You are here

December 2014 - IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meeting - Day 1 - Afternoon

 IGF  Open Consultations
 Geneva, Switzerland



The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the December 2014 IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings, in Geneva, Switzerland. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.


 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  As I mentioned, we are working according to Swiss time and my Swiss watch says it is time to start.

 We had a very lengthy conversation in the morning.  We have not exhausted yet the list of speakers, and I am calling on Markus, Markus Kummer, to take the floor.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Chairman.  

 I would like to say a few words about the best practice forums.  I was planning to come in tomorrow when we discuss about intersessional activities but many speakers have already touched on that and as you asked me to conclude the work on this at the secretariat, I would like to report briefly on the outcome documents.

 Many people already have pointed out that these are both very useful work but also that there is room for improvement and they have already pointed out that maybe the biggest challenge was the limited time at our disposal to conduct this work.

 Nevertheless, I think I'm happy to report that last week the secretariat posted the final documents and they are substantive documents.

 If you have not yet done so, I would strongly encourage you all to take a look on the Web site and look at the reports.

 You don't have to read every page of them.  Together, I think it's quite a substantive compilation of work.  But at least read the executive summaries.  They give you an overview of the main findings and they also point to future work.  They make suggestions for work that could be carried on.

 Now, obviously there was limited time at the disposal of the experts dealing with this work, so they are not to be considered to be the final truth on any of these issues, but they point towards further elements that could be deepened.

 And maybe not all of the subjects chosen were equally well suited for best practice forums.  They -- essentially, the original proposal put forward by the Internet Society for reviving best practice forums was to seek inspiration from the Internet Engineering Task Force to develop outcomes that could be adopted on a voluntary basis, and that also points to what many people have already alluded to, that this should be seen as ongoing work that is a process where the annual meeting is a halt in the process but it's not an end in itself but it is a place where we can take stock and discuss on how to move forward.

 In my opinion, maybe those with the most concrete practical outcomes were the best practice forums related to spam and those on CERTs where actually the experts concluded that CERTs maybe was not the best definition and they suggested another acronym and that is CCERT, and there are reasons for them to do so.  That can be read in the report.  I don't want to overextend my speaking slot, but once again, I think all the suggestions deserve close attention on whether or not to continue the work and it has also, of course, resource implications as the secretariat will need to be staffed in accordance with the workload given and also I think it will need considerable work investment by the members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group.

 Thank you for your attention.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you, Markus, for your report and suggestions.  

 And let me use this opportunity to thank Constance and then yourself for taking up and coordinating the work which seems has received a lot of positive feedback and seems to me will be continued also next year.

 Next on my list is Lea.  Lea Kaspar, please.

 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you, Chairman.  

 As I'm speaking for the first time, I'd like to introduce myself.  My name is Lea Kaspar.  I'm from Croatia, and I'm a new MAG member from the civil society community.

 I'd like to reinforce a couple of points that were made this morning and perhaps strengthen one thing that didn't come across as strongly as I would have hoped for.  

 In terms of looking back, I'd just like to echo the previous speakers in recognizing the important steps that were made this year towards implementing recommendations for IGF improvements.  Especially through the work done in the best -- with the best practice forums, and I'd like to join everyone who has thanked the work of Constance and the secretariat and other MAG members in pushing that work forward.

 This is closely related with the calls to set up and structure the intersessional work going forward, and I hope that we will have enough time tomorrow to discuss concrete proposals.  I think at the end of this meeting, we would like to have concrete steps on how that's going to progress, and I'll be happy to join that conversation.

 And just quickly, something on going forward and the lessons from this year.

 The point that I'd like to emphasize -- and this was touched upon in the synthesis report -- is about the need to coordinate between -- the need for coordination between the IGF and other forums and processes that are taking place.

 As we all know, I mean, the IGF does not operate in a vacuum and the relationships are two-directional, so it's not only about what the IGF projects and what comes out of the community discussions taking place here, but also what happens outside affects what happens with the IGF.

 So on that -- in terms of what happens outside and how it affects what we do here, one important thing is that discussions are happening right now in New York about IGF renewal, and several speakers have mentioned this.  And just a suggestion in that regard is for the MAG members and the MAG as a whole to be a much more prominent communicator in the value of the IGF, the role of the IGF in the overall system.  I think it was my colleague from Macedonia who made the point about needing to have a communications strategy and think we could do a better job in communicating not just the value of the IGF but also the progress that has been made, particularly the last couple of years.

 So that's one point.

 And the second point and building on that is how the IGF really could be used as a proactive -- just providing input into other processes and not just be reactive in terms of what's happening outside.

 Perhaps an example is the WSIS review taking place next year.

 I think it would be great if next year's IGF could look at a stable draft that is produced in November but I do think that it is important to have something happening before that.

 I don't know whether it's feasible, but one way of doing it is to make sure that the intersessional work topics take on something that is relevant for these processes so that we have something happening before next year's IGF that we can then use to input into those processes going forward.

 Yeah, I'll stop there for now.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you for your contribution.  You did not sound at all as a new MAG member.  You sounded already as a fully fledged and very experienced MAG member.  So thank you.

 ICC/BASIS is next and, for the moment, the last.  

 Please, ICC/BASIS.

 >>ICC/BASIS:  Hello, everyone.  My name is Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud, and I am the new lead for the ICC/BASIS secretariat.

 This is my first MAG as well.  I'm not a MAG member but I'm very pleased to be here and participating with everyone.

 I'd like to extend a personal thank you to the IGF secretariat and MAG chair for coordinating this meeting, as well as the warm welcome and inclusion of all of us non-MAG members.

 ICC/BASIS members wish to congratulate the host country of Turkey, the organizers, the IGF secretariat team, the UN DESA, on a successful event in 2014.

 We look forward to working with all of our stakeholders to prepare another successful IGF in 2015.

 In the spirit of solidarity from one international organization secretariat team to another, let me express our special thanks and recognition to Chengetai Masango and the IGF secretariat's team whose professionalism and tireless efforts for the IGF and its community of stakeholders deserves very -- much appreciation.

 So a lot of discussion has occurred already on the topic of intersessional work today.

 Business sees this as a very important and substantive new addition to the IGF 2015 program and beyond.

 In fact, ICC/BASIS has made a specific recommendation with regards to intersessional work in our written submission.  We will share an abridged version of that proposal for discussion and consideration when the scheduled discussion comes up tomorrow, but I'll just highlight about six elements from that proposal for your consideration.

 The first one is a linkage between intersessional work and the MAG chair's summary for IGF 2014.

 We also want to speak about a process for inclusive, wide-ranging, and bottom-up stakeholder -- multistakeholder views for inclusion in that intersessional work.

 And a process for managing the online engagement and face-to-face dialogue across stakeholders in the working groups, including the need to strengthen the secretariat as a neutral credible platform for facilitating these discussions.

 And a set of parameters in which the MAG needs to consider by which a theme for intersessional work can be chosen through a consensus process.

 Linkages involving national and regional IGFs contributing to the intersessional work, and in turn, usage of the intersessional work in output for substantive capacity-building in country and in region, not just in 2014-2015 but beyond.

 And finally, we have recommended a topic for consideration along with any others that might come in during the discussions.  

 We will table a proposal tomorrow, but note that this proposal has been covered in the ICC/BASIS taking stock and looking forward submission that has already been posted on the IGF Web site.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  My apologies to Baher.  Simply Chengetai hid the list from me.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  He just wanted to get over this agenda item.

 Baher, please.

 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Janis.  

 Good afternoon, everyone.  My name is Baher Esmat.  I'm with ICANN.  This is going to be a quick intervention.  Much has already been said.

 Just wanted to echo a couple of important points that have already been mentioned.

 One was in relation to the improvement of the IGF outcomes and making them more visible.

 Much has been said about the best practice forums experience, which in my view, at least, is a very good experience and led to a number of outcome documents that are very tangible and I think what we need to do is to make them very visible, too.

 And though the documents have been posted on the IGF Web site, I don't know whether they have been sent to other organizations.  You know, whether U.N. or non-U.N. organizations or other Internet governance-related bodies.  

 This was also one of the recommendations of the CSTD working group is to improve the linkages between IGF and other IG-related bodies, so this is an example that we need to -- or this is an experience that we need to, you know, leverage and to make it successful and to build -- to build on it.

 Of course the other -- the other document that came out of the IGF meeting was also the chair report, which was also very informative, and it also needs to be shared with, you know, the broader -- the broader IG community.

 The other point is in relation to intersessional work.

 I, too, think this is an important development for the IGF.  I am sure that we're going to have more time to discuss about topics and issues to take on for the intersessional work, but something which is very important -- and it was mentioned by the previous speaker -- is about resources.  You know, taking on intersessional work without having the adequate resources on the secretariat side is not practical, so we need to make sure that we have the resources, whether human resources, whether technology resources as well.

 Talking about intersessional work that would, in my view, involve MAG as well as other non-MAG members requires online tools that enable the broader, you know, community to participate and to engage, so we also need to make sure that we have such tools in place.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Baher, for your comments and advice.

 And now I'm turning to remote participant.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, everybody.  

 This is Izumi Okutani, a MAG member serving for the second year, and it's really great to see a couple of -- several specific feedbacks on improvements for the coming IGF.  

 Actually, Baher has covered a lot of the things that I wanted to say and I'd like to touch about intersessional work and transparency briefly.

 So I think I do echo with the need for more strengthening -- strengthening intersessional work, and one possible approach is to address and building on what is already being done, and I'd like to raise best practices forums as an example of work which was carried out in 2014 and which we received positive feedback.

 And (indiscernible) doesn't mean that the only intersessional work would be restricted to best practices.  I think there are things that we can learn from experiences.  It did demonstrate that we were able to work on line and through some teleconferences, mailing lists before and after the session, and I think there are things that we'd like to consider in addition which I think Baher has covered.  

 Outreach is one of the topics which I would like to emphasize as well.

 And in addition to outreaching to a wide range of stakeholders, I think it's also important that we make sure we reach out to the stakeholders of a particular topic.

 For example, if we take like intersessional work for IXPs, I think we really want to make sure that we reach out to IXPs and its customer, at the minimum, and we want to be a little bit more structured about outreaching when we consider intersessional work, so that we are reaching out to the people who are affected and -- rather than leaving outreach on a volunteer basis.

 So that's something that I'd like to talk -- mention about intersessional work.  

 And I'd also lastly like to mention briefly about transparency.

 I think transparency on the content of the program for the IGF is very important and I did feel that this year we did quite a good job on workshops, especially with Susan and Fiona's initiative in documenting workshop selection criteria.  

 But one thing I would like to raise as an additional room for improvement is transparency for sessions which are not planned by MAG members.

 For example, I heard some feedback individually that it is not clear how speakers for opening and closing sessions are chosen.  There may be some similar issues for other sessions which are not planned by MAG members.  

 So even if the speakers are not so openly called for or selected based on public submissions, it still helps to clarify how they are chosen, whether they're based on invitation or some other certain criteria.  Especially for clarifying what to do for government-related meetings.

 So that's all from me.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Izumi, for your comments.  Thank you for joining us.

 Answering your question, I think there is no mystery how the opening and closing sessions are constructed.  They are constructed upon proposals and initiative by secretariat.  In the opening sessions, we normally tend to let ministers who are present talk as well as representatives of all stakeholder groups to make their comments.  And basically the same thing in the closing session.

 I think Chengetai is very nervous looking at me and maybe discovering how the opening and closing sessions are constructed.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I can expand.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  But, in essence, that is how they are.  And we see if there are any specific issues that we need to address immediately without any delay and so on.

 So, yeah, Chengetai, please, continue.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  As Janis says, for governments, if a government minister comes, he gets to speak in opening session.  For the civil society, we ask the civil society groups to nominate two speakers.  Same for business.  So we ask the stakeholder group to nominate their own speakers.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for not contradicting me because that is on the record.

 [ Laughter ]

 And now everybody who will be asking how the sessions are constructed will have a chance to read that.

 So we have another remote participant, as I understand.

 >> MARILIA MACIEL:  Yes, again, from Marilia Maciel from Brazil.  She says:  The overarching theme of the IGF 2014 was not very clear and it was hard to connect it with the sessions.  The idea of 2015 will take place a little while before the WSIS review, and it should be informed by this context.  The WSIS process is a cornerstone of Internet governance and the base for the existence of the IGF.

 The discussions in IGF 2015 should be broadly oriented towards questioning:  A, an assessment of the development of the information society.  What does an inclusive people-centered development-oriented information society mean today?

 B, what changed in the scenario since 2005?

