You are here

22 May 2015 MAG Meeting Transcript Morning Session

 

 IGF  MAG Meeting (Morning Session)
Friday 22 MAY 2015
ILO Geneva, Switzerland

 

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

 
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for coming back to the MAG meeting.  We had very intensive work yesterday.  We need to go through the remaining workshop proposals that need to be discussed in order to balance out the program.
 Yesterday, we agreed to retain 79 workshops, and the secretariat circulated the list of those workshops last night.
 The same secretariat circulated a list of remaining sessions that we need to go through, and they are 30.
 I intend to go through them in the morning, that we can during lunchtime assess where we are and make one before-final list that we could circulate during lunchtime, and then in the after- -- at the beginning of the afternoon session, we would finalize selection of the workshops, and then we would go to another -- remaining items on the agenda.  That is, intersessional -- sorry, dynamic coalitions, interregional IGFs, and next steps.
 We will circulate, in about an hour, the proposal for the -- for main sessions, which is based on your inputs and further technical considerations that I already mentioned yesterday about the opening ceremony and opening session, and hopefully by 6:00 today, we will have accomplished everything we wanted to accomplish by then.
 Also, I understand that coordinators of intersessional work stream on next billion will circulate in a few minutes the new version of the document which will encompass all the discussions or advice that we were giving to coordinators yesterday, and I was also asked to say if any of the MAG members have any suggestions to this document, then please do it directly with Constance and the team.
 The intention is to send out to the wider community this document maybe tonight or over the weekend, that we can really launch these intersessional activities as soon as we can.
 In parallel, secretariat also will be reaching out to all national/regional IGFs, seeking their confirmation whether they are in or out, whether they will do this reflection and will contribute to the document or not.
 And hopefully sometime in one of our next conference calls, we will have very good picture where we are with intersessional work.
 I hope that this proposal how we structured that is acceptable.  I see no requests.  Body language says that we are close to exhaustion.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And we'll proceed as I suggested.
 German, you had a question.
 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  Thank you.  Mr. Chairman.  German Valdez.  Just a question.  You mentioned next steps.  Will that include some discussion about the next MAG meeting?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  How did you know?  Yes, indeed.
 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Sorry.  Good morning, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you to the secretariat for circulating the information this morning.
 I'd requested one more piece of information, if they could circulate that, which is apart from the four charts, the one on stakeholder origination, because that is one of the key objectives that was identified yesterday for this intervention that we'd be making since yesterday afternoon.  So it will help to know whether we've made actual improvement or changes in where we stood at the top 60 as we go towards the top 80, which is 70 plus -- I think the secretariat mentioned 10 under the provisionally retained list.  So if we could see that. 
 Sorry, we can't see the numbers, so if somebody could help with the numbers, or if you could just send it to us, then...
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It was sent last night.  It's -- yes.  Just the graphs.  Just the pie charts. 
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Oh, in the Excel.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  There are four pie charts, but not this.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  In the Excel sheet.  I sent another Excel sheet.  Let me just...
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we have now -- let me also explain that there were a couple of workshops missing from those -- from the list we examined yesterday, and now everything is put back.
 We have -- we need to start with the Workshop 212, which is ranked 119.  No.  Sorry.  11.  Workshop 11.
 Yes, Netherlands, please.  Arnold?
 >>ARNOLD VAN RHIJN: Thank you, Chair Janis, and good morning to all.  My name is Arnold van Rhijn.  My last name is spelled V-a-n R-h-i-j-n.  And I'm speaking here as an observer, in my capacity as representative of NL IGF.
 Before MAG continues its valuable work on selecting the workshops, I would like to ask you about the ranking of two proposals NL IGF has sent in as a coproduction with other foreign organizations.
 The two proposals I'm referring to are ranked on the Web site of the IGF as Number 24, titled "Privacy As Innovation, Part 3," and Number 48, and that is "Smarter Internet," which deals with ethics and Internet of Things.
 So Number 24 and 48.
 As an observer, it's hard to follow the debate, since at least for me it is not clear which agreed workshop proposals have made the top 60, so I don't know whether the two NL IGF proposals are among those 60 proposals or will they maybe turn up during the selection today or are they not in the race anymore, and if so, why not.
 Again, it concerns the Proposals Number 24 and 48. 
 And chair, so I would like to ask you:  Could you please shed some light on this darkness so I can report back to the NL IGF community. 
 Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for question.  We're now checking.  While we're checking -- while Chengetai is checking on the counts of the requests, can we go to the Workshop 11?  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I think the gentleman said ranked 24th and 48th.  Would that mean just serial numbers or would that mean ranks?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  That's just the ID.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  That's the serial number.  Okay.  Thanks.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ana, you have a question?
 Please.
 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much, and good morning.  So I'd like to talk about this workshop, Number 11, and if you will allow me to talk about Workshop 58 as well, because both are about open-line courses, open education content, and all these issues are key for the Information Society, both for developed and developing countries.
 Empowerment is key for digital inclusion, and I don't think that we have this theme on our IGF priorities and we have to find a thematic balance here, so I'd like to propose to have Workshops 11 and 58 on board and maybe merged.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any other comments?  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chair, and good morning, everybody.
 Yes, I agree with Ana Neves that this does bring an issue to the IGF, so in terms of thematic balance, there is a case for it.  It's a very strong proposal on open educational resources, and as the description there points out, there's clear linkage to sustainable development.  If there is an opportunity to merge, perhaps that option should be explored as well.
 So generally, as I commented on the evaluation, strongly support this as a valuable contribution   to the IGF on sustainable development.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mourad.
 >>MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  Thank you, Chairman.  Good morning to all.  I just concur with the previous speakers and I stress to look for the possibilities to merge the two proposals because there is a strong link between them, and there is -- as it is shown in Proposal 11, a stronger link with the MDGs and also maybe the organizers should be advised to make a link also with the upcoming development goals for post-2015.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Michael, you are in agreement, right?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Strongly in agreement, but only if we tell both sides that they must merge and they will not be accepted unless they work together.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 I see that this is our wish.  We would retain Workshop 11 and we would advise that this is merged with Workshop 58, and as a result we are not examining any longer Workshop 58.
 135.  135, transnational Internet governance jurisdiction, ranked 83.
 Who is speaking?  Flavio?
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  So this proposal deals with a very important question, which is the jurisdiction of resources and Internet governance institutions.  In fact, you know, this is very strong centralized in some countries, and the aim of this workshop is to discuss this issue. 
 As an example, it takes the IANA transition and the possibility that the new framework to be developed for the IANA supervision could be made more international, and this is very timely since we are discussing this IANA transition now.
 So I think this is a very important issue that I don't remember if another workshop from the already retained discusses this issue.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.
 I just have a clarifying question.  That is, could ICANN tell us what their open forum topic is, so that we can take that into account, if there is direct overlap?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I actually ranked this quite low because we've had sessions like this in previous years.  We've had open forum or side meetings on this topic.  I don't think there's a lot new here.
 I do think that some of the other sessions could benefit by having some of the participants proposed for this session inserted in there, but I don't think this merits a separate session because it does duplicate things we've done in previous years and discussions we'll have in other workshops.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I would support this proposal, Mr. Chairman.  It is relevant.  It is current.  It is dealing with issues that are currently under discussion.  It is directly related to some of the issues that, if it doesn't go through, would impact the whole discussion on enhanced cooperation, which is going to be one of the issues that actually will be used as a jockeying point against the IGF extension.  This is very much at the core of where we are this year, I think the speakers are very strong, and it was ranked quite high, and so for all those reasons -- and I think it has a very good spread of speakers, including some MAG members who I know can't speak up for this, but I would certainly speak up and say we should certainly have this session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Seems that we have --
 Do we have ICANN representative to answer the question of Marilyn's? 
 Please, Baher.
 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.  So the ICANN open forum usually covers issues that -- like recent developments and recent updates in relation to ICANN work.  We haven't got the exact agenda of the open forum set yet.  However, we expect that a topic like, you know, IANA transition will certainly be on the agenda.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn, do you need an answer or --
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  Well, I guess I'd like us, then, to take into account Mike's suggestion that there -- it is a timely topic.  There are many people who have -- who will be interested in it.  I certainly agree with that.  I just want to -- we have limited space and we have many important topics and workshops that we're not going to be able to include.
 So where we can, I want to avoid duplication, and that's the purpose in my asking the question.
 If the IANA transition and accountability is going to be the subject of a 90-minute open forum, then I would really be careful about having a lot of additional workshops that are parallel opportunities to look at the same topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Benedicto?
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  I'd like to offer some comments here as well.  First of all, I think from the point of view of governments, this is a matter of utmost interest.  I think if we are trying to balance, it is a point which my government and others think is very important.  Although this in a way is included in the discussion on accountability, it must be acknowledged this is not a topic -- major topic for discussion.  It's not on the table.  It's not been thoroughly discussed.  So we think this would be an opportunity at IGF to have some reflection on this, to shed some light on this issue which in previous years, in previous -- in the past was under discussion within ICANN and others, but it's not anymore.
 So we think the argument that it was there in previous IGFs in a way does not hold because the historical moment we are living is completely different from what we had before.  And there are new elements, and particularly the time frame in which we are working towards preparing the proposal for transition which is -- increases the interest from the perspective of government to have that kind of discussion now.
 We would certainly think it does not duplicate anything something that is already there because even though there would be discussions -- related discussions, the emphasis will not certainly be on that topic.
 And we think this is an important issue that was discussed before but would benefit from having updated discussion in the light of recent developments.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chair.  I actually support this workshop as well, but I wanted to make a distinction that I think the primary focus of this is a question on jurisdiction, not the IANA transition.  So if the workshop stays with that focus, I think that would actually bring a new element into the discussion.  And I was trying to find the background.  There is another IANA transition section which had all of the operating communities and the leaders of that participating in that.  I'm not sure if that's made it into our number here or not.  But that would be an appropriate place to really look through the IANA transition from the operating communities and have this workshop focus more on the question of jurisdiction.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  It seems that there is a support for retention of this proposal on the merit and on the topic, which is -- which is unique, the jurisdiction topic.
 So can we -- can we move on?  I would like to see all flags down when we start a new topic.
 212, "Engaging youth in Internet governance, a principle dialogue."  Who will speak about it?  Do we have youth in the room?  I recall last time --
 [ Laughter ]
 I recall -- I recall at the end of the previous meeting we were really encouraged to bring more young people in the room.  So, please, who is making the case?
 >> Okay, I'm not the one who made the case, but I would support it.  I know I'm on the panel, so I think the person who made the case would go ahead.  But just wanted to say thank you for bringing the three of us, Bianca, Idan (phonetic), and I on board.  Yeah, the person supports -- the person who proposed it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I did not propose that.  Well, I could because we are all young here.
 [ Laughter ]
 But as I said before, this is the topic in child and youth issues that has more workshop proposals, over 15.  So I think that this is a topic that in some place of the IGF should be addressed.  I don't know whether in an open forum or in a main session or in a workshop.  But I think we should accommodate this youth vision of Internet governance someplace in the forum.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We have a remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Actually, we have two.  First is Bianca.  Bianca, please go ahead.
 It seems she has some problems.
 The second is Subi.  So, please, Subi.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  I hope I'm audible.  I very strongly wish to articulate my support for the workshop.  It allows us to bring more young people into the room as participants. 
 However, I did have a comment.  If we can improve on speaker diversity and get some more young people from different regions, especially one or two other developing countries, this would make for a fantastic session.  So strong articulation of support for revival of the workshop.  Thank you.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Just to add, Bianca said she cannot speak but she supports this proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Brazil?  Hartmut.
