You are here

IGF 2016 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting April 6

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the First Open Consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) Meeting for IGF 2016 in Geneva, Switzerland, from 4 to 6 April 2016. 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 event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.


6 April 2016

Geneva, Switzerland


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay.  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  We're starting the second day of the MAG meeting.  I'll just quickly hand it over to the chair.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai, and good morning everyone.  I'd like to go through, in a moment, just kind of the structure overall for the agenda today, and I think we're going to have to move forward at quite a pace.  Hopefully just fast enough, not too fast.

 I'll just remind everybody that the equivalent of this meeting last year took place in December, so we were able to move some of our decisions to off-line meetings and virtual meetings and phone calls and lists and take, frankly, quite a bit of extra time with those discussions.

 We really just don't have that luxury today because if we postpone a lot of these, for one thing we'll run by the timetable we agreed to yesterday, but again, we will be just right in the middle of the summer season in the northern hemisphere and, frankly, then, you know, we're just -- it's just too late in the year.

 So I'm going to have to ask, I think, some forbearance to try and move some things forward.

 There may be an opportunity to create a few more working groups to work over the lunch period as well.  

 I mean, I think the group that met this morning will have a report out in a moment, but said they were very successful in getting to agreement and some work done, so again, I just appreciate everybody's forbearance and support in making your comments as to the point and brief as possible.

 If it's been said before, a quick iteration or just a +1 works, as opposed to, you know, significantly expanding on a point that's been made quite a number of times.

 So with that, I think the work that's in front of us is, one of the first items will be a short report out from the working group that met this morning on the guidelines for the workshops.

 We need to cover the various pieces of intersessional work, so the national and regional IGF initiatives have some input and some comments on a survey in terms of the direction of both their work and possibly the IGF itself, report outside from the work of the dynamic coalitions, the best practice forums, and last year we actually undertook a very significant piece of intersessional work which was called the connecting the next billion.  That was actually led by -- chaired by Ambassador Fonseca and ably led by Constance Bommelaer, and I think Constance is going to give us a short report out and some thoughts on perhaps a second iteration or second phase of that work.  And all of those are very important because if we're going to have additional best practice forums or a second piece of work, we need to determine what that is today to get that started.

 The secretariat needs some time to process that, we need to find appropriate support and experts, and populate the working groups.  They need to populate them themselves as well, but it's also a substantive piece of work.

 We clearly have some theme and subtheme discussions to try and wrap up on from all the work yesterday.  I really like Juan's admonition of keeping it short and elegant and hopefully that will help us come to conclusions more quickly.

 We have a discussion on main sessions.  Our main sessions have quite often influenced the themes, or perhaps vice versa, and I think we need to take that into account as well.

 I'm not sure if we'll be able to close on those today.  I think a couple are probably quite evident.  We may need to take that to a subsequent call.

 And then possibly a discussion on day zero as well.  

 And Victor actually informs us that unfortunately he'll be with us for the morning session, so we may look at one or two of those pieces.  Perhaps day zero we should take a short conversation and pull up a little bit.  That actually impacts the opening ceremony and if we are going to do something there at a high level or sort of ministerial level event, then I think that's also something that we need to get into the planning quite quickly.

 So I'll stop there for a moment.  Does that seem like a reasonable piece of work going forward?  Michael Nelson, you have the floor.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON: Seems to me it's more than we're -- it's going to be hard to do it all but we can.  But to make it more difficult, I note that yesterday's agenda included a discussion of a best practices forum which we didn't really -- did we cover that in the 20 minutes I was out of the room or do we have to get to that?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That is part of the report out this morning and the intersessional -- no, we -- that is one of the key pieces of work that I think we need to get quite close on today, if we're going to support them over the course of the year.

 So with that, can we have that sort of working outline?  Is that an agreed way forward?

 Okay.  Thank you.

 I'd like to make one announcement before we move to the program.

 As I think many of you know, the MAG chair actually has the prerogative to appoint special advisors, and I think every previous MAG chair has done -- has done so.

 Some of them, quite a number, in fact.