 And, C, what should be the main challenges post-2015?  Although the WSIS high-level event has set the vision for the post-WSIS work -- for the post-WSIS, work still needs to be done in framing that vision clearly.  Being our main multistakeholder platform, the IGF could contribute to this effort when discussing issues under its subthemes.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Marilia, for your contribution and proposals.  I think the overarching themes is full of symbolisms and, of course, it is rather abstract and most probably will remain like this because there is an attempt to combine many different issues in a very brief sentence.  And that is why -- that allows also a certain degree of interpretation.

 So I do not see any further requests for the floor, and I will not have remote participants on this subject.  So let me try maybe to sum up discussions.

 What I heard in these interventions was that the overall assessment of the IGF Istanbul meeting is very positive and we need to continue working, advancing in the same direction with the same approach we took in preparing the Istanbul meeting, to be guided by the recommendations of the working group on improvements of IGF, and to strive to implement the recommendations, particularly on a number of issues.  Those were seeking more tangible outputs from IGF and better communicating them.

 I think that this is one of the keys that we need to look at very seriously and see how well we can develop that part of our activities because if we look backwards and see the contributions or outputs of nine previous IGFs, we certainly see that there is a wealth of documentation, a wealth of knowledge.  And one cannot say that IGF hasn't produced anything.  I think IGF has produced a lot of documentation, a lot of ideas, a lot of materials, a lot of knowledge.  But that knowledge may not be properly communicated and used.  And find the best way how to do communication maybe is something we should look at.

 Best practice -- best practices seems to me, got really good traction and good reviews.  The only thing what was mentioned that there were not enough -- there was not enough time to develop materials.  And I fully agree.  And, therefore, intention is to discuss best practice themes tomorrow and day after and start the process of compilation of those best practices as soon as we will walk out of this room on Wednesday evening.

 Another element that I heard here in this discussion but I do not recall reading in synthesis document is trying to reach out those communities or those industries particularly that haven't been present in IGF so far.  And I think that this is something we need to think very strongly and find a way how to get more fresh participants, fresh blood in our enterprise.

 The most comments were received about intersessional work alongside with caution that we need not to overstretch and align our desires on intersessional work with our resources, both financial resources and human resources.

 And, again, I think that this will be one of the topics that we really need to drill down and maybe identify what would be those topics that we could take up and what would be those modalities of intersessional work without overloading already a very heavy list of meetings, IGF-related meetings -- or Internet governance-related meetings and see whether and in what way we could use national IGF and regional IGF conferences in order to address those topics that we could possibly identify.

 And as you recall in the synthesis paper, there are two proposals that we may want to look at.  One of them was about how -- the policy mix in finding -- in bringing the next billion online, and another one was the impact of Internet on jobs and skills.  So I'm not saying that these are the only ones but, remember, these were mentioned and submitted for consideration during the comment period.

 And most importantly is not to forget all these lessons that we have identified during our work.  I remember we started preparations for IGF Istanbul with good intentions, and we ended up a little bit compromising those good intentions because of the pressures from different sides and need to accommodate different sort of proposals.

 So let us be as strong as we can be in order to take those lessons into account when we will be designing a program next year.

 So I would like to thank all those who participated in the discussion and who made submissions in writing, analyzing the successes and challenges of IGF in Istanbul.  And, once again, thank you to Istanbul meeting hosts, the government and administration of Turkey for hosting us and letting us have a very successful meeting.

 Now, we're bringing -- going to the next agenda item, which is overview of existing Internet governance initiatives and their impact on IGF 2015.

 So here I would like to make a little point of caution.  This segment or this discussion that we will have after presentations is not to -- was not meant to be expressing our attitudes towards one or another information that we will hear but rather to think how these processes that we will be informed about may impact preparations of IGF Brazil and what issues we need really to take into consideration based on the information that we were receive now.

 And we will start with the first presentation about the outcomes of ITU plenipotentiary conference that have relevance to Internet governance.  And we will hear from Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, chief strategic planning and membership department of ITU.  

 Doreen, thank you for being with us.

 >>DOREEN BOGDAN-MARTIN:   Thank you very much, Janis, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  It is a pleasure to welcome all of you here to the ITU.

 As Mr. Rancy mentioned to you this morning, the ITU has recently concluded its 19th plenipotentiary conference which was held from the 20th of October to the 7th of November in Busan, Korea.

 The conference brought together some 2500 delegates from 171 countries.  We considered 452 proposals, and we ended up approving 21 new resolutions and we also amended 51 resolutions.

 The importance of our plenipotentiary conference is to set the strategic agenda for the union for the next four-year period.  So we approved our strategic plan, and we also approved our financial plan.  We elected the new ITU senior management, the 48 members of council, and the 12 members of our radio regulation board.

 As some of you may know, the conference in its first plenary meeting took an important decision, and that was a decision to open up all input documents to the conference as well as the output document to the conference.  And that decision was reached very quickly by consensus.  And it is important to underscore the word "consensus" because I think our plenipotentiary conference was so successful because from the first plenary session through, until the end of the conference, all member states demonstrated that good spirit of consensus.

 It was also an important decision because it was a sign of transparency and openness, and that's something that many of you in this room have been calling for as well as members of civil society.

 The conference also decided to open up the plenary meetings and the substantive meetings of the committees to non-password-protected Webcasts, so the Webcast for those sessions was open to all.  And we certainly had a lot of interest and a lot of followers in those sessions.

 I would also like to mention that the conference did not have a single point of order, and we did not have any vote during those three weeks.  We did have some difficult issues on the table.  We had some very long hours in particular on the Internet resolutions.  Our chair of that particular group spent some 51 hours with many of you in this room.  But the results were quite positive, and we're very happy with the outcome.

 The conference also introduced a number of new innovations.  We had our first ever gender empowerment and mainstreaming award.  And one of the awardees is sitting in the back of this room from APC.  I would like to recognize her.  She was awarded at our plenipotentiary conference with six other amazing individuals and organizations.

 We also introduced a young ICT policy leaders track.  That was an important innovation.  We brought some 50 young persons from around the world, and we had special sessions for those young ICT policy leaders.

 We also had a number of roundtables under the theme of "Connect 2020."  And we also had two briefings with civil society as well as an open Q&A with the Secretary-General-elect, Mr. Houlin Zhao.

 The last sort of innovation we introduced was we crowdsourced a resolution on youth.  It was tabled in the summer months, and we opened that up.  It is the first time we have ever opened up a resolution to get public input, and then that resolution was retabled by a number of member states.  And it was finally endorsed by the plenipotentiary.

 I see many familiar faces in this room and many colleagues that were with us at the plenipotentiary.  So I won't go through each and every outcome.  In terms of big picture, as I mentioned, we did endorse our strategic plan.  One thing I want to stress with the strategic plan, that's also a document that we put out for open consultation.  We didn't get a huge takeup, but I think it is a beginning of a new way of working here at the ITU.

 We did endorse our financial plan, and we also have a new resolution on Connect 2020 which sets out a number of goals and some clear targets.  And we know if you can't measure it, it usually doesn't get done.  So we are seeking to try to have targets so that we can measure and make sure that it does get done.

 Just quickly on the Connect 2020 goals, we have a goal on growth.  We have a goal on inclusiveness.  We have a goal on sustainability.  And we have a goal on innovation.  And those four goals will basically set the direction for the union over the next four years, but they are also goals that are not for the organization on its own but something that we encourage all stakeholders to take up and open that we can achieve by 2020.

 We also had some great discussion on the WSIS, on the WSIS+10 process, and our member states have asked us to carry on hosting the WSIS forum, which we intend to do.  For the moment, the dates are set at the end of May.  And of course those decisions in the area of WSIS will be subject, of course, to those decisions that the General Assembly will take at the end of -- at the end of 2015.

 The conference, I would say, reinforced the Union's role in the area of Internet and cybersecurity.  The council working group on Internet -- international Internet public policy issues is now empowered to conduct both physical and online consultations.  

 You may recall that in the past, it was just on line, and now we are very pleased that we can also do physical consultations together with the council working group on international Internet public policy issues.

 In terms of the council working group on child online protection, we are very pleased that the plenipotentiary agreed to open up the council working group to all relevant stakeholders.  We think that's important and it will certainly -- certainly bring the debate to a higher level.  

 As well, in terms of that group, the output documents that will come out of that council working group will also be open to the public and we will also be holding one-day online consultations for youth the day prior to the council working group on child online protection.

 The conference also stressed the need for affordable international Internet connectivity and they also stressed the importance of multilingualism.  And those of you that are familiar with the ITU resolutions, that's Resolution 133, and all member states are encouraged, paying particular attention to the issue of multilingualism.

 In terms of IXPs, of course member states were encouraged to establish IXPs, and ITU was encouraged to help member states in the area of capacity building, in particular towards least-developed countries.

 The urgency of facilitating the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was also reiterated and ITU was asked to continue to work closely with other organizations, in particular in relation to capacity-building efforts.  

 Throughout these discussions we saw a recognition and an appreciation of the multistakeholderism process.  Member states were particularly pleased with the multistakeholder preparatory process that was used to prepare the WSIS+10 high-level event earlier this year, and they were also pleased with the way that the informal experts group ran that prepared the WTPF in 2013.

 There were a number of other resolutions that were endorsed.  One resolution in regards to academia.  We had a new decision regarding our academic members.  Now if they join ITU, they don't have to join a sector, they can join the union as a whole, and so we're excited about implementing that resolution.

 We also had a new resolution on flight tracking, and they will have their first meeting this coming spring.

 We had a resolution on using ICTs to combat Ebola.  

 We had another new resolution on protecting users and consumers, a new resolution on youth, as I mentioned before, a new resolution on combating counterfeit devices, a new resolution on the Internet of things, and a new one on connectivity of broadband networks and many others.

 We do have available on line for free the final acts as they were presented to the plenipotentiary conference, and the final, final document, once it gets numbered, will also be placed on the Internet and will be available for free.

 And so as we look forward to next year, the ITU will be celebrating next year its 150th anniversary.  On May 17th, the ITU will turn 150 years.

 We will be celebrating next year all year.  Although the theme for May 17th is "Innovation and Innovating with ICTs," we also have a number of themes that we will be celebrating each month, and so we look forward to all of you joining us in those celebrations next year.

 But also, next year's really important for two major processes.  

 One I mentioned before, WSIS+10.  

 And the other one -- and Janis, I believe you referred to this this morning -- it's the end of the MDGs and the beginning of the SDGs, the sustainable development goals, and what we need to do is to make sure that those two major global development agendas come together.

 And so we're very much looking forward to working with all of you not just for WSIS+10 but also for the sustainable development process.

 Today, for those of you that are aware, what's on the table are some 17 sustainable development goals.  If you look at those 17 goals, there are four references -- only four -- to ICTs.  We need to work together to make sure that those references that talk about the important role that information and communication technologies have to play in the sustainable development agenda, we need to make sure that those references stay there, and even better yet, if we have more references, because we all know that ICTs are key enablers for the sustainable development process.

 So we do look forward to the year ahead with great optimism, and hope that we can count on all of you to make sure that the post-2015 WSIS process and the post-2015 development agenda process do come together.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Doreen, for this exhaustive presentation, and congratulations on -- I would qualify -- easy sale during the plenipotentiary conference on discussions on these highly sensitive topics, so good outcome.

 I -- of course I would wish to know how much the knowledge that government experts acquired during the IGF meetings contributed to the -- that very positive outcome of the ITU plenipotentiary conference but that, most probably, history will tell us.

 So now I would go to the next presentation and since we do not have Nora Abusitta among us but she's waiting from her office, maybe if you would -- if you don't mind, I would ask Nora now to step in and we would advance the presentation of ICANN/CGI/WEF initiative, and we will hear from Nora, and also we will hear from Flavio Wagner, representative of CGI, a presentation on this initiative.

 Nora, if you hear us and are ready to speak, the microphone is yours now.

 Okay.  While then we are looking for Nora, let us move then to the next presenter as -- 

 She's in?  Okay.  Nora, do you --

 >>NORA ABUSITTA:  Yes.  I apologize.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So please, the microphone is yours.

 >>NORA ABUSITTA:  Thank you.  Many thanks to all of you for inviting me to give you a very quick update on the NETmundial Initiative.

 As part of the secretariat, I'm very honored to be with you today.

 I will give you a very quick overview of the initiative itself and then I'll spend a couple of minutes on the latest developments.

 As you all know, as a follow-up to the NETmundial Sao Paulo meeting,, ICANN, and the WEF worked together to enable a platform that energizes bottom-up collaborative solutions towards a distributed Internet governance ecosystem.

 This platform supports and enables the identification of collaborative solutions that address existing and emerging issues.

