You are here

Transcript - 20 May 2014

IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings

 20 May 2014

 Paris, France

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

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  If I may ask you to take your seats.  I do apologize to interrupt your lively discussions.

 So once again, good morning.  While we are trying to fix the technical problems, I would like to start the meeting, and I must tell you I will have a couple of sort of issues before starting the meeting.

 First of all, I have to acknowledge that I did not have a chance to look through 50 proposals simply because my computer somehow crashed and I just recovered this this morning, literally five minutes ago.

 That's why I'll be sort of relying heavily on Chengetai in sort of explaining and talking about workshops.  

 I do apologize.  It was beyond my control.  Sometimes technology takes over you, though I like my machine and until now it served me perfectly well.

 Secondly, yesterday we had a rather grave incident, if I may say.

 One of our colleagues either lost or her wallet was stolen here in the room.  As a consequence, for the moment she is in the embassy.  The credit cards and cash was in the wallet and she's now without any means.  Luckily, the passport was not in the wallet, so at least there's a passport and there are tickets, but depending on sort of the situation, we may be sort of facing a situation that we will need to help her out.

 So -- and of course that will be all on a voluntary basis, if we will need to make a collection of some money that she can return home.  So -- but once we will learn more, once we will know an exact amount what we would need to collect, I will come back to it.

 Of course the formal sort of complaint will be filed with the UNESCO security.  Nevertheless, it is very unfortunate incident, and I would like to advise you whenever you leave the room, please take all your valuables with you.  You never know.  Though it is an intergovernmental organization, nevertheless sometimes these things unfortunately happen.  And we do not know whether that was stolen from this room or she just left it somewhere by accident.  We really don't know.  Nevertheless, we need to help out our colleague, and I will come back to that.

 So let me maybe -- before going into the subject of workshops, let me ask Mark Carvell to report back on deliberations of this informal working group of the MAG concerning the outcomes or strengthening outcomes of IGF.  Mark, please.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Janis, and good morning, everybody.

 First of all, many thanks for all the colleagues who stayed on after the meeting yesterday to help out with a really useful brainstorming session, really, on this issue of how we can strengthen the IGF with regard to formulating and providing clarity with regard to outcomes.  It was a very useful session, a lot of contributions.

 I've done a note which is -- I've struggled to send via my BlackBerry, but I'm assured now that you would have got that just in the last few minutes, actually.  I'm sorry I couldn't get it to you earlier.  I was forwarding on from my laptop to my BlackBerry, and for some reason mysteriously BlackBerries don't always do as you expect with regard to attachments.

 Anyway, you should have it now.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mark, please stay technology-neutrality.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Anybody from RIM here?

 So it was a very well attended meeting and, as I say, much appreciated all the contributions.  

 I've endeavored to capture as much as I could in my note.  If colleagues feel I haven't got every point or nuance, please feel free to chip in with comments afterwards.

 Now, we emphasized, really, that we would not seek to transform the IGF into some kind of negotiating forum to dedicate -- to have to dedicate a significant amount of time to negotiating, so that point was kind of underpinning all our discussions.

 And there was also ready recognition that the IGF as it has evolved successfully over the years has substantially improved the quality of Internet governance discussions throughout in other fora, including all the way up to NETmundial.

 So the value the IGF modeled, the concept as envisaged by WSIS, is readily acknowledged.

 We focused on a lot of aspects of the IGF and its value as a knowledge-sharing forum of expertise, a channel for disseminating best practice, and the impact that would have on capacity-building, and we focused obviously on what the CSTD working group on improving the IGF had recommended, what needed to be taken forward from that still, and also we focused on the mandate, for want of a better word, perhaps, coming from NETmundial in Sao Paulo with regard to the IGF running with issues that NETmundial had identified and how -- and the discussion last night looked at how we might -- how we need, really, to take that forward and sustain the momentum with regard to the NETmundial outcomes and specific issues there identified.

 There was some discussion about improving the existing reporting mechanisms, the chair's report, the working group reports, and so on, how that repackaging, if you like, we might undertake could enhance the impact of the IGF and make its outcomes much more accessible, understood, and providing take-aways for participants in the IGF and so on.

 There were some points made about the importance of IGF discussions being taken forwards from one IGF to the next and creating mechanisms for enhancing the accessibility of the data and the knowledge and the wealth of expertise created in one place at the IGF, how that access could be enhanced, and we would look, really, to some kind of working groups being set up, with the help of the secretariat, to look at that as well as the -- enhancing the reporting and so on.

 So I think that's one significant suggestion, that we look seriously at this enhancement through some kind of working group to formulate concrete proposals.

 We also touched on creating more effective linkages with the national and regional IGFs, a point that was explored early in the discussions yesterday.

 With regard to NETmundial, I think the key point is that we need to ensure that the preparatory processes for Istanbul with regard to the NETmundial issues should be open, inclusive and kind of gearing up, if you like, on those issues in good time for the IGF itself.

 So that means preparation of briefing documents, preparatory information through -- through the IGF channels, the holding of -- so that there's on-line interaction with the issues before the IGF.  And one very valuable suggestion is that, in fact, some kind of roundtable event is convened immediately before the IGF to bring all of that together and again provide an opportunity for real-time interaction with stakeholders on those issues before, then, we have dedicated sessions at the IGF through coming together of the workshop proposals that do exist, as we know, with regard to some of the topics.  In particular, net neutrality.  

 So I think that's one of the -- perhaps the second key outcome from the discussion last night, that we really need to focus efforts to prepare for Istanbul on the NETmundial issues.

 So as you'll see from the note when you look at it, I've tried to capture some points about ensuring the IGF has some live interactive facility for stakeholders, including policymakers, to be able to access information, to be able to make use of toolkits, that kind of idea, so that the IGF outputs really provide the opportunity for concrete interaction and ready access to all the key information that's available about best practice and policy options and so on.

 So I think that was one of the points that came up earlier in the discussion yesterday, that we should look to ways of achieving that, and also looking at how we might, as an IGF community, engage more effectively with key organizations, technical community, civil society groups and so on, on issues that come up at the IGF itself.

 There was mention of the Friends of the IGF initiative that perhaps could be looked at in this context as well.

 There was also a proposal for a dedicated session in the -- at the IGF in Istanbul on this issue of ensuring more effective outcomes and results.

 Reference was also made, I should say, in the discussions to the Tunis Agenda Paragraph 72(g) on recommendations relating to emerging issues, in the discussion last night, and I've incorporated that in the note.

 So I think those are the key points, but as I say, if colleagues who took part last night want to add to what I've just summarized, in case I've understated anything or omitted anything, readily appreciate that.  Hope that's helpful.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much, Mark, and thanks to all MAG members who participated yesterday in the discussion.

 I take note on the proposal of creating a MAG working group on reporting, and please think who would like to lead that initiative, and so how I see this working group could help us.  That is, to maybe look on existing practice of reporting and maybe prepare very brief guidelines for workshop organizers how this report should be done and what the report should sort of encompass, that all reports coming to the secretariat sort of go more or less in the same direction with the same structure.  That would be very helpful.

 I really also appreciate the emphasis to the quality of reporting.  That is important and certainly that is something we need to look at very seriously.

 At the same time, I haven't heard sort of dissenting opinion on the proposal that sort of I put forward summarizing yesterday's debate, and I hope that with elements of improved quality of reporting, active promotion of outcomes of IGF in a way of sending them to relevant organizations would raise visibility and would be helpful, as well as a link between the discussions between IGF Istanbul, national, regional IGFs 2015, and 2015 IGF Brazil.

 Pre-event on NETmundial.  I think that should be purely in the hands of the Brazilian designation.  Brazil, would you be ready to organize something?  Brazil?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Because that would be clearly your interest and your responsibility to sort of promote the outcomes of this important gathering.

 And from the secretariat's side, I think we could commit to -- with the help of experts, to prepare background notes on some important issues which would then inform discussion on NETmundial relevant topics.

 So may I take that this is something we can agree, roughly?  I don't hear humming.  I like this notion of humming.  Jivan, please.

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  Sorry.  Just to add on Mark's recap of yesterday's meeting, if I could, I perhaps missed it, but there was also mention of us opening up a process for -- between now and Istanbul for comments from the whole community on -- with a question "How would you see IGF outcomes enhanced or bettered, and what mechanisms would you use to do that."

 And like this was used at NETmundial to open it up on the Web site for comments and interventions and to have a dedicated session in Istanbul exactly for this.  So just something that I think we should go forward with.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 About the process, certainly that is something we need to ask the secretariat whether that is feasible with the current Web site and current sort of technological possibilities, so that's the one thing.

 Another thing is we will have a conversation in the main session on IGF and development of Internet governance ecosystem that is.  There will be the possibility of commenting on different issues, including the strengthening of outcomes of IGF.

 My question is -- or my hesitation is, do we really need a special session dedicated just to that specific question.  Whether that will not be, let's say, to the detriment of discussion on substantive issues rather than just proper issues for IGF.

 Marilyn and then Anriette.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 Marilyn Cade.

 I am linking the output -- I choose that word carefully, Mark -- I'm linking the output from last night's small working group to the planning, as I'm one of the collaborators on the main session, and I think it would be good to give a little bit of time -- perhaps Subi and others who are collaborating on that main session could think about what this proposal is and how it fits into the Internet governance -- the evolution of the Internet governance landscape.

 I would also like to invite all members of the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF who are here to join me -- we'll find a brief time, with anyone else who is interested -- and look at the output of that meeting last night and what improvements were called for in the CSTD working group on improvements.

 I think there's a great deal of synergy and overlap, but I want to just see if we've missed anything.

 And then I want to make a comment about the resources commitment that it will take for us as MAG members.

 At the last meeting, I made a very passionate plea to all MAG members to put ourselves on a diet and not present -- not participate in more than three workshops.  And I did that because I have found, in my eight years of participating and attending, that I have seen MAG members participate in seven, eight, nine, ten workshops and main sessions, and I have found them struggling with the time to both be an expert on the stage and also a coach in the wings.

 So in order for us to be -- play our role as coach and mentor and perhaps help in the synthesis, maybe help some of the organizers to put their materials into appropriate format, I think we as the MAG members need to also think seriously about what our roles are.

 And being the coach and the mentor is different than being the moderator and the speaker.  And I did make a -- as I said, a passioned appeal to us, but I think as I've looked at these output recommendations, Mark -- I like that word -- I could see more role work for the MAG members who are here.  Not just the usual suspects, but new MAG members as well.  You see, I'm a new MAG member.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Anriette?  

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Marilyn, we certainly -- my organization submitted one proposal this year, so we took that to heart.

 Janis, I wanted to respond to your question directly, but before that, just thanks to Mark.  I appreciate his report.  It was hard to do that overnight.  

 And Ljupco -- I still need to learn how to pronounce your name -- I agree with your addition to it.  

 Janis, in response to your question, I think it is useful to have maybe an IGF open forum on IGF strengthening because it is asking the community, so I like that idea.  It also provides an opportunity to discuss specifically what the NETmundial is asking the IGF to do or recommendations about strengthening the IGF.

 Yesterday, the report was released of the ICANN high-level on Internet governance, so there again is some recommendations in that report on IGF capacity-building.

 So I don't think we have to make it a main session.  You know, it doesn't have to be a very huge big session.  It could be a workshop or an open forum, but I think it is an appropriate thing to do.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Any other comments?  I do not want to really prolong this discussion and maybe on this IGF open forum, which -- I don't know whether that meets criteria for open forums, but we can see if we have a sort of free slot, then we can organize it.

 But again, I would like to say we should give priority to substantive discussions and then the remaining time we can spend on organizational issues.

 Marilyn, please.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Sorry, Chair.  It's Marilyn.  I apologize for taking the floor again but I need to apparently restate what I said.

 If we're going to do a main session on Internet governance and the evolution, which I thought we had agreed to, I see these various reports, including NETmundial and the WSIS+10 and the relevant report from the high-level group, et cetera, fitting into that, and if there's going to be a separate open forum, I'm beginning to lose the audience, I would think, for the main session.

 So I'm happy to -- as I said, I'm one of the collaborators on that.  I'm happy to think through quickly how all of this fits in, but I'm cautious about distributing the same information in too many places or we won't have what I thought our goal was with a packed main panel.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And again, just thinking aloud, we can certainly include the question of improving outcomes of IGF in the questionnaire we will formulate and ask all participants of IGF Istanbul to file after the meeting.

 So again, that we collect that type of information.

 So I will take comments from Izumi and then we will move on.  Izumi.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Izumi 2, I think, or Izumi B, or Beta.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Why don't we settle.  Izumi A and Izumi O.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Okay.  Thank you.  So this is Izumi A.

 Regarding what Marilyn just said, to me the main session will focus on the larger picture of the IC -- not -- IGF, while the -- Anriette's suggestion of the open forum on IGF is about IGF, and in particular, how to improve especially the outcome of.

 So to me, it's a very -- two different things we can compose.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for that comment.

 Let us move, then, to the -- another outstanding question, and that is open forums.

 Would you like to say something, Chengetai?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  For the open forums, I presented yesterday the 13 open forums that had applied for sessions.  So during the discussions, I have decided that we will ask the last two, which were the -- 

 I'm sorry.  Do you have the PowerPoint?  Quickly?  It's right at the bottom.  Under "P."  Do you see the "P"?  Press that.

 Oh, okay.  Internet and Jurisdiction and -- oops.  Okay.  I'll get my PowerPoint.

 World Pulse and Internet and Jurisdiction Project just to give us more information on how they fit the requirements for an open forum, and then based on their response, we will see whether or not to give them an open forum.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Would that solution be acceptable to MAG members?  I see nodding.  And -- thank you.  So Izumi, please.  Thank you.  So let us move now to the heart of our today's agenda.

 And that is workshop proposals.

 Yesterday we agreed to start with taking 50 higher scored workshops and see whether the balance is right or what type of balance we have after taking 50 highest scored workshops.  And after that we would engage in discussion whether -- on how to proceed further and how to improve balance in all directions, balance of participation of -- from developing countries, balance of participation from new participants, gender balance, geographical distribution balance, all the balances we need to take care of.

 I will now ask Chengetai to present those 50 first.  And then immediately we'll open the floor for any general comments we may have.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  I -- okay. I sent out last night an Excel workbook with our working on the top 51.  And the first page has got a chart of the top 50.  And we've just broken them down -- this is just a summary.  We've broken them down according to the subthemes.  

 So, if we take the top 51 based on evaluation from the MAG, the baseline is a cutoff point is 3.8276.  That will give us 51.

 We made the cutoff point at 50.  And then we discovered that the 51st had exactly the same score, so we included it just for fairness.

 As you can see from the top here on the left, we have the number of proposals in each subtheme based on the top 51.  And then on the right we have the number that was based on the total submissions.  So we had -- and then also the percentage.  So, if we take the top 51, then content creation and dissemination actually gains some, 4.5% of the pie, so to speak.

 And also just to be -- just to point out something, human rights -- Internet and human rights tends to lose the most as a total percentage because its percentage gets down to 13.7 when it was 25.0 of the total submissions.

 But, then again, if you look at the total pie, you can see that the distribution as a percentage of each theme, as a total percentage for each theme, is more evenly distributed than for the total submissions.

 So, if we want a meeting where the themes are more evenly distributed, then, of course, taking it from the top 51 is slightly better.  But, of course, we're going to adjust as we go along.

 Now, in the next tab, as you can see if we go to the next tab, what we've done is these are the top 51.  And then in yellow are the ones that didn't make the cut.  And this is the master tab.  So this is just based by evaluation.  And then each additional tab is by subtheme.  As you can see here, for the "other" tab, none of them make the cut.  But there's only two in this tap underneath the "other" theme.  But we can look at it as we go on to that tab.

 So, as I understand it from the agreement yesterday, we were going to accept the first 51.  And what we were going to do is just to go through them quickly just to make sure that there's no outliers or that we don't have any comments or recommendations for the first 51.

 And I'll just hand it over to Janis to continue that.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Let me now ask a question.  Does anybody have any specific comment on those 51 that we would -- I mean, in general terms that we would need to know your sentiment?

 And, afterwards, we would speak about how to proceed further with the next set of workshops.  And, once we will do our selection, then I think it would be useful to go one by one of all workshops and very briefly to indicate the secretariat if there are any specific comments that MAG feels the secretariat should convey to organizers.

 As well we -- if you recall, we agreed that there would be -- we would divide those selected workshops to a group of MAG members who would coach and sort of advise organizers to make sure that the quality of the workshop is as high as possible and would facilitate the preparation and, in case of any trouble, would inform secretariat and inform the MAG in general.  So, by saying that, I'm opening floor for any comments of general nature here.  Marilyn first and then --

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

 I'm not satisfied with the idea that we are just based on ratings, which was not clear, we learned yesterday that the same workshop got a 1 from some MAG members and a 5 from others.

 We also can see in the excellent support tools that the secretariat has provided is that even those who are in the top 51 often have questions.  And, if you read the questions, you began to see questions like not enough developing country diversity.  I looked this morning at 20 of the 51 in detail again.  And the majority of them come from developing country -- the developed country proposers.

 A number of them have the same speakers as similar workshops last year and the year before.