 And as I think we've said many times over the course of the first few days here, Ambassador Fonseca's support to Internet governance and to the IGF itself last year was critical in helping us get to the right places, have our voice heard.  He was very instrumental at the IGF itself in terms of helping to pull together I think what was a very influential session, the WSIS+10 session, and he also helped in a number of other intergovernmental, U.N., and governmental fora.  And I'm honored to be the first MAG chair that comes from a stakeholder group that's nongovernment, and as a woman as well, as people have pointed out, but I want to make sure that we don't lose any traction or any momentum from those excellent efforts last year.

 So I'm really, really happy and I think we're all quite fortunate that Ambassador Fonseca has agreed to be a special advisor to the chair, specifically to help in that continued and sustained governmental outreach.  So he's here, he's been with us for the three days, and I'd really just like to thank him and hope you have your --

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Ambassador Fonseca, you have the floor.

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA:  Thank you, Lynn.  And thank you, colleagues.  I'm really honored by the invitation and also to have your confidence and your -- and I will do my best to meet your expectation, colleagues.  As I have said in the beginning, our engagement as government with the multistakeholder approach in the context of IGF and other foreign processes is something that stems from the approach we have been developing in Brazil for the last 25 years.  It's something that we really believe in, that we see a lot of merit and benefits for governments' involvement in that format from the perspective that it adds legitimacy and sustainability to decisions related to Internet governance.

 So we are partners with the Brazilian Steering Committee.  I'm part of the Brazilian Steering Committee.  We don't see "multistakeholder" as multistakeholder minus government.  It's multistakeholder with the involvement of governments.  And we are more than happy to contribute to that vision, to fulfill the vision that stems from the WSIS outcome document also internationally.  

 Thank you very much again.  And I pledge to do everything in my capacity and with the full support, I'm sure, of the Brazilian Steering Committee to assist you and to assist the Mexican host -- Mexico host country to organize a successful IGF.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  And, indeed, we should recognize all the work of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and CGI.BR.  They're just so central in so many of the Internet governance processes across the world, and support is always appreciated.  So thank you.

 With that, I'm not sure if it's Virat or Susan who are going to give a short report-out this morning from the working group which was to help us advance our workshop proposal documents.

 Susan or Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair.  And good morning, everyone.  So the purpose of our meeting at 9:00 today was to make small adjustments to that host of documents that guide the call for workshop proposals because we seek to issue that call for proposals as soon as we can.

 I want to thank everybody who attended at 9:00 a.m.  Thanks -- thanks for coming.  And I also wanted to thank everybody who submitted points via email on the email list last night and this morning.

 So what we did is we worked through each suggestion that was sent through on the email list.  And there will be -- what I'm going to do is I'll make track changes in a Word document so everybody can see what was suggested.

 And then -- and then -- I'm sorry.  There was a broader question about methodology, the overall questions about the methodology.  But it's good to defer these conversations to an online discussion.  So that can happen online.  But I think that for the purposes of getting the callout, we're just making small improvements.

 So I will work on that right now, and we can hope circulate that soon.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Any comments or questions?  Because once it's circulated, we'd like to try and ask the MAG to take a quick look at it, again, a subcommittee.  Quite a large number of members, I think, were here this morning working on it.  It is the set of documents we actually used last year.  So there is some running code, if you will, with respect to them.  And, again, I think it's important to get those out.  It's certainly a critical part of getting the call for proposals out.  So we will try and bring that to an approval point later today.  If that's not possible, we will do it very, very quickly on the mailing list.  But, again, that's not the best strategy either because we lose several days with travel for everybody going back to their far-flung locations.

 So the next items, I wanted to invite -- and, again, I think there have been a lot of reports through the stock-taking exercise and a lot of reports coming out of the IGF activities last year as well.  So we don't need to cover those in any depth.  But I'd like to invite the facilitators or coordinators of the dynamic coalitions, best practice forum, national and regional IGF initiatives, and the intersessional work to give us some brief updates primarily with a focus in terms of where they think this work should go 2016 and beyond.

 So I don't need to overprocess that.  I gave everybody a heads-up earlier this morning that that was coming, but I will see if you want to select yourselves in terms of taking the floor on those topics.  

