You are here

IGF 2015 Third Open Consultations and MAG Meeting 3 September

The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Open Consultations of the IGF, in Paris. 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.

***

 

Thursday, 03 SEP 2015
Paris, France

 

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome back to the MAG meeting.  Good morning, remote participants.
I hope that yesterday afternoon's working sessions on modalities of main sessions were successful and you have progressed in your thinking and planning for main sessions.
We will be hearing maybe reports back from -- about main session progress tomorrow, but let me walk you through today's agenda and how I would like to see this meeting evolving.
So we will start with a stock-taking on best practice forums.  We have six of them.  I will invite coordinators to report on progress and then engage in Q&A.
So then we will be talking about dynamic coalitions. 
And all that should lead us until noon.
And at noon, we would suspend the MAG meeting and we would open -- we would start the meeting of the open-ended editing group and we would talk about -- we would look at the draft output on next billion.  So for about an hour.
As we heard yesterday, the initial request was to look at clusters of issues in that document that would be helpful for future work of secretariat in populating the document with substance.
So after lunch break, we would continue with the meeting of the open-ended editorial group, so as it suggests, open-ended is open-ended.  Everyone who wants to participate can participate.  Those who do not want to participate may not participate.
From the other side, if there is a need for further consultations on any other topic, be it best practices, be it main sessions, I think this also could be used -- this time could be used for coordinators and interested MAG members to do those activities, and then the secretariat, of course, will provide the necessary support in terms of rooms and remote participation.
And then at 4:00, we would break again in six working streams and would continue working on modalities of main sessions as we agreed yesterday.
So this is more or less the agenda as -- and the method how I see we would work today, and the question is:  Would that be acceptable?
If that's the case, so let us move then to best practice forums in a way as they are listed in our agenda. 
Developing meaningful multistakeholder participation mechanisms, Avri is the coordinator and, Avri, if I may ask you to brief us on the state of play in this best practice forum.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Yes, I've been -- Brian and I have been sort of co-coordinating.  Now that he's gone fuller into the secretariat, perhaps, you know, he'll be able to pay a little less attention to us but he's paid an amazing amount of help so far.
So anyhow, we started with last year's output, did a certain amount of walk-through and discussion of that.  Then the group -- and the group has been meeting on an irregular biweekly schedule.  We intend biweekly but we don't quite get to it.  But we've been meeting, you know, periodically, and did discussions on that old paper, decided that we wanted to move forward in terms of looking for the actual cases, either things that worked well or things that didn't work so well.  We had an open call and comment on that, got a number of comments.  Unfortunately I don't remember how many.  Maybe Brian knows exactly how many but I don't remember.  Some of them were papers, some of them were short things according to the template.
Brian has since done a synthesis of those and a restructuring of the paper, and in the last week that went up for public comment on the IGF platform, you know, paragraph by paragraph, and people have started the commenting.
So that's where we are now.
The next steps are we will start as -- first of all, we'll collect some more comments and then we'll start going back to our -- "start going back," okay, that's a bad construction.  But we will be back to our periodic meetings and start walking through the document, trying -- basically treating this team, as it were, since it's somewhat small, as sort of the editing process of doing a walk-through.
And that's where we are.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Any questions to Avri on substance?  On process?  On timing?
Marilyn, please.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  And -- Marilyn Cade speaking.
Thank you, Avri for that report.
I just have a clarifying question. 
Yesterday there was a question that Markus raised and I don't think we fully addressed it.  Maybe we partially addressed it.  And that is, there were certain criteria established in order to be included, because we have, I think, 10 to 12, but eight met certain criteria.  Then there was a question that Markus raised of, you know, are we going to be -- are we going to be sticking to the criteria?
Could I ask --

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.

>>MARILYN CADE: So first of all, I have a question, but secondly I have a comment.

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Can I answer the question? 

>>MARILYN CADE: Yes.

>>AVRI DORIA: That's the dynamic coalitions, not the best practice forums.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Right.  Sorry.  I was going to ask whether there was any implications -- thank you.  Okay.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I have a question. 
So since this is the topic which was taken over from last year as well, can we expect that by November this best practice stream will be finalized completely and we will be able to put the thing on the Web site and move to other topics in 2016?

>>AVRI DORIA: Can we expect?  We can certainly hope that it will reach an annealing point.  Obviously strengthening multistakeholder participation is not a subject that we'll ever be done with, but certainly we can take it off the table as an immediate work item at least for a while, you know. 
So, yes, I have every hope that we can expect to reach an annealing point where we say, "Okay, we've gotten to where we're going to get to for now, let's work with this and then, you know, review it again in a couple years if we still exist."

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we will.  We are condemned to succeed.
Okay.  Any further questions to Avri? 
Please, Elizabeth.  ICC/BASIS.

>>ICC/BASIS: Good morning, everyone. 
Avri, some of our members have raised a question around the terminology of a rough consensus and I just wondered if you could help us understand where that's at today and where that landed in the discussions.

>>AVRI DORIA:  It hasn't landed yet.  It's basically the discussion really just started in the last couple weeks when this draft came out and we're really going to have to go through, I think, a definition process on what we mean in this paper by "consensus" because one of the places that we have is a lot of people treat "consensus" as a general term that means any number of processes, but there are a group of people that adamantly believe that "consensus" means full consensus.
So we have to find a way of expressing it. 
Then there's the term "rough consensus" that a lot of people have started using.  Some people believe that it is strictly defined by the IETF and has no other meaning, whereas others have started arguing, "No, like 'consensus,' it's started drifting into general usage."
So I think we're going to have to spend a little time on what we say, you know, because at ICANN we talk about ICANN consensus, at this place we talk about this kind of consensus, and that whole discussion of whether consensus is full or not.
So it obviously needs a definitional paragraph, footnote, something, but we're just at the beginning of trying to deal with what's the right word to use.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Follow-up question?  No?  Any further questions? 
If none, then let us move to the next, and that is regulation/mitigation of unsolicited communications.  In other words, spam. 
Markus?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  And as the spam and CSIRT was a take -- from -- a leftover from last year and the continuation of last year, I would actually like to introduce both of them together and ask Wout, who has been driving the substantive discussion to fill in, but we have thoughts. 
Last year we had already a program for future work and we held some calls early on and we thought we're coalescing around a program, but we found it actually difficult to get started.  Maybe there was a certain volunteer fatigue of the experts.  So our report is not up yet.  The skeleton -- but the skeleton report for both issues is ready now and will be posted shortly.
As I said, we have been maybe a bit slow at getting started, but we are now, I think, in full swing.
Also, I think I reported on a call a very positive experience we had was with the CSIRTs.  We learned -- it was during a WSIS forum held at the ITU last May.  There was a colleague, Vlad from Diplo, who is based in Belgrade in Serbia who reported back that in Serbia they had used last year's report as a template to build their own CSIRT in Serbia.  So this is actually a very valuable case study and a very tangible output of last year's exercise.  But with that, I will ask Wout to fill in any more on the substantive details, and obviously be happy to engage in discussions later on.

>>WOUT DE NATRIS:  Thank you, Markus.  Wout De Natris, one of the consultants, as you know. 
Let me start with the CSIRT group because that is the one that is most straightforward at this point in time.
They all concluded that whatever came out of last year circled around one topic, which is misconceptions about the work that CSIRTs do, and basically that got the same group of people -- sorry -- discussing with each other about these misconceptions but we were not able to attract any attention from other stakeholders.
So as consultants, I asked the experts, "Do we remain with that, are we happy with that, or are we trying to do this extra reach-out effort by becoming less sensitive to topics and perhaps become a bit more explicit?"
So usually the terms "Are other entities misunderstand our work," so I asked them, "Who are these entities?  Can you start giving real -- real examples where things go wrong?  Where did you stop working with another CSIRT because the trust was broken?" 
Because the work they do is all based on trust and sensitive information that is being shared with each other.
So they agreed to make that one of the topics, so that is in the skeleton report which I hope we will be all right publishing this afternoon.  I'm waiting for a final okay from the -- because it's only ready since last week.
So with that, perhaps we are able to engage other stakeholders directly in Joao Pessoa and try to get them at the table to respond to these sort of topics.
So that means that we're in a sort of deadlock.  It could well be that this is the end of the discussion because nobody wants to engage because you probably talk about military or you talk about other sort of governments that they used to work with or private CSIRTs who don't want to work with government CSIRTs in general anymore.  We have to find out.  And perhaps it's possible that the definition of a CSIRT, which was drafted about 20 years ago, maybe is not valid in 2015 anymore.  So that's the sort of thing that I think this group has to find out and establish.
So that is where we are, which is pretty straightforward.
If we look at the spam group, there we settled on two topics:  Statistical data, which comes from other parties than antivirus companies which have a commercial stake at making things as bad as possible.  I'm not offending anybody, hopefully, but that's basically what was said.  And the other one is also connecting the next billion, but that from a cybersecurity point of view, so in what way do developing nations need to be aided to make people come on board, on line, in a secure way.
Well, both these topics did not really attract any attention, so the statistical data is not provided because it's sort of secret for other companies and sensitive and perhaps even with -- dedicated to conflict with competition authorities.  So in other words, that could maybe be an issue to discuss with competition authorities, but we haven't settled on that yet.
The other one is that the connecting the next billion, how are we going to get information, it just was not coming, so we decided to go through IGF Africa, which has their meeting in two or three days from now, and we had a survey drawn up, together with them, to send out through their membership which led to all of 15 responses, but these 15 responses, despite the fact that you could never say this is general agreeable statistical data, some of the answers are pretty straightforward.
14 out of 15 countries do not have an anti-spam law.  8 out of 7 [sic] do not have a cybercrime or cybersecurity law, et cetera.
So things are pretty straightforward.
We also asked them, "What do you need in training and who needs to be trained and can you give us the examples that you need except what we make up for you?" 
Well, that's the sort of thing that we tried to do.  We did get some answers on that which will be in the report.
From there on, we decided, "Well, perhaps the mitigation of botnets could be a third topic that could be introduced," and that started to get information straight away from everybody concerned, so we have a new topic.  But because we are in such a new phase, we have to look at what the lead experts really decide on where they want to go, and that's what I can't talk about at this point in time because I am still finding out what they want to do with the topic.
But it could be -- and now I'm being very careful in my wording, so it could be that we're going in another direction, but it may be about things like leadership, what sort of examples are there out there in the world where one person, one stakeholder said, "I'm going to take ownership of this particular problem" and reached out to a completely different set of stakeholders and together they came up with a topic to mitigate DDOS attacks.  So there's an anti-scrub street in the Netherlands wherein five, six completely different sort of organizations work together.  Once they are attacked by a denial of service attack, then it goes to the scrub street and the DDOS is taken away and the legitimate traffic is rerouted to the owner, basically.
So in other words, that's the sort of example that maybe could be put out into the world as something which is special.
Well, that's the sort of thing that we are looking at, whether that's the right direction, and we hope to be able to present that in two weeks' time, and then from there on, the 25th of September, which was the agreed-upon date, is where we're going to go forward on.
And yes, in some of these topics, we really need input from -- also from MAG members which we hope to be able to discuss later today or tomorrow morning to see if we can get the sort of information that would help this group forward.  And for the CSIRT group, it's the same.  If there are groups that are not -- policy CERTs which are not here, basically, we need some input from other sort of organizations on this topic which I talked about, because without it, it's just dead in the street.  So that's where we are at this point.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you very much for this report.  Any questions to Markus or Wout?  Marilyn, please.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you so much for that report.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
I guess I'm struck -- I just need a bit of clarification.
I kind of was understanding -- and I haven't, by any means, had the time to participate directly, but I was taking away just a little bit from your comments that on the one hand you weren't getting a lot of responses about formalized solutions, and on the other hand, you gave an example of what I, coming from the Internet community, would have considered the right approach, and that is a group of ISPs who dealt with a technical challenge to their networks and came up with a solution.
It doesn't take -- I come from the Internet community so I'm just -- you know, to me it doesn't take a regulatory approach to achieve that, but it might take technical competence and experience and expertise on the part of the ISPs.
So could you comment on, you know, was I understanding that you were giving that as an example that was hard to document or you were giving that as an example that perhaps we should try to find more illustrations of it or were you giving that as an example that perhaps regulators -- whoever they are -- competition authorities, regulatory authorities of the telecom industry, might want to become engaged in this? 
I was sort of seeking some clarification.

>>WOUT DE NATRIS:  That's a good, valid question.
This is Wout De Natris.
Yes, the example is the second one.  So as I said, we were looking at two different topics and nothing much came from it, and only since the return of my holiday we try to look at are there other topics, and this is -- the example I gave is literally -- is not the ISPs because one of the major ISPs went down last week for two or three days whatever.  They're not participating.  One hosting company said, "I can't afford to do this on my own," started reaching out to others.  And they said, "Well, let's do this together."  They brought together half a million Euros or something to build this thing.  And then ServNet, which is the university network of the Netherlands, said we're going to participate.  The domain name organization, the .NL ccTLD decides to incorporate the M6s.  Oh, but then we're going to give you the space. 
And it was not a government official inside. 
So, in other words, not a regulator, nothing.  Just one guy taking ownership of a problem that his company was dealing with.  And that's the sort of examples that we would like to hear from other countries.  Are there other examples like this?  And that could actually help anybody in the world with examples.  We've got a few others lined up.  Unfortunately, most of them are all from the Netherlands.  But that's probably because I know these guys personally and they are willing to give the example.  One of them is even coming to Joao Pessoa, will probably be on the cyber security main session to explain about this topic.
So, in other words, that's the sort of thing that we're looking for.  And that's why I'm addressing the MAG.  If you have any examples like this, please provide them. Because we can put them in the report.
And then we don't just have two or three Dutch examples.  So that's, hopefully, my answer. 
And third -- perhaps a final comment that is not necessarily government that it's leading.  It could be another role as a facilitator.  But perhaps it could be doing it without a government.  Just as industry.  So that is something which is a different answer that people usually, give because usually they point to the government you take care of it.  It is not necessarily so on the Internet.  And I think most governments know that by now.  But that's the sort of examples where we are looking for at this moment. 
The way it's going to present it on, I just can't tell yet because it's none of the lead experts at this moment.  I'm just facilitating the sort of content for them at this moment.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Constance.
 
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you.  And thank you for the report. 
As Markus and Wout mentioned, the CSIRTs and the spam are groups that pre-existed -- they already existed for IGF in 2014.  Last year, there was a lot of enthusiasm, energy that went in the group.  And I think Wout, to a certain extent, is absolutely correct.  I mean, there was a lot of excitement last year.  And perhaps that group, perhaps, is, you know, reaching the end of its mandate, which leads to the discussion of how do we decide when to stop the groups?  In any case, it's something the MAG needs to consider.  Because some of the themes are good for one year, two years.  But we also need to consider, you know, making room for new themes for future editions of the IGF.  Thank you.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  There is a remote participant.
 
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Hi.  On behalf of Subi, she has a question for Wout. 
In emergencies SIRTs are recommending blocking and take-downs with great frequency.  Will the outcome be a manual for SIRTs for an emergency?
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Could you please read again?
 
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Sure.  Sorry.
In emergencies, SIRTs are recommending blocking and take-downs with great frequency.  Would the outcome be a manual for SIRTs for an emergency?
 
>>WOUT DE NATRIS:  This is not a topic that we're addressing at this moment.  But, if it's something that Subi likes answered, put it into the group and then an answer will be arrived at. 
But we're looking really at the misconceptions between other entities and CSIRTs.  So that's a completely different topic.  But it could be in there.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  United States.
 
>>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, Chair.  Good morning, everyone.  And thank you for those reports. 
Given that the best practice forums and other proceedings of the IGF are meant to be resources for others, I really appreciated the example that something had been used by somebody in the construct of their own deliberations.  And I think those kinds of examples are things that would be great for the best practice forums or anyone to capture in a more deliberate way and make available as we assess the value or describe the value of this intersessional work.  So I really, really appreciate that.  Thanks.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.  Any further questions, comments? 
Markus, please.
 
>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Just a reaction to Constance's point.  And I would fully agree with her.  I think we have reached maybe the end of the cycle with both spam and CSIRTs.  I agree also with her assessment there was much more energy in the exercise last year.  There was a lot of unfinished business.  And I think we are getting there.  And I would also suggest winding down this year with both of these best practice forums over -- the issue as such will continue.  But I think we should take a rest and maybe revisit later.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you. 
Let us move then to the next topic.  And that is practice to counter abuse against women online.  So reporter is Jac.
 
