaodong Lee speaking.  I'm very sorry for absence for last day's meeting, but I'm very like to catch up the discussion for today.

 So I have two comments.

 So if I review the schedule for the four days meeting, I think most of meeting is 90 minutes, so I strongly suggest maybe to allocate more time slot for maybe one hour.  It should okay to increase the time slot for more workshops to increase the presence for different communities for their proposals.  So I think maybe we can increase from 100 to 120 or 130.

 So another comment is for the diversity issues.

 If you look at the top 60 by stakeholder groups, you know, we have multistakeholder to cover the government, private sector, technical community, and civil society, but now there is lack of representation from technical community and government and private sector.  A lot of discussion from civil society.

 I think it's good for civil society to give more presence in the forum, but I strongly suggest we need to discuss the -- to balance the multistakeholder to -- for -- I mean, balance the proposals from different stakeholders.

 And we know that we have a lot of discussion about the policy issues, but we need also to think about how to find a technical solution.  We need to hear more voice from the technical community and academia.  It should be better for us to further thinking about a solution.

 And another diversity issue is that now I think -- I saw the percentage from developing countries.  I think it's good.  To about 40%.  But I strongly suggest to increase the presence for developing countries.  And I'm not sure what's the percentage for different regions and different Internet users, so maybe we also need to know how many proposals are from different regions.  Especially for Asia-Pacific.  I think that we also need to strongly think about how many proposals are from the developing countries, especially for some big countries from -- that have a lot of users.  We need to know more about what happened and to hear more voice from this community.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Cheryl?

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I will be brief.  I just wanted to come in and support the comments made by both Ana and Fiona with respect to the low level of government participation, but also Fiona's comment on process I think is really important that we understand. 

 There was a group that worked very, very hard and we did decide on the process and we are now at the stage we're in.

 I've heard the word "problem" used a couple of times with respect to the top 60, and I'm having a little bit of trouble digesting that because I think, you know, we should be praising these top 60 proposals for scoring so highly.  You know, it was a -- we went and we had these criteria.  We've seen a huge increase in what we wanted to increase:  Participation by developing countries, new first-time proposers, and some of the other criteria we set forward.  And so I think rather than looking for problems with those, you know, we should focus on ones that can be fixed and can also move that forward.

 I think with respect to mergers, very quickly as well, we definitely need some more guidance on the merger process, just based on my involvement in trying to help merge two workshops last year.  That didn't work.  So I think we need to understand why it is we want to merge two before we move forward with that, so that we understand what criteria it is we're trying to achieve.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 

 May I suggest that we stop commenting or provide comments of a general nature but we go on with the selection process?

 I heard clearly -- and this is, I think, uncontested understanding -- that we need to search for balance and balance on a number of issues.  The participation of different stakeholder groups.  We heard technical community is underrepresented.  We heard governments are underrepresented.

 Equally, we have certain dis-balance on themes, and we may want to bring -- or improve, let's say, ratio of our subthemes that we have, and the way how we should proceed in this respect is as follows.

 So now we would start reviewing all 60, listening to those MAG members who have something to suggest in relation to the first 60, whether a decrease in time or something.

 I would like also to ask you, do not touch in every of those 60 proposals the question of participants who will be speaking.  All that should be reviewed and I would advise that MAG members would coach all the workshop proponents and would -- we would provide clear guidance that the multistakeholder representation should be ensured by all means.  So that would allow us just to look on length and see which of the proposed 60 workshops would be 90, 60, 30 minutes.

 After that, we would look at the next 10, going -- just taking from 61 to 70, and seeing whether there are any objections to add those in. 

 And after that, we would go -- we would start balancing as -- on stakeholder groups, and I would like to ask MAG members to be ready to make very concrete proposals in relationship of those underrepresented either stakeholder groups or subthemes, that we can -- that we can examine those proposals. 

 And of course we need not to see -- I mean, we need not to avoid or be afraid to pull up some which is scored very low, provided that the proposal is really unique.  Either unique in terms of theme or unique in other way of suggesting -- according to our criteria.

 At the same time, most probably this balancing act, we should look at those proposals that have been reasonably high scored as well.

 So by saying this, I would like to really engage in substantive discussion and would not like to prolong general comments, because we will -- we heard most of what we need to look at, and I think we should proceed with the real scoring.  Or real selection.

 Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I don't want to burn up any more time but I do wish to ask for a clear set of objectives that we are now setting ourselves up, because the exercise can be a solution in search of a problem.

 At this time, based on the figures that have been put up by the secretariat, the technical communities have put in a total of 12%, and at 80, they are at 12%.

 The private sector is at 10%.  They've put in 12% of the total proposals.

 The government is actually higher.  The government only put in 4% of the total proposals.  They have 5% in the top 80.

 IGOs are slightly lower.  They had 6.7%, but they are in at 5%.

 So if we're now saying that we don't have diversity, which is at complete odds with all the charts that are being displayed, and we don't have enough newcomers, which is also at odds with the charts that are being displayed, and we don't have developing countries, which is also at odds with all the charts that have been displayed, then we better get ourselves a new set of objectives before we start this.

 I'm going to -- I'm going to -- we should start, no problem, but I think we should have clear two or three objectives now, because the objectives that have been stated about new voices wouldn't get in or that there isn't enough diversity of themes or that there isn't enough new respondents, that is not true based on the evidence that the secretariat has put up.

 So if we can just agree on two or three things that we want to achieve, we can start at 61 and go there, but I just want to make sure that we have a new set of specific objectives, which are different from the ones that we set ourselves in December, because those have been achieved in these numbers.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I'm glad Virat brought this up.

 The thing that really concerned me was that we have some very strong proposals that are below the 100 cutoff, with brand-new ideas, things that we've never had an IGF session about, and for whatever reason, they did not get well-reviewed, often because these people who proposed it are not well-known to us.

 So I think while you're right, we've done a great job -- better than ever before -- of meeting many of our criteria, the one thing that really is important, to me at least, is bringing new ideas to the discussion.

 The other thing that's very important is more government participation.  And not government proposals; government panelists.

 And again, if you look at many of the sessions that I ranked very highly that other people did not, they were ones that had a number of government propose- -- panelists.  And so I think those are two criteria I'd like to see.

 The other thing I'd remind people is, if -- in our criteria that were published, we said that we would look for about 10 proposals that were below the cutoff line.  If we make the cutoff line at 80, we are now telling the people between 80 and 100 that their chances of getting accepted are less than 50%.

 So I think we have to look at the -- at the panel- -- the sessions between 60 and 100 and then figure out which of those are redundant and not necessary, so that we can bring up those 10 proposals that are brand-new ideas, things we've never seen before.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Look, there is no ideal solution to that, and I think that we should not also look purely mathematically.  All we do, we are managing perceptions, and if perception is that government representation or government proposed workshops are not enough, no one will seek information how many or -- in percentage terms from total proposals were proposed by governments.

 They will say governments were underrepresented and the same will apply for every other multistakeholder -- or stakeholder group.  That's one.  The same applies for themes.

 I fully appreciate that there are objective criteria, but still we need to introduce some subjectivity because that is our job.  We need to seek for a balance, and balance is not objective.  Balance is always subjective.  And so let us go down to work and then we will see.  We can review this theoretical discussion once we have maybe 90 workshops agreed, and then see whether the balance is right or not, and then take this discussion further.

 But I would encourage to really go down to real decision-making now.

 Susan?

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair. 

 I understand the rationale of accepting the first 60 and just discussing the time, the time slots, but I'd just like to make a point that Avri made earlier, that a number of the top 60 proposals are what I would -- I would say are a panel in disguise.  And that's kind of my own notes, my own notetaking, when I was going through the grading.

 So there are a number of proposals that were submitted in formats different than panels but are, in -- in essence, seem to be panel sessions.

 So I would just ask that if we could have a bit of flexibility to discuss some of these sessions which are essentially panels but are proposed as roundtables, if we could just take -- keep that in mind.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 Can we go to the discussion?  Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Just one quick practical point, which is:  Half of the membership of MAG is from governments, so if they can help us recruit the missing government participants in these panels, roundtables, or what have you, that might be helpful as a later step and not worry about it now.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  It's exactly what I was saying.  Don't worry about speakers now.  We will worry about once -- for those who will be selected.

 Can we move on?

 Xiaodong?  Can we?

 >>XIAODONG LEE:  Just one -- one minute comment.  I think maybe we can use a very simple way.  We can review how many proposals from different communities and maybe we can just review the maybe top 15 or top 20 of proposals from different communities and then give some flexible number for different communities to cover the balance issues.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So let's go down to the work.

 Sixty- -- sixty- -- top 60.  Please, any comments on top 60 related to length, related to format of proposals.  Very concrete. 

 And please, when you intervene, mention the title and the number, that we can -- all of us could go quickly to the proposal. 

 And Secretariat, I would like you to follow the discussion and scroll up and down the screen that we have also those proposals on the screen.

 Juan Alfonso, please.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 

 My intervention is to -- sort of an example of what I think we should do right now. 