 So one of the concerns that I have -- and I understand this is more work for us -- but I think we need to actually look at the 51 as well and make sure.  Because, if we buy the 51, then we've bought more than 50% of the space.  And, when you look at the questions that are asked about those that are in -- that are below the cutoff point of 51, they don't have -- there are questions that are asked about them that were submitted by MAG members aren't that different than the questions that are submitted on the top 51.  So I'm a proponent for our saying, okay, the rating matters but not that the rating is totally definitive.  And I'm also a proponent next year of our being a lot clearer about what the criteria are that we use.  In some cases a workshop got a low rating because they hadn't confirmed all the speakers.  And yet, speakers in some of the top 51 -- not all speakers are confirmed.

 So we've got to figure out a way to be fair as opposed to just even.  So thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.  Sir, please.

 >>CIVIL SOCIETY:  Thank you very much, Chair.  Good morning, gentlemen from the board.  My question is the following one.  I have two questions.  First one is:  What do you put inside the content?  What do you mean by content?  This is just a label.  But what is inside the label, the content?  Second question, when you make those labels, do you incorporate -- do you design your labels according to the framework of United Nations, which is sustainable development, which is risk reduction strategies, which is precautionary (indiscernible) which is zero principles?  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So in short answer to your questions, this is a result of a survey we made with IGF community.  And these were suggested as a top scored priorities for the discussion.  Jivan, please.

  >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI: Thank you.  Thinking about even distribution, I'm slightly uncomfortable about passing something that received good contribution.  At this stage at least.  Did we agree that we would go with 50 and then perhaps we'd agree on a final number whether that is 78 or 98?  When we get to a final number, I think we can go to more even distribution.  But to lose out on some of the top contenders, some of the best proposed, some of the best developed proposals at this stage would be unfair for a whole group that has obviously developed some of the best proposals.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  Subi Chaturvedi.  I concur with what was just put out.  We spent a lot of time evaluating all the proposals.  And I know we're in the process of discussing modalities of confirmation.  But I see the usual suspects.  There are very well-written excellent proposals from the United States and largely Europe in the top 51.  And this is not just a reflection on how well people understand the process of writing proposals and do they know the right people to bring on to the table or not?  But yesterday we talked about listening to newer voices.  And many that we're leaving out are not well-developed. But they're brutal, and they're honest, and they're saying that they need help with speakers.  

 Janis, when we started out this process last year and we were looking at revising evaluations and ratings, though we have all the criteria.  But in 2013 there was a rating process that looked at a score of 0 to 2 -- if I'm not wrong, Chengetai -- across five different verticals.  This time when we rated, we have the right criteria.  We looked at developing countries.  We looked at well-written proposals.  But, when we are scoring from 1 to 5, I think a lot of times we tend to lose out the nuances.  And it's difficult to just give a score.  And so even if there's a workshop that scored a 3 or a 4, I don't see them in the top 51.  So -- (no audio) 

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  More than 50% of all submissions.  This is not easy.  I fully understand.  But this is the way how we -- the process has been designed.  This is the way how we agreed ourselves to work.  We had very clear criteria of evaluating workshops.  Those 50 which are selected have received the highest average score from all those who evaluated.  So -- and then clearly we see that there is sort of this balance.  But we still have another sort of cushion, so to say, 30, 40, up to 48 slots that we could correct this balance which exists currently.  And the question is do we really want to undermine our own work collective wisdom and disqualify any of those 51 high scores?  Thanks.  Proposals.  Soonjoung.

 >>SOONJOUNG BYUN:  Thank you, Chair.  I agree with rating.  And I don't believe writing the only and best criteria to choose workshops mostly because of reasons that a member mentioned just before yesterday.  I think Internet governance dialogue, (indiscernible) even though we're not perfectly prepared at the time being.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Walid.

 >>WALID AL-SAQAF:  Walid Al-Saqaf, Orebro in Britain.  As an academic, I'd love to know if there is some sort of methodology that would be possible to explain when a particular workshop was categorized equally in multiple categories.  I mean, how would we explain to them that they were chosen because of this category fit most.  I see some examples that can actually equally be categorized in one of the categories.  But, perhaps, because it was chosen to be in one, for example, Internet and human rights, it ended up losing out.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: No, I don't think so.  I think this is the average mathematical average of all scores given by those members who evaluated.

 So there are many, many cards up.  Those who have spoken, please take your cards down.

 Remote participant.

 >>Thank you.

  >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: We have two comments, the first from William Drake.  

 The comments are not a fair basis for making judgments.  Some are factually wrong and reflect people's own viewpoints.  Nothing is more fair thanks uniform ranking mechanism.  There is no point in the MAG spending time doing rankings if we are going to treat, set it aside, unlike previous years.  

 And the second comment from Nick Ashton-Hart.  

 Every year there are multiple interventions at these sessions to say we don't need the same people saying the same things each year, and each year we see the same problem.  When will the MAG really act to deal with this?  The last thing we need is more echo chamber effect at the IGF, this year particularly.  The whole session evaluation process seems completely broken.  It just incentivizes incumbents who know how to play the evaluation game.  It would be better if we actually had fewer sessions and turned down well-written rerun sessions.  MAG members should, frankly, limit themselves to appearing on one or two sessions.  And, if that means some sessions have only a few speakers, if they're new or saying different things, that's good.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Paul.

 >>PAUL FEHLINGER:  Thank you, Chairman.  Sorry.  I can't see you with those on.  I disagree with my colleagues Subi and Marilyn with their assessments of how we should be moving forward.  I think we have been given a task, and we've spent our valuable time following this.  I have followed the process of coming up with workshops since the establishment of IGF.  And now this is the third year that I'm directly involved in this process.  I have not seen any silver bullet for any process that we've used, so I think we must be willing to accept the fruits of the work we have done in our grading.  I think we need to keep a scorecard of the top evaluations that we have.  And we need to take a look at evaluating any of the ones that would follow that.  

 Colleagues, please, let's keep this simple.  I think that coming up with something that's very confusing -- and I don't think this will provide us any transparency to those people that will be enjoying this conference.  I think that one of the things we do have to be aware of is that we will have to return to the ferris wheel of distribution among the themes.  I think this is something that probably needs a little bit more attention than just checking the grading.  The one thing I do agree with Subi on is that there were some great submissions that probably were -- that probably weren't formulated very correctly.  And I think that these can be looked at in the further evaluation.  But I think that we have done our work.  We've graded these workshops.  We clearly thought that these were the ones that needed to be put into the top area.  How are we going to justify mixing this up now and telling these individuals that, yes, we thought you scored very well but, oops, we're not really quite sure.  So we're going to mix it all up and you might not end up where you were at the beginning of someone's hard work in evaluating your process.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Matthew.

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thank you, Chair.  Not having been involved in this time around, but having been involved in this process in the past a long time ago, I think it would be unfortunate to do anything right now that would imperil the ranking system and the process that the MAG has been through to this point.  What we should be focusing on, however, is ensuring that we give as many of these workshops an opportunity to actually present themselves and have a workshop of the IGF.  So I would suggest for your consideration that we reduce the time slot from 90 minutes to 60 minutes, thereby being able to accommodate more workshops.  

 And for those where we believe there's a sufficiency of likeness, that they be merged or indeed formed into a roundtable.  And, for those who we believe should have some time, to be given a half-hour slash slot.  And that way, hopefully, we'd be able to accommodate as many as possible.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So colleagues, please, there is a proposal on the table.  Please react in your interventions, also, to that proposal.  In essence, the proposal is to reduce either all or a number of workshops to one hour instead of one hour and 30.  That would increase the number of slots and offer to propose shorter sessions for some we think may benefit from 30-minute sessions in general.

 Olga, please.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Olga Cavalli.  Thank you, Chair.

 Although I understand what Subi and Marilyn commented, I think we have to be practical.  We spend a lot of time doing the gradings, so I agree with Paul that we should be accepting the 50 and then go forward and review the other ones and try to help those that are not well-presented or explained.

 I do like the idea proposed by Matthew -- yes, sorry -- Matthew about making the time shorter.  I always was in favor of having as small a workshop as possible.  I understand sometimes you don't have -- confirm all your panelists but you are willing to do a good job, so I like that idea.  I don't know if it's very complicated for the host or for the secretariat, but if it's not so complicated, I would be in favor of having shorter slots for all the workshops and have more workshops.  And I would also respect the gradings that we did.  This is my idea.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  UNECA?

 >>UNECA:  Good morning, everyone.  Thank you, Chair.  

 I will support the shortening of the sessions, if possible, and of course as I said yesterday, we should go by what we had agreed earlier.  We have agreed on a scorecard.  We agreed to -- on using some benchmarks.  We did that and let's take the 51 agreed yesterday and try to rescue from the last ones the best ones we think we can add on these 51.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 Izumi A?

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you, Chair.  Yeah.  Two different things.  

 One is like yesterday, I was reminded by one of the remote participants that he wanted to take the floor, meaning through his voice, not be read out.  So I'd like to ask the chair:  What's the standard modality, if he or she wants?  I think we should allow as much as possible the voice intervention, which captures your sense or your feel, and to be closer to equal.  Otherwise, they feel like they're treated as second class.  Please consider that.

 Separately, on the workshop thing, I'm not in favor of making all the sessions into 60 minutes.  There are several problems I can see.  

 Especially at the workshops we see usually less interaction among the audience as well as panel or dialogue, while this IGF is sort of regarded as a forum for dialogue.  Then many presentations stop.  And if it's cut up into 60 minutes and have four speakers, maybe 10- to 12-minute presentations, or eight speakers, seven or eight minutes who came all the way from South Africa or all the way and just leaving no time for interaction for most of all.

 So I'd rather like to sort of set up another sort of flash session, as discussed already, and ask all those who are not ranked as the top 51, somehow we can accommodate them into the different modality.  That, to me, is much more sensible.

 Last, perhaps, is that we should again try to prepare a guideline for the organizers of the workshops as well as the speakers.  Some of the conferences or, you know, conferences that they are given, especially to the moderator, so that they will keep the time very short for the first speaker, for example.  There are several practical ways that we can work on.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Izumi.

 Guidelines for workshop organizers exist since I think first IGF, and they -- unfortunately.  

 Hossam, please.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  

 Well, first of all, I'd like to thank very much Chengetai for the work done on this.  Especially in the short -- we can see in the 51, there is a good distribution among different themes, subthemes, which is a good thing.

 The one comment is, we have only 13 or 14 from developing countries out of 51.  This is something that we need to work out, if possible, to have a better distribution, having more developing countries, and when we look at the next 70, we have like 20-something developing countries.

 So maybe we need just to put some weighing, so that we increase a little bit in the next choice the developing country participation.

 The second one is, regarding the first 51 themselves, when we look at the comments, we might find that we need to change some of them to become flash sessions instead of a workshop or so on.  I'm not in favor of increasing the number of workshops.  Better quality than quantity.  But maybe some would fit into a flash session than a workshop.  Those are my two cents.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Tero?

 >>TERO MUSTALA:  Thank you, Chair.  Actually, I very much agree on what Paul said, on my right here, a few minutes ago so I won't repeat everything what he said.  I'm fully in agreement with that, and just want to remind that we this year really agreed a set of criteria to evaluate these proposals, so we need to use the results.  Otherwise, we start from zero and we don't have the time for that.

 And then just a couple of notes.

 Regarding the length of the workshops, the 60 minutes, it sounds good, but actually it means it would be 45 minutes because of changing the groups and all the practicalities between the workshops, and 45-minute slots would be tough.  

 And if we go that direction, then my proposal would be that we put a strict limit of the number of panelists because if we go down in the length, we have to cut that to four or five panelists at max.  

 And I'm not fully supporting that idea, but this is a kind of point to be considering.

 Then what we should more perhaps work on is to give guidance to these workshop proposers and -- because as I've been looking at the comments on the Excel, my claim is that the -- most often the comment on what people have been writing there is about the diversity of the panelist list, and this is something we should somehow put forward for more or less most of the proposers, that diversity is what is needed and increased diversity in many, many cases, more or less independent whether they score high or low, and that may be the central issue if we want to avoid the claims that they're always the usual suspects, et cetera.

 If we can push the diversity point in more or less every workshop a bit further, I think we are doing well and I propose that we go on with these 51 and then we put our time and effort looking at the next ones and giving guidance to the next ones which don't score this high but we still want to get in the program.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.

 I have the following speakers:  Yuliya, Michael, remote, Mourad, Ana, Mike -- sorry, Mike -- Yuliya, Mourad, Ana, remote, Michael, Baher, Mark, Virat, Paul, and Anriette, and then we will close this discussion and I will formulate a proposal for the way forward.

 Please, Yuliya.

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you, Chairman.  Yuliya Morenets.  I actually tend to agree with what Paul said but the solution here -- because we've done the great job and work, so we need to consider it.

 Now, what Paul was saying what could be the solution, I think we need to take into account the solution of merging, maybe, because we have these 51 workshops, and other workshops they -- a number of them they propose to discuss a similar issue.  A number of them.  So maybe we should encourage the merging solution and like this -- you know, I see the workshops they were ranked very -- that received not very high rate, actually, encourage them to be associated or to be merged with the very well ranked workshops.

 Now, I would like also to support the idea of having the shorter workshops, maybe, or flash sessions, and maybe we have to give the choice to the workshop organizers.  You know, because a number of them would like to have 60 minutes, others maybe 30 minutes, others 90 minutes, and actually when I was reading the workshop proposals, I paid attention that a number of them were proposing different formats -- different formats in the sense of 60 minutes or 30 minutes, so I think we should consider this as well.

 And I tend to agree with what -- partly with what Marilyn said concerning specifically the list of speakers, because for example, when I was reading the proposals, a number of them, you know, had the list of speakers, it was a very good subject, a very good proposal, but the speakers were not concerned.  

 So should it be very strong criteria that we take into account when we rank or not?  So this I would like to underline as well.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Mourad.

 >>MOURAD BOUKADOUM: Thank you, Chairman.  Good morning to all.  I'll -- we can go along with those 51 proposals, although we share the comments made by ICC on the weaker representivity of developing countries on the list.

 In this regard, we must -- I mean, it's not an issue, but we must examine the reasons upstream of the low representivity of developing countries in participating in the selection of workshops.

 We need also to -- for the future to fine-tune our selection criteria to make them more balanced and to take among other things the concerns of developing countries.

 Also, the -- for us, the most important thing is to have active participation of these developing countries and to be sure that the selected proposals for workshops would be more active and also to make sure that the best panelists possible to be participating at these workshops, and also to avoid a redundancy if the selected workshop theme was also examined during the previous editions of the IGFs.

 Regarding the duration of the workshops, we think that it should -- it should not be the same.  It depends on the number of speakers but also on the relevance of the -- of the theme of the workshop and its sensitivity.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Ana?

 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much.

 Well, I have five main points.

 So my first one is that I totally agree with Paul's comments.  I think that he made fair comments for this discussion.  

 My Number 2 is that I think that we grade the workshops the best we can.  Well, I -- at least I try to do so.

 And I think that we try to be as fair as possible, according with the information we provided.

 And if not mistaken, I think that the average grade decreased regarding last year's.

 My Number 3 is that don't forget that there is still lots of work to do regarding the workshops that had a good score because there are several comments saying that it is okay provided that the panel will be improved or will have a different concentration, et cetera, so we have to pay attention to that point as well.

 Fourth, we have to be careful and not to have workshops on the same theme to concur with others within the same time slot.  I think that we have to pay attention to this as well.

 And lastly, I still have problems with the several open fora and the dynamic coalitions, because these ones were not evaluated.  I still have some worry with the criteria, there are too many, and the workshops with lots of work, we score them, and so we have to pay attention to these aspects as well.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Ana.

 Remote participation?

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  We have a comment from Nnenna Nwakanma.  

 What I would really love to see is the NETmundial type of open space where people are free to do semiofficial, less official, and even just un-conferences.

 One of the issues with the workshops and their requirements is that we pull speakers from people who are sure to be there and that automatically means the same people.

 A related issue is that if someone's workshop is not accepted, they may lose the funding needed to be there in the first place.

 I will support 60-minute, then 30-minute slots, and we generally reduce panelists to four, no?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for these comments.  We will have an open mic session at the last day and that certainly will be a place where everybody will be able to say whatever they want to say.


 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just real quickly, I want to strongly support what Paul said.  

 We've done the work.  Those proposals are there because they were -- they were well written and well -- and directly on target to what we're trying to do here.

 I like parts of the proposal to consider shorter time frames, but I think it's going to be far too complicated in the time we've got to figure out what's a 30-minute, what's a 45-minute, what's a -- so my proposal would be to take the top 50 that we've got and give them the 90 minutes, but as we go to figure out the next round, where we see that something could be a 45-minute session, go back to them and say, "We will not give you 90 minutes, we will give you 45 minutes if you accept that."  That's much simpler for the secretariat.  They're not -- we're just dealing with two options.  45 minutes, 90 minutes.

 There are a number of proposals in this next set that really are informational.  They're a report, a new project.  They don't need 90 minutes.  There's no debate.  And I'd like to have those represented but they're not worth 90 minutes.

 The other point I'd make is that on some of these, I would have given them a 5 but they only had 45 minutes, and so as we go through this, we should look for those where they only have four speakers and they got criticized because it wasn't diverse enough or broad enough, but they'd be a dynamite 45-minute presentation.  Thank you very much.