>>JAC SM KEE:  Sorry.  Just give me a moment.
So I guess it's a little bit of a different energy from the CSIRTs one.  It's starting to gain quite a lot more momentum as we speak.  We've had, I think, about 10 meetings, if I'm not mistaken.  And we are starting to get also more and more responses from different stakeholders, which is really encouraging.
So what we have right now is a series of quite substantive inputs in various formats.  We did a survey, I think, that opened for about a month to sort of, like, do the scoping exercise in terms of what is the definition of the problem, different kinds of experiences, what are some of the impacts and underlying causes? 
And we received -- let me just check here.
We received 57 responses from different stakeholders, which is really fantastic.  And I also want to really thank Anri's help in relation to the work of this BPF as well.  It's really been tremendous with her support.
So the 57 responses are now in the process of being inputted into the draft document.  So we have a draft document that we are all working on, which is on a Google Doc and is a live document.  And it's constantly being updated and commented upon.  And then we sort of take it on -- take it back and clean it up and work different comments into it.
So the document is -- the link for the document is on the site, as you can see.  And you're very much welcome to also have a look at it and input comments and thoughts into that particular space.
Apart from that document, as well as the survey, we also had a call for case studies.  So one of the recommendations that came out was that it could be very useful to have examples of case studies from different countries and different contexts in terms of how this is being experienced and the different kinds of challenges that are being faced and the different kinds of responses and remedies that are being -- that are tried and that are available.
So we've had, I think, 14 case studies that have been either committed to -- we haven't received them all yet.  But they are coming more and more, especially in the last week or so.  So the timing is also quite -- I think everybody in the BPF is also quite clear that the timing is quite urgent.
It's also receiving quite a lot of interest that the IGF is doing this work from different groups.  That's really great.  I think also because it's very timely.  So, for example, the ITU and U.N. are doing a report on non-violence.  And they've been really excited with this process, really wanting to come in to also contribute.  And they're launching their research -- they're launching their own report later this month.  And they have also asked us to see if we can somehow participate in that.
So it's been gaining momentum and gaining interest and gaining much more input as well from different parties.  So that's been quite good. 
The challenge now I think is really trying to consolidate and pull in all of the different types of submissions into one document.  And it may not actually end up looking that way.  It may not end up looking quite so neat.  And I think that's okay. Because what's been really great about the BPF also has been the process.  So really trying to figure out methodology and processes to open it up to encourage more participation and conversations and discussions. 
So one of the things that we are also planning -- and Subi and Sudaf is leading this -- this is a conversation around this topic.  And how then do we also integrate this into the final piece of the work?
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.  Any questions?  I understand that you have secretarial support which is sufficient.  Can you tell whether document will be ready for November meeting in a way that we could present it during the main session?
 
>>JAC SM KEE: There will definitely be a document.  There are currently many documents.
So I guess it depends if we are aiming for uniformity across the BPFs, which maybe is not the best way forward because different BPFs have different trajectories and different moments in terms of how it's being engaged on. 
Right now really we have three sets of -- three types of document.  One is the draft output document, which is pretty much, I think, as imagined.  It has the overview, the problem definition, these are the cases, et cetera, responses, some examples, so on and so forth.
And this -- we are aiming for this to be at least pretty much in a clean format by at most end of September.  So that's what we're aiming for. 
But feeding into this document is a range of other documents which is the survey, the case studies.  And we've also reached out to the BPF on SIRTS, because that's one of the recommendations that came up because maybe SIRTS have a response.  All of these things we need to integrate into the document.  It may not look the same, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, until it is readable and very clearly defined, that's fine, even if the format is different.
But maybe I will ask secretariat to look at it and then provide all necessary help.  Because this is a new topic.  And we really need to demonstrate in November the outputs are -- that are mature and well-defined.
So thank you, Jac, for your help and effort in this regard.
So, in absence of further questions, let me move to IPv6.  IPv6, please, go ahead.

>>WIM DEGEZELLE:  Good morning.  Wim Degezelle, consultant for the IPv6 best practice forum. 
I have to say, on behalf of Susan and Izumi that they really regret that they can't be here today.  Although I think Izumi just managed to follow remotely at this moment.  So, if there are any questions, Izumi will be happy to answer or to jump in.
I put -- Carl, can you maybe put that on the screen?  I put a short overview of where we are at this moment on the Web site.  Because the group is working on I think three different streams at the moment.
The first is defining the topic, publishing IPv6 background document, which is not only explaining, of course, what IPv6 is, also why it has been applied now and what are the main hurdles. 
I must say within the group we have five, six conference calls until now with a various number of participants, up to 10 at least.  I mean, within the group there is really some concern to have that document easy, not technical, and really aimed at the audience that comes to an IGF meeting.  That has been true throughout the discussions.  Okay.  We don't have to jump into this or this technical thing because the people that we want to reach at an IGF meeting or even after the IGF meeting, the people we want to reach with this document, they will stop reading if we go or dive into that.  So that document is the first part of the work. 
The second part is really looking at different best practices trying to look at groups.  Like you can see, we want to discuss task forces that -- things that happen in different countries.  Try to analyze them, try to -- it's a little bit like collecting good examples.  But, in the meantime, trying to come up with some analyzers and saying, okay, we see that this and this and this has been working in a couple of countries, specifically looking for reasons why an initiative works or reasons why an initiative doesn't work.  Because also true to discussions it becomes clearer that it is not because in country A this project will work.  That will work in another country.
So that's one of the main discussions or main work that's going on at this moment.
The third part of the work is a survey that is still online by which we try to collect as much as possible examples from everywhere in the world.  I mean, we had the (indiscernible) sending it to their mailing list, we really ask send it on Twitter to collect as much as possible examples of what is happening in different parts of the world.
What we'll do with this is it feeds, of course, into the best practice discussions we're having.  But next to it, we also want to publish that document as a kind of annex as kind of a compilation of what is happening in the world.  Because some of the examples we maybe don't -- won't have the time to discuss in the best practice part of the document.  Where are we now?  Carl, if we can go to the next.
So we have discussed and finished that background document.  And that part is online on the -- for public comment.
So we are looking forward to anybody that has commented.  The best practice part is still being discussed.
And I think in different steps we will try to add it as soon as possible also on the web platform so that there's still a period for public comment between now and the IGF meeting so that both -- I mean, there is a draft document ready before the meeting that still can -- or will be discussed and can have additional inputs during the IGF meeting itself.
The idea is to keep the best practice survey open.  So that's even during the IGF meeting itself, if somebody is in the room saying, okay, but I'm doing this or that in my country, that we can also say please fill in the survey.  Then we will just add it to the compilation of documents.
There is already a draft compilation of survey responses online if you look in the documents section.  The idea is to keep that document -- I mean, it's not -- no analysis. We just take what people are sending in.  We put it in a document so that maybe -- I mean maybe at the next step, if there is time, we can have a look at those documents.  But the idea is to have examples online already next to that analysis.
So happy -- I don't know if Izumi has to add something.  But I have to add something or Izumi is happy to take questions.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Wim, for the update on the work.  Izumi is online.  Please, Izumi, you have the floor.  Any questions on this particular best practice workstream?  I see none.  There is one.  ICANN, Nigel.

>>ICANN:  Yeah, sorry.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And good morning. 
I just wondered whether this group had looked at all or worked at all with the work that's going on in the OECD on IPv6.  There's been quite a bit of work, analysis, and reporting on the economic issues and the policy issues and also the drivers for adoption of IPv6 in the OECD under the economic committee.  So I wondered if there's any links there or, if not, then no doubt we could try and facilitate that.  Thank you.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Wim.

>>WIM DEGEZELLE:  I don't know.  I would quickly answer.  Definitely we are looking at any type of background documents that is available and information and research will be taken into account. 
But what I feel is that the group and the coordinators freely prefer -- really in the first place would like to have the people organizing an event or doing a project in their country to come back and to say, look, this is what worked with us and this didn't work rather than coming up with a background document. 
The idea is there are already a number of documents online on the Web site to have them as background.  But, at this moment, I feel the preference is to have the people that run the projects to come and say what works and didn't work.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  Thank you. Izumi, are you on online?

>>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Yes.  Thank you, Wim, for this comprehensive update.  So I don't have much to add except that we are actually ensuring the regional balance in the cases that we collect so that it doesn't fit with just the situation of a particular country or just the situation of developed countries and so that people can actually choose as a menu of the practices that would fit within their environment.
And, regarding Nigel's question, if you're talking about the paper that was developed by Geoff Huston, actually, we did ask him to make a contribution.  And our paper has referenced based on what is written there.
And we are also trying to get a link to that OECD document, so that we actually can clarify the source where this information is.  We haven't actually confirmed the exact link, so if you have any information, that would be really helpful for us to add it as a reference, and if there's any other documents within the OECD that we should refer to, in addition to Geoff Huston's paper, we're certainly happy to look into that as well.
And then I think you've actually highlighted a very good point about the economic aspects of this, and I think many of the participants recognize that this is a very key important element in getting the people motivated, so it's an area that we also plan to work in our document.
Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Izumi, for this intervention and update.  Now I would warn that the next intervention will be in French.  Those who do not master French, please put your headsets on, because the next speaker is Kossi.  Kossi?

>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I am Kossi from Benin. 
I'm glad to see that experts in their preliminary work are trying to explain why some initiatives do not work in some areas.
So maybe they should also look into the French-speaking countries in Africa.  People notice that international groups go to Africa, they do have some subsidiaries, and they speak about IPv6, IPv4.  So in order to have that, they have to justify that they have a company in Africa. 
So why is IPv6 not working in Africa?  You need to have enough IPv4 addresses on the African continent.
In our different countries, there is a technical issue for the professionals, and also there is a political aspect to it, so it is about monitoring what is occurring on our territories.  This is also an issue that has to be taken into account. 
Each equipment can be identified and everything happening on one equipment can be identified, but you know that in some countries they want to monitor what opponents are doing so people are wondering whether this is not going to help in order to keep an eye on opponents.
Thank you very much for your comment, "Maybe you should discuss with the consultants and provide them with examples," and as you've heard, the idea is to compile examples from everywhere, every region in the world, and to try to have a balance between regions, so that we will cover and have a clear picture of what is happening in the different regions, different countries of the world.
So thank you very much for your question.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any immediate reaction to the intervention?  Not necessarily that I'm -- just if you have. 
Izumi, please.  Izumi.

>>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Yes.  So it's very much consistent with what the chair has described.  So we're conscious about this regional balance and fortunately we have the RIRs very proactively involved in this, so we're actually making sure that we get the cases of Africa being introduced through the RIR colleagues and any other people who would know about the cases in Africa.  So this is covered.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Any further questions?
In absence, we are moving then --
Thank you, Wim.  Thank you, Izumi. 
We are moving now to the next best practice workstream, and that is on IXPs.

>>GAEL HERNANDEZ: Hello.  Bonjour.  Good morning, everyone.  Gael Hernandez, for the record.
So I'm one of the coordinators of the best practice forum on enabling environments for establishing successful IXPs.  Already the name had -- needed some -- some work from the group members. 
I'm happy to say that there is a Version 3 of a draft document on line and it is right now at a stage where it's open for comments.  The draft is -- well, it has some sections more developed than others, but we're building on it.
Just to give a little bit of a context setting, we've had like five meetings so far, which I think, considering that the summer was in between, was not bad at all.  We've managed to have an average group of 10, 12 people, but we see there's a core membership of five, six persons. 
In terms of representatives, we have representatives from different sectors.  I think that one of the very positive things for these best practice forums is the technical community, and particularly IXP operators, are involved directly somehow, and there's also contributions by individuals generally wearing a neutral hat but working for the private sector and also the public sector, so there's been members of governments participating on the calls.  Well, on the calls and giving feedback into the process.
This is -- now, in terms of substance, I want to give a little update. 
I think that one of the main things that was important for us was to decide the focus of the document.  We looked at the IGF as a forum where we want -- there will be much more policymakers and discussions at a policy level, so we decided -- we thought -- we brainstormed and we decided that we would like the document to talk mainly at that level.
So we've tried to -- and it's very difficult because the Internet exchanges are, by default, a technical component of the Internet, but we're trying to move away from technical discussions although there is a full section on the benefits and the role and why they exist, and try to focus into the environment and into the elements that are part of a particular region, country, a local municipality, and those -- and how we can enable them to make it work.
So that is going to be somehow the focus of the document.
We started with an empty skeleton that we built throughout the calls.  We've been validating the different -- the different sections and looking for input within the group, so we've made mini task forces within the group to try to lead some of these sections.
In order to incorporate, well, experiences and case studies from different regions around the world, we've built a survey which is on line, and I welcome you to -- if you have direct connections with your country with Internet exchanges or if you want to come and see me later, to participate in the survey.
The survey is targeted at Internet exchange operators.  We'd like to know had how they -- they were set up, what was the constraints they found, what were the challenges, how did they overcome them, so we've built a survey around those very generic and very important topics because we want detailed -- we want those details to be incorporated in the document because they will be the richness of the whole best practice.
In order to reach out as good as possible, we've -- we're contacting CTO, CTU, we're working with the Internet Society and Packet Clearinghouse, in order to try to, again, bring the balance of the different regions and make sure that there is -- I don't know if I can say "even" -- but an equal fairness in participation, so we can get the different views.
Countries and territories are very, very, very different from each other, so it's the richness that will be valued in the document.
I think that so far, I've covered --
We will expect to have a document for the actual IGF but we're still -- we're still editing, as we speak, so I really encourage anyone with -- well, with ideas, with points that would like to make sure they are included, to -- to be part of the mailing list and to -- and to start working with us.  We appreciate any help.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you very much for this update and progress report.  I see you are working hard.
My question is:  Do you have sufficient secretarial support?

>>GAEL HERNANDEZ: Yeah.  So far, it's -- it's good.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Any other questions?
Mark, please.

>>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  And thank you very much for the report.  That's very good progress.
And I just have a particular question about one particular part of the report with regard to incentives and regulatory policy, government approaches and so on.
To what extent will the final version go into that in some detail in respect of ensuring the regulatory environment is one that is conducive, promotes incentives for the development of IXPs, in view of the benefits that the report will have described?
I take it from your report that it will go into some detail on benefits, so in terms of output directed at policymakers in government, the section on incentives and the regulatory environment will be quite important, so I just wanted to check the extent to which it will cover that in sort of recommendations, what has worked, what doesn't work, constraints, and so on.
Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Michael Nelson?

>>MICHAEL NELSON:  Michael Nelson with CloudFlare. 
And just to add to Mark's comments, I hope you will take the broader picture and spend a lot of time looking at the regulatory environment.
At CloudFlare, last year our CEO published a blog post where he documented what the different costs of connectivity are in different regions.  We found for our company we were paying more to connect to the 40 million people in Australia than to all of the 400 million people in Europe, and we were buying more bandwidth in Europe.  The reason, of course, was the different regulatory environment, the different competitive landscape, and the fact that we could not get peering as easily in the Australian region.
So if you can document how different regions are more conducive or less conducive to peering and the development of IXPs, that could be an incredibly powerful contribution that this report could make, and I think the data plus the regulatory environment analysis would really come a long way to having an impact.  Thank you.  But thanks for the great work.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Michael.  And my apologies.  I didn't transfer any time on my phone calls because I don't have number recognition.  I don't know who is calling and in case that's my wife, so...
Please, take it as a joke.
Gael, it any reaction to comments?

>>GAEL HERNANDEZ: Yes.  So the regulatory environment will be treated in the document.  At which extent and which level of detail, well, it will be also depending on the contributions that we receive. 
In terms of market development and somehow specific -- specificalities, we are going to enter the -- we're still assessing at which level of detail we're going to go.  There are -- there are important topics and topics that are -- you know, when you state them, they become very clear that there are differences in them, so we're going to touch those.  We're still figuring out to which extent and how we're going to touch them.  Yeah.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
Another question from Kossi.  Kossi?

