This is now a legacy site and could be not up to date. Please move to the new IGF Website at

You are here

IGF 2015 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting 22 May

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



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

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Let us resume our session.  You have received the latest version of the agenda -- or accepted workshops. 
 We have now agreed on 93 workshops which are listed -- which are listed in the order as they are accepted according to ranking and as a result of our decisions. 
 We have a list of 15 which are listed "maybe," and could we scroll down a little bit the list to see all of the proposals?
 I do not see Proposal 48 that was suggested to put on the --
 Is it?  Yeah, it is.  Good. 
 So we have seven remaining slots.  We have 15 on -- 15 proposals which we need to rediscuss because there were some doubts, but before we do this, I would like to advise to look at the statistics, and the statistics shows us that we are well on track in respect to origin of proposers.  41 from developing countries, 60 from developed countries.
 In relation to first-time proposers, still 40 -- (indiscernible) 40/60 is kept.
 When it comes to subthemes, I think we have slightly balanced, though when we look to the critical Internet resources and openness, that is still maybe not sufficiently represented if we look in comparison with other subthemes. 
 And when we look to the overall representation of the stakeholders, then we see that -- a civil society majority, but what we have managed to do is we have managed to increase share of governments and intergovernmental organizations and we would have more or less equal distribution among government and intergovernmental organizations combined, or public sector, private sector, and technical community.
 So I think that we have achieved, in that respect, our goal in bringing more government and intergovernmental participation in the main program.
 That said, I open the floor for any questions you may have.
 Michael and then Virat.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Real quick question. 
 When you say that we have seven slots left, does that take into account that many of the sessions that we've approved were approved as flash sessions?  Because we -- that really is the real number of 90-minute slots that we have left.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, but there may be a little bit of leeway with the 60-minute sessions.  It's difficult to get the 60-minute sessions, but the flash sessions have been taken into account.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Could the secretariat just send the last charts to the members?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It has been sent.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  They should be in your --
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  We haven't received it thus far.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Have you?  What time?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ginger, please.
 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Thank you, Chair. 
 I would like to reiterate that we do have the files in our mailboxes, so if we look around, we may find them.
 As I look at the list of "maybes," I'm struck by the ranking of many of them, and I would like to go back to previous comments from MAG members about the importance of respecting our original and majority views on these rankings, and I think some are significantly low ranked, so I think we might take that into account as well when we take the overall strategy for this afternoon.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Yes.  I just wanted to support the fact that we've done rather well (indiscernible) balance of (indiscernible) I take Ginger's (indiscernible) I believe that would be the proper (indiscernible) exercise to (indiscernible).
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi, could you please come closer to the mic?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  (indiscernible) type out (indiscernible) chatbox.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Okay.  Subi's breaking up, so she will type in the comments in the chat.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.
 One of the things I wanted to ask about was some of the other distributions.
 For example, we had not only encouraged the newcomers and developing economies, we had encouraged differing formats, and I know in the original 40 there was a chart on that.
 Was there a rechart done on formats?  I wasn't -- I didn't see that yet and I'm just wondering how that one's doing.  And so was wondering as we move forward, do we want to pay attention to some of the other distributions on this next pass.  Thanks.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If you look at the Excel sheet, yeah, you'll find the stats there.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So any other comments? 
 So what I would like to propose, I think that the MAG members were suggesting those specific workshops for the reason they felt that they correspond to the criteria of balancing, bringing new things out and so on.
 So therefore, it is up to us to decide whether we continue with this "maybe" list and going through and taking proposals out of this list or we decide otherwise.  Though my experience shows if we start to define procedures in a group of 50, it will take -- it may take about 55 hours, and we have only 1 hour and maybe a half to conclude this part of the exercise.
 So therefore, I would suggest that we take the remaining 15 proposals and still look at those balancing things, one-time proposers, and go through.
 And we need not to select seven.  We may decide to select only four.  And then we would take in others based on the scoring of the MAG.  But I still would suggest to go through quickly those 15 and see whether we can agree on which should be taken in.
 Marilyn and then Michael.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair. 
 I was going to suggest that we maybe prioritize those where we have proposed mergers, since that conceivably will take two off, resulting in only one, and see if we can reach conclusion on that quickly.
 And then I -- again, I guess I wanted to just ask the secretariat a question.  I'm sorry, I wasn't able to look at the statistics.  I still am un- -- so I need a clarification.
 Are we equating sustainable development as a theme with Internet economy? 
 Because if not -- and they're not quite the same thing; they have a relationship -- then I would like to look at these with an eye to any that advance and support our overall theme of sustainable development.
 For instance, 231, which was -- I think Mark suggested the proposers could take a particular focus on sustainable development, because I think that's a bit of a gap for us.  We chose it as a theme.  It's a really important year to be showing we're doing something on sustainable development.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you for doing an excellent job of outlining what our goals are here and the different things we're trying to include, but I didn't hear you mention that we're also trying to bring some new ideas in here.  I mean, that's -- for me, that's very important, and I think for a number of us that's the reason we're spending so much time on this exercise.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  Emerging issues is one of the subthemes of our exercise and, indeed, we need to bring new themes for sure.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  But not just emerging issues.  There are new themes within some of the existing -- the other themes that are well-represented, so I would argue that, you know, it's -- in some cases, we might be adding a new idea that is so novel that it might not be -- it's more important to get that new idea than to somehow get more balance between the subthemes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Indeed, Michael.  We are both converted and we're arguing about the same thing.  These are new things, they're merging issues, and whether they belong to other subthemes, if they are new, they are new and emerging.  Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that there's a lesson here for next time -- and it's important we record this -- that if we are going to reward new ideas as a -- as workshops that can be pulled up from 228 and 2- -- you know, 151, then we must put that out as the criteria at the beginning, because it is unfair on proposed people who sent in proposals, following guidelines, sending out their points under emerging issues, and then learn that those who didn't meet the criteria are being rewarded in this discussion.
 I request that we take into consideration this, and next time if new ideas is important -- and I respect that -- then we must say that so that the publicly known transparent process allows people to provide inputs and proposals under that category, just as this year we have serious rewards for new formats.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So shall we go one by one now?  Let me put, then, up Proposal 70.
 As you see, these are -- these are sort of listed in -- using the overall ranking, as well, that we can -- we can see, which have been listed the highest.
 So all of them, we had already discussed, and there were not really good feeling in the room whether they would merit or not be included, taking into account the balancing criteria, and I see Avri's seeking the floor.  Please, Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri Doria speaking. 
 Yeah.  I wanted to speak out in favor of this one.  Did a little bit more looking into it, after seeing it last night.  Had, I believe, graded it well.  Wanted to point out that it does -- you know, it is a newcomer.  It is an emerging issue.  Both of which are lower than they could be.
 It's a different format.  The hypothetical format that's being done is different, and it is -- it's an idea that is sort of anew.  It is -- not only is it an emerging topic, but it is a different way of looking at a very serious issue.
 Now, it has a minus, in that it is civil society again.  And one of the other minuses that came up is that the geodiversity of it wasn't good enough, and especially within this hypothetical format that they're taking of basically talking about that issue from various perspectives, it did seem a little shy there.
 Had a conversation with the organizer of it and basically, you know, got a gigantic willingness to gather both government and more geodiversity, and basically got the impression that they were sort of waiting to find out where they were.
 And I will also point out that it was in that first group of 10 that, you know, it was -- it was our first "maybe," it was in that group of 10 that was very close to being automatic, so I'd really like to ask people to reconsider this one because of those features.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Any further comments? 
 I was -- I had the impression that another workshop on "maybe" list was also geared towards the managing digital legacies, I think, but now I cannot find it very quickly.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  When we first discussed this, there was some discussion about somehow merging this with the right to be forgotten panel, but those are very distinct concepts and the people involved are quite distinct.
 One reason I'm quite excited about this proposal is because it actually is one of just a couple things that were proposed as a direct result of an IGF meeting at the regional level.
 This was -- this was based on a panel that the Australians did at the Australian IGF very successfully.  So far, I don't think we've accepted either of the two proposals that were proposed by IGFs directly, and so this is a -- would be a nice statement that we value the input of the regional and national IGFs.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Now I've found it.  That is -- I was thinking about workshop Number 33, "Mandatory Data Retention, Human Rights."
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Now, this is really based -- this is a question of:  After I die, who gets to log into my Facebook account, who gets to see my email.  That's very different than the data retention laws related to law enforcement.  So, again, I thought this was unique among the sessions and topic.  It's only been discussed in the U.S. for maybe the last five months, so it's brand new.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you, Janis.  I would just suggest that based on a principled matter, because both the first two workshops on this chart, Number 70 and Number 35, both actually on merits scored within the 100 that we would accept those two.  The first one scored 75 and the second one was merit-based-ranked 90, and I think if we're going back to that principled merit-based thing, I think just letting those two through would make sense, so we could move on.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for helping me out.  Subi?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said that for the reasons mentioned she doesn't support inclusion of this proposal.  It does add to the thematic stakeholder balance, and we already have enough workshops on the topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Now, if we follow what Fiona said, maybe that could help us accelerate these things.  They would be these two -- 35 and 70 would be in based on merit.  That's in top hundred. 
 Since we did majority of balancing already, if we would accept proposal of Fiona, can we?  I see nodding.  And Ginger is also in agreement.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Ginger said yes, from me on 70 and 35.  And before that, she said, I agree with Michael Nelson.  This is an important issue to include even if the organizers need mentoring.  Also support Fiona's recommendation on those two.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then we have agreement of MAG, and we go straight to 63.
 Sorry.  I'm looking to the wrong screen.  I need to look to the next ranking.  It is 231.
 Anyone would like to launch discussion about 231?
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Sorry, because I think that I have in my computer a different -- did we already discuss the one above those?  I see 70, 35, then 263, then 56, then 33 and 231.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Simply, we're working -- I asked secretariat to rank those according to initial ranking.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Ah, okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That's why I was looking exactly to the same screen that you are looking.  That's why I was wrong.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  A very quick fix to that is if you see the tab by the rank, right on top by the rank, you just click that and then it says sort from largest to smallest and then they will be in the right order.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So that was lesson in computer literacy.  Thank you, Chengetai.  (chuckles)
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I just want to preface my comments by saying something that I feel -- I don't want to debate it, but I do just want to express this. 
 I think we have to be a little bit careful about assuming that there's some kind of meritorious judgments in the ratings we did.  We are all different, and we did the best we could. 
 But really this is an exercise in being human in how we got these ratings assigned, and I think we should all recognize that.
 So I appreciate the opportunity to talk about 231 which was ranked 111.  As I said before -- and I know Mark made a comment about this.  I'd like to come back to that.  One of the main things I think this can contribute is that it brings in a regional perspective that is not otherwise actively participating and that is business from the MENA region, business from small SMEs from other regions as well as it's described through those industry associations.
 It is business focused.  So I would say there is definitely a gap in the fact that it focused on SMEs across the regions.  It does not include government, and it doesn't include -- although in some of the countries, the associations are NGOs.  They are required legally to be NGOs but by no means would they be called civil society.
 Mark's suggestion that the focus be on sustainable development I think is an excellent suggestion and particularly if we were to ask them to focus on the sustainable development in digital economy aspects that are of concern and are related to Internet governance.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  I won't repeat that point.  I just note it would enhance the percentage of private sector-oriented proposals.  Currently it's 10%, isn't it, of all the proposals?