 The floor is open.  And, Markus, you have the floor.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, thank you, Lynn.  Yes, I was asked to facilitate the dynamic coalitions.  The aim was to integrate them better into the IGF mainstream.  For those who are new to the IGF process, the dynamic coalitions were started at the very first IGF meeting in Athens ten years ago.  They evolved in the margins of the IGF and were never integrated into the main program.  So there was a strong feeling last year that there would be merit in integrating them better.  

 And one main session was given to them.  It was split into two halves.  And the dynamic coalitions were very happy with being given this visibility.

 And they actually agreed in Joao Pessoa to continue their work.  There was an agreement in principle to set up a dynamic coalition coordination group.  And we have had regular calls, since Joao Pessoa every month a call.  They also made a joint submission that has been duly reflected in the synthesis paper prepared by the secretariat.

 One concrete proposal coming from the dynamic coalitions is to set up this dynamic coalition coordination group, and they have developed terms of reference for this group.  And we will have the first proper meeting of this group at lunchtime today with virtual attendance by some members who cannot be here.

 There's general agreement to have -- that dynamic coalitions should be based on three common principles -- or common principles.  And the three core principles are three opens, as we called them:  Open membership, open lists, and open archives.

 And also in more concrete terms, the dynamic coalitions feel it would be useful if they would have a liaison from the MAG in this dynamic coalition coordination group and vice versa, that they would have a liaison on the MAG representing the dynamic coalitions.

 And one issue actually came up in this discussion that may seem arcane or technical, but I think it is really important.  And several MAG members have commented on the usefulness of the realtime transcriptions.  The IGF was actually a pioneer of introducing realtime transcriptions in the U.N. context.  The ITU has picked up since.

 But what the IGF has not done is to introduce realtime transcripts -- transcription into the intersessional work.  And one of the dynamic coalitions that is very active is a dynamic coalition on accessibility for people with disabilities.  And they made the point that for them, it is almost impossible to follow calls if there's no realtime transcription.  So there's a strong urge coming from this work to introduce realtime transcriptions in the intersessional work in all the calls.

 Now, we are aware, of course, that there are financial implications.  But this can be sorted out.  It does not cost the (indiscernible).  Andrea Saks, present here, she has a lot of experience with that and she will be happy to assist the secretariat.

 So the main message then coming is that the dynamic coalitions would like to have a main session again at this year's meeting to continue their integration into the main work of the IGF.  So that would be the main ask coming from the dynamic coalitions meeting.  

 And, of course, MAG members are welcome to join our lunchtime meeting and the dynamic coalition coordination group will meet.  

 This is my brief report.  Thank you for your attention.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So we have a small queue forming.  What I would like to possibly do is ask if the MAG would support moving the discussion on a liaison between the dynamic coalition coordination group and the MAG to our virtual call, probably our first virtual call as well as the transcription issue.  The latter one I think takes a little bit much examination from the secretariat.

 I personally really welcome the coordination group, and I think that will help integrate the good work that they're doing into the work of the IGF.

 And I note for discussion on main sessions later a request by the dynamic coalitions to have one of those main sessions.

 So I put that out there again in terms of trying to keep us focused on the things we really need to move forward on, which are best served by all of us here face-to-face.  

 So Virat is in the queue, and Andrea, I will give you, by exception, the queue.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Madam Chair.  

 Just very -- three quick points on dynamic coalitions.

 Firstly, as a MAG member, I welcome very much a main session for dynamic coalitions.  It's we'll deserved.  It's excellent work.

 Second, almost all dynamic coalitions do outstanding work.  They work through the year, and their work has improved and their reporting has improved and the structures are improving.

 The third point is that the three points mentioned by Markus about the requirements of being open, open lists, and open archives, is certainly a good point to start, but last year the challenge was around one specific dynamic coalition.  I'll be sort of clear and sort of speak about it so that we're all on the same page.  The dynamic coalition on net neutrality.  

 I think the challenge is that the dynamic coalition will have to find ways to make sure that when there is opposing points of views, even if they're a minority in the opposing, we'll have to find a better way to reconcile that and reflect that in the documents that are produced.

 It's not so much that they have to be reconciled.  Sometimes they will not be reconciled.  And therefore, the only request that I have is, when opposing views are presented, the opposing views should then be presented.  If there is no -- after discussion, if reconciliation is not possible, then those points must be reflected in the final document that is presented.  And if we can't do that, then it creates heartburn and unfortunately brings all the dynamic coalitions under a cloud, which is completely unnecessary, because almost all of them are -- even net neutrality -- outstanding work but requires to have a mechanism to reflect an opposing view, even if it's in the minority.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So I think those are good points, Virat.