>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Kossi from Benin. 
I'd like to ask the team if they have tried to see that when they're doing peering, they can see that in the same country, people who had satellite connections, paying international connection costs, can reduce such costs by following a strategy among the companies offering such solutions.  So there is going to be actually a problem for competition.
Let me answer in French.
There -- there's been a lot of work done on peering points, and peering points are very important for traffic exchange.  Even if there are some specific cases, as you mentioned, this is reasonable, your country might have established a peering point, so is it going to have an impact on how the network is connected?  Is it going to lead to more balanced and autonomous connection?  In some cases, there might be some symmetry, but the body of knowledge in general in this area shows that peering points do contribute to digital development and to the interconnection of networks in countries, so we are going to look into what you just said.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.
I think -- I think your response -- Marilyn Cade speaking -- partially answered the comment and question I was going to make.
When we saw the evolution of the first IXP in the world, operated by CIX, the Commercial Internet Exchange, when we first changed the national law in the United States to bring commercial traffic onto what was previously a government-only network which allowed research traffic from commercial providers such as AT&T Labs, et cetera, and universities, when we saw the introduction of CIX, we then had 7500 local IXPs in the United States.
Europe followed suit relatively quickly by introducing peering points, which then led to multiple and competing IXPs with different models in Europe.
It's been really interesting to me to watch this and to do -- to study it.
What I wanted to comment on is whether you will capture -- and I think you're saying "yes" -- whether you will capture the different dynamics and impact on costs when an I- -- when there are multiple IXP choices in a country which provide multiple access routes external to the country versus an IXP -- a single IXP in a country which can dramatically affect the cost of national and local traffic, when there are ISPs connecting to it but there may only be one choice for the international connection.
Will you capture that?  Those different examples?

>>GAEL HERNANDEZ:  So I suppose this is where the conversation becomes more complex.  Because there is -- there's -- yeah.  So when we talked and decided, we said, well, maybe we should focus in the environment.  But the environment does include -- there is some technical and economic issues that are, you know, interrelated absolutely.  And they are at the core of the dynamics and at the life of the exchanges. 
So I'm going to take your comment on board and see whether we can get into that level.  We're using already prepared reports and case studies by Internet society in Kenya and Nigeria.  And there's other publications that we're -- we're building on.  So we are expecting that maybe some of these economic issues will be -- well, they are touched on those reports.
But thanks for your comment.  Yes.  It is -- it is -- sorry.  It is a progression.  So, obviously, for us, I think, considering that there's still territories and countries that do not have Internet exchanges, I think that the focus or the main focus of the document is to provide a good practice for policy makers in a country that do not have Internet exchange and that can see how they can play with the different elements of the environment.  But I'll take your comments on board.
 
>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I just need to make one follow-up comment.  Please.  I also heard you -- Marilyn speaking again.  I also heard you talk about policy makers.
Actually, may I just -- and we can take this offline.  But the generation of IXP exchange points is not necessarily a regulatory matter.  It may be entirely a market matter. 

>>GAEL HERNANDEZ:  Yeah, I meant for the audience at the IGF.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  In absence of further questions, we can maybe conclude this part of the meeting where we received updates on state of preparation for best practice forum document that will be presented to IGF meeting.  I would like to thank all those who provided those updates.  And I will ask Juan Alfonso to continue.

>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 
I only wanted to comment around this best practice forum.  Because this is one of the most complete outputs of the IGF.  And the documents are really high quality.  And all the information.  But, unfortunately, it's very little known outside this community.  So what I want to point out is efforts should be made.  I don't know if it's only within the Web site of the IGF or some efforts of sending this -- I don't know -- to the search engines of articles.  Really, I don't know how to do it.  But I think that some effort should be done regarding the dissemination of these results.  Because our tangible results that could be consulted, even for people who have never been to an IGF, it's very useful.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much for this suggestion.  And I think that the communication group is looking at it.  And there are also other thoughts in the air in this respect. 
Constance, do you want to say something?
 
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Yeah, thank you.  I think it was a very good point that was just made.  And it's actually a point that emerged in all the various groups, best practices.  I think it was actually useful to have these groups gather expert profiles to start, although these groups were all open and anybody could participate, just to get started and, you know, have the drafts ready for, you know, September. 
But, once we have the drafts up, all of them, we have I think 4 out of 6 now.  And one of them is still at a skeleton stage.  Once we have the clean -- all the clean drafts up on the Web site, it will be a good time, I think, to do some sort of -- coming from the IGF Secretariat, some sort of formal outreach especially to governments. Because it's interesting to see we have business, technical communities, civil society.  We have IGOs.  But we have less individual governments.  And some sort of uniform call targeted to policy makers, September is going to be the right time, I think.  Thank you.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  One of the avenues to disseminate information is WSIS+10 review process.  We will have consultations on 19th of October with the stakeholders.  And that is also, in my view, a place where this should be mentioned.  And then subsequent governmental negotiations.  Also this information should be mentioned and floated by governments represented here in the room.  That is sure. 
Wout, please.
 
>>WOUT DE NATRIS:  Wout De Natris.  As I have the honor to be for the second year in a row one of the consultants, just let me give some personal thoughts and experience to what I've had -- been exposed to in the past years. 
As a general comment, what I noticed this year, as I said, it was harder to get enthusiasm from the same group of people.  What I did manage to do was to go to several conferences in the Netherlands just on my own.  The U.N. has there.  Just talking directly to people saying this is what I'm trying to do.  I know what you're trying to reach at.  Can you contribute?  Just because I had a one-on-one contact with them and they became enthusiastic. 
And I did manage to get a small grant to go to the NTBU's (indiscernible) working group in Dublin in June where I was able to talk to a lot of people one-on-one saying this is what I'm trying to achieve.  I need this sort of data from you.  Can you work with me on this?  And then, actually, you start getting the individual traction because you have the chance to do a one-on-one with people. 
So, if this sort of work continues, it may well be worthwhile to think about giving a couple thousand Euros or dollars or whatever to make consultants or somebody else in the group able to reach out actively to people you really need on board.  Because I notice in email it's easily to be ignored.  So that works less than getting to meet people one-on-one.  So that's one advice. 
I think that the other one is about people in the MAG who come from communities but also perhaps help reach out to people within their own stakeholder community to say we're trying to achieve this.  Is there a way so you can help us with coming up with a consolidated view from their stakeholder group, for example?  Because that would also tremendously help the sort of traction you get from different stakeholders.  So, in other words, if you talk about what Juan said about dissemination, the whole world is here.  So who is stopping us from actively bringing out the results and actually trying to get the input in?  And that's something where what I think could actually be better with what the topics are in the third year in 2016.  So that's just some comments on the side.  Thank you.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  With this, I would like to thank those who contributed to this part of the session and move to the next subitem.  And that's dynamic coalition.
We already touched upon the issue yesterday.  And we identified some topics that might be of common interest, including expectations by some groups that their work and output would be somehow acknowledged by the IGF.  We have about 35 minutes for this part.  And I will start by inviting Markus to launch the discussion.  Markus, please.
 
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes.  Thank you, Janis.  We had a good discussion yesterday.  And I think this best practice forum discussion has upped the issue.
Marilyn asked a question related to the dynamic coalitions what are the ground rules?  And I think also Avri pointed out the definition of consensus is still very open.
We had yesterday a very high-level exchange.  And this has since come up in a private exchange.  One of the dynamic coalitions come forward with a document.  And the question is:  Was there or was there not consensus on that?  And we have never actually discussed this.  What are these ground rules?  And I don't think that we will get there just now. 
But I think the ground rules is something I've always been struggling with.  Over the years we have set conditions for the dynamic coalitions.  If they want to get a slot at the annual meeting, at least they need to document that they had the report of the previous year.  They need to have a Web site.  They needed to have a list -- link to their mailing list published on the Web site as a few basic requirements. 
We have actually noticed that some of the dynamic coalitions that want to be part of the main session don't even fulfill these very basic requirements.  They have promised to amend them and make sure that at least these requirements are there. 
But, in the process of discussing what should be the basic requirements for being part of the main session, we developed this discussion a bit further. 
And yesterday some people suggested this could be a topic of the main session on dynamic coalition.  I would strongly advise against that.  I think we can use the process leading there as establishing some ground rules.  It's sort of a carrot and a stick.  If you want to be part of the main session, then at least abide by some ground rules.
In the exchange on the list, I had suggested as very basic principles that dynamic coalition should be inclusive, should be open, and transparent.  And, in practical terms, this would mean they should have a public membership list where everybody who wants can subscribe to be part of that list.  And, ideally, they should have open and public archived meeting -- archived lists so that anybody can check what the discussions were.
Originally, we had suggested, in order to have a level playing field, transfer your lists to the secretariat.  But there was some resistance, understandably so, because they said we have well-established lists.  And we're used to them.  And we are familiar with these lists, and they'll be too complicated.  Fair enough.
As a slightly less intrusive measure, we suggested then the secretariat be made a silent co-moderator.  That would allow the secretariat to check the lists should there be any questions.  And there was also some resistance against that.  Not by all of them.  And I have here an email I'll quote from.  And it was Jeremy Malcolm who actually wrote to the list.  And he said, "If you want to be completely independent of any strictures associated with the dynamic coalition being associated with the IGF, then you are at liberty to make your own independent group.  But I agree that it is long past time for some more basic governance standards to be applied to those groups that choose to call themselves the dynamic coalitions of the IGF, which carries with it certain status and should, therefore, come with certain responsibilities."
And I think that's where we are.  In many ways we can now use this these annual meetings as a focal point to establish these ground rules. 
And my question I asked yesterday should we be strict with enforcing these rules and say only those dynamic coalitions who actually abide by some basic principles are part of the main session, or should we be flexible?
In the past we have always been very flexible.  But I think a minimum discipline wouldn't do any harm. 
And these basic principles of openness and inclusiveness and transparency, I think, are very much part of the IGF's DNA.  If we want to have groups in the margins who are more advocacy groups, fair enough.  But then they should not be part of the mainstream.  This is, essentially, my question.  And I would be grateful for the MAG's guidance in this matter.  Thank you.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.  Thank you, Markus. 
Let me add another question to this, what Markus raised.  Should these -- if the guidance of the MAG would be we need the basic very simple rules in form of bullets that we could apply already for the IGF Brazil meeting, should -- sorry -- whether these rules should be applied for already for the Brazil meeting.  Do we need to rush with the identification and putting them on paper and publishing them before the Brazil meeting?  Or we could identify this as a to-do item immediately after the Brazil meeting at the beginning of the next IGF cycle provided that mandate is extended in December? 
So Marilyn, your comments first.  Then Virat.
 
>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
Markus, thank you so much for that.  But I guess I come to this with an understanding that we have criteria.  It's relatively high-level.  And we also have criteria, for instance, for the national and regional IGF initiatives, which we try to apply. 
Now we have a little flexibility in that a national and regional IGF may be delayed in getting their annual report in.  But then they fix it.  But they -- we do have criteria.
So I just wanted to clarify.  My understanding is we have criteria.  But we have perhaps a few dynamic coalitions that are not adhering to the present criteria.  So that's question 1a. 
Question 1b then I'd like to follow up.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat.
 
>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you, Markus, again, for your brief.  And, in principle, I agree with Markus the point that he's made.  Because I've seen from very close quarters the struggle that Markus has had in trying to convince the dynamic coalitions to try and follow the criteria which, quite honestly, exists in some rare format. 
I don't believe this was the most important piece of work on the minds of the previous MAGs, because the dynamic coalitions weren't seeking center stage with the main session.  And that is understandable.
But, if you're going to give dynamic coalitions a rightful space, a well-deserved space in the main sessions, as they have got themselves now on the day of their choice, then I think the criteria needs to be applied now.
It would be difficult to enforce the criteria later, if we allowed this process to go on where even the most basic requests that Markus has made have not been adhered to.
Again, I don't believe this is the challenge for all dynamic coalitions.  I don't think we should paint all the dynamic coalitions in the exact similar fashion.  I think the resistance is coming from some quarters and it's quite well documented.
So we should, I suppose, as a MAG, take a call, but if these are birds of feather, then they should act as birds of feather, but if it's a dynamic coalition which is under the IGF and wants recognition to be allowed to present --
I mean, just by contrast or comparison, look at the kind of stringent guidelines that are being applied to best practice sessions, intersessional work, all the other work which is very similar in nature and is being presented in main sessions.
So there is no -- we can't carve out an exception, especially for those who have been at this for years before, you know, this main session discussion occurred.
So I would strongly recommend for all those reasons --
And again, I want to be careful.  This is not all dynamic coalitions.  There is a challenge in a few.  We should try and sit, address those, but they need to be applied if main sessions have to be given, because what they present at main sessions then will see itself into the chair's report, and that will then become sort of follow-up items for future IGFs.
Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
Marilyn, question to you.
Which criteria are you referring to related to dynamic coalitions?  The one that is described on the Web site?

>>MARILYN CADE:  Yes.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Which is, "The concept of dynamic coalitions was established in first IGF.  These coalitions are informal.  Issues of specific groups comprising members of various stakeholder groups.  Most dynamic coalitions allow collaboration with anyone interested in contribution to their discussions," and so on.  So these are very vague.

>>MARILYN CADE:  And the criteria -- I would turn to Markus, but the criteria includes maintaining an inclusive Web site, an inclusive email list. 
I think -- I would ask Markus to comment on this, but I think I would just follow on to Virat's comment.  I think that we're not talking about all of the dynamic coalitions, but look, as someone who can easily open up the Web site list, I can show, as you can -- all of you -- that some of them list all of their participants and some have a list that is closed and the only way you can figure out who's on it is to sign up for the list.
That's not an open, transparent, inclusive list. 
You know, and I understand that the behavior may not be the same, but we are the IGF.  We're not just a birds of feather random collection of parties.
We need to have some adherence to a standard, and I really think -- and I'll ask Markus to comment on this, but my understanding is, the basic criteria is basic and minimal.
So I'll go back to the national and regional IGFs as an example.  We asked the national and regional IGFs to maintain a Web site, to maintain a working email, to present a report.  Some of them are a little delayed in getting their reports in, and we offer flexibility.
So if, for instance, a national or regional IGF didn't get their report in within a few months, before they get to participate in our upcoming substantive session, they're going to have to submit their report.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Dominique?

>>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Thank you.  And I just wanted to sort of support what both Marilyn and Virat have said, but I -- I do think the important aspect to this is the fact that the dynamic coalitions are being elevated to a level that is new for them this year, and I think rightly so.  I think that it will be interesting to see how that goes.  But because they're being elevated to that level, as Virat said, I think that they really need to adhere to the strict criteria.  And each group -- and again, some groups are different than others but each group should have a minimum level of adherence to that criteria.  So thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Cheryl, please. 
And thank you, Dominique.

>>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also, you know, agree with the points that Marilyn and Virat made, and I think, you know, this is actually a very important year for the IGF.
We're holding ourselves out as an organization that is built on open, transparent, multistakeholder.  You know, this is extremely important and there were some comments made yesterday -- I forget who made them -- that provided actually sufficient evidence that we need -- we have some work to do in terms of improving transparency.  And I'm a MAG member and I'm actually really embarrassed to say this but my name is on one of the lists for the dynamic coalition and I don't receive any of their emails, so if I'm a MAG member and I don't even have the ability to be receiving emails, I can imagine someone who is not even a MAG member, the issues that they might be having and what their perception might be.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Constance?

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much.  I think it's been said.  I mean, the nature of dynamic coalitions, because there's a main session and because there are outputs proposed for some of them, means that we really need to have a discussion about what do we want to do with them.
And I think that leads perhaps to the conclusion that we need to clarify the criteria and maybe add to them -- on the basis of what Markus was suggesting, add to the list of criteria that are currently available on the Web site before the IGF.  Especially because, again, some of them are working towards outputs.
I think the concerns that have been expressed are important.  At the same time, I think we should also balance them with a lot of the -- a lot of energy and participation that we see in some of these dynamic coalitions that we want to build upon.  It is a capital -- an asset we want to build upon.
You might remember that when we started the intersessional activities, we put out a survey and there was a specific question about what do we -- what does the community want to do with dynamic coalitions.
The majority of responses were that dynamic coalitions could be used, as they have been in the past, as a space to discuss informally, as it said on the Web site, and for those of them who feel that they should work towards an output, then they can evolve into a best practice, since we have an agreed framework and methodology for the best practice.
So maybe there's a way to bring these different pieces together and consider that dynamic coalitions are perhaps the first -- you know, the birds of the feather, the stage one.  Then for those who want to go a little bit further in having a recognized output by the IGF, they could evolve into a best practice or something else, and that would perhaps bring some legitimacy to the status of main session we've given them.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Ankhi.  Thank you, Chair.  I'd like to just add to some of the points which other colleagues have made before me.  There has to be some kind of consistency so that it feels -- it's just not the criteria, but also the tactics for transparency to be measurable.  The tactics have to be consistent with what is being applied on the main sessions in terms of making sure that there is an input -- there's a correlation between the input/output process.  Just to give an illustrative example, now that the dynamic coalition sort of outputs have been opened up for public comments on the IGF Web site, the various groups and various people who have provided comments to the IGF Web site because the lists have not been -- some of them, not all -- have not been very participative in terms of just keeping people informed, as Cheryl has mentioned.  So maybe there is a way to make sure that the Web site process, there's a -- there is this criteria -- there's this tactic which is applied where the engagement seems more real and the participation seems more real and is measurable in terms -- on the transparency metric.  Because currently it just feels that there is some selective -- there is some selective arrangement in terms of how that is being treated, and it's a real concern.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Avri, please?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.
I spent two years as chair of one of the dynamic coalitions, the Internet of Things one, and while we had that one, I was convinced that I needed to have a mailing list that was open to everyone with an open archive.
When I became co-facilitator with Markus, I found that that wasn't in our rules, so in addition to -- one of the things I think we need to think about going forward -- and this can't apply retroactively, but I think we also have to think about looking at these rules, perhaps in consultation with dynamic coalitions, and look at the notion of open archives, of open membership that, you know, accepts those -- those who want to join, that a dynamic coalition is open to anybody that wants to do it.  And obviously there need to be netiquette rules so you're not letting in people that come and disrupt.  That happens sometimes, but not often.
So I think that we need to look at not only enforcing them or making sure people live up to them, but also look at them over some period of time to get to the point -- I don't think we should dedicate the session to this kind of process stuff, but I do think it's important that they all have open archives and that they all be open to anyone that wants to participate who isn't disruptive.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Avri, for sharing your experience.  Juan Alfonso.