 If you see the Number 3 in that list, that is Workshop 97, that is the third highest scorer, "How to Bridge the Global Internet Economy Divide," and it's proposed just as a -- I think as a flash thing.  This is one of the workshops that I think that we could promote to the main session.  Many persons here have talked about the importance of Internet economy, and the name of this workshop, I think it could be promoted and also enhanced with some other that we can find in the -- in the 60, the first 60, that also deals in this. 

 I check out, because I have it here, I have to move it all up and down, and of course we can do this collectively, but this is a proposal.  This -- we can get one of the 90-minute slots of the main sessions and move that there and join with that some other that are in the same topic.  If you read down -- well, now I don't find it.  It's something...

 Okay.  Well, anyway, that's a concrete proposal.  And we can do that with any of these first 60 that it has a real overarching topic, and we can promote it. 

 I like the word "promotion" because this is not merging.  This is promoting this workshop to a higher category in the main hall, which gives it even more time, and with the collaboration of some other panelists or proposals of some other work.

 I suggest to do this exercise.  And see, of course nothing of this will be written in stone.  We could, at the end, go back if we feel that there's another better line of action, but I suggest this.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you. 

 Any reaction to the proposal? 

 Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I have a practical question in terms of:  How does one do this promotion? 

 The person that put it together thought of it as a flash.  That's the concept we had.  Are we saying that we're going to somehow take it over and turn it into a session?

 I mean, it's a form of micromanaging the session that I don't understand exactly how we would do.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso, could you explain how -- what you mean?

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yesterday -- and you can excuse me because I'm new in this, but yesterday I asked about the -- what is the qualities of main sessions and I was told that main sessions are organized by MAG.

 I think that what you said is exactly what I mean.  I think that we -- it's not that we take over, but in conjunction with the proposal and with other proposers of similar topics of workshop, to agree between all in a format with more time.  I'm talking about 90-minute slots.  Maybe it could be a combination of a panel with audience participation.  I don't know.  We can do that.  That's why we're here. 

 I think that when the chairman asked us to coach, we have to do it anyway, even with accepted workshops as they already are.  But in this case that we are promoting it, I think that we can engage with them and in a mutual agreement way find the way of this to do it.

 As Mike Nelson said to promoting new ideas and enrich discussion and in the end to make the forum more interesting for everybody.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for this explanation.  I understand what you're saying.  You're saying this would be a workshop or flash session that could contribute to the main session provided that we will decide to have Internet economy as one of the main themes for the main session.  But I don't think you would like to delete this from the list of flash sessions as such.  That would be rather penalizing than promoting them.

 But I see -- I hear what you say.  And if we will decide to have this topic in the main session, we certainly would ask proponents of this flash session to contribute to the main session.

 Okay.  Further comments?  Not on this topic any longer but on new things.  Marilyn, please, and then Michael and then Hossam.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks, Chair.  I'm having difficulty open the workshop proposal.  I can only open about 70 of them.  My technical question to the secretariat, I think others may be having that problem as well.  But I just wanted to make a comment, perhaps when we run into a situation like the one we just did, we can have a category of parking something and coming back to it.  Particularly on the flash sessions, since they're going to take up smaller slices of time, if we could quickly go through those and see if we have any issues about them, perhaps that would also be a way to expedite this.

 But I want to repeat something that Avri said.  If a proposer -- and this one did -- identified a flash session, I would be a little bit reluctant for the MAG to actually make significant changes into a larger session since we have many sessions that we want to reduce from 90 minutes to 60 or even 30.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn, I was -- I was basing my calculations on the secretariat's report.  The secretariat during the last conference call said if we accept all open forum proposals and best practice streams, we had 91 slots available.  I take it that includes already a calculation, whether that is a flash or not flash or whatnot.

 So we added -- we changed the structure of the meeting.  We added ten additional.  So one disappeared in translation for the discretion of secretariat.  So we are talking about 100.

 So I assume that proposed flash sessions are calculated in that hundred.  If not, then secretariat will correct us.

 So, therefore, our task is now to see whether sessions among first 60 which were proposed as 90-minute sessions would deserve those 90 minutes according to your opinion or should we propose to diminish the time allocated for that and turn it in a shorter session.  So with that in mind, the floor is open for proposals.

 Michael.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just to close on this idea of promoting sessions, I do think there are at least two proposals in the top 60 that could be promoted, but they're already 90-minute proposals.  And I think we should talk about that later after we've collected a list of ones that we think might be useful.

 I would oppose taking a flash session which we ranked very highly partly because it is a flash session and would only take 30 minutes.  But we should consider Juan's proposal when we get to that stage.

 The session I was particularly interested in was one on encryption.  And I think that was a hot topic.  It was ranked 25th.  It is Proposal Number 53.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, Chengetai, please.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  About the calculation of the flash sessions, et cetera, we did not calculate the flash sessions.  Because, for example, in the top 60, there's two flash sessions.  So we just left it as the leeway because it's kind of difficult to calculate "possible" with flashes.  But it doesn't make that much difference.  It just gives us the leeway of one.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, thank you.  So we have now a full picture.

 Still, that does not really change the hundred that we would adopt for.

 Hossam, please.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  I reiterate what Marilyn said because we are not able to view the rest of the proposal descriptions.  If there is a possibility to help us on that, this would be great. 

 Now, as an example, I don't know, there is a Proposal Number 132 which is, Transnational due process, a case study in multistakeholder cooperation.  It is to present Internet Jurisdiction Project.  So it's mainly a representation of that project and discussion about it.  And I think it could take less than 90 minutes.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So 132, which place it has?

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  20, something like that.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  28.  Yeah, 28.  Opinion of others?  In the meantime, can the secretariat fix the technical problem?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The problem is that you want to view the workshop proposals.  We can do two things.  First of all, we can resend out the PDF of the workshop proposals, if that might help.  And you want it to be available on the Web site as well?  Correct.  So we'll do those two things.  I mean, that's...

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So proposal is to cut the time for 132 from 90 minutes to one hour or 30 minutes?  One hour.  Objections?  I hope that secretariat is taking note on that.  Okay.  Thank you.  Decided.

 Remote participant?

 >> Subi, are you here?  Please, go ahead.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It seems we have a technical problem with Subi as well. 

 Any further comments on first 60 highest score proposals?  Hossam?  Any further comments on this?  I see none.

 Michael?

 >> HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Just to see the proposals because we don't have them.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I understood from the general conversation that MAG members have a very good idea which proposals from 60 should be shortened and for the moment, we heard only one proposal. 

 Are there any other workshops in opinion of MAG should be shortened?  Is Subi now available?

 >> Let's see.  Subi?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, doesn't work.

 >> Subi, you have the floor if you can unmute yourself.

 >> It seems we have a problem with Subi.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I hope not with her but with the connection.

 [ Laughter ]

 >> Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If we do not have further comments on 60, I assume we could move to the next -- to the next ten which is 61 to 70 highest score.

 So if we look at those ten, 61 to 70, do we have any comments on those?  Mark.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  Sorry, it's not a comment.  It's just on process.  I mean, can we make sure -- can we go through them one by one?  Part of the problem with the first exercise with regard to the top 60 is I couldn't really respond because I would have to go through each one actually.  I wasn't prepared really for this morning to be able to comment on any of the 60.  I just assumed we were going to go through them one by one, not with the risk of endless debate on any individual one but quickly one by one so we can look at the evaluation comments and then react and also remind ourselves if we had proposed a shortening reformatting and so on.  That was the problem with the first 60 for me in terms of process.

 As we're now onto the next ten -- am I right in thinking that we're looking at proposal 23?  Is that right?  Or am I totally wrong?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  According to my table, that was circulated yesterday by Chengetai, Number 61 is the right to protect online, 159.

 Look, I think that there is no point of going through one by one of top 60.  That was the meaning on that, not to spend time on that, unless there are any specific proposals related to top 60.  So then we would discuss those proposals. 

 If we're not ready yet, maybe we could proceed with those who are now beyond 60, 61 and onwards, and then revisit first 60 in the afternoon very quickly hoping that then we would be prepared for that.  We can do -- we can do that way.

 And actually 60 -- 61st is not the right to protect online but tech related, gender violence and freedom of expression.

 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Chairman, can I give a proposal?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.

 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  May I suggest a way?  We are counting with a hundred slots at least.  So I think that -- I agree with you that this should be an iterative process.  So -- because what we're looking now, the basis solution is that the first hundred is the first that's going to be there.  So I think we should begin in a 101 going down to see if something below, as Mike Nelson said, that deserves to be -- to move to the hundred and then we will have to look in the hundred, in the last 40, which one to substitute by this one.  I think -- because otherwise how can we take out something from the first hundred if we don't know if it deserves to be substituted by somebody?  That's a way.  We could do it also cleaning slots from the first hundred, then try to fill it from the other one.

 But maybe to go to the first that are out to see if there's some reason to consider to get in, whether there is a stakeholder, whether there is a new idea, whether it is a new format, or something.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This is what we will be doing.  But after we would examine the first 60 to 70.  So that would give us 30 additional slots.

