You are here

Paris IGF Open Consultations 2 Sep 2015 (Afternoon Session only)

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.


Wednesday, 02 SEP 2015
Paris, France

[ Scribes have no audio ]
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- I was mistaken. The scribes are not on. Now they are.
ICC/BASIS, please.

>>ICC/BASIS: Thank you. I just wanted to pick up on the proposal for people to volunteer for the editorial group. ICC/BASIS will be willing to provide a person or people as necessary.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Cristina?

>>CRISTINA MONTI: Yes. Just a very brief remark. I just wanted to highlight a particular aspect of the ongoing work under the theme of policy menus for connecting the next billion. This work does not only strive to produce a final document as a response to the call to produce tangible outcomes. It also responds to the need to develop stronger connections to national and regional IGFs, and I think this is something that we should really highlight and welcome.
In this context, the European Commission, together with the Council of Europe and other partners, co-facilitated a workshop in the context of EuroDIG, and this was a direct contribution to these efforts, so I think we should just further promote this process and encourage other national and regional IGFs to join the effort. Thank you.

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

>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I remembered now the point I wanted to make.
Marilyn Cade speaking.
I wanted to support the comments that Ambassador Fonseca made about the -- what I was translating, perhaps, or interpreting to be the use of neutral resources from the secretariat to do the primary part of the work and analysis. I think we really benefitted from that going into NETmundial. I will also say that I'm very familiar with the use of that in other settings, both here at UNESCO, also at CSTD, and the two working groups that I was a part of and still am a part of, and at the ITU itself and the joint effort made by the four U.N. agencies on the high-level expert group on WSIS outcomes.
Having said that, I do see that there is still a role for volunteers from the MAG to be, you know, perhaps sort of a -- I don't know if the right word is "editorial group," but to play an advisory function. But I think the important thing that I see -- and it will take resources -- in order to really demonstrate the neutrality and the independence of the analysis -- and frankly, I think it's going to be a lot of work for very busy people who have day jobs and jobs as MAG members.
So I'd like to support the idea -- and I am, of course, looking to the secretariat, also to you, Chair, but also to DESA -- to understand that we do have the money in the trust fund but we will have to move quickly to be able to provide additional resources to support the excellent work of the secretariat.
And then that still leaves a role, I think, for the volunteer MAG members.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I think we should not venture in the discussion of how the trust fund is used at this session. It is a slightly different topic. I would like still to concentrate on intersessional activities, and so your point is well taken and actually the secretariat is holding the pen. That's Brian, who is lead sort of writer on the next billion document.
We heard there are 35 contributions, and Brian will be doing an intelligent summary of those contributions and then the open-ended editorial group will basically look at the text that will be produced by the secretariat and maybe fine-tune some parts of it, but in principle, the role of the editorial group is not to negotiate but just to look whether every aspect of contributions that are received have been reflected in the document which will be prepared by the secretariat.
And I see a smile on Brian's face because he has advanced a lot already in this job, in this activity, successfully.
Cheryl, please.

>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think Marilyn does raise a good point with respect to having a neutral and balanced panel and I appreciate all the work that's gone into this so far. I just wanted to put out there as food for thought there may also be a possibility, should we need funding, to have a conversation at IGF SA to see, you know, if there are additional funds, if it could come from there to support Brian's efforts.
Also, I just wanted to ask: Once we do set up -- you know, once we do make a few decisions with respect to the intersessional work, will we have a plan to post something on the Web site so that those folks who have made contributions can kind of keep up with what we're doing in terms of process moving forward?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you for the question.
Constance, if you could remind us: What is the sort of time line of activities related to this preparation of the document?

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Right. So as the IGF secretariat mentioned this morning, the time line was amended a little bit because we needed more time, actually, to get to the point we are today, but on the IGF Web platform where there is now the draft skeleton of the output of connecting the next billion, there's a proposed time line. I don't know if, Carl, you can put it up. And the idea being to continue to accept background contributions because there was a concern that regional and national IGFs who would take place in the future could not participate.
So we've said that we would stay agile in the process and integrate background contributions as they come.
Once, coming out of this meeting, we have agreement on the structure of the skeleton, and specifically basically the four buckets of issues that were identified in the background contributions -- so we had issues around infrastructure, we had issues around governmental interventions and market strategies, the third bucket being digital literacy, and the fourth one being affordability and digital divide.
Once we have agreement on the structure of the report, the secretariat would continue working by adding flesh on the skeleton, and then with the goal of showing -- presenting to the editorial group and to MAG members who are interested an improved version of the output, and that would be around, I would say, the 10th of September.
And we would go through this iterative process that we follow for the best practices. We continue improving the documents and updating what we put on the Web platform until people are comfortable and feel that we have a good level of quality.
Again, the Web platform allows anyone to post comments, so that really is a way to encourage participation from non-MAG members and people who don't physically attend our meetings.
So in a nutshell, we agree this week on the draft skeleton and we have, I think, a breakout session tomorrow, and then we would have a new draft open for comments around 10th of September and we would continue the discussion.
I think the point Marilyn said is very important. We need -- we need a strong secretariat to lead the drafting exercise in a neutral and independent fashion, so that the editorial group only does, you know, review and commenting because all of you -- all of us have other -- other jobs.
Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much, though I would like to clarify one thing.
So tomorrow we will be discussing about -- in the afternoon about the main session, how to present the next billion document, but we still need to look at the time when open-ended editorial group would meet, and -- in order to provide guidance to Brian and the secretariat based on inputs.
And in this respect, I would like to suggest that open-ended editorial group would meet tomorrow from 12:00 to 1:00. We have a time allocated for sort of breakout -- breakout groups. And then we would then look at those buckets or clusters of issues that -- and the structure of the document.
Whether there will be need for others to meet at the same time in parallel, please let us know. When we were thinking about this meeting, we put aside a number of hours for these breakout groups to meet.
For the moment, I do not have any information about requests, but if you -- if you have, please let me know or secretariat know, so that we can do necessary planning.
And then on Friday morning, open-ended editorial group could meet again in the morning from 10:00 to 1:00 and go through already substantive contributions and provide further guidance to the secretariat.
So that's the proposal. It's not a decision.
Please reflect on it and provide your feedback.
So any further questions/comments related to intersessional activities?
So thank you. Then let us move to the next item, setting the scene.
Do we have a volunteer or coordinator of setting the scene session?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. I sent out an email last week asking for a volunteer to step forward. We have a couple of names on the -- on the Google Doc, but we don't have somebody who is volunteering to be the lead coordinator or facilitator.
Can we get one in this room?