 And I'd just also say, let's work really hard to make sure we're not counterprogramming, because it doesn't make us look good if we've got three talks on the same topic at exactly the same time.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Baher?

 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chair.  I think Mike had just said part of what I wanted to say.

 One thing I want to focus on, though, is the participation from developing countries.

 This is an area that we as MAG are mandated with enhancing and improving.  I think every -- everyone in the room is in agreement about that.

 So maybe one thing we should do is instead of focusing on the top 50 proposals, which I totally agree that they have to go straight to the program, let's focus on the proposals from developing countries and see how we can get them, you know, on board, see how we can give them the chance to make it to the program.

 I think this is the -- the hardest part of our work today and tomorrow.  So let's go straight to this part and see how we can work it out.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Baher.


 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government.

 I agree with what Mike was saying, actually, on several points.

 I think reducing all workshops to 60 minutes is going to create problems, especially at this late stage.  60 minutes goes very quickly for important issues.  You need some kind of introduction, some time for introduction to unpack the issue, allow some dialogue, and as we're also looking to workshops to be more output-orientated, you've got to allow time for some summation of the discussion with a view to take-aways and so on.

 So that's not going to work with a lot of workshop proposals within a 60-minute time frame.

 I did comment on some proposals that seemed to me more to be reporting on initiatives or even launching of initiatives, and like Mike, I think those are readily identifiable as appropriate for other formats.  You know, maybe something in the village, even, off the workshop program altogether was one idea I had.

 The other problem I was going to mention with regard to reducing everything to 60 minutes is that you're going to create a very difficult program to navigate.  We've tried to ensure that the IGF program is not going to be confusing with a lot of conflicts and so on, and to reduce this challenge for attendees when they're there to navigate through a very dense program.

 So I think it works against that.

 So I think those -- yes, those are the main points I would make.  Let's stay with the top 50, look for some of the others that might be alternative formats, maybe offer them reduced times.

 I think we ought to go back to mergers.  I think we should not shy away from merging.  I think that was a good point that Yuliya made earlier on, because there is a lot of overlap with quite a number of these workshop proposals.

 I also very much agree with the point -- and I made this in many of my comments -- ensuring the participation of stakeholders and representatives from developing economies, LDCs and small-island developing states.  We should be looking out for that constantly.  Thank you.

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

  >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I think the MAG has already processed some of the improvements from the last time when we met in February.  None of the MAG members have submitted proposals.  That's one sort of thing to sort of take ourselves out of the equation.

 We have scores for developing countries and first timers that was the second piece that we put into process.  

 The third improvement was that, unless you have confirmed speakers, then the sort of well-laid out structure of putting out well-known names without having reached out to them -- and there were e-mails on our list about how some people were in 7, 8, 10 proposals without even being informed.  I think that certainly needs to be scored down.  And, if people don't have confirmed names, then we can find out that proposals don't have confirmed names or are faking confirmations, that has to be taken out.

 But I think three points:  One in terms of duration.  If you want to ask somebody who's planned for 90 minutes to go down to 60 minutes, then they better be told well in advance because they'd have to cancel speakers.  They'd have to restructure the policy questions.  And I suggest that it's unfair to throw away the ranking.  It's unfair to change criteria or timing at the last minute.  Now, if there are some exceptions and we give people an offer and they accept of their own willingness to do it differently, in a few cases that might be different.  I don't think the MAG should impose a 60-minute timeline.  That's one point on the number of timeline.  

 Second point we mentioned that we need to have this interactive session.  That's the job of this.  If you have 60 minutes or 45 minutes, you can forget about any interactions at all.  On the issue of number of proposals, I think if you look at the way the folders are laid out, take away the closing and opening ceremony and you've got six sessions in which workshops must come in.  If those are 90-minute sessions, then you've got twelve 90-minute sessions across all of day 1, all of day 2, all of day 3, and the first half of day 4.  Because there are no travel sessions or workshops happening at closing or opening.  

 The one decision that we must make fairly quickly is the cutoff on the number of proposals.  Because the number of decisions will drive from there.  Right now we're making these discussions with are you going to have 120 proposals, or are we going to go with 90 or 70?  That must be decided as soon as possible.  Because, if you're going in -- I want to say this that no normal -- and since we have are serving the cause of those who are tend the IGF and not our own cause, we must realize that no same person can attend more than 10-12 workshops across four days plus sneak in a couple of main sessions.  You just can't do it.  So whether you select 12 from 70 really good sessions or 12 from 120 not so good sessions is a choice we have to make.  But I think they cannot go -- no human being can go more than 12 sessions and a couple of main.  That's it.  That's all they can do.  So, if we're limiting ourselves to high-quality 70 sessions or 75 or 80 sessions and keep the times as we have because we promised them that and do a mix of selection come from the 50 but also get from the 50 developing countries, as Baher said, we must give attention to developing countries.  Because there is merit in evaluation.  There's merit in merit, and there's also merit in evaluation.  There's some countries which will never be able to match the quality of proposals some of us write, which is the reason we prevented ourselves from writing a proposal.  Let's remember that.  If we can try to do that mix.  So, when you summarize, first thing, Chair, is can we cap the session, the number of workshops?  Because that will help us move on.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  So you're now putting me on the spot to become a despot and decide on your behalf.

 I will -- I will.  Don't worry.

 [ Laughter ]

 Paul, please.

 >>PAUL FEHLINGER:  Thank you, Chairman.  I can see something cooking up there.  I'm sure.

 It's no secret that I have always been against adding a mountain of workshops.  The reason has been, really, because of the class of plenary sessions.  This seems to be the elephant that stamps out the more specialized topics.  And everybody runs to the plenary, and those more specialized topics seem to be lacking in individuals.  But I believe that a rich event is one that has a composition of different elements.  Plenaries, round tables, and workshops or lightning talks or some similar format to lightning talks.  I think this is a great short time to bring thinkers and talkers together.  And this is good stuff.  It's more work, but maybe we can see how we can tweak things have to have shorter talks.  If they're popular, I think they'll gain traction in the national and regional effort.  And maybe we can encourage this.    I think we need to think a little bit out of the box.  I said it yesterday.  I don't think we use the national and regional IGFs enough.  I think, if we can do something with some shorter talks and get some traction going, I think we, as leaders here, can see how we can promote these to the national and regional IGFs.  I think we'll be doing ourselves a great service here.  How fantastic is this?  

 It would be nice also to see us recognizing that this event is not the show stopper for all IG discussion.  So I think this is something we need to be careful of.

 I'm not really supporting all the workshops moving to 60 minutes.  The reason for this is that I think discussion will suffer.  I think you will get all of these panelists giving us their viewpoints, and the room will stand there trying to soak in something, and there's zero dialogue.  And, again, here I think we'd be doing ourselves a great disservice.  

 So I agree with our colleague Hossam.  And I think I'd rather see good discussion in a smaller amount of workshops.  I do like some of the points raised by Virat.  I think we just need to find the number, get this moving again, as I stated.  And please, please, let's just start.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We will start after three further interventions.  And then, really, I will cut off.  I will make a proposal.  And we will move on.

 So I will call on now Guo.  

 >>GUO LIANG:  Thank you, Chair.  I would like to address my former friends because there are some new MAG members from developing countries.  Actually, regarding to the Internet, China is not really a developing country but a developed country with the largest social media and the largest IPO for Ali Baba.  

 But last year there were only three proposals from China, and two of them were refused.  And in the end we accepted one of them.  And at the end another one, I didn't know them until in Bali -- the -- if my memory is correct, it's from Association of China Science and Technology.  Their top leader wanted to come to IGF.  So they prepared a proposal for about half a year.  And in the end they got an average score 1 point -- sorry -- 0.01.  Lower than average.  And it was refused.  They were so disappointed.

 But there's always a paradox.  One is we always want high-quality ideas.  But, on the other, we want more developing countries -- more developed countries or some country like China where the Internet grows very well, but they don't know how to propose.  So we also said maybe we need -- we cannot just automatically give developing countries higher score to get through.  But somehow we should give them help.  But I cannot say how we can give them help.  So I would like to propose maybe we need to have some experienced MAG members to have a group to support -- tell them how to write proposal, how to invite people.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Fiona.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Thank you, Janis, I'm a little disappointed we spent an hour and a half discussing something I thought we agreed and sorted out when we had issued --

 [ Applause. ]

 Very rare, thank you -- workshop proposals submissions.  We spent a lot of time last year developing a proposal.  We spent a lot of time developing work methods.  We posted those work methods online.  We made clear the submitting proposals that we're going to have limited space, that we're going to do evaluation, what the time slots were going to be.  People knew when they were applying what they were doing.  I think we're in a fortunate but unfortunate situation of being overly subscribed.  I think Virat is right.  We have to figure out what the number is, but the worst case scenario we're oversubscribed 2:1.  That means there are going to have to be some tough choices.  

 And what I understood you proposing was let's look at the process we laid out.  Let's look at the top 51 to make sure there aren't any problems.  And let's spend our limited time here figuring out how to fix the ones from developing countries or other places and make them acceptable.  And I think Mike's addition of standard deviation is a great construct for us take a look at.  But I don't understand why we're spending an hour and a half having a conversation about using a process we just agreed to.  Perhaps this process is flawed, and perhaps we can evaluate it when we're done and figure out how to improve it.  But at this point I think we should just start.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  We still have one intervention, and then we will start.  Soonjoung, please.

  >>SOONJOUNG BYUN:  Thank you.  Just before starting, I want to add some concern about criteria for rating.  As far as I know, confirmation of speakers from various multistakeholders was secretariat who gave a rating, which is really unfavorable for newcomers.  Newcomers definitely have difficulties to find right people from various fields, from various countries, and actually succeed in writing and getting confirmation from them.  So that's why I suggest to help from any groups for newcomers with facilitating speaker or panels to encourage newcomers participating.  And also, I agree with merging workshops which will give higher opportunities.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.  Thank you very much.  So I think this exchange was necessary to see what is the prevailing feeling in the room.  And prevailing feeling, to my opinion, is that we need not to undermine our own decisions that we made and our own work that we did prior to this meeting.  And we know that maybe 51, which 51 workshops which were scored the highest may not be ideal.  But, in average, they received the highest opinion that -- of the members here.  What I also hear is that those 51 does not represent a right balance and that we need to work at balancing out the agenda.  And this is what we will do until the end of the day.

 I need to put a cap.  And I think that the cap is put not by me but that is put by circumstances.  We have a limited number of rooms.  We have limited number of days of the meeting, which provides us with 120 slots.  Out of those 120 slots, we have -- we need to allocate some for open forums and dynamic coalition meetings.  That diminishes, again, the number of availability of rooms.  And then we have remaining sessions.

 I would be very comfortable to speak about workshops something between 80-90.  Now we have 51.  And that we would now go further down the list and identify something like 30-40 workshops.  And I would like to do it by end of today.

 And why I would like to do it by end of today because tomorrow then we could go through each of identified workshops.  And we would have tonight all of us possibility of reading, again, through those 80-90 workshop proposals.  And tomorrow we would guide secretariat with our comments how those workshops could be improved.  What secretariat needs to convey to workshop organizers on each of the workshops, what are the missing points.  And that information will be conveyed to the workshop organizers.  And we may expect that they take on board a majority of those suggestions.  

 So this is my proposal.  And I will not, for the moment, seek approval because then we will enter another 1 hour and 30 minute discussion.  Please rely on my authority decision.  Democracy is good until a certain point.

 And so what I would like to do now to use remaining time we have, start going further down the list.  And maybe in the -- we will see how far we will get.  But, in the meantime, I ask already secretariat to see if we can get for the afternoon session the Excel spreadsheet with the workshop proposals from developing countries marked in different color.  And possibly workshop proposals -- those who are not on the list already.  Sorry.  51, we consider that they are already on the list.

 But those under -- starting from 52, to color in different color workshops coming from developing countries and to color in different color workshops coming from newcomers.

 That will help us to see what are these sort of proposals.  But now we don't have any other choice but to take proposal 52 and look from master -- so from master list proposal 52.  And that is will server space fragment along national jurisdiction.  

 So that's Proposal 97.

 So what we -- what we could do, can we split the screen in two that we see the chart, or we can --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The chart of the proportion?

 So -- and the procedure, how I would like to continue, is the following.

 I will ask the secretariat to take next on the list and to identify which group that belongs to and which sort of group of countries that that comes from, developing or developed.  I must admit it's, for me, difficult to -- to -- so -- 

 So please, Chengetai.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So the workshop we're looking at is Workshop Number 97, "Will Cyber-Space Fragment Along National Jurisdiction."

 And looking at the proposer's nationalities, this is from a developed country because the proposer's nationality is Germany, country of residence is France, and the organization is France.

 The subtheme is "Enhancing Digital Trust."

 >> Can you enlarge the zoom please?  Yes.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So as a matter of fact, we can actually go to the -- if you click it, and then we can go to the big -- yes.  And then that can be enlarged.

 So should I read the description for you or do you think that's okay?  We have to do through this methodologically.  Yes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yuliya, please.

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you, Chairman.  Very short comment.  

 When we speak about to identify workshop proposers from developing countries, which I believe is very important, I would like to advocate and to remind maybe to pay attention to transitioning countries as well.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Thank you.  Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Is there a way to find out in the next 40 rankings how many are developing countries?  That's sort of...

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Because if we're 50 plus 40, so in the next 40, how many of them are --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Sorry?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  That we'll be able to see after the lunch.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ah, you can -- you can --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  If we're going with the next 40 and we have a balance and we know that there are sufficient developing country proposals already in there, that makes our lives easier.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Chengetai has done some work already doing this.  

 Sorry, you wanted to say something?

 >> Yeah.  I'm sorry, (saying name) from Russia.  I just wanted to support Yuliya in terms of developing countries because I think there was some -- also some mixing between developed and developing countries as initiators of the proposals, workshop proposals.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Don't worry.  I have marked the transitional economies as well workshops, so I will make note of those as I go through.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  In the workshop?  In the Excel sheet it's not marked as a developing country?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, okay.  Errors do happen.  I do apologize for that.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  My question was just that -- because there's also an open forum for the Internet and Jurisdiction Project, so it -- I think we just need to make it clear that they don't replicate what is discussed in the open forum in the workshop.


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  We will -- Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Chair, I have a question for clarification and I was out of the room and perhaps this has already been dealt with.

 We have not only the ranking but we have questions.

 Are we looking at the questions as well?  Because many of them -- and I'll just say this again -- the top-rated workshop is in the comments proposed to be a flash session, proposed -- said that it's only ICANN insiders and says it has no diversity.  

 I'm not questioning the fact we're still leaving it as Number 1, but many of us spent a lot of time providing these comments.  Are we taking the comments into account?  

 Because I think also Anriette just made, I think, a very important point.  If a topic is well-covered in an open forum and some open forums may be just -- they may be proposed by a country so they're not necessarily an issue-specific open forum, but I think at some point later today, or maybe it's tomorrow, we make that assessment as well, that we're not duplicating the substance.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, Marilyn, tomorrow we will go through every -- each and every workshop proposal and will advise the secretariat on messages that need to be conveyed to organizers, and then we will have those MAG members who will advise workshop organizers to improve the quality of their proposal and then workshop, and we will monitor how workshop organizers follow the advice of the MAG.  

 And if during that session we will identify that one of the selected has a duplication or something, we may propose then any merger.

 We may even propose disqualification completely, taking off the list if that is -- if we feel that that would improve the balance or moving it to a flash session of 15 minutes on the main square of the conference and so on.

 So at the moment we need really to establish the rough list of 80 to 90 workshops that we have material to think through overnight, and then tomorrow morning go through one by one and look at each proposal how to improve the quality.  So that's -- that's the game plan and hope that we will be able to follow that.  

 So we now can continue and could you now scroll down -- no.  Scroll down very slowly to see how many how many workshops are identified coming from developing countries and countries in transition.

 So in this -- so Chengetai, you said there are 25 and next 40 coming from developing countries or...

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  okay.  Yeah.  I think the best thing is just to start and then we'll --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  So we may go, then -- maybe we can -- we can have a look on, for the moment, exclusively proposals coming from developing countries.

 With this Number 52, we have identified that this may be covered by open forum.  The thing is similar to open forum.  And let's put aside this 52 for the moment and we will clarify that during the lunchtime.  Now we are going to --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It says 97, yes.

 And let's look at -- let's look at Number 62.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So Number 62 is "Internet Infrastructure, Technology and Terminology."  It's from -- the proposer is from a developing country, but the organization is not, and if we just look quickly at the -- the only reason why I'm looking at the comments now, if there is a comment for it to be a flash session because that would affect the discussion now.

 The other comments we will look at tomorrow, the more detailed comments, as Janis says.  And there doesn't seem to be anything that says it should be another session type or -- I beg your pardon?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I don't see it.  On which column?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >> Column M was one comment that --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  M, okay.  "Review the number of speakers.  It would good to have speakers" -- no?  That's not what I see.  

 Sorry.  It will just take a little while to --


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Anriette.  

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Oh, capacity-building, yeah.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  On capacity-building, I think it's a good topic.  I just noticed that some of the speakers in this is LIRNEasia and I'm very happy to see LIRNEasia but there were a lot of LIRNEasia workshops.  I don't know if anyone else noticed that.