 The platform is designed to contribute to the improvements of existing Internet governance framework.  It will focus on solutions, not being in solution formulation, specifically for nontechnical Internet issues.  This is an online platform, as you all know.  

 It was launched on the 6th of November, and currently the process is very iterative.  The secretariat's work is being overseen by a transitional committee.  That will be dissolved as soon as the coordination council is established.

 The composition of the council is really very representative geographically and sector.

 I think it's very important to note here that in order to affect the outcomes of this platform, participation is extremely important.

 Most recently, there was a meeting of the transitional committee that really reflected taking in feedback from communities, whether from social media platforms or from over -- from analyzing some of the comments that were submitted on the NETmundial Web site and other areas, and some changes were made to reflect those suggestions.

 For example, the five suggested permanent seats for the council that were originally announced are now removed.  The council seats will be open to -- as I said, to all geographies and to all sectors.

 I'm happy to take any questions later, so let me know if you want me to stick around or if you want to ask the questions now.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Nora.  Now, let me first invite Flavio Wagner from CGI to take the floor, and then exceptionally, since you are participating remotely, we will take questions on this particular issue, if there will be any, before moving to the next items.

 Flavio, please, you have the floor.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  So thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 CGI.BR, the Brazilian steering committee, as one of the entities proposing this NETmundial Initiative platform, has been approached by many stakeholder groups in the last days or weeks asking for clarification about the platform.

 As Nora explained, this is still something going on, so there are no final decisions on nothing.  In fact, it's open to contributions from the whole community.  And because of this situation that things are still moving on and still being defined, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, in its last meeting last Friday decided to approve a clarification, a statement that will be made public maybe today, but that I will read for you already now.  It has been approved by all board members of CGI.BR.

 So the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.BR, in the meeting in November 28th, 2014, at its headquarters in Sao Paulo, while fully subscribing to the last public note on the NETmundial Initiative prepared by its working group on Internet governance as available on its Web site, decided to provide this additional clarification in view of the starting of preparations for the 10th edition of the Internet Governance Forum.

 First, the NETmundial Initiative aims to provide a platform for presentation and discussion of proposals and ideas that contribute to personalize the multistakeholder NETmundial declaration adopted at the end of the event with the same name in April 2014 available on its (indiscernible) Web site.

 Second, on one hand, adherence to the principles for Internet governance contained at the NETmundial declaration is a requirement for the submission of proposals and ideas in the context of the NETmundial Initiative.

 Third, on the other hand, proposals and ideas to be presented should consider the roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance, also part of the NETmundial declaration, which recognizes the need to advance the governance of the Internet in various fora and processes, existing or under discussion, for the treatment of topics related to the Internet, bearing in mind different roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders.

 Fourth, the NETmundial Initiative is not intended to replace the existing or to-be-established Internet governance fora and processes such as ICANN, IGF, any new fora on enhanced cooperation and on forwarding issues such as cybercrime and cybersecurity, among others.

 Fifth, working groups and spaces for discussion that may be created under the NETmundial Initiative will not have decision-making power over issues being discussed, nor will they constitute mechanisms for implementation of the proposed solutions which should, as appropriate, be referred and remitted to proper fora and processes.

 Sixth, in particular, the NETmundial Initiative does not intend to overlap with the IGF.  IGF's role to serve as a focal point for the global Internet community in terms of the tasks set by the Tunis Agenda must be preserved.  However, nothing prevents any concrete actions conceived within the NETmundial Initiative to be taken further in discussions at the IGF, to be forwarded to the IGF, or to dialogue with the IGF at any time.

 On the contrary, the NETmundial Initiative, by allowing the working multistakeholder format on issues, in line with the discussions in the IGF, may serve to strengthen the IGF providing continuity and practicality to the discussions in the IGF realm.  

 Seventh, any questions or proposed solutions involving the government sector, such as cybercrime, for example, must necessarily be brought to the attention of national governments and/or be channeled to existing or planned international processes.  This procedure is consistent with the provisions of the NETmundial declaration which recognizes that certain issues require international treatment, taking into account the role and responsibility of governments on specific topics related to their sovereignty, but at the same time reaffirms the need even in these cases that the discussions take place in a multistakeholder format.

 Eighth, when selecting the members who will compose the coordination council of the NETmundial Initiative, the transitional council will be guided by consensus within each community.

 Ninth, there will be no permanent seats in the coordination council for the initiators of the NETmundial Initiative, ICANN and CGI.BR, with the support of the World Economic Forum.  

 Once installed, the coordination council will establish modalities for the selection of future members by consensus.

 From its second term, every member should also go through a selection and validation process by the global multistakeholder community.  It will be the task of the coordination council to ensure funding sources for further development of the initiative.

 Tenth, the initiators of the proposals, and in particular CGI.BR,  have been sensitive to the concerns and criticisms raised by members of the Internet community.  Several modifications have been already introduced in relation to the proposal of the NETmundial Initiative originally drafted, and other changes are likely to be made to ensure that the initiative is structured so as to ensure the participation and involvement of all from the beginning.

 And eleventh and last point, many questions and concerns that have been expressed should be mitigated on the basis of proposals and concrete ideas and the confirmation, as appropriate, of working groups and specific discussion fora.

 This will then demonstrate that the NETmundial Initiative intends to operate simply as a bridge between participants who have concrete proposals and ideas and others who are willing to contribute with expertise, funding, or other forms of contribution to achieve these proposals and ideas.

 The initiators of the NETmundial Initiative will not have power to intervene in the development of such proposals and ideas and, once formed, the coordination council will serve as a facilitator, also without power to intervene on any initiatives.

 So thank you, Mr. Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Flavio.

 Now we have heard two presentations from two proponents of the idea and I would like now to open microphones for questions.  Not for comments at the moment.  If you have any questions, either to Nora, who is following this discussion from her office, or to Flavio, it would be time to ask.

 And I -- while waiting if there are any questions, my question, Nora, would be, if I understood correctly, so that there are no permanent seats in the council and the question which was asked to IGF MAG is also now off the table.  

 Am I right?

 >>NORA ABUSITTA:  Thank you, Janis.

 The invitation for the MAG to join the coordination council, of course, still holds.  The participation of the IGF in the NETmundial Initiative is critical, and so I hope the fact that there is no more permanent seats is not an indication that the invitation is no longer on the table.  On the contrary.  So I do hope that the MAG is still considering participation in the coordination council.

 The fact that the word "permanent" was removed was really a reflection of community feedback.  The first year, we will have these seats, and as Flavio mentioned, thereonafter, all the members of the council will have to go through the same process to secure their membership.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for this clarification.  That's crystal clear.  The modalities or suggested modalities for the council most probably could be found on the Web site.  I have Netherlands with a question.

 >> NETHERLANDS:  Thank you, Chair.  Just a question for clarification.  As we all know, the llves panel started its work and finalized it in Dubai at the World Economic Forum was hosting this event.  And it was followed by the Commission Bildt.  The Commission Bildt as we all know was launched during at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.  My question is:  How does this initiative link -- is there any linkage between this initiative and the work of the Commission Bildt, which we all know will last for two years?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Arnold, for your question.  Any further questions?  There is Ginger, yourself, please.

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  My question is for Flavio.  It's referencing that the NETmundial Initiative will be guided by stakeholder group recommendations for the Coordination Council.  I would like to ask who will make the final decisions then if you're going to be guided by the stakeholder recommendations?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  My question, I think, will probably go to both Nora and also Flavio.

 Taking note of comments that seem to continue to be made of "we seek not to compete but to support the IGF," I think it's a little unclear to me personally since all resources are finite such as human resources, financial resources, time resources, et cetera.

 I'd like to hear more about how this initiative is going to contribute particularly in support of financial contributions to the IGF.

 The IGF is -- is at a critical stage and having been a member of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF and also on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and participating actively in ICANN and in a number of other fora, I'm particularly aware of the need for significant financial resources for the IGF to be able to broaden and deepen the active, informed participation from all stakeholders from developing countries.

 So I hear that this is an initiative that is complementary.  I would like to hear more about the tangible financial contributions to strengthen the IGF.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And I will take the question from remote participant before going to Nora and to Flavio.

 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Okay.  I will read it from Subi.  NETmundial was bottom-up.  It was about stakeholders coming together and voluntarily associating to discuss and evolve a future roadmap for global ID.

 While in the new NETmundial/WEF initiative, we need to adhere to the principles and propagate them too.

 >> VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Subi, I'm not hearing a question there.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Nora, please, could you elaborate on those questions that have been asked so far?

 >>NORA ABUSSITA:  Absolutely.  Thank you for the questions.

 On the first point which is the relationship of the Bildt Commission to the NETmundial Initiative, I think both -- the two serve different goals.  The NETmundial Initiative will take into account any work that's being done on Internet governance.  And so we are -- we have been and we will be in constant coordination with the Bildt Commission.

 Regarding Marilyn Cade's comments on the plans to support the IGF from a NETmundial Initiative standpoint, any details -- to take two steps back, the NETmundial Initiative is very committed to the IGF, so there's no question there.

 What resources, what support will go into the IGF is something for the Coordination Council to decide on.  As I have mentioned before, the council will be fully representative geographically and sector-wise.  And as soon as they meet, they will discuss many things having to do with details, one of which is how to support the IGF.

 The more participation there is in the council, the more there is a guarantee of these issues coming to the council's attention.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Nora.

 Flavio, would you like to respond?  Maybe we can wait until the discussion.

 Fatima has a question.

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Yes.  Thanks, Mr. Chair.  My question is for Nora.  Is ICANN staff or ICANN the corporation going to have a consultation with the ICANN community about the involvement in the NETmundial Initiative?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 Any other questions?  There is one from Subi, a question?  No?  Something else?  Please.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Anriette from APC asked me to clarify.  As a member of the Bildt Commission, properly known as the Global Commission on Internet Governance, I can share that it is completely independent from the NETmundial Initiative or any other Internet governance form or platform.  It is currently completing research on the topic of intermittent fragmentation and Internet governance and will release a report in the course of 2015.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ana Neves, question?

 >> ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much.  I would like to thank to both of you that tried to explain what this NETmundial Initiative is.  Unfortunately, I didn't understand.  But it should be my fault.  

 So I'm trying to see how it fits in all the ecosystem and to make it something with some added value.

 Because I'm a bit afraid that today we have this council and tomorrow we'll have a very complex governance system in this NETmundial Initiative because we know that the World Economic Forum and ICANN that is no more -- so we don't speak about ICANN anymore.  But we all know that ICANN is really related to it which is not a bad thing, of course, but it is something that is part of this ecosystem.  

 And as Marilyn said, we have a lack of resources and they are finite.

 So my point is -- sorry if I'm being very naive -- if this point should not be discussed at the IGF 2015 as one of the main sessions, and to think how to put this into the ecosystem and not another thing but to integrate it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  In other words, Nora, the question is how NETmundial Initiative contributes, what value that adds to existing mechanisms.  There is another question, and then that will be over.

 Another question from remote participant.

 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  This is the question that Subi was formulating.  She asks that Flavio respond.  She says -- sorry -- how do we evolve stakeholder consensus if we need to adhere to the principles and first buy into the principles and evolve them?  She says it is a little like putting the cart before the horse.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Flavio, you now have time to reflect on that.  We're going back to Nora.

 Nora, if you would like to answer questions.

 >>NORA ABUSSITA:  Yes, thank you.  To Fatima's question about an ICANN public consultation, I would like to point out that ICANN is one of the enablers of the NETmundial Initiative.  Every entity that is involved has donated the time of a staff member to be part of the secretariat.

 We do intend to update our community in the upcoming Singapore meeting, but no public consultation is planned as of yet.

 The other important point to note to all of you here is that on Thursday, this coming Thursday, there will be an open call for the community.  It is a Q&A session with the three organizations that basically allow you to ask any questions and get more detailed information from the transitional committee.  The details of those will be on the NETmundial Web site.

 Now, how does the NETmundial Initiative fit into the ecosystem?  It is yet another initiative that complements existing efforts.  It is not here to replace any of them.  It is not here to take over any of them.  It is really another way of complementing the existing initiative.

 Now, we do understand the point about the resources being limited.  What the WEF initiative is doing is bringing new players into the mix.  And so the involvement of the World Economic Forum and the link between the NETmundial Initiative and the other initiatives such as the WEF initiative in Davos on Internet governance will really open up the discussion and bring in more contributors than we've classically seen.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Nora.

 If you can stay on, please do.  If you need to leave, thank you for your contribution to these -- to the discussion.  And we will continue with other presentations.  And we'll come back after other presentations.  So thank you, Nora, for that.