>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Subi said she was interested in it but she didn't say she would be coordinator.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Is that Subi?


>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yes. Subi, please go ahead.

>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: (indiscernible) I'd like to volunteer to be facilitator for (indiscernible) session.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Subi, for volunteering. I know you're involved also in other sessions, so with that, I take it that you will be lead coordinator for setting the scene, together with another MAG member whom we will try to identify, and that's Michael Nelson.
So we have Subi and then Michael on setting the scene.
Any initial thoughts? I understand that there hasn't been work done until now on this.

>>MICHAEL NELSON: Well, I've done a number of classes on this topic, so I think a nice overview of what's going on and why we're here is something I could do pretty easily. I haven't -- I'll get with Subi and we'll do some work on framing what we need to really make this happen.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think this -- this is an important session because it will take place right before the opening ceremony. Most probably in a full house. And the important thing would be to really provide a good quality overview on the developments on Internet governance areas since last meeting. Also a little bit philosophy behind the preparations of IGF 2015. So good luck with that.
Taking stock and looking forward. Most probably that is the chair who needs to do that, because that's not rocket science. This will be getting feedback from participants. But any volunteer who would like to join me in thinking through this session? So, Subi, please.

>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Chair. I thank you for your inputs and suggestions again. Extremely valuable in helping us frame as well. I have actually worked quite closely with (indiscernible) last year to coordinate setting the scene. We would also like to give an overview of the Internet ecosystem and the developments, the rationale and philosophy as well as all the main session coordinators along with Nelson request their time and inputs.
Setting the scene is an extremely crucial session, as you mentioned. We're doing it ahead of the opening ceremony. And perhaps all the first timers, participants who are going to be there for the first time. And for them, the experience can be overwhelming and intimidating.
So what is it that they should expect from the main sessions and the IGF? How is it that they can negotiate it better? Walking them through the app and also some highlights about what is special about this IETF. Giving them a sense of comfort and helping them negotiate the IGF program is what we would hope to also achieve in setting the scene. And I'm looking forward to working with Nelson for productive and meaningful substantive session.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Subi. I think that Virat wants to react.

>>VIRAT BHATIA: I was just wondering if that's part of the orientation session? Are we trying to combine the two? Because what was just described is very useful, but it's usually part of the orientation session. But, if you want to change, we can do that.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: No, you're right. Some things that Subi mentioned indeed are part of the orientation session explaining what IGF is, how to negotiate, how to participate, how to benefit the most from spending a week and engaging with all participants. That is more subject to orientation session.
The setting the scene is more to address the substantive issues that highlight the IGF 2015.
Please --

>> Fatima.

>>FATIMA CAMBRONERO: Thank you, Fatima, for the record. I would for my collaboration to lead the orientation session because we don't have no one in the document that (indiscernible).

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you, Fatima, for volunteering to think about orientation session. Very useful. Please. Secretariat take note on that.
Anyone would like to join me in thinking about stock taking and looking forward session?
Cheryl, would you like?

>>CHERYL MILLER: I had just a really quick comment on the orientation session. I don't know if this has already been thought of. But I know last IGF, there were new participants that felt they could have been better included just throughout the course of the week.
I know during ICANN meetings one of the things they do, they have separate badges for newcomers. And, since we'll have a really good level of youth participation, I don't know if it's possible to maybe have separate badges for them so that MAG members and other folks can reach out to them, include them, and talk to them in the hallways and actually know who the new people are.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you for suggestion. Secretariat will think about it.
Okay. Please think about taking stock and looking forward. Who would like to join me in thinking and planning that part of the concluding session? Remote participant?

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Ginger mentioned that she is willing to work on the stock taking and looking forward.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Ginger. Good. Let us move then to the next sustainable development and Internet economy.
Who will be reporting? Hossam? No.

>>ANKHI DAS: I'll be doing the reporting, Chair.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Who will be reporting? Ankhi or Hossam?

>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Thank you, Chair. For the main session sustainable development and Internet economy, we have drafted two weeks ago the document. It is always subject to inputs. We announced that it is not just for MAG but it's open for anyone to comment or add to it.
We also ask for speakers from the MAG list and from outside. We have already members on the working group. We had our first call last Friday. There were seven from the MAG members and one not a MAG member participating. And we agreed on working on a few main points to conclude.
First is to try to refine the draft document and then leave it for another week for input from everyone before we have a solid document provided. We concluded on agreeing together during the meeting on the criteria to choose other speakers and that we have to move fast on inviting speakers in order to have high-level speakers on that session. Well-diversified set of criteria will be decided all together.
We agreed that the policy questions should not be more than five or six so we can have time for every speaker to express himself or herself in addition to the participation of the audience.
We are going as well to market to the session ahead of time. We'll agree how to do so and during the IGF itself. So, after the meeting that we'll have today, we'll have another week or 10 days to refine everything, and then we'll have things ready. We invite everyone to help us with potential speakers for this session so we can have a very good outcome. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Any comments, questions to Hossam or Ankhi? Virat, please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA: Just want to make general points, if this is the right time, for main sessions or just toward the end. But four or five points. Just some recommendations. One, I've seen some preparatory sessions listing between 10 and 20 policy questions. It would help if we sort of kicked that down to four or five.
We must limit in the note circulated to 5 or 6 at best and no more. It's unfair on moderators and certainly on everybody, because you feel you have not completed the session.
Second question is speakers because we decided in the past we don't want to repeat speakers. It would help those who are referring speakers not to refer more than one speaker to more than one facilitators. And the second is if they would emails facilitators. You couldn't get new speakers. It would help if those who are referring speakers would provide an email introduction. And the speaker had no idea, takes up to three weeks just to get a confirmation, and that's why the duplication is accurate because people tend to send out very many invites.
And last year we had three speakers on three or four main sessions which had to be taken off. And including Constance and I were in discussions where ISOC was in two sessions at the last minute the ISOC chair.
So we just want to make sure that we don't send out more than one speaker reference and making introductions. Same for moderators. But also, suppose at some stage soon, the speakers must be sought in a transparent manner either on the MAG list or on the list so that everybody knows who is recommending whom where.
Final point: When you put out a new list of speakers, it's always good to mention where the reference came from so that you're able to follow and others are able to follow. At least that's what we tried to practice last year. And that makes it clear on where the process is headed right when you start finalizing your speakers so that there's no confusion. I suspect, given the very few days left and very few speakers, if any, confirmed, there will be a lot of overlap and duplications and hard work in the last minute. So we should try to avoid that. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you for these comments. Very valuable and certainly based on your own experience of the previous years. Cheryl, please.