 And then secondly, there are no low scores.  They were all 3s, 4s or 5s.  So I think there was a general consensus amongst the MAG members who were scoring and commenting that this was sort of above the borderline mark.  See what I mean?  So I would support it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  May I take that we would add this one as well?  I see no objections.
 Now we go to 212.
 Please, Flavio.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Although there are other proposals and maybe even some that has already been accepted by us, this brings different perspective to the engagement of youth.  This will discuss the questions related to youth from the point of view of the principles of Internet governance taking into account different principles that have been defined and analyzing those principles from the point of view of youth.  And this will also discuss the youth manifesto that has been proposed by civil society in Europe with funding from the European community.  This is a multistakeholder approach with people from different continents that will take part of this.  So I think it's meritorious.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So any comments? 
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes, Chair.  I'd like to maybe take stock of how many youth sessions we have and the kind of diversity that's represented as we look across the board.
 If -- I think I rated this one as -- not as highly as some others because I did feel that it was -- it was sort of a -- I saw it almost as a meeting of a like-minded group working together as opposed to being a debate or bringing in -- you know, sort of felt like it's a project that is evolving to the next step.  It does engage youth.  So for that reason, I was interested in considering it.  But I did have some concerns about how it fit into the landscape of all of the workshops that included youth.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ephraim.
 >>EPHRAIM KENYANITO:  Just to point out that despite the number of workshops that's focused on youth being very many proposed, we have two that fit into that criteria.  I just want to point out, you asked about the statistics.  So two have been accepted despite all those very many proposals.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Just to, I guess, bring back the same observation that I mentioned earlier, which is workshop 191.  It's very, very similar in terms of thematic content as well as speakers and ranked very highly and has been accepted.  It's top ten in the current accepted list.  So, again, raising the question on the added value and what difference this will bring or make whilst, of course, really very much supporting youth participation into the IGF.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  From day one, I was proposing that the youth topic should be a main session.  But having said that, I think we already have two workshops.  And one of those is very similar to this one.  So that's why I'm reluctant to -- if we have a spot to spare, maybe I would suggest this.  But the spot for workshops are really scarce now.  So I'm not convinced that it's the best to have three similar workshops.
 I repeat.  I would rather have a main session, 90-minute main session of youth so we could have the plenary hall for that.
 Having said that, I will -- if we want to keep this workshop, I would suggest to merge it with one of the other two selected.  But don't take one spot of workshops that are very scarce for this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Seems that skepticism remains.  There is a proposal to suggest that organizers talk to 191 workshop organizers and see possibility of merger of those.  And we would maintain it on "maybe" list for the moment.
 Ginger, please.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Sorry to put a bump into the road here.  But I think that all -- that two -- we're saying there's already two. 
 I honestly don't believe that two out of a hundred represents the youth and the fact that we want to bring in new voices and new concepts and new young people into the process.
 So even if they need mentoring to emphasize the difference between the different sessions, I think it's important that we have at least three with youth, unless we have a guarantee that there's going to be a main session. 
 In this case, I think the numbers speak.  I don't think two is enough.  And I would strongly ask that we take that into account.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Last time we invited a young lady to speak at the closing.  I will ask secretariat to identify young person to speak at the opening and at the closing.  So in that respect, we will try to put prominence on the young participants.
 Ephraim, please.
 >>EPHRAIM KENYANITO:  Okay.  Just to add to that, I agree with you on that.  Just to emphasize, if it is possible, that the secretariat and the MAG can insist that as you send out the accepted proposals, that the workshop proposers to reach out to young people, that would be good.  Because we've had this discussion on the mailing list, and there is a publicly available document in putting up their profile. 
 And if workshop proposers can go through that list and see which among them they can reach out and young people are continue to reaching out to the dynamic coalition and to put their names onto that list.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Noted.  That should be put in every -- every recommendation that we issue.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Just a short note from Subi.  She said she appreciates the Chair's statement.  She doesn't see new voices here.  It's more an amplification of similar voices.  So I support a main session on youth instead.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Let us move to the next one.
 We maintain 212 on "maybe" list and we go to 213. 
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, this is a very practical, very immediate concern to a number of companies that are in the Internet infrastructure business.  It's also an immediate concern for a lot of civil society groups that are trying to understand just how extensive surveillance is.
 This is about transparency of what's really going on inside the Internet, what kind of law enforcement requests there are for data, who's monitoring what, where.  And we just do not have another session that's like this.
 We have not looked at this issue in the past, and I strongly urge that we consider it.  And, again, while it doesn't have a lot of private sector people involved as yet, I'm sure they will be involved.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you. 
 Reaction?  Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Actually, this is one of my favorite sessions.  But this session only makes sense if those who order surveillance are on the table.  The difficulty with holding these sessions is that most people don't realize that companies that are required to respond to questions asked by civil society are forbidden to respond or give information on the law.  And this session is then -- then becomes shooting darts at a sign board. 
 So if you can get not just government officials but intelligence agencies to come in and inform, or at least INTERPOL, to say what is it they want, why do they have this, what are the processes, then I think it will be meaningful.
 Otherwise, it will be the same old with the two main parties, one which is bound by law to be mum, and the other one who orders surveillance unavailable.  If they are not in the room, let's not have one more of these sessions.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Strongly agree with that.  I mean, obviously you want the full spectrum of speakers there.  And I think that would be the desire of the organizers, too.
 But we have not have had this particular session on this issue of transparency reports.  And I think that's why this would be new and different.
 I do know there will be some people from law enforcement coming to this meeting.  So if you need, I will volunteer.  Maybe Virat, the two of us can volunteer to reach out to the organizers and give them some suggestions on either current law enforcement and intelligence community members or probably better former members of that -- those communities who could talk a little bit about the context and how they see the world from their side.
 Thanks for making that point, Virat.  It's one I should have made.
 >> ANKHI DAS:  Mike, thanks for the comments. 
 The experience has been from the national and regional processes, for workshops like this when we have tried to engage and involve stakeholders from the law enforcement community and other agencies, they will not show up.  So it's not been due to lack of efforts. 
 But I think there is a roadblock of those coming to engage in these conversations in a very public way.  So we are really talking of a structural problem here.  And minus that, it will be challenging to pull this off in a manner that it is meaningful.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I just -- I want to concur with the statements that have been made and remind folks that in the past when we've tried to do this -- and we did try to do it in Sharm, and we tried to do it again in Lithuania -- we were able to get the U.N. organization dealing with organized crime.  We were able to get a speaker from the U.K. SOCA.  We were able to get MOG, et cetera.  But we have never actually been able to get -- we even got a jurist, a senior jurist, from Egypt.  But we have never been able to get the folks freed up by their government to be able to accept this kind of invitation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then judging what you said just then, Marilyn, this is not a new kind of issue.  This has been discussed on a number of occasions.  That contradicts a little bit what Michael said.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Let me -- We tried to discuss it, and we've taken various approaches at discussing it. 
 I would just say, Michael, there have been situations where publications of reports about the number of requests have been shared.  But we've never been able to bring forward the balance that Ankhi and Virat were suggesting, that we need to have the rest of the -- rest of the participants.  We've never been able to deliver that.  Not for lack of asking.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, I'm making the distinction between panels on the issue of surveillance and law enforcement, which certainly we've had sessions on that, and this particular topic, which is, how do we talk about the collection processes, how do we publish transparency reports.
 This is a narrower focus.  It's one that I think law enforcement or former law enforcement people could engage on.  We might also be creative and reach out to parliamentarians.  I did notice that on a couple other proposals that dealt with law enforcement issues, there were law enforcement people from Brazil who were willing to make the trip for other panels, so it may be that going to the local -- the countries nearby might be another approach.
 But I -- it's hard for me to --
 Clearly, they didn't offer up names of people, probably because they weren't going to approach government officials until they knew they had permission to organize something.
 Why don't we give them a try, tell them our concerns, and see how it goes.  There are -- there are also authors, people who might be able to speak on the need for surveillance.  I can think of five of them quite quickly.  And they might enjoy a few days on the beach.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Honestly, I don't -- I don't feel the room.
 Of course I can say, "Let's go for it," but we still have another 10, and then four slots remaining.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  If there is a provision under which the secretariat could reach out and we have the time to park the slot and if they come back with names, then actually it could be a very valuable session.
 But if that's not the case, then we have to just move on.  But I'm perfectly willing to go with that -- that option, if that option exists and it's practically doable.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So shall we then agree that we would put this workshop proposal aside, pending verification by the secretariat, based on transcript, all the conditions that we discussed here, and if they are met, then a 60-minute session would be allocated?  Can we agree on that?  But we would not count this one in those 100.  At least for the moment.
 Subi, you are in agreement?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Oh, yes, she's in agreement.  She just had a note on one other thing.
 She asked:  "Once a supporter has introduced a session, can we get a clarification on how many interventions each of us is allowed to go on supporting the same proposal?  I ask this in the interest of time."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Subi, for helping me running this conversation.  That's a very pertinent question.  I was hesitant all the time to ask it, and remind.
 Thank you.
 So we have agreement that we -- on this particular topic, secretariat will reach out, will ask organizers whether those comments which were made could be met, and if they will be promised, then 60 minutes time would be allocated, if they won't be promised, then it would not be allocated as a result of our conversation.
 Flavio, please.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Just to remember arguments that have already been done before.  Also, we have already approved another workshop on IXPs.  This brings a much broader perspective from also economic side with participants from all multistakeholder groups, from private sector that are involved in running IXPs, civil society organizations that are also running, governments, and so on, so -- and from different continents, so that's --
 The other one is much more focused on the technical side, if we see the list of participants.  So I think that --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes, Chairman.  I don't want to take more -- much time here.  This is the workshop that I would like my senior officials in my ministry to attend, so that said it all.
 The other that we have in IXPs is more implementation and this is more to the reasons for including this in policy.  So I think it really -- it's interesting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Slobodan?
 >>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC:  I support inclusion of this, and as I said, it is a unique aspect of looking at the things.  It's not technical; it's related to sustainability.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  So I hear no opposition.  Shall we include?  Yes.  Decided. 
 Next one.  120.
 So launch of publication.  It's requested 90 minutes.  We had a conversation before that that might be either shortened or we should ask UNESCO to do it during open forum.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Well, I don't see the case for confirming this, really.  UNESCO, IGOs have a good share of the proposals so I don't think that was -- that's an argument purely on grounds of UNESCO, being an IGO, given an extra slot.  I don't see it.  And in view of the purpose, a different format is the option here, I think.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I would support a different format as well.  Either a flash session or asking -- a flash session. 
 I think also -- I'm just going to repeat a comment I made earlier.
 On the commentators that are proposed -- sorry, on the co-organizers and the commentators, I see a lot of the same names, from the private sector and from civil society, so if it's a -- if it's a launch of a publication, it could be a flash session for 30 minutes or it could be incorporated into the open forum.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So shall we offer a flash session, 30 minutes, for the launch?  And that would not count in the overall 100.  Agreed?
 Subi, you are in agreement?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  She said that she doesn't support this one.  It should be either during open forum or on a booth.  We have a lot of slots accessible now for IGOs.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we all live with offering flash session and do not count it in the overall 100?  Yes?  Agreed?
 UNESCO happy?
 Thank you.
 You know I have still very warm feelings about it.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I admit that.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You feel it.  228. 