 Flavio, now the floor is yours.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  I will answer to Ginger, I think, about the choice of the seats for the Coordination Council.  For instance, with civil society, the Transitional Council which has one representative from each of the three entities proposing the initiative is working together with the coordination -- the civil society coordination group, CSCG, yeah, to come together with a list of names that are a consensus from CSCG.  So the Transitional Council will not try to impose any names.  The Web site where candidates for those seats self-nominate them or can be nominated by entities.  And from this list -- from this pool of names that have been nominated, CSCG will propose names that consider regional diversity.  And then this will be decided together with the Transitional Council.  So the Transitional Council will not decide by itself.

 And in answer to Subi, yes, NETmundial was bottom-up.  And as one of the outcomes of the event in Sao Paulo, there was a declaration that was approved by a rough consensus among the participants from all stakeholder groups.  And unless the community itself decides on the contrary and wants to reopen the discussion on the principles for Internet governance that have been proposed and accepted by rough consensus in Sao Paulo, we see no reason to reopen discussion at this moment.  

 Of course, there are many processes and fora for discussion of Internet governance.  The main one is IGF, of course.  If IGF, for instance, in its next meeting in Joao Pessoa, in Brazil, decides to take a -- IGF is not recommending things.  But one dynamic coalition or some group inside IGF proposes amendments or evolutions of the principles in Sao Paulo, of course, everybody will be happy to see this evolution.  

 For the moment, the principles we have are those.  And they have been decided with all segments of the community.  So we think it is a good starting point for accepting proposals in this initiative, that these are adherent to the principles that have be defined in Sao Paulo.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.

 I see that there are other requests for the floor, but the thing that we opened up for questions was simply because Nora is not here, not to keep her on the phone all the time.  So what I would like to suggest, maybe we proceed with other presentations and then full requests for the floor, Cheryl, Virat, ICC-BASIS, and (saying name) we will take immediately as the first four questions or comments in the subsequent discussion.  Will that be agreeable?  Thank you.

 Now then let us move to next presentation.  That is Commission on Science and Technology for Development, WSIS+10 review.  Presentation will be made by Ms. Mervi Kultamaa, WSIS coordinator from Division on Technology and Logistics of UNCTAD.  

 Mervi, the floor is yours.

 >>MERVI KULTAMAA:  Thank you very much, Janis.

 It is a pleasure to be here today to represent CSTD and UNCTAD.  As many of you know, I'm a former MAG member.  And it is nice to see so many familiar faces here today.

 I will begin by quick review of the ECOSOC resolution which mandated the CSTD to conduct its ten-year review, and then I will present the work that the secretariat has done to collect inputs from all stakeholders for the review.

 I will then talk a little about the draft ten-year review report that the secretariat has made available for the CSTD.  And, finally, I will brief you on the way forward on the review and the discussion that took place last week in the CSTD intersessional panel on this issue.

 Can you go to the next slide, please?  And two after that.  Yes.  We are now in the right place.

 So to start with the mandate, in 2013 and again this year the ECOSOC asked the CSTD to make a particular contribution to the WSIS follow-up.  And basically it made three requests to the commission.  First, it requested the commission to collect inputs from member states and all stakeholders for the review.

 Second, it requested the commission to organize a substantive discussion on the review report in 2015 and the substantive discussion will take place at the Commission's 18th session which convenes from 4 to 8th, May, 2015.  

 And the third task that the council gave to the CSTD was to report through the council to the General Assembly as it makes an overall review of the implementation of WSIS outcomes in 2015.

 Next slide, please.

 I will just briefly explain what the secretariat has done to facilitate the Commission in this task.  So between June and October 2014, we conducted an open invitation to all stakeholders to share their views and experiences on the implementation of WSIS outcomes.  And I would like to thank those who submitted their contribution.  In total, we received 96 contributions, which is a very good outcome.  And they are available on the CSTD Web site with the exception of those who indicated that they didn't want their submission to be in public.

 And also in order to reach stakeholders from different regions and sectors, the secretariat organized seven open consultation sessions in different parts of the world.  Two of them took place during the IGF meeting in Istanbul.  One was a pre-event that we organized for the Latin American region.  And another one was an open forum for all IGF participants, and I would like to thank the IGF secretariat for collaborating with us on this review.

 Yes.  And of course we need to take into account all related outcomes and inputs, such as the WSIS+10 high-level event, UNESCO's WSIS +10 meeting, and Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development Report.  So these have been taken into account as the secretariat has prepared the 10-year review report and hopefully the commission will also look at this when it makes its review in 2015.

 Next slide, please.

 So the information that we have gathered, both by the open consultation and through the analysis of relevant literature, has allowed us to prepare the draft 10-year review report.

 The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive summary of evidence concerning WSIS outcomes and the development of an Information Society since the conclusion of the World Summit in 2015.

 You have the draft version of that report available on the CSTD Web site and it was discussed last week in the CSTD intersessional panel as I just referred to.  

 We will still -- it's still a draft version and we will prepare an executed summary to it, and then we will finalize it through the 18th session of the commission.

 But at this point, I would like to point out that it is the secretariat's review report and the commission will make its review in the annual session.

 Next slide, please.

 So this is basically the structure of the report with its chapters and an annex on multistakeholder implementation.  Next, please.

 Here are some of the key points which are made in the report in terms of the most important changes which have taken place in ICTs since WSIS, and one common denominator of these changes which underpins everything is really the Internet and its role in the Information Society today as well as its technological progress.

 It is important for international policy and programs concerned with the future implementation of WSIS outcomes to be located in this rough understanding of the current circumstances, opportunities and challenges, and that's why we decided to devote a whole chapter to these changes in the review report.

 Next slide, please.  

 Now, here are some of the achievements that we have seen in the ICT sector from 2005 onwards.

 I won't go through the details but these are all reflected more in detail in the report.  Next slide, please.

 Now, talking about achievements in the WSIS implementation, I would perhaps highlight two issues today.

 One is the multistakeholder cooperation which has really become established as a key part of both ICT and ICT4D agendas.

 It was strongly advocated in the WSIS outcome documents and especially in the IGF part of the outcomes, the action lines and the WSIS forum.  All of these have fostered the multistakeholder participation.

 And then the final point in my presentation, the report discusses the IGF as one of the main achievements in the WSIS implementation.  This was clearly -- this came clearly out in the submissions that we had from different stakeholders.

 So the report revisits the mandate of the IGF, lists the IGF meetings that have taken place, and notes the outcomes of the CSTD working group on the improvements to the IGF.

 For example, UN DESA commented, in its submission, that the IGF has matured over the years, now routinely discussing issues which were once considered too controversial for multistakeholder cooperation, such as critical Internet resources and human rights.  

 So we note some of these inputs in the report, but also the fact that there were some more critical voices of IGF's performance among the contributors, but these were, of course, in the minority.

 As an overall observation, the report concludes that the IGF has become an important annual event in the ICT and Internet calendars with strong support from across stakeholder communities.

 Next, please.

 The report identified four major challenges, and perhaps I would like to point out one that Doreen pointed out earlier, that we are still learning the best ways to mainstream ICTs into development.  I mean, this is particularly crucial because ICTs will become increasingly capable and increasingly important in the future, and many contributors to the consultation for the review expressed concern about the need for more attention to be paid to the Information Society in the post-2015 development agenda, and this is also something that the commission deliberated last week:  How do we get ICTs mainstreamed in the sustainable development goals and in that post-2015 development process.

 Next slide, please.

 Now, we also made some suggestions that emerged from the evidence in the report, and in contributions to the consultations.

 The need for any targets concerning WSIS implementation to be forward-looking and measurable.  Improvements in data gathering and analysis.  Ensuring that action lines cover new developments that have taken place since WSIS.  Pay more attention to the gender dimension, for example.  The need for WSIS outcomes to be better integrated into United Nations development assistance frameworks, and also strengthening the work of (indiscernible).

 Also need for more attention to financial mechanisms.  And one that may interest you is the need to resolve differences of opinion and achieve consensus on the future of Internet governance.

 I don't know if this is too optimistic as a goal, but it would certainly take us forward.

 And also, the need to build on the body of experience that has emerged from the work of diverse stakeholders and multistakeholder cooperation in order to improve the effectiveness of future actions to implement WSIS outcomes.

 And these are really some of the suggestions that we want to put forward for the commission as it makes its review in the annual session next year.

 Next slide, please.

 So as I mentioned in the intersessional panel last week, one whole day was devoted to the discussion on the 10-year review.  That was Friday.  We had the presidents of the two phases of the summit who gave us their views.  

 Thank you, Janis, for being there with us.

 And we had a lively discussion on the draft report and on the 10-year review in general.

 The secretariat got the feeling that there was a general satisfaction in the content of our review report, even though there were a number of comments that were made for further adjustments such as addendums, deletions, or making the report more balanced so that different options could be reflected.  This applied particularly to the enhanced cooperation part of the text which we knew would be perhaps most discussed.

 And we gave a two-week period to send comments in writing.

 If you have any comments on the draft review report which is made available on the CSTD Web site, I would encourage you to send them to us in writing.  You can see the email address on the screen.

 Next slide, please.

 And finally, the commission discussed the way forward with the report and with the 10-year review.  

 So the report is going to be finalized by the secretariat after this two-week period has concluded, and it will be submitted as final publication to the 18th annual session.  Actually, we have to finalize the report already in mid-January for it to be made available as a final publication in May.

 So it will be an information document for the commission as it makes its own 10-year review report -- or 10-year review during the annual session, and the outcome of that review, whichever format it takes, will then be submitted through the ECOSOC to the General Assembly, and it will constitute an input from the CSTD 10-year -- from the CSTD that -- to the General Assembly as it carries out the overall review of WSIS outcomes around December 2015.

 Well, with that, I will hand it back to the chair and I'm available for any questions that -- or comments that may arise.  Thank you for your attention.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Mervi, for this presentation, and I think we will go through all presentations and then we will do the Q&A session on all five of those presentations.

 So let me now turn to the next speaker, and that is Mr. Peter Major.  He's a special advisor of the Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations and he's the chairman of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and we would like to hear from him a brief report on the outcomes of this working group.  

 Peter, please, the floor is yours.

 >>PETER MAJOR:  Thank you, Janis.

 It's really nice to be here back in the ITU, which I used to work for, 23 years.

 Janis, you mentioned that I was -- or I'm the chair of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, and probably many of us don't even have a clue what enhanced cooperation is.

 I think you are the best person to clarify it.  If not, well, I'll eventually give some background, but I spare you from that.

 So enhanced cooperation just popped up in the Tunis Agenda, which you know, I think all of you, by heart.  

 In most IGF -- Internet governance-related meetings, participants usually quote, eventually by heart, or usually take the booklet and quote the appropriate paragraphs, what they think is appropriate.  

 And in particular, with regards to enhanced cooperation, it's Paragraph 69, which says, "We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future to enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters."

 So that is one of the key paragraphs.  

 And of course the other one is "The process towards enhanced cooperation to be started by the U.N. Secretary-General involving all relevant organizations by the end of first quarter 2006."

 If I'm not mistaken, we are in 2014.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PETER MAJOR:  Well, I don't want to imply that nothing happened because it wouldn't be right, so after some hesitation and some really interesting consultations within the U.N., within the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the United Nations General Assembly, by the end of 2012, in its resolution invited the chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to examine the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation through seeking, compiling, and reviewing inputs from all member states and all other stakeholders, and to make recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate.  

 And this group was to report on the 17th session of the CSTD.

 The resolution is usual U.N. language, very well balanced.  What is important to note from that, that it is a multistakeholder working group within the U.N. system.

 So the process itself.  After the resolution, the CSTD created the working group in consultation with the appropriate stakeholder groups who nominated their participants in the working group, and basically the working group was established similarly to the previous one which was already mentioned during many occasions.  That is, the working group on enhanced -- on the improvements to the IGF.

 This multistakeholder working group had 46 members, I believe.  22 member states -- no.  42 members.  22 member states and 5 are representatives from other stakeholder groups.

 We tried to work in compliance with the mandate and in a multistakeholder approach, in mutual trust, tried to achieve some results-based consensus, and of course observers were allowed to attend the meetings either physically or remotely.

 So everything seemed to be very bright at the very beginning.

 We had four physical meetings, and in the first meeting we compiled a questionnaire.  Well, usually what you do you just reach out to the stakeholders and you come up with a questionnaire asking their opinions related to the particular topic, this time about enhanced cooperation, and this questionnaire was -- contained about 18 questions.  And we received a pretty good -- pretty good responses to the questions.  There were, I think, close to 70 contributions and the questions were quite lengthy because we had 18 questions.