 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  Only to mention that Brazil is working together with some other entities to bring between 100 and 120 young people from all over the world.  There will be a focus on Latin Americans.  We already have some support to bring probably from Latin America 50 to 80, but some other from Asia and Europe also will join the project for a strong youth participation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thanks.  I just want to start by saying that I strongly support greater youth participation into the IGF and have scored accordingly.
 However, this workshop, I thought, was very similar in terms of the content focus as well as speakers to workshop 191 which was already in the top 60 and accepted.  So I'm maybe also seeking clarification in terms of what's the difference, in terms of the focus.  And I thought that workshop 191 was also much better developed, I suppose.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we have 191 on the screen, please?  In the meantime, Segun?
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I think it's about time for us to encourage youth participation in the IGF.  I remember at the national level in my country, whenever we have a national Internet Governance Forum, we usually have a day separate for youth engagement.  If you look at the people that we have here, we have a very negligible representation of youth.
 So I think this topic, I'm supporting it.  And I hope at the end of the day, it will lead us to have a youth ambassador who probably promotes IGF.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I was -- I see that there is overwhelming support for the theme.  I accept that.
 But if we're reminding ourselves about the topic and why we're doing this exercise, to balance out and to bring necessary underrepresented issues on the table. 
 Now I see that there are two more workshops which are accepted already with a very similar title.  One is on the screen, 191, "Engaging youth in multistakeholderism practicum."  And there is another one, 115, which also is accepted already.
 So on that basis, I would like to put this for the moment on the "maybe" list because we need to see if all balances are right at the end of this exercise.  I hope this will be -- this is acceptable.  Thank you.
 Shall we move to 259?  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  As a matter of process, Mr. Chairman, we're down to -- we're very quickly down to proposals that are supported by one member, two members.  I think it will help to identify who put the proposal on the list because it's difficult when you call out names and nobody kind of puts their hand up and who put on the list and then other people have to jump in to support this. 
 And it's also difficult by way of process.  Just as you pointed out, we don't remember those two because they were read two weeks ago.  I think it's important that the ones who put the proposal on the list should read out the reasons why they're doing it so that others can gravitate around that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, certainly.  If there is no promoter or supporter of the workshop, we're not examining it.
 We dealt already with -- sorry, with 58.  259 is the next.  259, "An observatory of Web accessibility, the case of Portugal."  Who is speaking, introducing?  Ana?
 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you.  Well, I didn't score this workshop, of course, because it's from Portugal.  So I had a conflict of interest.  But now it is time for me to speak, I think.
 It's a flash session.  We are talking about a 30-minute session.  And maybe most of you don't know, but Portugal is really advanced on this topic, which is key for digital inclusion and social inclusion as well.
 And a lot has to be done.  So due to the importance of the theme and to the fact that we don't have so many -- so many workshops on this theme, I'd like to ask to have this flash session included on the IGF of this year.  Besides, it says "the case of Portugal," but actually the interest is to act as a multiplier.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  That would balance participation of governments directly.  30-minute session.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes.  I'd just like to support this.  I think it's an excellent example of how the flash session format can be used and also it's great to see the governments using that format.  So support.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I was going to support it for the balance in the stakeholder group.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Remote participation?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Okay.  Subi, please go ahead.  Subi, we can't hear you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Let me then propose that we retain this as a flash session to improve participation of the governments.
 256.  256, "Web accessibility and Internet governance."  Ana?
 >>ANA NEVES:  I'm sorry again.  But it's about Web accessibility again, so I have to defend this theme.  I think it's -- it's really important.  I think this workshop is very well organized, so I really support it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  How that improves the balance?  This is civil society theme, which is oversubscribed and relatively low scored, 177 ranking in the overall scoring.  I didn't hear any argument why should we examine that this is a good proposal.  We have 240 good proposals.
 Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  I'm doubtful about this.  As I understand it, it's not entirely clear, it's about access for people with disabilities.  And this is covered in other proposals.  So I don't see a balancing issue here.  So I put this in the questionable category.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I also would put it in the questionable category but would suggest that as there's a session being organized on accessibility, that the organizers should be -- they should be referred to collaborate with that additional group because I think they certainly could contribute there.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  Well, I agree as well with Marilyn.  And I think that even the speakers were not contacted at all.  We have a dynamic coalition for accessibility.  So I think maybe joining -- brings this to merge with others would be better.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I feel that there is no sufficient support, no balancing action, and remote participant will confirm that.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  It's Bianca.  And she suggest that had the Web accessibility workshop be merged with the Portugal one to share the best practices.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we would advise -- we would not retain it in this category, and we would advise the organizers or proponents of this workshop to contact others and then seek a possibility of bringing this topic in other workshops.  Thank you.
 153.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just to be clear, I would oppose the suggestion that was just made that we suggest they talk to the Portugal flash session.  It would be very hard to add more people into a 30-minute session.  But there is another very useful Web -- a couple Web accessibility sessions where they could contribute.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I did not mention Portugal.
 153, "Freedom of expression online, gaps in policy and practice."
 Who is promoting?  Shita, please.
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair.  As I mentioned yesterday, I have two reasons to retain this proposal.  First is for geographic balance for southeast Asia.  There is not much proposals from this region, perhaps around ten from the total 267. 
 Secondly, because this is a case of freedom of expression, which is very much relevant and is necessary to bring into the IGF discussion. 
 One of the cases that is happening currently is from Malaysia, and one of the speakers is also coming from Malaysia.
 My suggestion for this workshop is to add more government representatives in the session.  They currently have a deputy privacy commissioner from New Zealand, but I would like to recommend more government representatives from southeast Asia.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I strongly endorse this proposal.  I did not nominate it as one, but I ranked it very highly partly because of the geographic diversity, partly because this was a very hot issue in Istanbul and people were upset that we didn't spend more time on this freedom of expression topic.  So I strongly urge that we include it as written.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  Yes, it is an important topic.  I read this as focusing on indicators.  So I was concerned about the format, and 90 minutes primarily on reporting this work on indicators I thought would be too much, taking up too much valuable time.
 It would complement IGF discussions on this vitally important topic generally, freedom of expression. 
 So I advocated a shorter session, perhaps even 30 minutes, to present on the indicators.  And then that would feed across to other key main sessions on this topic.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I would support this session even though it does add to the thematic imbalance and somewhat to the stakeholder imbalance further.  It's very highly scored.  And I think it has a strong mix of developing country notions.  So I think it's worth retaining. 
 If you are short on space -- I mean, 71 ranking is quite high by based where we had the cutoff.  So I think both on merits and the mix it provides and some very strong speakers, perhaps a little less time but I think we should certainly retain this proposal. 
 But it does go against the activity that's currently underway which is to balance.  But even then, I think this needs to be supported.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I hear that there is a sort of argument that this is a regional balance because we have southeast Asia focus and that is underrepresented. 
 Avri, are you in agreement?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, I'm in agreement but I'm not in agreement with shortening it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then you made a proposal that everybody else is supporting.  We retain this workshop and Subi is very happy about it.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  It's Towela, actually, and she's supporting this session.  She scored it highly and says that it is a relevant topic. 
 And Subi's also supporting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  We retain it because of geographic representation and high score in general.
 So we have retained Proposal 21 yesterday, and we're moving now to 151.  "Hate and Discriminatory Speech and Freedom of Expression On Line."  Scored 76. 
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is one that I did nominate for retention because hate speech is a very important topic, but many of the sessions that we've had in previous IGFs have just taken one side of the issue and said "Hate speech is bad, how do we stop it," and not brought in the free speech advocates, who will argue that too much constraint on hate speech can actually stifle freedom of expression.  I thought this was a very well-balanced panel, it was rated very highly, and I think it would be rated even higher, had we -- if we did the assessment today, because there aren't a lot of sessions on hate speech that ended up getting high approval, so I strongly endorse we take this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Very strong support for this.  We've just had a Council of Europe conference in Brussels on this topic, it's high on governments' agendas, and it's important that the IGF provides a real opportunity for this issue to be explored and next steps to be identified, and I -- the proposal is very well constructed in that regard.
 So I think this is a thematic balancing issue here we should incorporate in the program.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Hossam.
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Yes.  I also jointly support the proposal.  This is a very good one and is very important in developing countries as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Strongly support the proposal.  Well written.  Very highly ranked.  I think it's a great concept.  But, Mr. Chairman, we are making life difficult for ourselves.  This is another proposal that moves away from the objectives we set ourselves. 
 I will support this, but I just want to be mindful that we are making life difficult for ourselves.
 The theme and the stakeholder group is expanding more than we had thought we should when we first started this exercise.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I just have to address Virat's concerns. 
 We really can't focus exclusively on who's organizing the session.  We should also look at the fact that these sessions are bringing new voices in.  In this case, there are government officials, as well, and intergovernmental people on the panel.  So I'd much rather take a panel organized by civil society with a full range of stakeholders on the panel than to take one organized by governments or the technical community that was -- did not have government people, did not have private sector people.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I understand that there is a desire to retain it on the basis of important and unique topic, hate speech and discriminatory speech, and also taking into account that this is already a highly ranked proposal.
 So with that in mind, that is the wish of the MAG for the moment, and we can move to the next one.
 Subi.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi, please go ahead.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  I hope I'm audible now.  I strongly support the retention of the proposal for those reasons.  It also includes and affords us an opportunity for better stakeholder balance with government.
 On the youth proposal as well, I do want to say we were trying to (indiscernible).  I still support it, but I would have wanted to see more stakeholder engagement from developing countries, which I did not see, so at the moment, I'm okay with a "maybe" on that one.  If we have scope for improvement in terms of stakeholder participation, I would be very happy. 
 And a quick one.  I believe Hartmut mentioned fellowships for youth, and we've been taking this conversation on the MAG list for a while now.  We would really like to understand the process of how more young people can apply for these fellowships and if they're available for more Asian countries as well.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much.  Shall we move, then, to the next one?  And that is 245.
 Who is proposing?
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is a flash session.  It's about a very important initiative in Mexico.  Mexico is scheduled to be the host of the IGF next year, and this would be an interesting preview of one of the topics that will be important at that meeting.
 Just to pick up on what Subi said, I would think it would be really interesting to urge the organizers of this flash session to bring in some Mexican youth, since they're the ones who will benefit most if this strategy is successful.  But I thought it was a very good use of a flash session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that there is a -- body language tells me that we're in agreement.  On top of it, that contributes to balancing of government participation, and then proposals, so this is retained.
 We are going now to Workshop 79, "Zero Rating, Open Internet and Freedom of Expression."
 Who is speaking on this topic?
 >>LORENZO PUPILLO: Yes.  I'm Lorenzo Pupillo from Telecom Italia.  This workshop is proposed jointly by Telecom Italia and the regulatory agency of Colombia, so it's, let's say public (indiscernible) to some extent.  It's the Colombian regulator.  It's in the government.  It's one of the first presenters.  And its characteristics is just approaching zero rating but touching a more open context, open Internet and freedom of expression.  Has a very balanced group of speakers.  There is the OECD, there are academics from the U.S., Italy, from Latin America.  There's a gender balance.  And so it's -- and then it got a very high ranking.  About 79.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  But a number of us who evaluated highlighted the merger opportunity with 156 and -- which is in the top 60, I think, if I recall rightly, and one or two others, so I -- given the pressures we're under, I don't see the extra sort of balancing factor here, but note the consistency of merger recommendations in the evaluation exercise.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I support merging.  I think it's -- we did a main session on net neutrality and related issues last year.  If this is retained, I would support merging it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I ranked this quite highly because it is a very important topic, particularly in some developed countries.
 I understand there are other sessions that cover this.  This brought some new issues to the fore.