>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also had some observations to share just generally for the main sessions from last year. I know there are a lot of small things that can be forgotten such as making sure there's an adequate time clock and tent cards, et cetera.
I want to suggest that we consider maybe having just a really quick one-page check sheet for main session organizers so that we can make sure that we can kind of keep them all on the same level of uniformity, et cetera, with respect to the logistical issues involved. I also want to remind people or make sure that each main session will have a substantive rapporteur assigned that that role is not forgotten and just remind people how important the role of moderator is not just in terms of being an expert that's so deep on the issue that it's going to speak from the policy perspective, but also moderators have a special role in terms of making sure the sessions run on time.
And time is always an issue. Especially on the main sessions. We ran into a lot of timing issues last year just because there were so many participants generally and the effort to make sure that the remote participants had ample activity to take part and then the other participants in the room. So thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you very much for pointing out those observations.
Any questions specifically related to topic of the conversation sustainable development and Internet economy that we can provide also some guidance prior to breakout group meeting? You mentioned, Hossam, the policy areas. Have you identified already what those could be, those five or six policy areas that this session will try to address?

>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: We had some points, but we will discuss it during the session in the afternoon. So -- because there are different opinion how to focus the session. So we'll have a little bit more. And then we'll sort them out so to focus only on the five more -- so, by the end of today, hopefully, we'll have something. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions to Hossam or Ankhi? In absence, let us move to the next one. And that is zero rating. Susan was one on zero rating. Who was the other one? Yes, please, Hossam.

>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Just one comment to say that a very valuable document has been drafted or written, authored by Constance for sustainable development and Internet economy. We put a hyperlink in our draft document. It's a very valuable one. Thank you very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Remote participant.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: There are two who will be speaking. One is Ginger, and another is Subi.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So can we have any update from Subi or Ginger.

>>GINGER PAQUE: If I may go ahead, Chair, this is Ginger.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please go ahead.

>>GINGER PAQUE: I have several things I want to say, but I am co-coordinating the zero rating and net neutrality session with Susan. And Ephraim is also on the call, who is working with us as well as others, who have contributed to our document. The basic information about the session is available. The document that Chengetai sent out shortly, sent out just recently, sorry. But one of the points I would particularly like to make to this open group, response also to Virat's recent point about too many questions.
At this point I'd like to emphasize that we do have a document -- I believe the link is in the document from Chengetai -- where we are asking that the public give us the questions they would like to see addressed in the session. This does not mean we will take all of the questions. This does not mean we will have them on the agenda of the session. I do understand Virat's very important point about having too many questions. But these are things we will use as guidelines for the speakers. And there are things we want to ensure included in the content of the session. We have several documents open where we are requesting information because this is a very vibrant dynamic topic, and we realize that we need to have many viewpoints. So we would like to make sure everyone gives us their points, gives us their questions. We will refine these and separate them into groups for discussion in the main session. And we will use them as we request that the speakers address areas that are of interest to the audience.
I would also like to reiterate Cheryl made some excellent points about a checklist and points that we need as first time MAG. I would really appreciate a checklist on what kind of things we need to make sure we address during a main session. That will be a very valuable document.
Because I think people have already reviewed our documents, and I see there are people online right now on our Google Docs on the zero rating, I won't go into more detail. But I would like to invite anyone who wants to join us at the breakout session.
Are there any input from anyone? We really need everyone's ideas. So I'd like to hear any input right now. Thank you very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So my question, Ginger, is will you be able to facilitate discussion in the breakout session on the question this afternoon?

>>GINGER PAQUE: I will be present in the remote participation, and I see no reason we cannot handle it that way. I think we can have a perfectly well remote and in-person session. And I invite everyone to join us.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Just checking. So Ankhi, please.

>>ANKHI DAS: One question which I had, and maybe you can throw some light on this. What is the time frame which is open for the open comments process in terms of the main sessions both in substance as well as speaker suggestions? Could we just get clarity on that aspect across all the sessions?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think sooner better. That is my answer. I think as sooner we have full clarity and list of confirmed speakers for main sessions, and better quality of the main sessions we'll have. Of course, there's always last minute changes. Someone cannot come for family reasons. Someone may miss the flight and not be able to join for the session which is scheduled at the time when he is not yet present and so on. These things happen, and we need to look for substitutes.
But these are rather exceptions. The rule should be we need to be prepared to the meeting as early as possible.
Virat, please. And then European Commission.

>>VIRAT BHATIA: Perhaps the secretariat could clarify if they have a date in mind when they wish the main session facilitators to return the ready documents for printing and media use. Because they're usually seeking about a month in advance. So, like, the first week of October, end of first week of October? Would that work? That gives you a month. Then we have over 35 days to make this work.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. October 10th.

>>VIRAT BHATIA: October 10th. Okay. October 10th we revert our documents back to the secretariat. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Yes, I'd like to share a piece of information that might be relevant for this main session on network neutrality. After intense negotiations on the 13th of June, an agreement was found between the European institutions with the view to establish pragmatic rules on net neutrality. This agreement turns for the first time principle of net neutrality into EU law. So you will have a very comprehensive open Internet rules complete with strong end user rights to ensure that subscribers get what they pay for. So these rules will be a reality across all EU member states as soon as the text will become law. And we expect this to happen next year after it will go through the necessary procedures.
But I thought this was important also to share this information with you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.
A remote participant?