 I really want to make sure we don't kind of slip into an extended dynamic coalition call because I think that would be better done with a specifically focused call where we could actually get some additional representatives of the DCs as well.  

 And there is an online participant in the queue, as well, and we had a discussion last night.  I don't like referring to them as "online participant" but I don't have any visibility into who the individual actually is until Anja introduces them.  And we are trying to work to see if we can get a split screen so we can actually see the online participants queue and things like that, so we're trying to look at a couple of different things in the background to better facilitate their, you know, virtual presence in the room, if you will.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you very much.  

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC SM KEE: Can you hear me okay?  It's sort of storming in this part of the world, so to me the sound is -- it's okay.

 I just wanted to give some comments around some of the work, the best practice forum work that we did last year on countering online abuse.  It was really -- I think it was -- it was -- it was hard work but extremely useful, and I think IGF played a very timely and important role.  I think the IGF is a multistakeholder space that enables this kind of discussion from different viewpoints.  The DCs contain a very valuable platform to kind of facilitate such conversations on topics, so it was very -- very useful and valuable process as well as output.  So a concrete paper with recommendations came out.  It's actually 182 pages.  And on top of that, a synthesis paper was produced also out of all of the DCs work -- and so all six of the DCs -- with recommendations.  I think what we do after IGF is important to make sure that there is a continuity of the work, that it is, indeed, intersessional, and that it's intersessional work before and after.  So what do we then do with this outcome document?  How do we come up with ways in which we can make sure that the dissemination is there, that it's able to interconnect between IGF work and other policy processes?  

 So for example, the ITU also recently came up with a paper on this issue and cited the best practice forum as a valuable contribution to the (indiscernible).  

 And I also wanted to say that it's significant that a topic that's centered on gender was looked at as one of the DCs' topics because it has quite -- you know, because gender has quite a lot of different dimension, as well, and I would like to continue this effort.

 I have a proposal for a topic but I don't know if now is the best time for it or if we should suggest topics later, but I just wanted to say that this is quite useful, and extend also to echo the sentiments that the DC has been doing really, really fantastic work and I would also like to support a main session on this.  

 I'm sorry.  As a last point, a workshop session for the best practice forums.  A workshop session that was dedicated to discuss the (indiscernible) output but also very good methodology for bringing the IGF community into the conversation and to broaden the discussion as well.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jac.

 >>JAC SM KEE: (indiscernible).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I couldn't hear your last question.  I -- I -- if you could wait for a moment.  

 Once we get into the theme, it sort of becomes all-encompassing and these report-outs are not just tangential to the IGF.  This is part of the CSTD recommendations for more sustainable and more specific outcomes.  It's also a significant piece of our extending the IGF's activities when we talk about best practice forums and national and regional IGF initiatives, and I actually think the work that they say is important to them and that they're willing to spend their time and effort into doing ought to inform our theme and subtheme discussions.

 So I would like to get through those first before coming back to that set of topics, if that's okay.

 I did note your point on the best practice forums as a part of the main sessions as well.

 So with that, I think Marilyn, you're in the --

 >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry, Chair.  It's Marilyn Cade.  May I ask a quick question as we think about this?

 As -- when we are saying, as we go through this, "We propose a main session" and someone says, "Yes, I agree with that" or "No, I don't," shouldn't we be just gathering the concepts and the ideas and then going back and looking at the magic grid and figuring out how the puzzle palette fits together, perhaps?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That's exactly what we're doing.  So I'm just collecting a list of suggested topics, and when we open that discussion up later on, we can come back and revisit it.

 Andrea, did you have a point?  If it's -- okay.

 >>ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the MAG for allowing me to be here.

 I wanted to point out that the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability has two jobs, and it took the second job as its first job, even though that wasn't the original intent, and that was to make the IGF accessible to persons with disabilities so that they could participate on an equal basis.  Nothing About Us Without Us.