>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  You know, I've also been puzzled by dynamic coalitions.  I understand that they're very useful as a discussion medium.  That's one of the reasons for the IGF.  But I agree with Constance that maybe in order to make that into something useful in the end, there should be some process in which some dynamic coalitions could graduate to a best practice forum or something else.  But I'm not worried that they are going on and discussing and have the functioning better or -- what I'm concerned is about having two main sessions in the main event of a dynamic coalition.
I think that that has to be prepared very -- very detailed and try to -- well, only that.  That has to be prepared very detail.
On the other hand, it's rather a contradiction that we have two -- all at the same time for dynamic coalition, that for intersessional and best practice forum, that it's a more refined product of the IGF.  I think that that's something that also we should think about.  But, well, if we're going to have those sessions, I think they have to be prepared very thoroughly and with anticipation to avoid anything that could really hurt IGF.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I -- my understanding is that this session will be devoted to present the work of the -- each of the dynamic coalitions, and -- since we have, I think, nine or more, so that's why we needed more time.
Avri, am I right?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.  Thank you.  And I just wanted to point out that we got one session and then got an agreement to split it into two, but to now think of having two sessions is something that I sort of wanted to make a comment on.  That we have one session split into two, as it were.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Cheryl, please.

>>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just wanted to thank Avri for the points that she made.  I fully support her points and really appreciate the efforts that she's made in improving the dynamic coalitions overall. 
And I also want to support Juan's point.  I do think that we need to be very careful with respect to how we move forward.
And the idea of a graduation is -- it's exciting.  It's interesting.  I think we should figure out a process by which we're able to do that for the dynamic coalitions.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Virat, please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I think, again, Avri's point is a good one.  As the chair of a dynamic coalition, she actually set herself a set of targets that were ahead of what was on the Web site, so that's an interest take on how to -- how a chair can drive transparency.
Again, the point that Juan made, I fully support that.  I wish to point out that like Avri, one into two main session, they needed a three-hour session because of the numbers of people and then they -- you know, I think the thought if you could get two 90 minutes, which is, in part, also, by the way, our request because we were dividing up sessions in such a fashion, so I hope that that will work for them.
But to the point that if you are coming into the main session, I mean, imagine a situation where someone from the delegates on the floor stand up and relate the experience that was related in this room yesterday.  Five or six people stood up and said, "This is our challenge.  Before you start presenting your paper, how do you address this?" 
Then, you know, the IGF which is sort of saying, "Here, we present you the work of dynamic coalitions for the last four years" comes into a little bit of question.
And so we want to be careful about that situation.  And without question, some dynamic coalitions have content which will be, you know, put to test not just on the accuracy but also on the process and we wish to -- I think we should try and avoid a situation such as that one, and for that we need to work backwards and apply some of these things starting now, if we want to do what we want to do.
Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Ankhi, are you seeking -- no?  Markus, please.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  Thank you.  And that was a very useful discussion and thanks to the secretariat for putting up the existing criteria, and these are the criteria for getting the slot of the dynamic coalition meetings.
They were defined some years back and they were not that detailed and they're really very basic, but going forward into this main session on dynamic coalition, I would agree with those who say that the bar needs to be a little bit higher to qualify for that main session, and that's what we proposed to the list, that there should be publicly accessible archives and the mailing list should be open to anyone who signs up.
Now, we are told it may not be possible for all of them to make the archives immediately publicly accessible because their email system is set up in one way or another.  We had offered you can migrate your email to the secretariat Web site and have the secretariat administer the email list but that was not very popular with them.  And our bottom line was, at least give the secretariat co-moderator rights so he can precisely challenge any question that has come up since.
And we can impose these conditions and say, "If you don't abide by these very basic rules that go a little bit beyond what is on the Web site, then you're not part of the main session."  And my reading of the discussion is that the general sense of the MAG is that the criteria should be a little bit higher if they want to be part of the main session, and I take it then that we can go back to the dynamic coalitions and convey this sense of the MAG that they should abide by the -- these two additional criteria.  That is, having mailing lists open to anyone who wishes to subscribe and have ideally publicly accessible archives of the mailing list, and if for some technical reasons that's not possible to make -- to be made immediately, at least give the secretariat the role as a silent co-moderator so that in case of any question, the secretariat can act as a mediator or ombudsman.  And would I, with that, have summed up the feeling in the room?  And if we have a more detailed breakout session, we can look at the management of the one session which is divided into two parts.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I just have a clarifying question.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
Markus, I suffered through when I was the chair of the business constituency at ICANN, and we maintained our own list, and then we were fortunate that ICANN developed additional resources, we were able to migrate our list, but we could not make the archive, the past archive, we couldn't afford -- "we," because we were -- we couldn't afford to pay the transition for the past several years.
So we froze the past approach and started anew and then archived everything going forward using the new system.
Can I just clarify?  Because I think we have a short time frame.  There could be a barrier to transitioning the historical archives.  But if we're talking about starting from now and an agreement that everything will be archived going forward with an open list and with lists that are open to anyone who wishes to sign up, can you clarify that?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Markus, please.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That sounds like a reasonable proposition.  Now, I don't know what is technically feasible or not, but in essence, from now forwards that we say whoever wants to subscribe is automatically subscribed to a list.  Should that not be the case, they can complain to the secretariat, the secretariat can look into, and that would be an immediate measure.
The archiving may take a bit longer, but there, if the secretariat is made co-moderator, they would have the possibility to check the archives immediately.  But this is, I think, something we can take off line, but as a proposal, that sounds very reasonable.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think it was a very useful exchange.  And Markus already made a sum up of it.  But let me maybe attempt and make a proposal how to proceed.
So one fundamental rule is that normally you do not change the rules during the game.  So, as a result, I think in this cycle we cannot impose any criteria -- additional criteria to dynamic coalitions that would prevent or they would restrict them in any way.  Or at least they would perceive as an imposition of any kind of restrictions.
What we can do, we can maybe reformulate in a more clear way the criteria that have been on Web sites already 10 years and make them more explicit but without changing them.  So that's point number one.
Point number 2, in preparation for the main session, which is exceptional this year -- and we will see whether this will become an annual practice or practice of every two or three years or once every five years -- that we make sure that this is a more substantive presentation of the work of the dynamic coalition rather than conversation about, let's say, procedures.  Because that is maybe not the best way to use IGF's time.
And then, immediately after IGF Brazil, we would engage in fine tuning criteria for dynamic coalitions and their participation in IGF and contribution to IGF.  We had some proposals here that need to be reflected upon.  And the -- maybe the way what was suggested by Constance is something -- at least my initial reaction, first initial reaction is something that's worth contemplating and considering from dynamic coalition to best practice forum and then to output of that output of IGF. 
But, again, this is something that all of us need to consider carefully and discuss more thoroughly. 
I would propose that we close this conversation now and let our secretariat, based on conversation, fine tune the criteria and post that on the Web site.  And we relaunch a working stream on procedure related to dynamic coalitions after the IGF 2015.  ICC/Basis, please.

>>ICC/BASIS:  Thank you, Chair.  I wanted to make the discussion that, while I take the point in not getting bogged down in changing process at this juncture, I think it's important to recognize that some of the process failures or breakdowns that have happened that aren't expected may influence the substance that's presented in a main session.  And so perhaps the Chair could consider that dynamic coalitions should be able to provide an oral statement provided that they meet the requirements in -- and, in the event that the secretariat has received notice, the people have either been excluded or input has not been considered in the process, that they should not be allowed to claim that they represent any kind of a consensus or multistakeholder view and that this -- without a sort of dissenting opinion, that could be provided alongside it.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So that has not been requested as a rule.  I mean, I think we should simply apply common sense.  And we know that there are dynamic coalitions that are working and have progressed very well sort of on a consensual output or document.  We know there are issues that do not gather consensus.  And so we had proof of that yesterday speaking about one on -- what was that?  Net neutrality.  Thank you.
And so we simply need to apply common sense.  And coordinators are very experienced in that respect.  And I'm sure that no oral statement is really needed prior to this session, if we consider that that is something which is needed going forward.  So let's discuss it.
Marilyn.
 
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I guess I'm going to ask for clarification.
I thought I read the sense of the room that the minimal additional requirement to be applied now, which I proposed, that the email list be made open and that anyone who wished to sign up and be accepted -- my proposal is that that be applied now.  And I do think that elevating the dynamic coalitions to a main session is a significant elevation.  And we have criteria for main sessions as the MAG that we -- I won't refer to this, as we sometimes do in the United States, as being the sausage winder approach. 
But we do put the plenary session proposals through significant review.  I would not wish to lower that bar as the plenary sessions are a very visible opportunity.
I see no reason myself, as a MAG member, not to ask the dynamic coalitions to make these additional small changes.  The larger changes, I agree, can be discussed later.  And then the dynamic coalitions can assess -- we can talk about a graduation approach, as Constance suggested.
But I really question the effectiveness of a main session, three hours, where, if we're hearing reports of the work to date, that's fantastic.  But, if we have dynamic coalitions presenting in their reports that they are representative of the -- look, the IGF is required to be transparent, open, inclusive, multistakeholder.
Minimal requirements to participate in the main session on the part of the dynamic coalitions, I don't see this as a barrier.  We have a couple of months.  It's not a major change that we're asking for.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  All things that you have spoken are already in this criteria.  So the need for mailing lists, the need for everyone contributing to the work of the -- that would not be any change.  That simply needs to be prepared or written in more explicit way.  But that would not change the rules.
Virat and Avri.  Virat, please.
 
>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chairman, I also seek, actually, a clarification.  That, you know, unless we are in a situation where consensus has actually been achieved, to claim one would be a challenge.
And, in terms of timeline, most of the main sessions are just getting off the ground right now.  They will have about 60 days to do the work that they want to do.  All we've got from the main sessions so far is a very well-drafted, you know, one-page documents along the lines of the template provided by the secretariat.  So, actually, they're in sort of an even situation in regards to an open list. 
And there were some questions.  I saw a question by Lea the other day on whether the MAG lists were open.  I think she was informed by the co-facilitator -- I think it was Subi -- in no uncertain terms that all the MAG lists are open to anybody who wants to join. 
But I think the point of consensus is a very important one.  If you're presenting a view that is not inclusive or haven't been so far or there have been complaints filed, then either the moderator makes the point and sort of states that we will have to mention that as before the statements are allowed or their output is read out.  Or I think it will come from the delegates on the floor.  And that would be, I believe, embarrassing because it is then counter to the claims of consensus.  And we should certainly try and avoid that situation.  Because that goes to the larger point of what IGF is presenting and operating in front of delegates where consensus has been claimed and is imposed in the same room at the same time.  We certainly want to avoid that situation. 
So our difficulty is that there are serious dissents.  We've heard examples of not being included.  And yet there is a push to seek consensus or claim consensus that I would sort of certainly worry about.  And I think many of the distinguished colleagues here worry about.  Thank you.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you. 
Avri, please.
 
>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you, Chair.  Avri speaking.  I'm very uncomfortable with the notion of changing the basis on which we would allow the dynamic coalitions into this year's program.  We have a list there.  And clarifying that a mailing list means an open mailing list that lets everybody in is not really just a clarification.  It's -- it is an expansion. 
Just because I assumed that that's what it should mean when I was chair does not mean that that's what it means.
Now, at the moment, all of the ones that are looking for some sort of going forward in terms of their output have documents up on the platform that are open for anyone to comment on paragraph by paragraph.
That's not anything to do with who they let on a list.  It's not anything to do with the archive of a mailing list.  Those documents have now been put up.  And they're there.  And whether there is consensus on one of those documents or not will be very visible in the comments that it receives between now and then. 
So, while I very much support the notion of going forward for the future, we should be clear that mailing lists are open and archived, that to take that ambiguity and use it to fight a cause at the moment is something that makes me itchy and uncomfortable.
And everything is open for comment going forward.  So thanks.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think in this discussion we're mixing up or putting together two things.  One thing is the ground rules for dynamic coalition -- work of dynamic coalition.
And the second is how we organize the main session where dynamic coalitions present their outcomes or outputs or results of their activities. 
And I think, for me personally, it goes without any minor doubt that, if there is dissenting opinion or disagreement on topic -- and I mentioned one on net neutrality where consensus is far from reached and understanding is far from reached -- that should be demonstrated in the main session when presenting the results of the activities of the group.
But, if there is a consensus, so then that consensus should be demonstrated in the main session as well.
So, therefore, I would invite just to maybe fine tune the language of criteria for dynamic coalitions on the web page without changing the meaning or essence of the rules that have been applied so far, just to put it in more explicit way.  And then work on new set of rules or more elaborate set of rules immediately after the meeting of Joao Pessoa in inclusive way involving dynamic coalitions themselves and so on.
And then in preparing the main session where dynamic coalitions will report the results of their activities, apply all the ground rules, existing ground rules for main sessions, which include also pluralism of views and positions where any disagreement, visible or invisible, will be demonstrated.  Can we agree on that?  Hossam?
 
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  From my point of view, I think what the level of maturity of what dynamic coalition would be bringing may differ from one dynamic coalition to another.  And there is no problem with that.  We can enhance the rules as we move forward. 
I think the most important is the point of that the outcome is, upon consensus, or that it is tagged as an IGF outcome.  I think it is the dynamic coalition outcome.  We accept this.  And it is outcome to be input for more enhancement in the future.  I think this is the most important point that we need just to clarify.  Thank you very much.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  ICC/Basis.

>>ICC/BASIS:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Further to Avri's comments -- and I appreciate the perspective shared.  I wonder in the case where input has been provided on documents and/or will be provided further on documents, how will this question be addressed and incorporated into the final results before the main session?  Because, as stated in some examples -- and we have a variety of them, where input has actually been provided and not reflected in the process is breaking down in terms of accommodating that, I think -- I realize perhaps there's a desire to have more and deeper reflection on how that can be addressed in the future.
But, between here and the time at which some sort of a document or report is made, it would be useful to know and understand how that -- those dissenting views might be reflected.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I understand that you're talking about what was a few months ago proposed as validation.  And I think that today we understand that there will not be any validation of any kind by IGF of work of dynamic coalitions.  And that was already what Markus presented yesterday.

>>ICC/BASIS:  No, actually my question is more in terms of just the substance of the report itself and the notion that they are available for comment.  And so, where comments have been made and not integrated or reflected in the documents, if now they're available on the Web site and people were to continue to reflect comments and perspectives, what will be the process between now and the point at which they're reported on in the main session to capture those is my question?  It's not at all about validation.  Thank you.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat, please.
 