>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Chair, this is Subi Chaturvedi.
I've been in the queue for a while so there might be a little bit of a time lag on the issues we are discussing right at this moment.
I have a question for Hossam and also main session facilitators who already have the names of the speakers.
Are these speakers up there on the list already been contacted and has confirmation been achieved?
Our understanding is also for all the main sessions that all the speakers are going to be suggested by the MAG and also inputs will be sought on diversity, all forms of diversity and balance, we will make attempts to strive in speakers. So just that one question there.
And another question for the chair.
I understand the distance between the orientation session and setting the scene. While the orientation session would relate to orienting or giving an informed manual, a hands-on guide to what is on the menu of the IGF program, my understanding of setting the scene would be that we will walk all the participants through key debates in all the main themes.
Is that something that we are correct in terms of our understanding facilitation? Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Answering your last question on the setting the scene, I mean, literally setting the scene, creating an atmosphere, guiding or bringing the most topical issues of 2015 to the attention of the audience. I think that this -- this is the main reason of the setting the scene session.
So at the time when we had four, let's say, topics on the agenda, so then every topic was addressed by one individual speaker. Now of course when we have eight subthemes, it is difficult to bring eight speakers on each subtheme, so therefore I would see either that is one or two kind of visionary-level interventions which really creates a proper atmosphere and highlights what -- what are the most important issues for 2015 IGF in terms of substance, and then what we would try to achieve at the -- as a result of the meeting.

>>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, I would put to you and the MAG: Should we, at this late stage, since no planning has occurred on setting the scene, go with the expanded definition and actually transform that into the orientation session, which might be more useful for the first timers and take them through a very elaborate set of eight themes that we have set up and the workshops, et cetera?
We only have 60 minutes so it's not like they're going to be into discussion and ask many questions. If you had to cover those eight points, then you'll need, you know, eight -- eight speakers or 10 speakers. I -- it just doesn't seem feasible. So then we are back to keeping setting the scene at a very high level with maybe two, three speakers at most.
But I just wanted to put it out there in case that is an option, but it's impossible to combine the two, given 60 minutes. That's the challenge.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: That's exactly what I was trying to say. It is not feasible to have eight speakers covering eight subthemes that we have agreed on. I would rather see two or three speakers giving the high-level overview and projections, what are the most important things for 2015 IGF, why we -- why we do what we do, what we're trying to achieve.
So one of the speakers could speak on substantive issues or two could speak on substantive issues, one could speak on procedural issues explaining all the intersessional activities and why they were suggested and then conducted and so on.
But again, it's subject to further conversation by facilitators.

>>MICHAEL NELSON: Yeah. I think it makes sense to have two separate sessions because you do have two separate audiences with two separate sets of needs.
The orientation session really is for the people who are coming for the first time, whereas I think a lot of people who will come to the setting the scene session may be experts in one or two topics and just want to learn at a high level what's happening in an area they don't know much about.
But those people, particularly if they've been to two or three IGFs in the past, aren't going to want to sit through even a half hour of "And this is how we're organized and this is who you can talk to."
I mean, that's -- I think there are two different audiences and two different needs and I think mixing it doesn't make too much sense.
But I do agree with you we don't want to have two or three people talking on each of the different main themes for three minutes each because that's not going to be productive.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Hossam, would you like to answer the question that Subi raised?

>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Excuse me. When we have a list of speakers, the objective is to have potential speakers. Then we sit and discuss together the criteria of prioritization of the speakers, and then once decided, we start communicating with the speakers accordingly and have their feedback and then we go to the next. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you. Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade speaking.
I'm just going to take us back and ask a question of the secretariat. This will be quick.
I understand the suggestion that Virat made of consolidation. I also understand Mike's response. But what I don't understand is the practicality of an orientation session in the morning of day zero.
I'm just wondering if the orientation session, if it is a separate session, might need to be moved to the afternoon in order to accommodate the fact that there will be people arriving on day zero and getting registered, and I'm not sure I --
Well, a lot of people will come for day zero and I certainly will be there, so I -- but I also would not be someone who would plan to attend an orientation session.
I'm bringing a number of newcomers, women who have never been there before. I would like to put them in the orientation session. It's unlikely they would make a morning session.
I don't know how -- if others have a view, and maybe the host organizer, maybe Hartmut might help us understand the practicality of the time slot as well.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So let me ask: Do we have any further questions to Hossam about the -- no. Sorry. It was -- no. We closed this.
Yeah. On zero rating, we don't have any further questions, right?
So then let's continue this conversation about setting the scene and the orientation session.
Secretariat, can you answer the question of Marilyn about feasibility of moving orientation session either to afternoon of day zero or -- or in other times?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I think we can move it to the afternoon on day zero.

>> (Off microphone.)

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: There's a high-level meeting, but I don't think we have the same audience.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So please consider what Marilyn has suggested.
Michael, please.

>>MICHAEL NELSON: I actually think that they would have some of the same audience and some of the people who are coming for the first time will be particularly interested in knowing how to distinguish between all the things that go on in day zero, because there's everything from GigaNet to the high-level meeting to the specialized meetings, and I think doing it, you know, middle of the morning day zero would make the most sense, because that way they have this information, they can apply it all five days of the meeting. You will miss a few people who are going to show up on the -- or are going to show up on day one, but I think most of the people we're trying to reach will be there the first day. And they'll have less competition on day zero in the morning than they will later. I mean for competing sessions, I mean.


>>VIRAT BHATIA: I just wanted to clarify, Mr. Chairman, that I wasn't talking about combining the two sessions. I was talking about replacing the session. We could have either this or that. And if it made sense, you could have -- if orientation session is considered more important and this is the right slot just before the --
Because it's my personal view that more people will gain from the orientation session because of lots of newcomers. Brazil, I think, is bringing a lot of people who will probably attend their first-ever IGF, and so my suggestion was to replace, not to combine. It's impossible to conduct even one of them in 60 minutes. Two would be a -- you know, a miracle.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So remote participant?

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Ginger, please go ahead.

>>VIRGINIA PAQUE: Thank you. I would like to strongly agree with Marilyn on the point of timing of the orientation session.
If we're going to hold an orientation session, which is so important for newcomers, on day zero, then I think we have to call it day one and extend the meeting.
I don't see how we can have the orientation session outside of the official meeting. I disagree respectfully with Michael Nelson. I think that this is an integral part of the IGF and that we need to reach out to new people. We're always talking about not having the same usual suspects, but how are we going to integrate new people if we don't reach out and help them get involved?
I strongly believe this has to be part of the meeting itself; it's not part of the day zero presentations. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Ginger. I think we already agreed that we will have this orientation session outside, on day zero.
Michael, please.