 And I just want to highlight the dynamic coalition's work on guidelines which I have given to a few people today in hard copy, but it's on the Web, and part of the problem in including persons with disabilities is that we need to educate people to be able to make accessible meetings.  And we're getting better, and as Markus has rightfully said, he's one of the first to adopt what I call captioning.

 And I'm very willing to help and I will definitely work with Chengetai and Markus to try and accomplish that.

 But it has taken away from the actual work of making political or specific comments, and until we get accessible meetings and educate the world on what they need to do to include us, we find it difficult to accomplish the other purpose.

 So I really would like to emphasize guidelines that the DCAD has written to make our meetings accessible, and I appreciate the time to allow me to say that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No, if -- and thank you, Andrea.  It's obviously very critical and we've had a couple of discussions already over the last few days in the secretariat, so it is an area we need to advance.

 Constance, you have the floor.

 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone.  

 If now is the time to report on some of the best practices, would that be appropriate?

 Okay.  And perhaps also invite some of the MAG members who were involved in those best practices to complete the report.  I know that some, unfortunately, could not participate to this week's meetings.

 Overall, for the six set of best practices we had in 2015, we followed the methodology that the MAG discussed and agreed on prior to kick-starting the work, so this is something I think important to consider in terms of having a rigorous approach and a process that is inclusive and completely transparent.

 For each of the six best practices themes, we had an individual report that was developed by the expert leaders working in close cooperation with usually one or two MAG members.

 Again, I would insist on this practical approach.  Having a MAG person involved in the leadership of some of these best practices is very useful in terms of guiding the work, so it's nice to have a combination of an expert or two plus one or two MAG members.

 We also insisted that the best practices experts leaders think about the over-arcing theme of connecting the next billion, and you will recall that in Joao Pessoa the expert leaders of the best practices reported into the -- the same main session on connecting the next billion.

 We don't necessarily have to reiterate this experience in 2016 of having one main session for the best practices plus connecting the next billion, but it was quite useful to try to tie the themes, the different themes of the best practices, into an over-arcing theme of access and connecting the next billion.

 We also developed a synthesis report that gathered a short summary of the six best practices into a small report, and this was quite useful in terms of outreach after the IGF in terms of presenting a short document that IGOs, intergovernmental organizations, business, civil society organizations, could read, digest easily, and use.  I think some of the leaders of the best practices will want to say more about their specific -- their specific themes and tracks.

 With regards to the security one, Markus I know will come in later with a proposal that I think is very good.

 With regards to the theme on IPv6, there is clearly appetite.  This came through the calls of the best practice experts, and also during the main session, to pursue this work to go further, to dive further, and explore business cases, look also into the issues of economic incentives, why is the IPv6 implementation more rapid in some regions than others.

 We know that the OECD has identified this issue, but at the same time no best practices, no platform has tackled these best practices in a clear and efficient way yet, so perhaps this is an opportunity for the IGF.

 With regards to the best practices on IXPs, which is another group that worked very well last year, there was also a strong interest to pursue the work, to look at the specific case of small islands, how do we address that specific environment, and look also at cases where there have been IXPs developed in the past but they went dormant, and identify the reasons and best practices to address that specific issue.

 Jac just reported on the best practices with regards to violence against women on line, a very good group, and again, appetite to pursue the work on that track.

 I think if -- if we -- Markus will address the security best practice, but if we have -- we have four themes in 2016, perhaps one over-arcing theme on security, one on IPv6, another one on IXPs, and another one on violence against women on line, theoretically this leaves room for one or two additional new themes.  But something for the consideration of the MAG is that if we are to do more in terms of connecting the next billion and more with dynamic coalitions, this also means that it's going to use some of the resources of the secretariat.  And I'm happy to report on the connecting the next billion perhaps later.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Let me see if I can try and advance the best practice forums.

 So I think where we are in terms of the report-outs that we've heard to date is it seems as though there's support for continuing with -- and obviously the key thing is the communities need to be in support of doing the work and going forward -- IPv6, IXPs, violence against women on line, and then Markus is going to come in in a moment on two that he saw this year and a potential --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And the multistakeholder --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Markus is going to come in on that one in a moment.

 So I mean, I'm just trying to recap the discussion to date, because if when we're done with this particular session, I'm assuming that when Constance says there's support from the group to continue the work in something like IPv6, that that means they think it's important, they're going to contribute to the work, and what I'd like to put forward then to the MAG is if he would be supportive of those best practice forums going forward.  