 So we evaluated the questions and it turned out that in case we want to have the full compilation, we have to deal with a document of 1,000 pages.

 I know that you love to read 1,000 pages, indeed, but I am not very sure that this is the most efficient way so we decided to ask the secretariat to prepare a shorter document, and in the end we came up with a 25-page document which was kind of manageable.

 So after the second meeting, which was -- which was based on this reduced document which also encompassed all the essential points and which is made available on the CSTD Web site so you can still go to the Web site and read it, if you feel like, we found out that we should group the responses into five categories and we tried to manage the five different categories.

 And of course one of the most important was the role of the stakeholders.

 Well, during the meetings, it was found out that the root issue -- and by "root," I don't mean the Internet root but I mean the heart of the matter -- was the identification of existing mechanisms.  Global, regional mechanisms where questions related to enhanced cooperation are being dealt with.  

 And based on the responses to the questionnaire, we managed -- well, the working group, first of all, set up a correspondence group and there were two volunteers and I would like to name them.  Lea Kaspar, who is a member of the MAG now, and Samantha Dickinson, who volunteered to do the data mining from the responses and identify the issues which have bearing to enhanced cooperation.

 They managed to identify 483 issues, and later on, this was downsized to 200-plus.

 So we had our third and fourth meeting and in the end, the resolutions of the CSTD as usual are quite political.  The opinions were divergent.  While some said that nothing happened in the spirit of enhanced cooperation, others said that much happened.  The basic issue was that eventually a new body was needed to deal with the enhanced cooperation.  Majority of participants said that the existing ones aren't enough.

 As for the approach, there were voices that said that eventually multilateral approach should be adopted for treating these issues.  Again, the majority was for the multistakeholder approach.

 So basically for the mapping exercise, it was half empty or half full.  So my assessment of the meetings was that basically we are on the same side but with different views.  We really want to have a stable, secure and unfragmented Internet.

 Of course, we should sequence the recommendations as to what, how, and who is doing things on enhanced cooperation.  And, of course, recommendations should be implementable, stable and flexible.

 So we had very, very rich responses.  We have very valuable documents.  But for the lack of time, we didn't manage to finish our work.  If you think about it, we had about one year to work on that.  So compared to the previous eight years, I think we have managed not too bad.

 So it has already been mentioned that there was a resolution of the ECOSOC.  ECOSOC means Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.  I know that you love abbreviations, and all of you are familiar with all of the abbreviations we are saying here.  That's why I'm telling you ECOSOC is the Economic and Social Council.  

 Its resolution -- the Economic and Social Council of the U.N. asked for continuation of the mapping exercise which was the essence of the work or one of the main points of the work and asked the CSTD secretariat to continue this work.

 The resolution was passed, I think, in July this year.  So the secretariat took this job and organized a peer review team and started the work.

 In two months' time, I believe the secretariat provided a very, very good report on the results of the mapping exercise.  And this report is made available on the CSTD Web site again.  And alongside with the report, there is another document which is called a database.  To my mind, it is a spreadsheet, but we don't really want to go into technical details.

 You are also encouraged to look into that.  And the reason for it, during the intersessional meeting of the CSTD last week, we had a 2 1/2-hour session on the mapping exercise.  And there were many, many views announced.

 And basically I think most of the statements and contributions in the discussions were quite positive about the outcome.  Of course, there were suggestions how to improve.  So I think this is an ideal place to ask for your opinion to contribute.  We have allocated about a one-month period to comment, and we would like to see your feelings and your arguments pro and con for the enhanced cooperation issues which have been identified and the mechanisms which have been identified.

 So the -- you can submit your contributions using the UNCTAD's email address preceded by the WGEC.  So it is [email protected].

 If you didn't have a chance to write it down, I will be available.  And Mervi will be available because I have to pay tribute to her as well because she was coordinating this exercise as well.

 So I think it was a very good exercise.  It is a very promising one.  And I believe it will be discussed again during the main session of the CSTD in May.  And I don't really have to be very, very foresight -- have a good foresight to say that eventually it will be passed through the ECOSOC to the United Nations General Assembly for consideration as one of the inputs to its review.

 With that, I finish my presentation.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Peter, for the presentation.  Indeed, this is -- the latter part of your presentation refers to the mapping of international Internet public policy issues, the question which has been discussed a number of occasions.  There have been attempts of drafting that type of list of public policy issues.  One was done by the working group on Internet governance.  One was done by the ITU Council working group on information society.  But it has never been properly sort of drilled down and consensus has never been reached on that among governments, not to say that after that of all stakeholders.  So hopefully this exercise will bring to better understanding and maybe even consensus what do we mean by using the term "international Internet public policy issues."  So thank you very much.  And certainly that would contribute to the discussions we're going to hear next, that is WSIS+10 review process which will be organized by United Nations General Assembly.  

 And I would like to invite Ms.  Elia Armstrong, the chief of the division for public administration and development management from United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs to share information that she has about the preparations for that process.  

 Elia, the microphone is yours.

 >> ELIA ARMSTRONG:  Thank you very much.  I'm very delighted to be here, and I would like to welcome all the new MAG members on behalf of our Secretary-General Mr. Wu and our Assistant Secretary-General Mr. Thomas Gass.  We at UN-DESA are constantly amazed at the activism and the dedication that the IG community demonstrates and, of course, the leadership of MAG and the current -- under the current leadership of the chair, Janis.

 The benefit of being the last speaker in a way is that a lot of my work has already been done, and I don't really want to bore you with additional details.  

 I think what I want to do is say, you know, in true U.N. fashion, any sort of major review or major activity usually has sort of a process side and then there's a substantive side.  So maybe I could kind of try to make a few remarks on first the process side and then maybe ask some questions about the substantive side.

 On the process side, as Janis has mentioned, there was a modality resolution that was passed by the General Assembly in July of this year and it didn't give a lot of details beyond to say that a high level -- a high-level meeting will be held in December in New York and that -- and that there should be also multistakeholder consultations prior to that.

 In the current draft of the ICT4D resolution that is now being discussed before the second committee, there is a paragraph that's saying they're also hoping for an intergovernmentally agreed-upon outcome document out of that session.  So that sort of highlights the two points that I made, one which is the process issue and then secondly is the substantive issue.

 So going back on the process issue, if you go up the food chain of the intergovernmental process, if you'd like, you've heard from our UNCTAD colleague about CSTD processes, currently consultations, and in the report that they will submit to ECOSOC in July of next year.  And then that session will then feed into the GA session.

 In addition to that, we also know -- and we've heard this morning about ITU's own review process, WSIS review process, and UNESCO's review process as well.  So you see sort of multitrack going on in terms of procedures.

 The high-level review by GA review will also be under the auspices of two presidents of the General Assembly.  That is a lot of the preparatory process is being done by the current president of the General Assembly, who is from Uganda.  He will be the one to appoint the two facilitators in June of 2015 that will be, you know, starting the negotiations on the outcome document.  And then in September, that will be taken over by the new PGA of 2015.  So the process will undergo that.

 This is just to give you sort of an overview of the procedural part.  

 I just want to make sure I don't miss out on anything.

 So what my team did last week is that we approached our colleagues in General Assembly department and asked them, is it possible to set a date at least.  And they said that it will be done within the context of the overall program of the General Assembly work for next year.  So it is too early now but, you know, it will be set sometime soon.

 And there will be two facilitators that will also be appointed by the PGA and that will happen in June of 2015.  So you can sort of see a timeline emerging.

 On the substantive side, I just want to take you with me to New York and imagine that this is September 2015.  What's going to be going on?  There's going to be a lot of discussion about the end of the MDGs and the ushering in of the new post-2015 development agenda with the SDGs at the center.  Doreen alluded to that, the SDGs and also the mention of the ICTs around some of the -- around some of the SDGs.

 And we can only anticipate what's already being given in the SG's report to CSTD that will be before ECOSOC.  So we are hoping that somehow the two tracks, the discussion of the post-2015 development agenda will not conclude without a really firm placing of the role of ICTs and WSIS and, of course, Internet governance in all of this.  And the trick is how to bring the traffic together so that you come out in one car.

 [ Laughter ] 

 Come out of the same tunnel, something like that.

 So getting back to the substance side, I guess because I see the richness of the number of issues on Internet governance, which is but a subset of information society, if you'd like, as a relatively newcomer to this substantive area, I've been asking the question:  What after WSIS?  What does that vision look like?  Is it more of information society?  Is it a grander part of information society?  And I think this is where all stakeholders have such an important role to play in trying to crystallize the vision because I think there are many strands.  And the more clear and earlier consensus that can be achieved on this vision, the greater chance that it will survive through these various parallel processes that will come out at the end of the review.

 And I think that we mustn't lose sight of the ultimate goal of that review which is looking at did the objectives of the original WSIS, the two summits, were they achieved and where does the international community go from here?  And how does that vision fit in?  How is that part and parcel of the vision of sustainable development?  And I think that's just a question that I would hand over to you at this point.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Elia, for this presentation.  Of course, there are more questions concerning that part than answers.  The question is:  What will be the modalities of negotiations?  Most probably will be defined by co-facilitators after their nomination.  Question:  Who will be servicing that process?  Most likely that would be UN-DESA as you are well-placed, strategically placed in New York.  And it would be difficult for any Geneva-based organization to do the job.  As well as what will be the modalities of negotiations and how the interaction which is suggested by the UNGA resolution with other stakeholders will be organized.  Of course, these are questions that we still need to look to answers for.

 Nevertheless, thank you very much for these presentations of the processes.  That will in one way or another, directly or indirectly, impact the preparations for the IGF Brazil.  And now I would like to open the floor for any comments, questions in relation to all five presentations.

 And as I promised, first it would be four requests in order -- following order.  Virat, ICC-BASIS, Cheryl, and then Chip.  Virat is absent.  We are taking the next one.  ICC-BASIS, please.

 >>ICC-BASIS:  Thank you.  My question is going back to the discussion we had earlier before the most recent presentations on the NETmundial Initiative.  ICC-BASIS has submitted a letter to the Transitional Council with a long list of detail questions.  And in particular, those questions are addressing issues around the difficulties of practically participating for some stakeholders and individuals.

 And so while we are really pleased to hear the comments that Flavio has made, that the initiative remains open to other changes and likely to be made, these are likely to evolve and the initiative will aim to ensure that participation is possible from all.  

 We were wondering about what the next steps were and when we might be able to have some more detailed responses to these questions because they are quite extensive.  We noted in one case that question was addressed.  But for the rest of them, we'd like to know.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I think that I would suggest that we collect all the questions and then I will ask all presenters to respond to all of them at the same time.

 Virat, please.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Chair.  Congratulations to all the presenters.  Outstanding summaries of the discussions and the importance as it links back to the Internet governance.  In fact, the last IGF as you are aware, held a main session in the linkages.  And I hope you can do more work there.

 Specifically in regards to the initiative-related discussions, there are some threshold-related issues for stakeholders because of the preconditions that are included in joining the Coordination Council.  And that flows -- those preconditions then flows to organizations as it is currently worded in terms of embracement.

 So if we can get clear responses to some of the issues that business has raised through ICC-BASIS, that will certainly help as early as possible to understand how to proceed because they are not just procedural issues but also legal implications on how people can associate themselves as a group because of the language that's currently on the Web site.

 The more important point which maybe you could respond right now would be that while clearly NETmundial principles came out of an excellent process and in definition of which the IGF itself gave it (indiscernible), there are stakeholders who accept or may accept NETmundial principles fully, partially, and some not at all, which is a likelihood.

 But if the precondition exists the way it is, then it would mean that even though we call the process open, several large numbers of stakeholders, including governments may not be able to join this discussion, to begin with, because they are not in a position to fully embrace everything that's out there.

 There is a difference between nonbinding rough consensus and embrace, accept, advocate.  There's a big difference.

 How do you then start a process where, right at the beginning, you would have a realization that a large number of stakeholders, due to legal or other issues, may not be able to contribute even though their presence in what you're trying to look for, which is solutions for specific problems, may be a critical need for the initiative to succeed.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Cheryl?

 >>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you very much.  And thank you again to all the panelists.  It was very substantive, all of the presentations, and very informative and very useful.

 My questions are geared towards the  NETmundial Initiative presentation, and Verizon did participate in NETmundial.  We thought it was a very forward-looking and excellent two-day conference, and some good things definitely came out of it.

 With respect to just, I think, clarifying a couple of items that I heard in the presentation, I noted that there was a discussion of the WEF initiative on Internet governance and there was also the  NETmundial Initiative.

 Are these separate or are these the same?  I just -- just to clarify that, so we're on the same page.