 Then we would start talking about which stakeholder group, which theme, which topic has not been covered and would identify them.  Put them on the list.  And then once we would examine all those questions, we would see how many of those proposals we have. 

 And if we would have, for instance, 30, we would be fine.  If we would have 20, then we would take those 20 and then add ten highest scores from the list and then, again, looking for the balance all the time.  This is my proposal based on what we discussed about an hour.

 Lynn, are you in agreement?

 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I'm in agreement, yes.  And I was actually going to make one suggested refinement for the first 60 proposals, as if the MAG is actually going to coach those 60 proposals, perhaps we can identify the coaches for those, have the coaches go away and look at the proposals which they are going to coach, and take any further refinements there so we don't have to tie up the full MAG with those 60. 

 So, again, I was just trying to carve out a little bit of time from there, but I do support your approach.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Once we have those selected workshops, then MAG members would volunteer which particular workshops they would like to take and contact proponents and do refinement of that.

 These refinements should be based on what we discuss here:  Multistakeholder participation, plurality of opinions, different perspectives, different geographic representation, and so on.  And then based on that, this advice would be given.  Whether the proponents would take the advice or not, that, of course, is a different story.

 Xiaodong, please.

 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I support the Chairman's suggestion.  I just want to give some numbers for the top 60, should it be useful for us to consider the next 40.  In the top 60, there are about 41 from civil society, three from the government and intergovernmental, none from technical community, and seven from private sector. 

 If you consider that for the top 60, I mean, the reviewers give very good score for the 60 proposals.  We don't need to review one by one.  We waste time.

 So for the rest 40 time slots, I stress we can give more (indiscernible) to other communities.  That's what I suggest as the Chairman's suggestion.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant.  I assume that's Subi.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  No.  It's Ginger actually.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Ginger, please go ahead.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Hello.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yeah.  We can hear, Ginger.  Please go ahead.

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Oh, thank you very much. 

 First of all, I -- just because it's the first time I'm taking the floor, I would like to thank everyone for the efforts for remote participation.  In no way do my recommendations or requests for improvement imply that we are not doing the best we can.  We're just trying to improve.  So thank you very much, everyone.

 I -- it would help me very much, because unfortunately I did not save my notes before I submitted them, so if I could see my own evaluation sheet, I don't know if it's at all possible to make that available because that would really help me see how I evaluated them and which ones I noted specifically for inclusion if they were missed.

 As we move forward to try to analyze which ones we might add, I would like to really emphasize my agreement with the chair that we look closely at topics.  If we are missing specific topics that should have been included and didn't make it because of some point about the workshop, we could choose them by topic and mentor them to include missing areas for topics.

 And I also, with the last speaker, agree that we could also look at government proposals, and especially if they deal with topics that are not being dealt with in other areas.

 For instance, there's a -- one I know that was on taxation and it's something that is not dealt with in any of the others.  If there are topics we need to deal with, I would like to see that we include those materials.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Ginger.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  We have another one.  Subi's waiting, so perhaps we could do it now.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Thank you, Ginger.  And please, when the time comes, don't hesitate to make your proposals on which workshops should be considered for inclusion, those which are not scored in top hundred.  Subi, please.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair. 

 Just very quickly, on what would be the modalities, because last year we went -- when we looked at top 60 as well as the other workshops, when we're looking at renewal or revival, we -- Chengetai read out the numbers and we were supposed to very quickly respond and say whether anybody had a comment about that or not, so I just wanted to understand the modalities of making that intervention on line remotely.

 And second, on the two proposals by Juan and Hossam on Workshop Number 132, the one that ranked third, there's also a very successful roundtable that was done on human rights, so I don't know if -- we see about four -- at least four good proposals on the document, and therefore, good proposals on digital economy. 

 In case we're looking at making time -- and we see many similar threads there -- are we looking at the possibility of a roundtable for these four flash sessions that could come together and create more space?  Because that is promoting them and that is also acknowledging the fact that they're well-written proposals. 

 Two short submissions there.  Thank you.  And a question.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 I think we should not try to modify the nature of proposals and only if -- if there are two very similar proposals addressing the same theme with the same objective, so then our proposal would be to merge them.  But if these are different then, we should not do it, in our view. 

 Fiona, please, you have a proposal?

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Janis.

 So if I've understood correctly, we've had a conversation about the top 60 and we're looking at 61 through 70 and can you just confirm that starts with Number 159, "The Right to Protest On Line"?  Is that correct?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  Actually that starts with 196, "Tech-Related Gender Violence and Freedom of Expression."

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Gotcha.  Okay.  So if I'm looking at the next 10, I would suggest that Number 196, "Tech-Related Gender Violence," as well as 253 -- no, no, sorry, the one about accessibility which I now can't find.  253.  Yeah.  Both of those deserve, I think, a conversation because they're both different topics and I don't think well-represented, so that would be my recommendation is we consider those two.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Your recommendation is that we consider those positively.

 Okay.  So shall we look at 196?  Any objection for retaining -- for retaining this?  Any comments?  Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Not on this one, but I have a different point.

 I think it was mentioned that technical communities are not in the top 60.  Actually, that chart is wrong.  If I could just ask the -- if I could just ask them to bring the chart back up, we should be careful --

 Not this one.  The other one.

 This one is -- there is something wrong with this chart, because -- (audio issues) -- technical communities contribute 15% of these proposals, so I don't know why that thing is not showing up.  It's showing up in five colors but actually it should be six.  So there is -- so we should be careful.  This graphic is slightly off.  There's something -- I can't quite tell.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  If you look at the chart that you put next to it --

 >> Yeah.  So if you look at the table to the left there, you have one category, being the non-selected.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >> Yeah.  So that one just follow with the top 100, but it has a zero here and that's why you have a zero percent there, for example.  Because you have technical community represented there at 15%.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: -- technical community is there is 15%.  I'm sorry, I thought there was a comment made that technical community was zero.

 >> Oh, no, no, no.  It was there.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yeah.  So that was one.

 So it is there.  But my comment about moving ahead is sort of rather than looking at proposals, is it possible to look at themes that -- or subthemes that we think are underrepresented? 

 Because if we're going to -- it's going to get very subjective if we're going to look at individual proposals to move up.  We should really try and concentrate on subthemes that we think are underrepresented, to bring in proposals in that theme, because then they can compete with each other, rather than --

 There should be an objective criteria of how we are picking stuff that we want to bring up rather than a proposal that we like, because all we have in front of us right now is a one-liner for us to respond and say "No objection" or "Objection."  We have to go back to the full proposal then and read that.  So that's -- I just want to be careful about the fact that we are not putting up proposals which are of individual liking but -- rather than subthemes that we think are underrepresented in the discussion.

 Unfortunately, for that, the subthemes are actually very well represented.  Almost all of them are represented.

 So I just wanted to bring our attention back on a subjective criteria for bringing in what we think is missing before we proceed proposal by proposal.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks, Chair.  Marilyn Cade.

 Let me build on that.

 I think -- and I think it also is in line with at least one of the workshops that Fiona Alexander mentioned.

 There's a number of workshops lower than 61 or 80 that focus on gender participation, and I think that actually I'd like to look at inclusiveness of gender -- those gender workshops, even if they needed to be merged.

 The other thing I'll comment on is, participation at the local and national and regional levels, not just by -- through the IGF initiatives, I think also deserves a bit of a look as something that may be missing.

 And I say that because I find, in my work with developing countries, both businesses and governments, that they have very strong interest in what is going on at the national and local level.

 So those are two ideas that build on the idea that was just mentioned as maybe we could identify a couple of thematic gaps -- "theme" may be the wrong term to use right now, but issue gaps -- identify then some workshops further down and see if it's worth trying to merge them, to move them up into the slots.

 So gender inclusion, let me be clear.  Inclusion of women and -- sorry, men -- and secondly, local and national activities, not just the initiatives.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I'm hoping that MAG members will -- based on that, will make those proposals.  And this is how it should work. 

 So we go now from 61 to 70, seeing if we can agree to include those 10 on the list, and then -- and then we go either by topics or by stakeholder groups and pull up -- or pull out from the list those that MAG members think need to be considered and put them on the potential inclusion list, and then we see how many of those MAG members will identify.  And I assume that all MAG members have looked and have come prepared to the meeting with a very clear idea which workshops need to be approved and pulled up and -- or discussed or should be discarded and so on.

 So I really rely on your knowledge and on your opinion, because this is not a secretariat-driven process, it is not a chair-driven process, it's a MAG member-driven process, please.  So -- and with that in mind, we have a remote participant.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi, please go ahead.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair.

 A couple of interventions.

 I support, at the outset reviewing the proposals for the workshop that Fiona just mentioned on gender.  I think it's a very good proposal and it's just below the cutoff mark.  It can be reviewed. 