 I actually think we could increase the diversity of the program by suggesting that the organizers use a different format.  Maybe a 60-minute discussion session.  I mean, really have a series -- just have people around a circle talking through these issues.  Because I don't think we'll have enough time in the other sessions to really have audience participation and to get into the details that this session wants to get into.
 So if the organizers would be interested in changing the format and helping us explore different ways of doing things, I would strongly support that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this proposal.  I also want to bring it to the notice of the house that we've gone -- the private sector is actually one of the stakeholder groups that has declined below, at the current level, where we were at top 60, it's also below where we would have been at top 80, and is currently below what the average number of proposals submitted was.
 So actually, the private sector proposals need to be supported.  I say that by identifying my conflict of interest.  This is an excellently written proposal.  I would oppose any change in format.  I think they have some excellent speakers.  Some of these actually were there last year at the IGF and made some very valuable contributions. 
 And last of all, how often do you have a Proposal Number 79 ranked 79?
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So that wouldn't -- that trick wouldn't work this time.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Just trying.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  But what would -- what would work, the argument, is that private sector is underrepresented, and on that merit, we could retain it.
 Susan, are you in agreement?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes, I am in agreement on that basis, but I also just wanted to note that I think there are probably eight workshop proposals that deal with zero rating.  Some of them deal with zero rating in the context of developing countries.  Others deal with zero rating in the context of human rights, which, I mean, there are different ways to approach the same issue, so I think that's worth noting.
 But I would -- yes, I would vote to retain this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Flavio, you confirm that?
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  I would just like to know:  Which is the current situation of the other workshop proposals dealing with zero rating:  156, 204, 205, 206.  They are very similar proposals.  156, 204, '5, and '6.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we get -- can we get information on that?
 So 156 is included in top 60 and others are not.  So we have only 156 on the topic -- similar topic.
 So I would suggest that we retain this on the merits of a presentation by private sector, which percentage is declining.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, could we -- could we have the floor for Towela?
 Towela said that she had a slight concern on diversity with respect to developing country participation and she would support this if this was addressed.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  We will -- we will then add this to the decision, draw attention to the organizers that maybe invitation of participant from developing country would be useful.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  And Subi is also in line, so...
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, Subi, go ahead.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  I completely echo (indiscernible) proposal.  I think it's a very well-proposal but it definitely needs greater speaker diversity, especially from developing countries, but this is a very, very important issue and is at the crossroads of access and connectivity as well, as the key core operating principles, so I would very strongly urge the retention only if the promoters, the proposers, agree to at least attempt greater speaker diversity.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  It is so decided.
 Number 7, "How the Trade Agreement Shapes the Future of Internet Governance."
 Who is speaking in favor?  Susan.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes.  I think that this is an emerging issue.  We're seeing increasing crossover between the spheres of international trade and Internet governance, especially in the realm of policy development and policy development processes, and I think that this is -- this will be a great workshop and will garner a lot of interest.
 So I would support it based on thematic diversity.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any other comments?  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Likewise, also strongly support based on thematic diversity.  I think it's a very, very important topic.  But it would be good if the -- if the organizers of the workshop could also look to invite speakers from other regions.  For example, from Asia, where some of the bilateral trade agreements are having a really strong impact on Internet governance issues.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I ranked this pretty high, but I'm not sure that it merits a full 90 minutes discussion, so I was proposing that perhaps we look at 60 minutes instead.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I would support this proposal with the time that has been given.  Trade issues are not something you can discuss in a couple of minutes.  It has a really good list of speakers.  This is an important issue.  And lots of Internet governance issues, especially in developing countries, are hinging on bilateral trades and investments, and so I think much time must be given to this.  Countries are still struggling at an average penetration across Africa of 19% and Asia of about 30% to get large-scale investments.  All of these things are very linked.  We should certainly retain this proposal, especially on the thematic -- for thematic reasons.  And it's also not scored, you know, that badly.  It's scored 85th, so...
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Mourad, please.
 >>MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  Thank you.  The issue is relevant, especially with the proliferation of trade agreements outside WTO.
 What is missing here, I guess, is to have among the panelists the perspective of WTO.  A representative.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I -- Ephraim, please.
 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Okay.  I just want to support this also because taking stock of the current events, like this issue was discussed this week in the U.S. Congress, and we've seen the reaction by various companies, various nonprofits.  It will be something great to discuss during this year's IGF.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Again, once again, please do not speak that much whether that is good or bad proposal.  It is good proposal.  All 240 are good proposals.  We need to deal with the balancing things.  This, I see that it would be interesting to retain because of the uniqueness of the topic and there is not so much on trade, and because it is proposed by private sector.  Please, Slobodan.
 >>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: Yeah.  This time in my personal capacity as a MAG member. 
 I would strongly support this proposal.  It is a unique topic and there is a -- at least in my opinion a lack of transparency in a lot of cases when -- when these treaties are negotiated, and I think that the venue of the IGF itself would be a good place to debate on these issues.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So proposal is to retain on the merits of private sector proposal and uniqueness of the topic.  Acceptable?  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I would defend the proposal.  But it's not private sector.  We want credit where it's due.  It is civil society.  They have done a great job.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Sorry.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  But I strongly support.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Did you change the proponent because it was previously private sector, no?  Sorry.  My apologies.  So it is retained.
 Next one, 59.
 Who is speaking in favor of 59?
 Then we're going to 124.
 UNESCO?
 >> UNESCO:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Xianhong Hu representing UNESCO.  And since last day before I touch upon this proposal, I would like to express my pleasure to be with MAG.  And I would also like to thank MAG support and particularly those MAG members who have attended UNESCO CONNECTing the Dots conference in March where we have discussed the ongoing UNESCO Internet study.  And we have eventually endorsed the outcome document where we repeat our lasting support for IGF continuation and current WSIS review +10 process.
 To give you a scale, idea of UNESCO's Internet study, it is a picture publication we will launch in the UNESCO open forum.  And under -- it is very general, comprehensive, and UNESCO-centric which fits the open forum needs. 
 Under this umbrella, we are contacting 15 focused substudies in different areas according to the need of the governments and other stakeholders during our past year of consultations.  That's why we have put forward three workshops, if you allow me to forecast. 
 Workshops 1 through 4 is the first subject we propose to the IGF, is about how to balance the transparency and the privacy issue.  Transparency means the freedom of information.  We see that many other governments are very concerned about on one hand the need to open data, open government information access to the public.  On the other hand, this can be in conflict with the protection of privacy.  So we have commissioned a new -- a brand-new research that's still ongoing.  We want to discuss this topic to channel in the new thoughts about it.
 Of course, as it connects to the emerging issue it has the right to be forgotten.  So it can be useful to the IGF discussion.
 And let me also forecast the other proposal we are going to look at later on.  One is on --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Thank you, Xianhong.  We're talking about one on the screen now, 124.
 MAG members, please. 
 Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  The proposal seems good, but it is more like a presentation of the efforts of UNESCO.  It is intergovernmental so we need it to be there but maybe for shorter period of time.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And UNESCO has an open forum as well.  Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said she would support it but as a flash session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any other -- any other proposals, thoughts?  Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I would support it, Mr. Chairman, slightly shorter session. 
 Also want to remind the house that intergovernmental organizations had originally submitted 6.7% of all the proposals.  They are already up to 8%.  So this is one category we can now hold off unless something excellent comes through. 
 This proposal, however, is a good one.  But I just want to remind ourselves of the fact that we met the objectives that we set ourselves yesterday morning.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Shall we retain it as a flash session?  30 minutes. 
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  No.  Again, I really have to question Virat's statistics here.  I mean, looking at the number proposed and the number accepted is not the thing we should be looking at.  We should be looking at how does the overall pie chart at the end of the day look in terms of the different stakeholders.  So I would use totally different statistics and say that we need to have some of these organizations represented.  This is not just an UNESCO proposal.  It's a well-balanced panel, different perspectives, good people from different places.  And I think the transparency issue is one that has not gotten enough attention.  So I would strongly support keeping it at 90 minutes.
 I have been a strong advocate for flash sessions for presentations that just focused on one project or one agency or one report.  This doesn't fall in that category.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  In favor of the session.  I'm not in favor of trying to turn things into flash sessions.  Flash sessions have a particular characteristic.  They really need to be designed as that.  And so to take something else and say "Come up with something that's jazzy and can be done as a flash" diminishes what a flash is.  It just makes it a short session, not flash.  So I'm against turning it into a flash.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Marilyn Cade speaking.  But I would never want to say that I'm against superheros like Flash.
 Trying to compete with Virat.
 However, I guess my question would be if UNESCO might feel they could do it in 60 minutes and retain the substance, that might be a compromise.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Hossam.
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  One thing to take -- to take into consideration is the next proposal is also from UNESCO and is better ranked, human rights, Number 40.  So we need, I think, to check this as well and take one of them.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay. 
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Support retaining this and also not to shortening it.  It doesn't lend itself to a flash session.  Because what I pulled from this was advancing best practice and making policy recommendations.  It's a very valuable session in that regard and requires 90 minutes.  So I would be strongly averse to shortening it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Seems, again, we're back in the discussion where theme is worth -- human rights and freedom of expression online is oversubscribed.  And so it's really many proposals.  If we would retain it, it would be only on merit that this comes from an intergovernmental organization. 
 And in that respect, I maybe would like to follow Hossam's advice to look at proposal 40 and then decide if the proposal 40 comes from UNESCO as well, to see what is the difference and whether we retain both, whether we retain one, whether we retain one or another in a changed format.
 So can we go to 40?
 >> UNESCO:  It is not from UNESCO, Number 40.  No, it is not from UNESCO.  We are -- it's 124, 120, and 128.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, I see.  It's not from UNESCO.  Then I would advise again following discussions and some concerns that maybe we retain 124 and do it in -- propose to do it in 60 minutes. 
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  The reason we need 90 minutes for this is because you have a number of different national initiatives that try to address this balance between transparency and privacy.  If you decrease it to 60 minutes, then it will just be focused on a few global perspectives and we'll miss the opportunity to actually examine the case studies. 
 The third part of the proposal was the part that was most exciting to me, and that's the part that demands 90 minutes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair.  Still after looking at the proposal and revisiting it, I suggest a shorter session given the fact that UNESCO does have an open forum.  I agree with what is already on the floor, that this raises important concerns.  But I would still suggest that we take the most exciting part of the session discussion, the case studies, prioritize it, and look at best practices and information sharing.
 We do believe that workshops which are looking at the opportunity of presenting or sharing reports or studies can make an attempt to work as a flash session.  I support retention, but I still believe that a 60-minute session would make sense for the proposal.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  I'm sorry to come back in on this.  But my approach to this is framed by our objective in terms of the IGF being outcome oriented and developing consensus on best practice and so on.
 And you can't do that in 60 minutes.  I'm agreeing with Mike Nelson here.  We really need this 90 minutes to allow the flow of the session to reach that vital point.
 And it serves the interest of the IGF to have that 30 minutes to, "Okay, let's look at where the consensus is on practice" and formulate some recommendations.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes.  Back to proposal 40, it is co-organized by UNESCO and has speakers from UNESCO as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I'm really -- Fiona.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you very much, Janis.
 I've been listening to everyone very carefully and reading the proposal again.  And I do have a couple of questions about how a debate format actually leads to a conversation on best practices.  And maybe understanding that would help resolve the issue of whether or not you needed 90 minutes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I think UNESCO is here.  We should check with them if they are in the position to do this in 90 minutes.  They would be in a good position to advise us.  We shouldn't ignore that all together.  There are equal views on both sides.
 But I want to seek a clarification from you.  Mike Nelson has now said three times to the statistics that I have read out which the secretariat has worked very hard on that those should not be taken into consideration. 