>>MICHAEL NELSON: I don't know if this data would be useful, but it would be helpful to know in Istanbul how many people had registered by the first -- by day zero.
Because I mean, clearly, if only a third of the people are showing up on day zero, then I fully agree with Marilyn, but if, on the other hand, most people are already there and were already there in Istanbul, that would -- that would be, I think, justification for doing it early.
Again, I think one of the reasons to do the orientation is to help people navigate through the sessions on day zero because there's not going to be as much information about those sessions and some of them are new and unique, so telling them on day one all the great things they could have gone to on day zero or even doing the orientation session in the afternoon and telling them about the things they've missed isn't going to be very helpful.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Joe and then ICANN.
Sorry. Fatima, please.

>>FATIMA CAMBRONERO: Thank you. Fatima speaking.
Last year we had the orientation sessions on the first day and we had a lot of participants, and I don't know why this year we change it for the day zero. What is the reason for that change?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Because there were too many main sessions proposed by MAG members, so that was the only reason.
Joe, you would like to say something? Please.

>>JOSEPH ALHADEFF: Yes. Thank you. Joseph Alhadeff.
I was hoping that perhaps there might be a happy compromise between the two, because actually day zero is a little bit of a different animal than the IGF anyway.
It's perhaps a little more of an informal atmosphere that is a little less structured.
And as Cheryl has pointed out, it would be useful to know a little more about the panel sessions.
So there might be a way to almost do a self-guided tour by having -- asking the panel sessions to do a short video description that then can be put together at the front and people can either look at it on site, look at it before they get there. They can then understand what day zero is all about, what opportunities are there, whether it makes sense, and in all honesty, if we can do that for them before they get there, then they might understand their travel plans to include day zero or not, depending on the attractiveness, and then we could move the orientation to a time when -- even if it's on day zero, when perhaps more people have already arrived.
But that might be one of the ways to address Michael's concern that people won't know enough about day zero to attend and enjoy while also taking into account that the newcomers to the IGF as a whole need orientation to the IGF, and I would be concerned that if the orientation package was place as a whole, people would not differentiate between day zero and the IGF, and they are not, in fact, the same thing.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Nigel? ICANN?

>>ICANN: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, I think, you know, there's a number of issues here and none of us are complete experts. It's just some of us have been around too long and have been to too many conferences, perhaps.
But I think there is a -- there is a problem here. We have the same problem at ICANN, to an extent, although to a greater extent sometimes.
And that is, you have a conference and it has an opening and people ask, "When is the opening of the conference?" "Well, the opening of the conference is Monday. It says it in the program."
"So why are you turning up three days early?"
"Well, because we start the conference early."
"So why do you have an opening?"
"Because we have the opening on Monday?"
"So why are you setting up on Thursday?"
"Well, you know, for a beer and to see people, to have a coffee and to have a chat."
And, you know, there is a certain level of confusion goes on at ICANN meetings.
Now, I'm not suggesting the same confusion at the IGF, but I think if you're going to have an orientation session -- and I do agree that there's a difference between orientation and setting the scene. An orientation is essentially useful, and I would have thought it's absolutely useful for people that attend an IGF for the first time because they -- you know, it is complex, an IGF, in terms of being able to navigate.
And so having an orientation I think is very useful for newcomers. It has to be flagged in advance, as Joe said. It can, of course, take place on day zero, but if it takes place on day zero, then it has to be specifically flagged that it's going to take place then. Otherwise, people will understandably turn up for the opening, and they're booking, of course, their travel now.
Setting the scene is different because setting the scene is, I would have thought, a session where the likes of people that are leading workshops or leading the opening sessions stand up on the stage and say, "Come to my session on encryption because we're going to discuss how to ban it" or "Come to my session on surveillance because we want to do it better in the future." And, you know, that would sort of get a few people to turn up. So I think that's -- you know, I think that's slightly different.
But I think we just need clarity on this, so that people know when they're supposed to turn up to the various things.
Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Nigel. Actually, it's not confusion; it's called constructive ambiguity. Indonesia, please.

>>INDONESIA: Yes. Thank you, Chair. But I'm still thinking that I suggest that orientation session will be in the day one before 12:00. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Is it Jac?

>>JAC SM KEE: I want to support the suggestions earlier that said that there should be some sort of publishing of what happens on day zero, so that it is also clear for participants in terms of if I come for day zero, these are the activities. But the other thing I was wondering about is that there was a suggestion in, I think, the previous MAG meeting about having a booth just for orientation. So orientation doesn't end in the orientation session itself, but then it sort of carries on throughout the IGF. And if any plans or discussions has been carried through about that particular idea.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you.
Actually, I would like to see you continuing with the next item on human rights, if you -- if you wish, because I think this orientation session and modalities of that need to be maybe thought through further.
We agreed to review a little bit the schedule based on our discussions in the morning. I think it is said already enough about it.
Chengetai whispered that we may also think about WebEx orientation session prior to the meeting and explain those who are interested and so on, based on the registration, to make a special invitation to those who are first-time -- first-time comers and so on.
So we will -- we hear you and the secretariat will reflect on that.
And now, Jac, please go ahead with your proposed activities on human rights on the Internet session.