 I also disagree with the approach that was just outlined which says we should go thematically.  I believe all grading processes are subjective.  I do feel a greater sense of comfort if we go by number, where we're not necessarily supposed to comment on each workshop, only if a MAG member believes that the workshop is falling below the 60 mark.  If there is a particular workshop that needs to be revised and for the reasons stated, we can all look at it collectively.  I don't think that means we're doing a review of all the workshops and that makes the proposal review process subjective.  I think it's the other way around.  And when we're trying to do a balance of things, I find that more artificial because it's a reflection of the interest of the community, the number of proposals that are made under a particular topic. 

 So two suggestions.  I support if we go by number, and in case we feel that there's a workshop that can be reviewed or revised, that is looked at and one supporting Fiona's proposal workshop to be reviewed.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Subi.

 Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I agree with Subi.  I think it's impossible at this point to decide, "Okay, here are five themes that are underrepresented" because we won't even agree on what the theme is and how to define it.  We just have to get in here and start going through and saying, "This one's worthy, this one's worthy, this one's worthy."  And let me do that.

 I want to also agree with Fiona and Subi.  I thought Proposal Number 169 on gender violence and revenge porn was outstanding.  It was a new fresh way of looking at it.

 I also thought that Proposal Number 147, which was ranked 63rd, on "A Network of Virtual Working Spaces for Internet Governance" is also new, very practical, it's something we're obviously struggling with right here as we try to build a virtual space that Subi and Ginger can use. 

 And I would also like to support -- what was the other one within this?

 Number 178 is "Beyond the Tipping Point:  Safer Internet Day in the Global South."  And this is not a normal format.  I think it would be an interesting -- because it's a breakout session.  It's a discussion group.  It's exactly the kind of thing that you can't get from just watching a panel discussion.  It's the kind of thing that only can happen at an IGF. 

 And so those are three examples for me of things that are unique and new.

 I'd also like to point out, I guess it's -- let's see -- Number 70, which is ranked 75th, is called "Death and the Internet:  Managing Digital Legacies."  I know that's in the next block of 10, but it's one that I would like to see promote -- included in the process.

 And if you would allow me, there is another session in the top 60 which I think at least four of us thought could be shortened to a flash session or a -- at least a 60-minute session, and that was the session on African rights.

 The reason we weren't able to respond immediately to your request for flash sessions is we didn't want to stand up and say, "I think."  We wanted to be able to look at everybody else's comments.

 So Session 96, at least four of us thought that that was not a large enough topic, a large enough focus.  It was focused on one particular project, and I would propose that Number 96 be considered for a 60-minute session.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  This is exactly what I think we should do, like the proposal by Michael. 

 So Proposal 90 -- Session 96, Number -- Number 37 -- or scored in 36th place.  Sorry.  36th place.  African Internet rights.

 The proposal is to lower it -- I mean, shorten it to 60 minutes.  Any objections?

 Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but you said "Any objections."  We have to go read out the proposal.

 This is a really -- I -- you have to give us time, then.  We can't -- I mean, five proposals were just named.  I can name another five and then we'll have 30 proposals.  People can't just put up their hands.  They have to go read up each proposal.  So --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So can we get the proposal on the screen?  Would that help?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yeah, because that -- I mean, we can't -- I mean, it's just an exercise in futility, if you're asking for --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we get the Proposal Workshop Number 96 on the screen?

 Mark?

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks very much, Chair.

 Yes, 96, if you -- for MAG colleagues, you'll see my comment at Number 25, exactly in line with Mike Nelson. 

 This is extremely valuable, but a 60-minute session is the right time allocation.

 I also suggested that the declaration be circulated as a document to inform prospective IGF attendees beforehand and that there be a room document.

 I have a proposal on 196 but do you want to do that separately?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah, we will do separately 196.

 Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  On 96, the one we're talking about, this has been very much a subject in Africa this year, this declaration, and I think it would be a pity to, you know, take away 30 minutes of conversation on it.  I really just don't see the value in shortening it by 30 minutes.  This has been a very large conversation, it's a very ongoing discussion in Africa, and for us to sort of say it doesn't merit a full 90 minutes just seems difficult to me.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Jac?

 >>JAC SM KEE:  I just wanted to support what Avri was saying as well.  It is quite a big and important topic and it actually isn't quite as narrow as it was -- that it, I guess, appears to be. 

 And the other thing also is just a reminder that the PDF was sent and circulated in the list with all of the workshop proposals, that maybe we can just go back to the list and pull it out.  It will really help just linking through what we're discussing here and reading the full proposals as well, so that it doesn't just appear as titles.

 And the other thing is to also support Subi's comment, in that I think subthemes is not the best way to really go forward, because a lot of things get mushed into subthemes and sometimes subthemes is a little bit of a subjective thing in which -- which workshop proposal you choose to be slotting under.  And so I think looking at it in terms of the topic is much more precise in that sense, and in -- with that, I will support the one on gender and also the one on accessibility and disabilities, but I would just go through it one by one for now.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Chengetai has information, please.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I just resent the PDF so you have it.  I sent it about 10, 15 minutes ago.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is to respond to Avri.  I fully agree that talking about Africa is incredibly important.  My concern here is about how we handle proposals that are just about one project and one group of people.  There's a lot of proposals that were in that category, and most of them I was recommending be as flash sessions.  I do think the declaration is important, but it was also broadly discussed in Istanbul.  There was a booth set up to talk about it.  It was a widely discussed topic.

 So the question we have to ask is whether there should be 90 minutes devoted to one particular project and to look at the progress made on that project in one year.  I'm happy to take the other alternative which would be to say to the organizers:  Is there a way to broaden this proposal so it's not just about the declaration?  And it is not just people promoting one particular thing.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we are still on 96. 

 Cheryl?

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  I support Avri's proposal to leave it at the 90 minutes.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, thank you.  I think we should then stay with 90 minutes because it seems there is no consensus on shortening of that.  Can we agree on that?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Can we ask them to do something more than just focus on the declaration?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We can ask to increase the scope of the conversation on the topic.  I hope the secretariat is taking notes on what we decide here.

 Okay.  Any other comments on top 60?  Marilyn, no.

 Then shall we go 196?  Workshop 196.

 Fiona, you suggested that we need to discuss it.  Could you start the discussion?

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Sure.  I just thought it was interesting.  I think someone else already commented on this.  I think it was Mike.  This is an interesting and new topic, and I thought it was one that merited inclusion in the process.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any other comments on 196?  Mark.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  Well, yes, I agree, I scored it highly.  And it's invaluable to have this proposal included in the program.

 You will see from my comment that I determined a linkage to the best practice forum on encountering abuse against women online.  As this proposal is based around research undertaken by UFBA and Internet Lab, I was unique in suggesting that actually we reduce this time allowance in order to have this proposal reformatted as an input into the best practice forum.  So that I suggested a 30-minute flash session for UFBA and Internet Lab to present their research and then it's an input into the best practice forum.  So we retain it but also we ensure that there's time freed up for other proposals that are going to be more challenging and meriting full 90-minute sessions.  That was my suggestion.

 I see from the comments it was unique.  But I do see one or two other comments saying that the aim of the session was not clearly identified.  But as I say, I think it should be in the program.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 Marilyn?

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

 I support Mark's comments.  But I need to be clear that I also -- and all of the proposals to present research suggested that they become flash sessions or that they be shortened in length because research -- the time will be taken up to present research.  It's valid.  I do think it feeds into the work of the dynamic coalition.  So I'd like to see it shortened but retained.

 And I do think given the topic that's being covered, a flash session of 30 minutes or a session of 60 minutes seems more suitable.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Cheryl?

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  I support including it and perhaps we can figure out later timing in terms of working with the organizers.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jac?

 >> JAC KEE:  I support inclusion as well.  I think that what actually what would help this session is the invitation of private secretor stakeholders that they intimated at the bottom that they would like to do.  That would actually turn it into a conversation rather than just a presentation of research.  In fact, there are four research that have been identified, rather than two.  So I would say 60 minutes.  And yes to linking it with the BPF work.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We have then consensus that this should be included, 196 should be included, shortening to 60-minute session, and linking it to best practice forum on the topic. 

 Shall we move to the next one, 126?  Marilyn?  No.

 126, can we put it on the screen?  "Can Internet rights and access goals be reconciled?"

 Any comments?  Michael.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is a little bit of process.  But last year what was so successful was to actually see which ones at least one of us was willing to speak up for.  This was one of the ones that I'm not willing to speak up for.  Maybe the silence means there's no need to do it.  I think just asking which of these top ten people want to speak up for should be sufficient.  I just want to avoid being in a situation where silence was consent and then later on we have to knock out something to find room for a really good proposal.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So we will be looking for a sponsor of every proposal but with understanding that that sponsor would not have vested interest in the proposal.

 [ Laughter ]

 Fiona and then Mark.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yeah.  It would just be helpful at least for me -- I don't know for others -- to get some clarification.  So my understanding of where we started and what we're doing, so we spent many months developing an elaborate process to review workshops at which we're not willing to fully accept the results of, which, you know, that's fine.  That's where the group is. 