 228, we had a conversation.  There is a proposal also to merge it -- a proposed merger with 208, which is also on this list, and also link it with a dynamic coalition.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Chair, perhaps I'm one of the people Subi was referencing.  I don't need to repeat everything I said before, but I stand able to say it if I need to.
 I support the decision we made.  Let's try to merge 208 and 228 and link them to the dynamic coalition.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Thank you.  From day one, I not only defended youth as a main session, I also defended women and gender.  Well, maybe I defend young women, but...
 [ Laughter ]
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  In any case, I think that we should consider even the possibility of having a main session on gender, and I also want to point out to the secretariat that besides 208, there are also five more workshop proposals related with the theme that maybe the -- some of the conveners could be asked to join in that merger.  These are Workshops 20, 59, 107, 144, and 196.
 Having said that, I support Marilyn's suggestion for a merger with 208.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any opposition?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Not in opposition, but to support the merger as well, and for it to go through as proposed, linking with the dynamic coalition where possible.
 But just also to clarify that even though it is looking at gender and women's rights issues, it's not quite the same topic or the same content and to make a distinction between that.
 This is in response to Juan Alfonso's comments.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Then we propose -- we retain this and propose merger with 208 and link with the dynamic coalition activity.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yeah.  Chair, I just have to ask a favor. 
 I think the MAG needs to give instruction -- right? -- that this is a merger, so that both parties understand it's a merger.  And this is a private sector joke.  We normally say there's no such things as mergers, there's only acquisitions.  So I think the guidance from the MAG secretariat needs to be:  Merging means both of you have to be adapt so that you are going to have a new formulation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And if there is no merger, then there is no session.  So the conditionality.  That is what is called MAG is making hostile takeover.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, just to note that Subi supports the merger as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Subi.  216.
 Maybe before we are talking about this particular proposal, which we also felt would be useful to merge with 156 -- this is just a recollection from the previous session -- I would like to take up -- to jump a little bit to another topic, and that is a discussion about main session, because the decision on the main session themes may influence our discussion about this particular workshop proposal, 216.
 And there is a proposal that Marilyn said at the beginning of the session to organize one of three existing thematic meetings of main session -- thematic main sessions, on sustainable -- Internet economy and sustainable development.
 I understand that I'm maybe pushing the envelope a little bit too far, but can we agree that we will have session -- main session on Internet economy and sustainable development or somebody feels uncomfortable making ad hoc decision at this moment and prefer to leave this for the time when we will talk through all proposals?
 The argument being, if we retain main session, we may agree not to have this retained proposal, or if we -- not, so then we may decide differently.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chair, just a clarification.  So you're suggesting in addition to WSIS+10, IGF at 10, and the three-hour session on intersessional work which combines best practice forums and connecting a billion, and a two-hour session supposedly for the dynamic coalitions, which makes it four?  This will be the fifth main session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So if you look to the file that we sent, the proposal that we sent out earlier today, there are three slots for thematic main sessions because, as Fiona yesterday mentioned, that it is odd having main sessions devoted exclusively to IGF 10 years and WSIS+10 review, and that we decided that we should have thematic sessions.
 There are a number of proposals.  You listed many of them.  They have been circulated to the MAG list.
 One what comes out -- and this is linked with the main theme of our IGF -- is sustainable development. 
 So one proposal is to have one of those three thematic sessions on Internet economy and sustainable development.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This will be my last comment because I have to leave to catch a train.  I expect applause.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  You've heard me say this before, but we really have to have more focus and crisper titles that will excite people.  If we just say "Internet Economy and Sustainable Development," I fear it will excite a few people in Manhattan but it won't help us generate news stories, bring people to Brazil.
 If we can focus on that piece of sustainable development that ICTs are uniquely and directly responsible for, I think that would be wonderful.  I like using the word "development."  I like using the word "jobs."  I like the word "economy."  But let's talk about sustainable jobs or let's talk about development at Internet speed or let's talk about what's really happening in the workplace, and not have some grand topic that could include everything, and as a result will allow us no time to discuss anything in depth.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think I stepped on the rake.  I shouldn't have asked this question.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  And I also want to thank you for listening to me and, as I say, farewell.  This has been a very effective meeting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Michael, for the kind words.
 So I'm withdrawing my proposal and we're going to discuss 216 and the merits.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael, once you get out of the door, you need to leave your badge with the guard.  Otherwise, you will be chased and you will be beaten up and the badge will be taken off.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Michael, could you please leave with the badge?
 [ Laughter ]
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Camera!
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Order, please, order.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That was a --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This was the minute of recreation.
 [ Applause ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Or rather, 30 seconds of recreation.
 Back to the job, please.  Or to jobs.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Mike, Peter Dengate Thrush says bye.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So let's get serious.  216.  Who is willing to make a point? 
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi wants to make a general point regarding to the previous -- one of the previous comments.
 She said, "We don't need to be picky, but it is important that utmost sensitivity be exercised.  Thanks for the support but women don't need defending, but we all know that you mean well.  Since this is a formal meeting with transcript being made public, we do look at fellow traveler and not defenders and champions."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Still 2000 -- 216.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes.  I would just like to say that I think that if we do end up having a session on network neutrality, and when we get to that main session and when we do get to that discussion, I think that this proposal could be included within that, or perhaps we could fold in the proposers into that main session.  That's all I'd like to say.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes, Chairman.  I was the one who proposed this workshop in this round, and I think it's -- well, it's important.  That's why I proposed.  But I am saving the defense for the next one because I think it's more important.
 So this is a negotiation.  Put this in square brackets and move to the -- to the next one, please.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So if proponents suggest that we cannot ignore it, we retain it on the "maybe" list still.  We are moving to 263.
 263?  Private sector proposal, new proposer, and Juan Alfonso is holding his ammunition for this.
 But Fiona first.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you very much, Janis.  I just want to bring to the attention to fellow MAG colleagues that it's 4:00, and we have two hours left or just after 4:00.  We have yet to discuss the dynamic coalitions, and we haven't discussed the main sessions.  And I think it's going to be important that we actually come to agreement at least preliminarily on the main session topics before we leave Geneva. 
 So I would suggest we perhaps give another few minutes to this and then call time.  And if there is still no agreement, the remaining slots just go to the ones that scored the highest on the initial thing and we move on.
 I do have some observations to share on this entire process, but perhaps I will wait and do that once we are done or maybe on the email list.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Again, it's not that much.  We still have five proposals to examine and then certainly there will still be slots, they will go to the highest score.  But since we have started this process, we need to continue.
 It would be unfair simply.  We may shorten up discussion and be more swift.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Recently we talk about this workshop proposal.  What I propose now is to retain it -- and secretariat to include governments from the region to be participants in the panel.
 I think that we could convince very easily that governments that have experience in this, like maybe Colombia, Brazil is also listed here, even the very humble experience of Cuba that we are only beginning.  But we could be there as well.
 But I think that the whole topic, it's very relevant in our continent and not only our continent, because this is relevant, the link between this technology and development.  And the way of how to really measure that link, I will reiterate that Raul Katz is the world leader in this thing.  And I urge you to consult his writings.  We recently had in CSTD one of his latest things.
 And I think that this is very really, really important.  I know that all workshop proposals have merit.  But I think this has a special merit.  It could be even, as I told before, improved with some panelists from Latin American governments.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Jac, your flag is up?  Opposition?  For inclusion?  Private sector, first proposer, new proposer.  No opposition?  Decided.
 128?  No appetite to MAG member, of MAG members?  UNESCO?
 >>UNESCO:  Just provide some updates during lunch break.  We received a request from the workshop numbered 42 which talks about the online hate speech and the relation with human rights such as freedom of expression, privacy, from also the law and jurisdiction aspect, which fits ours. 
 And I also spoke with the intersection facilitator on the online abuse which we also have a shared interest on the gender, woman and girls aspect.  And after all, we also want to focus the workshop on the youth and the youth radicalization as we have taken from our June conference. 
 So in this way, I wish we can fit this theme better and better, also better frame this huge topic in the IGF to make a more specific focus.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Actually, the question I was going to ask is how does this relate to those two other workshops?  Hate speech and then the dynamic coalition on online abuse, do we see it as a -- sort of a series which have relationship to each other but have different facets and different audiences?  Or do we see it as a continuum?
 If I could better understand that, that would help me understand how it fits.
 This seems to me to be focused on something that is undoubtedly of interest to governments and to citizens, and that is what I might call the abusive use of the medium.  Maybe not everybody things it is abusive use of the medium, but it is -- I think it is a high-profile topic in many capitals today.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I think what's specific about this proposal that's interesting that was also defended earlier is that it's focusing on youth radicalization, which is not a topic that was covered in proposal workshop 151. 
 But, otherwise, what I would recommend is for this proposal -- this workshop proposer to then make sure that they are recommending speakers from this workshop into workshop 151 which has already been accepted and has quite a broad and strong thematic hold.
 And in terms of where the interlinkages are, I would hope that there will be enough outreach to all of the different workshop organizers that may have interlinkages to input into the best practice forum process, for example, which is what by started doing.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes.  I think that this topic is very important, and I strongly support it, especially because in some region of the world -- and I would suggest to the organizer to take in account specific regional cases, this is really a very hot issue.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, it's been rightly said this is becoming a very difficult issue for governments, especially in view of some of the developments related to ISIS.  Governments are paying a lot of attention to this issue.
 There is, though, a requirement to include some of the other government officials or law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies again.  In this case, may not be intelligence but law enforcement agencies from the countries that are susceptible to such radicalization.  It's current.  It's happening.  It's right on top.
 And, by the way, since we last spoke, IGO is not exceeding its numbers.  They were less than what they were.  So if you get another one for intergovernmental organizations, it will be a good idea.  It will help the balance that we originally set ourselves up.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Subi, last one.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said that she strongly supports it, that this is an extremely important issue, and we need more diversity of original perspectives.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then I would propose that based on also balancing and increasing intergovernmental participation, we retain this but specifically ask organizers to focus on youth radicalization as an issue that is important for governments.
 Thank you.  If that is decision, yes?  Thank you.
 Now three to go. 
 56.  56.  No one is asking for the floor.  Doubts remain.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks, yes.  Well, I'm sorry if it's repeating what I said earlier about this, but I thought this does bring focus on an issue that's not covered elsewhere, mobile banking and barriers to that and challenges in security and so on.
 So I see it having value as a session at this year's IGF.  So I would support it.  And I thought it was a very good proposal but to extend participation to sub-Saharan Africa.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Xiaodong.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  Yes.  On second comment, this topic is not covered by the currently selected workshop proposals.  So I suggest to add this proposal into the agenda.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Thank you. 
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  I second Mark on the same comment.  Yes, I support this proposal.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So shall we retain then?  We need also to most probably coach the organizers and make sure the intent that MAG members express here is achieved as a result of the workshop.
 On this one, Virat, or next one?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  This one.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chairman, this proposal, the real challenge with regards to mobile payments in vast majority of the world is with regards to banking rules and central banking.  GSMA will tell you more than anybody else how difficult it is to get past because the moment you get into mobile banking, then you have to start agreeing to all the banking rules which makes it virtually impossible for companies to sort of operate this.