 So either Rohan or -- I can't remember his colleague's name now.  The woman.  

 So I think it's good that they're there but I think we've got to watch out because they are -- their names appear on lots of panels.

 So --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So please, we speak one by one, and we're not doing the sort of --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.  Go on with your suggestion.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  I have a suggestion.  

 What we do is we look at the workshop, we look at the name, we look at the theme, and then we take a quick look at the comments to see whether or not it should be another session.

 After that, we go to the main body and then we just look at it quickly and then we can go to the speakers and then when we reach the speakers, we can suggest the speakers.

 If we find something -- so we just go down, and if we find something of concern, then we can speak as we go sequentially down.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, Anriette.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Just a quick one on this.  I actually would suggest that we don't discuss this one further.  I suggest we accept it because it's small-island state and we have very few proposals dealing with small-island states and coming from small-island states, so I would actually positively discriminate in this instance and not waste more time on it.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

 What I would like, I would ask Brian, please, either sit there or come on stage.

 So what I would like to ask Chengetai and Brian, please go to the -- I mean, you take one, you take the next one.

 Please prepare very sort of brief statement for everybody, "This is the workshop about that coming from that country and so on," that we can then discuss the presentation.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  But you have time to prepare while Chengetai is looking at the previous one, that we can run this conversation smoothly.

 So we had -- we agreed to maintain this proposal and put it on the list and then we can move to another one.  

 132.  Chengetai, please.  You introduce and, Brian, you will be introducing the next one.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Which is "On-line Advocacy and Women's Rights, Obstacles and Successes."  There's an indication to merge on 128 and 160.  It's brought from a developing country and also from -- the organization is based in a developing country.  It's Internet and human rights.  It's the -- one of the things, it says that it needs a stronger Internet governance linkage, but we can discuss that in the comments when they come.  

 Taking a look at the body of the proposal, and if we -- they ask for a roundtable for 90 minutes, and if we take a look at the names and affiliations of the speakers, does anybody have any issue with that?  Because we're just trying to catch people who are -- who haven't done due diligence on their speakers because sometimes that happens.


 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Too many.  Far too many.  And not really African representation, but I just think it's too many.  It's about Lebanon, it's fine, but it's just too many speakers.



 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  I remember we had another -- a couple of other proposals with a similar subject on, so I would definitely encourage to merge or somehow to incorporate, and actually there are also other proposals coming from (indiscernible) which were very interesting as well, so maybe somehow a point of incorporation could be fine.  But I think we should avoid to have two similar subjects at two separate workshops.  Thank you.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Shall we say except for the possibility of merging?  Because we have to go back and look at 128 and 160 to see whether or not they should merge.

 >> Accept only if you merge, and please, I mean, the list is -- I agree with Anriette.  Who isn't on this list of speakers?  There's no discussion that will take place here.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >> 160 is a dynamic coalition meeting, though.  

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Oh, 160 is -- so they can only merge with 128 and --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Just a second.  Please one by one and under my -- my call, please.  Otherwise, we will get nowhere.

 Veronica, please.

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  Just a quick proposal on the proposed moderators.  I think if they -- if we suggest that they move ahead, then they definitely have to include a co-moderator coming from Lebanon, from the institution that is coming with the proposal.  We have a Canadian and a European moderating the session, so...

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Ana?

 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much.  Well, my only point here is that all the proposed speakers are from the civil society, so I wonder if we are not losing some of the multistakeholderism here.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Andrew?

 >>ANDREW MAURER: Thank you, Chair.  I just wanted to briefly point out that between 128 and 130 looks like the organizers are the same people.  There's a fairly good overlap as well as with the subject matter.  So I think it's a good proposition for a merge.  Thank you.  Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I was contacted and asked if I would co-moderate 128.  I think it would be a good merger, and I think we could also ensure that we get the balance of diversity as well.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I take that we would put this on the list with the condition that that would be merged with 130.  Right?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  128.  Okay.  Please put all flags down.  There are some flags permanently standing up.  Thank you.

 So we're now -- we're putting that on the list, and again, please remember that tomorrow we will go through each and every workshop on the list and we will mark all the comments for what organizers need to take into account before the -- before the IGF meeting.  Okay?

 So let's go to the next workshop proposal, and that will be introduced --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just to make it clear, we are accepting 132 and 128 on condition that they merge.  If they refuse to merge, we don't accept any of them.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Just -- I don't know if people noticed.  Those two workshops are proposed by the same people, so we actually are asking them to just rethink their two proposals and integrate them.  It's not quite a merger.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you very much.  Decision is made.  We can move on.  

 Who is introducing the next -- Chengetai, please.  Introduce the next one.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Next one is workshop number 20.  That is 62.  That is row 62 if I'm not mistaken.  61, sorry.  And it's launch of UNESCO's publication on digital safety of journalists.  So it's by UNESCO.  But I think the person who proposed nationality is from China.  So it came to -- flagged as a developing country.

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

 Yes, yes.  Supposed to be an IGO.  Is it -- should we just skip it?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, for the moment, Virat, you're asking for the floor?  No.  So we have Anriette, Michael, and Marilyn asking for the floor.  U.K. as well.  In that order.  Michael.

  >>MICHAEL NELSON: I think this is a perfect example of where there's a presentation of something new.  45 minutes would be perfect for this, and we don't need to give it 90 minutes.  I'd actually object to giving it 90 minutes.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So we need to take into account that UNESCO also has an open forum meeting.  Anriette, please.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  This is not a developing country proposal.  It's an IGO proposal.  I think it's a good proposal.  We discussed it yesterday when Guy Berger did his presentation.  I think it should be an open forum, and I agree with Mike Nelson.  It could be a shorter session.  It's very important, but I don't think it's a workshop.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm going to suggest that there are a number of -- I like both suggestions that have been made to go along with that.  But I think there's also a number of -- almost read out or presentations that are proposed that maybe could go into a totally different approach.  And that is -- I need to remember what the name of the -- it's not the Internet cafeí, Chengetai.  It's where the booths are.  Right?  The IGF village.  That perhaps could go into a staged area there where a rotating set of 45-minute sessions could be -- I've seen this done very, very often -- pardon me for using the word "trade shows" -- in the introduction and briefings on process or economic reports, et cetera.  And that might allow us to take 3 or 4.  This one might be one of them, or it could go into a open forum.  But there's others that could fit there as well.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  U.K., Mark.

  >>UNITED KINGDOM: Yes, yes.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government.  I mentioned the village as maybe being the venue for this earlier.  This is a major problem.

 The impact of harassment of journalists and bloggers, online media activists is escalating.  It's a major issue.  I think UNESCO would benefit from the visibility in the village, actually, of this issue.  And it's appropriate, as Mike was saying, for maybe a reduced amount of time.  But staging it in the village I think is the ideal solution.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much.  Xianhong, we're not allowing lobbying for the proposals.  I know that you are the author of the proposal.  Sorry --

 >>XIANHONG HU:  [ Off microphone. ]

 >>JANIS KARKLINS:  Sorry, Xianhong.  No, we're not taking even clarifications at this moment.  So I see that there -- we could -- we could propose UNESCO either to move this to take it up in open -- UNESCO open forum that will be allocated to UNESCO that fully meets criteria or to see if that could be made in whatever flash way we will organize the proposal.  Joe, are you in agreement?  .

 >> Yes.  This was actually a comment that was a little more generic ad specifically to this topic.  But, as I look at the number of topics -- and it's not always clear from the description -- some of these topics suit themselves to capacity building or people who are newcomers to the IGF for whom this might be an interesting thing.  Some of these topics go more in the realm of progressing a conversation that's been going on.  Finally, some of these are excellent workshops.  And I just wanted to suggest that perhaps, when you do the final overview tomorrow, that you give thought to making sure there are enough in each of those categories especially for people who are newcomers for whom capacity building would be tremendously important.  And perhaps in the future we could even ask people, as they're describing their session, to more describe who the audience should be for the session.  I know that's one of the objectives that should be hit.  But just from the descriptions, I don't think that's done very well to date.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  Chengetai, please.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So we've agreed on that one.  It's going to be either a shorter session or it's going to be moved somewhere else.  

 The next one is line 69, the proposal ID 22.  Clouds and mobile Internet benefiting developing countries.  The organization is from a developing country.  The nationality of the proposal is from a developing country.  It just has general comments that can be improved.  The ID issues are not clearly articulated, but I think they can improve that.

 If we go to the main, the body, its proposed country of residence.  It's also from China, which is one point Guo was saying.  If we look at the speakers -- I'm just concentrating on the speakers most of the time.  Yes.  It's in two places.  So we can encourage them for more diverse speaker list.  But, if anybody's got any comments.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So on this proposal, any comments?  Subi?  Just please, put your flag down every time that I see on -- that you're willing to speak on this particular point.  If your flag is up, I assume that you're asking for -- Subi, please.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  Subi Chaturvedi.  I agree with Guo.  I think it's a well-fleshed out proposal.  They need help with speakers.  As a MAG and secretariat, we can facilitate this.  It's an important issue.  It comes from China.  Emerging issues as well.  So I think we should be able to support this.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN: I think that the -- it's great to see the Chinese Associations of Science and Technology make proposals.  But they did I think 5 or 6.  So my proposal would be that we encourage them and we support them.  But, seeing as it's their first time, they should limit them to one or two really good workshops.  We'll help to make them regionally diverse rather than have so many.  I don't know what the scoring is of their applications, but I think this is a perfect way to encourage a new proponent to be successful in the IGF.  I would go back to them and ask them to choose and help them with diversity, if necessary.  They have an African speaker on this panel, by the way.  Fiona from Kenya.


 >> I want to echo exactly what Anriette has said.  I don't know how many of these from the Chinese Association on Science and Technology have made it into -- is there anything in the top 50?  I can't off the top of my head remember.  But I do remember there were about six proposals coming from here.  So let's see if we can pull them together.  I love the fact that we do have some submissions from China.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  (Saying name).

 >> Thank you, Chair.  What is the order to choose, Chengetai?  Please.  How do you pick the workshops?

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'm just going down to the next one that comes from a developing country.

 >>IGOR MILASHEVSKIY:  I see.  In this case it works well.  I consider this topic is really important and factual.  And there's a lot of space for discussions.  And this is distinguished well from the previously discussed, where I find the topic more like announcement or publications of some -- (indiscernible.)   Thank you.  I support it.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Yes, thank you.  (saying name)

 >>Thank you.  I think I'm a bit surprised.  I want to smile, because I think -- at one point, I feel that sometimes if you take China, for example, chair.  China is -- than European countries with the growth they have today.  8% or 6% while most countries in Europe are bankrupt.  Sometimes you could put China in --

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We're not speaking about -- yeah, so, please, I would like to please to speak about the workshop proposals, not philosophical sort of comments about well-developed -- Izumi, please.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  This is Izumi A.  Just clarification.  The Chinese have four times the quantity.  They have workshops since 2008.  We are not a newcomer.  We've been around for a long time.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Indonesia.

  >>INDONESIA: Yeah.  We support this topic process, this kind of current technology.  And very close to the Internet governance.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  So I understand we're retaining this proposal on the list.  And tomorrow we'll be discussing what needs to be done to improve the quality of the workshop.  So shall we move to the next one?  Who is presenting?  Brian.

 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Next proposal, proposal ID 41.  Policy to promote broadband access in developing country.  Let me go to the -- comes from China as well.  Any comments on this proposal?

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Shall we have any comments on proposal 51?  Oh, sorry.  Right in front of me.  Mark, please.

  >>MARK CARVELL: Yeah, thanks.  41.  Thanks I really ranked this proposal.  It's well-developed.  It's got some key questions.  My only caveat was to ensure the organizer does seek some real conclusions and outcome on best practice.  So that was my comment there.  I did note a linkage potentially with number 137.  I don't know if that's got through, actually.  But I rated this really highly.  So I would support inclusion.  So thank you.


  My comment was I also liked this proposal.  But I think it's a best practice forum.  I think we want to encourage governments to come to -- broadband is a big issue.  IT broadband commission is not doing great work, in my view.  I think having a best practice forum on national broadband policies and broadband approaches is a good idea.  So my question is to Virat and during the access session and then on concern of doing best practice forum whether concerns you think this could be accommodated on best practice forum on access.  By the way, it's so talk about the workshop proposals after spending days, weeks, nights, reading through all of them.

 >>Thank you very much.  I agree with Anriette.  This would be an ideal theme for best practice forum.  Of course, if we have the resources on the secretariat side to document the process and support the best practice forum as we discussed.  It's a question of resource, but I completely agree with Anriette.  It's excellent.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  For the resources, if you make the required resources clear that you want -- or whatever you want, then the Secretariat will try and fill those.  But we need a clear indication of what exactly you need.  

 There was also a merge proposal, 142.  Shall we -- that it merges with 142.  Shall we look at that at all or --

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

 Just hold on.  Yeah.

 If anybody finds it before me, I would be grateful.  Which row number is that?  75.  Okay.  Does anybody have any opinion about it merging with that, or you think they are distinct?  Emerging issues from Arab Internet -- no.

 >> I think they're different.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That looks different.  Yeah.  113.  Sorry.  107.  133.  Combining research and advocacy across continents.

 >> Chengetai, I'm sorry.  Which number is it?  The workshop you're speaking of.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: So that is row 107, proposal ID 133.  113 -- sorry.  Let's get it together.  (No audio)  Anybody object?  

 >> I fully support this as well.  I thought agreed.  And then she asked to provide resources.  And then you said yes, if you tell me what it is that you need.

 >> All right.  Fine.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I understand that we proposed to move this workshop proposal for the best practice forum session and provide all necessary support that Constance needs.  Okay.  So let us move to the next proposal.  Who is introducing?  

 Chengetai, please.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  71?  Am I correct?  "The Future of Global and Regional IGF Post-2015"?  And it is IGF and the future of the Internet ecosystem.

 Apart from lack of diversity and a merger with 142, there's no other comments that we should look at right now.  And if you look at the main body just go -- no, no, no.  Up to the top.  So it's all from -- so it's 100% from a developing country.  

 Does -- looking at the names of the organizers and also looking at the names of the speakers, does anybody have any comment?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Paul, please.

 >>PAUL RENDEK:  I actually -- I like this one, and I -- probably no surprise because I've been pushing national and regional IGF efforts, so I think that something focused on that would be fantastic.  If I take a look at the lovely colleagues, I know every single one of them on this panel.  They're fantastic.  But I think it would benefit from some diversity even outside of our -- of the Arab region.

 But I think that can be fixed but I think it's a good -- I think it's a good proposal that focuses us a little bit more into the regional and national area, which is very needed.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We can take that on board, then, if there are no further comments.

 I don't see any.

 Let's move on, then, and put this on the list of workshops -- accepted workshops.

 Brian, please introduce the next one.

 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Next workshop, Number 180, "Crowdsourced Ideas for internet Governance,:  NETmundial, Brazilian experience."  

 Comes from Brazil under the emerging issues category.

 Comments, we have, Good proposal but no report was issued on previous workshops.  This proposal is not relevant to the 2014 IGF themes.  Lack of diversity.  It doesn't seem to have discussions on specific issues.

 Other positive comments:  Practical, specific, new, and timely.  Panel needs work.

 One comment suggested shortening it to 60 minutes, perhaps, given the number of workshop applications received.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  You want a full description?

 So I guess comments on this one?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So any comments?  Paul?  Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I like this proposal but this kind of overlaps to our discussion yesterday as well, which is, how do we accommodate the NETmundial in IGF 2014.  

 So, you know, I think there's a lot to learn from that so it could be a shorter session, it could be an open forum, but I -- or we could ask them to -- to merge with -- if there's anything else on -- if we are going to have, for example, a main session or a roundtable on the NETmundial, then they can talk about the methodology.

 But I do think we need to accommodate this in some respect, because of NETmundial and because of the innovation in governance and the methodology, which I think our community is interested in and needs.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Igor?  

 Hartmut, I will not give you the floor because you are an interested person.  I just banned UNESCO from speaking.  I'll do the same with you.  Sorry.  Igor, please, you raised your flag.

 >>IGOR MILASHEVSKY: Thanks for mentioning.  I just -- but the topic is really interesting.  Yesterday discussion came to one of the proposal.  I mean, the discussion which Mark managed.  Well, the proposal was to (indiscernible) the crowdsourcing (indiscernible) questions about reporting out outcomes of IGF, so --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So you support this session?


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

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I support this session as well.  I gave it my highest ranking.  

 But I do have a question regarding this comment that there was no report produced.  If we're going to hold people to that, did we identify among the proposals which ones did not follow through the last time they organized a panel?  Because it doesn't sound like we considered that criteria in our discussions.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Yuliya?

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  I'd like just to add something concerning the format.

 I would see this rather or -- as an open forum, as I think Anriette just said, or maybe a flash session, you know, to have a shorter but very precise discussion on this specific issue, or if we would like to have a broader discussion, we have to review maybe to see with the speakers list in order to have this global discussion.  Global.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Fiona?

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yeah.  I think to speak to Mike's point, you know, if we're going to actually take the outputs of the IGF and the workshops and make them meaningful, the fact that people aren't submitting workshop reports at the end is a problem.  And when we discussed in this developing the criteria, this wasn't listed as something to take into account.  So it would be useful to know who's proposing but hasn't followed through in the past and consider that in our deliberations.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So Veronica?