 Also, secondly, I heard that the principles, there could be a possibility of them changing in the future, whether through perhaps a process at the IGF such as dynamic coalition or otherwise.  Just -- I know we're not there yet, but if that were to occur, how would individuals or organizations who have signed on to the principles as they were, moving forward, would it be assumed that they adopt the new ones or would they need to readopt or would they -- you know, would it be recognized in some way that they had adopted the old ones and just what would that process be and what would it look like.

 And then third, I think there was an interesting comment with respect to resources at the IGF.  We've all been talking about what an important year 2015 is going to be, and we had some interesting discussion, actually, in the donors meeting today with respect to resources, time constraints, et cetera.

 I'm not sure if -- if the seat is definitely a MAG seat or if it's an overall IGF seat or -- so clarification on that.

 And then just I would highlight also, you know, just the concern that if we are taking on intersessional work, we are doing the best practice forums, I don't know that we decided the exact role of the MAG chair and secretariat's office in terms of who will be doing what, but just making sure that the -- we're not overextending our resources in such a critical year.

 And so those are my comments on NETmundial Initiative.

 I had one comment also on the CSTD process.

 We try very hard to participate in as many of the meetings as we can, but sometimes due to resource constraints we're not able to, and so I did participate remotely in one of the CSTD meetings, and I thought it was great.  It was very easy to do so, and I really appreciated that.

 I think moving forward, really enhancing remote participation capabilities for all the meetings will be increasingly important, especially as we add new things and different organizations have different levels of resources.

 So thank you very much and I'm sorry for too many questions.

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

 Next is Chip from Cisco Systems.

 >>CHIP SHARP:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  

 Also, I'd like to thank the presenters for giving us a nice update on what is happening in the other areas of Internet governance in the U.N. system.

 One question I think I -- I think the previous speakers here asked most of my questions, but I would just maybe ask a request rather than a question is that perhaps in -- as we get closer to June, and if there is a meeting -- a MAG or -- meeting in May, that we get another update on what the process is for the 10-year review at that time.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The question on the schedule for preparations to Brazil meeting, we will be discussing tomorrow and the day after, and then we will decide what will be the sequence of MAG meetings, but certainly your request is taken on board and we will update at every occasion on the WSIS+10 review.

 Do we have remote participation -- participants?  Two of them.  Please.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  First, just very quickly, before Nora had to leave, she asked -- she left a note that there will be a call on Thursday to ask any more questions regarding the  NETmundial Initiative at 5:00 UTC.

 And then we have a comment from Subi.  

 "This is Subi" -- and I'm not going to try and say her last name -- "Chaturvedi.

 For all the initiative presenters, many thanks.  Excellent summaries, all.

 I speak for myself and for those not in the room.  For many new voices and participants willing to engage, we welcome the various new initiatives, existing and new.  Wish that 1,000 flowers bloom.  The challenge has been to keep track of the various initiatives.

 Would request UN DESA, perhaps through the IGF, to integrate a global IG events initiatives map, and also if we could get a specific response to the IG extension mandate position from DESA, what we as MAG members can do to carry this message forward on the value of the IGF.  The clock is ticking and we have now just under one year.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  As far as I know, the map -- map holder is Marilyn, so she always has this nice --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- map of all meetings related to IGF.  So yeah, Subi, Marilyn will send it to you.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So Izumi.  The floor is yours.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  I have a question before I make -- to the chair that I'm going to talk about not the five ones that have already presented but a different one, called World Internet Conference this year.  I mean, may I do now or later?  It's up to you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, no.  Please go ahead.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Now we have a free-floating discussion and everything is on the table.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Okay.  Good.  Some of -- or many of you have heard the word "Internet conference."  Don't know how many.

 That was organized in November 19th to the 21st in a small town of Wuzhen, about two hours outside of Shanghai.

 I got invitation through the -- from the organizing committee through the CNNIC.  But it was very amazing conference.  I see only a few -- Pablo and a few others -- were in the same conference.  But it was aimed by the very strong will of the government of China to become the Davos of the Internet conference.

 So they tried to assemble many leaders, especially from the business side.  The founding chairman of the Alibaba, Jack Ma, who is now the richest individual in China, showed up like a rock 'n roll star.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  But the founder of LinkedIn came from the U.S.  The CEO and president of ICANN also joined.  That's a big name.

 They say four out of the world's richest 10 Internet companies from China and they are all there.  China Telecom Unicom there.  World GSM Association chair was there.  On and on.  So it was -- and I hope that Pablo may follow me up in this evaluation.

 I have a very mixed evaluation of this conference, but it certainly has some implication to the kind of discussion we are doing.  Whether positive or not, I don't know yet.

 As I mentioned, the very strong will of the government was expressed via the fact that the -- deputy prime minister came physically to reel out the message from the president, the Chinese president's message specifically (indiscernible) as well as the prime minister came to the next (indiscernible) on the day two.

 Somehow he didn't show up to the site, but all the VIPs were invited to go there and have a talk, and still about 600 reporters to the participants of 1,000.  They were all mostly mobilized by the government but they're very keen to cover.  Very interesting.  I was interviewed three or four times, by the way.  

 And the composition of the meeting was also very interesting, in that they combined business aspects of the Internet as well as some political, people's safety and security, governance.  There was a very interesting Internet governance forum hosted by the CNNIC again.  High-level dialogue.  On and on.

 And unfortunately somehow the English Web site is not available anymore.  It was up active.  Don't know why, but it's very difficult now to see.

 But there were several media coverages including Wall Street Journal and stuff.

 At the early morning of the day three, the last day, we got the envelope beneath the door, and there was a draft declaration that was given to all participants and we were asked if we want to make any changes or, you know, revisions, please contact the secretary sending the information with your comment by 8:00 in the morning.

 We all expected, therefore, to have this declaration read out at the end -- you know, closing ceremony, which never happened.

 And I have reported that to some of the MAG members through the mailing list.  I don't want to go through the details.  But what we found out from the conversation at the reception was the minister organizing this said, "So many people, you guys, didn't agree with, so we didn't call it a declaration."  

 But they actually defined this Wuzhen as the permanent place for holding this Internet summit for many years to come.

 The positive -- and I would say is they at least showed sort of willingness to dialogue, no matter how the positions are different.  It's a pity that high-level western countries' governments didn't really show up.  They largely sent their consulate and embassy people.  But the business participated.  Of course there are certain other aspects such as it's not really multistakeholder.  There were no civil society representation as such.  It's not bottom-up.  But still, having these different people on board and having different topics together, much wider than the IGF, gives us some thought that whether to discuss the Internet governance issues by an Internet governance sort of people or involve the other kind of interests together, there are different ways to address these issues.  And clearly to China the Internet is very much an engine of growth and economy.  They take it very, very seriously from the top to the bottom.

 So that's where I see.  

 And another -- finally, I would say very strong emphasis onto the mobile.  That was really given.  That led sort of the entire agenda.  That's another finding.  

 I will stop here.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Izumi, for this -- for this information.  So very good, the Chinese hosting that type of event.  The biggest Internet community -- user community live in that country, and so that -- I think to my knowledge, there's many dozen replicas of World Economic Forum annual event in Davos in different areas so maybe that will become one in -- related to Internet.  

 So I will now look -- Marilyn is next on the list.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm going to call attention to all of you for how important it is to pay attention to the scribes' capturing of your comments and your name.  That's not why I took your floor but a correction to Izumi's comments, for instance, is that there were a thousand participants, not 61,000 participants.  And other speakers are not actually getting their name captured.

 So let me just note that, because it's important for the transcript, particularly for those who are remote and are not able to participate.

 I wanted to speak -- I'll speak, first of all, about a very brief comment about -- in follow-up to my comments about the  NETmundial Initiative in the following way.

 My view is that we have a huge amount of work to do as the MAG to advise on planning our IGF 2015.  

 We have also been alerted to now, as a MAG and a stakeholder community, to a number of very critical events and activities where our future is in the hands of others and not perhaps so much in our own hands.

 What is in our hands is to do with excellence the job that we are appointed to do or that make the contribution that we can make.

 Too much time spent on any other debate may be a diversion from our focusing very, very closely on our own work.  Having said that, I want to -- 

 And my comment there is related to the issue of in order for us to fulfill our responsibilities, take up intersessional work, improve and extend best practices, approach the national and regional IGF initiatives about perhaps engaging in a more direct linkage in some way, if it suits their bottom-up consensus-based organizational structure to do so in the IGF itself, that means a huge amount of work for us and a huge amount of work for our MAG chair and for our secretariat.

 Let me go on now to comment on -- and to thank the other presenters.  I'm sorry Doreen is gone, because I was present at the ITU plenipot as well as certain other -- some others who are here, and observed and even contributed, perhaps through discussions, to the resolutions that are passed.

 There is, indeed, significant work for all of us to be aware of, including the interests of the ITU in engaging in the WSIS follow-up.

 It is particularly important to me as a member of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to support Peter Major's call to attention for all of us the fact that the mapping exercise is open until the end of the month, and I hope that all of you will take a look at it and consider making a contribution.

 There are a number of us who are members of that working group from civil society, the technical community, and business, and I know that we would all welcome the opportunity to talk with you about how to effectively do that.

 On the concept -- the road ahead that Elia Armstrong mentioned that we will learn more about really only in June, I think we do need to be thinking in parallel as concerned stakeholders about how we work collaboratively across all of the stakeholder groups to engage with government colleagues in New York who will be making decisions and think about how we help to contribute to providing information and even advice on how to best engage with stakeholders and how to consider the way forward post-2015.

 To me, last Friday I had the opportunity to hear Adama Samassekou, the president of the first PrepCom, and Janis Karklins, the president of the second PrepCom, preparatory process for WSIS, and Adama really struck a chord in me reminding me that it is really -- the WSIS was about creating the Information Society for all, and that is really a vision that I think the IGF was supposed to contribute to, which is what we're here to do in the next three days, but it also reminded me that the Information Society is not just about access but it is also about capability and expertise and also about content.  And I -- it was a very inspirational reminder that looking ahead, hopefully the IGF will be able to contribute not just this year but in the years ahead to creating the Information Society.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Marilyn.

 I now call on Jivan.

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  Hi.  My name is Jivan, and that's J-i-v-a-n, for those taking the transcription.

 Actually, I'm amazed at whoever is taking the transcription that they can write so quickly everything that is written, so kudos for them.

 But, yeah, it is a challenge with all the names that we have from different places in the world.

 I am in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia.  I'm head of the Department for Public Diplomacy and Public Relations, but at the core I'm a multilateral diplomat.  And I say this only because I think that I've been in many general debates since September, and it's quite a hectic affair.  If the Internet Governance Forum is a lot of people whizzing around and about from one place to another, there's the same thing in New York but it's only prime ministers and presidents with about -- bodyguards varying between 2 and 20 around them.

 So it's -- but it's a good time to get the attention of the people that I think that we should be trying to get the attention of about what we're doing.

 Especially given that the vote will be coming -- well, the mandate will be renewed through ECOSOC and the General Assembly and that will be just before the November meeting of the IGF.

 So in line with my previous comment on a communications strategy, I think that this is one of those milestones that we need to think about of communicating the importance of not just the IGF but I would say the Internet and I think that a celebration of the Internet that we start off as a strategy of engagement from now until then is a good way for us to present the importance of the IGF just before our mandate is renewed and actually for the mandate to be renewed exactly in that in that frame of thinking.

 So I think that we should think about there are government representatives here, quite a few, I think.

 We should think about some kind of an event during the general debate in New York in September, perhaps under the auspices of UNDESA or perhaps under Brazil or perhaps another country that would hold it at a relatively high level, so ministerial level is high enough to attract attention.  It doesn't have to be a summit.  It doesn't have to be anything higher than that.  And then present it as an enabler of the SDGs that are coming as the new framework of thinking in terms of development goals for the future.

 If there ever was a good enabler of growth and the development, that's the Internet, and we need to show that to the world next year.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Jivan.

 A small remark.  If the decision on the extension of the mandate of IGF will not be taken by the second committee this year, I think that then the next opportunity will be as a result of the WSIS+10 review event in December 2015.  I don't think the General Assembly in 2015, September, October, will take any decisions.  That will go automatically to the high-level meeting.

 So I have next Mark Carvell, U.K., on my list.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  And many thanks to all the presenters for their clear, informative presentations on all the initiatives and processes that are intersecting with the IGF.  The updating is very valuable, and I hope colleagues are taking count of the timelines and opportunities to contribute.

 I would just make a couple of points with regard to the CSTD key documents.  Firstly, the draft report, we think it is a very thorough study of the background and implementation of the WSIS recommendations.  I will just make one observation where I think it understates the situation, and that is with regard to the regional and national IGFs.  There's a paragraph covering this, just one paragraph covering this, on page 148 or thereabouts.