 So we've taken the first 60.  Now we are taking the next ten and saying:  Are they okay to include?  And then we have 30 more slots at which point you're going to ask everyone in the MAG to propose the five or ten that they want. 

 If that's what we are doing, why don't we just admit clearly that's what we are doing, which is fine.  I have no problem with that. 

 But I would like to clearly understand what the exercise is because if the question is:  Do we accept the next ten so now we got to 70?  We have 30 slots left.  Perhaps the next step then is for MAG members to take the lunch break and to come back from the lunch break and before that send on the list the five or ten workshops they think we should all be talking about.  Then we wouldn't have to go through these one by one.  We could clearly have a composite list of everyone's favorite or most focused or whatever criteria you think we are missing so we have a composite of what we're looking at. 

 Because I feel like we keep going back and forth between different approaches.  And I think just being clear with what we are doing would be useful, at least for me.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Let me reiterate what I said before starting this -- this part of the exercise, that we would -- based on our general exchange, we had a suggestion to automatically accept 80.  So I proposed compromise 70, which is not really automatic but quasi-automatic.  And this is what we are trying to do. 

 After that -- and I hope we will conclude this exercise by 1:00.

 After that, we will have two hours of lunch during which MAG members will review their grades and evaluations.  And we would talk about underrepresented issues, either that is underrepresented governmental or thematic or subthematic proposals.

 And we would listen to proposals coming out from MAG on different identified dis-balances.  We would look through the proposals, and we would constitute the possible inclusion list only on those identified categories.

 And we will see how long this list will be, whether that list will be 10 or 15 or 20 or 30.  And then based on that, we would decide how to proceed further.  And with that, we would try to correct those apparent or perceived dis-balances that we have now when we see that governments are underrepresented, that the technical community might be underrepresented, that some themes might be underrepresented.

 So, that will be -- that is what we will start after lunch because I see we need some lead time in that.  Also, secretariat will be better equipped technically that all of us will be able to access that very piece of information.

 Therefore, now we're looking at 61 to 70 going one by one and seeing whether there are any particular issues with any of those ten workshops.

 Mark and then -- and then Virat.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  We're on 126.  I don't see in the comments any major deficiency.  There are one or two general criticisms.  But overall, the scoring was very high.  I would -- I certainly do support this with just the caveat that the geo diversity of participation could be looked at with regard to Africa in particular.

 But looking at the page of comments, I think this is a good example of a candidate for inclusion.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to support Fiona's comments completely.  I just wanted to say that I support this 126 for sure.  This is at the heart of the discussion that we have, even with regards to net neutrality where there are comments on both sides:  One which requires large scale funding for building out digital infrastructure and the other that requires some sort of restrictions on what can be done with the networks.  And so this is really at the heart of that, and it should be discussed because these are the kind of balances that we need to achieve through these debates.

 But just going forward in 60 through 70, could I submit that you -- the one stakeholder that is underrepresented is government and intergovernmental organizations.  They're certainly underrepresented.  We should make a conscious effort to pull up proposals either submitted by them or the ones in which they are in plenty.

 Apart from that, I think we should get a clear idea now of what is it that we think is missing because then it's going to get very, very subjective.

 What I put in my email and Ana put in her email, government and intergovernment is certainly a big problem. 

 I take your point, even though they are proportionately represented in the top 80, slightly less in top 60, people will say only 10 proposals or whatever.  So we need to sort of pick those.

 But apart from that, if there are any other objectives, then we should clearly establish those now.

 The second point I'd like to make is:  Would you rather want to go with the process saying 61 to 70, does anybody object to any of these proposals?  And if yes, please put your hand up, proposal, and give us the comments you have, whether it is an improvement or it should be removed?  That might be a faster process to say, can you tell us if you object to any of the next ten or we can go one by one.  But I'm just trying to give an alternative process that can be slightly faster and help people focus on what they don't want.  Otherwise, we will be looking for sponsors in each case.  And the fact they made it into the top 70 should assume there were sponsors and they were highly ranked.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 

 German, you had your flag up?

 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  German Valdez from the numbers organizations.  We need to remember that there are remote participants to want to be identified as speakers.  It was related to the clarification you raised before.  I also wanted to mention there is a lot of work behind these ratings, and people have done his homework. 

 So maybe I was a bit confused, but I received well the idea of having a champion of each proposal.  I mean, I think the proposal is there because there is some work behind for many people.  And this is there.  So I think the consideration is it remains unless there is serious concerns.

 And I would like also to review the proposals as you suggested.  And I share Virat's concerns of looking for the right proportions of the workshops and the proposals -- proposers of those workshops.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I just want to say that I think this can be very fast.  What Virat just did by sponsoring that last proposal means that we're done.  We can move forward. 

 I think it's politically very difficult to ask people to put their flag up and say, "I object to this one particular thing."  We're then going to have a long discussion.  And I think the worst part is that people are not necessarily comfortable saying, "I have a problem with this" because then they'll be fingered as the person who killed somebody's proposal.  That's not what's useful here. 

 What's useful is to pick out -- to make sure there is enough space here by not supporting a few of these 40 proposals so that we have places where we can move proposals with government, with new ideas into the top 100.

 I mean, the sponsors thing worked very well last time.  We can move very quickly as long as there is somebody willing to say, "I thought that was a good proposal."  In some cases no one will say that because they already got a proposal that they thought was better into the top 60.  So that -- some of these are going to drop out because there isn't real support for it because it's not the best proposal on the topic.  It might be the third best proposal on the topic at which point we shouldn't even be considering it.  But nobody's going to stand up and say, "Take it out."

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Susan.

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Hi.  When we're ready, I have a suggestion about few workshops which I think they focus on the same content and all of them are 75 and above.  So if we get to a point where we're discussing perhaps mergers and bringing these workshops together, I'm ready to do that because do I have a concrete proposal.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  We are not yet there.

 Baher.

 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.  This is Baher Esmat.

 I have been listening to comments made by colleagues, and I'm also a little bit uncomfortable with the fact that we're trying to identify workshops that made it to the top hundred and scored 4 and above.  We are trying to identify them and take them out of the list.

 I think instead of doing that, let's try and identify workshops that could not make it to the top 100 and, based on reasons that we've been discussing about stakeholder groups, themes, et cetera, identify them, see whether they are 10, 20, and if we have agreement that we need to get those 10 or 20 into the top 100, then we go to the top 100 and see from 80 to 100 which ones we can take out. 

 So let's do it the other way around.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  I'm not sure that we are ready to do that now, and since -- since we had this conversation about how many we include automatically and it was -- there was a proposal to change that ratio, after conversation, general discussion, I propose to do a compromise and go with the 70 quasi-automatic and just to review whether out of those additional 10 there would be any comments, whether shortening or some other things, and then after -- in the afternoon, we would start exactly with this -- what you are proposing, Baher.  We would start pulling the list together of workshops which would need to be included not on scoring, but on balancing -- for balancing reasons, for perception reasons, and so on.  So I'm not sure that if we start it now, we're -- we're not ready yet.  We need some time to refresh our memories, and to -- each of the MAG members to look through the list again and identify those workshops that they would like to propose be included on this separate list.

 Marilyn, are you in agreement?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  My comment is going to be a specific proposal, but yes, I'm in agreement.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  The specific proposal for 178?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  It's a specific proposal for 146.  It's the one right beyond it.  So whenever you get to that.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 178.  So proposal was to include and do it as a breakout group discussion, which would be a new a new innovative format.

 Remote participant?

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi, please go ahead.

 Subi, are you still there?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Let us move, then.  I assume that this is a wish, Mark?

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Sorry.  We're commenting here on 178 now?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, 178.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  178.

 I think, judging -- looking at the comments, or rather the absence of comments, in the evaluations, all the high scoring is suggesting that this is retained as a valuable platform for -- a 60-minute platform for the Safe internet Day campaign.  So I detected we were all in consensus on this, the MAG scorers.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Just making sure that we are in consensus on this.  So we are in consensus.  This is retained.

 Next one, 146.  And can we get it up on the screen, please?

 Marilyn?

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

 I understand this is an innovative idea, but I would like to propose that it be shortened.

 I also will note that it's proposed as a panel and I assume that's because the idea is that there has to be a good amount of information-giving that is done, given the topic.

 I do think it's an interesting item.  I would not have made it as big a priority as others, and I think there are others below it that are actually a higher priority than this one.

 So if we keep it -- and I am asking the question -- I'd like to move it lower in the priority and shorten the amount of time.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  There is a proposal.  Any reactions?  Mark? 

 Sorry.  Avri, first.  Mark after. 

 Avri, please.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.

 I -- it's one -- actually, I didn't get my sign up in time.  It's one I wanted to speak out in favor of supporting.  I think it is a new topic that is becoming an important governance issue, and I think it will take that much time, and yes, they did do a panel and I was one of those that wasn't in favor of panels, but they also did a very adequate paper to go along with it.

 So I would suggest keeping it in.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 

 Actually, yesterday I read the news that somebody was -- hacked a flying airplane, and that may become increasingly an issue.