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  Very brief on this proposal.  

 I fully support it.  I think the capacity-building element is really important and my recommendation would be for the proponents of the workshop proposal to look more carefully about the description of the methodological tools that they could bring as ready materials for the knowledge-building competence of the session.  

 So I fully support it and because it's a capacity-building session, it deserves the 90 minutes in order to be able to kind of at least stimulate and challenge the participants to be able to embed those mechanisms and those practices back in their respective countries.  Thanks.

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


 Well, I support this topic to be covered and introduced in the IGF as a session.  This seems more like sharing the experience and information and what was useful, relevant, for sharing various views and having discussions, so I wasn't sure if the workshop format was the best fit for the purpose of the session or, I don't know, would it be possible to consider this as one of the best practice forums?  This was a question that I had.  

 But I'm definitely supporting this proposed -- this work- -- this session to be hosted in some form or the other.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I see Marilyn and then I will -- we'll move on.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 I have a question.  My understanding when we started today was there was the idea of the day zero session that Brazil would organize on NETmundial.  Am -- was my recollection correct?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Brazilians will organize.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes.  180 is, to me, a reflection of what -- this is a NETmundial Brazilian experience, and so I think it's a very interesting topic but I would see it to be either a complete duplicate of such a session on day zero or competing with, again, the fact that we very much want, in the main session on Internet governance and the way forward, to have NETmundial as one of the reflection topics.

 So the content, to me, is very interesting.  I need to understand overlap with the day zero session that is -- I understand we have already committed to, which is a big commitment, I think, and a good recognition.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jivan?

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  Thanks.  If we have a session as we spoke of on IGF -- improving IGF outcomes, I think that it would be good to position that session right after this one and to benefit from it.

 So when we're thinking of structuring the sessions, just one recommendation that this would be good to come and then the next one on improving IGF outcomes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 I think we can put -- or retain this session on the list and then tomorrow when we go through, maybe we will decide whether that should be given as a separate session or we need to recommend Brazilians to take it into account in organizing that day zero event.


 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  I don't know if it will defend or not but only to explain, this is a paper presented by the civil society.  They have a parallel hub during the NETmundial, so it's not organized by NETmundial.  It was the civil society doing in a parallel place, different place, young people, a parallel agenda.  Nothing to do with -- for sure with some links, but it's not the experience and not organized by the organizers of NETmundial.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you for this clarification.

 So we retain that on the list for the moment, and tomorrow we will see whether it will be given 90 minutes or moved -- or proposed to move somewhere else.

 Next is presented by?


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Chengetai.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The next one is 142.  That is on Row Number 75 of the Excel worksheet.

 "Emerging Issues from the Arab Internet Community Perspective."

 The proposal is from developing countries, from Sudan, Qatar -- Qatar, so it's under emerging issues.  

 And looking at the comments --

 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  -- they don't seem -- I mean, it's comments on speakers.  Looks good.  And more suitable for a regional IGF or an open forum on the region.  I think that's the only comments that we can look at at this stage.

 If we want to shift it somewhere or not.

 If we look at -- does anybody have any comments on the speakers list and also on the organizations list?

 I mean, it's from a -- it looks at the regional IGF from a regional perspective.  I think that is one of our aims is to incorporate regional perspectives into the global IGF, but I leave it up to you to comment.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Yulyia?

 >>YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you.  I was just wondering, we had the slightly different project proposal but with the same -- coming from the same proposers, practically, but I was just wondering -- I love the -- and I know the colleagues, but the point is maybe they should and they could have only one but a very well structured workshop of 90 minutes starting different subjects because the proposers are the same and after what we have below on the list, another proposal coming from the same proposers, so maybe they should be considered as well.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Which proposal you're referring to, the coming proposal?

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Paul was commenting on just the proposal before.  It was coming from the same proposers, and I don't remember the number.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Exactly.  Right.  But I mean the same people who proposed the workshop, so maybe they could, you know, have a single one but very well structured proposal.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Baher, please.

 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.

 So I -- I like this proposal, actually.  It -- I mean, we discussed before how we could encourage more engagement from regional and national IGFs, and this particular proposal actually addresses Internet governance issues in the Arab -- in the Arab region.

 I agree with Yuliya that it's the same kind of organizers of another workshop but the topic is entirely different and I wouldn't see how, you know, we can ask them to submit one well-structured proposal if they are to address two different topics.

 So I would recommend that we keep this proposal in the program.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Hossam?

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.

 I refer back to the same point with 140, "The Future of the Global and Regional IGF," so probably it could be accommodated along with it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Andrew?

 >>ANDREW MAURER: Thank you, Chair.  I was going to make a similar representation that I see 140 and 142 as being very different.  One is about government structures, one is about engaging with new technologies.  

 The way they are described, I think it's quite a sophisticated discussion that is being put forward and I think it's one that's really valuable for both the Arab region but people from outside of the Arab region to learn a different perspective.  So I would strongly support this going forward as it is.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Carolina, please.

 >>CAROLINA AGUERRE:  Thank you, Chair.  I really like the way the proposal is structured.  I do have a problem with some proposals that address concerns from a purely regional perspective, and it is -- they really need to make an effort and see that this is not the regional forum because I'm -- I'm very sure that this will be discussed at the Arab IGF.

 So I'm really pleased and happy to see these kind of perspectives coming in and to get to know about them when I go to a global IGF, but this proposal and the others that are sort of saying "This is what we're doing in our region" and they don't make the effort of saying, "And we will link this to the global policy discussion in such and such a way," I think that (a) either we should ask them -- this and all the other proposals that have the same flow, in my respect, they should be addressing precisely how this connects to a global forum or move this to a session where national and regional IGF issues are discussed.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.


 >>PAUL RENDEK:  I think Carolina hit the nail right on the head.

 If we -- I just want to be clear.  There's 140 and 142, and there was an idea to merge these.

 I also agree with our colleague from Australia that these are very different issues.

 I think that 140 could have much more focus on other regional and national IGFs which would make that a richer -- richer workshop in itself, but I think we've already dealt with that.  

 What I'm looking at here is if you look at this, I've always been somebody who has been pushing the folks from the Arab community, from the Arab IGF, to actually come together and bring those issues to the global front and I think that we see this happening here in a workshop proposal that I think is very nicely put together, I agree.

 But the part that I want to link with what Carolina said is that it would be really great to see how you can make linkages with what are the topics or what are the issues that we're seeing in the global space and where these things can be discussed.

 Otherwise, yes, I think then this should be put into some area where we can have concerns raised by -- from a regional level that need to be known by the global community.  But I think it's a very good proposal.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can I take that we accept it?  We accept it and -- yeah.  Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Janis, yes, I agree, and I -- I just want to say that this is not the only proposal that falls into this category, and I -- I think that we have to allow some flexibility for regions to -- I agree with you, Carolina, but I think excluding those regional focus sessions from the global IGF will be counterproductive.  So I think that sometimes diversity rules have to be applied a little bit differently because it is important that they bring their global issues.

 We also know from having worked at regional IGFs that at some regional IGFs -- and the Arab IGF is an example -- there's some hesitance to have certain controversial discussions and those very same people might say things in a global IGF which they might not feel comfortable to see in the regional IGFs.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  The conclusion is that we retain this workshop proposal on the list and tomorrow we will discuss what needs to be done to improve the quality.  

 Let us move to the next workshop proposal.  Brian.

 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Yes.  Next one, Column 81, proposal ID 24.  Title is "New Internet Impact on Underserved Communities' Development."  Comes from Tunisia.  

 There were a couple of suggestions to merge with Number 11 and 15.

 It is under the theme of Internet as an engine for growth and development.

 Some comments:  It is not a new workshop topic.  This proposal has an innovative format.  Lack of information on remote participation provided.  Need more diversity in support and speakers.  They are all from ICANN.  Again, a repeated issue from past IGFs.  Good comments, good topic.

 Another suggestion to merge with other gTLD workshops.  Some other comments about it being unclear in general.  Perhaps this would need to be coached a bit, if accepted.  Comments from the floor?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm going to make -- Marilyn Cade.  I'm going to make a general proposal.  There's a number of workshops proposed by subgroups at ICANN.  I happen to be an officer in one of the subgroups at ICANN.  So I recognize everybody.

 My suggestion is that all of them -- there's a number of them -- consolidate themselves.  And I think that would be more effective and more inclusive.  This is one of them.  There's a few others.  I don't know if the others make it into the cut.  But I think it's a small slice of a bigger -- it's a small piece of a bigger kaleidoscope.  And we should try to have the entire kaleidoscope.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So you would suggest a potential merger with other workshops of similar nature?


  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I think the next one we're considering is 114, which is one of the very similar points that Marilyn is making.

 >> Yes, I'm in agreement with the point that Marilyn makes.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So let us take 113 then and see if we can suggest a merger.  Who is introducing 113?

 >> 114.


  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: So 114 is developing countries participation in ICANN policies on the GNSO.  So yesterday -- there is a proposal to merge it with number 24.  And it's from then -- proposer's nationality is Tunisian, residence in Japan.  And it's a special organization.  Yes, critical Internet resources.  One of the other comments, very ICANN specific.  Subject matter can be covered elsewhere.  But nothing else that's really -- that we should really look at now.

 Looking at the main, if we go through it, there's the names of speakers and also of the cosponsors as well.  Does anybody have any comments on this?  And also the idea of merging.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Fiona please.

  >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you.  Just looking at -- I'm sorry -- the numbers, this one and the last one, last one which is number 24.  Number 24 wasn't about ICANN.  It was the impact of ICANN decisions on developing countries and talking about things like IDNs and things like that.  It seems like whoever suggested merging with 11 makes more sense topically rather than merging with ICANN as a topic.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  I think that this one is -- the second one is a better developed proposal than the first one.  They are different.

 You know, I'm not opposed to us asking them to work together to see if they can cover their issues.  But I want to comment on Marilyn's point.  

 Marilyn, I had the same reaction initially.  And I think if we can encourage merging, if it's relevant, we should.  But I think, in principle, it's good that people are bringing ICANN issues into the IGF space, because it is a different audience.  And so it broadens the discussion on some of the ICANN issues and processes.  So I don't think we should merge them to the point where they can't actually have a serious discussion about how to strengthen and make ICANN more inclusive.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Olga.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chair.  Olga Cavalli.  I would like to support what Anriette said.  Bring in more detail about ICANN environment.  It's important.  Not many people understand it.  So it's about ICANN but not necessarily has to be merged. And it's about the same thing.  So I would support what Anriette said.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  And Mark, U.K.

  >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Yes.  Sorry to come back in.  I have some sympathies for that.  But we're under the crush here in terms of ensuring that the program we end up with maximizes opportunities.  I mean, some of these very ICANN-specific issues I marked for -- why don't we do that within ICANN?  In an ideal world, yes, we could transport some of these issues into the IGF forum.  But we're under the crush here, and I think we have to take some tough decisions.  And merging, I think is the ideal one.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Subi.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Subi Chaturvedi.  I agree with Mark.  And when I look at 14 -- and it's a general comment also about proposals.  We took a conscious decision as MAG members to reduce speaking roles and reduce proposals.  So I see not just the same proposals, but they're also the speakers.  So, while it might be an important issue, it's some diversity of speakers.  And they're all respected members of the community, but we're familiar with those names.  So that might help.  And I also agree with the fact that they're not nearly the same thing, the two proposals that we're asking for merger.  They're different issues in their approach to the problem.


 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  I would like to support Mark as well and partly what Marilyn said.  I think we should maximize opportunities.  If we can encourage merge towards focus, is slightly different.  But the global subject is more like similar.  So we can give the opportunity to other workshops with different -- you know, subjects to be here and to be included.


 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you, Chair.  I see Izumi O. on the list of speakers.  But not because of that, I would like to support what Anriette said.  And it has its own set of issues with GNSO with the introduction of the new gTLDs.  It may sound like inner ICANN.  But it's good, as Anriette said, to bring this to the rest of the community.  As others mentioned, the names of the speakers we're very familiar with.  Not only with us but maybe too many of those who have been working inside or closely with ICANN, if we could see somebody else who has different viewpoints, that may make the discussion more lively.  But that's a humble suggestion.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Indonesia.

  >>INDONESIA:  Yeah.  I think this is kind of very benefit for the underserved community's development.  And, hopefully, the ICANN will give us the kind of proposal for how to support the underserved community development in the Internet governance for the underserved development community's development.  Thank you.  I support this in the list.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I see that we are -- we have a divergence of opinions.  And most probably it will be worth to retain both suggesting that they would be merged, if it's possible.  So here I'm a bit lost.  I didn't hear clear guidance.  Fiona.

  >>FIONA ALEXANDER: Just to point out that I think the merger is a better option, but it's not merging with 114 but number 11.  If you actually read number 11 and the comments, many of the comments are this proposal, while it may be top scoring, doesn't have developing country inspective.  It seems like a natural fit to merge it into that one versus the other.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So the proposal is to merge 114 with number 11?  124 and 11.

 >> Merging 24 with 11.  Any opposition to that proposal?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Igor?  Wait.  Can we?  Can we put clear -- Fiona, you said merger of 24 and 11?  Okay.

 Can we put 24 and 11 on that we can see?  11 was on multilingualism and 24 and 24 -- and 24 is -- Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  When I opened my comments, I said that there were several workshops that had sort of the great similarity.  This is one of them.  This is -- this is actually about IDNs as opposed to about multilingualism and multi -- multiple languages and content.  They both have good points to make, but I do think -- and I appreciate Fiona pointing this out.  When I was thinking, when I made my comment that there are several that are very similar in their purpose, I think this is one of those.  I will just say one other thing.  I've attended -- I've gone into some of the workshops in the past that are very central to issues specific to ICANN.  And very often the people I find in the room are the same people I find in the ICANN rooms.  So I hope we're trying to broaden and focus it so that it's about drawing more people in.  I could support the merger as Fiona had proposed.  Thank you, Andrew.

  >>ANDREW MAURER: Sorry.  I was putting   my flag to support Fiona.  11 and 24 are talking about enabling people who have not previously participated in the Internet or been empowered to do so.  Giving them the capability to do so through different linguistic approaches or IP addresses or domain name.  And 114 is very much is about participating in the Internet governance.  It's a world away from what an underserved community is ready to do.  So I would go for the 11/24 merger.  Leave 114 separate, and I'll be very happy.  Thank you.

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

 >>IGOR MILASHEVSKIY:  Thank you.  I would like to draw your attention.  The topic should be formulated in more general terms rather than in abbreviation well known for us by GNSO, ICANN.  But it's too close relation to certain organizations.  And I think we should avoid it in the -- if the merger will happen, it is better than if the topic will be formulated in more general terms.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Baher.

  >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.

 So I just want to note that proposal 11, it actually -- I mean, the workshop reports on a specific activity that has been going on between EURid and UNESCO on the development of IDNs in different parts of the world.  And this is the third or the fourth time they do this workshop at the IGF.  And I see the topic very specific, though I can see the sort of overlap with workshop 24.  But I don't really see that they can merge.  Because, otherwise, we're simply asking workshop 11 proposers to give up their proposal.  So I don't think this is fair.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Just to add to the mix, I agree that, with Andrew and others, who said that 114 is separate.  So I don't think we should merge 114.  

 But we should look at 35 as well.  35 is also an IDN.  So, Baher, maybe we can then look at your concern about merging 11 and 24 in the light of merging with 35 as well or not or a different combination.  But 35 is on script harmony, and it's also linked.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So I think -- I think for the moment we cannot go further than this.  There is clearly disagreement specifically on 11 and 24.  Maybe on 114.  Can we put 114 on the list as a separate workshop?  So that we can agree.  Okay.

 We put 114 as a separate workshop on the list.

 So what I would like now to suggest that we stop here.  We break for lunch.  We come back at 2:30.  But, as you know, there are no free lunches, actually.  You would wish that, but no.

 I would again -- we are progressing.  We have found the rhythm.  And we have a good chance to finalize this preliminary selection today, which then would allow us to fine tune and go through one by one tomorrow.

 I would like to ask now secretariat, based on decisions so far, to put the next version of this spreadsheet adding already those workshops that we have decided and mark them in yellow as being on the list.  Yeah, maybe slightly darker yellow.  Or whatever to make a distinction.  But, basically, say these are on the list.

 And mark still the proposals from developing countries in different color that we can clearly see them.

 But those -- and then make this chart already taking into account the added proposal that we see what is the sort of balance in our selection until now.  Thus far.  Okay?  And so -- and send that new spreadsheet out as soon as you can.  

 And then for the MAG members, I would like maybe to ask those MAG members sitting on that side of the room really concentrate and look further down the list on proposals coming from developing countries that you are well prepared for the further discussion and that part of the MAG members please concentrate on two issues.  The proposals coming from completely newcomers.  And the second is which other proposals would need to have specific attention of the -- of this meeting?  That we do not miss by any chance trying to put some things on right balance from regional perspective or gender perspective or developing/developed perspective that we're missing out something.  Okay?  Again, this is just a homework for us during the lunch break.  Igor, you're asking for the floor.