 When I see the speakers, none of them -- this is not a discussion to be had -- this discussion has to be had with people who have to enable this easily.  Mobile banking sort of -- mobile payments have very wafer-thin margins.  It doesn't work.  The only way it can happen if the regulatory environment is right.  And this is not -- the speakers and the -- this is not the place for that discussion.  This discussion has to happen with banks and central bankers.  So I just want to submit that.  You can have an academic discussion, but the challenge and the audience is very different from those who will be at IGF, as somebody who deals with it practically on a daily basis.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Can we then put it conditional and taking into account what you just said and ask Dominique to get in touch and making sure that this aspect that you raised is factored in and we need to get somebody who can speak on this very subject?  And if that condition is not met, we disqualify -- we take it off the program.  Can we do conditionality?  Good.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Janis, Subi has also proposed that we put a requirement to widen the perspective and speaker diversity, especially to invite more government participation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  This proposal is conditioned with a change in participation and bringing this regulatory aspect in.  Otherwise -- and that will be Dominique.  And secretariat will remind Dominique that this should be done.  Thank you.
 Next one -- two to go -- 33.  We had doubts about this because of --
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  We exposed both on the theme and on the stakeholder.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That's why we did not put it in.  Shall we keep it on "maybe"?  No one is opposing.  We are keeping it on maybe list. 
 Last one, 48.  Who was putting it?  This is a new one.  We put it on the "maybe" list at the very end.
 Mark, I think you were proposing that, if I recall correctly.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  I didn't actual comment on the substance earlier.  But I thought this proposal has value in terms of its horizon scanning and sort of identifying emerging issues and so on.  So it's coming from the Dutch IGF, yeah, this one.
 So, yeah, I would support its inclusion because of its -- it's covering really -- it's one of the more forward-looking substantive agendas and the IGF needs more of those.  So I would argue on that basis it's horizon scanning, looking ahead, and provides value -- additional value for that reason.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And if we would retain, that would be mostly on merits this is an emerging issue and maybe something that's not well understood.  Shita, please.
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair.  This is Shita.  I would support this proposal because it is a continuation of the national IGF as what we already did for Australia.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Subi?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said that this is a fantastic theme and a great content.  She strongly supports it.  It brings government participation, and it is a new issue.  We'll need to enhance speaker diversity.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Xiaodong, yours is up?  No.
 Based what we heard, any opposition of retaining 48 on the merits that this is a new, upcoming, emerging, not well understood as a result badly scored?  It is so decided.  Thank you very much.
 We have now a list of about a hundred.
 What I would like to suggest now, we agreed that secretariat would have discretion of a few workshops.  Otherwise, now when secretariat will put all the accepted workshops in the relevant boxes, we may discover that one or two slots are free or available.  Then secretariat would take workshops from the highest scored in case that would be -- that would happen.  And this exercise should be done fairly soon, that we inform potential workshop proponents very quickly.  Otherwise, we would inform those -- immediately those which proposals were retained.
 Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I agree completely with the proposal, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that that concludes the selection process for the moment.  We will be informed by secretariat on a regular basis on the progress in contacting workshop proponents, organizers. 
 Now, we had some conditionalities.  We'll be hearing reports on those.  And we now can proceed to remaining agenda items that we need to examine.  And those are dynamic coalitions, interregional dialogue main sessions, way forward.
 Shall we take it in that order?  I suspect that main sessions may take longer time, and if we can get through quickly dynamic coalitions, Markus, would you like to introduce the topic?
 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  Thank you, Chairman.  Yes, I will refer back to what I said when we started this meeting and also what I said at the December meeting, recalling the history of dynamic coalitions and the raison d'etre for going ahead with them when we started the IGF.
 It was then a way to compromise between those who wanted to create a very elaborate structure with working groups for intersessional work and those who didn't want any of that.
 So we said, "Let dynamic coalitions emerge and let people who share the same interests work together."
 We discussed on several occasions how to deal with them as we moved along.  Some of the dynamic coalitions fizzled out.  Some others produced useful work.  But on the whole, they remained on the fringes of the IGF. 
 And what we discovered -- well, we also saw that those who fizzled out, some of them were actually mainly created to have a slot in the annual meeting, some of them didn't produce reports, so we tightened gradually a little bit the criteria, made sure that they produced the report before they were given a slot again at the annual meeting.
 But as I said, some of them actually produced reports.
 Now, the downside with that is that these -- this work that was produced on the fringes of the IGF never found its way back to the main session, to the main community, be that for approval or be that for rejection. 
 And we have some of them that produced fairly elaborate booklets, like the dynamic coalition on the rights and principles, but this booklet, this publication, as I said, never went back to the main IGF, the mainstream community.
 Now, I'm not sure whether they would actual- -- it's a fairly solid, elaborate paper, but the mainstream IGF may or may not endorse these principles, but we don't -- we are in a position now that they are kind of independent of the IGF, present themselves as the rights and principles of the dynamic coalition on rights and principles, which has hardly any link left, and I think this is somewhat problematic.
 On the other hand, we have the dynamic coalition -- I think Andrea is sitting behind me -- on accessibility for people with disabilities.  They did have a main session.  They organized a main session in Sharm El Sheikh where they actually presented their work to the broader community, and I had hoped then that the main session would actually endorse these guidelines, but for one or the other reason, the chairman of the session then forgot to ask the question, "Do we all agree with that," and I'm sure at the time the main hall would have approved with acclamation these guidelines.
 So here we are, and the proposal is we had calls with the dynamic coalitions and they all agree to be better integrated, that we actually prepare a slot at the -- in the main session.  Under the current program, it's a 90-minute slot.  I think this would be perfectly adequate.  And this slot would not be for discussing in depth the substance of what work they may or may not have produced, but just to see whether or not the mainstream of the community actually agrees with them or finds these outputs as not acceptable.
 It could be a kind of reality check that also gives feedback back to the dynamic coalitions whether they're actually moving in the right direction towards a consensus-oriented outcome.
 As I said, I don't think we would have any issue with the dynamic coalition on accessibility.  They produced excellent work and they are in the process of updating their guidelines.  They have been adopted by the secretariat, and in planning the annual meeting, the secretariat looks at these guidelines, since they are operational, but in this particular case, it would be, I think, beneficial if they were actually labeled "The IGF Guidelines" and that would also allow the IGF to show to the world there is clearly a tangible outcome.
 The dynamic coalition on network neutrality is actually preparing a process to come up with a statement.  They have previously prepared a framework that has been transferred into the Council of Europe, but again, that was never discussed -- it was always discussed in the meetings of the dynamic coalitions but never in a main setting.
 Now, network neutrality is by far a more controversial subject, but if we let them go ahead with their plan, and they will go ahead with their plan without bringing them back to the main session, we may have some outcome that will be some kind of outcome of a dynamic coalition, but which will not have the reality check of the main session.
 So I think this would be beneficial, I think for the IGF, but also for the dynamic coalition, and it will be in line of strengthening an outcome-oriented IGF.
 We made the comparison with the work in the IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, where any working group starts with a bird of a feather but there's always a feedback then to the mainstream, to the Internet Architecture Board, and no standards get adopted unless it is tested by the broader community.
 So this is essentially the proposal in a nutshell.
 I'm not saying that every dynamic coalition that we have should be given a slot when we have this kind of wrap-up session, but only those who produce some intersessional work with an outcome from this work, and that this intersessional work should be promoted in the IGF context to make sure that everybody is aware that it is taking place so that nobody would come to this final wrap-up session with a surprise.  They would be given the opportunity to make any views on a proposal that is being elaborated, make that in the intersessional work, and would also be possible to address it in the separate meeting of the dynamic coalition when the substantive outcome paper they may have produced will be discussed.
 So this in a nutshell would be the proposal, and I think I would be very happy with this 90-minute slot reserved for dynamic coalitions and go back to the dynamic coalitions and explain it to them.
 I don't know whether any of the dynamic coalitions present in the room would like to add how they see it.  I know there are some people involved with work on network neutrality.  I think Marilia has been involved there.  But there's also Andrea Saks I have referred to from the dynamic coalition on accessibility.  There may be others, but as I said, many of these dynamic coalitions do very serious intersessional work but they don't benefit from an interaction with the mainstream, and here the proposal is to link them closer to the main proceedings of the IGF.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Markus, for this very clear explanation.
 I think I would not ask dynamic coalitions to speak.  I would rather ask MAG members to speak.
 And if there are any doubts, then dynamic coalitions may come in and join.
 The question is:  Can we support the proposal?  And I understand we have reserved 90 minutes as a main session for the dynamic coalitions.
 Avri first, then Giacomo, then Marilyn.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking and I guess I'm speaking both as a MAG member and as someone who has been active in a dynamic coalition for a long time.  Until just this year, I was chair of the Internet of Things dynamic coalition for multiple years.  And I think something like this would be good.
 We do work all year long, we get a meeting, and then we go on continuing the work outside.
 So I think the ability to have this thing, the ability to have this sort of continuity, is good, and in fact, have been talking to the chair of the IoT dynamic coalition and he's been very psyched by what he's seen happening with -- he's the one that's been going to Markus' sessions, not me. 
 And so I support it both as a MAG member and as a longtime dynamic coalition participant.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Giacomo?
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yeah.  I want to endorse what Markus says, adding some other elements.
 I think that there is a little bit of frustration in those that participate to dynamic coalitions that they don't find attention and recognition on the IGF overall because this kind of specific work that is intersessional, by essence and definition, is below the radar.
 So it happens that some of the coalitions for the moment are more active and more fruitful received and listened in the WSIS than at the IGF, and I think that this is a pity.  There is the coalition, for instance, on child on line protection.  There is the coalition on -- on the climate change and others that have been found very hard to find the recognition within the IGF.
 So this initiative is very welcomed and I hope that this could be able to reestablish fruitful links.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think Marilyn also will support it very briefly.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Actually, I'm going to raise some questions very briefly, Chair.  Thank you.
 We established dynamic coalitions because we needed a place for like-minded groups to work together.  I support the idea of a 90-minute session but I want to note that in my view, we as the MAG and as the IGF, do not have the standing or authority to authenticate or approve or validate proposals that are undertaken at a dynamic coalition.
 So I'm cautious about what is it we are -- we need to be careful about the brand we have and what the limitations of our brand are. 
 But I do think it's very useful to have the 90-minute session, but I think we also need to remember -- and you can tell this by looking at the membership of the dynamic coalitions.  This is really -- and this is a good thing.  This is really typically like-minded or groups that are interested in a particular topic doing deeper work, and I don't want to make them into something they're not while also recognizing them.
 But I have this caution about not assuming that we are putting any kind of approval.
 The final thing I will say is, we went through this a little bit with the national and regional IGFs and they -- the coordinators worked together to develop some standards in order to be listed on the -- on the Web site as a national and regional IGF.  There are activities that take place at a national and regional level who don't meet that threshold.  We have similar like standards for the dynamic coalitions and that allows them to use the space and gather, and I want to protect that as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Remote participant.
 The first one is Malcolm.  Jeremy Malcolm.  Please, Jeremy.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: Hello.  Am I coming through?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes, we hear you.  Please go ahead.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: So I agree with a large part of what Markus said.  The reason why the dynamic coalitions had fizzled out is that they weren't empowered, and the endorsement of their outputs by the IGF as a plenary body is a way of overcoming that.  It's been a lost opportunity, so far.  And I support the idea of a main session.  I just (indiscernible) Marilyn (indiscernible) that (indiscernible) --
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Jeremy, we lost you.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: -- that's exactly what this main session would be for, but in turn, the main session would be --
 You lost me?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yeah.  Could you repeat the previous three or four sentences?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes, you're getting through now.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: I think the main session also needs to be empowered in (indiscernible) that it considers the outputs of the dynamic coalitions and I think just having a main session leader who says, "Do we approve this" and having acclamation is not adequate at all.  We've seen other sessions where the outputs of workshops or dynamic coalitions have been presented in that fashion, and it's been very lacking.  People have not attended that main session.  I think we need a much more deliberative process to consider these outputs.