 Mark, then Dominique, then --

 Mark.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I agree with Marilyn Cade that we shorten this.  It's a very specific topic, automated vehicles within the IOT environment.  So include it, but shorten it.

 I did suggest potentially a merger with Number 8 as another option.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Can we see also Number 8 on the screen?  And in the meantime, Dominique?

 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Thanks.  I'm just trying to -- okay.  Yes.  So this was going to be my point, actually, because the autonomous vehicles are -- are part of Internet of Things and I believe if I -- if I can remember correctly from my response on the first -- not on this but on the one we're discussing -- my concern with this was the lack of private sector confirmed for this particular panel, because basically that's what's driving this.

 I know at the GSMA, in particular, we are working on this quite a lot, so I was more interested and hoping to see more confirmed private sector in addition to everything else there.

 But I'll support Mark and Marilyn in merging it with Number 8.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just want to strongly support inclusion of a merged proposal.  8 and this proposal would fit together great, complement each other, fill in a lot of the gaps.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  It seems that Workshop -- or Proposal Number 8 is scored and is on -- is ranked 128.  Okay.  Just for information.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  And that's primarily because it wasn't as diverse as it needed to be.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Juan Alfonso.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I want to ask my colleagues to please bear in -- put yourself in context.  This IGF is going to be in a developing country.  Also in a part of the developing country -- it's not exactly the northeast, but it's also in a part that is not the most developed part of that country.  And all these things is science fiction for developing countries, and I really think that these are the places where we can move on some others. 

 So actually my proposal is to not consider this at all.  I didn't vote for any of these things.  Not because it's not going to happen, but because we have to be in context.  We -- this is the year of sustainable development, development post-2015, development agenda.  We're talking of clean water.  We're talking about access to education. 

 You know, talking about Internet of Things when we're discussing all these things, you know, to have medication, to try to increase life expectancy above 50 years, and please --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Point --

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- we have to be in context --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Point taken.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- and otherwise, we're not going to have any free slots to move nothing from the proposal, so maybe we --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  We will have -- Juan Alfonso.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- and just take the first hundred and expect -- (off microphone) --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso, I understand that we -- we need to be attentive to every -- every proposal, and if in one part of the world it seemingly is not important, in other parts of the world it is important.  And I wouldn't like to fly -- fly planes or be in a car which may be hacked by somebody.  So that's very simple.

 Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just a quick response. 

 Many of the Internet of Things applications are being rolled out first in developing countries.  In A lot of cases, new infrastructure is being built with the Internet of Things built in, and drugs is a great example.  Putting sensors on prescription drugs so that the right non-counterfeit drugs get deployed in the Third World is a great application of the Internet of Things.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Cheryl?

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I support the merger.  I think this topic is a key topic and will be a good proposal.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Fiona, please.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Just to be brief, I'd like to support the comments made by Avri.  We did establish this higher threshold for people, if they were going to do a panel, to actually write a paper, and I'd like to respect that request we made of people.  So for those that bothered to take the time to write a paper, we shouldn't penalize them by changing the format that they've proposed. 

 I'd also like to point out this is actually from the intergovernmental organization stakeholder group, which people keep saying is underrepresented, so I think you should take that into account when considering deleting things or merging things as well.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I take that we are in agreement of retaining it and suggesting that proponents of 146 could consider merging with 8, or at least putting their theme in a context -- broader context of safety, security of -- on Internet of Things.

 Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm going to make -- Marilyn Cade.  I'm going to make one final effort at this.

 I think these two should be urged to merge, and I think that I support -- I support Juan's comment about we really need to look at the workshops and also urge these folks to make their session relevant to how IoT in this particular application area also relates to the needs of the developing countries, and I think with that, the two could merge, they could be given 60 minutes, they could be left at 90 minutes as merged if they also reflect the relevance for developing countries, so that it's more easily understood.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  This then is also our decision. 

 Jac, you are in agreement, right?

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Yeah, but I'm not so pushing for a merger.  I think mergers are quite difficult things and maybe even though the topic seems similar, it might not be coming from the same approach. 

 And I want to support this also because of the lineup of speakers.  There's a lot of government speakers and there's also speakers from developing countries, actually, that they've identified.  For example, Learnasia. 

 So I think -- and also to say that even though IoT seems to be science fiction, it is something that is being tested out in -- often in developing context where there isn't such regulation or concerns about rights.  So I think it is quite an important topic to also like bear to -- you know, to bear in mind.

 But I do support the proposal of -- of recommending to think about this from the perspective of safety, privacy, and risks as well.

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

 Wout, please.

 >>WOUT de NATRIS:  Thank you, Chair.  Just a few -- to not confuse things, I'm putting on my NL IGF hat at this moment and not the U.N. hat.

 There's a proposal called 180 -- sorry, 48, which is basically looking at this topic from an even larger and more abstract level, because what we're talking about here is the change that we are making from one society to another.  We're moving into a digital age and one of the factors of that is automated cars.  The other one is healthcare that is going to change, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

 In Proposal 48, we try to tackle all of that, from very different sort of angles, so if we're talking about mergers, then I think that perhaps it's possible to look at it from a more abstract level and look at, okay, are these sort of topics coming into the same sort of -- the same sort of topic that we're discussing, changing our society, which is going on at this moment.

 So my suggestion would be, could we look at it from just a little bit more abstract point of view and see what sort of topics have been brought in, proposals have been brought in, and if they try to merge it from that angle, because then it will be much more valuable than to just look at what does it mean for cars.

 So that's a suggestion.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, though we -- we agreed not to promote workshops where we may have some vested interests, and putting your NL hat, so you -- you did it, but -- okay.  Thank you.  It's understood and taken.

 So let us move to the next one, 253, "Empowering the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility," currently scored 66.  Any comments? 

 Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I thought Fiona supported that earlier and I would support it as well.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Any other comments?  Specifics?  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  I have a specific comment.

 I'd just like to ask them to have a little more clarity on how they're going to handle the -- I support including it, but a little more clarity on how the expert presentations -- this says, "Open, interactive discussion with all participants."  I don't know if that means a town hall or it means a -- something -- that they're going to use some other well-defined approach to make sure that it is actually an interactive discussion.

 So I'd just like to forward that question, but I do support including it.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  To whom do you address your question?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I think it would just be a MAG comment to -- to -- from the secretariat to the organizers, whenever they're told what their status is.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much for this proposal.  Mark?

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  So very strong proposal.  Support it.  I just noted absence of African participation.

 A number of us identified merger opportunities, but I see there's no consensus on how to merge it.  The number -- the suggested opportunities for merging are all different for all of us, so that suggests that we keep it as a stand-alone proposal.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I see that there is a general consensus. 

 Juan Alfonso?

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Number 55 is similar, "Internet Governance for the Next Billion," and the proposals are from South America and some other places.  Maybe we could try to merge.

 Have we already lost interest in merging to try to include more people into the program?  Because I think this is an opportunity, if we have a similar, that if the name is similar, "Internet Governance for the Next Billion," why don't we try to merge and bring more people in the program? 

 And there's some other in "billions" around there that we could try to merge.  Is that not what we're supposed to do?  Otherwise, I really -- well, I don't know.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Hossam?

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Thank you, Chair.  Well, I can see that it is organized by the dynamic coalition for disability and access so maybe they have already an opportunity within the dynamic coalition, so my suggestion is to shorten it or to merge it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 

 Michael. 

 And Avri afterwards.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I would go along with shortening it to 60 minutes.  I don't think it would make sense to merge it with another session on Internet governance for the next billion because this is really focused on accessibility.  It is a well-focused proposal which I think would be lost if we tried to merge it.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.

 I generally don't accept the advantage of merging.  I don't suggest merging this one.  I think something we need to put on our notes for the future is that we give people a chance to merge before we do the grading, but I think enforcing merges has shown itself to be something that does not work.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Cheryl?

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you.  I would not support merging this particular one.  I do support including it on its own.  I think it is a really key topic.  I offer a suggestion since it seems that there are still a lot of outstanding questions regarding merging.  And taking Avri's point, we can't go backward.  But maybe what we can do is possibly over part of the lunch break, a group can get together and try to work out exactly how we will go about putting these mergers together or at least approaching these groups and encouraging them to possibly merge, if that's what the MAG's final consensus is.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.

 Mark?

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yeah, sorry to come back in again.  As I said before, I think it really does deserve stand-alone treatment because as Mike Nelson mentioned, it is referring particularly to empowering people with disabilities.

 And I think that could be put into the title to help people understand what this session is going to be about.

 It's just I noted on quite a few proposals that titling was pretty poor in actually conveying to participants exactly what this valuable workshop is going to be about and they will miss potential participation as a result.

 So that's a point to pay attention to, I think, the titling.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 

 German?

 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  Thank you.  German Valdez, NRO.  I want to fully support what Avri mentioned, that some action should be taken in the future for the merging of proposals.  I can see five proposals that talk about the next billion just in the title, just five.  And I agree that working on merging in the practical way, it doesn't work very well.  So some action should be taken before the grading regarding the merging and so on.  So I would like to add that to Avri's comments.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much. 