 And again, if we don't get some of this work started very soon, it will be too late to actually have any practical impact over IGF.

 If people in this room have desire to have some other best practice forum work put forward, then I think you need to have that defined, we need to ensure that there's a community that will stand up to support it and drive the work, and probably that that MAG member is going to drive that work and coordinate it.  Otherwise, I'm not sure that realistically we have the ability to do anything with it for this IGF.  

 It might be something we put in an information category and we take some piece of this next year and maybe we use the IGF to get some interest in a new best practice forum, but I just -- if we're going to suggest new ones, we need to have a pretty robust plan, support, and agreement to drive the work forward because that is how this work gets done.

 So I'll ask Markus to come in on the other two and then we'll go to the people in the queue.  Markus, you have the floor.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes.  Thank you.  Yes.  I was facilitating the two best practice forums on CSIRTs and unsolicited communication, also known as spam.

 They had their second run last year.  They did excellent work.  And the experts agreed that there was no point in continuing with exactly the same theme, but they felt it would be necessary to have some cybersecurity-related theme.  

 This is also very much in line with the WSIS+10 outcome which places a greater emphasis on cybersecurity issues.  

 They did not recommend one particular issue at this stage.  There were several issues that were floated.  I do remember responsible disclosure was one.  Ethical hacking was another.  But there was no agreement among the experts which should be the focus.  

 And my suggestion would be to have that agreement in principle at this stage to have a best practice forum on a cybersecurity-related theme and let the experts develop the theme and bring it to the MAG for final approval in the coming weeks.  

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Markus.  We have Renata on line in the queue --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Renata, you have the floor, if you would like to speak.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Hi.  Renata Aquino Ribeiro from civil society.

 I would just like to make a comment on the main session.  I realize it's abused a bit, but I would ask for time line of the dynamic coalitions work for those of us who follow any outputs.  They were just amazing.  

 And another contribution in the best practice forum.  The documents were so valuable.  If a special highlight of the output could be directed in the -- in the new work in the best practice forum, it would also be very good.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Renata.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you.  We have two more interventions from Avri and Jac.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Right.  So Avri and Jac are going to talk to us about their work on the -- some of the intersessional work, too.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Avri, you have the floor.

 >>AVRI DORIA: (off microphone) -- the facilitator and the multistakeholder methods and this was basically a two-year effort.  

 Now, it was discontinuous because we don't have yet a notion of a sort of ongoing effort on best practice forums that I would like to recommend, and I think fits in with what Lynn said about perhaps we start new ones this year but don't necessarily expect them to terminate and finish their work in a year, though they should report each year.

 So with the multistakeholder one, first of all, I want to mention also how critical it is that we had very strong support from the secretariat in terms of having Brian Gutterman, who was basically with us the whole time, did the writing, certainly the bulk of the writing.

 Now, we eventually got to a report by the end of the year.  We got to a report that actually I recommend that MAG members read because it really discussed different ways that the multistakeholder process was run by different groups and gives lots of hints and clues, and it's something that, you know, in the notion and the parlance that we came up with last year, that our outputs were seen as inputs to other processes, to other groups, and have been given to understand that indeed the output of the multistakeholder methods best practice forums has been used in some regions and elsewhere as sort of input as to what things we could do.

 The first year, we had basically worked on the theoretical framing.  The second work we got down to was practical recommendations.  And that two-year process was really quite useful to it.  So I definitely want to recommend the notion of continuity.

 At the end of last year, when we got to our output, we decided it was at a good starting point.  And while it may be appropriate to do it again in the future or to take up some other multistakeholder methods, discussion, best practice forum again in a few years, it wasn't something that we felt ready to do again this year.  So we feel that a two-year run for this one.

 The final thing I want to say is winding my way to make this best practice forum not just a one-year thing, not just between two sessions but something that is work that actually stands beyond session to session of the IGF meeting, I think, would be a good innovation to add this year to the excellent work that was done by all the BPF groups last year and the year before.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Avri.