 Are we working towards an objectives based on statistics that the secretariat presents to us each morning, or are we to ignore those?  Because if we don't have an objective criteria of rating, now we don't have an objective criteria of how the stakeholder groups are looking.  Then the entire exercise that the secretariat does should be dispensed with.  If not, then we have to have an aim to which we have to move. 
 So I'd like a clarification whether the work that the secretariat does is relevant for the MAG to take cue from and move towards or should we ignore that and look at subjective judgments of who's in which speaker slot. 
 I'm not seeking clarification from Mike Nelson but from the Chair.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, everything secretariat does is correct.  And we follow the statistics provided by secretariat which are based on facts and numbers they retain.  So there is no any more conversation about that.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I was mischaracterized.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  My apologies.  I do not want to -- I do not want to prolong this conversation.  If you gentlemen would do it offline, both of you right now --
 >> VIRAT BHATIA:  We should have tea. 
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I agree.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I still feel that since presentation of the report that UNESCO does on this could be done in open forum.  The session could be oriented towards discussion on different regional perspectives as Michael said, and I would retain my proposal to retain the session to 60 minutes.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  We've accepted lots of other proposals for 90 minutes that would be more limited than just the part of this proposal, which you just mentioned as being a priority.  So, again, I think -- the next proposal, Number 40, is a great candidate for a flash session.  This one, to have a full discussion, as Mark Carvell has said, to look at all these different countries to compare and contrast and debate deserves 90 minutes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Fiona.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Thank you very much, Janis.  My initial reaction to this proposal is that I don't understand why it's not part of the UNESCO public forum or open forum anyway.  I'm still unclear how there will be a debate of all these things given the speakers that have actually been listed.  Again, I'm happy to go along with your suggestion of 60 minutes if we can move forward and move onto the next one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I hear that there is a prevailing opinion about shortening session of 60 minutes retaining on the merits of proposal by international organization, and that is the Chair's ruling.
 Next is 40.  Who is speaking for workshop 40?  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I would support this as a flash session.  I ranked it quite highly, but in no way would I think it would be a 90-minute session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any support for proposed proposal?  Flash session, 30 minutes?  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I find -- I found the topic valuable, but I noted as well that there's a different view of balance and that is not just from stakeholder groups or IGOs but also from a single entity, the number of workshops we're able to accept.
 I see this also as fitting into a category that I observed on yesterday.  And that is when research is being presented or when academics are presenting papers, I see those as flash sessions or poster sessions, not as full sessions.  And this to me is the launch of a publication.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So proposal is to retain as a flash session for 30 minutes?
 Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION: Towela commented she rated this one highly for bringing in the perspectives of governments through IGOs. 
 And we have Subi waiting in line.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Subi, please go ahead.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair.
 I think it's a great proposal, and it raises important questions.  But I would -- since we already have the UNESCO representatives present in the room, also try and get a sense of how this is going to be different from the open forum.  And I agree with Marilyn's comment in terms of striving for balance, and we're accepting the number of proposals from a single entity or driven by a single entity.  If that could be addressed, then maybe we could consider this as a flash session.
 But I also see this as an opportunity to launch research or a shared presentation.  And that I don't know if that lends very well to a workshop format.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I didn't see workshop 40 as a workshop that is actually sharing research.  I saw it as trying to facilitate a process where various intergovernmental organizations are coming together to have a dialogue about their role and how -- their role in terms of engaging with the issue of Internet governance and Internet policy.  So I'm not sure where that understanding -- unless I'm reading it wrongly.
 And I think UNESCO was saying that this is not proposed by UNESCO, in which case I think there needs to be more clarification because the name of the proposer of the organizing group clearly states that it's UNESCO.  So I think there is some conflation and confusion happening. 
 Saying that, I think it is an important topic and one that hasn't really appeared in many other workshop proposals that have been accepted, I believe.
 I think there was another proposal that aimed to look at the Human Rights Council and it links to the IGF.  So in that sense, I think it is quite critical and worthy of examination.  And if so, then a roundtable would actually work.  But I think there's a lot of questions in terms of actually what this workshop is trying to do and who's organizing it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So based on that proposal, and actually going back to the reason why we're doing this exercise, if this is qualified as a civil society proposal on a theme which is oversubscribed, so then we may decide not to retain it in this category and see whether it will make in on its own merit, based on rankings. 
 Would that be acceptable?  We do not retain it here and see whether it gets in based on its own merits, according to rankings?
 I see no objections.  That's decided.
 169.  169, who is speaking on this? 
 Flavio, please.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  So this -- there are many initiatives for building Internet observatories around the world for many different reasons.  Some of them are wide scope.  Others are focused on some specific issues.  They come from different stakeholder groups, from governments, from technical community, from civil society, and the effort in this proposal is to bring together all those initiatives.  You can see a very diverse list of participants that can discuss all those different initiatives in a common framework, so I think it's also unique.
 There is -- we have approved a proposal from Portugal but it's, you know, a very specific issue, which is accessibility, and while this is a very wider scope here, the proposal of the workshop, and I think it's the -- the only one dealing with this issue in -- among all the proposals we have. 
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So any further comments?  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Strongly support this.  This was one of my top 10 because it brings a lot of facts to the table from a lot of different places, and just second what was just said.
 And I do think this is a unique topic, which is the primary reason to support it.  We don't have other things like it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 I'm not the expert in this, but I would think that one hour would be enough for those three stakeholders.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, I agree with that.  That was one of my comments.  Shorter.  60-minute session for this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Subi?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  First, Ginger said that she supports the topic and it needs full time.
 And of course Subi is now in the queue. 
 Please, Subi, take the floor.  Yes, Subi, we can hear you.  Can you --
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  So I said I looked at the proposal in detail.  I think it's a fantastic new initiative.  But I don't support the proposal as yet, because I do not see enough diversity, and I also do not see enough diversity in perspectives.
 I could not support any briefs from the government, as well, in terms of intersections and crossroads, but if we do decide to retain the proposal, I believe a shorter session would make sense for it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  We know that some, at least what we agreed yesterday, like GIPO initiative, would be presented in open forum by European Commission.
 Michael, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I'm confused because someone just mentioned that there were just three initiatives to discuss, but in looking at the proposed speakers, I count at least 10 different very important initiatives, several of which are not discussed in other sessions.
 If each of these people get seven minutes, we have more than an hour, and if we're actually sharing data and debating that data, we can't do anything in just 60 minutes.
 So again, if you look at the list of attend- -- of proposed speakers, it's a very full debate. 
 And I know the diversity question is a good one.  The challenge, I think, though, is that most of the observatories that have been funded have come from the developed countries where there's enough money to fund them.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 So clearly there is a desire to retain this because of the uniqueness of the topic.  The only unclarity for the moment is some suggested that we need to shorten, 60 minutes, or we retain full.
 Dominique.
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Just if we retain it to 90, which I'm in support of, I would suggest also including the CSTD mapping in this process as well, based on discussions with Peter Major.
 So I think if we do that, it might be actually a really full and quite rich workshop.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ginger?
 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Thank you, Chair.  This is Ginger Paque.  I would strongly suggest retaining this workshop because of the opportunity to hear about these different resources, and with the full time, because as Mike said, there are so many different perspectives we need to hear, and I support also then an attempt -- a request to include Dominique's suggestion there that we make sure that all of the different major observatories or watches are included.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I then would propose to retain this proposal on the merits of uniqueness of topic and go to the next one.  220. 
 Or, Marilyn, you wanted to say something.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I just wanted to say something very quickly.
 I do support inviting the CSTD secretariat to join to present the mapping, and it would be the secretariat that the invitation should go to, but I just want to note that as I understand this session, it is an informational session.  It is not actually a debate, it's informational.
 So my guidance -- my further feedback would be:  I hope that the organizers will take seriously the opportunity to present a digest in writing to support their work, since many people may not be able to attend, but it would be an important documentation.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 With that in mind, I saw that Benedicto noted your suggestion.  Now we're going to 220.
 Xiaodong.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  Considering the topic about IANA transition, I think it is a very critical issue, but I saw that in the proposals there is also similar proposal to discuss the IANA transition issues, so I suggest to maybe we need to merge.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes, very much on the same line.  Number 72 is in the top 60, so this could merge with 72.  There is no additional balancing factor here.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?  Yes.  So that is so decided.  We do not retain it or -- and we suggest to organizers to go and see with other proponents of similar topics.
 226.  Who is speaking on this topic?  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Sorry.  I was just looking for it.  I'm a little bit slow.
 Okay.  I thought that this was a very interesting topic on an important area that didn't really -- that I don't think I saw very much in the previous already accepted workshops on this.  If I'm wrong, please correct me.  But I thought it was interesting because it was being proposed by the stakeholder group, which is government, which was an area that we wanted to balance.  Also from a developing country point of view.  And given the thematic area is also critical, I wanted to support this proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Merit is that it comes from government from developing country. 
 Michael and then remote participant.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I don't usually speak against proposals, particularly ones about open data, which I'm a big fan of, but I just question whether this is remotely linked to Internet governance.  I mean, this is primarily data governance.  It's about how governments manage their data.
 Great -- you know, great people for another meeting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Towela supports 226 for relevance and for government engagement.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Dominique?
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Hi.  Mike, to your point, I've actually spoken on an open data panel at the IGF a couple years ago.  I think that this is -- open government and open data and OGP and all of those sort of issues that are being identified here are really quite important for the IGF, but I just spoke to Mark who said that there are actually two other panels that this could possibly be merged with, so maybe we should look at that.
 But I do think we should have at least something on open data because it's very multistakeholder, the approaches that governments have to it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Strongly support this.  It's -- because of the governmental factor in our balancing exercise here.
 The other proposals on the similar track were low scoring.  I think 227 and 230 I identified.  I'm not sure where 230 is exactly, to be honest.  So -- but I support this.  As I say, it's -- as the points have already been made, yeah, government's participation and so on, as a factor.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Can we retain it on the merits of that it comes from government and we aim at balancing more and bringing more government participation in the --
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Actually, the -- the openness subtheme is one of the slimmest subscribed to, so for two good reasons, openness and government, this should certainly go through.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Xiaodong, you're in agreement, right?
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  Yes.  Support.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So 110, please.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, could we please --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Sorry.  Subi, you are in agreement on the previous one, right?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Janis, thank you, and I'm grateful that we're afforded an opportunity to also present our views when we do the first round of inputs. 
 I do want to say that this is an extremely important proposal and we should retain it, but I do have a comment on the one on observatory.
 I -- it gives me a sense of discomfort if we're being talked at from a developing country perspective, and I do want to request the host -- and some of them are present -- of the workshop proposal to also take in a developing country perspective from the observatory and then we retain it.
 On this one, I strongly support retention and I also support the existing time format.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Subi.
 We're moving now to the next one, 110.  Xiaodong?
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I think I have a conflict of interest on this proposal because I'm listed in the panelists, but considering, I just want to share some information about this topic, you know, that Internet Plus now is a national strategy of China, so as the largest Internet user country, so now the whole country is credited for this strategy which was published in early of this year by the premier, Li Keqiang.  So now there is a lot of discussion about Internet Plus so I think it's very important for them to bring information from largest Internet population and to give their ideas, to share the information for this forum.  I think it's okay to get it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for presentation and informing us about potential conflict of interest.  Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  I think it is a very interesting topic, a good subject, and very important for developing countries as well, so I propose retaining it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I have a conflict of interest because I've given many talks about Cloud Plus, but I -- just to be serious, this is one of the few really well-thought-out proposals that has a large number of people from China, which is an incredibly important player, so I'd strongly support it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yeah.  Strongly support.  There will be a lot of interest in this, I'm sure.  Particularly as it's coming from China, a huge Internet population, a lot -- a lot of exciting stuff going on, and so on.  Yeah, that is the sort of additional factor here, I think, certainly.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi supports this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I hear no objections and we agree to retain it on the merits of proposal of geographical balance and proposal by technical community. 
 Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, is it time to sort of get a hold of how many have been retained now?  Because I think we're getting close to 90, or it -- or we must be past 86, 87, so we should just get a hold of how many more can come through.
 I think we only have space for 10 or 12 more.  Should we just stop for a moment and get the retained number beyond 70?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we still have about 14 proposals to look at.  I think, indeed, we are close to a hundred.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  But we are at 86 right now?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Are we?  Are we?  You're keeping very good statistics, I see.  I'm not sure.  I think we're beyond 86.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  What we can do, I do not really want to lose much time on this.  How many minutes you would need to give us a current score?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  You can keep going.  I just wanted to get the number.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah, 11 retained, four not retained, and one "maybe."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we're about -- somewhere in the low 90s, for the moment.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So we can just get in about 8 or 10 more.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We do not need necessarily to get 8 more, because we still have on "maybe" list things that we discussed.  We need to continue examining the proposals and go through the list as -- and do this balancing exercise as we agreed at the beginning.
 So next?  Next is 165.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis just to note that Liyun Han supports the previous one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  165.  "Implementing and Measuring Internet Access as a Human Right."  Civil society.  Xiaodong, are you speaking on this or you're just -- you haven't put down your flag? 
 And this is straight in front of me.  Thank you.
 Who is speaking on this proposal?
 Jac, are you speaking?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thank you.  Sorry.  I just had to refresh my memory in terms of which proposals I put forward.
 I did put forward this proposal because I thought that linking between -- it was more thematic rather than stakeholder, so maybe it's not so appropriate to bring it up here, but I thought that it was important because it was linking a critical issue around access with human rights as well as indicators.
 But on closer reading, I may have been mistaken in my interpretation, so I will open it up for discussion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  As I said, we need not to invent things.  We need to follow criteria.  I see this is from civil society, a well-represented stakeholder group, on a topic which is oversubscribed, and I will listen.  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  When you say the topic is oversubscribed, do you mean human rights is oversubscribed or censorship is oversubscribed?  Because as I recall, there's only one other panel on censorship and freedom of expression. 
 Am I mistaken?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I understand this is a question to MAG members, not to the Chair.
 Mourad, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  It actually was to the secretariat.  I didn't think we had other -- we don't have an overabundance of panels on this topic, narrow topic, not broad topic of human rights.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mourad.
 >>MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  Thank you.  Just wanted to -- we have to check if the topic hasn't been retained as well because I guess I have seen something related to Internet measurement access.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Honestly, what I heard so far is not very convincing on the exercise we're engaged in.  I would propose not to retain it on those merits and see whether it will get in on its own.
 Michael?  No?  No objections.  Decided.
 108.
 >> JAC SM KEE:  Again, this is from me.  I thought it was -- it supported two things -- three things actually.  In terms of format, it was quite interesting.  I mean, it's not a very -- it's quite a light format.  It was a flash session.  And it's also being proposed by a government stakeholder and was on a relatively little represented thematic area, which I thought was interesting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Merit is presented by a government, flash session, 30 minutes.  I see body language suggesting that we retain this.
 Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair, for accepting the retention.  I do want to say this is a very, very important topic and is an increasing concern.  It relates to both governance as well as preservation of heritage using digital mediums.  Strong support for retention.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  It is decided.
 213.  Who is speaking in favor of this?
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, this was one of the few that focused very tightly on transparency and the need to make more information available on what's really going on on the Internet.
 I may be biased.  I gave a very strong proposal scoring to this because I do know some of the people involved, and they have done outstanding work in the U.S. on these issues.  So the argument is that it brings a new topic to the table.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any other reaction?  Transparency not necessarily new topic.
 Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I also rated it very high both for the topic plus also on the quality of the speakers and the fact that they were new speakers.  So many of the panels actually cycle through just the same past participants.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I don't hear any argument why we should retain apart from that there are new speakers.  Can't we advise those who do similar workshops which are retained already to use those speakers in their workshops?
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, they're taking a different take on the issue.  That's the argument I'm making.  But, you know...
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Two things.  One, it's an important topic, but it is certainly not a new topic.  I support the Chair's idea of borrowing the fantastic speakers by some of the workshops that have already been selected.  And there are some on this issue, on digital trust.  I like the approach.
 But I also think a greater effort could have been made on improving on speaker diversity because this is an issue that cuts across borders.  I don't see that outreach.
 I thought this was a well-written proposal, but I did not see enough of an effort to coalesce other contentions or tracks. 
 And, therefore, I think it is a great idea if we can share the resource persons and those could be accommodated in other similar sessions.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Following Subi's comments there, I think the reason it lacks diversity is this was really focusing on the findings of the Open Technology Institute and the activities of the working group of the Freedom Online Coalition on Privacy and Transparency. 
 I react to this as an informational session that could well read across to other sessions.  So I'm not sure we can identify easily any balancing additionality here, but certainly the information it would deliver would be very valuable.
 They've got 60 minutes.  Is that right?  60 minutes.  Maybe there's some other way of ensuring that these reports and information could feed in rather than a 60-minute roundtable.  Maybe that's too much.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we put it on "maybe" list?
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, this is not something that other people are talking about.  This is about transparency of what companies are doing.  It's about -- I mean, my own company publishes a transparency report.  That's a very useful way of building trust with our customers.  Government policy impacts what kind of transparency we can provide, but this isn't really about policy in government.  It's about what businesses do, and there's no other session that talks about this kind of corporate transparency.
 The argument that was just made, which is this is about a particular report, is one that I make a lot when I argue for flash sessions.  This is about four different reports looking at transparency data.  So we can keep 60 minutes, or I would propose four flash sessions.  But turning this into a flash session, I think, would really be unfair to four really important projects that are not similar to anything else discussed on the agenda.  And I think they would also probably bring some private sector people into the discussion.  I know I'd want to be part of this discussion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  It seems to be a good workshop proposal, but it doesn't add to the balance or the diversity.  And I think it could be put on "maybe" as you mentioned.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then I propose to put it on "maybe" and then see how far we can get, whether we can get any of the "maybe" list also in the program.
 Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  I would still propose, though, either a poster or space in a booth so that reports can be shared. 
 My only challenge here is the limitation of the narrowness of the approach, which could be focused and distilled, but I don't see this as a workshop.  So can we park it as "maybe" (indiscernible) or a space in the booth or a poster session in which they can share key findings (indiscernible).  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  We retain it on "maybe" list.
 201.  Flavio.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  So although we have already approved it yesterday another workshop on IXPs, this number 171, this proposal brings a completely different perspective.  It is on the sustainability of IXPs in the developing world.  And if you see the list of proposed speakers, you will see a very diverse list of people from private sector, from governments, who are experts in economic issues, people from different civil society organizations.  So not only people running the IXPs but also people bringing the perspective -- the economic perspective of IXPs.
 If we compare this to proposal 171, this other proposal was submitted by the technical community and all proposed speakers are from the technical community running IXPs.
 So the other proposal will have a much more technical perspective.  And this one is much more on the economic issues and how can we have IXPs in the developing world, bringing all the stakeholders together.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I'm aware we approved one other workshop yesterday.  I'm also aware that we have a best practice forum.
 And I see this as proposed by a Brazilian colleague from the private sector.  It is, however, I believe -- and I just want to clarify this.  I believe it is heavily focused on the Latin American experience, which is very robust, by the way.  I just want to acknowledge that.
 But I'm -- I'd like to see if there is a way to perhaps to shorten it to 60 minutes.  I appreciate the -- Flavio believes it shouldn't be merged.  But I'm feeling the need to leave a little space for some of the workshops we're not going to get to.
 Can I say one final thing?  I hope all of the workshops which are related to best practice forums are going to be encouraged by the Chair to interact with the best practice forum.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  For sure.  Please consider it done.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I voted -- ranked very highly this workshop.  As Flavio said, this is a good complementary to the other workshop.
 I think that we have as a MAG the task of proposing a good and robust program for the IGF.  This could be excellent to put this first and the other back-to-back one in one workshop and the other at the continuation because it's really very well -- as I said yesterday, this is about the apple and the other one is about the apple pie.
 So I think I highly endorse this --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- workshop.  This is very much interesting not only for governments of Latin America but for every country in the world.  Not only governments, everybody.  This is key for Internet.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Shita?
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Yeah, I'm not sure whether debate is correct workshop format, but this could be also roundtable or panel.
 The second suggestion I would like to make is to also add another region as well.  I know this is very heavily in Latin America, but it would be good also to add another region to learn.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  That was one of my points, the value of including Africa and Asian experience to this.
 I read 171, which the title is, "IXPs driving connectivity and local economies."  So maybe we ought to bring it up again.  But I didn't read that as totally technical.  So I don't really see the precise argument about complementarity here.
 My approach really was to merge this with 171 as the solution.  Now, I don't really see the additionality.  But perhaps bringing up 171 might help -- thank you -- on the screen.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If you could put on the screen 171.  And in the meantime, remote participant and Slobodan.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Okay.  The first is a comment from Towela.  Her concern is that the proposer flagged this as a debate, but she doesn't think that it is a proper classification.
 >>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC:  And on my behalf, I strongly support this proposal on the basis of the uniqueness of the views that this -- okay, mute it.  I muted a new participant.
 [ Laughter ]
 I think this brings us a unique perspective.  We are usually -- when we talk about the IXPs in the Internet governance settings, we usually speak about the technical stuff.  But I think this is a unique thing and I think that we should support it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we have now 171 on the screen.  We see participants.
 Xiaodong.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I support this proposal.  There is also Number 201 which also discussed the IXP issues if it is necessary to merge them.  Of course, the IXPs is very important for the Internet connection -- in the Internet infrastructure there.  But I suggest maybe put a topic for IXP but to consider to merge that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I hear there's no convincing argument, and there is little on this balancing act that we're trying to do.
 If I may suggest to put it on "maybe" list for the moment.  Juan Alfonso, you're in agreement with me?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Just a question.  What time was allotted for 171?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think 90 minutes.  90 minutes.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  So maybe a merger for a full 90 minutes could go on.  But if we have to keep one of those, the other because this is more an implementation.  171 is an implementation.  And the other is more in the concept of sustainability.  It's more -- it's more interesting, more basic for policymakers.  That's the idea of the IGF, you know, to aid policymakers.
 If we have to retain one or two, I rather have the one that is higher level than the other. 
 But I think the complementary is clear there.  So maybe -- I don't know.  Maybe 120-minute session of a merger for 120 minutes or two sessions of 60 minutes could be back-to-back, could be a solution, you know?  Something like that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I would actually support the proposal of two 60-minute sessions.  I think this proposal actually brings in quite a critical perspective to the conversation that isn't covered by 171.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I would hate to do this type of sort of conditionalities because this is not in our practice.  We're not talking about merit of the proposal.  Proposal is very good.  We're talking about why we will -- we're bringing proposal from rank 123 up to top hundred.  And we need to justify why we're doing this.
 We have set criteria for ourselves why we're doing this, to improve balance being of stakeholder groups, being of topics, being geographic representation.  Please give an argument why we're doing this.  Because every 240 workshops, they have merit to be organized and present in the meeting.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  And government speakers is a reason.  Government speakers.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We're hoping that every -- every workshop or every session will have speakers representing all stakeholder groups.  We're hoping.  This is one of the conditions of that.
 So I would -- for the moment, I would suggest to retain it on "maybe" list.  I'm coming back to my proposal. 