>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yeah.  My question actually -- I just want to focus a part, which is so -- let us say these documents are -- actually, we're just talking one or two dynamic coalitions.  I want to be respectful to all the others who actually have done a tremendous job of getting people included.  And I don't want to -- we keep using the word "dynamic coalition."  And it is unfair because it is not everybody.
Let's refer to the specific cases where comments have either not been included or there will be serious amount of dissenting comments on the document that is out there.  How is it that the dynamic coalition will present that?
Will that -- will these three issues that we raise we also had serious dissent and these were the points that were made in dissent, firstly? 
And secondly, will this be presented as an outcome of the dynamic coalitions since we've agreed that we can't put the full force of principles behind them right now, it will be next year?  Or will it be treated as the outcome of an IGF which then finds it way into the report of the chair? 
I think those are two very specific questions:  How do you deal with dissenting comments; and what is the status of what is being presented.
Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  From my experience, not a hundred percent of comments that have been provided on text ever have been incorporated in the text.  Especially on very controversial issues or issues where the opinion of the community is divided.  So therefore, this is always a kind of a balancing act.  What we need to ensure is that the differences in opinion is very clearly demonstrated during the discussion, so -- and I think that that is the role of moderators and we know what we're talking about to demonstrate that on that particular issue consensus has not been reached and that there are divergence of opinions and basically reflections should be continued.
Sometimes it takes a few years, sometimes it takes decades, sometimes it takes a few decades to reach consensus on an issue, so we have historic experience, not in IGF but generally speaking.
So -- and I think that this -- if we could agree that -- to ask moderators of that session to be very explicit about differences of opinion and demonstrate that difference of opinion during the session, I think that that is also the value of IGF where everyone can speak out their position and be visible.
Secondly, the chair of the IGF, the host country chair of the IGF, also has certain political abilities and skills to understand that there are some issues that have, let's say, controversy in them or not consensual, and the chair also will reflect that the report because of impartiality of the chair.
So from that perspective, you should be reassured that the reality will be reflected in the IGF report.  So -- and I really would like to divide these -- this conversation in two issues.  One, how we treat dynamic coalitions in principle, and then how we organize the session and make sure that in the main session the reality reigns, not perception or not sort of imposition of one or another opinion.
So -- and so that's the meaning of my proposal.  Let's do things separately, fine-tune the existing criteria, make them very explicit based on the conversation we had today, so then second, to embark on developing further criteria for dynamic coalitions after the meeting that would be applied for next cycle and then ask coordinators of main session on dynamic coalitions to ensure that all range of views should be expressed explicitly during the presentation of topics during -- during the meeting.  Would that be acceptable?  Virat, please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yes.  I think -- I think if we can get to the point that all views are -- that have been expressed during the process are reflected, that is a workable solution. 
Then I sort of turn to Markus, and my question would be:  As a co-facilitator, who would do the reading of the outcome?  Is this one person from the dynamic coalition or somebody that they choose or would those statements be read by the moderators?  And if there isn't sufficient balance, would the moderators comment or preannounce the fact that there are other positions?  How would that actually work?  We just need to get a little more details.  We don't have to do it now.  We can do it in the breakaway.  But we certainly need a specific assurance and structure that it will go the way it has been proposed where all views will be represented in the room in such cases where dissenting views have been provided, both on the process as well as on the substance.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you.  Are there any further interventions on this point?  Yes.  Mark Carvell.

>>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government. 
I mean, just a thought.  I think the chair's approach is -- is very helpful and I support that, and the thought I have is we may be at a point where new dynamic coalitions might emerge, perhaps stimulated by intersessional work, best practice, and so on, so it's a very timely revisit, if you like, of the criteria and guidance for coalitions to initiate and undertake their work.  Thanks.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  Well, I see no other flags, so on the basis of what Janis had proposed and on comments that were made, I think we could, for the moment, close discussion on this subject, but I recognize Virat.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  I just wanted to get Markus' view, if he could sort of -- how does he see this as a co-facilitator?  Because I think a new set of responsibilities has just been cast upon him.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, thanks, Virat. 
Put on the spot, I think that will be to a large extent the moderator's role to reflect the fact that there were different views held on a given issue, but the dynamic coalitions are required to reflect the comments posted on the IGF Web site now in the comment period, in the paper that will go into the meeting, and the comment site will be open right up to the meeting, so there will still be an opportunity to provide comments to the revised draft that will serve as input into the meeting.
But what happens in the session itself, that will be largely in the hands of the moderators, and with Jeanette Hofmann, known to many of you, we will have a very experienced and highly respected moderator who I'm sure will be able to convey the right messages.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  So thank you.  I think we -- this will be -- I'll convey to the chair and I think on the basis of the discussions I think it's quite clear that we want the -- the outcomes to reflect the richness of discussion and the variety of views and I think the real challenge is how to make sure this will be incorporated in the discussions that take place in the dynamic coalition.
In that case, we can, for the moment, close discussion on this topic, I'll wait for the chair but I see we still have 35 minutes before lunch.  We were thinking of taking the opportunity to have some at least initial discussion on some aspects regarding the policy options document, but I turn to you, Mr. Chair.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And I understand that the conclusion was positive.
So thank you very much.  Apologies for having to take this call.
I would like now to suspend the MAG meeting and immediately start the open-ended editorial group meeting.  Those MAG members who would like to participate, please feel free.
If there is a need to do some work on other issues that we're working on during this remaining 35 minutes, it is also possible, those who are not interested in editorial group.  Otherwise, I would now pass the chairmanship to Benedicto and maybe ask Constance to come to the stage as a coordinator of intersessional work, and we will continue until 1:00, and after that I would break for lunch and would resume at 3:00 for one hour the editorial group meeting.
Please, Constance.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Before we move to the next session, some participants of the best practices were not here today but are following the MAG discussion and have noticed that there's going to be breakout sessions for the best practices and would like to know if remote participation will be possible.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That's a question to the secretariat.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The answer is yes.  We have remote participation in the breakout rooms.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Then the MAG meeting is suspended and the open-ended editorial group meeting just starts.  Benedicto, your show.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  So thank you, Janis.  And while Constance is coming to the podium, I'd like to just very briefly recall some of the discussion we had yesterday on this topic.
It is quite clear to us that in accordance with what we have decided before, the task ahead of us is both simple and complex.  It's simple because it does not involve negotiations, it does not involve an effort to try to bridge different positions, but at the same time, it is complex because we still have to decide on the structure of the document, as the chair has invited us to make the best effort to provide for an intelligent compilation of everything we get.  So by this, we understand that we are tasked to steer the preparation of a document that will -- that could be read in a way that will be helpful for those people that are involved, both governmental and nongovernmental agencies that are involved in connecting efforts.
We think this document should be, to the possible extent, a short document, maybe not more than 20 pages, structured in an way that would allow a very clear overview of the main ideas, the main proposals that are being conveyed.
At the same time, providing links to more extensive contributions that were received.  So we want to make sure that we have one single document that will be a very -- let's say appropriate -- compilation of what we have, but at the same time will also allow room for people who want to further investigate some specific aspects.
In that regard, I think the main task for us and one we would like to focus in this session, in the time remaining before lunch, would be to look into the categories that are being proposed for the document to be structured.
We -- there are some proposals that emerged from the contributions that were received, and we would like to receive feedback from the MAG, from those interested in being part of the editorial group, if those are the appropriate ones, if there is something missing.  I think that would serve as guidance for the following phase of preparation of the document.
There are other aspects we should look into, and Constance, maybe you can also complement with a wider view of what the task is before us, but maybe in the light of the time we have, we could, for this session, concentrate on this aspect of the work that is before us.
But I turn to you, Constance, please.  And Brian, if you want to make some comments.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much.  I think that was a very good summary of where we stand in the preparations.
So if we have agreement to form an open-ended editorial group, I think many stakeholders have already expressed, outside of the MAG, that they would be interested and we might want to issue a call after the MAG meeting so people can formally join and make sure they're on the appropriate mailing list and they don't miss any information.
Then with regards to the substance that we have gathered to date, we have about -- I think it's 33 contributions to date.  Brian did an impressive work to synthesize each contribution, and we have, in a Google document, a short summary of each contribution received to date.
We might want to consider at one point in the process setting a deadline, a deadline after which it will be difficult to incorporate new contributions, perhaps accept national and regional IGF contributions.
We had an initial call with the intersessional activities group, and the feedback received from the group was that it would be useful to organize the substance received in different buckets that relate to different aspects of the policy question for bringing -- for connecting the next billion.
So you have on the screen the rough skeleton of the output document.  It's up on the IGF Web platform.  I don't know, Carl, if you can scroll down, but it is proposed in the introduction to give an overview of the objectives, remind the CSTD working group on IGF recommendations, inviting the IGF community to work towards better outputs for the IGF, and then a synthesis, a summary of what happened till now in the process, how we have gathered contributions, and then a possible time line.
If you continue -- and we can fine-tune the time line as we go. 
If you continue, if you scroll down, you will then see the four buckets of substantive issues, and this is the proposal to organize the substance of the document.
First of all, we would look into issues and policies related to infrastructure -- undersea fiber cables, broadband, et cetera -- and/or mobile phones, other applications, and services.
The second part of the document could look into issues and policies related to access in regards to government interventions, market strategies, laws, and regulations.
The third bucket of issues relate to issues and policies related to digital literacy, user literacy.
And finally, issues around affordability, cost, digital divide, income disparities.
As we have done for the best practices, again, the goal is not to negotiate the text.  The goal is to gather best practices, look at what's being done at a national/regional/global level, look at common ground, and try to identify policy options that again gather -- for which there -- there is consensus.
The goal would be to present a compilation of the contributions, written contributions, received and also the oral contributions we will gather through the Webinars we can organize with the editorial group between now and November.
Between now and November, perhaps what we could propose doing is to -- on the basis of the skeleton, if we have agreement, is to add flesh to the skeleton and have a new version for the consideration of the editorial group perhaps around mid-September.
Again, the goal -- the task of the editorial group would not be to hold the pen.  That would be the task of the IGF secretariat.  The editorial group would be there to provide comments and guidance to the IGF secretariat.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Okay.  Thank you.  And maybe just to clarify, once again, that this is not -- we will not be in a negotiating mood, so we would not be also passing judgment on any proposal received.  Rather, we want to make sure that all relevant information would make it to the document.  I think the challenge is to make sure that the document remains relevant, that it also does not incorporate information that is outside the scope of what is meant, which is sometimes difficult because we have received a few documents that are very extensive, so there is a challenge on how to pick what is really relevant and not, let's say, information that adds to -- to the real initiatives and proposals that are being made.
But we trust that in the end, this will be, indeed, possible to be done.  I just -- before turning, I see Marilyn Cade.  I'd like to turn to Brian, since you have been making -- going through the actual documents.  If you can give maybe your initial assessment of the material we have at hand and those categories, of course, you have proposed, but what is your view of the tasks we have at hand and then I'll turn to other participants. 
Please.

>>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  I'll be brief because this session now is going to be most useful for me and the secretariat, who is following remotely.  I do want to give them good credit because my colleagues from the secretariat are helping a lot and will continue to do so.
But for us to listen both to you, Benedicto, and to others is really useful. 
Constance gave a review of what we have.  We're still receiving inputs.  Just this week we received a few new ones.  So, as we get them, we'll upload them and then go into the substance and try to pull their main messages, policy recommendations, if they're there, policy options. 
But one thing we've noticed and what's described in the document up on the screen, which is sort of an overview and outline that we've put together for this discussion -- in particular, this document can also be found on the IGF Web site if you go to the top of the screen and go to the connecting the next billion section, and then you'll be able to find the document up on the review platform. 
Anyway, the inputs haven't all just been lists of policy options.  But rather stakeholders have contributed their views on obstacles that they face in -- you know, achieving access and connectivity.  And these inputs we believe are extremely useful and extremely relevant.  So incorporating all the views in an equal way is our intention. 
And the buckets or the four sort of categories that we've come up with are certainly not set in stone.  They seem to represent four general categories that we could start with to organize the content based on the 33 or so submissions we've gotten so far.
And Constance mentioned this, but the diversity of the inputs is something that should be emphasized.  Some individuals sent in their opinions filling out a form that we had online while other inputs have come from large organizations who do this work every day.  And they -- you know, there's a few hundred page documents from this past year on issues related to this topic which is so broad.  And people in this room know how broad this topic is, and it means different things to different stakeholders.  So this will -- it's -- I think it's a great exercise for the IGF.  ICC/Basis I'll mention quickly.  ICC/Basis -- this group -- some in this group may recall that they submitted in December or just after the Istanbul meeting, the suggestion for policy menus for connecting the next billion.  It's evolved to policy options based upon discussions earlier by the MAG.
But in their submission, earliest suggestion for this work, they referenced the Tunis agenda paragraph 72.  And I've included this in the introductory piece on the document online.  Because the Tunis agenda, if you read closely, really encourages this sort of bottom-up, community-driven collaborative work to discuss these issues.  So I think the exercise is really useful, and it's something that the IGF has the mandate to do and really reflect all the views of individuals and big organizations that are involved.  So we're providing a good platform. 
I'll stop there.  And then we'd love comments and suggestions from everybody here.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Yes, Marilyn.
 
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking. 
I'm really -- I'm both very enthused about the work we're doing -- and I'm just going to quickly say that I'm overidentifying with the challenge that Brian is facing.  Because I'm acting as the co-coordinator for -- along with Judith Hellerstein, Garland McCoy, and Manu Bhardwaj from the United States in the development of the connecting the next billion submission from a working group of the IGF-USA. 
And we're experiencing something there that I think we're experiencing here as well on a more macro level.
We're getting submissions that are very broad, general, rich with information, but which are not specifically designed in and of themselves to actually identify a policy option or an obstacle.  But embedded in the report or the study is that kind of information. 
I say that to offer the following idea:  I think if we could add a bibliography of appendix, an annex -- maybe annex is a better word, Brian -- that just captures all of those more detailed reports with links, because it may not really be feasible to, for instance, analyze the broadband commission's report.  But it is a valuable link and resource.  So that's point number one.
Point number two is I would like us to consider having five buckets or maybe six.  Let me explain why.  I benefited significantly -- I do come from a background of working in the Internet space and in the application space, healthcare, in particular.
Telemedicine was an application that I put a huge amount of my corporate employer's finances into a number of years ago.
I look at the infrastructure layer and think that, in order to address it, yes, fiber.  Yes, other forms of connectivity.  Yes, perhaps the actual application, which is about connectivity.
But I think the application such as  e-health or e-education might belong in another category which would include also multilingual content.
One of the barriers that we heard a lot about in Connecting the Dots conference here in UNESCO, those of us who were able to participate, was really about the digital literacy, digital capability.  But we also heard a lot about the barrier of content that is the lack of content in language and that is customized to the needs of the user.
So I just throw out the idea.  I don't think we would want to have more than six categories.  But I wonder if we might consider at least adding a category for the actual applications and content.
And then my final request for you to consider is I'd like to separate -- propose we separate the category which now says government regulations/market approaches and divide that into -- in the following way:  Government regulations/government practices and policies as one category.  And then a second category which is market driven approaches.
So I'm going to give a specific example.  A government regulation may be a requirement for sharing conduit or fiber cable.  But a government practice might be the initiation of a USF funding available for telecenters.  That's not a regulation, but it's a policy. And it's making a real difference.  Gathering both of those, as an example, market-driven approaches I think is perhaps fairly clear.  But it may include availability of affordable capital for investment, et cetera.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yeah.  Thank you.  Your second point, as I was reading the categories, it just occurred to me the same.  I think this is something we can take on board. 
In regard to your first point, I tend to agree.  It's not clear to me, but I see it belongs to another category as well. 
I think Virat was next on the list, and then I have other ICC/Basis representative.  Virat.
 
>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I was going to ask if there was a specific reason to include market strategies as a part of the second bucket.  Kind of sits somewhat outside.  Are we suggesting market development strategies or market access strategies?  Because those usually form a part of the private sector point of view.  Are we having them along with the government laws and regulations?  At least that's my sort of observation.
And would you want to include policies as part of that?  Or is policies -- all of the policies covered in the first bucket and, therefore, has been left out of the second bucket?  Because normally, laws, regulations and policies would come in, too. 
The third comment would be you said government interventions.  But would you want to say government and regulatory interventions?  Because several countries now have independent regulators which are seen as different than the government.  It might be it means the same.  Or a broader term regulatory intervention which then brings in government and independent regulators just in terms of some terminology. 
But some clarification on market strategies and where that sort of came from, because that would help understand what is meant of it, can be perhaps more user friendly, something that everybody can relate to.  Thanks.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yeah, that's a very good question.  There was a call on one of the calls of the intersessional group on what we implied by policies.  And some stakeholders said it was important to have in the same section not only governmental policies, you know, policy -- governmental policy frameworks, but also immediately after description and discussion about private sector initiatives. 
So I think the reason why they're in the same section was to address the sensitivity and the need to emphasize that policies are not just governmental policies, but also that the industry has an important role to play. 
But, at the same time, Marilyn mentioned that it was useful to have a distinction made, which seems obviously necessary.  So then the question is do we want -- there needs to be a distinction.  The question is do we want, you know, a subsection on governmental policies and then a subsection on industry all in the same section; or do you want a completely different and separate section?  That's a question for the group.
 