>>JAC SM KEE: Okay. Sure. Thank you very much.
First of all, apologies for sending the draft template a little late. I've just sent it through to the MAG list maybe an hour ago.
Essentially, because it's quite a short main session and it's a two-hour session, so we're thinking of organizing the human rights main session as a roundtable. This has been a format that has proven to be quite successful in the previous two IGFs in relation to discussing some of the key issues that's come up around human rights, so we would like to build on this, as well as to look at --
So the roundtable -- sorry.
So it would sort of do three things.
One is the roundtable will present an opportunity for the workshop organizers who have -- who have proposed sessions around human rights to bring some of the key issues and highlights that they've discussed at the workshops into the roundtable itself. That's one.
So it will hopefully be able to surface some of the emerging current human rights and Internet policy issues that's been discussed at the IGF.
Secondly, we would also like to use the opportunity to look at potential linkages between IGF and other policy spaces and events. So we've seen IGF as playing a very key role in terms of being able to advance human rights as a -- as a grounding framework to look at Internet policy, and this especially has been quite successful, for example, at the Human Rights Council space and this is also something that the roundtable on human rights managed to do last year, which was produce a submission -- produce a statement that was formally submitted to the HRC.
So we would like to have this roundtable to look at that specifically, which is potential for collaboration between IGF and other policy events. And as such, we'd like to invite -- one of the things that we would like to do is to invite key international as well as regional intergovernmental organizations to participate in the roundtable and to provide inputs in terms of what they're doing around human rights and what are some of the opportunities for collaboration and how we might be able to take that forward.
And thirdly is to then look at the interlinkages between human rights and access and what could this be.
So it's sort of like broadly trying to push through these three things.
We are looking at the mailing list as one of the primary spaces to plan for this, and because it's a roundtable, we're really not looking so much in terms of identifying four to five speakers to go in-depth into particular things but to create a space where conversation is able to happen instead.
But with that, it requires quite a lot of planning and strong moderation.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you. Any questions to Jac on the concept?
Virat, please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA: I just want to thank Jac for the briefing and I'm looking at the document that circulated sometime back. I'm sorry, I didn't have a chance to read this before. You know, one thing that would help sort of flesh this out just a little bit more would be policy questions because right now, it seems to kind of list human rights work that's happened in the past and doesn't go into much detail. So I'm sure this is draft one. And it can be a lot more would come out of it with that one.
And second, also with regard to participants, I'm just wondering if there's a heavy list of intergovernmental bodies participating here and some national governments plus technical communities. But I wonder if other stakeholders would be involved, especially developing countries where this continues to be a big challenge. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Mark.

>>MARK CARVELL: Yes. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Jac, for the proposal for this session, which I'm looking at. I think the roundtable concept is a good one for this. I just have one question on content. And that relates to safety of online media actors, bloggers, and so on in the context of safety of journalists.
If you look at the IGF program, there's one readily obvious session on that workshop session, I mean.
And, you know, we believe that this is very important, highly relevant issue, an escalating problem. Safety of media activists. And, ideally, the roundtable on rights could be an opportunity to cover this issue at the main session level.
So I make that suggestion. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Mark, for the suggestion. Kossi?

>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Thank you very much, Chairman. This is an important topic. This would be good -- I'm sorry for speaking French. I'm giving everyone an opportunity to put on their headphones and find the English channel. If you hear English, then you're on the right channel.
Thank you. Mr. Kossi from Benin. I think it's a very important topic. And I think that, during the session, it would be helpful to address the legal space as it relates to the Internet. In our countries we have that issue. When there's an Internet crime, what is the legal space where this can be processed where this infraction or crime can be dealt with, referred to. It would be good to have some thinking on that to see if we can actually advance this topic. Thank you, Chairman.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Kossi, for this suggestion. Any other questions?
Jac, would you like to answer to questions which were raised, please?

>>JAC SM KEE: Yes, thank you very much for all of the very helpful suggestions. Maybe I can help clarify a little bit in terms of the process that we're thinking of. First of all, because there are so many workshop suggestions under the thematic area of human rights, it is impossible to have one speaker from each workshop session to come and represent the discussion at the session itself. So what we were hoping to do is to figure out a way in which we can cluster some of the human rights areas. So, for example, freedom of expression and assembly seems to be one. Another seems to be around access issues. Another one seems to be around privacy. And I'm also hearing now maybe jurisdictional issues around implementation, upholding of human rights in relation to the Internet. How will this work?
So I think what we will try to do is figure out particular cluster areas in relation to the theme. And then, hopefully, we will be able to encourage workshop organizers to also have -- to self-identify which theme they feel more affinity towards. And then to also self-organize and to have conversations within themselves to figure out what they would like to surface and who may be the best person to surface this at the roundtable itself.
That's one way of looking at it. And we are relying very much on discussions prior to the IGF in order to make this work.
So far I've asked for help to invite all of the human rights workshop organizers to participate in the mailing list. And, hopefully, they have agreed to do that. So that work will I think intensify in the following weeks.
In terms of the -- quite a lot of, I guess, intergovernmental organizations being named, these are really just suggestions and recommendations. We haven't really finalized any of this yet. We just looked at this as possibilities. It would be ideal to also be able to identify more regional bodies, for example, and to definitely prioritize representation from developing contexts.
And for the policy questions, yes, this is actually something that we haven't really fleshed out too much yet. It will be following through from the clustering. And what we'd also like to do is make one thing -- because human rights can be so broad. So one of the things we thought is useful to find of hold it together is to also draw links between that particular area and the thematic focus of this year's IGF itself which is really around accessing development. So how do we do this in a way that is meaningful?
We'll probably follow the same process as zero rating session which is open up as an open document and have that as a way to flesh this out and outline some of the key issues that will come up.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you. In absence of further questions or comments, I would like to move to the last topic, last session. And that is on cyber security. Dominique, will you introduce that?

>>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Thank you. Subi and I have been working together in the last few weeks to put together the document that's been submitted and I think has been shared with the MAG list. We also have a number of supporters from various stakeholder groups that will be coming together and offering -- starting to offer speakers for this session including -- from a variety of different areas including the best practice forums and various other things.
But what we'd like to do in our meeting coming up shortly is start discussing speakers more thoroughly. So I would like to maybe an open call for all speakers now. All suggestions are welcome, and we look forward to working with all of you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Questions about proposed document, concept? So I see none.
So there has been a rather dynamic exchange online about this session. Good.
So, if we do not have further questions, please, Flavio.

>>FLAVIO WAGNER: We still have one main session, yeah.