 Izumi.
 >>IZUMI MATSUZAKI:  I'm okay with this approach.  I have nothing to add.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Let's put it on the "maybe" list and then we will see what is our room of maneuver.
 Yes, please.  Benedicto.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yeah.  Just a comment here.  I think that's okay for the moment to be on the "maybe" list, but building on what was said by Juan, I think from the perspective of government, it is important.  We fully concur with the notion that government should be involved and speak on both, but from -- the approach that is proposed by 201 is different as explained by Flavio, since it will not deal with only the technical aspect but with the aspects that are important from the perspective of policymaking, and this will appeal very much to governments.
 So I think by putting it on the "maybe" list, we would like to add these comments because we think that should be seen in that light.  And I think the proposal made by Juan maybe to address the issue and not to lose sight -- not to get away -- not get rid of the decision we made before in regard to the previous, but to try to find a way not to lose the substance we are looking for in 2001 -- 201.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 120.  So who is speaking on this topic?  UNESCO?
 >>UNESCO:  First, to explain, this session is kind of paying -- to pay tribute to the IGF at 10 because all this flagship and intermediary Internet freedom series will build up on the meeting and discussion at IGF in past 10 years. 
 Now we are reaching our 10th edition of this series publication which were well-received by our governments and other stakeholders, so we'd like to showcase all these existing five editions and also five forthcoming ones.  It fits the -- it's really outcome of the IGF.  It's the baby of IGF. 
 And secondly, I just clarify the difference between the open forum and our workshops, to respond to some MAG member requests, that open forum at UNESCO is really a very institutional activity to show -- to explain a process, the current Internet study, focused on study, and to inform how stakeholders can engage with us as a huge organization with 2,000 people, start working with full range of mandate areas cross-cutting access, human rights, and ethics and many other areas. 
 But the workshops is really where we particularly choose very burning topics and focus areas to facing to the IGF in this discussion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Well, it's launching publications so it doesn't suit the 90-minute workshops and I don't see a balancing factor here.
 I would suggest to UNESCO they find some way to provide visibility for this, these publications, to complement the open forum.  I don't know if they've got a stand in the village, but some event sort of around the village site, if they have a site, would be the solution for this.
 So I put this definitely as not, you know, fitting our objective here.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Once again, I'm reading from Mark's talking points.
 There were several comments in the evaluations that said a flash session would be more appropriate, since it is focused on one institution and since UNESCO does have other opportunities.
 I don't think it makes sense to push this into another related session, but a good flash session would make sense.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, and the fact that intergovernmental organizations now are oversubscribed, as well as -- not oversubscribed, but higher than where we targeted, and Internet and human rights is certainly oversubscribed.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So you are suggesting not to retain it?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Not to retain it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  I support retaining it as a flash session.  It is an important contribution of a publication which, in fact, many of the governments find quite valuable.
 I was one of the people who proposed, in my comments, that it be -- since the launch of a publication -- since it's the launch after publication, that it be a flash session, but I think it's important to retain it in that manner.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Fiona?
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you, Janis.  I think I would agree with Virat.  I don't understand why this is not part of the UNESCO public forum.  If they're launching a new publication, why it's not part of that exercise.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  It seems that we do not have a common view on this. 
 Certainly a view that we have is it does not merit to be retained as a 90-minute session, and I would suggest to put it on "maybe" for the moment, taking into account that UNESCO have -- or will have an open forum where launch of publication could be done, and this is presented as a launch of publication, as we read on the -- on the proposal.
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Sorry.  Just to respond to Fiona, this is structured completely different than UNESCO open forum.  The speakers are not UNESCO talking about UNESCO.  This is a very impressive group of confirmed speakers that are talking about the topic.  So it's a reaction to the report, which is very different than what happens in an open forum.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  Actually, these are authors -- authors of the chapters of the report, most probably.  Having experience of some time in UNESCO, I imagine that these are authors who contributed to the substance of the report.
 >>UNESCO: The authors are commissioned from academia and civil society.  None of them are UNESCO staff, I assure you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  You confirmed what I was saying.
 So I would not like to prolong any more.  I would suggest to put it on "maybe" list and see if we can -- we can offer something as a result of our discussion further.
 Let me go to 109.
 Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I proposed this because I thought it was -- it's actually quite an important area around -- it's an important Internet governance discussion, as well as representing southeast Asian region, and was quite focused in terms of bringing in the perspective of this region into the -- into the conversation, which is not as well represented.
 However, I will recommend that -- and the stakeholder groups are also people who are involved in organizing the Asia-Pacific regional IGF, so they will also be able to make that link into the global IGF, but I would also recommend that government stakeholder be identified as a speaker for the session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 I -- I have some question about how to incorporate this.  For example, there will be an interregional dialogue, an interregional/national IGF dialogue, and yesterday we talked about another workshop -- I think it's 2 -- I think it's 228 -- which was a -- also related to the experience of national and regional IGFs, and we haven't made a decision about keeping that one.  We could merge this one and that one.
 The other suggestion I made yesterday was that the work be brought into the interregional dialogue of the national and regional IGFs.
 So I think it's got valuable content to it and I certainly respect the fact that the experience of all of the national and regional IGFs is important, but I'd like to consider either merging it with the -- with the other one or perhaps shortening it and urging that they also participate in the interregional dialogue of the national and regional IGFs.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I've been involved with the Asia-Pacific IGF and yet I can't support this proposal.  It's -- it doesn't meet any of the balancing objectives that we're trying to reach in terms of either the stakeholder group or the subtheme, which is the second highest subscribed.  It is a regional perspective and I think several similar discussions, not exactly the same, but are being discussed around this place, so it is sort of at best goes to the "maybe" list and if you can find space later on to try and bring it up with something else, it's probably possible. 
 I just want to be -- I think it's an important discussion but we have to give a really good reason to move it to the top 100.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Flavio?
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Yeah.  Just want to second what Virat has said.  There is no special reason why we should move it up because it does not meet our criteria here in this exercise, and besides this, if we see the evaluation, many of the reviewers have commented on the fact that it does not have a specific focus.  It's a very broad discussion on Internet governance, and there is no diversity among the participants.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 So I suggest that we do not retain it and we advise organizers or proponents of this workshop to engage with interregional dialogue and see how to channel their ideas and their thoughts in that discussion.
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  When I reviewed this, I thought it was the perfect thing to have a lunch discussion about.  Are we going to have mechanisms where people can organize informal lunch talks or some way to announce, "Hey, this table, we're going to all talk about a particular maybe regional topic or technical topic"?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I can tell you that there will be excellent lunch facilities and there will be excellent lunches, and that would be up to people to organize themselves.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I've seen it work very well, though, where conference organizers have a bulletin board or have someplace that people can post ideas and say, you know, "Over in the corner talking about DNSSEC."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Sorry.  I felt that I needed to clarify.  I thought that this session was actually very much focused on Ausian and Ausian coming to its regional economic integration and how this would then impact on Internet governance in the region. 
 And I'm speaking about this because I'm also quite familiar with the Ausian process and what this means in terms of trying to have a subregional shared ICT master plan and how then governments and private sector will work together and what is the space for other stakeholders to participate in the process.
 So because of that and also recognizing that it's a first-time proposer, which is -- which then I will provide some leeway in terms of being more -- having the experience to be able to write out the proposal in a much more tight way, in that sense I thought that it was -- this was an important conversation to have.  And again, also because of the subregional focus.
 But saying that, I also concede that this isn't actually responding to the criteria that we've set for ourselves, and I thought that the idea for lunchtime strategizing conversations was excellent and -- or failing which, I would maybe suggest this to be maybe a birds of a feather session as well.  That could be quite useful.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So maybe taking into account what Jac just said, we would not retain it as a workshop but we would -- we would retain it as a new format of some kind and we would ask the secretariat to be in touch with the proponents and see what kind -- what kind of conversation could be organized, but outside the formal workshop time.
 Marilyn, you think it's a good idea?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I don't.  However, I will certainly accept the decision but I still ask that the --
 When you read the description, this is a sharing of experience among national IGFs, and so I would ask still that the organizers be encouraged to participate in the interregional/national dialogue, in addition to whatever else.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I just saw that Jac took very good note of that and would convey the message. 
 Mark, can we go on?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Sorry.  Just briefly, I think it's a good idea if also it could be conveyed to the proposers if they could bring in some government participation.  And I'm thinking of countries like Vietnam, Korea, and Japan that would really make it a very exciting debate.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we -- we will follow what proponents or MAG member who put this for our consideration suggested, that we would look for some innovative format outside the workshops, but we would retain it as -- in that respect.
 So it would not go in a count of workshops, but we will -- we will work together to bring the information up, and certainly what Marilyn said also needs to be taken into account.  That is decided.  265.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, can we accommodate a remote participant?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Sorry.  I didn't see that.  Subi.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Okay.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  So two points.
 I don't support the retention.  I do believe this may be a good time to discuss about an open space and maybe we can request the host country to -- and we have been making that request each year to create an open space which is not just lunchtime but at the WSIS forum as well as at other ITU initiatives and global foras, a special section which has posters and charts, and that is an open space for either people to put up poster sessions or also to hold similar sessions, which is a little more formal than discussing over a lunch table but sessions such as these would lend themselves really well to that.
 And I concur with Marilyn's points.  This is a fantastic session which can feed in very well into the regional and national initiative dialogue.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Now we have 265.  Who is speaking for this?  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This was one of the handful of ones that I suggested we reconsider.
 Again, this is a topic that is I don't think represented enough on security.  The -- let me pull up the proposal.
 I thought the most interesting thing about the evaluations was this was -- this has an extreme standard deviation, with lots of high scores and lots of low scores.
 Let me -- let me pull up the evaluation and get back.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Xiaodong?
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I think the topic is good and my suggestion is that this is from the private sector.  If we consider the diversity issues, maybe we can consider that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.
 I second the opinion to keep it.  It is an important topic, it is from private sector as well, and it would bring value to the IGF.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think that every of 240 proposals would bring value.  Bigger value, smaller value, but everything -- every proposal would bring value.  So that is not an argument for this particular conversation that we're going through.
 Diversity, underrepresentation of private sector, is it an issue?
 We have a statistician in the room.  Virat.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  While Virat is looking at statistics, Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair. 
 I found the proposal quite interesting, but I did have one question.  I think the list of speakers -- on the one hand, the description proposes that -- if you look at the last -- the bottom part of the description, "As part of this discussion, this session will surface thinking from the Freedom On-Line Coalition's working group on cybersecurity, the Global Conference on Cyberspace, Mozilla, and the recent experience with the African Union's convention."
 But when I go down to the speakers, while I do see that Mozilla is represented, and there's a proposal to invite -- not yet confirmed, but to invite the Dutch government, I'm -- and then there's Cisco and a CIRT, I'm a little bit concerned about the diversity and think that they could probably add in an NGO or civil society to bring some improved balance to it.
 Otherwise, I think it has a lot of interest for governments and particularly it's interesting to see the focus that they plan to take of examining the role of hacking.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, it's a private sector proposal so there is obviously conflict of interest.  They are slightly underrepresented.  But very difficult to support this proposal to bring it down -- up in the last minutes from 147 up.  That's what the ranking was.  It's not easy to justify that kind of support.  Sorry.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Ephraim?
 >>EPHRAIM KENYANITO:  First wanting to express a conflict of interest.  And just wanted to point out that I'm from civil society and academia, and I'm part of the panel.  So just noting that conflict of interest.  But would love this to go forward.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I would love all 240 to go forward, honestly.
 [ Laughter ]
 And actually more than that.