>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Do you want to follow up on this?
 
>>VIRAT BHATIA:  I was going to say that just purely from ease of use of the document, which is one of our objectives, a separate section would be helpful.  Because if it's just written that way, it's easier to go to that.  You know, if private sector wants to look at that, they just will look at that and sort of read up that and don't have to worry about everything.  And, if somebody wants to read all of it, then it's available. 
But I think to try to make the market strategies, which is, I suppose, market access, market development, all of those things, you know, four billion sort of people have to come on to the Internet.  And I would bet (indiscernible) that 3.8 or 9 of those will come on private sector networks around the world, which will be wireless most likely. 
So I think that's a very important section and needs to be dealt with entirely.  And also allow the private sector companies, many of the members of GSMA to provide substantive inputs into what they're doing in developing the markets and accessing markets.  And all the FDI rules come into play.  And investment and ease of business all of that will come into play in that section, which will have a correlation to what is, in fact, a cross-check on what would be the original bucket, too.  And saying that, you know, we don't believe this is working or this has really worked really well or that limitation on FDI doesn't really help or it actually does help.  Many of those things can be flushed out.  So I would vote for a separate section rather than a 2b.  Or not to be.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.
Before turning to Marilyn -- I think she will speak on the same point -- I will just recall that when we drafted the questions through which we tried to elicit those comments, we indicated we wanted to reflect in the document policies any strategies by government and no government and private sector specifically ideas coming from.
So I think it's just fair to provide for separation. 
But I think, as Constance has indicated, there is also concern to indicate that in a way those different categories, they can relate and they work in the same environment.  Even the government regulations can induce the private sector, which, you know, also has to operate in.  So we may wish to indicate in the document that kind of interaction and not to indicate that those are encapsulated categories.
But this is maybe for the sake of providing for a better reading of the document but to indicate the interactions, the interlinks between all those issues. 
But I turn to Marilyn before giving the floor to ICC/Basis as well.
 
>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  As I've been thinking more about this, I'm envisioning maybe sort of a Roman numeral 1 about infrastructure, Roman numeral 2 about policy/practices/regulations, regulatory actions. 
And then under that being the idea that there's national -- I'm just thinking out loud -- national laws or regulations.  There's private sector-led market driven.  I think there's also, in this category of connecting the next billion, there's significant contributions being made by NGO work that may be driven by -- and I will mention one -- WAVE, the Women's Alliance for Virtual Exchange, is providing access to support human rights and freedom of expression.  And so it's an initiative that is driven by an NGO. 
So I'm wondering if we had these kind of, you know, big Roman numeral and then had some subtopics under it, Virat, then you would be able to capture when it's a government initiative. 
There are also IGO initiatives.  And I didn't know if we wanted to separate those or we wanted to just say national government/IGO and treat them as one category for simplicity. 

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  We'll take note of this, and we'll be responding.  But I'd like for us to take the other speakers.  I see -- ICC/Basis, either Elizabeth or your colleague.  Yes.  Then I have Nigel from ICANN, Cheryl, and Baher.  So, please.

>>CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Carolyn Nguyen from Microsoft.  I'd like to speak on the questions and also support the proposal that Marilyn made.  First, I think it is important to separate out the applications enabled by the access.  So, if there is a bucket or a way to categorize those efforts, I think that would be really helpful. 
With respect to the suggestion on having a generic policy regulation section with subsections under them in terms of governments, private sector, market-driven strategies, I think that that would be really good.  But perhaps a different way to look at it is that regulations arose from different perspectives.  Some of them are from policy needs and national action plans.  Others arise fortuitously, opportunistically from market-driven strategies.  And they can either include private sector-led or NGO-led or other organization led as well.
So perhaps that's another way to reflect the different perspectives and also the linkage in the policies that would come from that.
Another comment is that in the second bucket right now, the title for it is really "Issues and Policies Related to Access."
I would ask for a consideration of broadening that to the term "connectivity" because that would be a broad -- you reflected it in the introduction, that access is defined, you know, broader and I believe that the use of the term "connectivity" will bring in all the different perspectives from which policies may arise.
Under the category of market-driven strategies, perhaps there would also be a consideration with respect to sustainable development from the perspective that sustainability in market-driven strategies is something that would be very, very important in looking at these issues.
And then lastly, in the third bucket, which is currently labeled "Issues and Policies Related to Digital Literacy and User Literacy," perhaps as a consideration of using the term "capacity-building," which again is broader than just literacy but also speaks about establishment of the next generation of content producers as well as potentially entrepreneurs and SMEs which would be crucial to any policy related to connecting the next billion.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.

>>CAROLYN NGUYEN: Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  This is noted.  Nigel?

>>NIGEL HICKSON:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Just briefly -- and Baher, of course, can speak for ICANN -- but personally, I am very much enthused by this paper.  I can see a real -- I can see a real sort of usefulness, but also because I think it will really drive enthusiasm at the IGF amongst many participants.
And I think that the title is very apt, but I think it also -- for many people, when you say "connecting the next billion," it does -- it does have this link to connecting to, you know, throwing the wire over, throwing the spectrum over -- that's not a very good analogy, but it has a sort of physical connotation.
So I think the fact that we've -- as has been discussed over the last half an hour, there are also these incredibly important soft factors which includes things like multilingualism and the availability of international domain names and things like that, but I think it needs to be up front in the paper early on.  One to needs to sort of be able to sort of show the reader that what they're going to look at here is not just how to physically connect, but how to give those softer factors, the -- the sort of market-driven issues, the incentives, the linguistic, the -- sorry, the incentives to actually go and get connected, if you see what I mean.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you for your comments.  Let me turn now to Cheryl.

>>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you Mr. Chairman.  Much like Nigel, I'm also very enthusiastic about this paper and I really want to commend the group that's been working on it because it's really a great start right now.
Along the lines of what Nigel just touched on, I think the concept of adoption -- I guess I might use the term "adoption"; I don't know if there's a better term -- is really important and I do think fleshing that out in the beginning with respect to access and adoption as part of the overall connecting would be important up front, and possibly putting it -- I don't know if digital literacy would be the appropriate place to flesh some of that out or possibly under market development, but I do think that that's another theme that's going to need to be teased out more and fleshed through this paper as it moves forward.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  This is also noted, and I'll turn to Baher now.

>>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.  This is Baher Esmat, for the record.
I also want to support the proposal to separate the infrastructure bucket from the application one and to have one clear bucket on application services with all aspects of multilingualism.
Going through the list, I'm going to skip the one on policies and government interventions for now, but then on the digital literacy, I also agree that it could be a broader bucket that looks into not only the digital literacy and the kind of underserved communities, but also looks at the capacity building or, as it's called sometimes, human capital issue at large, including how to, you know, build capacity and expertise in the entrepreneurial space as well.
This is a key issue for many developing countries nowadays.
The last one on affordability, I'm okay with that.
Now, back to the policy issue or the policy bucket and the role of government or governments versus nongovernment stakeholders, I guess this is -- this is a cross-cutting issue in each and every bucket.  I mean, talking about infrastructure, talking about applications, talking about capacity building, talking about affordability.  We cannot address any of these issues without addressing policies, regulatory frameworks, enabling environments, whether regulatory environments or business environments, to stimulate investments, role of the private sector, role of nongovernment -- NGOs and all of these programs. 
So I'm not sure whether this needs -- this whole issue of policy and enabling environments, whether it requires a separate or multiple buckets or it should be embedded in each and every bucket of, you know, the issues that we just discussed.
So I'm going to stop there and I may come back with further input.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Baher.
I'll take the last intervention before we break for lunch, and then we'll be resuming discussion on the overall structure of the document, but I'll take -- this is Ryan?  Yes, please.  You have the floor.

>>PATRICK RYAN: Thank you very much.  Patrick Ryan.  I wanted to also commend the group for initiating this effort.  This is really a valiant one and it's being done very well in my opinion.
We all seem to have a sense of agreement, at least from what I'm reading, that the infrastructure issues are separate from some of the app issues, but I'm going to take a little bit -- or actually considerably a more black-and-white approach than some of my colleagues had suggested, who had suggested maybe putting some of the app issues up front, separating them out, and some of the content language issues.  I think those are completely irrelevant to infrastructure.  Not completely irrelevant.  I'm overstating it to some extent.  But the -- the focus here when you're talking about connecting the next billion, to Nigel's point, is really about connecting.  It's about focusing on the infrastructure.  And if we're focusing on the infrastructure and really trying to clear our minds of the other impediments, things like apps and culture and everything else, as important as they are, those are dealt with in other -- by other expertise, by other groups.  And in fact, by another team that comes in to sort of, you know, deal with the layer of the Internet that people love and enjoy.  The infrastructure layer is not sexy, it's not linguistic, it doesn't have any of that familiarity that a lot of us here in the Internet come to know and love.  And that's okay. 
It is important for us to focus on those things, so that we're really looking at some of the core issues about what spectrum policy, you know, is and how that's important, why infrastructure sharing is something that people talk about so much, those types of things.
And then -- and then, you know, the app issues and the other types of things will find plenty of -- of -- of people who address them in other contexts, I think.
And lastly, I think that the paper would be augmented very well by simply just adding a resources section.  I mean, I've found in my own research and writing in this area that finding other resources about the really core infrastructure issues that don't wander into you know, "but there's something else that we need to consider about, you know, the actual over-the-top stuff," I've found that research to be very difficult to find.  And to the extent that there can be, you know, some pointers on what are the -- you know, what are the core publications on the best practices and policies issues, that itself I think could be a useful contribution.  Not just as footnotes but as a separate part of the document.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yes.  The very last speaker now.  Thank you for your comments.  It is duly noted. 
And I think personally that at some point we'll need to decide on whether some issues that -- as you have said that are not directly linked to the connecting aspect should go to the document, as relevant as they are, I think that's in the light of the overall contributions we receive as we frame the document.  This is a point to take into account, so thank you for that.
I'll turn to Virat as the very last speaker for this morning session.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'll just -- you know, two points I wanted to make. 
One, to pick up on what Patrick just mentioned, I think his -- there is sort of strength in the point that he's making, which is, these are -- the world requires a trillion dollars or plus just to get the physical infrastructure out.  Almost all of it is going to come from the private sector over the next decade or so.  And that is a humongous challenge by itself.  It provides -- could require, you know, a paper by itself.  And therefore, I think it's a valid point.
Having said that, much of this is going to start bumping against literacy issues, because if you're -- you know, if you have the cheapest mobile device in your hand and you have great access but don't have either content or content that you can read, then there is issues of actual implementation. 
So I suppose if there is a way to address both in a way that this can be used and distinguished between, that would be helpful.
In a similar -- and I'm going to mention the difference in which private sector and the government come in and look at this document. 
As somebody whose sort of parent company operates in the United States and the western world but I live and work in India, in the developing countries, where there's a very fine line between where government ends and private sector begins.
I just walked around the room before I made this comment to check with my colleagues here.  In Brazil, India, Cuba, I think many of the countries have ministries of communications or telecommunications.  In the United States, in the U.K., in -- even in the Netherlands, there are sort of other larger ministries which also deal with issues of communications because the whole private sector or the privatization process is so deep, so long, so well rooted, so almost kind of, you know, engaged that it kind of seems it can blur the differences where the government ends and the private sector, in terms of getting services out.  But that's not the case for the next 4 billion, a billion of which are in India alone.  A billion of those are in Asia outside India, 1 billion in Africa, and the rest of the 1 billion out of the 4 billion are in the rest of the world outside Asia, Africa, and India.
So I think to the point, those distinctions can be made for ease of use of our document because essentially what we set ourselves out to do was to build this compendium so that people can use it, refer to it, it's a contribution that IGF is making.
So that's my point.  I just want to make that, you know, distinction that currently exists also exists in infrastructure and apps and services, but if you were to limit it only to infrastructure and not have a section on where the services and the only people who provide inputs are, you know, mobile operators and Ericsson and equipment, so we want to keep it open and get the other parts going as well.
So -- but to the extent they can be under heads that make it easy for people to refer to and use it, you know, that's just -- I'm just bringing a very specific developing country perspective which includes the 4 billion that are not connected. 
I just want to close by saying that, you know, ICC/BASIS had sort of proposed this and I sort of thank you for taking it and thank you for taking it to the extent that right now this is a -- is probably the biggest piece of work that has been done at this platform, at this level, and thanks to the chair and the co-chair and also to the leads of this session, Constance especially and the ambassador.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Virat.  And we'll have to break for lunch now.  I have taken note of Cheryl and Juan who will be speaking when we resume. 
We intend to continue discussion on this topic and I think it would be very useful for the editorial group and for the secretariat also to have your thoughts on the initial part of the document which contains already some language.  I have listened to comments indicating that some notions should be put up front in the document, and we would need maybe to look into the formulations we have to make sure we don't lose any important aspect will be in that part of the document.
And again, as we have indicated, our effort would be, at the end of the meeting, to have this skeleton in place which would be later on fleshed out by -- by the inputs but on a very firm understanding that this would address the MAG intent in regard to this document.
So I thank you very much.  I'll turn to our chair before closing -- to close the meeting.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Thank you very much.  We will resume at 3:00 here. 
The Rooms 5042 are assigned for best practice workstream and CERTs, 4002 for IPv6, and Room 7 for violence against women.  That is only for these three groups from 3:00 to 4:15.
And then from 4:30, we will resume -- we will split in working streams on main sessions, and the secretariat has circulated the room allocation for that part of the session.
At 3:00, we are resuming here with the open-ended working editorial group and we will continue this conversation from 3:00 to approximately 4:30.
So thank you very much and bon appetit. 
Please come back at 3:00 sharp.

[ Lunch break ]

 
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Ladies and gentlemen, just a quick note for the best practice forum for IPv6, the room has changed to 5002.  It was unfortunately double booked.  So it's 5002.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Good afternoon to everyone.  We'd like to resume discussion from where we started the morning session.  So I'd like to offer the floor to those who had asked before.  I have Cheryl and Juan.  And we would like to have any further comments in regard to the categories that are being proposed.  And immediately after that, Constance and Brian will project a revised version of trying to accommodate the comments that were made so far for your consideration. 
So with this, I give the floor to Cheryl.
 
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just wanted to pick up where we left off with the conversation.  I think the last comments were focused on the need to focus the paper more on infrastructure. 
And I just want to say that, while I do -- I obviously agree with the importance of making sure we capture everything in the infrastructure bucket.  I don't want to go down a road where we exclude some other important considerations regarding culture and what you may call possibly even barriers. 
Because I think, in addition to making sure that we have our investment in line, we're doing what we need to do to roll out practically, there are some things, from a business perspective that businesses should be thinking about on the front end rather than the back end.  So, for example, how we are able to better connect with the disability community is one issue that I think should definitely be focused on the front end.  So I want to make sure that overall you may not focus the paper exclusively to focus on those buckets, that we don't completely forget the importance of these issues.  Because they may -- we may be able to tee them up for the second tranche of intersessional work or other work that will come down in the future.  Thank you.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  Juan, please.