 For the next IGF, if the deliberative poll process goes ahead, that's one attempt at putting a deliberative process into place, and that's an experiment for the future, but for now, I'm thinking of something lighter weight or endorsing the outputs of the dynamic coalitions.
 There is an idea -- (audio issues) -- which you can find on line at  I think that would be a very suitable way to get a more tangible and considered response from the plenary group to the dynamic coalitions' outputs, rather than just having a certain leader say, "Do we endorse this?"  It actually requires a bit more thought to go in and it gives a much more -- a much better idea of how well a proposal has been received.
 So I really encourage everyone to look at this idea rating sheets --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: -- model and consider that for this session.  Also --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Malcolm.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: -- I think maybe if there were two main sessions with a break in between, that would even be better than one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Malcolm.  I think if we agree in principle, then modalities will be considered by coordinators of that session, so thank you for your contribution.
 And Subi, please very briefly because we need to continue on other topics.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  It is a brief comment.  She supports the idea but it shouldn't just be a reporting-in session.
 We'll need structure and key framework.  Otherwise, this can get confusing.  Complete support for a main session.  Agree with the comment of MAG not being a validating body for dynamic coalitions.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Subi.  I think Markus will take everything into account and hoping -- or relying on Markus' experience, I have no doubts that the session will be very successful and will be well thought through.
 And Juan Alfonso is in good agreement with that.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I take this opportunity to ask a question.  I'm -- please, excuse me, because I'm new here.  I don't know if you already discussed this last year, but two years ago the working group for the improvement of the IGF mentioned as one of the recommendations they need to have outcomes in some way, and so I am -- this, in part, relates to that.
 I certainly agree with Marilyn that the outcomes is not of the MAG, it's of the IGF, so MAG has no mandate to endorse or to -- in any case the outcome.
 But the question that I am asking you is:  Already this has been discussed in the MAG how outcomes are going to get out, either main sessions or workshops?  If it's not the case, I don't think we have time to do it now.  We will have to do it maybe in the virtual and all these processes.  Maybe that would be a good topic for the next -- next potential meeting.  But my real question is:  It's already some discussion been carried about that?  Because that need a process.  That need a very -- it's not easy in my way to really comply with that request of the working group for improvement of IGF.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso, this has been discussed immediately after working group released recommendations and actually has been implemented already.  Everything we do is taking into account these recommendations.  The best practice work stream, intersessional work stream, all that is done with that in mind.  So we're working on implementation of these recommendations.
 If there are no opposition to proposal, we accept in principle.  We have reserved 90 minutes in main session for dynamic coalitions and, Markus, we're happy that you volunteered to coordinate preparation for that and if you need any help since we will have two coordinators for -- per main session, please indicate whom you would like to have as a co-facilitator and we will formally appoint him.
 So now let us move to next item and that is interregional dialogue.
 I suspect that that will be Marilyn who will be introducing the topic.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes, Chair, if we are going to talk about the interregional dialogue of the national and regional IGFs, yes.  Yes?  Okay.
 For a number of years, the national and regional IGFs have met in an interregional/national dialogue.  It typically is a three-hour session.  It is not a main session.  It is self-designed by the representatives from the national and regional IGFs.  There are some here including Mark Buell from Canada.  I had spoken with Ana as well. 
 What we typically do is put a call out with the help of the secretariat to the coordinators.  We do an online planning and identify what we want to do.
 I will just note that two years ago we did mini studies of the national and regional IGFs that several participated in, and we shared the results of those studies.  We often also talk about the commonality of issues.  But it is designed from a bottom-up perspective by the coordinators themselves.
 We've had varying successes.  In some cases, we get very high turnout.  One of the challenges I will just mention that everybody needs to understand is that the national and regional coordinators very often are engaged separately in workshops and maybe even in plenary sessions.  They do not have a lot of time to take on organizing.
 And the people who participate in the national and regional IGFs, many of them do not come to the IGF itself because it is the national issues that most attract them or there's limited funding for them to come.
 So I propose that those of us who are interested in it put this dialogue together again, invite the coordinators to identify themes and activities. 
 Let me say one other thing.  There is a hoped-for opportunity for reflection from the national and regional IGFs into the main session that Cheryl and others are coordinating on IGF at 10.  And I think also there will be reflection of the participation from the nationals and regionals from those who choose to work in connecting the next billion.
 So there will be multiple ways in which we are linking with the national and regional IGFs.  But my proposal is that we maintain this non-plenary slot, whatever else we do, which is -- needs a large room and needs resources and scheduling at a time when people can participate.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Hi.  Thanks, Marilyn, for that.  I remember the studies that were done two years ago and the work that especially of Sylvia Cadena in collecting those studies.  It was, indeed, nice to see those all together in one place.
 My question will be since I know that national and regional IGF email list has been in a bit of a lull lately, I'm just -- I guess I'm just concerned about participation and also duplication.  I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining how this could add or complement to the IGF Master Chef initiative which also showcases different experiences of national and regional IGFs, just to ensure that the two wouldn't be duplicative?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I can tell you what I know about that workshop.  I was invited to participate in it, but I was not involved in any way in designing it.  It was designed by others from the national IGF initiatives.
 So I think the question about what their intention is -- although I am invited to speak on it, to actually support.  I am a sous chef, I see.  I can't really elaborate on that, Susan, because I wasn't involved in helping design it.
 The national and regional dialogues are typically driven by the coordinators.  That is, they are designed by consensus.  And, again, it's an opportunity in some cases that coordinators choose to spend a good amount of time sharing their experiences and challenges.  In other cases they choose to focus on issues.
 So really until we poll them, I think it's premature to forecast what they will want to focus on
 On the issue of the list, I spoke with Chengetai, the secretariat, who is going to assign -- I'm not going to in any way say a substitute for Serena who we greatly miss but someone from the secretariat to help reach out to the coordinators and revitalize the list.
 The coordinators for those of you who are on it really don't use the list because they are busy working.  It is merely a form of communication.  But the idea would be to send an email to them and invite them to participate in a Webex call and brainstorm.
 And maybe we might also hear from Mark about his thoughts as well since he is also a coordinator.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  My question is:  Do we have any problem with this?  Any reason why we're discussing this?  This has been on the agenda many, many years subsequently. 
 I went last year, I remember and then spoke.  We have room allocation.  This was confirmed by host country. 
 Do we need to spend more time taking into account that we have two outstanding issues to discuss?
 I see no reason.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  If we're not discussing it as a main session, we should just let it go on.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It is not a main session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  God bless this meeting and three -- big room for three hours will be allocated.
 Let us move to main sessions now.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, we are stopping this discussion.  Main sessions.
 Chengetai distributed a proposal on main sessions.  And Subi, if I'm not mistaken, was the one who circulated also a list of proposed themes for thematic main sessions.
 Let me see if anyone has any considerable opposition to the proposed outline of main sessions.  That means we start with setting the scene.  Then we go two hours, maybe more, on IGF at 10.  In the afternoon on the first day, we have closing ceremony -- sorry, opening ceremony, opening session.  And the reason why it was moved back is because of technical convenience.  If we expect -- and we do expect dignitaries, they would not be able to arrive in the morning but in the afternoon session.
 So then we would reserve the whole second day for WSIS+10 consultations.  And if consultations will not take place, then we would liberate one afternoon or morning session fully, three hours, and we could add an additional thematic session to that.
 And then we would have a thematic session on third day in the morning.  We would devote afternoon of the third day for a best practice and intersessional billion. 
 And on the fourth day, we would have a thematic 90-minute session in the morning -- sorry, we would have dynamic coalitions in the morning.  Then we would have two 90-minute sessions for thematic discussions.  And then we will have a closing session which would be combined with open mic.  We will start with open mic and combine with closing ceremony.
 Fiona, please.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you very much, Janis.  Maybe just a question for clarification to help at least me understand what would be the difference between the morning session on WSIS+10 and the afternoon proposed session if the UNGA folks were able to come? 
 And in that regard, would this be a consultation on just the IGF component of WSIS+10 or all of the action lines and everything else?  Just an understanding of what's expected in the morning versus the afternoon, assuming the afternoon happens.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We had this conversation this morning here.  And maybe, Marilyn, you can explain.  We're looking at three different scenarios. 
 So, Marilyn, maybe you can explain those.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  I just want to tell everyone that I have a little -- have a little sheet of paper here.  And if you didn't get to come this morning, although I did post to the list -- people who had other commitments -- do sign up.  Chengetai is going to create a special email list, and I will be posting a summary.
 What we talked about this morning with a really good representative group are exploring three scenarios.  One would be that the PGA comes.  In which case it would be a real consultation with the PGA chairing the consultation.  We will have the zero draft document, which we can take comments on.  We will also have other inputs that have been made to the co-facilitators that are going to be on a public Web site that we would also be able to make comments on.
 In order -- if we have the attendance and participation that we expect at the Brazilian IGF, I would envision the three hours being taken up with specific topics that comments are taken on sequentially so that we work through something organized and then we would have both a transcript, rapporteurs, and a report which would be given to the PGA.  It is up to them to decide what they do.  The modalities do not specify what they would do.
 If they do not come, there are two other scenarios.  One is there's somebody who comes as an observer and basically we are conducting a -- pretty much the same kind of consultation but we are conducting it for only three hours.  We have, also, the question to determine of:  Would we include short representation or presenters from those U.N. organizations who have submitted documents into the consultation process?  That would be CSTD.  That will be UNESCO.  And that will be ITU from the MPP platform.  Those would be very short and offer an opportunity for the participants to comment on.
 In all cases, we expect to have a document which documents what is said, not that we vote on it, not that we negotiate it, but it is the proceedings of the meeting. 
 And as I said, we're working on three scenarios that will -- we will -- after the appointment of the co-facilitators and at the first meeting of the stakeholders in New York, which right now we think is either the 30th of June or the 1st of July -- we will know at the end of the week -- we would then plan to issue a formal invitation to the PGA's office to come and engage in a consultation.
 Remember, the PGA will change in September and it will be Denmark.  It is Uganda now.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Marilyn.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.  You asked does anyone object to this?  I haven't gotten all the way to finding it objectionable, but I do not understand why we're investing a whole day in WSIS+10 at the IGF.
 Also, while I'm speaking, on the questions of the thematic sessions, are we talking about two topics or four topics?  So that's another question.
 But I really do not understand a whole day of main sessions invested on WSIS.  So perhaps somebody can explain to me why IGF is doing that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The U.N. General Assembly resolution suggests that the President of General Assembly should consult other stakeholder groups on WSIS+10 review.  And if that will be done in New York, there will be maybe 20, 30 representatives of different stakeholder groups, those who were permanently accredited to U.N.  And they would be providing guidance to President of General Assembly on WSIS+10.
 If that is acceptable, then we don't need to bring or invite PGA to Brazil.  If we think that potentially consulting with 2,000 representatives of different stakeholders -- stakeholder groups in one place during six hours would be useful, then we reserve those six hours and invite PGA to consider.