 Subi, please.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  I have a sense of discomfort with the proposal.  I believe the proposals are reasonably well-connected.  There were many proposals from civil society and academia and also from the local host country which were not evaluated highly because they do not have a confirmed list of speakers.  And I also see lacking diversity of speakers.  This is a very, very important issue.  But I believe that the proposers had enough resources at their disposal and their command to do enough of an outreach to get confirmation from speakers which was also one of the reasons I did not score it highly.
 At this moment, I believe we've done a lot to strive for private sector balance, and we provided some proposals.  I do not find myself in a position to support this as it is.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.
 Michael, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  One reason I think that there was this large variation, if you look -- again, if you look at the scores, there were a lot of 5s here as well as a number of 1s and 2s.  And I suspect the 1s and 2s were because people did not see that these were confirmed speakers.
 But I suspect if we went back, we'd find that many of these people are lined up.  We have somebody here from the African Union.  We have a large company, a small company.  We have private -- the technical community.  We have access, which is a very important player.  I thought this was a well-balanced proposal. 
 Aside from the fact that it doesn't say that these are confirmed speakers, I was perplexed as to why it was so low.
 We don't have a lot of small companies proposing things.  And as a representative of a small company, I think we should think about adding that diversity as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I said most probably this is one of those 240 that merit be organized.  But in the context of our conversation today, I have not heard convincing arguments why should we pull it up in comparison with others.
 I would propose not to retain it and to go further.
 And Subi will agree with me.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Janis, agree completely.  And also the general principle, we need to save (indiscernible) across workshops.  I really appreciate the Chair's comments.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 128.  So who is proposing this?  UNESCO?
 >>UNESCO:  Thank you.  Actually, when the previous proposal, 151, was discussed, I feel quite relieved because such an important topic, online hate speech, was eventually addressed by the IGF.  Since the top 70, it was missing on this topic.  (indiscernible) also organized proposing a similar topic on this. 
 We have also a very strong youth focus.  And actually I would also like to announce that UNESCO, we are organizing an international conference on online hate speech and youth radicalization on the 16th and 17th of June with 400 international participants.  You are all welcome to join if this interests you.
 On the other hand, we are commissioning our international or global research on the hate speech.  Michael was right, we don't have a great definition on hate speech.  That's why we need to discuss it.
 And it's global research.  We have the cases from all five continents which give a very neutral and comprehensive understanding of the current challenges and provide the recommendations.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Xianhong.
 Comments?  Reactions?
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you.  I think there isn't -- I do not think there is any additional additionality here.  We've got the previous -- we considered the previous proposal on hate speech, and there's also number 98 in the top 60.  So I think -- this topic is well covered in the IGF.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I support what Mark just said.  I think Internet governance organizations are actually doing quite well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I support the inclusion of the proposal.  I think it brings across an important perspective.  Though, we're doing very well on this balancing active themes, I still think there is room for improvement. 
 I also like the session format in terms of it being a debate.  And it's an important perspective.  I think we would be able to do a good balancing act with the inclusion.  So it does have my support for inclusion.  Thank you for your consideration.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I do not hear more --
 >>UNESCO:  I also want to add that we are very flexible.  We are always collaborating with all stakeholders.  We are happy to merge or collaborate with other proposals to make a stronger panel and provide more aspects from our point of view and channeling our knowledge.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Xianhong.  I was not asking you to take the floor.
 I'm looking to MAG members.  I'm a bit hesitant to make a decision because do I not feel the temperature in the room.  Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah, thank you.  This is Avri speaking.  I would like to add to the temperature of basically going forward with this.  I think the perspective on it of the youth radicalization and what is generally going on on the Internet makes it a very good and different perspective that is worth looking at.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Fiona?
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  I'm not sure this is going to be helpful.  I actually have the opposite view Avri expressed.  I agree with the views, I think, of Mark and Virat on this. 
 I also note that I think several of the speakers are very similar to the other proposal that came from this group on this.  So I'm just not sure what the value-add is.  Maybe there's a way to add these elements into the other session then.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So let me then propose to put it on "maybe" list for the moment and we see how we do further.  "Maybe."
 190.
 >> Janis, could we perhaps accommodate Subi?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Subi already eloquently spoke in favor of that.  We heard her opinion. 
 We are starting to run out of time.  We need to conclude the list, and we still have four to go that we can do homework or statistics and formatting during the lunchtime.
 >>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC:  Accepted.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  190.  Who is speaking on 190?  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, I marked this as one of a very important new topic, one that's fundamental if we're going to have any discussion about privacy, cybersecurity, surveillance.  The idea that people are putting malware into chips and into pieces of software that then gets incorporated into systems that we all use or that are deployed in critical infrastructure is a very big issue.  And it is definitely an Internet governance issue because we need to be exploring how it -- how private sector and government can take action to improve the quality of the supply chain.
 I would argue that this should be merged with the other supply chain proposal.  Both of them got kind of mediocre scores.  I think combining the two and reevaluating, they would have been evaluated much higher.  Although because it's a new topic, maybe not many people were aware of how critical it is.  But I strongly urge this inclusion.
 It also has confirmed speakers, good quality.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I understand it's a new topic on those merits as an emerging issue.
 Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  It's partially a representation of the mapping project, the new mapping project.  So, again, maybe shortening it a little bit.  But it's a good project.  Everything is good.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for remembering that.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I think the idea of merging this with the other one on cyber might be a good idea.  They were both in the sort of hold pattern.  We could request the two to speak to each other and get someone to mentor them.  Perhaps someone who is recommending that we should merge them should try and mentor and see if we can bring them together into a single proposal, if that's possible.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Again, I would like to understand reasons why we're doing this.  They were scored relatively low.  I understand from Michael that according to his opinion that is something brand-new that we need to be aware of, and that's why he suggested it should be brought to attention. 
 And that would be only argument I would consider on that because they are scored relatively low, both.  I mean, all four remaining workshop proposals that we will examine.
 I will give you the floor, but Xiaodong first.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I think the topic is good, but I suggest we could improve the diversity for the panelists.  I think this topic can bring some fresh information to this forum.  Yeah.  That's my opinion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chair.  I think it's an important topic, and I think it's a new topic.  And I think merging that, it says it complements the 157 session.  And I think if we just merge those two, that's one of the other proposals we still need to evaluate.  But in this abstract, it actually says it complements that other one.  So perhaps they can move to one merge.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair.  I very strongly support the inclusion of the topic because of the value that it brings to the table.  However, one of the reasons for scoring it low was, A, not enough consultative effort in including participation and doing outreach and also the complete lack of diversity of speakers.
 I think if we are considering a merger, I support Lynn's idea.  It would make sense surely because of the value of the topic, because it also creates information and a knowledge base for the participants.  But I also support the inclusion of developing country experts from an entirely different perspective that will enrich the session.  So support the merger.  Support for the session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Everything that had to be said has been said, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just saying that I wouldn't support both 157 and 190.  But merging them, I think you get a very strong diverse panel.  And these are both private sector proposals.  So I think that's another plus.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I'm really hesitant.  But what I hear is we would favor retaining this on the merits that this is something new that we need to better understand.  Only on that consideration, I would propose to retain it but also with understanding that 190 and 157 would be sort of rewritten, reworked with all the aspects we spoke here.  And with that understanding, if -- with your approval, we would retain this merged with 157.
 And Michael would coach the organizers to do a better job.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Happy to do so.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 99.  Who is speaking on this?  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I do not support retaining this proposal.  We are way in the oversubscribed categories.  The speakers are hardly confirmed.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We are not considering yet proposal because it has not been introduced yet.  And without introduction, we are not discussing it.  So it is not introduced, it is not retained.  Thank you.
 208.  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I think this was discussed also in relation to the workshop on enhancing gender participation last year.  So this was discussed.  And that was put on the "maybe." 
 But since this has come up again, I will take the opportunity to make a point of clarification because one of the points raised yesterday was that there was a big cluster of issues that was focusing on women and gender and it was all kind of clumped together. 
 But I think there is a distinction between the different types of topics.  And this made sense to connect to the one that was discussed yesterday -- I don't remember the number -- on enhancing gender participation because it is about participation into Internet governance processes and is not a specific issue around, say, safety, security, privacy, or violence.  So...
 I will defer this back to the conversation that we had yesterday.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  You suggest that this should be proposed to merge with a similar topic?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  That this -- not merge, but to then look at speakers to contribute to the workshop session.  I wish I remembered the number.  The workshop on gender participation yesterday.  But then the workshop session yesterday to also see if they can work with the gender dynamic coalition in the proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to recall our conversation yesterday.
 I believe the workshop number is 228, and I think I was the person who proposed merging the two, which I think will strengthen both of them.
 I also -- I appreciate the suggestion that workshops work with dynamic coalitions, but I think that has to be up to the workshops.  Dynamic coalitions really have other broader purposes.
 So 228 and 208 was what I re- -- had in my notes that we consider for merging.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Indeed.  That is our decision yesterday.  We put 228 "maybe," with a potential merger with 208 and linkage with the dynamic coalition.
 So, you know, on that grounds, we would not retain it specifically, but we would consider it in the next round with -- under the category "maybe" that we will be looking at.
 So we have exhausted proposed workshops by MAG members, and what we need to do now is to work on the scoring, and this is what secretariat will do during the lunchtime and would bring the updated list of retained workshops in on one sheet and then the category of "maybe" on another sheet, and we will still need to see -- depending on how many sessions remaining we would have, we would talk about "maybe."
 That shouldn't take more than one hour of our afternoon session, and that would then conclude our consideration of the workshops.
 What I would like also to suggest, that we would draw the line here during the meeting, but we would maintain the lists of -- ranked in the priority order, and then the secretariat, if there will be a situation that some time will be available, would take the next best scored from this "maybe" list which would not make in the main list.
 And also, as we introduce practice -- I know it has been practice also in the past -- secretariat would -- MAG would allow secretariat leeway for maybe one, two, but certainly not more than three workshops, in case -- to put it in the program at secretariat's discretion. 
 There might be situations that we do not know.  There might be mistakes.  There might be very serious political considerations that need to be taken into account and the secretariat will act with the full responsibility on those very few workshops. 
 I hope that this will be -- meet with understanding and acceptance.
 Now, I have a number of flags up.  I will start with Susan.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair.  On that last point, I would also support some understanding and acceptance in those marginal situations, but I'm just recalling the experience of last year where we did introduce workshops for the local host after -- I think there are about a number of five workshops -- after we had completed our evaluations, and for the purposes of clarity, I was just wondering what the procedure would be this year.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The difference between last year and this year is that the host country has put enough proposals and they have been evaluated alongside with others.  I think we have retained a number of proposals coming either from Brazil or CGI.  Some of them were not retained.  But -- so we will not have a situation when host country will come after with new proposals and would say, "We want to organize this and that."
 So that will not happen.  You see Benedicto is nodding and can confirm that.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yeah.  No, just to, yeah, confirm what has been said by Janis, I think all the proposals are on the table.  Just to recall that there is a proposal also to have a main session on the NETmundial -- not the NETmundial Initiative.  On NETmundial.  So this is something I'm not sure if we'll have time to go through in the course of the day, but -- and on top of that, we still have to organize the day zero events.  I think those are the -- basically what we are looking at.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.
 I just had a -- two points.  I had a quick question for the secretariat because I had actually given them another workshop proposal.  That was 231.  Which didn't make it on the list.  I'm happy to just have that clarified.
 Let me go on to my second point while they're looking at that.
 There has also been a proposal to consider the development of a main session on sustainable development and the digital economy, and I still want to promote that that is an important thing to work on.  Hossam and I are both interested, and I think Ephraim and others.