 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC sm KEE:  Jac speaking.  Just wanted to apologize for jumping the gun earlier before Constance was done reporting.  I think it was a little bit open -- I just wanted to support what Avri was saying in terms of the importance of consistent and really, really good support throughout the BPF process as well.  

 We worked with Anri van der Spuy, and really the support was integral to the success throughout and also the commitment into the whole process.

 And then also I want to say that the support from the MAG community, when the attacks happened to the BPF processes also very, very important and valuable to ensure that there was done kind of like, you know, a broader community that was really committed to the work as well and to the (indiscernible).  And I wanted to just note my appreciation on that.

 And the other point was to talk about maybe we need to discuss a little bit about the open platforms for discussions and it's subjected to attack by, for want of a better word, bad actors. 

 So, for example, when we were doing the work on the BPF, we had people impersonating -- we basically the people who were attacking the work impersonating as generalists and other people joining the meeting, recording, and then taking (indiscernible) it and (indiscernible) disposing and so on.  

 So that created a kind of very unsafe space for really continuing work happening.  It really had an impact on the momentum of the process.  

 And we had to make some decisions because some other participants not feeling comfortable or safe to participate.  I think that would benefit from a broader discussion with everyone in MAG.

 And, finally, while the work on countering online abuse was really good and it had a lot of support from the community, we also felt that because it is presented as an evolving document and building from what Avri was saying about continuing the work and that interest can still be given into pieces of the work.  And there were parts which were highlighted where there were gaps or can be even more.  

 We also felt that it might be a good idea to focus on a different dimension that is related to the topic of gender as well.  And something that came up quite stronger with quite a lot of support is looking at gender and access.  So this also links to the connecting the next billion work that was happening last year.

 And I guess the proposal is that the topic on countering online abuse be now shifted to gender and access, which also speaks to SDG Goal 5 whilst at the same time adding to the previous document considering it is an evolving, living document.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jac.  I think that's very -- (audio cut out).  Just see if I can underline where I think we are with respect to the review of the best practice forums we actually have in place now, and then we'll open it up.

 I think we've heard from the communities there that they would like to continue with IPv6, IXPs, that what was violence against women online will move to something similar to gender and access -- I'm not sure if that's the final title for it or not -- that multistakeholderism is still very, very important and there's continuous work but that it wouldn't continue as a formal best practice forum.  

 And that there was a new forum which is -- best practice forum which is imagine, which would focus on cybersecurity.  And, again, it sounds like that title and specific definition is still to be agreed.

 So if we could get sort of a quick set of comments and/or support from the room for that recommendation, at the same time if we're proposing new ones, we can take that up.  That might be something I move to our first virtual call, though, just in terms of the agenda in front of us today.

 So we have Izumi, Mike, Marilyn, and German in the queue.

 >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I just want to express quick support for continuation of the best practices on IPv6.  It was really successful in getting the people who have the expertise but usually not get involved in the IGF process to contribute.  And so I received a lot of positive comment around this.

 And since this theme of IPv6, it's very wide.  You have to take measures from various aspects.  So we were not able to cover all the aspects of best practices last year.  So last year it was focusing a lot on community building and specific practical experiences around how to encourage ISPs' networks.  But there wasn't really coverage on the economic motivation, the economic aspect of the best practices.  So I hope we can continue on this -- on IPv6 best practices with a difference in focus in the theme within this area.  So that's, you know, to express my support on the theme.

 And just my quick observation about the best practices in general, I think it was really helpful that there were regular online calls and documents for the people who were not able to physically attend the IGF to contribute.  And it was also a good way to make sure there is regional balance in contributions.  Because for verbally speaking, not everybody's comfortable.  But people who are not maybe so good at verbally speaking, they were able to give contributions in terms of the document.

 Just one small suggestion for improvements for this year, is that while the document itself was very well-written, I think more work on outreach on the people who would benefit from the document is needed.  So I hope in planning for next year, if we can actually put how we're going to do the outreach for these best practices can be a part of these activities for the best practices, I think that would be very useful.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Izumi.

 Mike, you have the floor.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you very much.  Want to strongly support a couple of things Izumi just said about the need for more outreach.  A lot of good work goes into these projects, and sometimes I've found that the best people in the field don't even know about the work being done because we haven't had the resources for that.