 (gavel pounding)

 We just discussed this 114 workshop.  And those discussions -- with proposals to merge, to combine.  The constituency itself within -- in the list.  I'm not -- (indiscernible).

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You're not happy that 114 is on the list.


  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So let's -- please do not count 114 is in the list.  Please.

 >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to complete this situation with the countries in transition.  Especially Russia.  Will it be included in the list of the countries in transition?  And we discussed --

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We haven't reached that point. Yes, they're on the list, and we'll examine those proposals.  So, please, bilaterally, okay.  Let me repeat the homework.

 So that part of the room MAG members, please look down to the further proposals coming from developing countries and countries in transition.  That part of the MAG group please look to newcomers specifically.  Newcomers and those workshops we should not miss for sure.  All right?  

 And then we will come back, and we will receive from secretariat as soon as possible the new chart and the new spreadsheet.  Thank you very much.  And see you back in the room at 2:30 sharp.  Thank you.

 [ Break ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So good afternoon.  Ladies and gentlemen, let us resume our consideration.  

 We have gotten now to 60 proposals on the list.  We still have some time to go.

 We have reached now the proportion, developing versus developed countries, 36% versus 64.  I think in that -- I don't think we need to strive for a perfect balance, 50/50.  We need to acknowledge that some expertise maybe today is more present in the developed world, and the developing world may benefit from listening to that expertise.  

 Nevertheless, I would suggest that maybe we take another five proposals from developing countries, then we look maybe at a few proposals from countries -- transitional countries, then we look to a few proposals from newcomers.  

 So that would bring us potentially to 70 proposals, and then we return to the sort of next below the list of accepted in the highest scored workshops.

 If that would be acceptable, then let us proceed with the further discussions of about five additional workshops from developing countries.

 So we -- where we are now, we continue with the next one.

 Yeah.  The next one is?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Line Number 87, proposal -- (off microphone) -- Line Number 87, Proposal ID Number 134, "African IGF Meeting:  Future of Internet and Perspective for Africa."

 There is a -- on the list, there -- one comment that it merges with 138, and, yes, it's a developing country and it's IGF and the future of the Internet.

 If we go down, we also see that -- oh, sorry.  I might be skipping, but then there is a discussion on multistakeholderism on Africa, and their comment is also that it gets merged, so I think we can look at these two together and decide whether or not these two merge, just to save time.

 If we look at the main body, we can see it is by the African Internet Governance Forum and they have a list of names which have been confirmed.  Well, most of them -- no, all of them have been confirmed, in fact.

 And you can see the people who are -- the organizations that are associated with it.  

 And let's just go to the next one so that we can discuss them both, whether or not they should be merged.

 If we can look at the other one, the proposer for this one is from Italy but it's based in South Africa, and it's looking at the discussion on multistakeholderism in Africa and I think the secondary proposer is from NEPAD.  I think all of you know who NEPAD is in South Africa.  It's got the confirmed list and the speakers list, so we can sort of -- I'll hand it back to the chair for the discussion of the two.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  The proposal is to merge 134 and 118 in one.  That's the proposal from the secretariat.

 The floor is open for comments.  Is silence -- silence should --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The proposal is to merge 134 and 118.  The title is "AIGF Meeting:  Future of Internet and Perspective for Africa" and discussion on multistakeholderism in Africa.  These are the two proposals coming, unrelated, to African document.

 So any -- any comments?  Agreement?  Disagreement?  Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I -- just I'm -- you know, I'm involved in both these processes.  I wasn't involved in the workshop design, but with Makane here, we worked on the African IGF.  

 I think they're very different.  So I think on the African IGF, that falls into that category of discussion that we had earlier, which is, how do you deal with regional processes.  And so I think we still need to resolve that.  We haven't quite resolved that.

 The other proposal, the 118, is very specific.  That is about the difficulties of -- (no audio) -- established multistakeholder processes in working with regulators at a national level, and it's much more -- not so much about IGF or the IGF -- IGF ecosystem, but about how governance takes place and how public policymaking takes place.

 So that's the NEPAD -- the New Process for African Development -- proposal, so they actually are very different.

 You might want to merge that one.  If there are other workshops that are dealing with establishing multistakeholder processes at national level, you know, one could -- one could merge it with that, or at a regional level.  Particularly in a region where it's still difficult.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think we had a proposal -- similar proposal from Arab region.  Am I right?  That there was a proposal to discuss multistakeholderism in Arab region, in African/Arab region.  If the problems are the same, maybe those could be merged.  Can somebody confirm if there was that type of workshop proposal?  Michael?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just wanted to ask whether we've come to closure on doing a special session for organizers of regional and local IGFs.

 If we do want to do something like that -- and I think we should -- this Proposal 134 would be a great core to build around.

 I'm helping organize the IGF USA along with a number of other people in the room, and, you know, we certainly would like to build connections to other groups, and a lot of these people would be very helpful in that process.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Paul?

 >>PAUL RENDEK:  Thank you, Chairman.  

 I also agree.  I would not merge these.  I think we have seen that there is room for these regional perspectives.  I think they are very important.  I think the actual discussions on these that would take place should be -- they should be given a platform to have this, so I agree that this should be put in and not merged.  

 And I'm not really quite sure where Mike was going with his comment, but I would not support putting any of these into one big session of regional discussions.

 You will dilute the discussion.

 I think that a session like this can take place to see what are the dynamics in national and regional IGFs.  Fine.  I can deal with that and I think it would be very useful.  But let's not dilute the specifics of what these workshops are showing.  And frankly, I think this is -- this is a good submission.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.


 >>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS:  Thank you, Chair.  

 I want just also to support the idea of keeping these two workshops separated.

 As Anriette mentioned, they're trying to have different scopes.

 I'm not sure if we can tie the multistakeholder workshop with the best practice forum on that specific issue.  That will be another idea, even if -- 

 I understand also Paul's position, but it would be another option, too.  Okay.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  U.K.?  Mark?

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  

 I -- I am also very keen to keep these separate.  I ranked and scored 118 top marks.  This is a key discussion about the model, the multistakeholder model in Africa, and I think there's a risk of diluting that or diminishing its impact by merging it with something else which is quite specific.  So that's my position.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I will join with the comments about keeping them separate, but I would like to just respond to the suggestion that Mike Nelson made.

 I do think -- and I'm not suggesting that we have a workshop format for this, but a meeting among the coordinators of national and regional IGFs for purposes of sharing administrative experiences is very different.  I'm not proposing it compete.  I think we should, you know, push that off to the side and maybe even consider that could happen on day zero or something.  That's a -- and we've all found value in that and coordinators have often met at lunchtime during these sessions.

 So I support keeping these two separate.

 I do just want to say that it is very possible we will come back later and find that there are other opportunities where we are going to need to look for merging in some of the other workshops which are being submitted by some of the national and regional IGFs, but I'm not suggesting that for this one.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mike?

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Just to answer your question about the Arab proposal, that was 142 and I don't think it really does deal with multistakeholderism as much as the general challenges of doing Internet policy in that region.

 So I would not support that merger and I don't support the merger that we're talking about here but I'm glad -- Marilyn and I should talk some more about how we can leverage the fact that all these coordinators of regional meetings will be in Istanbul.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Then I understand that this group is willing to put on the list of supported workshops both 134 and 118, since we discussed them at the same time and the merger was not accepted.

 Yes?  Anriette.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I -- I -- I think that the African IGF is more of a report.  It's more of an open forum.  And I -- you know, I feel a bit constrained here because we haven't finalized our decisions about what is an open forum and what isn't, but my -- my -- my -- you know, when I was preparing -- working on the proposals, I felt that is an open forum, and maybe -- I don't know how long it needs.  It might not need 90 minutes.  Makane will probably never speak to me again.  Makane, are you listening?

 [ Laughter ]

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  But I think -- I'm really proud of the African IGF.  I think it's fantastic.  We do incredible work.  And Makane is the champion.  But I think it's an open forum and all -- some other way of getting the regional IGFs to perhaps have a session where they report, but I don't think it's a workshop.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Nevertheless, we can retain it on the list and then tomorrow once we are going one by one through all of them, we will have a chance to see the distilled list already tonight.  Then we can -- we can decide where to put them, either in workshop slot or open forum slot or give sort of -- not merge them but give them 60 minutes or 45-minute reporting time in one of those.  But I mean, we will do this kind of repackaging as a result.

 So I see a number of flags up, and I wonder whether that is on those -- on these two workshops?

 Yes, it seems.

 United States?

 >>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to make just a quick remark.

 I'm trying -- I've been struggling with a way to offer the group for addressing the issue of workshops that people feel are very important but we are definitely going to have more -- you know, we certainly have more than we have space for.  And one way to think about it, as we go through this process, might be to think about ways of incorporating not only the workshop in a merger, but if a workshop is not selected, perhaps there's a way to incorporate the organizer of the workshop or the champion of the workshop that wasn't selected into one that was.  So you're not really merging two workshops but you're bringing the person, you know, who was the champion for that workshop into the event so they don't not just come -- just don't come to the IGF at the time.

 So just something perhaps as a placeholder, not about this workshop particularly, these two workshops particularly, but one thing that might help in incorporating the will and desire to participate.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I think that this -- this is the next stage.  

 We discussed here that some MAG members could take a group of workshops and sort of guide, supervise, hold hands of organizers in the runup to the meeting, making sure that organizers are well sort of prepared and workshops are run in the best possible way.

 Those MAG members are fully aware of the -- all proposals and can advise respective organizers that "This person whose workshop or whose proposal was not selected may be a good resource person," and so on.

 So I think that there will be a number of interactions as a result of our decision, and certainly those people whose proposals were not -- or will not be retained will be used by others, should this will be possible.

 Yuliya, please.

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  I don't have something specific to add because it all was said.  I just wanted to support Anriette's statement, the last one concerning the open forum maybe format, and I strongly support what was just said concerning the incorporation of the leader -- what you just commented, actually, just to bring another voice to it.

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

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  As we are still discussing the two workshop proposals, definitely keeping them separate, but 118, which focuses on multistakeholderism in Africa, I have just quickly checked and we have three more workshop proposals that do focus on multistakeholder approach.  It's Number 45, 205, and 174.  And I think -- I have no idea if we -- I would just need to go quickly back and see whether they made it to the 51 or they are still going to be discussed.

 But there should be a way to look at -- should be a way to synchronize efforts around the multistakeholderism approach and transform into a session that might be looked at from the perspective of capacity-building where you really show very specific practices, how it can be done in African context, in -- in other context, so thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.


 >>PAUL RENDEK:  Thank you very much for that -- for that Liesyl, and now we're talking.  I like this perspective of taking some of the champions of workshops that won't make it and plugging them in.

 This is probably something that the secretariat should be pushing this group to do very actively.  I think if we -- that would be fantastic.

 Again, now taking a look at these two workshops, I know you want to close these and move on, I -- I'd like to support what -- what was said about the African IGF space maybe being moved somewhere else.  I do not think this is a workshop either.  We must find a place, as I've mentioned plenty of times here, for these regional and national efforts, but this, I believe, can be rolled into there.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So okay.  Now let us then decide -- put both on the list but mark that African IGF, 134, would not -- or should not be qualified as a workshop but we would qualify -- we would find another sort of way, and that would be not given 90 minutes but slightly -- slight -- something different.

 Let's take that note and move on to the next proposal, which is 126.

 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Yes.  Column 89, Proposal 126, "Fostering Respect by Companies for Internet Users' Rights."

 There were two suggestions to merge with 21 and 117.  It falls under the Internet and human rights category.  Some short comments: more balanced, multistakeholder panel needed; missing secured list of speakers and panelists; subject matter sufficiently addressed elsewhere.

 And in the full description we see the speakers there.  Many panelists.  

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Any comments?  Proposals?  We already are -- we're in full agreement.  I take this silence --

 >> Do we have any idea how many we've processed so far?


 >> Can we have an idea how many we've processed so far?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: If this will be accepted, this will be 63rd.  And we -- we -- I suggested that we go now -- we continue with developing countries up to 65.  And then we take a few from countries in transition.  Then we take a few from newcomers.  And then we go back to the highest scored workshops and continue our selection from that batch.

 126 accepted.  We're putting it on the list.  And we move on to the 13 -- 136.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: 136 is Internet as an engine of growth and development.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Sounds like a main session.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It was suggested that it merges with 134, 137, and 143.  Now, I have 137 as increased affordable Internet connectivity in the global south.  And I've got 143 as Internet as an engine of global development, which is close to the title. But we have to, I suppose, look into them specifically.  Now, if we look at the main -- the body, its developing country, all from Ethiopia.  UNECA, other institutional co-organizers.  The speakers are confirmed.  And I'll open it up for comments.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think that, for the future, my request of secretariat would be not to list international organizations or intergovernmental organizations as representatives of national states.  UNECA is not Ethiopia.  It is a U.N. regional commission as well as UNESCO, as well as ITU.  We have a category IGOs full stop.  We should not separate.  That is confusing. without prejudice to the -- our decision. Just for the future, we need to be clear about it.

 Any comments?  U.K.?

  >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you, Chair.  I am very supportive of this proposal.  It's addressing a very important topic, the contribution of the Internet knowledge society, digital economy to economic growth in the continent in Africa.  So very important theme.  It's important to the IGF to embrace that theme.  This is a well-developed, well-articulated proposal.  I ranked it top.  It's important for Africa to be very visible at the IGF.  And this is a very good opportunity complementing the one on multistakeholderism in Africa.  And perhaps the African IGF report could be subsumed into this proposal, 136.  Because the African IGF could be seen as a component in advancing economic growth derived from Internet and opportunity.  So that would be my suggestion, if not an open forum for the African IGF.  But this is a key proposal.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Paul?

  >>PAUL RENDEK:  Thank you very much, chairman.  While I agree with Mark that it's a very important topic, I'm going to be a bit blunt here.  It's been done.  This has been done.  So I want to see something that's going to give us something new within this process.  I mean, we -- you know, I know it's important to have some continuity, and there are new players coming in so there needs to be a repeat of things coming in.  But, honestly, this has been done.  And I think, as Chengetai has read out to us, there are a few other workshops that probably can fit into this.  I would love to see us try to organize something here that will give us something we can use after this.  Because, if we're going to come together and say, yes, the Internet is a fabulous engine for growth in Africa, where are you taking me with this?  I think we've done that part.  

 So I would like to see the next step.  So, please, can we be a little bit more -- can we try to find some way of pulling these together and just showing maybe some best common practice or something like this?  But just accepting this purely as a workshop, I'm not sure.  I didn't score it so highly, to be honest with you.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think, as we discussed yesterday, that every workshop organizer will be invited to formulate a policy question.  That's what they will strive to address during these workshops.  That will be public, and that will be known.  And, hopefully, that will be used during the workshops.  And then we will ask in reports to inform IGF what type of sort of thoughts were discussed and whether there was a convergence of views on certain issues and, if so, what they were.  And, if there were divergence of views, then indicate what they were, so that we have some idea.  

 Anriette, please.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  This is more a general comment as well.  I also think this -- it's always difficult in the IGF, how do we deal with ITT for development issues?  Because there aren't many other spaces where they can be discussed.  So I think you're right, Paul.  I agree with both you and Mark.  I think, if we take the ICT for development discussion completely out of the IGF, we're also taking a lot of people out of the IGF.  So I think it is about reframing these workshops so that they really are more policy Internet governance oriented.  

 The one thing that struck me about this workshop proposal is it's proposing research.  There are actually lots of proposals that are presenting research.  I was having a discussion with Baher over lunch.  And he said he's always wanted to see poster sessions at the IGF.  

 I'm just flagging that maybe, Janis, again for tomorrow, maybe we can have not just the booths but also create a space at the IGF with people that have done research and can create poster sessions.  And we can make some -- I know Janis is very keen to have open space in the agenda.  We could have space where people could go and walk about and listen to the posters.  I think the research would be really good to share with the IGF community.  And maybe it can be done even more effectively than just through a workshop.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Veronica?

  >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  I fully support what Anriette has just shared.  And one of the elements I really like in this proposal is the fact that it looks to have discussions followed by possible recommendations for various stakeholders.  And I think one way we could encourage proponents of this workshop proposal is to elaborate a little bit on the methodological side how exactly they're going to model as participants to come up with specific recommendations.  Is it about breaking them in smaller groups and dedicating time for smaller group discussions and then coming into a bigger group and reflect a bit on this?

 So, as MAG members, we could provide a bit of support on elaborating a bit on the methodological side.  Otherwise, I support it.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  

 Olga, please.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair.  Olga Cavalli.  I really agree with everyone.  I agree with Mark that it's important.  I agree with Paul that it's already been done.  With Anriette and with Veronica.  I like the idea that Veronica said about poster sessions and also Anriette, a new way of indicating things.  