>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I was examining the blueprint for this document.  I am concerned because this document seems to be very ambitious.  And there's nothing wrong with being ambitious.  But I was reflecting about that this document is not in a vacuum.  There have been some other documents of more or less the same intentions.  We have the 2020 Connect from ITU.  We have the report from the broadband commission.  Next year we're going to have a comprehensive report from the World Bank. 
So I think that maybe we should focus in this document in those -- in that value that could be given by the IGF that it's unique of IGF.  I was joking about talking about the IGFness.  I don't know what that could be.  But maybe we should have some sort of brainstorming and try to define this "IGFness."  And this document should focus on that.
I'm not sure if I already have this definition of the essential thing of IGF.  But to my mind comes the fact that IGF is whatever.  It's not an institution.  But whatever it is, that is comprehensive. Because you have all stakeholders, and it has all views.  We were discussing this dynamic coalition.  So all views.  So this holistic approach, this completeness I think should be one of the marks of this document.  Maybe not to go into the details of things that are being -- as I said before, are being addressed elsewhere in ITU documents or in broadband documents.  Maybe this selection of what you are calling the buckets, it's okay.  But we have to give -- I don't know -- this IGFness point of view in order that this is not one more document but a document that has the stamp from the IGF.  And so maybe this holistic approach is the way of doing it. 
Fortunately, as you know, this is the year of sustainable development.  As many of you know, the sustainable development is a concept that also is holistic in nature.  Because it includes not only economic sustainability, but also social inclusiveness and environmental sustainability or friendly.  So I think that this way, that the way that an IGF, all aspects of the use of the Internet, being gender, being youth, being -- and also all the aspect that has to do with infrastructure that we discuss, IXPs and some of the things, I think we should find -- we should try to find a way to put that in a big picture that maybe, without going in the how-to details of each one, but it links all the pieces.  Because I think that is one of the uniqueness of IGF in which you have the whole picture with all the pieces.  Okay.  I'll stop there.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Juan.  I think you have touched on a point that we have been discussing before in some ways, which is, by focusing on the topic we have selected policy options to connect.  And I think we really should not lose the focus, but at the same time also not lose the vision of the larger picture. 
So maybe a way to address this would be to, even in introduction or some -- to provide for some conceptual framework negates the environment in which we are working, what are the concerns?  What are the ultimate objectives that are aimed at the same time not to lose the focus on policy options for connecting.
But I think your point is well taken, and we'll try to reflect it in the draft.  Yeah.  I turn to Mark.  And then I'd like to give the floor to Constance and Brian.  Because, on the basis of the discussions we had before, an effort was made to adjust the framework, the initial framework that was proposed.  And we'd like to offer it for your consideration to see if that duly reflects the state of discussion.  Because, as we said before, it's very important for us to go out of this meeting with a very clear idea of these -- what we call the skeleton of the study.
But any comment?  I offer the floor to Mark. And, if there are any other comments, we'll take, of course, be glad to hear.  And then I'll turn to Constance. 
So Mark, please, you have the floor.
 
>>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Benedicto.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government.  Just to follow on from that important exchange about contextualizing the policy options document, a suggestion I have to help with that is to move the text which is currently at paragraph 29 with reference to the WSIS+10 review and the post-2015 sustainable development goals, to move that text up, actually, to the introduction.  Because I think that's a valuable contextualizing paragraph which immediately resonates well with the agreements to be undertaken very shortly this month on the SDGs and the WSIS review.
I think that's one text proposal to help with this objective.  Hope that's helpful.  Thank you.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  I think this is a very helpful suggestion.  And I turn then to Constance to indicate what we'll see as a way to follow up on what you had proposed before.  Thank you.
 
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you very much.
We're going to pull up the amended skeleton, draft skeleton in a minute.  Before we do that or as we do that, maybe I'll -- we'll talk about the next steps, because I think you wanted to touch on that issue.  So, after this MAG meeting and if we manage to have agreement on the skeleton, then we would issue a formal call to join the editorial group beyond the MAG community.  And we already know that a lot of groups, individuals, institutions, universities are interested in joining that group.
We would have, on the basis of the draft skeleton, something to build upon.  And we would target, perhaps, the 10th or 15th of September to have a complete draft to present to the editorial group for its consideration.  The pen would be held by the IGF secretariat, Brian. 
And the editorial group, members of the editorial group -- because you're all very busy with day jobs -- we would ask that group for guidance, comments, ideas on how to take the document one step further.  Between now and the IGF we probably have time for two, perhaps three iterative processes to get the document where we'd like it to be.  And we should also talk about the length -- the target length of the document. 
Considering the amount of contributions, background contributions received to date and the ones that are going to come in in the next weeks through the IGF national regional IGFs, we would probably have a synthesis of the contributions in the annexes.  And we would propose that the document would not exceed maybe 15 pages.  As Juan said, we need to focus on the specificity of the IGF angle.  And that would be the -- that would be the target length for the length. 
Is it possible to pull up the draft skeleton?  So maybe I'll start orally as we try to put it up on the screen, which will be easier for all of you to follow.  But, based on the comments we received that were made this morning, the skeleton was reorganized in five distinct sections that you will see in a second.  Hopefully.
In the first section there's a clear distinction made in the first section that covers issues, policies related to infrastructure.  Then there's an A and a B that are distinct, the A being physical infrastructure.  That covers under C fiber cables, broadband, et cetera.  And then a distinct B that would be called other applications and services. 
Before we go further, I'd just like to make sure you have the text in front of you. 
Okay.  I'll continue orally.
So that was the first bucket, the first section.
And then the second one being issues and policies related to creating an enabling environment for access and connectivity with, again, two separate subsections.  One -- and the titles can be fine-tuned.  But the first one, A, being government IGO frameworks and B being private sector-led nonprofit initiatives.
The third section -- and I think we're getting there.  Okay.  Here it is.  So you see the difference AB, AB, both in the first and the second bucket of issues.  The first one being infrastructure.  And then the second one with regards to the policy frameworks. 
The third section covering issues and policies related to digital capacity building -- this is where we talk about digital literacy, user literacy, et cetera.
The fourth one being content and usage.  This is where we talk about multilingualism, local content among other issues.  And, finally, issues related to affordability, cost, digital divide, income disparity. 
So, hopefully, the new skeleton captures the comments and suggestions made this morning.  With regards to Juan's comment and I think Mark's suggestions, I think that's clearly the way forward to contextualize the exercise and present this as a contribution immediately after the sustainable development summit and before WSIS+10 where we know that the link between sustainable development and ICTs, the Internet, will be at the heart of discussions.  Maybe that's the way to do it.  That's the prism we could adopt to make this document unique.
So, yes, you see the draft skeleton now.  And, Ambassador, I would propose that we discuss it with a view to trying to have a stabilized version by the end of the day so we can add to it in the coming weeks.  Thank you.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  So this is for your consideration.  We understand this is the first time you'll see the text as it is.  So you may wish to have some more time to consider it.  But, in case there are some quick reactions, especially on the part of those who made interventions that led us to make those changes, we'd like to have a feeling whether that was adequately reflected -- if we could adequately what were reflect your concerns.  But I -- I'll be in your hands.  Sorry.  Yes, Brian, please.
 
>>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  As you look at this, of course it's not exhaustive.  We will -- as we continue to go through what we've received and we find more subsections, more As and Bs and Cs, we will add those. And then we can see if it makes sense during our next call the way we're organizing the content. 
And we do also -- it was suggested to make sort of the bibliography or the annex more robust, dig a little deeper into the summaries of each input received.  We will follow that suggestion, I think.  Because the added value, as Juan was saying, could be one of the added values is that these are inputs from the community, diversity of views.  Again, the topic is different to each stakeholder that is contributing to the project.  Again, I think that's a very huge value of the IGF, among other things.  But we can highlight that.  And that can be a resource that lives on after this IGF.  It's a resource of a living thing.  What else?
So, yeah.  Any immediate reactions to this?

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: I see Carolyn has a question from the floor.
You have the floor.

>>CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much, Constance, for incorporating the discussion into the new revised outline.
I'm seeking a little bit of clarification as I look at the various section headers, in that policies appear in 1, 2, as well as 3, and whether the intention is to discuss policies related in each one of those sections, in which case there may be an overlap. 
Perhaps for consideration, a -- it may be better -- well, here's a suggestion, which is, so we have 1 as issues related to infrastructure, and potentially swap -- the next one being issues related to digital capacity building, and then issues related to content and usage, followed by Section 4, which would then be policies relating to creating enabling environments.
So essentially, the contents of what the policies would be related to would be discussed and then potentially the policies.  So just some clarification with respect to the focus of each of the sections, please.  Thank you very much.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Okay.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  I think it makes a lot of sense.  It's a good suggestion if it's agreeable by the group.
Are there any other comments or suggestions with regards to the skeleton? 
Please, Virat.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  So I support the point that has just been made.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Are there any other points, comments on the draft skeleton?

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yeah.  I'll make one comment myself because I -- I think we are trying to be, in a way, economical about the categories, not to provide for a very lengthy structure, but in the light of the discussion we had before, I would seek your comments in regard to Item 2(b) in which we have put together private sector-led and nonprofit initiatives.  I would suggest that those could be split for the sake of better clarity for the document.
So Number 2, the (a), (b), and (c), with nonprofit as a separate category.
Yes, Juan, please.

>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Well, I would like to comment.  There are many ways, you know, as they say in Cuba, to skin a cat and maybe this is one way, but in order to capture the richness of the debate of the IGF, I think that we should include more things but that maybe they are a recent transversal to all, because for instance, from a developing country point of view, the issue of financing is very important, because how to finance the -- all those, the local content, how to finance that, how to finance capacity building, how to finance the physical thing -- because even that is -- the executors are the private sector but they need financing as well.  And so that's one point.  It always come back in all these things to financing.
And relating to that, because financing is not only money, it's the technology transfer, intellectual property rights, all that are transversal issues that I know that it's been discussed very richly in the IGF workshops throughout all these years, so I think that we have to put this because if we put it like that, it's like all the reports that are in -- that we've been reading from UNCTAD, from ITU, from that, we have to put the essential things, the richness that IGF brings to this.
And because as IGF product is not a negotiated document, it has to be inclusive in all these opinions and all these aspects that impacts all this.  That could be a good way to organize it, but we have to put all the hurdles or all the concerns that the rich community that are the IGF community has mentioned or have stated throughout all these years. 
And I only mention a few but I know that there's so many because the digital capacity building has a gender angle also, because in many countries the -- this training is not women, women are left out, and so are -- so I think this kind of -- this lens, this special lens I think is what gives the uniqueness to the IGF review and we should have it in the document.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yeah.  I'll turn to Brian, but just to very quickly address this, I think that by establishing those broad categories we are not losing sight that within each of those categories -- for example, when we discuss undersea fiber cables, there are tremendous challenges in regard to financing, to so many aspects related to this. 
So when -- this is the intent:  When we enunciate what are the policies, initiatives in that regard, we want to take into account this, because we asked for comments that would elicit the challenges that were faced, what were the unintended consequences, so there is a richness of detail that is maybe not here on screen but it is in our head and should be there.
I think the real challenge will be how to address it in a balanced way to bring on board the relevant information in the information we have, but from the point we have at least a skeleton, I think that will assist us in fleshing out it later.
Before turning to a lot of the comments, I'd like to give the floor to our chair, Janis, who requested for the floor. 
Janis, please.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Thank you.  Though I fully agree with Juan Alfonso on the sort of substance that this is a very important issue, we need to be also cognizant that this exercise should reflect the inputs we received from -- primarily from national and regional IGFs, and if in those inputs financing issues are not outlined, so then we should not put them in, simply because this is a direct reflection and direct compilation from inputs we receive.
So I think we need really to stick to this methodology and do a smart compilation of received inputs.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  Yes, Brian.

>>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Not much more to add.  I agree with -- I think we're all on the same page, but again just reminding that the basis for all of this are the inputs received.  It's a cliche but it's true.  It's really bottom-up.  We will be careful as secretariat not to add.  If it's, "Oh, we're missing something," well, if it didn't come in, it wasn't submitted, that issue, that obstacle, we won't want to just put it in there because we think it fits.
There's some logic to this logical compilation, obviously, but -- and we also want to produce something that's easy to read and has a lot of entry points for people who are in different fields and not too complex that people only read the first page and then throw it away because they think it's too complicated.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Brian.  Juan?

>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ: Yes, I want to react to that because well, of course, you can put the rules and then you stick to the rules, but I'm worried that this is the first time this kind of exercise to have this kind of document.
What about the legacy of the IGF, all the workshops that have been carried out and organized throughout all these years?  Those workshops have some information and views about many of the things.  And by starting here on zero, it's like saying, "Well, it's all, you know, reset.  All that is lost."
I think that you should take into consideration that, in a way of -- or to distill that richness of all this 10 years of IGF, of nearly a thousand workshops.  How many panelists, how many people have given their time and effort and thinking to all these problems with different perspectives, because the IGF has been in a different part of the world so the perspectives have been diverse.  I think it's good to have rules and that we all continue that exercise and, well, you ask for inputs, but I don't think that those inputs should be the end of it because in the other hand, well, it's like that.  Many could feel that it's reset.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  I think you make a very valid point.  We already see in the draft agenda at least a list of workshops for this year.  There are a number of sessions that have a contribution to make to this exercise, and one thing we could do is target the workshop organizers to have their input and make sure we have exhaustive contributions as we develop the document.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  I think what Constance said is very helpful and certainly we could, I think, take it on board easily.
But I also agree to some extent to what Juan has said, because we have a wealth of information and inputs that were developed throughout the years, and although some information might not be directly addressed while we're in process, it is there.  It's something we can tap into.  But the challenge is how to -- then to take into account a legacy of nine years of our experience.
One thing that maybe we could -- we should do is to -- the first draft to be fully consistent with what -- with the contributions, the actual contributions we receive, and we can have a look at it and see if there are any great gaps.  We can try to fill into those gaps using, let's say, existing inputs that are -- were not addressed directly but are also available to the IGF on the basis of previous experience.  Because I think if we try to start to tap into all those nine years, that will lead us to a very complex operation from the start.  But I'll turn to Juan for --

>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ:  Yeah, it's true, you know, because it will be impossible to distill all this information in -- you know, in text, but at least a way forward could be, for instance, if you have this, then you put in text what came from the contributions and maybe you can do a survey of -- well, to check which workshops in previous IGFs touched that topic and refer to the -- to the minutes that have been in the archives of IGF, something like that.
If that is already in the archives of IGF, I think that most workshops has -- has a final document from previous IGFs so you could put a link so people can go and see the diversity of views that come from there.
That, of course, it's work but it's a lot less work than to go into each of those summaries.  Just to point out, "In IGF 2010, there was this workshop that touches this point." 
I know I haven't been to many IGFs but in the ones that I've been, there have been workshops that touches many of those points.  Thank you.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  I wasn't on the MAG 10 years ago, but it's my impression that at least all the main sessions were documented and we should be able to find, you know, not only the organizers of those main sessions but probably also the output of those main sessions.  And I also understand the theme of access for the main sessions was repeated a number of times, and that's something we can do quite easily, in addition to reaching out to the organizers of this year's workshops on themes that relate to connecting the next billion.
So hopefully it will allow us to cover more or less the ground of the past 10 years.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  I see Marilyn lowered her flag.  I think she was going to say something about that.  Thank you.
I turn to Baher.

>>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chair. 
One more thing.  I think that Juan is raising an important point and maybe one -- at least my understanding of this process is that this is not going to be an exhaustive list and the document itself is not going to be a final document at the time we are in Brazil.
My understanding is that this is -- this is a living document that is going to be there for some time and we will continue as a MAG, as a community, to seek input from national/regional IGFs and other parties on its contents and maybe it's going to evolve over the next, you know, few years.
So I think having it with us for some time will allow more time and opportunity to capture some of the, you know, historical input and information that all the workshops and main sessions, et cetera, have collected over time.  Thanks.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  This is the understanding that has been guiding us from the start that we are preparing a document that is intended to be updated regularly, and I fully concur with the notion that maybe we should not try to do everything now, but maybe indicate some other areas to be tackled.
My concern is very practical, because we are thinking 10 days to issue a first draft, so this first draft I think as a minimum should contain a compilation, an intelligent compilation, as we have been consistently required by our chair on the basis of the inputs we have received.
I think the point raised by Juan is perfect and I fully concur, but my big concern is we've got the challenge to do in that time frame, so that's what I'm proposing. 
Maybe the first draft should focus on the contributions themselves, if possible to try to incorporate this, but has as a primary task to do what we have established from the beginning. 
But I'd like to seek your views, of course, and I see Virat and Juan, but before that, I'll give the floor to Constance.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yes, because I'm receiving messages from people who are following the discussion remotely and who happen to not have access to this document, so Brian, I don't -- I don't know how we could make sure that they see the document.

>> (Off microphone.)

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you.  And apologies for interrupting.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Do we have a remote moderator?

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:
Virat?  So I suggest we hear Virat and Juan and then we'll turn to remote participation.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm willing to wait.  If the remote participants are waiting, I'm willing for them to come in first.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Juan?

>> (Off microphone.)

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  So we hear first the remote?  Are we ready for -- to hear the remote participation?