 If PGA says no, then we liberate those and organize something else or leave them completely empty because we also discussed that we may wish to leave some main sessions simply empty, allowing broader participation in workshops.
 So that is the logic behind it.  We will know more in June.  And it will not be too late to revert and then make decisions how to use this time otherwise.
 If PGA is not coming, then it is up to us to decide whether WSIS+10 event or main session, that we agreed yesterday in unanimity, should be conducted -- no, not yesterday, day before yesterday, should be conducted in 90 minutes or in three hours.  So that is entirely now in our hands.  So that's the logic.
 Elizabeth and then Fiona, again.
 >> ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  In the interest of time, I will be as brief as possible.  Two points about the schedule that has been put up there.  I will express one concern with putting the IGF+10 session ahead of the opening ceremony.  I think it would be much better to do that within the framework of the later schedule.  And one of the proposals I have for that is perhaps that session could be the morning -- the following morning.  And the WSIS+10 consultation could actually be split -- on the possibility that it might be a six-hour session, could actually be split over two days.  There's two reasons for that.  One is obviously if there's a section of time that is used because of the PGA and the consultation will not take place, that would fit quite nicely probably in sequence with the IGF review.
 And, secondly, if it is a consultation for these people perhaps in consideration for them spreading it out over the two days might be more effective for our communication.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 One of the arguments why IGF at 10 is scheduled early is dignitaries and ministers could attend it.  And they would not attend it on second, third day.  That is our experience.
 Fiona, please.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you, Janis, for the further explanation on the previous point and for Marilyn for providing the further details to the three possible options that are on the table.
 It would be helpful to get the paper circulated and to see that so we could react appropriately.
 I think from my perspective -- and I appreciate that people are pointing to the MAG in their individual capacity.  But for a government official, you cannot divorce that from your actual -- that you work for an administration.  From the perspective of my administration, I think it is very difficult for us to get out in front of the modalities of an U.N. process that have yet to be developed.  So I need to put that on the record.  But we would like to see the proposals and we can come back to it.
 But I think the initial conversation did cause some concern amongst folks in the back row here.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  If our concern about the opening ceremony is that it will not have enough senior-level people if it is held in the morning, then I suppose IGF at 10 will meet the same fate.  And, therefore, to put it in the morning will probably lose the exact same people that we are missing because we are moving the opening ceremony up.  I am not sure how that works out.  So that's one question.  Please.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We're talking on very, very important people who may come in the afternoon fly in by helicopter and then fly out.  I will not specify who they may be, but there was a reason why it was specifically requested to be put in the afternoon, in order to maximize chance that very, very important people would come in the afternoon.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.  If that is the case, then I understand.  But I would still -- I think we should keep a placeholder on day two in case -- as it develops, and I think the idea that ICC-BASIS just put forward, which is:  Is it possible to split into two days if the PGA does come in, into our request?  And I suppose they will stay overnight, and we might want to take a break between the six hours of consultation, in which case this could be held in day two. 
 I just wanted to leave some flexibility there.  Let's not get to all the decisions today.
 And if it is -- if it is three hours, then we should relook at some of these things.  But right now we'll leave it at that.  So I get the clarification this is for those two or three people that you are talking, not a dozen.  Because if they are not coming in the morning for the opening, then there's no point in having the session.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  We're talking about very, very important people.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And certainly there isn't any- -- isn't that's carved in stone.  Anything.  Everything is flexible and we do not know.  Maybe the second day will be completely empty, so then we are -- we can move around everything easily.
 Can we move to the discussion of themes, if that's possible?  Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Well, thank you.  Very briefly.  You know, for ministers, if there's a high-level event to which ministers are invited on the day zero afternoon, then in the next morning, an IGF session involving ministers and then the opening ceremony, those three elements is a great program for ministers.  Thank you.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  One clarification.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Have we held -- I can't remember from memory.  Have we held sort of events like that are held before like a main session?  Be- --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Last IGF opening also was in the afternoon.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  My question was:  Was there a main session held before the opening?  I couldn't recall one but I'm sure there is.  That's fine, that's fine.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Always has been orientation session, a main session, and then setting-the-scene session always has been the case.
 Constance, please.
 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  I think this is a -- this is a promising draft.  I wonder if there's any value at the beginning of the week to reflect any of the IGF outputs, because the program of work we're preparing for the VVIPs is focused on WSIS and IGF issues, so institutional Internet governance issues, and they will not have a chance to get a sense of the actual outputs of IGF 2015.
 So I wonder if there's any value in including in the beginning of the week any kind of information session on intersessional activities.
 The other -- the other question I have is whether or not we should rename the main session "intersessional," as it doesn't seem to be very clear in terms of terminology.  Maybe "IGF Best Practices and Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion."  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The answer to the first question, that might be raised in the setting-the-scene session or hour. 
 And on titles, everything is possible.  That's entirely up to us.  This is just a placeholder for the moment.
 On themes, can we get on the screen a list of proposed themes? 
 I was thinking the technology allows copy/paste, but thank you for typing.
 So who is willing -- willing to make the first pitch?  Fiona.  No?  Sorry.  I thought that you were --
 Hossam, please.
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Well, once again, regarding the theme for sustainable development and Internet economy and taking into consideration Mike Nelson's comments, so there are two suggested titles:  "How Internet Economy is Vital for Sustainable Development," and this is the suggestion of Mark, and -- or "ICT Driving Sustainable Development."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think it would be not wise now to discuss potential titles.  We will -- let's agree on broad sort of topics that we want to -- want to address in thematic sessions, and then based on that broad agreement, work on concrete titles for the thematic sessions. 
 Any further -- any further thoughts? 
 Jac, please.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Apologies for adding to the list, but I think considering the large amount of proposals that's coming around the thematic area of human rights, that that should be considered as a main session. 
 And also the -- I guess the importance and timeliness of the topic of privacy for this year with the -- with the appointment of the special rapporteur on privacy, the mandate, and I think that's actually a very key issue for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I would, of course, would be much happier hearing trimming the tree, not putting -- putting things on the tree, but I would like also to ask MAG members to express their support to one or another themes which is -- which are present on the list that we see the majority in the room.
 I will take Susan first and then Virat.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Chair. 
 Just to clarify -- and I don't want there to be any misunderstanding about my support for regional and national IGFs, because I think they're all great and I support them very much, but it seems that -- I thought they weren't a main session and it seems that they're included as a main session by the --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  That was proposed as a main session topic, but we equally know that there is a coordination meeting, a three-hour session, for regional and national IGFs.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Okay.  In that case -- okay -- I would like to support and explain a little bit why I believe that network neutrality should be a main session.
 If we take the proposal submitted by the Internet community as any sort of barometer or indication of what the general Internet community is caring about and is interested about, we see that there are, I think in total, eight proposals that dealt with zero rating, two of which, I think, were accepted, at least.
 There are other proposals dealing with zero rating that were not accepted.  Zero rating is a sub-issue of net neutrality.
 So I think given the interest and given that the beauty of the IGF is that government officials and policymakers can come to the event and understand the different solutions that are being proposed or discussed in other jurisdictions, I think it's a really valuable opportunity for people to come together to discuss this issue over the course of the event.
 I understand that network neutrality was a main session last year.  I don't think that's a reason to automatically preclude it from being a main session this year. 
 I also think that there have been many developments that have been happening on this topic since last year.  We're also seeing a broadening of kind of a tripartite classification of net neutrality actors.  We're seeing involvements of CDNs.  We're seeing involvement of Tier 1 ISPs and transit providers.  I don't think that is an issue that's going to go away.  I think everybody could benefit from a discussion on it and so that is why I would propose that we have a main session on network neutrality.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Susan. 
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, we have space for how many, finally?  Two will go through, at best?  How many of these will go through?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So on the previous slide, we have, for the moment, three.  Three thematic sessions reserved.  And if WSIS+10 will fall through, as planned, then we will have fourth.  But not necessarily we need to fill every -- every slot.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So I want to remind myself and ourselves about the conversation we have every time we start the new MAG session in February, this time in December, where people vehemently oppose the need for main sessions and long main sessions, and so many main sessions, and now we are back to sort of filling out every square inch that's left.
 So I would sincerely request that we should stop at one or two, at best, because we -- we -- sort of -- if we tend to forget what we do between four months of meeting last time, then the next time the same subjects will come up and I'm reminded of the Swiss cheese.
 So my request would be to actually keep it at one or two maximum and leave some space.
 Last year, as you're aware, net neutrality came in at the end of May because it was in the outcome statement of NETmundial, and therefore it sort of came up as a new subject, and that might happen this year.  We are quite some time away.
 I would request that we certainly look at sustainable development.  This was -- this is a main theme.  It is linked to a lot of work that is going on in Geneva, in New York.  This is the year that we're looking for renewal.  So let's keep in mind our key objective is the renewal of IGF.  It's to engage the governments.  It's to give them the comfort that we are discussing their language, their issues, their concerns.  And I realize net neutrality is an issue that's grown since we met last time, but, you know, sustainable development has universal appeal across continents, across nations, across regions, so would certainly strongly support sustainable development.
 I'd also think that we might look at -- we don't quite understand right now what NETmundial would be so maybe the host would explain what it would constitute since there are other opportunities for NETmundial but I would certainly --
 You know, from the ones that are listed, Internet economy, given the fact that it's over a trillion dollars invested in this sector, there's a lot of livelihood, jobs, people who love it and who hate it all want to be involved in the economy.  I might be in the minority at this stage but I think Internet economy is a sensible subject to get new perspectives, new people in, and it's a large enough subject -- banking, mobile payments, all of that stuff that we discussed but didn't find homes in workshops, a ton of that stuff can find homes here.
 It's not something that's been done before.  We have a chance once and -- once in a year, so I would ask sustainable development and Internet economy.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Dominique?
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  I have a question and then I want to speak in support of several of these topics.
 So I still count five thematic sessions if the WSIS+10 doesn't happen with the UNGA, is that right?  You said three?  Sorry.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  No.  It depends how you count, you know.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Counting is not a science, it's just an art, so you can count in different ways.
 If you count 90 minutes, then you have more; if you count three hours, then you have less.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  For the moment, let's assume we have three and see how far we can get with that.
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Okay.  All right.  Just double-checking on that. 
 So I would support Virat and others on the sustainable development and the Internet economy, mostly because sustainable development is actually a theme. 
 But I would just like to say that we had a very lively and really good discussion and good debate last year on net neutrality.
 However, what we're saying at the GSMA across the globe is net neutrality is not really an issue in developing countries as much as access is an issue, and so I think sustainable development and Internet economy would feed into that and really, you know, target the governments as well, who are looking at regulatory approaches for access and for getting -- many of the governments, obviously, in developing countries as well as developed countries, for getting people on line.  So that's just my two cents.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 
 My intervention is along the lines of the previous one.  I think that we should not fill all the holes now because many things can emerge.  Or even in some cases, it's good to leave it empty so people can go to the workshops.
 Having said that, I think that we should only commit now to the more general, the one that we're really sure.  I think that the balance is leaning towards sustainable development and Internet economy.  And the rest, leave it in standby, just in case if it becomes news or hot items in that -- in that moment.
 And in that case, I would like to add to the list cybersecurity.