 My main concern with this workshop is the title.  In my opinion, it's mainly focused on Africa.  And, when you have 80-100 workshops to decide where to go, you first look at the title and then the explanation and the speakers and all the rest.  So Internet as an engine of growth and development, it's kind of broad.  I don't see any reference to Latin America, for example.  So, if we are going to keep it, I suggest there should be rephrase of the title.  And I do agree with all my colleagues.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Shall we agree to retain it and suggest that the title be rephrased?  Subi.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you.  Subi Chaturvedi.  I thought that the original submission to 137 was also worth consideration.  It's a 30-minute session, but it's slotted as a debate.  And they're also asking for speaker recommendations.  And I see this proposal which deals with ICT but does not have enough diversity in speakers.  If we merge, we have the option of innovating both in format and making the session more interactive.  So, if -- that's what some consideration.  I'd like to put that on the table.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Let's then retain that proposal.  Put it on the list until -- and we'll continue discussion tomorrow on the merits.  But we'll just select this for the list.  And, again, thinking what we will have tomorrow.  We will have a second reading of the whole list.  We will be going through one by one all the workshops.  I cannot exclude it.  We will come to conclusion that one or another workshop should be other disqualified or should be proposed mergers, right?

 If that will be the case, so we will arrive to certain number.  And, if we will feel that we can take on board more workshops, we will come back tomorrow to the process that we're doing now, sort of selecting -- we'll take next in line and all that to the list.  But, for the moment, let's keep it maybe idea -- we need to retain idea of possible merger of this workshop with the 137.  And we will look at it tomorrow.  Carolina.

 >>CAROLINA AGUERRE:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Thank you, Janis.  To be honest, I don't see how 136 and 137 can fit in.  Because the strengths of 136 was showing the results of the research in a way.  So I would bear that in mind considerably.  If we're going to merge it, that's my only comment.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Remote participants.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  We have two general comments.  The first one from Nnenna Nwakanma.  

 I would like to state that though this sounds like it may be better at the regional level, we have more Africans present at global IGF than we might have at the African IGF itself, which explains why the opportunity is important.  

 And the second one from Bill Drake.  

 I support what Anriette said.  There should be a separate category of events for project reports of one hour for releasing research projects for multi commission processes, et cetera.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We may arrive to that type of conclusion tomorrow with putting some accepted workshops to that category and arrange them separately.  One cannot exclude that.  Let's move on and keep 136 on the list.  And let us move to the next one.  72, I understand?

  >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Yes.  Proposal ID 72, column 91, building technical communities in developing regions.  Qualifies as an emerging issue theme.  Comments about the panel.  Good topic but lacking confirmation on the speakers.  Some labeled it as a capacity-building workshop.  Again, the speakers could be improved.  Defined as distinctive capacity-building proposal with a useful potential outcome on models and best practice.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any comments on 72?

  >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Coming from Jamaica.  

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Carolina?

 >>CAROLINA AGUERRE:  I think the relevance of this session is -- the topic is incredibly relevant.  And I do agree with the proposal of -- the technical communities in developing regions.  And their skills and their capacity building is very much in focus.

 What is certainly a very strong weak point of this proposal is its current -- yes, lack of definition of a more representative choice of panelists.  And, if it would be accepted, we should definitely think of those speakers who have been invited and -- because this is a topic that it has a lot -- there's a lot to do with this.  And thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  U.K.

  >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Yes, I agree.  They didn't sell it very well.  There's not a lot of information to go on.  But it's a distinctive capacity-building proposal, in our view, with a very potentially useful outcome on best practice model.  So I would go with this one.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Of course you would.  (indiscernible)

 [ Laughter ]

 Olga, please.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair.  Olga Cavalli.  I agree with Carolina.  But I like the idea.  I like that it's a roundtable.  So there will be more exchange of opinions and ideas.  If we are going to keep it, maybe Carolina and myself and others from Latin America could enhance the list of panelists.  And the same could be done by other colleagues from other regions.  The idea is relevant.  And I think that -- I like in general -- it's not very well-explained.  But that's my comment.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We have Izumi.

  >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  I really agree with my colleague, Carolina, and other people who have expressed support for this proposal.  

 I think this can really have good potential on getting other people who are not in the technical community to understand what are the things that the technical community is doing in helping in capacity building or also operational issues that are being raised in Internet governance area.  So, if they can maybe clearly explain our focus on these are the issues that we're happy to explain and discuss, I think it's a very useful topic and session to be discussed in the IGF.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Subi.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I agree with both Carolina and Olga.  I think it's an important proposal.  And the topic lends itself to being a part of the discussion.  One of our challenges has been that policy and technical communities have to engage more.  So -- but I'm just wondering the proposers are also the speakers, and they're not people who are new in the community.  So maybe that's intentional, because it lends itself to certain amount of expertise.  But, with MAG members already to mentor the proposal, I think it is an important proposal to be retained.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  I think it's kind of interesting, as somebody who was -- suffered through being coached through NANOG experiences, that this is, in fact. 

 A mysterious group that does deserve to be, I think, brought more into -- they play a very, very critical role in dealing with risk and threats and the operation of the Internet, and they are widely distributed across government agencies, companies, ISPs, et cetera.

 So on the one hand I'm very excited about it, and on the other hand, boy, do they need a little help with marketing and describing the proposal.

 So totally in support of it but I think it's going to be really important for them to fix up the description or they're going to be talking to themselves in the room because it's so mysterious.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And Paul, you make a final -- 

 >>PAUL WILSON: Thank you.  

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Another Paul will make a final --

 >>PAUL WILSON: Oh, sorry.

 >>PAUL RENDEK: Thank you.  I agree with Marilyn here.  I have never let any of our techies near the marketing room so I can understand why this proposal looks like this.  

 Actually, Izumi, you actually took the words right out of my mouth.  I think we have a very strong set of organizations here that do a lot in the area of capacity-building.  I think that this group also is not very familiar with Internet governance, if you look at its composition, and I think it would be great to bring them in the fold a little bit.  

 I also think as far as capacity-building we can build on that because I think that other stakeholders would be able to call on these groups for their expertise in actually moving things forward.

 So I would like to join with Carolina -- I think she was kind of showing her commitment -- and Olga, of course, who showed hers.  I would love to get involved in this session and work with these people -- I think I know these very well -- and see what we can do and see if we can bring this to something that will look a bit better for this group.  I would personally like to work on this.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Paul Wilson.

 >>PAUL WILSON:  Thank you, Janis.  I just arrived so I should say good morning to everyone.

 >> Good morning.

 >>PAUL WILSON:  Thank you.  

 Just in response to what Subi, I think, said about some of the familiar faces here, it's worth noting that this is really a very active area of development and there are new NOGs being formed all the time, ongoing from this meeting to the inaugural meeting of BDNOG, the Bangladesh NOG, the very first meeting, and I'm going to be talking to them about "Internet governance, why should I care."  So that, you know, reflects on what Paul said.  I'll make some efforts to bring some of the new folks into this as well, and particularly from the Asia-Pacific region, which really is a very active area of ongoing involvement, so again, I agree it's important.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think that the prevailing opinion is that this should be retained on the list and we are -- we are reaching 65 proposals on the list at this moment, and as we agreed, maybe we can now have a look at a couple of proposals from countries or economies in transition, and then a couple of proposals from newcomers.

 So secretariat, are we ready to --


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- to introduce two proposals from countries in transition?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So the first proposal, we're going to go back up the Excel sheet.

 It's Row Number 80, Proposal ID Number 15.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  "Empowerment of Displaced People through On-Line Education, as we see.

 There's a proposal to merge it with 53 and it's under the theme of Internet as an engine for growth and development.

 Most of the comments -- important topic but not Internet governance, but those can be fixed.  

 IG links need to be made clearer.  Those can be fixed as well.

 Yeah, there's nothing that's directly relevant to this stage of the selection process.

 If you look at the detail, we have a chair.  They've submitted their workshop report.  

 Of note, they only asked for 60 minutes, not the full 1 hour 30 minutes.

 And they've got a lot of confirmed speakers.  

 I'll open up the floor back, Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  The floor is open for comments.

 Yuliya?  Yuliya, please.

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Yeah.  Thank you, Chair.  I think the subject -- it was said that the subject may be not relevant.  I think the subject is actually relevant and quiet new and will fall perfectly to the access and all these discussions about unrepresented, underserved people.

 I would also suggest maybe to merge with another workshop proposal, 199, which is from a transition country as well, so to make it stronger, the subject is very similar, you know, and so to have a -- the one consolidated very strong proposal going to the same direction, discussing the same issues.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So 199?  What is 199?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  199 is "Inclusion of Disadvantaged Groups and Social Responsibility."

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  199.  I have Subi, then U.K., and then Mike.  Subi, please.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  Subi Chaturvedi.

 I think it's a fairly interesting proposal, and I agree with Yuliya's suggestion.  If we look at combining these two proposals, we have the opportunity to engage with a community that tends to directly benefit, and then we're talking about access and Internet as an engine for growth and development.  I think it's thematically relevant, too.

 So this, by far, according to me, was one of the high-scoring proposals, but I think it can do with a little more diversity in speakers, so I do see that point there.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  U.K.?

 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thanks.  I recommended a merger with 53.  There's a very close thematic linkage there.

 It may not seem like a major issue, migrants and displaced people, but there are a helluva lot of migrants and displaced people in the world and -- lacking the access that we certainly, you know, take for granted.

 So this is an important topic.  I think there ought to be one specific workshop on this issue of displaced people and how we should ensure that they're not losing out in the world.

 So my suggestion is merging with 53.

 199 I thought lacked definition and I wasn't sure about that, and I was a bit -- maybe a bit harsh in my scoring of that.  

 15 and 53 would work, I think.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael?  I will not allow -- (no audio) -- sorry.  I will not allow any advertisement.  I did not allow UNESCO.  I did not allow Brazil.  I will not allow proponents of the proposal to speak on this subject.

 Michael, please.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Just wanted to raise a couple things.

 Since the proposers of the Russian proposal thought that 60 minutes would be sufficient, maybe we could go back to them and say 45 minutes and see if they could work with that.

 I do not support merging it with 199.  That's well down in our rankings.  Several of us were very concerned about the quality of the proposal.  

 But I would like to agree with the U.K. that the Diaspora proposal was unique, it was a new topic, and one of the things that I worry about here is we're going through this in a way that means at the end of the day we'll have more diversity but we might miss the chance to have more diverse topics, and so I'm really concerned that in our effort to get developing countries, we're getting a third or fourth proposal on the same topic and now it's a third or fourth topic -- third or fourth proposal and it's better because it's a developing country but it's still one of three or four when we could have added a new topic to the mix.

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

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think this is one of the -- both these workshops struck me as new.  I don't think we've had this topic before.  So I think it's an important topic.

 I would like them to frame their questions more -- more policy questions, not just looking at educational services but actually look at policy responses.  

 And I think merging is -- would work here.  I think it's worth asking them to merge.  But I think having -- you know, it's ironic.  We talk about the Internet and jurisdictional problems, but -- but, you know, the problems of human mobility we're not really solving in this world, so I think it's a good idea that we're talking about this topic at the IGF.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Paul, you will be in agreement with Anriette as usual?

 >>PAUL RENDEK:  Actually, I disagree with her on so many things, you would laugh, but...

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PAUL RENDEK:  Actually, I would like to agree with Mark then here, if I could.  

 I think we've got something here if we merge 53 with this one.

 Initially, my comment was going to be to put this into a best practice forum, although I'm not quite sure if there's enough material to move it there.  But I would love to see it moved to a best practice forum one time, because this is a specialized subject.  It is something new.  I haven't seen it, so it's a bit fresh.  I can see the importance of bringing that into the IGF, so I'm very much supporting it on the merit that it will merge with 53.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  May I take, then, that we retain this 53 -- sorry, we retain 15 on the list, with the potential merger for fifty- -- or proposal to merge with 53?

 Marilyn and Paul?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yeah.  Chair, I have a clarifying question.  

 I can certainly support their proposal, but I'm struggling with the fact that this workshop -- and there's a couple of others as well that seem to have as well inaccurate information in a couple of places that needs to be fixed or I can't read.  And that's possible.

 This says the proposer's nationality is Russian and the country of -- the proposer's country of residence is Russia, but it is someone who identifies themselves as being with the ITU-T.  The ITU is an intergovernmental organization.

 And then the panelists -- 

 So I'm just thinking, I agree with the direction we're going in, but I think there may be some information that got misentered.  It shouldn't have anything to do, I don't think, necessarily with the content of the proposal but I don't -- if this is an ITU-T proposal, that makes it an IGO proposal, not a --

 On the other hand, it may just be that this is someone who participates in ITU-T and just put that in.

 So if we could seek that clarification, having nothing to do with the approval of it.  

 There's a couple of others where the proposer lives in -- is clearly from another country but they've somehow gotten themselves identified as being from Brazil.  

 Those are small things but they ought to be clarified so we have factual information when we go forward.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So proponents, please just address this question.  Yes or no?

 >> It's not ITU-T directly.  It's just a person who involved in Internet activities.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for this clarification.

 So may I then -- 

 Paul?  Paul Wilson?

 >>PAUL WILSON:  Just in the interest of transparency, I marked both of these very low -- number 53 lower than 15 -- because I couldn't see the Internet governance dimension.  So I mean the beauty of averages is that if everyone else saw it, then my -- my mark didn't count.  If we had room for 300 workshops, I would have given them both much higher marks because I think that's, you know, more inclusive.  If we have the luxury of more inclusivity, then we can put more in, but I didn't see enough of the dimension for the approach that I thought we were taking.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah, Chengetai, please.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry.  A comment on the people.

 What we see here on the relatively anonymized list is the co-organizer, not the organizer.  We had removed the organizer.

 So when you see "ITU-T" or whatever you see in the next ones, these are co-organizers.  The main organizer is not listed because it was an attempt to do a blind selection, as such.  So that we are not concerned where the organization of the person came from but just basically the country where the person came from.  

 I mean, we had a little bit of difficulty with that, so it may not be perfect, but that was the intention.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  So please, civil society, but briefly.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CIVIL SOCIETY: Thank you, Chair.  My question is, I didn't have the worksheet, the Excel worksheet before, so I can't explain clearly what I want to say, but the thing that I found strange, you put 53 -- you put 15 with 53.  I would suggest to return to the first item, which was to put 15 with 199 because 199, displaced people and disadvantaged people are the same kind of people.  They work hand by hand.  If you have displaced people, then they are migrant people and they need to be supported by Internet and most of the time people have difficulties just because they don't have Internet so they become disadvantaged in society and this is about telecommunications, no?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Thank you for your comment.

 So shall we retain this -- or we will retain this proposal.  There are some further refinements needed and we move to the next proposal from a country in transition.

 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Yes.  Next proposal from a country in transition is Column 92, Proposal 34, "Reassessing Stakeholders' Equilibrium."

 There were two suggestions to merge with perhaps 31 or 45.

 Some summary of the comments.  The info provided about the panel doesn't allow to assess whether the speakers are confirmed or not.  

 That's something we can deal with.

 Others say it's an important topic.  More diversity.  Needs to be supported.  Too much -- 

 Suitable for merging perhaps.  Has some good concepts to contribute into other similar workshops.

 More questions about the panel.  If we want to go into detail, it's under the IGF and the future of the Internet ecosystem theme.  

 90 minutes.  

 There's our panel.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So what is the prevailing opinion?  Michael?

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Well, this is one of these ones where it would be really useful to know if they've actually contacted these people and whether Markus Kummer or Milton Mueller are actually going to be speaking on these panels.

 We have -- and whether Janis Karklins is going to speaking on this panel.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>MIKE NELSON:  And so we've seen this where names are put up and we have no way of knowing whether those names will actually be on the final panel, and I really -- I did not rank proposals like this very highly because I've seen time and time again where a great proposal went in, was approved, and what we had on the stage was completely different.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I can tell you I was not approached for participation in this panel.

 So Veronica, please.

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.

 On the same issue, because I checked with the name proposed for the remote moderation, who is Vladimir Radunovic, and he hasn't been approached either, so I think we are having an issue with names being put on the list without any ethical approach to this process.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I also thought it was the speakers list looked like, you know, the top six from the past five IGFs, and so I -- I think -- I think that that wasn't -- I thought it wasn't fresh enough.  

 But I did feel that there were so many workshops on multistakeholder processes that we do need to maybe find some innovative way of giving people an opportunity so there will be a main session, maybe.  It also links to the whole issue of NETmundial follow-up.  So it's relevant but I didn't feel the workshop was that well framed and the speakers sounded like they're not going to say anything different.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Of course, dot 6 never says something different.  They repeat what they say over years.  But that's the question of credibility.  I'm joking.  Veronica?

  >>VERONICA CRETU:  Yes, just one additional comment.  It just did strike me, while I was assessing the proposal, if you look at the description of proposals planned for remote participation, it was envisaged to set up hubs in Russia and a few post-Soviet states, including but not limited to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine.  I will not comment any more.  Thank you.


  >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thanks.  I'm a bit negative on this one, I have to say.  It isn't focused.

 There a lot of high-level philosophical questions wrapped up in this proposal.  Lacks the kind of focus that would inspire you to view some kind of clear outcome or result.  So, as I say, I'm rather negative about this.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I feel there is a certain degree of skepticism about this proposal.  And maybe we can move on to the next one.  And see if we can -- please.  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN: Sorry, Janis.  I just realized I might have been a bit harsh on this.  You know, there were so many workshops on multistakeholder participation.  I think this one does frame good questions.  So what I would suggest is we leave this one open for now and look at other workshops on multistakeholder participation before we make a final decision on this.  Because this one actually did have good questions.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael Nelson.