 Excuse me.  Xiaodong, I didn't see your flag up.  Please.

 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I saw that there is four proposals that discuss about the next billion:  Number 55, Number 266, Number 139, and Number 253.  And for the Number 266 and the 253 is to discuss how to improve access.  I stress maybe we can merge that.

 And I think there is a little bit difference for Number 55.  I saw the proposal.  It is a little different from the other three.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant and then Juan Alfonso.

 >> Ginger, go ahead, please.  Ginger, you have the floor.  Go ahead, please.

 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Sorry.  I have been speaking to myself.  I hope you can hear me now. 

 I would like to support trying to work better with the titles so we can identify them and particularly because this says it is the next billion but it is, as mentioned before, specifically for disability.  It is an important topic that we need to include.  I do support including it because it does offer a different facet of disability and inclusion.

 I'm wondering, though, if we can make available to -- after we select all the workshops, we know which ones have been selected but somehow make the information very available to people with a more proper title so that they can easily find workshops they might offer their resources and their speakers and their input to so there can be self-mergers or self-inclusion of ideas from the non-approved workshops into the ones that are going on, to use them as an additional force to improve the ones that were accepted and then to make a note for next time if there's a way to identify more clearly from titles so that people can offer to work together.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 

 Juan Alfonso.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes, I want to thank my colleagues to pointing me out because I made a mistake.  In my table, this should be under "accessibility" and not under "the next billion." 

 But I still think that we can do some merger here because I identified at least six other workshop proposals relating with blind, disability, and accessibility.  Number -- if you want to take note, please, Number 32, 39, 90, 253, 256, and 259.  And I believe that maybe that is not an exhaustive list.  I might have missed something.

 So in my ranking, this is the third topic in terms of popularity from the workshops' proposal.

 As I said before -- I think I sent an email last month about this -- the topic that has more workshop proposals is child and use issues.  They have more than 15 workshop proposals.

 The second one comes women and gender.  That has nearly ten.  And then it's this blind, disability, and accessibility.  I think in trying to be inclusive with all those that has proposed workshops in this topic, we should strive to see -- reach them if they want to merge their activities.

 In that case, if it is a merger, I will suggest to keep the whole time proposed because it's an important topic and because of the proposals.  It's not because of our criteria.  It is because of the number of workshops that are proposed.  It is so important, this accessibility part.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  It seems to me that we can -- we can agree of retention of this and suggest the workshop proponents to consider fine-tuning of the title and considering possible merger or at least invitation of proponents of other workshops on similar topic to join them.  If that would be something we could agree, then we could proceed to the next one, 167.

 Any comments?  167, "Unlock Internet economy through copyright reform." 

 Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I do support including this, but I take note that actually I don't think I see the participation from all points of view.  This seems to me to be focusing on participation from primarily from developing countries which is a really important thing to do.  But I am wondering if it could be strengthened by also adding in perhaps the more traditional developed country perspective to this workshop.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, thank you very much.

 Any other comments?  Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  It's an interesting proposal which talks about copyright reforms, and it's from the civil society, and it is also a debate.  So I think it should be preserved -- several reasons to be preserved.  And I think I agree with Marilyn if they want to include or can be recommended to include some new voices.  But I think this (indiscernible) believes kind of discussion. 

 Debates are only at top 60 only 2%.  So I think it will be a good thing to keep this format since we have fought so much to improve formats.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 Susan?

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes.  I would also support preserving the proposal as is.  I also note that I think it's pretty exciting that they've brought in the South African Screen Federation and working with kind of the rights holders from the developing countries, oftentimes we don't hear much from them.  So I think it would be great to preserve it as is.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lynn?

 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  This is one of the ones -- Lynn St. Amour -- that I actually wondered if this was positioning itself as a debate but it was more of a panel.  It also references there had been a detailed analysis paper done, but the paper wasn't included.  So if it does go forward, then I would suggest that we ensure that the paper is, in fact, included and circulated.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for this proposal. 

 Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I just wanted to point out that this one did include WIPO and governments.  So it wasn't a civil society-only or a southern-only.  It really did have a much wider perspective.

 I agree, it called itself a debate.  So I think, you know, we should encourage them to remember that they're setting up a debate.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good.

 Mark?

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes, I agree entirely.  And it would be useful to have that paper.  But it's a model of aiming for balanced and geo diverse participation.  So full score on that.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We then can retain it and ask proponents to submit paper as they have promised.

 Let us move then to the next one, 123, "Indicators to promote evidence-based policy making,"  Panel.

 Juan Alfonso.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  There are several workshops in the topic of indicators and measurements, and it is an important and interesting topic because it serves the basis for objective policy making that it benefits all stakeholders.  So I suggest to not only retain this but to see if some other workshop's proposals could be merged in order to have a more comprehensive coverage of this subject of indicators and measuring of the information society.

 This is the thing that is not only -- only covered by governments and intergovernmental organizations like, you know, the initiative of the ITU, the World Bank, UNESCO, and some other in the measuring information society grand collaboration. 

 But also civil society and some other organizations also have indicators and are using this for policy evaluation and development. 

 So I think it's an important topic.  But I suggest for inclusion to try to include maybe those workshops that are beyond the 100 list to include it with this.

 I reiterate that my feeling is to try to include as much workshop proposals into existing ones.  And this one is important.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 Avri?  It's not on this topic.

 Ankhi.

 >> ANKHI DAS:  I support this proposal.  I think this is one proposal where we will have an opportunity to encourage more participation from government stakeholders, which is a focus of our discussion in previous workshop sessions also which we have discussed. 

 Therefore, it is not only relevant but it also gives an opportunity to involve more government stakeholders in this discussion.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much. 

 Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I support the proposal.  It has got some really good speakers, some very experienced ones.  Has the government of Egypt.  It sort of -- has a really good sort of feel to it.  And I think especially in the developing countries, we get a lot of policies that are not always substantiated by evidence.  So this would be a good discussion.  I'm not sure 90 minutes is enough.  I would seek a little more, but I think we should certainly let this go.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You suggest this is emotionally driven policy making.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yes, yes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Sometimes it happens.

 Remote participant?

 >> Towela indicated her support for this workshop Proposal Number 123.  Because her Internet connection is bad, so she cannot use audio.  And we have Subi, also, waiting.

 Okay.  Subi, please, you have the floor.  No, Subi, we cannot hear you.  She said in chat that she supports the proposal.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Subi.  With Subi's support of the proposal, we can then put it on the list.  Also, indicate to proponents that they may wish to see enlarging and inviting similar workshop proponents which proposals may not enter on the list to join the effort.

 Let us move to the next one, 187, "Promoting local actions to secure Internet rights," 187.  Any comments?  Still two more to go for this session.  187.  Mark.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  I rated this highly because of its local community emphasis.  I think it is valuable for the IGF to have this kind of reach-out into local community challenges, thinking, and so on.  I would argue for this being retained.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 >> -- English proposal.

 >> CHAIR KARKLINS:  Aida, please.

 >>AID MAHMUTOVIC:  I am also in support of this project because it is one of the rares that really brings the local aspect of it.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  May I take it that is our wish to take it and support it and include it and move to the next, 114, "Implementing core principles in the digital age."

 Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I spent quite a bit of time looking at this.  There's a number of workshops that focus on principles.  I'm just going to take this opportunity to say I think it's a topic that we need in the IGF overall.  But I'd like to see the topic examined for possible merger with some others that may be further down and otherwise might not be included.

 I will just say, you know, this seems to be -- also it's proposed by two governments.  I think it could have legitimately been presented as open forum as well, and I just want to take note of that.  So I'd like to ask that they consider whether they're open to including other groups that are interested in the same issue or if this is, in fact, really just focused on the two governments' joint initiatives, in which case I would say reduce it to 60 minutes and retain it.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So Ambassador Benedicto cannot support this but I'm going to support this.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I think it's a really good proposal.  I just -- before we -- if I could get a -- do we have a count on the number of open forum requests that we got.  Do we have that?  I'm sorry.  I don't have it handy.  If the secretariat could support with that.  Because if that number is full, we must retain it as-is.  Do we have that?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  20 open forums which are factored in already.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Sorry.  Can you speak in the mic?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We have 20 open forums which were factored in, and then they are at the bottom there.  If you see on the screen, if it's -- if you can zoom in, I think there's eight which we -- or seven which the secretariat think don't qualify with the definition of an open forum that we posted.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lea?

 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you, Chair.

 I don't want to -- I can't really support or -- this proposal as I have been noted as one of the speakers and I haven't graded it for that reason, but I can say that I've been approached by the German proposers who have put this proposal together, and perhaps to answer Marilyn's question about the scope of whether it's just to do with these two governments' perspective on the issue, my sense was that it was to do with much broader -- dealing with a much broader issue that had to do with bringing a principled approach to a number of decision-making bodies that have to do with Internet governance, including spaces such as the IETF and the ITU.