 I think it fails really to take account of how the IGF template has been replicated at the national and regional level in all continents and has, therefore, become an important network within the Internet governance ecosystem which, indeed, we are going to discuss here with regard to intersessional activity.

 So I just point that out as one important aspect of developments over the last ten years, the emergence of these multistakeholder fora as something we ought to bear in mind in terms of the currency, if you'd like, of the report.  And, of course, we've also seen governments -- individual governments institute multistakeholder processes into their policy making.  Brazil is a very obvious example.  U.K., we have our own multistakeholder advisory group on Internet governance comprising around 45 stakeholder representatives from business, civil society, and the technical community.  So that's another aspect of implementation which has sort of had a very important ripple effect, if you'd like, throughout Internet governance processes.

 Secondly, the mapping of international and Internet public policy issues, this is, as you've underlined, Chair, a very important exercise with previous attempts at it.  And we really appreciate all the hard work and the monumental effort that's gone into the preparation of the mapping document and the database.

 We've had an initial review of it, and there were comments last week, of course, as Mervi recounted at the intersessional and, indeed, Peter.

 And there is one month left really to react and fill in some important gaps which we in the U.K. government have identified.  So I just draw that to the attention of all the members of this meeting and those listening remotely, that this is a key document you should draw your immediate attention to because it has a critical -- it will be a critical input into the WSIS review, into debates about whether there should be another process with regard to enhanced cooperation, and so on.

 So as I say, I think that's key.  We very much welcome that effort.  We think it needs further work on it in completing the mapping.  And reviewing where real gaps may still persist which need to be addressed in some way.

 Finally, these documents I find pretty difficult to locate.  They are available through the UNCTAD Web site, and I don't know how many times I've tried to lay my hands, for example, on the CSTD working group on improvements' report.  I find it very difficult to get to the exact place online.  So I would recommend for the outcome of this meeting that we have some kind of readily available digest of key links to these documents so that people can access them easily and understand the process for responding.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Mark.  Actually, you're not the only one.  I was looking for that link yesterday and also failed to find it.  That's a hint.

 [ Laughter ]

 So, dear colleagues, we have half an hour remaining for today's session.  And I have a number of requests for the floor.  And I would like to give the floor to Pablo, to Robert, to Amelia, and to ICANN before drawing this list to the end.  I see Patrick is the last one.  Really, we need to finish.  I will take that one, but that's it.  But please be concise because we still need to give a possibility answering those questions that have been raised before closing.  

 Pablo, you have the floor.

 >> PABLO HINOJOSA:  I'm Pablo, P-A-B-L-O, from APNIC.  APNIC is a regional Internet registry in Asia-Pacific.  I'm here on behalf of Paul Wilson, a salient IGF member.  He couldn't be here with you all, but APNIC has been an active supporter of the IGF since its inception and will continue to do so.  We very much hope for the renewal of the IGF next year and to participate in the IGF in Joao Pessoa.

 I think one issue for consideration of the IGF MAG and for the IGF in general for next year is integration.  So many processes have been open and have had progress in 2014.  And we just heard about a few of them.  It's hard to follow all of them for sure.  

 We have had reports of WSIS+10, of CSTD on enhanced cooperation, the NETmundial Initiative.  There is also the IANA stewardship transition process.  In Asia-Pacific, we have the APR IGF.  I was just talking with Shita.  They just had the IGF session in Indonesia last week.

 I would like to agree with Izumi about the importance of the Wuzhen Summit, another very important example of an instance or a space that is really important to follow and take consideration of.  

 All of these processes have some reflection and are summarized or converge somehow in the IGF.  I think it is important that we think about how to make some sense to wrap up, to summarize, to see how these processes are reflected at the IGF, which as we all agree is a very important place to gather.

 So I just would like to throw this into the table and think about integration in next year.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Now I'm calling on Robert Shlegel from Russian Federation.  Robert, please.

 >> ROBERT SHLEGEL:  Good afternoon, everyone.  I'm glad to be here.  I have question for translator.  Can I speak Russian?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, you can speak Russian.

 >> ROBERT SHLEGEL:  Thank you.  You can use channel number 1.

 I have a short statement to make.  This is first about NETmundial.  And it is important not to confuse the issue.  There was -- there was not even a rough consensus.  And it is also important to know that many of the participants, they were there.  They spoke out.  And it is not possible not to take into consideration the position of the governmental sector because governmental sector after all are the people who are responsible for the decisions which they take.  

 And if we set out principles which are not going to be upheld afterwards, then unfortunately it's just an imitation of the process.  

 I'm not against a multistakeholder approach.  I'm not against a dialogue.  But I am for an efficient process, so it is essential to be quite clear and not confuse each other.

 I was also present at the Chinese conference.  The level of the conference was pretty high, and I can confirm that which was mentioned before.

 Now, continuing with NETmundial, I would like to the next IGF attach greater importance to the transparency of our decision taking so that there will be no misunderstanding after all, was there consensus or there was no consensus, was a decision adopted or it was not adopted and so forth.  

 Of course, it is a complex matter because it's not easy to come to a solution which is acceptable to all but the transparency will help a lot.

 I would also like to draw your attention to the need to attach importance to regional initiatives.  As a representative of a parliament, I would be very interested to know what are the regional practices in other countries with regard to the laws pertaining to Internet.  No doubt other people are also interested in that because there is now a certain risk of fragmentation of Internet where the legislation in some countries is not only not harmonized but actually can be contradictory.

 And so understand this is something that we are going to discuss in the future.  But at any rate, I wanted to raise the point already now.  Thank you.  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I thank you very much for these comments and for the suggestions which you made.  Yes, tomorrow, we will discuss those proposals.

 The next speaker on my list, that is Amelia from Sweden.

 >> AMELIA ANDERSDOTTER:  My name is Amelia Andersdotter.  I have been a member of the European Parliament and so I believe I have experience and a point of view which is different from the stakeholders that are normally listed as participants in these meetings.  

 So parliament form a very special role in the democratic system, which is that they are directly elected by the public in order to hold the executive which is normally the government accountable or responsible for its actions.  Also parliaments provide instructions to the executive about what they are meant to be engaging with.  

 In my view, we could easily extend the list of stakeholders to parliaments because their role is so particular in the governance processes of democratic countries that it's a bit unfair to place them in the same category of governments since they are quite clearly meant to be almost the opposite of what an executive is.

 But with this, parliaments assume the moral responsibility for normative decisions in a society.  And I think the problem we're seeing with Internet governance is that a lot of the decisions turn out to be normative, even technical standards can be normative.  Who gets to decide these norms?  It is very clear that the constituencies that I've been representing expect parliaments to decide norms.  And the parliaments additionally also expect to have the leeway to decide norms for their communities.

 And so what we're facing with the WSIS or with the NETmundial Initiative is things like the charter with the NETmundial where the European Commission contributed to the outcome.  The European Commission is an executive institution.  They don't technically have the right to be normative in the institutional framework where they exist.  It is not meant to be their function.

 And so how does an institution like the European Parliament, for instance, interact with this government?  And how do we -- with that kind of charter?  And how do we ensure that the expectation of the citizens in Europe is actually fulfilled?

 There has been some cases where civil society actors in the Internet Governance Forum have brought up the opportunity of making supporting statements, ensuring that the normative discussions that occur in best practices forums or in the IGF at-large can be somehow consolidated into papers that can then be used to help and sustain from the global community normative discussions in legislatures.

 And I would very much like to see the MAG but also perhaps the NETmundial Initiative representative reflect further on these points.

 Also, I feel a bit concerned with an initiative like NETmundial and the formation of a new platform because we have these unresolved difficulties with the Internet Governance Forum where normative discussions are technically being had but not quiet, and NETmundial seems also to be a place where normative discussions are being had but not quite legitimately.  

 And why do we need two global forums for somehow semi-illegitimate normative discussions that anyway at the end can hold very little public support from the billions of individuals that ultimately will be impacted?

 Where I would like to hear reflections from the United Nations agencies but also perhaps from the driving forces between the NETmundial Initiative is exactly how they resolve these normative consequences.  Because we have them -- net neutrality is clearly normative.  Competition loss for the telecom sector clearly; copyright is a very normative discussion.  They are discussions that we have had but where the reconnection back to the people who are ultimately concerned citizens has been extremely low and how can we ensure that that is not the case and how can we primarily help parliaments get a more active role in this.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 [ Applause ]

 I think, Amelia, you can now constitute a group with your colleague Robert from the Russian parliament.  You will be the deputy group here.  

 Another remark, the legitimacy of IGF stems from the decision of the WSIS summit and the endorsement by the United Nations General Assembly.  So I think that is absolutely clear.

 And we're acting under the auspices or let's say in the framework of that decision.

 I have three more speakers on my list before going to answer and then one from remote participant, but I would like to limit your intervention.  Specifically, Nigel, yours because you have been speaking already once.

 You're one minute, please.  Nigel.

 >> NIGEL HICKSON:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  I will be brief indeed.  I really just wanted to thank the presenters we had and to particularly mention the work that the CSTD have put in, both in terms of the mapping document that's been referred to and the contribution to the WSIS ten-year review.  

 I think these are enormously important contributions.  And they're important not only in their substance but in the way they're put together.  

 And here we return to a theme touched on this morning by a number of speakers in that they have been put together in a multistakeholder way that people have had the chance to input to them.

 The mapping document which has been mentioned and which we have now the opportunity to update as others including Marilyn has talked about, sets out a clear understanding of the issues that we're tackling on the Internet governance front.  Those that have had attention in various U.N -- multi-U.N. intergovernment fora but also in multistakeholder fora.  

 And I think it is a major contribution to the work that we're going to take forward in the WSIS+10 review.  And I think the CSTD should be commended for it, which I think means it is even more important.  And as was suggested by our colleague from Macedonia, having some form of ability where stakeholders can come together to a senior level in New York and reflect on the interaction between the WSIS and the sustainability development goals I think is equally important.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Nigel.

 Patrick, your two minutes.

 >> PATRICK RYAN:  Thank you.  For my colleagues who have seen me at other conferences, you will know that I sort of have a moral obligation to make an analogy at every Internet conference to either Star Trek or Star Wars.  Since nobody has done that quite yet, I will take the opportunity to do that now.  

 This has been very useful, I think, to hear the various updates from NETmundial and other the various other initiatives.  In fact, I have spoken more about the NETmundial Initiative here at this particular event than I have the entire past year about any other single Internet governance initiative.  

 If I could be just a little bit provocative, I think we need to focus a little bit more on the IGF itself.  

 And I would be interested in your view here.  Here is the Star Trek analogy.  In one of the episodes, Captain Kirk calls down to Scotty and says, "Scotty, I need a status report."  Scotty reports back, "In four hours, Captain, the ship is going to blow up."  And what does the Star Trek do with everybody on the Enterprise?  They get together and they figure out how to make sure their destiny continues.  

 And we're in that boat right now.  I'd sure love to have your thoughts, Janis, about what can the MAG do?  Not to be spectators in this, not to learn second or thirdhand what's happening in New York about Mexico or other proposals but how can we be proactive in the sense that Jivan proposed about getting together and really trying to drive the destiny.  How can we support you in the efforts to reengage the IGF and to make sure it is renewed, not just renewed on the same terms as before but actually with a stronger wind beneath its sails in order to move forward.  

 I would be very interested in your view on that.  I know it is something that's really on my mind.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you especially for analogy.  Though, I must say I haven't heard that this ship is going to blow up in four hours.

 [ Laughter ]

 I hope it will continue for next at least ten years after the Brazil meeting.

 I think the discussion or information exchange that we have now which at the first glance may seem not directly relevant to our conversation about IGF, I think still is very relevant because we're getting -- we're absorbing all the knowledge that will help us tomorrow and day after tomorrow to shape the contours of the Brazil meeting in order to make sure the IGF stays on track for long periods of time and is seen as a useful contribution to the ongoing sort of decision-making, which is taking place elsewhere.

 I do not expect IGF to come to the stage that we will start making decisions.  No.  But we will inform decisions which will be taken elsewhere, either in the Russian Parliament or in the European Parliament or in the European Commission or any other government in the world.

 So that is the mandate of -- of the IGF, and of course we need to work to improve our outcomes so that they become more relevant also not only to policymakers but everybody who is involved in Internet -- in their daily work, and hopefully we will get there.

 Silvia is the next on my list, and the last one.  I'm sorry.  We need -- we have a limited time.

 >>SILVIA BIDART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Tomorrow morning there will be a possibility to intervene again.  Silvia, please.