  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I really think we have to be tough enough here to reject a proposal, even if there are great questions.  If they don't have the full panel or don't have people who are going to bring something new, we have to be able to reject that.  And we are -- if we accept this, we are eliminating some proposals to bring new topics and are much higher ranked in our standings.  Because we're well down now into our proposals that we -- what is this?  Is this, like, number 80 or 90?  

 >>PAUL RENDEK:  You're going to like this.  I disagree with Anriette Estherhuysen here.  I scored -- personally, I scored this very low.  This was one of the workshop proposals that I twisted my ankle on when I read the lineup of the speakers.  And I think that these topics are covered in other areas.  I think everyone who is on here will have a chance to speak at the IGF, no doubt.  And I think it's enough.  And I agree with Mike very heavily here that we should be able to reject what was clearly a proposal that wasn't seen as a good one.  So let's reject it and move on.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Fatima.

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Thanks.  I agree with Anriette.  I think they are first-time proponents.  And maybe we can help them to improve this proposal.  And for me, the speaker is one point -- it's important.  It's not the only point to assess here.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Igor.  Igor?

  >>IGOR MILASHEVSKIY:  Thank you.  I don't think that the idea is to be tough enough is the main idea of our meeting.  And -- is the goal different.  I personally -- it's not a suggestion.  But the wording of the description is good and is focused on the important topic.  I think the merging with other workshop is a good idea.

 And about speakers, as far as I know, somebody were contacted participation I would say something has to be different.  In this category IGF in the future for Internet ecosystem, we have on the workshop, which is good, which is good, but is really high rating.  It's clearinghouse function.  The category name is IGF and the future of the Internet ecosystem.  Somebody asked me if I had it explained why the high rate is.  How do I say it?  Clearinghouse.  And I think it's a good idea to create the space for improvement of the proposals, especially in case of merging.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Carolina.

  >>CAROLINA AGUERRE:  I do think, reiterating what Mike has said and Paul, I mean, we had more than 200 workshops.  This is clearly not complying with something that we did say in February that we should be working at, which is having a list of proposed and confirms.  I'm sure that, even if they are newcomers, even whatever newcomer can send an email to people and say I've contacted them.  That's it.  And I'm not expecting a confirmation.  So I really think that that's a basic grounding rule of principle.  

 And then what Veronica pointed out, I think it's also -- I mean, we do need to show -- people who come to the IGF need to be aware and respectful of differences and the nuances and sensitivities in the political life, in general, on this Internet governance debate taking space in a wide area.  So I'm not in favor of supporting this proposal.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We clearly have a disagreement on this.  Michael.  And then Marilyn.

  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Earlier it was suggested when we do have to reject a panel, we contact the organizers and see if they can be fit in another panel.  They do bring -- organizers who would bring interesting perspective about a topic which is going to be discussed in at least five other places.  So I think there would be lots of other places for them to plug in.  

 My worry, again, is if we accept this, we're going to end up with a proposal the panel looks totally different from the proposal.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I would support the idea that we invite the two organizers who are the unique voices here, I think, to come to -- we're going to have to go through the five other sessions.  I would propose that we invite them to come in to those other sessions.  

 I do agree that the questions are interesting.  But I also support the idea that there had to be a little more verification and validation on participation.  So I don't think we can approve it.  But I think we can strive, in particular, with the two organizers to find other places for them to participate.

 I will also say, again, that the main session that Subi and myself and others are working on is going to have space for participants from the floor.  And this is a very interesting -- I benefited as the chief catalyst of IGF U.S.A. in doing a sister-to-sister engagement with the Russian IGF.  I think there's a lot to be shared.  But I think it has to be done by partnering, by taking the two co-organizers and all those other voices that were proposed, I agree with everyone saying we'll have lots of opportunities to speak elsewhere.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  We're a little bit stuck on this.  I feel that we will not reach agreement consensus on this.  There is a divergence of opinion.  But I would -- I would make chair's ruling, if you would allow me, not to retain this proposal at the moment on the list.  But invite to take those questions which have been formulated in the statement and offer similar workshop organizers to look at them and retain the thrust of those questions, policy questions.

 Because one thing is clear.  The subject matter is important.  We had in NETmundial widely referenced here a question which needs further discussion.  And the question was the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholder groups in different situations.  So this -- these questions are pertinent, but they may be discussed in other fora.  

 Let us move on to the next proposal from a country in transition.  Maybe that will be the last one.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The next proposal we're looking at is proposal ID number 175.  That is row number 138.  Problems of youth participation in Internet governance, a global perspective.  Before we start with this, I just want to look at the body quickly.

 My question is does this actually qualify?  The person's nationality is from the Russian Federation.  But he resides in Germany, and his organization is Australian.

 [ Laughter ]

 Austrian.  Sorry, Austrian.  So should we take this as a transitional --

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  No.  Let me say no.  It's too low in the ranking, and we have still --


  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Let us move then.  My proposal is to move to the first timers.  Let us take a first timer, the highest scored first timer.

 So please take your flags down, those flags which are up.  While we're shifting gears, please make your comments.  

 >> Also transitional proposal number 26, please.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We are relying on secretariat's listings.  Please look to the first timers.

  >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  So in our list, this is the first one going down from the top from a first-time organizer.  Researching children's rights in a global digital age.  Comes from the U.K.  Take questions from the floor.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So what is the score?  Fiona, please.

  >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Just a process point.  So the first-time proposals are not indicated in a particular color in the grid in the secretariat reading.  Can you just send a list of those numbers to the list so we can keep track just for following what we're doing?

  >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  I did it about five minutes ago.  Sorry, yeah.  That was sort of a different data set that we have compiled, the list of the first timers, the ones that are still pending.  So we took out the ones that have already been accepted that were part of the top 50 or part of the additional 15 or so that we've evaluated today.  

 And the next one is proposal ID 56, which would be row 59 in the sheets that you have.

 Researching children's rights in a global digital age.  It had an average grade of 3.8.  So it was below our initial threshold of the top 50, but it's close.  So now we're giving it priority because it's coming from a first-time organizer.  If you want to just click into it.  First-time go down to the bottom.  So it's in the Internet and human rights category.  Here are the speakers.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any comments on this proposal?  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  To me, it wasn't clear what the Internet governance point or focus in the proposal was.


  >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  I think the subject is interesting as a newcomer.  But they proposed and submitted a number of workshops with the same subject.  If you see -- if you check, I think it's 57 and 58 as well.  And, if you check as well the workshop proposal number 1, it's more like the same people who are involved in the workshop.  So maybe the -- I definitely think they could cooperate.  

 If we check, because we had this very extensive discussion about list of speakers and the concerned speakers for the workshop before, well, the previous workshop.  So here, if we check, we have a representative from Facebook as confirmed.  But where is the name?  So, you know, we have to be objective.  And to check the speaker's list, we have to do this for each workshop, I think.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Olga.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair.  Olga Cavalli.  I agree with Yuliya and Anriette.  I think also the title, if we keep it, should be rephrased.  Because it shows kind of a global perspective.  And I don't see that in the speaker's list and the explanation.  

 And also I agree with this naming someone from Facebook confirmed but not having the name is -- if we accept this, it's unfair for those that have done their job in the right way.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Veronica.

  >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  Very quickly, I think, if we keep it, I would reduce the duration of the session to 60 minutes given that it's a newcomer.  So reduce timing.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Subi.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Janis, I agree with Yuliya when she points out that 56, 57, 58, same people, same names.  But I find proposal number 57 much better formulated.  And I don't really see direct relevance.  Because we keep day zero for Giganet and for academic interventions, but they look at Internet governance processes.  So they have fantastic names which are recognized globally.  But I'm not too sure if we need to keep this.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael.

  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I would respond to Anriette by saying the issue of protecting children and what children do online drives a lot of the politics of Internet policy around the world.  So a better understanding of what kids are doing, I think, would really inform the debate internationally.  But I don't think this is one of the sessions where you're going to have a lot of interaction with the audience and an hour-long discussion seems quite appropriate.  

 But this one is very different from the other ones.  It is focused on research and data.  It's not on arguing policy and business practices.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Can I have what is number 1 and number 57?  So these proposals, have they been accepted?  Can we verify?

 So seems that neither 1 nor 57 have been accepted thus far.  And Ricardo?

 >>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS:  Yes.  I want to support what Mike said about the importance of child protection on-line, and maybe the idea of incorporating the newcomers as speakers of the other work session -- workshop sessions will be one alternative to give them.

 And I also wanted to add that on some previous IGFs, there have been also some involvement of not only workshops that are dealing with child protection on-line, but also the participation of the youth at national and regional levels to express what they want as rights or protection, and maybe that would be something also to look forward to involving at some point.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I certainly support the idea that understanding the issues of children's experiences on-line is important, and in fact, we've had a number of workshops in this area.  I actually launched a couple and participated with a couple several years ago.  I'm looking at Mark, who introduced me to some key contacts there.

 But when I reviewed all of the workshops, I saw a lot of history from participants and I didn't really see a lot of new approaches.

 I'm sort of interested in the idea of something unique with the participants who put forward the workshops.  This was called a non-workshop before, I think.  But there is -- there's almost an ability to do a best practice approach in this area, when you look at the depth of the work that's been done by many of the workshop proposers, this one and others.  So I'm wondering if we could try to figure out a way to retain the topic but to be a little more practical about the information.

 Many, many governments continue to have lots of questions about the experiences children are having on line, but we continue to just do workshops and perhaps not export the information we're gathering or the list of experts we're gathering in a useful way.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Veronica?

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  

 As I look at Number 56 and 57, I think that there is a potential to improve 56, given the importance of the issue, and that could particularly be done if we encouraged the co-organizers, which is the Council of Europe, to jump in the Number 56, particularly given the fact that Council of Europe has recently released some guidance on human rights for Internet users and there is an important chapter in that guidebook particularly related to the protection of children on-line.  

 So I think there is a potential to improve this session basically from the standpoint of, you know, bringing the policy aspect into it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I'm -- Mark, I'm not giving you the floor.  You know the reason why.  

 What I would like to maybe suggest, let's -- that we suggest to retain this proposal, with the understanding that it would be considerably improved and enlarged in scope; that a new organization would be invited, Council of Europe, to join this -- the co-organizers; and we would -- we would retain it on the list as a proposal from a newcomer.

 Thank you.  Let's move on to the next proposal from a newcomer, and that would -- 

 For the moment, we have 67 retained.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, no.  Total.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Total number, 67 retained for the moment.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So the next proposal is Number 82.  

 Oh, sorry, just -- has anybody received the Excel file?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Okay.  Good.

 The next proposal is Number 82, which is on Row 10.  "Alternative Routes:  Protecting Human Rights on the Internet."

 And there is a -- just going down, there's a proposal to merge it with Proposal Number 83, which is "Human Rights for the Internet:  From Principles to Action."

 Now, Number 83 has already been accepted.

 Going down the marks, lacking geographic diversity.  Europe-focused.  Good topic.  Could be an open forum.  And of course the merger with 83.

 If we look at the main body, as we can see, most of the speakers have been confirmed and, yes, it's a bit Europe-centric, but -- and description, I'll just leave it up for...

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So any comments on this proposal?

 >> (off microphone.)


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So the overall score is 3.8.


 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I think the Proposal Number 83, which has already been selected, was relatively well structured and is quite clear in terms of its focus and questions, and as far as this is concerned, I didn't see much diversity and clarity of thought, so I wouldn't support the merger for sure.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jivan?

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  I think that this is an important topic that they're talking about, because -- and even though it is Europe-centric, if the process that is described here goes forward, it will have global consequences.

 So I think that it should be given some space.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Veronica?

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  

 I think we have also a good representation of the different stakeholder groups in the list of speakers, which is really good.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?  I see that there is a -- there is more support than opposition.  Maybe we can retain this proposal and -- until tomorrow and see, with a fresh eye, how that fits in, and move on now to the next-highest-scored workshop proposal.

 So I think we have now more or less -- I believe this is my sense that we have done our sort of -- we paid respect to equilibrium between developed and developing countries.  We have considerably improved the rating.  I would -- I think that we are more or less now 60 to 40% rating.

 We have paid attention to develop- -- countries in transition, and we've paid attention to newcomers.  

 And now I would like to suggest to move to the next-highest-scored workshop proposal which is now below the line of accepted proposals.


 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN: Okay.  So we can refer back to the first sheet you got over the lunchtime, the one here, and Column 53, Proposal 97, "Will Cyber-space Fragment along National Jurisdiction," with a score of 3.8235, under enhancing digital trust.  

 Some concerns are that some of the confirmed panelists -- well, some panelists are not confirmed.  

 No co-organizers.

 The number of speakers should be reviewed.  

 The workshop seems to be promoting a particular project's approach to a transborder area.  

 And if we go into detail further, coming from Germany.  Residing in France.  Enhancing digital trust.  The Internet and Jurisdiction Project.  So...

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any comments?  The question of jurisdiction was underlined in -- during NETmundial as something that needs to be looked at.


 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair.

 Olga Cavalli.

 If I'm not mistaken, Internet and Jurisdiction Project is requesting for an open forum as well.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This hasn't been decided yet.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Oh, okay.  But it's still a possibility.

 I think the list of speakers is a little bit long and some of them are not yet confirmed and some of them are kind of very busy people, so if they are not confirmed, it may happen that they cannot attend.  

 So these are my two comments for the moment.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Patrick, welcome to the discussion.

 >>PATRICK RYAN: Thank you, Chair.  

 This is obviously a topic, as you mentioned, that was brought up at NETmundial.  It's a crucial one that is getting a lot of attention.  

 There's no group right now that's directing this with more diligence and perseverance than -- than the Internet and Jurisdiction group.

 I would suggest that some of the speakers here that aren't confirmed, I -- I don't know, I haven't actually confirmed with Bertrand or anybody about this, but I think this is somewhat of an oversight because I know that some of these -- many of these speakers are, in fact, confirmed and I suspect it was just a sort of a deference.  That's speculation, of course.  

 But any of those suggestions about shortening it could be -- could be addressed and I -- I don't have any discomfort about also having an open forum because -- again, because of the breadth of the issues and the diversity of topics addressed, I think this could probably support it.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Jivan?

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  Same as my previous intervention, which was on the Europe-centric.  

 It's a similar issue that it's addressing, it's a very important topic, and I think that it should be properly addressed, so I think that this should be kept -- perhaps if we're not going with the earlier European one, those should be plugged in here or something else, but this topic should definitely be looked at during this IGF.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Indonesia?

 >>INDONESIA:  Yes.  Thank you.  Indonesia supports this topic.  I think this is a very good topic, and I think we already plan to discuss in IGF Bali last time about cyber-splinter, but the problem is right now the speakers is not yet confirmed but I support this topic.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Janis, I spoke with the organizers during lunchtime because I had a question about the difference between the open forum and the workshop.  

 So what they told me is that the speakers are now all confirmed, so that question we don't have to be concerned about.  

 And they said that the open forum is about reporting and getting more people for participate in the project, so it's very different from the workshop, which is addressing a very specific issue.

 So I also support that we keep this.

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

 >>WALID AL-SAQAF: I also support this project because it has elements that reflect on very sensitive topics such as on-line Internet censorship and issues concerning digital surveillance.  So they are trendy topics and appeal to a lot of people, so I would expect a good turnout if this workshop is accepted.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I see the body language of the group suggests that we can put this on the list, and since the open forum criteria are not met by -- by this group of -- this organization, most probably this may be the chance for them to talk through the important topic.

 So thank you.

 Let us -- that makes the score 68.  

 Let us move to the next proposal.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The next proposal is Proposal Number 10, which is on Line 56, "New Global Visions for Internet Governance, ICTs, and Trade."  

 They scored 3.8125.  There was suggestions that it merge with 6 and 81.

 6 is "Globalization of Internet Issues for Countries and Regions," and 81 is "Balancing Internet Governance and Internet Trade Law."

 As far as the comments are concerned, insufficient diversity.  Number of speakers.  Well put together.  Good geo and gender balance.  Not clear what the outcome.  

 And if we go to the main body, apart from the description, it's 90 minutes.  It seems like every single one of the speakers are confirmed.  And -- yeah.  I'll open it up to comments.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any comments on this proposal?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That's Number 10 on Row Number 56.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?

 >>MIKE NELSON:  I just think it's very important we bring more trade orientation into the discussion.  There's several other ones further down the list that we have not accepted, so I think this one looks very good.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Anriette?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I agree with Mike.  I had exactly the same reaction when I read it.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Veronica?

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.

 I agree with Mike and I also like the way the proponents of the workshop have described the methodical approach.  I think there is a clear distinction of the anticipation phase, both in knowledge and reflection, which is really important, as long as we are dealing with adults.  

 So I think it's one of the very few workshop proposals where the methodology which is based on adult learning principles is really vivid here, so I really like that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Mike?  Sorry.  Mark.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I thought this was the strongest of the trade-related ones and I agree it's important to have it.

 I thought it could be tightened up on, you know, what's going to come out of it, what's the result, the outcome.  That was my comment, actually, I think, that was on the screen.  But that was my only reservation about it, but I support.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I propose, then, retaining this proposal.  I propose to retain this proposal.  

 No?  Fiona, you are objecting?

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER: No, I'm not objecting.  Just a question and observation, which is, I think it's important we have a trade set of workshops but this one really lacks an