>>CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Sorry, I skipped that.
But no reason. Please, Flavio, go ahead with the presentation of --

>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you. It's the main session on NETMundial. Just a brief report. You have already received the document following the template given by the secretariat. So this main session wishes to address three main policy questions.
First one: Are organizations and fora that formed the Internet governance ecosystem following the principles of Internet governance that has been laid down in the NETMundial statement? Are there efforts to correct possible questions in this regard? So the second question is how well is each item in the NETMundial roadmap covered by the current Internet governance ecosystem? Are those items being covered according to the NETmundial principles or what else should be done or initiated by the community in this regard?
The third question which is specific to IGF is how well is the Internet governance committee advancing toward the NETMundial proposal of turning the IGF into a focal point for the discussion of those issues that are not being adequately addressed by the current Internet governance ecosystem
So the idea is to -- inspired by the NETMundial event itself to have first phase of preparation for the main session using a Web site inspired by the one which was created for the NETMundial meeting, which will collect contributions from the community and from panelists regarding the objectives and policy questions that have been defined. This Web site would be open at least, let's say, six weeks, eight weeks -- it depends on how fast we move -- before the IGF.
And submissions may comprise examples of positive experiences at national, regional, or international levels. They advance the Internet governance ecosystem according to NETMundial principles and roadmap and critical analysis of the ecosystem as it is today and projects on how it should evolve in the future.
And is willing to give the necessary support for this Web site and for this process. The idea then during IGF, during the main session itself, is to have a limited number of panelists -- let's say eight people -- covering the different stakeholder groups, regional, geographic regions, gender, and so on. That would be aware of the contributions previously submitted through the web platform and would try to consider those contributions as appropriate during their interventions in the panel.
And then we have 120 minutes, two hours for the main session. The idea is to limit these contributions from this limited number of panelists to at most one hour so that we have still one hour to have a lively interaction with the audience. And the idea in NETMundial is to have the four microphones for the four main stakeholder groups, four main communities. And do the same for queues for remote participation so that remote participants also queue in the same virtual microphones, let's say, so that we have kind of round robin among those four queues.
The on-site moderators will be Demi Getschko from and Raul Echeberria from ISOC who were the cochairs of the executive multistakeholder committee of NETMundial. So they are very well aware of the document and principles and roadmap.
We still have to think of one remote moderator so the three work together to allow for adequate interaction with on-site and remote participants.
And the idea is to try to deliver, to the extent possible, an outcome document with a critical assessment from the contributions, the previous contributions to the web platform and from the contributions from the debate, audience and panelists, to have this outcome document with critical assessment of the evolution of Internet governance ecosystem at regional, national, and international levels both with regard to principles as well to the roadmap of NETMundial.
Then, of course, we will have at least two rapporteurs that would help us in preparing this document and maybe interacting with the facilitators and the MAG members and the volunteers and the panelists after the event to have the final version of this outcome document. So that's all.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you very much. I see there are two questions. Three. One from Virat, Constance, and then Joe. In that order. Virat, please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Flavio, for your update.
I -- you know, when you first discussed this session, there was a question about, you know, what was the purpose of discussing a specific IGF event. But I think we all understood there was a need to sort of take stock on how the set of principles are doing currently.
But this rather expanded set of fears of having a Web site and creating inputs, which is all very well, but it's kind of almost a parallel exercise to the IGF Web site now to collect the set of outputs which will then be an outcome document rather than an exercise to create what other working groups are doing as a document for sort of a basic document based on the discussions. I'm not sure if this is sort of that well-understood by MAG or was understood. Maybe I'm in the minority here.
But I think it kind of sets up a parallel process to the IGF Web site to create another full document of an event that is sort of, by the time this is held, 19 months old or more.
I wonder if this is what we had expected. And would creating a set of outputs in this form almost parallel to intersessional work that's going on or the best practice session that's going on starting now is something that we already sort of expected this to be. I would be very candid in saying my expectation was a discussion on the roadmap is being followed up, not a fresh outcome document. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Constance.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you. I just wanted to mention that ISOC has received documentation, but it has not been confirmed at this stage.
The other comments, thoughts I wanted to share and, you know, reflecting also on our experience with dynamic coalitions is that, if you don't agree early at an early stage on the process when you're launching an exercise that will lead to new outputs, then it can become confusing for participants. I had initially understood that this NETMundial session was a reflection and that we were not launching additional intersessional work towards outcomes. So this would really change, I think, the nature of this main session and would probably deserve an in-depth discussion from the MAG.
The other comment I want to make is that if -- we're hearing a new Web site separate from the IGF Web site while we're already trying to consolidate the IGF Web site. So it sounds a little bit like creating a conference within a conference. And, you know, again, this may generate some confusion. So any clarification on these points would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Joe.

>>JOSEPH ALHADEFF: Thank you, Chair. Joseph Alhadeff. My question was a clarification which the questions may have partially answered. But it was the concept that it seemed rather odd to someone to be talking about a previous contribution through a web portal that was something other than IGF.
Because it's a question of how is this then a consultation of IGF related to this topic? And so I guess the concern is, again, to some of the parallelism of the process. But it also yields confusion. Because, if we're now talking about another web portal and another process, we were just worried about having an orientation video for the people who have never attended. We may need to develop an orientation for the people who have attended a lot of them.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Carlos Afonso.

>>CARLOS AFONSO: Thank you, Chairman. My comment is in the same line of Virat and Constance. I think we're having a hard time in the IGF to have an outcome document and now to work for two outcome documents? I think that the idea -- I thought the idea behind this -- remember when we were planning the main sessions, I proposed this to be near the end because I thought this could collaborate to the outcome document of the IGF itself. Not to be a different or separate document. I think these are principles are interesting, but should be any -- I don't know, any thoughts around this should be included in the output document of the IGF. I think we should concentrate efforts, not divide efforts, and the same could be said about whatever other efforts, like Web site or intersessional activity. I think we need to concentrate. My personal opinion -- by the way, I will give it now about the -- I think that the whole IGF has been spread too thin by having too many subthemes, by having too many main sessions. I think it's already spread too thin.
So I think that we should try to concentrate.
As somebody said -- as Virat himself before said, or somebody else, I think, in the main session I think we should have as few policy questions as possible. I think we need to concentrate. Otherwise, this will dissolve in the nice weather of Joao Pessoa.
[ Laughter ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. It's good that we have this conversation. I think that gives you also, Flavio, some guidance.
Indeed, I recall when we discussed your proposal to have this session, that that would be more like looking at implementation of the decisions that were taken and taking stock and then looking what has happened since NETmundial, how many governments or companies apply those principles, and here where we are with the roadmap and so.
But please, if you want to address some of the concerns in next few minutes before we break for the working groups.