 So if we could maybe, after lunch, reexplore that as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So on 231, I'm looking to Carl.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So that was secretariat's mistake.  It's good that secretariat acknowledges that all of us are human and only those who do nothing never make mistakes.  It happens.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Chair, may I make a very quick point about the workshop, then?  And I will make it quick.
 The workshop is of particular interest, I think, because it brings in participation that today is very low, and that is participation from the SME private sectors from the MENA region and some of the other regions. 
 It also has a unique format, in that it's going to be conducted in -- the way it's written up, it's going to be conducted in the same room but in small clusters of groups working together with a moderator for each table and then come back together, and that is a very unique approach.
 It is -- I want to note it is from the private sector, so folks may feel that that means since I'm also from the private sector I have a conflict, but because of the uniqueness of the format and the opportunity to bring in participation from the Arab states, I wanted to mention it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So while you're considering what Marilyn just said, I would like to tell you that Chengetai right now is sending you the revised proposal for main sessions that you can look at during lunchtime, and you will see that there are proposed three slots for thematic conversations, thematic discussions.
 We have now proposal related to sustainable development and Internet economy.  We will consider that after finishing review of workshops and hopefully we will agree, at least on that one, if not on others.
 Equally, we will be dealing with the remaining agenda after the -- what is on our agenda, meaning dynamic coalitions, regional -- interregional dialogue, next steps. 
 It is whether we have a third meeting and whether we have that meeting as a MAG meeting or that is a meeting of editorial group and every other initiative, intersessional initiative.
 So that will be in the afternoon.
 Now, would everybody want to examine 231? 
 Apart that this is a very good proposal, I am not sure that that brings -- that meets criteria of balancing, unless balancing on the region, geographic balancing.  That is only thing I heard might be the case.
 Those who wanted to speak not on this topic, please put your flags down.  I noted those speakers.
 On this particular topic, Lynn.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Yes.  I think it does give us additional diversity from a regional perspective, but one of the things we see across the Internet governance forums, frankly, despite the high quality of the representation from the private sector, is a fair dearth of representation from private sector.  So if this helps pull more private sector participation in from a region, particularly in the small and medium size, I would support that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Other comments?  Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I agree with that point.  What I thought was missing here was the connection to our main themes of sustainable development.  Could we have a private sector focus on that in this session?
 So I -- if that were the case, you know, I would support, certainly.  Could I just float that as a proposal?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Other comments?
 For information, the overall ranking of this proposal is 111.
 So I see that we can put it "maybe" -- on "maybe" list, for the moment, and then look through at the end.
 On this topic?  Subi.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  For the other interventions, I will wait for my turn and I will park that, but on this workshop, two points.
 One, I completely second Mark Carvell's points.  It needs to be (indiscernible) better with our theme and second, it says the role of governments.  I don't see too many, so if we are looking at retention and you've parked it on the "maybe" list, we also need to enhance diversity on stakeholder participation from governments into this session.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  So with that, we retain it on "maybe" list and we will examine it together with other "maybes" at the beginning of the next session.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Can I just ask a clarify -- it's got two governments on it.  Can I just Subi to clarify?  It's got Costa Rica and the U.S.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We will not go further than that.  We will talk about this proposal next session.  This is on the "maybe" list, for the moment.
 Now, on clarifying questions, there was Virat and then Subi and then Mark.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, on the main sessions, as I recall, there are actually nine requests for main sessions, as we took from the floor, and I noted them down at that time.  There's one for net neutrality, there is one for surveillance, encryption, role of governments, regional and national IGFs, Internet economy, NETmundial, and sustainable development.  So we just want to make sure that we take the five or six that are making the cut.  I think -- I think of these, about four or five still survived.  These were the ones that were floated.  I don't think all of them were withdrawn, so I just want to park them there.
 I know we don't just have space for all of them but I just want to record what was stated when the discussion was going on.
 The second is, when the secretariat presents the list of the retained and the "maybes," which will, I guess, cut off at 100, after lunch, it would help if they could also give us a quick insight into the ratios of the subthemes, developing countries, first-timers, formats, and stakeholder groups, because that will help us pick or leave from the "maybe" group, in case we're trying to address some additional imbalances at that time.
 So along with the list, these five pieces of information would be extremely helpful.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So that will be done. 
 Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair.  I was hoping that we will have a substantive discussion if we can make time on main sessions so that we can close on confirmations and also facilitators. 
 I would also like to have more engagement with the other MAG members and people who are on line to volunteer as facilitators, especially new MAG members and members of the youth for main sessions.  And I'm glad that some of the other proposals for main sessions are not getting lost in translation.
 I recall about five more proposals for main sessions.  I understand that we do not wish to fill in all the slots, but I -- it would be helpful if we know what the rationale is going to be for retaining some main sessions and not the others.
 And I do want to articulate support for a session on the role of governments and what's in it for them at the IGF and also defining -- and revisiting rightful roles and responsibilities of stakeholders from Tunis to Brazil.
 And the third thing, I'm very happy that our resident hosts are enhancing participation of the youth.  I do hope to see, in large numbers, the local community representing the success and replicating the success of the engagement from the floor when it comes to participation in the main sessions as well as in other workshop formats.
 I think there might also be time for a greater engagement in terms of expectations of support when it comes to main sessions from the host country, but we'll park that conversation for later.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Subi.  Based on what you said, may I ask the secretariat also during the lunchtime to circulate the list of all proposals on themes for main sessions, thematic themes for main sessions.  That we have one list that we could look through, hopefully agree on proposed frame for main sessions and topics, and so that would be helpful.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'll provide whatever I have on my list to the secretariat after this meeting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That would be very helpful.  Thank you. 
 Mark, you are the last one in this session.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.
 I -- I believe you agreed to -- that the MAG would consider the Dutch government's requests from Arnold van Rhijn earlier on with regard to Workshops 24 and 48, that the MAG would respond with its views on those two proposals.
 I do have comments on those proposals.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Sorry.  I -- my understanding was not -- simply that there was a question what happened with those proposals, and the secretariat suggests that Proposal 24 was -- had an overall ranking 148 and Proposal 48 was overall ranking 183.  They were very good proposals but they did not make top 70, and no MAG member suggested that they should be examined in the framework of this balancing exercise that we did.  As a result, they were not discussed alongside with others that we took up, so I -- that is the answer to the question, and thank you for reminding that we had to respond to that.
 Please, Arnold.
 >>ARNOLD VAN RHIJN:  Arnold van Rhijn.  Yes, correct spelled.
 Speaking on behalf of the Netherlands and IGF, I would not like to shorten your lunchtime, certainly not the valuable work of the MAG today, but I was asked by the Netherlands IGF to make the following statement.
 In many occasions during the IGF and other global Internet-related meetings, it was emphasized to have a strong interaction between the national and regional IGFs and the global IGF.  From the beginning of its existence, NL IGF is contributing to that goal by firstly participating with a large multistakeholder delegation, one of the largest in the IGF meetings, and secondly, by organizing workshops for IGF meetings on key emerging issues that are well-prepared in cooperation with relevant stakeholders.
 Concerning the two workshop proposals which NL IGF has sent in, ID Numbers 24 and 48, I have to express on behalf of the Netherlands IGF my disappointment about the low ranking of these proposals.
 Lots of work, time, and energy has been put into it, with the involvement of many different stakeholders.  Panelists have been invited or confirmed, including members of Parliament.  The MAG criteria for the workshop proposals have been taken into account to the extent possible with respect to gender and geographical participation, participation of developing countries, and other requirements.
 Looking at the content of the proposals, we feel that the topics are new, key emerging issues.  At least they are in the Netherlands.  That's why we have scheduled a separate full-day workshop in our country on 24th of June solely on the issue of ethics in relation to Internet of Things.  That's Workshop Proposal 48.
 And during our yearly Netherlands IGF meeting on 1st of October, debate sessions are planned on the two issues:  ethics in relation to Internet of Things; and privacy as innovation.
 This in preparation for the IGF in Brazil.
 This will now probably have to change.  What can we do more as a national IGF community?  That's what I'm asking you.  Is there still a possibility to have a merger with other agreed proposals for workshops?  I would kindly ask the member -- MAG members to look into that, if possible.
 Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Arnold. 
 Benedicto, please.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  What I'd like to propose in light of what was stated by the Netherlands is that -- I understand that maybe an opportunity was lost to include those two workshops in the list we have been examining from the perspective, as I understand, of some emerging issue that was not addressed adequately in the other workshops and could be seen by that light. 
 So what I would like to propose when we resume in the afternoon, in case there is still room to accommodate, perhaps those should be also taken up by us in the light of -- the issue of ethics is something we would like very much to see highlighted. 
 Indeed, I'd like just to recall that UNESCO is undertaking a very serious study on those matters that is due to be approved by the next General Assembly later on in the year.  And Brazil is very much supportive of that.
 We think that could add value -- well, everything could add value.  But we'd like to, if possible, those two issues could come forward later on, if possible.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  And let me maybe respond to this statement.  As I mentioned, unfortunately, we have limitations.  We would be very glad to have 240 workshops going on.  And we would like to have everyone who is interested in Internet governance issues be present in IGF.  From that perspective, I would like still to encourage the Dutch and IGF community or Internet community to participate in large numbers, including bringing members of parliament, high officials to the IGF.  And thanking for all support Netherlands has given so far to IGF and Internet governance in general.
 That said, we need to be cognizant of these limitations.  And I think secretariat took note on requests, and maybe we'll look in the relevant workshops and suggest to organizers to invite Brazil -- Dutch participants to contribute to them, to those workshops.  And we will do our best to accommodate most we can in the best possible way.
 So that said, we need to release interpreters because they are hungry.  And if they are hungry, they will not translate correctly what we're saying.  Thank you very much.
 We have few people wishing for the floor.  But very quickly Virat and then Michael.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I was going to say if we have accepted this process of individual MAG members sponsoring proposals which went beyond a hundred and we have done it for a day and a half, then I think Netherlands should receive non-discriminatory treatment. 
 As somebody who is suggesting that, we should put them through the exact same process.  They should not suffer because they were not in the room yesterday and in the two hours that we had to provide this.  So I support the need for a non-discriminatory treatment for those two as well.  In fact, for anybody who could find a proposal.  At least these two.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I would also agree with Virat.  I almost supported Number 48 as one of my five or six candidates for consideration because I'm one of the futurists here.
 At some point, I'd like a longer discussion about the bias against forward-looking proposals.  There's a tendency not to talk about these big future things when there are so many current problems, and that's reflected in the rankings.  So I think we should spend time looking at at least Proposal 48.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We have emerging issues on the agenda.  So that's where futuristic things need to be discussed.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  And those proposals got very low ratings.  And many people gave them 1, 1, 1.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Look, with that in mind, Subi, but please very briefly.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair, for allowing the intervention.  Two things.  I support the fact that if you're not in the room, you should not be disadvantaged.  It gives me a sense of discomfort. 
 But having said that, I looked at the history of participation of national and regional IGFs which tend to get lumped into one large session which gets reduced further to, "This is what I did during my IGF."
 I think this is an important issue.  And if a national initiative is proposing a workshop, we should give it due consideration. 
 I haven't yet proposed any workshop for reconsideration.  If it is not too late as a MAG member, I would like to articulate my support if we can spend some time and look at workshop Number 48 in particular, not 24 but 48.  And thank you for allowing the intervention, Chair.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Specifically 48 was mentioned.  May I suggest that we put it on "maybe" list without examining and then looking at it together with others.  I see nodding.
 48 is on the "maybe" list.  And we will look at those in the afternoon.
 So thank you very much.  Please come back at 3:00 sharp because we have a lot of things to do.  And you will get all information during lunchtime.  Bon appetit.
 [ Lunch break ]

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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