 And, also, I'd strongly support continuing some of the work on IPv6 because things are changing very quickly.  There's -- we're sort of at the hockey stick part of the curve.

 As a Web security company, we would like to work with Markus and the others in that group to see if there is something that involves cybersecurity and Internet governance and can be done there.

 But I want -- I want to put out a proposal.  Frankly, there are a few areas where we haven't done enough work, probably because they're very controversial topics.  One of them is censorship, but the other one is corruption.  

 And I haven't pushed that topic before.  But this week the revelations with the Panama papers, I think, is going to make corruption a very hot topic around the world for at least a year or two.  There's a lot of corruption that influences Internet governance decisions and telecom policy in various countries.  Maybe there's not interest, but I would be willing to step forward and see if there is interest in working on this topic.

 There's two pieces of this.  One is how is corruption influencing the allocation of telecom licenses and how is it influencing political decisions that favor one company over another.  

 Even more important perhaps is how we can design the Internet to assist whistleblowers and the people who are going to expose corruption.  So there's at least two very big pieces of this puzzle.

 If I'm the only one who cares about it, we're not going to go anywhere.  But please talk to me if you're interested.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  The other thing you could do, Michael -- thank you -- would be to put a short, you know, synopsis or something out to the MAG list, and we'll see what sort of interest there is there.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I will do that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

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

 I really want to join with others in recognizing the very positive contribution that was made last year in the work done by the best practice forums.  I think we -- as someone who -- I sent two years in the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF.  And the challenge to the IGF that was a very real challenge was the lack of visible outputs.  And, you know, I think we have really made phenomenal contributions.  And I want to applaud everyone who worked on this.

 I think another thing that they accomplished -- and Izumi mentioned -- made reference to it, but I want to mention it again as well.  The best practice forums offer an opportunity to bring in a subject matter expert who is not interested in spending their time planning the program of the IGF but is interested in furthering the work of an area that is critical to them.  And I think trying to capture that additional broadening, concentric circle ringing that is developing is something that we should try to think about as well.

 I would support the idea of examining a dynamic coalition that focuses on the SSR issues, the security, stability, resiliency.  The term "cybersecurity" might be a little too narrow, but I know Segun and others who are here may want to comment more on that.

 And, finally, on the last issue Mike -- well, let me say and I also support the idea that we might broaden the coalition -- the work of the coalition to the broader definition of gender diversity and equality as I think was being proposed.

 On the issue that Mike raised, I'd like us -- and I look forward to seeing Mike's ideas.  I'd like us to think carefully about how we identify it so that if we do take up a dynamic coalition on this issue, that we're actually able to be productive in the work that we do and we don't find ourselves bogged down perhaps in strongly different points of views but we can actually do real work in a dynamic coalition.

 And then, finally, Chair, my only other point is I would like to take the mic again when we talk about the intersessional work on connecting the next billion.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Marilyn.  Your last couple comments actually refer to dynamic coalitions.  I think you actually meant best practice forums.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Sorry.  Yes, I did mean best practice forums.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  It's simply important because of the way they are actually supported and stood up.  In the end, there's quite a significant difference between them.

 German and Mark and then I'd actually like to go -- okay, there's a few more people.  I will close the queue and go for a sense in the room with respect to whether or not we can close on that Route 4 for best practice forums.  

 German, you have the floor.

 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I want to express my support to the continuation of IXP and IPv6 best practice forums.  Outcomes of these -- (audio cut out).  Significant achievements have been made.  However, there is more work to be done in both forums.  Some more outreach and business analysis and development platform, some examples of the work that is planning to be done.

 And in regard to connecting the next billion, a better understanding of the Internet infrastructure like the IXPs and IPv6 will be critical.

 We have very good momentum in both forums, and it will be a pity to lose it.  There is also a network of experts already in place, and we are offering to incorporate new players so we can continue this work.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I'm going to take the support for continuing IPv6, the best practice forum, as a given, which means it's not necessary for any more comments in support of it at this point, I think.  And, again, some forbearance.  We just have an awful lot to get through.

 Mark, you have the floor.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  Mark Carvell, United Kingdom government, former MAG member.  

 I just wanted to express some support for sustaining some element of continuity for the best practice forum on multistakeholder mechanisms.  This is an important function of the IGF, to