 >>SILVIA BIDART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 My name is Silvia Bidart.  I'm a new member of MAG, so it's my first time in the IGF scenario and I hope to contribute with positive things and with commitment.

 I'm vice president of WITSA for Latin America and General Director of ALETI, but I'm -- even though I'm new in IGF process I'm old in WSIS process, beginning with Paris, Geneva, Tunis, Dubai, et cetera, and I would like to point that the importance to verifying the word "access."

 And we actually need to enhance access.  We are speaking about, for example, growth, inclusiveness, job skills, bringing industries, capacity-building, as well as many others of the points of -- that UNCTAD and UNDESA said before that I really appreciate very much.

 Latin America has shown an effort.  WSIS process in Latin America is held by U.N. ECLAC secretariat and in last prime ministerial meeting held in Costa Rica we agreed to try to show efforts and to hold the next ministerial meeting of ELAC, ECLAC, in Mexico, and along with the IGF of Latin America.

 I would like to know what are the activities and priorities of the other regions, not just Latin America and the Caribbean, and I would like to encourage all stakeholders to join efforts and events as well.

 Finally, I would like to congratulate IGF for the organization of this event.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Remote participant?

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  This is from Marilia Maciel from Brazil.

 She says, "The approved modalities of WSIS+10 review make it mostly an intergovernmental process, even though it will accept the inputs of other stakeholders.

 After NETmundial, it was made clear that a meaningful document could be drafted by means of a bottom-up multistakeholder process.

 My suggestion would be that a WSIS outcome document is drafted in a collaborative manner following the methodology of NETmundial.  This multistakeholder document could offer useful inputs to governments that will be negotiating in New York.  Governments could incorporate the points they find useful.  The document would also be able to reflect a multistakeholder vision for the post-WSIS.

 The process to draft this document could be anchored in the IGF, which is our main multistakeholder forum.

 A best practice group could be created to facilitate this.

 One of the subthemes in the agenda of the IGF should be the WSIS+10 review.  The IGF could present a useful contribution related to issues that fall under its scope.  Thank you."

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Juan Alfonso, either you take one minute now or five minutes tomorrow.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much, Chairman.  First of all, I want to speak Spanish, following -- well, taking advantage of the fact that we have interpreters, whom I'd like to congratulate at this time for their excellent work, something we don't do very often.

 I'm Juan Fernandez, so you can get the spelling right up there.

 I'm new to MAG.

 Just one question.  I'd like to have a minute now and five tomorrow.

 What I -- what I'd like to ask is, I want to look at the agenda here.  There's a problem there.  When are we going to be talking about cooperation, or not, between IGF and this initiative or others?  Can we do that tomorrow?  Is it scheduled for tomorrow?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  We will be talking about the correlation or cooperation between IGF and  NETmundial Initiative either tomorrow or day after tomorrow, depending on advancement of our conversation.

 So -- and certainly tomorrow and the day after, please feel free for ask for the floor.  I cannot grant you five minutes, since you have used already one --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- but I think we will find the right compromise.

 So thank you very much.  I think we had a good exchange and we have a number of questions that were raised during this period and I would like now to ask those presenters who would like to -- not necessarily, but who would like to -- answer very briefly to those questions, and then Benedicto will make a final set of conclusions of today's discussion.

 So Peter, I think I didn't hear any questions to you.  Actually...

 >>PETER MAJOR:  Well, the simplest way to access the document is you just Google "CSTD UNCTAD" and it will take you to the Web site and then you go to the intersessional tag and you find the document.  So this is the simplest.  I couldn't find my way either.  Sorry.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, though I must say that this forum should remain technology-neutral.  There are many more search engines --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- than the one which was just mentioned.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mervi, please.

 >>MERVI KULTAMAA:  Thank you.  I apologize on the part of the secretariat for the challenge that you have encountered in finding the right page, but I'm happy that Peter has facilitated that.

 I just wanted to say a few words.

 First of all, thank you much to those who commented on the work of the CSTD secretariat.

 On the mapping, I just wanted to note that it was really a challenge also for the secretariat.  Given the broad array of Internet governance, we're very conscious that this was just a snapshot, something that we could take forward just a little bit, and also we were struggling with a very limited time span for this work.  

 So we are really grateful for any comments and we appreciate any factual information on public policy issues and mechanisms to improve the document, so please send your comments on that.

 The document will go as a CRP, conference room paper, to the annual session, so it will not be a formal document.  It will be something that is submitted by the secretariat for the reflection of the commission and possibly integration to the 10-year review.

 And then a couple of words on what the chair said in the beginning, how these processes can be linked to the IGF.

 As for the CSTD review, we will be in a very critical phase in October as we meet in the IGF.

 The CSTD's 10-year review is over.  Basically it has been submitted to the ECOSOC and hopefully also adopted by it.

 But then in New York, the delegates, the governments over there, are in the midst of negotiations for the final outcome of the overall review.  So I would see the IGF as an important opportunity for the IG community to vocalize their views on how they see the track that will be most probably available then, and frankly, it's not so long a journey from New York to Joao Pessoa, so perhaps you manage to also encourage some of the delegates from New York to attend the IGF session.

 So thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Mervi.

 Elia, please?

 >>ELIA ARMSTRONG: Yes.  Thank you.  Very briefly, I saw a couple of comments I think that were directed to UNDESA's way and it was really about what can MAG members do to help renew the IGF mandate, how do we map out the process, and are there high-level events that can bring this to the attention of the General Assembly.

 So going back to my traffic analogy, when we -- when I talked about coming out in the same car or out of the same tunnel, I think also because you can see the -- the complexity, the richness of the stakeholders and of the processes and of the issues, my only -- I would say on the one hand it's absolutely important and I think it is the intention of member states to get everybody's input and views put in.

 On the other hand, there is the challenge that without an orderly process, and given that we have such a short time, if we all rush, you could have a traffic jam and not get to your intended destination in an orderly fashion.

 And I can say this because when we watched the post-2015 development agenda, you know, setting process, again, you had an issue where, you know, a lot of stakeholders, a lot of issues, all wanting to get to the same place, but I think there were many tracks, and the important thing was to give the member states a leading role as had been agreed upon previously.

 So I would just say that let's be mindful of all the different roles that everybody has and try to not have chaos but, you know, have well-coordinated, multitrack processes where everybody's views and visions are included, and that also sometimes if we pay so much attention to the traffic issues, sometimes we might get diverted into another direction and not arrive at the intended destination, which is after WSIS, then what?  What is the vision for the world beyond Information Society?

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Elia.  

 Flavio, if you may respond very briefly.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Yeah.  Very quickly, yeah.

 As Nora already mentioned before, there will be a Q&A session on Thursday.  In fact, this is part of the meeting of the transitional council.  From now on, all meetings of the transitional council will be open and accessible on line by Adobe Connect or by Adigo telephony.

 So you just look at -- on the site and you'll see the schedule of these meetings and they are open.

 And so -- and there is always a 30 minutes slot in the beginning of the meeting for Q&A.

 So the questions you have, I must honestly respond that I do not have the exact answers to the questions on principle, for instance, of legally binding or partially, acceptance of some principles or if principles change.  I honestly do not have the answers but I think are good questions to be asked at this session on Thursday.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, and now I would like to invite Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca to conclude today's work.  

 Benedicto, please.

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Janis.  

 This is certainly not an easy task because so many notions were brought to the fore, and so many different issues.

 However, one point I'd like to concur with something you said before, is that the discussion we have had, particularly this afternoon, was very important as we prepare for IGF 10 in Brazil, in order that it will help us to shape the event in a way that is relevant to what is taking place in the different processes.

 I think it's very important that as we prepare for IGF 10, that we try to relate to the existing discussions in regard to Internet governance and we try to dialogue and to interact with those processes in a way that is productive.

 One point I have been making consistently is that we cannot, you know, live in silos, ignoring -- when we are in a multistakeholder forum to just deal with those issues and then we ignore what is taking place at the U.N. and other fora.

 I think it's very important that we try to build bridges in which the processes will be relating to each other, and there is a very important aspect here that this requires mutual respect and mutual acceptance, which is something that is not for granted because either in a multistakeholder format or in multilateral format, some of the participants do not recognize the other way of doing things.

 This is the kind of contradiction and opposition as a national delegation -- and there I'm speaking as governments -- we have tried to reflect on this.  

 And that was the vision that President Dilma conveyed at the beginning of NETmundial, that we are very committed, firmly committed, totally committed, to the multistakeholder approach but at the same time we cannot lose sight of issues that require to be addressed from the decision-making point of view in a multilateral aspect.

 So I think as we move towards IGF 10, I think it's very important to take cognizance of what is taking place at the U.N., at ITU, and try to relate to those processes in a way that is respectful of each process, each fora's understanding.

 I'd like to make very short comments because I know we are already almost behind schedule.

 In regard to NETmundial, the initiative, we -- this is an issue that the Brazilian steering committee will -- is reflecting upon and of course there will be this conference call on Thursday.

 However, having been involved with NETmundial from day zero -- and apologies to Nigel for using that expression, but -- I'd like to make a few points.

 First of all, much was said about financial resources and maybe the kind of finite capacity we have.  I guess one of the points of having supported the NETmundial Initiative is exactly trying to expand that base of support, so we are not looking at a very restricted basis which money will go in this direction, that direction, but rather to expand the basis of financial resources, human resources, by bringing on board new participants.

 I think this is one -- one main element of the initiative.

 And the other -- and then I would resort to the original call that was made by President Dilma -- is there are two tents, and I think that was achieved in NETmundial that this will be inclusive.  

 We are aiming at -- President Dilma was very clear she wanted a very inclusive meeting in which all participants had a fair opportunity to contribute to the outcome.

 We are aware that not all participants, at the end of the meeting, endorsed its outcomes.  That was not the intended result.  And this is something that should be reflected upon as we move forward in implementing, trying to build on NETmundial's outcomes.

 I think we should not lose sight of the initial proposal that that would be inclusive, so if there is some aspect in which people feel alienated and impedes participation, I think this is certainly an aspect that should be revisited by the proponents.

 In regard to the other issues, I would like also to concur with previous speakers, and my delegation was one that in the context of the enhanced cooperation working group was very firmly defending the notion that we need a mapping of the initiative, the processes that are there, so we can move away from the rhetorical aspects that sometimes have contaminated those discussions.

 I think from the moment we have a clear understanding of who is doing what and what can be improved in a systemic way to make the whole environment, I think that will serve the purpose of all of us.  So I think it's very good development that we have this mapping and we look forward for a more formal endorsement of that proposal, maybe with some adaptions, that will give us some common ground on which to work.

 And in that same direction, our assessment of the Busan meeting, IGF meeting, was that it was a very good meeting, in the way that we also have consensus-made decision, no vote was taken, and that also provides others some common ground.

 So I'm saying this because there are so many positive developments taking place, but at the same time some challenges for us to address as we prepare for IGF.

 I think the most important challenge is to shape IGF in a way that will prove, not to ourselves that are here but to people that are outside the process, the value of working that format.

 And in that sense, the colleague from Macedonia and also from Croatia, I think they were reading our minds, because in our internal discussions we have been exactly trying to reflect on what could be done in New York to raise awareness of our process.  I think that will require, and I -- we are -- Brazil feels very much responsible for raising awareness in New York, but we'd like to be in partnership with delegations that are participating in this process that would also assist us, and do so in partnership also with the secretariat.

 It would be important if we could devise some event in New York, maybe more than one event, because I think -- having been in New York, I think we need maybe some event directed to those actual negotiators that are in the daily operations, and maybe some high-level event, maybe even starting in the first quarter of next year.  And it would be important if we could have a setting in which we have developing countries, developed countries joining together with the secretariat to make that happen in New York.

 I think that will show the legitimacy of the work we have been doing here.

 So I stop here.  I think we'll have some -- many more aspects to develop but we'll come back to these tomorrow.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Benedicto, for your concluding remarks.  

 Thank you very much, all of you, for engaging with us.  

 Before leaving, I have very bad news to announce to those who are coming from European region, both from eastern European and western European, because this is not over for you.  You have another meeting following this one.  That's the bad news.  

 The good news is that that meeting will take place in the restaurant and that will be about EuroDIG.  This is just a reminder.  

 So -- and for others, we are meeting -- or, I mean, for all of us, we're meeting tomorrow at 10:00 sharp and that will -- that will be the -- that will be the MAG meeting, which is open to everybody who wants to observe the work of the MAG, and this room will be split in two and our meeting will be on that side.  

 So thank you very much.  Please enjoy your evening and see you all tomorrow.  

 (Meeting concluded at 6:07 p.m.)


Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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