 If we have done this last year with all this Sony attack and all that, cybersecurity was a hot topic in that moment.  Maybe it could be a hot topic again.  Cybersecurity as a concept is wider.  It has many facets.  It could easily be one of the hot topics of the moment.
 So what I would recommend is, as my previous colleagues said, just to fill sustainable development and Internet economy and leave the rest open, just waiting to see what happens in the rest of the year.  We're just beginning in this road.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Thank you for helping me from one side and adding complexity to another.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.
 I'm going to speak only in support of sustainable development and Internet economy.
 I do think that possibly the two could be merged -- I sound better in French -- but I want to get clarification of whether we are proposing this as two separate main sessions or a merged session.  That's my first comment.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  I think that that would be one.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  My second comment is:  I would propose to take -- if I -- I don't really -- I'd like to hear more from the host about NETmundial, but I'd like to also propose a possible option, and that is, a large room for up to two hours on NETmundial that would be maybe able to hold 150 to 200 people, if it's not --
 I'm not personally of the view that it should take one of our plenary slots, but I want to respect the interest of the host to engage further in a discussion about the NETmundial outcome documents.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Flavio.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Thank you, Janis.
 Just to reinforce the arguments for having a main session on NETmundial outcomes, after 18 months of the NETmundial event, it should be a time to take stock of this outcome.  How is the Internet governance community going regarding the principles that we approved in the document and about the roadmap, the various items.  And I remember you that, in fact, if we take many of those proposals for main sessions, if we consider role of governments, human rights, cybersecurity, net neutrality, all those themes are included in the outcome document of NETmundial. 
 So that by having this main session, we can address all those issues and see how are we doing with those issues in the ecosystem, which -- for which organizations are tackling those issues, how are they doing this, what else should we do. 
 So I think it's a good opportunity not only to take stock of the document of the NETmundial document, but of the whole Internet governance ecosystem because this is what the NETmundial is about.  It's about the ecosystem.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I have many requests for the floor.  Please keep up and I will call on you.  Don't worry, I see everything.
 Fiona is next.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Janis.
 A couple of questions and then maybe a suggestion at the end.
 So it's unclear to me and it's very difficult just looking at the titles to know exactly what the session would be about exactly because there's not a description.  So we are sitting here reacting to just headlines or titles. 
 But it's unclear to me what sustainable development is and how that will be different from a conversation about the WSIS+10. 
 If the WSIS+10 itself is about the development goals and meeting the goals from WSIS and things like that, I'm not quite sure what the difference between the two would be, so some clarification would be helpful.
 As I understand it, we have a main session on the IGF at 10 and then this new idea of a consultation, but the WSIS+10 conversation, as far as I understand, is still supposed to be about the broader document itself and things like that.
 So I'm not sure how that's different.
 But I also have a suggestion.  I'm just not sure the utility of us sitting in here presupposing what we think people that are going to come to Brazil might want to talk about or might want to hear about, so perhaps there's a way to take these topics, flesh them out with a sentence or two, and put them out for public comment in terms of what would people actually like the sessions to be and maybe we could take that approach in terms of deciding what the one or two are that people wanted to move going forward.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So let me do two comments on your proposal.
 So first is, the MAG is tasked by the secretary-general, based on community proposals, to work on a program for IGF.  It's a program committee.
 And this is up to us to -- based on our best understanding what our communities would like to see proposed agenda.
 If we would go now back to consult, that would prolong things and I would say we would put our problem on others' shoulders, so that's why I would like us to, as we did before, suggest and work on main sessions as -- based on our sort of knowledge what our constituencies would like.
 Second is, WSIS+10, as Marilyn described, conversation would be based very much on the outcome -- or, rather, the draft of December meeting document, which by November would be already constituted, and that would be an opportunity to input -- to discuss that document in multistakeholder environment, because otherwise, that would be discussed exclusively in intergovernmental setting.
 Since the overarching theme is sustainable -- how Internet governance supports sustainable development, that would be also one of the main sessions talking about technology for sustainable development or Internet for sustainable development.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  I'm sorry to come back because your attempt to help me understand things has actually confused a little bit more in my mind. 
 So I understood the proposal as Marilyn described it.  Again, seeing this when it's circulated would be helpful, is that the draft zero conversation would be in the afternoon if the UNGA folks were there.  I wasn't quite sure what the morning conversation was, if there's a difference.  Seeing this in writing would be helpful and could help clarify some of this.  I do appreciate the responsibility of the MAG to set the agenda.  But I don't understand the harm in actually taking a few weeks to ask for stakeholder input on topics but will defer to your judgment in how you prefer to operate.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Aida.
 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC:  So just to express my strong support for both human rights and sustainable development.  I believe both are very critical.  Human rights rounds the Internet governance and rights framework, and it had also had strong support through a number of proposals. 
 Yeah, sustainable development, is very key for developing context.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Let Ginger speak first and then perhaps I can read a short note from Subi.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Okay.  This is Ginger.  The audio is breaking up so I hope you can hear me well.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  I would note I do have several points to make because Subi as well has been waiting in the queue.  I realize since you can't see our agitation and that we are jumping up and down in our seats that we really need to speak.  Perhaps you need to have us on camera.
 Going back a little bit, I liked Marilyn's proposal that NETmundial Initiative be given a slide slot.  Yes, NETmundial Initiative ideas and principles are important, and they are very similar to Internet governance -- the idea of proposals.  But what I suggest is that, for instance, net neutrality, which is such an important topic, including which makes it a critical issue for developing countries, we should discuss net neutrality and we should ask NETmundial Initiative to include their input on all of these themes when we bring them up rather than emphasizing NETmundial meetings.  We should use their principles and their ideas and interventions in every one of the topics because they're important principles and important thematic input.
 But especially since, for instance, we have a very, very important main session that cannot -- if we go back to Juan's suggestion, for instance, that we leave several open, the most indispensable main session -- and we can't forget how long we worked to get this and how hard we worked.  I'm sure you must all understand I'm talking about a human rights main session.  We have to have the human rights main session.  And I would like to see that put on as irrevocable as our first session as it is -- covers all of the principles, all of the norms, all of the reasons we're even talking about Internet governance.
 So I would like to see that we get that one taking a slot.  And then if we need to later leave some flexibility.  But if we're going to, for instance, follow principles and rules as Juan Fernandez has suggested, human rights is the one indispensable main session we need to have.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Now comments from Subi.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Yeah, short comment from Subi.  She said:  Strong proposal for cyber encryption, building digital trust, and governing the deep and dark net.  Our key objective is to do a good program which has more value, most value for each participant.  As MAG, let us not forget renewal is important.  But if we do good work, that should also be a reflection on why IGF needs to be renewed.
 I have heard the word "renewal" over the last three days.  This is important.  But this can't be the only reason why we are doing IGF with support for sustainable development.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ephraim?
 >>EPHRAIM KENYANITO:  Hello.  This is Ephraim Kenyanito for the record.  So I just wanted to reiterate about Dominique's comment about net neutrality not being important.  Last year during the main session, I spoke about zero rating.  And I would still insist that let's find a way of discussing this, even if it's possible by inviting Mark Zuckerberg to the meeting -- that will attract lots of people -- and have a debate this issue.  I want to support inclusion of human rights.  So net neutrality and human rights are the two main sessions that I would really support because it affects the developing countries.
 My Internet is zero rated.  I use Facebook zero and Twitter zero.  And there is a number of implications on that, and they still insist on that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  I have two points.  Thank you.  I'm supporting the regional and national IGF.  But I do think this could also be reflected as the outcome of IGF at 10.  So this would be part of the IGF at 10. 
 And also would like to second or highlight what Ginger and Ephraim said about human rights.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I have just been curious concerning the human rights issues.  For me, I think the topic has been flagged unnecessarily when you consider where -- where you consider Africa and other developing countries. 
 My position is that -- so sustainable development and Internet economy remain the attraction for the stakeholders from developing countries.  And I really want the MAG to consider that because if I can also share with you the experience we're having concerning human rights issues on Internet, I remember that one of our group at the local level was pushing human Internet right freedom.
 But inasmuch as that position is attractive, the main problem we have now in Africa -- and I also want to believe in other parts of the continent like Asia -- how do we ensure -- how do we address -- how can we address the issue of accessibility and (indiscernible)? 
 So for me, human rights is not really the main problem that we have in Africa.  What we have is investment.  How can we drive investment in Internet infrastructure that can open up Internet space?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Segun.
 I will take three further interventions -- four.  And then I will make a proposal and we suggest to move to the next item.
 So I have Ankhi and then Xiaodong and then Avri and then Benedicto.
 Ankhi, please.
 >>ANKHI DAS:  Retaining sustainable development and Internet economy given the jobs and growth agenda, particularly in the developing countries where the youth demographics are literally massive and local innovation is powering a lot of -- fueling a lot of the growth of that economy, particularly the eCommerce side, payment sectors, et cetera. 
 We have in the interest of preserving optionality closer to the date of some other (indiscernible), as spoken by previous speakers and interveners, I think we need to preserve the optionality and leave some blank spaces open.  So I would -- I would make a recommendation that we go with that approach in terms of just holding on for the time being.
 As a third area which we could potentially consider and looking at supporting from this floor would be NETmundial because that is the host country where we are having this.  It germinated out of that meeting -- that country venue.  And, therefore, I think there's some discussions which can -- this could be a good home for that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  This is Xiaodong speaking.  I compared the human rights.  I suggest to consider the Internet economy seriously.  I think that in developing countries, they do believe that the Internet can speed the economy development in their country.  So they try to push the Internet economy and try to push other industry.
 My second suggestion is about cybersecurity.  Now, I think cybersecurity is a very serious topic in recent years.  And now there's a lot of debate on the cybersecurity issues.  So I think for the IGF, it is better for us to have a platform for dialogue on cybersecurity issues, especially there is a lot of argument between some countries.
 And my third suggestion is about NETmundial.  Sure, I know in the end of June that we should have a NETmundial meeting.  I don't know what would happen in NETmundial.  But I think NETmundial tried to be another platform for Internet governance discussion and maybe finding some kind of solution and solve the problem.
 So I think we also need to have some sessions to connect more information about NETmundial and have people to discuss NETmundial in IGF.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.  First thing I wanted to do is actually endorse Fiona's idea, that we basically come out of this meeting and take a month and collect some more opinions in addition to our own.
 But beyond that, I support the continuation of human rights as an issue that there's a whole lot of aspects of that we haven't gotten to yet.
 And then when I look at the other one, I really -- I found the appeal to taking on the topic of the, whether it was the net neutrality aspects or the Internet economy aspects or the development aspects and such because it's become such a focal point of discussion for so many of the issues we're dealing with in governance this day.  It is so topical.  It is a hot issue.  And it actually seems to me that it could be deserving of a session where we really dug down into all the fud and counterfud. thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Benedicto?
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Janis.
 Well, I'd like to offer a few comments because I think part of the difficulty we have in tackling this is because we -- there was -- we lack conceptual documents in regard to what is intended to be discussed under each title.  Differently from what we have when we are considering the workshops, we knew exactly what was intended and who was to be speaking.  Here we are talking more of a concept and trying to -- in the course of the debate trying to fit in some details to assist us in the decision.
 And another point that is lacking is a clear understanding on how this relates, each of those proposed topics relate to those decisions that have already been made in regard to the framework.  How?  Because some of those issues are kind of overarching issues, under which there are workshops, open forums, things that are taking place.  I think it would be useful to have a better understanding how this would fit.