>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Yeah. Thank you, Janis.
So thank you, Virat and Constance and Joe and Juan, for the comments.
Really, it was -- it is not an idea to have a different outcome document than the document that IGF will produce, of course. This will be a contribution to the document and will come together with all other outputs from IGF.
So this may be should be rephrased, so that it does not give this impression that we are willing to launch another process and have a different document than IGF itself will produce.
So this is definitely a contribution to IGF.
And if you think really that this may confuse people if we get contributions through a different Web platform than the platform from IGF, this is -- of course this is just a first draft of a proposal. There's no problem in using the IGF Web site. But, look, this is not the idea of launching a different intersessional work. It's just to get contributions to this particular panel and then to produce a document from this particular panel only considering the policy questions that will be defined, working together with the MAG members here. So we are proposing three policy questions that are related to the roadmap and principles from the NETmundial statement.
If we agree on those questions, contributions will be sought on these questions, and the outcome document will produce a report on how the audience and the panelists have addressed and the contributions to the Web site have addressed those three questions. This is a very limited scope. It's not launching another intersessional work.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah. Thank you. We have one remote participant and then Marilyn and then we will close this conversation.
Remote participant, please.

>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Chair. This is Subi Chaturvedi.
Flavio, thank you for the update. When we decided to discuss the main session, the suggestion clearly was this would be different from a workshop or an open forum, the purpose of the main session being it has to have larger value for a substantive number of participants.
I do have the feeling that this is turning towards -- this is more inwards and this is becoming more like a workshop or an open forum instead of an IGF main theme session, so we will need to discuss this from the two.
Also, I'm glad that we've been able to, for the best practice forums, use the space on the IGF Web site to do any work that we'd like to, to solicit comments. So that is one ideal space which can be used.
And one of the most important parts in NETmundial, unresolved issues or issues which require future action, were how is it that we can strengthen the IGF, and there were other outstanding issues like permissionless innovation as well as the issue of net neutrality.
So it would be interesting also to know how is it that there is linkage between NETmundial, the existing efforts, and how has the work that has taken place at NETmundial been able to feed into the IGF.
I just think the linkage is missing, so if you could speak to those points, and thank you for taking our feedback in the work that you do.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Subi, for your suggestions.
And the last is Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade speaking.
Well, my comments are going to be pretty reflective, I think, of the other MAG comments that have been made.
I think that I see the IGF as developing a brand recognition that we all -- and I use that term very broadly, but an identity that we all understand and embrace and want to perhaps I'll say "proselytize" rather than "advertise" to gain recognition and participation.
And I think that an adoption, if you will, of the practices that we are developing here.
I think for that reason and a couple of others, I really would like to ask for the organizers of this session to utilize the resources of the secretariat to stay within the identity of the IGF on this.
I, too, understood when this was discussed something that reflected more, I think, what the MAG chair has described as a reflection and an examination of progress since NETmundial in April of 2014, but I'm also now going to note that I think there's also some -- I don't mean to use the word "overlap," but perhaps heavy congruency between the topic of evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem and the review that we'll be doing on WSIS+10, which will also be looking at the role of the Internet governance ecosystem, not just the Internet Governance Forum itself.
So right now we're scheduled to have competing discussions. The NETmundial multistakeholder declaration is scheduled for this afternoon. So is the WSIS+10 session. I wonder if it's at all possible to think about switching one of those till tomorrow so that we could have duplicate -- so we could have the opportunity to participate in both.
And I'm not looking at my fellow coordinators, Jandyr and Lea, but I think we could probably be flexible in the WSIS+10 session, if that was the one that needed to be switched.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: We're totally in your hands, so simply the suggestion was to -- not to do all 11 at the same time. That would be really spreading too thin. But we can move WSIS+10 session on tomorrow afternoon. Easy.

>> (Off microphone.)


>> (Off microphone.)

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: No. If that is what is suggested, to take WSIS+10 main discussion not today afternoon as one of the parallel workstreams but tomorrow when we have opening the scene, dynamic coalitions, connecting next billion, best practice forums, stock-taking, so -- and use -- and add there WSIS+10, that's feasible.
Or we can do --

>> (Off microphone.)

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: It's okay.

>> (Off microphone.)


>> Or the other way around. To move NETmundial.

>>MARILYN CADE: I -- since I made the proposal, I volunteered to move WSIS+10 for one other reason.
Lea and Jandyr and I can actually update our template by tomorrow.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Entirely, everything is feasible, so let's then stick to the first proposal, which was to organize WSIS+10 consultations then tomorrow afternoon and maintain, as suggested now, sustainable development, zero rating, NETmundial, human rights, cybersecurity, as suggested, this afternoon starting from now.
And then tomorrow -- tomorrow we would meet at 10:00 in this room? In this room tomorrow?


>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Tomorrow we're meeting at 10:00 in this room. We will go through best practice forums, we will hear updates on the state of preparations and documents, we will be able to ask questions to coordinators.
Then we will talk about dynamic coalitions and actually during that discussion we can address issues that were outlined today about the -- the outputs that dynamic coalitions expect and then maybe provide some guidance.
So then at 12:00, we would start a meeting of the open-ended editorial group, we would look at the structure of the next billion output document, and in the afternoon we would continue working on that output document on next billion before moving into parallel sessions on main sessions.
So if that is acceptable, then today the MAG meeting and open consultations in this format are adjourned and we are convening parallel work -- working group meetings on main sessions in five minutes time from now, respectively in Room 1002 for sustainable development and Internet economy, which is on the first floor; on zero rating in Room 5002, which is on the fifth floor; on NETmundial declaration, it's 5042, it's on the fifth floor; human rights and Internet on floor 4, Room 4002; cybersecurity on floor 4, 4131.
In all rooms will be remote participation facilities available, and the expected outcome is fine-tune proposals on main sessions, maybe even with suggested speakers; that after this sort of conversation we can start reaching out with the full understanding on the aims, concepts, and expected outcomes.
So in absence of questions -- and I'm looking in the room -- thank you very much. This session stands adjourned. Good luck with the parallel workshops and we're meeting tomorrow at 10:00 in this very room. Thank you. And thank you, interpreters and transcription. Thank you.

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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