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yes, please.  Yes, go ahead.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  (indiscernible) on the dais, so (indiscernible) for a while.  Thank you for that excellent presentation, Brian, and that is very helpful.  And great work, all of you.
Just completely agree and would like to echo support for what Juan is suggesting.  I do not believe that this document exists in isolation.  It has also been a response to paragraph (indiscernible) of the Tunis Agenda where folks consistently over the years suggestions have been made for (indiscernible) outcomes and best practices and things that people can relate to, take away and (indiscernible) their national and regional (indiscernible).
So because this is also the sum of a lot of years of work, it's -- I know it's difficult to track workshops, which Constance mentioned, and I want to echo support for that.
The idea of taking reports which all main session facilitators, organizers, and MAG members have (indiscernible) and also taking the relevant sections from the chair's summary, especially last year (indiscernible) to document how things have been taken from the IGF and they have been (indiscernible) challenges for (indiscernible) capacity building and bringing people on line.  How is it that more support can happen?  The policy (indiscernible) governments will look to solutions (indiscernible) build multistakeholder collaborations and partnerships and also taking the existing (indiscernible) from the past 10 years (indiscernible) has been (indiscernible) main sessions.  We have a lot of work that has already taken place and I respect the fact that this is bottom-up but so is the IGF, so inputs that already exist to the chair's summary and the reports from the main sessions, it would be great if we see them reflected in this draft document.
Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Subi.  I think that was Subi.  I turn to Virat.
 
>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  It sounded like an old treadmill in the back.  I say I think there might be a mild media here given the 10-day target that you have of trying to get out the contributions.  Would it be possible to get the first draft out with what you have as contributions and, to the extent possible, provide links to the material that exists suggesting that this information can be included over the next 60-day period.  Well, 50-day period by then.  And I think that mostly, as you're aware, access has been a main session almost every year with the exception of this year.  And that certainly will have solid material if that's documented and it's going to have video available.  To the extent possible, if somebody could quickly identify links which would be available and just list them along with what's going out in the next 10 days rather than go through the task of incorporated everything in the next 10 days, which is a real challenge for Brian.  I think we might be able to then reach a conclusion where it is comprehensive in the sense that it's linked.  And ten over the next 50 days find ways to see what of that can be included in a meaningful way.  Probably requires some additional resources to structure the manner in which those comments came to place them in the five buckets that we have now agreed to.  But I think that it seems like a mild media where we capture the history and the current.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you.  This is very helpful.  Juan, please.
 
>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ:  I think what I proposed was now superbly explained by Virat.  But I wish only to rest my case here.  To mention that I know that everybody here has experience writing reports, writing documents for somebody else.  And everybody here, when writing a document, we put also first what is the main idea we try to convey?  You know, it's called the super idea, super objective in Spanish.  I don't know if this word exists in English.  This is also for plays, people who write plays and all that. 
I think here our main objective of all is to sell the IGF, that IGF is a real useful policy dialogue forum that from that richness of discussion that we defend the plurality and the inclusiveness of that discussion can really come out.  Important information for policy maker or anyone study on these topics.  So I think that we should keep that in mind. 
And in that sense to, as was said before, to put links to what has been done all these years.  Maybe we will never put it in the document itself.  But at least the links can give the people who read that there's a backlog of work being done that was done.  And that is useful. 
Maybe, as Virat said -- I didn't suggest that, but I think it's a good idea that maybe in a later stage from those links maybe some key information could be put -- you know, textually in the document.  But at least that's the idea.  To sell that this is not a new thing, that this is a thing that has been going on for 10 years that has been useful, that a lot of work has been done.  And one of the things that I really regret that many of those work and that discussion has not never been summarized in outcomes.  I think that is one of the things that this new IGF is trying to remedy, to try to put -- have outcomes that reflect that richness of discussions and ideas.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you.  Marilyn.
 
>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.
Marilyn Cade speaking.
Constance, for you and for the Chair, we are presently in preparation for the substantive session for the national and regional IGFs.  We're finalizing a survey.  It is relatively lengthy.  I will be the single most unpopular person in the entire world with the coordinators when they receive it.  So I'll offer to insert a couple of questions on your behalf. 
So we have 8-10, maybe more, that will be submitting contributions to the connecting the next billion.  But we could add a question. 
We have a question, for instance, which asks them how they are reflecting the main theme and the subthemes in 2015 from the IGF into their national or regional initiative.  We could add maybe up to two historical questions, if you could work with us on that.  Anja from the secretariat is supporting this.  And she and I are trying to work toward finalization that we have a small group of coordinators reviewing it.  And that could be helpful.  We intend to have the information back because we'll be publishing the survey results and using them in a very small part of the session.  But, if that would be helpful, happy to.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  We have a remote participation.  Please go ahead.

>>REMOVE INTERVENTION:  Hello, it's Sandra Hoferichter.  Can you hear me?
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yes, we can.  Thank you.  Go ahead.

>>SANDRA HOFERICHTER:  Thank you.  It's wonderful to follow from the remote and see you all there.  It's Sandra Hoferichter from the EuroDIG.
Reading this paper and this process, which is quite impressive, I've had some questions and comments.  And I raised these questions earlier today when we were talking about the regional session.  I think this is a great paper so far. 
What I'm missing is the categorization into regions.  For me it would be interesting to know which issues are relevant for which region.  And maybe it is possible to divide or -- I mean, at the moment it says this paper categorizes the submission into categories, which is somehow categorizing categories is a little bit double. 
So maybe we can think about also categorization or division into regions so we can really see, okay, in Africa we have issues for connecting next billions which are X, Y, Z.  And in America it might look differently. 
So maybe this could enrich that paper if we start putting the submissions into or categorizing them into region.  And then we definitely come to national regional IGFs. And, from the EuroDIG perspective, I can explain or share my experience with you that we had a multistakeholder discussion at EuroDIG about this issue.  We took that very seriously.  We had all the big European institutions like the Commission, the Council of Europe, and ISOC and others who have been involved into that discussion.  And I think, when some of the submissions are coming out of a regional or national IGF, here as well they had a sort of same multistakeholder discussion already in the region.  So I think those contributions are very valuable in order to map the issues for each region. 
Maybe -- I know that Marilyn is driving the process about the interregional session.  And this will be a topic there as well.  Maybe we can really incorporate the effort which comes out of this session of this process, which is led by Marilyn, maybe we can really incorporate those results into the paper in order also to have those mapping into regions.  Thank you very much.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you for your comments.  I would maybe very preliminarily say that this is, of course, a very important mission to be able to look at all the topics that are being proposed through a regional national perspective assessing what are the important issues for different regions. 
But my feeling is that this will emerge in a way naturally from the point we have the categories.  And inside each category we'll try to specify the contributions.  And the important thing will be to -- for the attribution of the initiatives and policies there.  And those would be linked to nations and regions. 
I'm not sure if we should in this skeleton already insert that regional aspect.  I think that would maybe insert a layer of complexity, an additional layer which can be further, later on elicited from the document you'll have.  But I will, of course, like to hear the comments in that regard.
I understand we have another remote participant.  Subi, would like to make a comment.  Subi, please go ahead.
 
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: I'm so sorry.  But I think, given the time frame, it's important that we work with what we have.  And, while it would be useful to categorize contributions, I don't think that in the space that we have we can do that.  So some kind of info graphic representation that people can see where the contributions have come from, what are the thematic actors, and how is it that different stakeholders can work towards a collaborating with each other promoting access, and where is it that there are meeting points?  So points to work where we can work with each other.  How is it that we can help each other.  That would be a very valuable contribution.  And thank you so much for the work.  Sorry about that.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  I see Virat would like to make a comment.
 
>>VIRAT BHATIA:  I support that point about having a graphic representation on the source and the regions of contribution to be able to represent up in the sort of preface or whatever of this report the multistakeholderism.  Because that will be -- just in two pages and five diagrams perhaps you could achieve more than you would if you had to list everything down in five pages and have it read everything.  I think that is an interesting idea that the editing group might want to consider that right up front so that graphically it becomes quite obvious to those who are looking at this that the range of multistakeholder cooperation:
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.
Okay.  Thank you.  In case there are no further comments, I would like to indicate we have taken note of all the comments that were made. 
I see Marilyn.  You can have the floor. 
And, in regard to the introduction language which is basically agreed language that was there before, but we'd like also to revisit it in the light of comments that were made and seek later revised version for your consideration. 
I think we have here identified the nature of the challenge we have.  We want to be able to produce a document that is relevant, that is IGF specific, as has been said by Juan and others.  At the same time we have the challenge to do it in the time frame we have.  But, to the extent possible, we'll try to bring on board as much information as possible. 
And I think one very clear message we received from the MAG is that, besides the individual contributions we will receive, we will also want to tap into that legacy we have from previous years.  I think this is a very important element for us at the editorial group and for Brian in particular to take into consideration.  So, in light of the time frame, we'll try to address these as to the best extent we can in order to be able to produce a first draft by 10 or 15.  I'll turn to Constance for that part.
 
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: So, I mean, based on the discussion we had this morning and this afternoon, I think we need to revisit a little bit the initial time frame.  We can have, as suggested, the skeleton up immediately after the MAG meeting.  We already have up on the IGF Web site the full list of contributions.  Brian was showing the home page of the connecting the next billion earlier.  You have the 35 existing contributions.  We can add on that web page links to the relevant workshops and maybe links to the reports from previous main sessions on access. 
And, in addition to that, we would, as agreed, contact the organizers of main sessions this year workshops, workshop organizers, themes -- on themes that relate to access.  And we would do a special renewed outreach to the regional national IGFs just to make sure that all the contributions that were promised are actually received.  We already have a good number of them, but more are expected. 
I think that means that we need at least two weeks before we're able to put out a new draft out.  And that will also give us the time to constitute the editorial group, to launch the call and make sure that everyone has the information and has a chance to join the editorial group. 
So, if we agree on that, those steps, in a nutshell, it means we would put up the skeleton immediately, the new skeleton immediately up on the IGF Web site.  And, in the two coming weeks, we would gather further contributions, as we said.  And in two weeks we would have a new draft for the consideration of the editorial group. 
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Excellent.  I see no requests for the floor except for Marilyn.  You have the floor, Marilyn.
 
>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I just want to really reiterate that really happy to put maybe two to three questions in it.  If we can do that before I leave, then I think, you know, just to say to Sandra, for instance, at least we'll have a very high-level snapshot of some reflection from the 8-10 regionals that respond to the survey.  It will not be everything we look at. 
But what I'm struck by -- I just want to say there are a number of engineers in this room.  And I think it sounds to me very much like we are doing perhaps what I would think of as the beta version of our study on this.
And we really will, I think, have the opportunity to do a follow-on.  I see a lot of interest in that.  And I think we'll see if that's reinforced by how the connecting the next billion activities are received and responded to as we present them at the IGF.  And, if this amount of interest continues, then we'll -- we will have fulfilled our original purpose. 
Now, I'm just going to say one other thing.  Not to reopen the idea that we're going to link just to the main sessions on access.  I just merely want to note that in the past the section -- the main sessions on access may have been heavily limited to infrastructure.  But that is merely a footnote to I still think that's the right way to go for now.
 
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  I see Nigel requesting for the floor.  You have the floor, sir.

>>ICANN:  Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.  I know you wanted to finish the session. 
I just wanted to very briefly say what Marilyn has said,  I think, that has really put us where we are.  Picking up the point from Juan, what are we bringing to the table here?  What unique selling point do we have?  It seems to me that we have two threads.  We have the strength of our IGF community.  We have the ability of people to contribute things in almost in a realtime environment, not long studies or long surveys.  But really coming together to contribute their ideas, their thoughts, their best practices, their links, et cetera.
And we have this dynamic behind it in that we're producing something in over -- in a short time that's going to be presented in Brazil and will hopefully be relevant.  And the community will look at it, and the community will feed back.  And the community will tell us in the session whether this is something live, something really that is useful to people and that's something that can be worked on further.
So I think this is a unique selling point of what the IGF can do and this is something that we've been asked, you know, before by ministers, by other people to demonstrate what the IGF brings to the table and this is one of the things it does.  Sorry.  Thank you.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  Thank you.  It's noted.
Yes, Virat.  Please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just mentioned the access to main sessions because there's an assumption here that it's relevant here but I'm sure there are others on multilingualism and others I can't recall just yet.  But even if you look at four main sessions over the last nine years, we're talking about a lot of main sessions, of which at least five or six would be relevant.  Some workshops would be relevant. 
In addition to that, I think there would be about seven or eight main sessions on access.  I remember at least three of them since I've been engaged.  But as I said, Marilyn knows the history reasonably well, and so I would think that we could get about eight or 10 main sessions between access and other related issues which can be provided as links in the interim period so that Brian can get on with the 10-day sort of first draft.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  Thank you for the suggestion.  It is duly noted.
Yes, I will give the floor to Janis, please.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much. 
Again, I would like -- I would like to come back to the origin of this exercise, and once again caution -- or remind ourselves while we're doing this.
The working group on improvements of the IGF suggested that we need to look, among other things, to two issues.
One is to link -- or to improve linkage between national/regional IGF initiatives and global IGF.  And secondly, to ensure that there are more tangible outputs coming out from IGF.
With this exercise, we're trying to address primarily the first issue, to link national/regional IGFs with this one -- with a global IGF, and to contribute to an increased number of outputs.
So this is not to present a fully fledged document on access or policies that need to be put in place with access.  We don't have time for that.  We don't have resources for that.
And I would like really to caution ourselves that let's better take smaller steps addressing issues that we have identified at the beginning of this exercise, not try to save the world and to expand our mandate during the journey.
So please try to keep that in mind.
We need to also have a good marketing strategy, if I may use this word, or communications strategy to explain why we're spending time, why we're spending resources on this exercise. 
And so we have a good story behind it, but if we are trying to achieve or expand the mandate of this exercise, we are putting ourselves in -- a little bit in trouble.
We will not be able to explain everything.  And that's the problem.  So just a word of caution.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  It is always important for us to maintain the focus and, as it has been mentioned, to the extent possible to make the document as relevant as we can, tap into information that has been developed but not losing the focus.  I think it's very well taken.
I see Virat requesting the floor.  No?  Thank you.
So is there any other commenting in regard to this?
As we said in the beginning, our intention is to go out with this skeleton which will be fleshed out, and I think in the course of the discussion it is well understood that in this skeleton there are many dimensions that to the extent possible we'll try to address and that have merit in themselves.
We also -- and I think this is basically what we have been doing so far -- I thank you for that -- beginning to do the draft composition of the editorial group.  We also want to confirm, as Constance has said, the next steps in that regard and -- in regard to the time frame we'll be working. 
So I think we have established at least the procedure and a firm road for this to be done.
We will certainly encourage the secretariat -- we know they have so many competing activities the secretariat will have to perform before now and the IGF, but we trust that with maintaining the focus of this exercise, it will be able to do it and the editorial group will be ready to support, to the extent possible.  So I understand we'll be circulating the summary of our discussions for your further consideration but I'll say for the moment unless there are any further interventions we can consider that our main task was accomplished and I thank you all for this.
Would you like to make any comments in that regard?
No.  So thank you.  Thank you for that.  I'll turn to our chair.  We -- I think we are a bit ahead of time, so with -- Mr. Chair, you can maybe guide us on the next steps, please.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Benedicto, for this, and then Constance and Brian.
So we will continue, then, this exercise tomorrow morning, in the morning session, from 10:00 to 1:00.  We'll be looking also already in the substance of contributions and formulations.  Maybe Brian will circulate a document later today or in the evening, the one we will be looking at tomorrow -- tomorrow morning.
So now we are breaking to work on main sessions.  The secretariat circulated a list of rooms where these meetings will take place.  Please go straight to those rooms.  They are at our disposal until 6:00 in the evening.  And please come back tomorrow -- please come back tomorrow at 10:00, where we will resume the open-ended editorial group meeting on the text.
If there is a need for further sort of work in smaller groups on either main sessions or best practice forums or something else, please let the secretariat know and we will arrange rooms for that purpose tomorrow in the morning from 10:00 to 1:00.  Because in the afternoon, we will be wrapping up our work.  We will be hearing feedback from these breakout groups, where we are in terms of preparations for main sessions.
Please, coordinators, be prepared to give a brief update on progress that has been made during this meeting in the -- on substance of preparations.  And so that will be our topic for the afternoon. 
And then we will be discussing next steps before sort of bidding farewell.  So thank you very much, so see you then in the breakout rooms now and tomorrow morning in this room at 10:00.
Yes, please, Virat.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chair, I was just going to say that the NETmundial meeting yesterday was a very successful one.  They have circulated the note already for comments, so I think -- I know we are caught up with a lot of work but those who can comment back on it, at least that working group is off the ground with revisions already in the note.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, and congratulations.  That apparently was a very successful meeting. 
So thank you.

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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