 But having said that, in regard to the NETmundial, which is the one we are proposing as host country, first of all, it is very important to differentiate that the proposal is to have a main session on the NETmundial outcomes, not on the NETmundial Initiative.  So we are looking at two different things.  It is important not to make a confusion.
 And as my colleague was explaining, the idea is to focus on the principles and the roadmap of the two main aspects of the outcome. 
 And in regard to the roadmap, the principles, of course, is something that is -- does not have a dynamic.  But the roadmap was actually a reoriented document.  It was like a picture we took in April 2014 on some things that were needed in order to advance.
 So we think it would be -- it would make a lot of sense one year and a half later to take stock of how we have moved forward in those regards.  And as my colleagues said, that would entail discussions on a number of issues that are there.  So NETmundial would also provide, let's say, a very comprehensive framework to discuss the issues. 
 Maybe the difficulty would be to select which issues to be discussed there because NETmundial addressed basically all the issues that are there.
 And then another important point is that NETmundial also has provided very important insights into process to how even the multistakeholder model can work in practice.  And this would also be maybe important for IGF to further reflect on this.  And this is also -- this also relates to other workshops that have been proposed.
 So I would not, of course, speak against any of the other main sessions.  But I'd like to highlight those aspects that directly refer to the NETmundial proposal.  We think that would make total sense, that we would be consistent with what we had done before, to take stock, and to try to -- and I think this would even assist us in providing input for this WSIS+10. 
 Overall we feel it would take place at the UNGA because this would provide a very comprehensive assessment of -- an overall assessment of the situation.  As my colleague said, it was -- we look from the perspective of ecosystem and not even much importance as particular aspects.  We would have a very comprehensive appraisal of the issues.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Time is running, and we still have one question to discuss.  And I would like to suggest the following.  As Fiona said and Avri supported, maybe proponents of ideas could make a 250-word abstract explaining what session would try to achieve, what would be angle in the next ten days and provide that to secretariat.  Secretariat would put together a compilation and based on that, we would decide in one of the next MAG meetings.
 If that is acceptable -- or rather, is there any opposition to that?  I will not take any other comments on this.  Simply we need another -- decide another question.
 So I don't hear opposition.  It is decided.
 Let us move to the last item of our agenda.  It is next steps.  On next steps, opposition?
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Thank you.  Just to clarify.  Thank you very much and appreciate the proposal.  But just to clarify on the other document that we had on main sessions, the things that were in brackets and the things that were in red, we're going to revisit those?  Those aren't set -- Okay.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Everything will be revisited.  Main sessions are not decided.
 Way forward.  We have to decide whether we need a third meeting.  And if we need, whether that should be a formal MAG meeting or that should be as -- there was some indications that that might be an editorial group meeting in the framework of intersessional.
 All flags down and on this topic, way forward.  Very brief interventions.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Chair, it's Marilyn Cade speaking.  I support the need for at least a two-day MAG meeting.  And I think we need more than just the editorial group meeting because we have more work to do.  I also think that there's a little bit of a problem since in order to get funding, parties from developing countries and governments, I think, we really need to make it a MAG meeting.  We have work to do.  If we could do it in Paris, that would be really great as well.  Probably two days would suffice.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Further questions?  Subi?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  This is a note from Subi from earlier.  She asked that we set a time frame for a meeting regarding conditionalities that we tied to certain proposals and that they may be reported into the virtual call whenever it's held next.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: That is exactly my understanding.  Thank you for confirming that, Subi.
 Any comments on the need for the third meeting? 
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Janis.
 It would be helpful to understand the specific items we think we would cover at a next meeting.  I appreciate, given all the intersessional work and the proposals and the drafting group or open-ended group, that that group would need to get together, but it would be helpful to understand the items that might be on the agenda that would require a full MAG meeting, maybe, prior to deciding -- or giving a view.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If I would have answer, I would not ask the question. 
 In my view, we do not need a MAG meeting as MAG meeting.  We may need if intersessional work goes ahead as planned and if we need to edit a document, so then I see the value of meeting in September, early September, to work on that document.  Having -- and then distribute that document for comments and so on.
 For the MAG meeting, honestly we will -- we will continue regular MAG meetings on line, conference calls.  We have outstanding issues certainly.  We will -- we need to decide and prepare main sessions.  We need to finalize workshop -- decisions on workshops, but that is more technical work now.  We need to coach new -- or workshop proponents to make sure that they are quality proposals or quality workshops. 
 But as MAG, on organization, I think after this meeting we are more or less done, except main sessions.
 That's my assessment and that's my question.
 I understand Jac wants to say something.
 >>JAC SM KEE: I think if you were to have a third meeting, it would be then quite useful to have the meeting to be discussing sort of strategic issues around the IGF, considering that it's the 10th year, we'll be disbanding.  So rather than the planning parts for this year's IGF, spend some time to talk through maybe IGF redesign issues, funding issues, renewal issues, those sort of conversations. 
 And then there was also another point around if you were to have it in New York, then it would be useful to reach out to governments, government representatives to then support and attend IGF.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  New York is not any more an option.  Where -- if we decide to have meeting, then it would be in Paris.  UNESCO preliminarily said that they would host us.  And that -- we're looking now at 2, 3, 4, or 3, 4, if we are looking in two days, September.
 Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, first, if a MAG meeting is to be held, it will discuss substantially the main sessions.  In the May meeting of Paris last year, which was the last meeting before the September IGF, detailed presentations were made by all the co-facilitators on the main sessions.  And this year, I'm -- it's my guess that the main sessions are more complicated, are more involved, and require more attention to detail, and therefore, if you had a MAG meeting, one of the main purposes would be that.  And for that, I think September would be the right time.
 However, if the editors wish to meet, they might want to consider not meeting in September, because September is only three months away.  I'm not sure what kind of progress they would have made.  They should actually consider October, if it's a non-MAG meeting with only editors. 
 So those are my two points with regards to MAG meeting, the main issues, and if the editors want to meet, they might wish to reconsider the dates of September.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  I second Virat on this.  In fact, it's a very good opportunity for us to have enough time prior to the IGF to prepare well for the main sessions, especially as said, it would be -- we need to make a good impact.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lea?
 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you.  I'd like to support the point made by Jac earlier on adding on -- that if that meeting is added onto that agenda, strategic discussion about the future of the IGF and perhaps some internal discussions about the MAG itself and some of our processes.
 It seems that, judging just from -- since joining the MAG, that that never -- unless we plan it in advance, it will never happen, and I'm afraid that the December meeting after the IGF is, again, going to focus on stock-taking of the event itself and that would be a lost opportunity.  So I'd strongly support that.
 And if that goes through, if it's acceptable to the MAG, I would also suggest that we have a preparatory process so that we have something to discuss; that it's not just on the day that we come to these issues but actually prepare some points before.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Aida.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 
 I would like to add to what Lea said of the themes that I would like to be discussed. 
 The one that I said before, maybe because I knew, but I still feel that the way of getting outcomes from the IGF, not -- I'm not talking about the best forum.  I'm not talking about intersessional.  I'm talking about the IGF itself, the yearly.  I think that we need to get deep on that, get some process.  You know that's one of the sticking points of -- on the criticism of IGF.  In order to -- for its usefulness.  I know that we don't want to have a negotiated document, but I think we have to have something, but for me, it's not clear how we get to that "something."  I think that's something that we need to discuss either in person or through the conference call, because at least for me, I don't have clear how we can have outcomes from the IGF itself.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chair.
 I'm, frankly, uncertain as to whether or not we need a two-day MAG, building on Fiona's point, without having some concrete agenda items in front of us.
 Perhaps we could actually put that together over the mail list and take that determine- -- I know it needs to be decided quite quickly, but, you know, honestly I'm struggling here to have an opinion on that. 
 I wanted also, if I may, while I have the floor, just -- Constance asked me, before she left, if I would remind everybody that the updated draft on the intersessional proposal went out.  If everybody could take a look at that over the next two to three days, that would allow us to launch the initiative next Monday.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much.  I see that there is no really good convergence of views, and doubt remains.
 When we looked and did backward counting, in order to be able to consult community on intersessional document, we thought that there would be need for several kind of iterations of consultations and that's why September would be appropriate for the drafting of the first -- first document.  Or draft.  First draft. 
 That would be put on for public comments, getting back, redrafting -- or reediting, and putting a final version before going to IGF.
 October certainly would be late and we would not be able to do two rounds of consultations.  Only one.  That is the only reason why it was proposed in September. 
 But again, we do not know how many national/regional IGFs will contribute, and if there will not be sufficient number, then most probably we need to accept that there is a failure of experiment.  If there is sufficient number, then we can go on with editing and proposing a document and continuing this experiment.
 So we really need to gather information and see how many.
 For the moment, I know there are three or four.  I hope that there will be a dozen, because only a dozen for me would make sense.
 So therefore, we need -- we need to see how things evolve.
 I am not in a position to make even a proposal, except a proposal that we need to continue reflection and postpone the decision until one of the next meetings we will have over the phone.
 In the meantime, we would keep UNESCO's kind agreement to host eventually a meeting in Paris 2, 3, 4 September, which is Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or 4, 5, which is Thursday, Friday, depending on our future decisions, and we will decide that on a later stage.
 Would that be acceptable?  Thank you.
 I -- with this, we have exhausted the agenda of this meeting, and we are three minutes ahead of schedule, which is a good result, so I would like to thank all of you for very thorough and passionate work.  It was extremely easy for me to chair the meetings, all these sessions, and we achieved a majority of the results that we wanted to achieve.
 I also -- I would like to thank our scribes and would like to thank interpreters who helped us, though we used only one language, but I think there were also francophone in the room who listened also in French, and remote participants also may have used French.
 That said, I also noted that there might be further reflection needed on our working methods.  What I would like to say is that methodology of evaluation helped us enormously, and for that, Susan, Fiona, and others who worked on that methodology, I think that you deserve our gratitude for your really hard work and good outcome.
 Whether we need to continue in this way next time or we need to define a new methodology, not in evaluation but in engineering of IGF, that is maybe something we need to discuss.
 Historically we have been working with this bottom-up approach where an open call was put forward and then we selected proposals out of those who suggested. 
 Of course there is another way, or maybe several ways, how to organize a meeting which would be maybe perceived more as a top-down, but that would provide much more maybe structured approach and would be more focused on certain desired outcomes than this open approach. 
 I have no opinion and I'm looking forward to a discussion about that.  I understand that Fiona has some ideas that she would like to present at one point, whether in writing or in one of the next meetings, but in the meantime, we have done the majority of our work, we have selected workshops.  I believe that this is a good choice.  I think we have explanation for reasoning why we discriminated some -- why we put some up on the agenda which were scored lower, and I think the community will understand that, will understand us, and will understand our reasoning.
 So once again, thank you very much for your work, and safe return back to your home countries or those who are staying in Geneva, good weekend.  The weather will be perfect.  On Sunday, the -- there is an open caves in Geneva, so please walk around, walk in those wineries here, get a drink for free, but remember abuse of alcohol is a bad thing.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So please enjoy your weekend here, those who are staying on for WSIS forum.  So thank you very much.  Meeting stands adjourned.
 [ Applause ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And of course as always, I forgot all those who worked in preparing this meeting, Chengetai and the team.  I think the team also deserves a round of applause.  Thank you very much.
 [ Applause ]


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