 So if that helps clarify the matter, I just wanted to offer that.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  I see a remote participant, and then Ephraim.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Towela suggested that she's supporting Number 114 and she's particularly noting that it's coming from a government stakeholder and it has diversity in speakers.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ephraim.

 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Actually, Towela just said what I wanted to say, that I support it, and if you look at the speakers and the participants who have been invited, it's diverse and we should support it, with just the recommendation that they should make it more diverse by including the global south, more speakers from the global south.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Can I take that we are able to support it? 

 Lynn, you are in agreement, right?

 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I am in agreement --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.

 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR: -- but I also wanted to suggest if it was possible to look at merging or inviting 55 in as well.

 55 was ranked 92, but it would be quite interesting to look at the questions that they actually pose in their abstract and to see how these set of studies actually support that.

 But I support the proposal, even as it stands alone.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you. 

 Marilyn, you have a last -- last word to say?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I just have one final comment to make.

 So I would just invite the organizers -- and I realize that our host is here -- that there are a number of proposed speakers that are not confirmed.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  The confirmation usually is a bit tricky thing at early stages.  But -- so I -- my sense is that we retain this proposal.  Michael.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I would also suggest that we merge it with 55.  Several people mentioned a need to broaden.  I mean, it's a lot of people on there, but many of them are already committed to other panels.

 I noted that Mr. Kay is on 11 proposals, including this one, so I think that putting this one with 55 would justify a full 90-minute session.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  You took the words out of my mouth, Michael.  I was about to say that we -- and encourage the organizers or proponents of the proposal to approach organizers of 55 and to see if cooperation is feasible.

 So with that, we have reached agreed level of 70 proposals which are provisionally on our agreed list, and in the afternoon we will start compiling a list of proposals in order to seek the right balance in the overall workshop proposal list.

 So how we will be doing this?

 We maybe can spend now another five minutes to remind ourselves what -- where are these missing balances.  I take that one of them is governmental -- or lack, rather, of governmental participation; that we should see whether there are any ways to improve it.

 There might be, but there may not be.

 For instance, we cannot seek more government proposals than governments have actually proposed themselves, so that would be one limitation and that would be a natural limitation, so that's one element.

 And another element, we would seek also other stakeholder groups if they feel they are not represented, and I heard technical community and I want to hear whether that is confirmed or not.

 Then on themes, the reason why we choose subthemes of the main theme is to kind of help us structure the whole event, and therefore whether we like it or not, we most probably need to stick to subthemes that we have identified ourselves and to see whether the proper balance is found also on subtheme level, what we have identified, and we have identified eight of them.

 Statistically, as we see, there is a certain dis-balance on subthemes, on a subtheme level as well, and it would be interesting to hear which, in the view of members, are not sufficiently represented.

 So, please, I will ask Shita to launch this discussion.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair. 

 My name is Shita from Hivos.  I would like to propose including Southeast Asia as well in our criteria to make more geographic balance.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Clearly, government and intergovernmental. 

 So during lunch we'll try and get a list of proposals beyond 100 which had government and intergovernmental and sort of put them up there and see which of those can be pulled in, in case we are able to create any space.

 So that's a list of about 18 or -- I'm just doing the rough numbers right now. 

 So that would be one to sort of just have in front of us.

 The second, I know it keeps coming back, but the technical community is actually quite well represented.  I just want to be clear again.  Of the total proposals submitted, only 12% came from the technical community.  In the top 60, they already have 15% share, which is higher than the proportion.  And if you went to top 80, they're at 12%.  So I don't think we should worry about technical communities.  They are well-represented. 

 Government and intergovernmental are rather short. 

 Private sector is a little bit short but I think they can take care of themselves.  I would just sort of keep it at that.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I -- Marilyn Cade speaking.

 I'd like to clarify, and I will do this over lunchtime.  I think saying that governments and intergovernmental organizations are not represented does not recognize that, in fact, they may be well represented as speakers, but they may not have chosen to submit workshops where they are shown as the organizer.

 In the past -- in past IGFs, in many cases IGOs chose to use open forums because they -- the criteria is quite different.  It does not require balance.  It allows them to provide information about their initiatives and activities.

 So I think over the -- over the lunch hour, I would -- I want to look at this and ask others to, to look at whether the participation is limited on governments and intergovernmental organizations or whether it is that they are not showing up as organizers.

 The second thing I just want to mention is, I -- it's my view that the Internet economy is not yet, as a subtheme, well-represented, and I will take a look at that. 

 And then I will just -- after the lunch hour, I have some comments about possible mergers among some of the workshops that focus on women, to see if there would also be a way to advance more participation on that from that workshops.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Fiona?

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you, Janis. 

 Just to respond to Marilyn's point, at least my observation was that it wasn't governments as proposers of workshops.  Governments weren't well-represented as participants on the workshops.  So I think that can be fixed after the fact.  I don't think it necessarily needs to be part of this.

 But I do have a question for clarification, Janis, about the next steps.

 So is the expectation that we're going to come back after lunch and the people are going to propose from the floor workshops to be considered, or is -- are we actually going to ask MAG members to provide those numbers of workshops to the secretariat during the lunch break so that we can come back and start with a list on the screen?  I would propose the latter, so we can be a little bit more focused, as opposed to just general conversations again.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  There -- thank you, actually, for this proposal.  I think it's a very good one.

 Maybe we still also need to think about the right to food of secretariat and let them one hour loose from 1:00 to 2:00 and then ask somebody to be in the room at -- starting from 2:00 that could take those proposals and cluster them in one sort of file that we can quickly put them on the screens.  Thank you for this proposal.

 Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I, too, am very concerned about the government panelists that aren't there, and I know why, having been a government official.  You don't know that you can go to these meetings, often, until two months, maybe one month before.

 It would be very helpful if there was a way to find out early which government officials are coming so that there was a pool of people that might be tapped by those panelists who are trying to round out their panels.

 I don't know what privacy implications there are there, or whatever, but if there is a way to identify those government speakers who might be available, because that -- that's what it comes down to.  You might identify the best person and then find out they aren't available and then find out there was an even better person who was already there.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Makanye.

 >>MAKANYE FAYE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Makanye Faye, ICA.  I suggest that we also try to bring more intergovernmental organizations because not only they represent government but also they have in their stakeholder groups civil society, private sector, and technical community, and I don't think they are well represented in this round.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Lynn?

 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Lynn St. Amour. 

 Just a quick comment.  A number of people have said that they have some concrete suggestions with respect to proposals to be merged, and I noted there were a lot of comments merging them.

 I don't know if the secretariat has, or if they could actually pull together, a subsection of the remaining proposals to say, "These are some of the clumps, if you will, of proposals that have been suggested for merger" and see if we can deal with them around a fit for theme, are they actually filling some of our other gaps, and then in that way actually address a lot of the perhaps lesser valued proposals.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 

 Mark, you had the last one.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yeah.  Thank you.  Just I'm with the U.K. government, as most of you all know.

 On this issue and challenge of governmental participation, it's -- Mike has hit on one aspect.  Officials have wide dossiers on -- usually in the ICT area, and they have other conflicts, and so on, so it's difficult for them to commit.

 And also at a time when many governments are hit by ever-tightening travel budgets and austerity-deficit-addressing issues -- that's the case in the U.K. -- it's a challenging, challenging time.

 I would recommend proposers reaching out to governments at an early stage and really getting a particular government expert to engage actively, and then you're more likely to secure that person's presence at the event itself.

 There is the remote participation opportunity, and that should be presented to targeted government experts. 

 So that -- you know, there are a number of factors and ways to address it.  I do note that the -- the level of participation in terms of attendance at the IGF from governments has improved in recent years.  The number of governments who have somebody representing them in some way actually at the IGF has remained quite high.  About 90 governments, I think, in Istanbul, if that -- if I remember correctly.  So that's a positive indicator, at least.

 145.  Oh, right.  Okay.  Well, I stand to be corrected.  It was much higher.  So thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think we now have more or less a good idea of what we should look at, talking about positive discrimination and bringing workshop proposals which are not -- which did not receive highest scores higher, and so I expect that we will start next session with -- smoothly with those proposals.

 Of course we also need to keep in mind that emerging issues that has never been discussed in IGF also might fall in the same category, emerging issues to look at.

 So that said, Council of Europe, I think we need to break.  If that is something essential, please, very quickly.

 >>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Just very quickly, to respond to Mark Carvell and the question about governmental representation and the IGOs. 

 To be more efficient, I think from my perspective, from the Council of Europe perspective, human rights, rule of law, democracy issues, there are many workshops there.  I wonder whether I can serve as sort of a resource person or as a sort of a gateway for access to possible governmental speakers and IGO speakers because I've been around for such a long time.  I know many experts.  It might help the process, it might help you in actually identifying quickly who could be useful.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We certainly will remain -- remember your offer and will call on you on this particular question.

 So thank you very much.  We're now breaking for lunch and we're reconvening at 3:00 sharp to continue our conversation.  Secretariat will be available in this room at 2:10 for all those who want to give preliminary information to secretariat.  So thank you very much.  Bon appetit.

 [ Break ]