IGF 2016 2nd Open Consultations and MAG Meeting July 13

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Second Open Consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) Meeting for IGF 2016 in New York, USA, from 12 to 14 July 2016. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.


13 July 2016

New York, USA


>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  We'll open the meeting formally now, and I want to thank everybody for coming and also I thank everybody for doing the best within the relatively tight quarters here.

 I suppose this works well, given this is so much of a working session today and tomorrow with respect to workshop selection, so we're all nice and cozy.

 The first item of business is adoption of the agenda.  Before I go to that, though, I'd like to just again introduce the individuals that are here with me. 

 Wai-Min Kwok, representative of UN DESA, is on the end to my left. 

 Chengetai Masango, who of course you all know as the head of the IGF secretariat. 

 Victor Lagunes, who is the honorary host country chair of IGF 2016 and the Head of Unit -- the CIO, the Head of Unit of Innovation and Strategy for the -- in the Office of the President for the Republic of Mexico.  I was determined I was going to memorize that.

 And Ambassador Fonseca, Benedicto Fonseca, who is supporting me with outreach efforts, in particular, to governance and intergovernmental organizations, given my nongovernmental background.

 So with that, I'd like to move to adoption of the agenda.  It's been circulated for some time.  Today is fairly straightforward. 

 We're actually going to begin with some additional comments from Victor, as host country co-chair, and then from the IGF secretariat.  I think they both will be looking for some indication as to whether or not covering some points from their presentations yesterday would be helpful or, if that is clear enough, we can certainly move forward to the proposal evaluations themselves.

 The second item will actually cover an overview of the workshop proposal evaluations, open forum sessions, and the other sessions as well, and that will sort of help us get the entire frame for the conference itself.

 And then, of course, we will move into the workshop selection activities itself and that will take up, certainly hope, the bulk of the morning and all of the afternoon.

 And then tomorrow, we continue as necessary with the workshop selection process, and we would dive a little -- I'm looking for Day 3 here. 

 Yes.  We'll dive more deeply into the main sessions and the -- any follow-up that's actually needed on the basis of all the intersessional work that we reviewed yesterday, so best practice forums, dynamic coalitions, national/regional IGF initiatives, and the connecting and enabling the next billion. 

 And then finally, at the end of the day tomorrow, we have an "any other business" slot, where we hope to establish the next meeting and the meeting dates.  And actually, if we can, I think I'd like to share some proposals towards the end of the day so people have time to look through their calendars and we'll close on that tomorrow.

 So are there any comments or suggestions vis-a-vis the agenda?

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Thank you so much for the overview of the agenda.  My comment is merely to make an announcement very quickly that in this room between 1:15 and 2:15, the NRIs have a working session, so I'd just ask that everyone keep that in mind.  It is a working session of the NRIs.  It will be open, but the primary purpose is their work.  I just ask that everyone keep that in mind, so if we can just keep to schedule as much as possible, that would be very appreciated.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  If there are no other comments or suggestions and nothing from the online participants, Anja, then I'd like to move for adoption of the agenda.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you. 

 So Victor, I'll turn the floor over to you and I -- maybe there are some additional points you'd like to cover from yesterday, or some questions, but I think the purpose of this session is to ensure we have sort of all the details we need with respect to the venue itself as it supports the workshop selection decision process.  Thank you.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  Of course.  Thank you, Madam Chair.

 Yeah, for all -- for -- most of us were here yesterday, so just -- I'm going to go very quickly through a presentation, not taking too much of your time, and clarifying a couple of points that we believe need to be clarified.

 So we're set to go.  We're in final preparations to secure kind of the format of the event on the venue itself.

 You've seen the venue.  We're working very hard to accommodate and to be very flexible around the use of the space, and we've met all of the requirements that Mr. Chengetai has kindly provided to us.

 So if you do have any comments or questions or feedback around the use of the venue itself, let us know so we can accommodate that and we can be as flexible as we can.

 Regarding day zero, I would like to make a couple of clarifications. 

 We'll be developing the day zero events on day zero, on the first day of the week, as it's been used to -- on privilege IGFs and on previous similar format events.  We're not changing or proposing changing that format.

 On the same note, we're going to use that day to expand on and build upon and strengthen the IGF's agenda, and really, you know, proposing topics, panelists, and participants in a way that we believe strengthens IGF as a whole.

 We are asking for contributions from the industry.  That was -- there were many comments yesterday done, and we kindly welcome them.

 We -- we are in no way changing the format of previous IGFs, the format of the sourcing of the funds.  Neither are we proposing or expecting to change the spirit into what the IGF is meant to do and is doing, so -- but nonetheless, we've always been accepting, within IGF, sources of support. 

 So we're going to be building that format and we're going to make some changes as to how we communicate those.

 If there are some other questions regarding those two topics, please feel free to come to us directly.  We're completely open to talk to -- to any of you.

 I think it's in our best interest to move forward in this topic and for all of us to acknowledge that we're very open into discussing any and all of the topics that we can -- that we as host country are putting forward. 

 Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

 I'd like to open it up for any further questions or clarifications.  Again, it's important that we understand all we need to about the venue in order to support the workshop selection process. 

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Okay.  Well, thank you. 

 Well, my name is Juan Fernandez.  I represent Cuba government, and I have a question for Lagunes about -- and also the secretariat regarding the day zero events.

 In the last meeting, we agreed that the secretariat will have some interaction in this selection, how the selection of the events for the day zero is going to be carried out.  Are they going to be announced previously for all us to see what is in preparation for those days?  For that day?  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we are going to share the day zero events but there's also sometimes a confusion between what exactly is day zero. 

 When some people talk about day zero, they're talking about the high-level event and sometimes they're talking about the other events that are on day zero.  So those are -- so the high-level event happens on day zero but it's not a day zero event, as such, and that's the thing that is hosted and controlled by the host country.

 The IGF secretariat, of course, helps and coordinates with the host country.

 The other events, we usually do it on a first come, first served basis.  We never have them full.  We always stress that day zero is basically a testing day, as such, so all the facilities may not necessarily work properly, but we do use that day to test and make sure that everything is okay for day one.

 The events that are on day zero are mainly like the GigaNet, you know, the academic meetings, et cetera.  Day zero events are not quoted or referred to in the chairman's summary, for instance, so that's a difference between day zero events and the other events, but we will be sharing what's happening on day zero with the MAG, yes.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Juan, do you have a follow-up? 

 You have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Okay.  Yes, of course, I know that the main event is especially from the host.  I was referring to these other events that you said that it was done in first ask, first serve, and I think that there should be some selection process and some criteria, because some of those events are more or less the same as workshops in the concept, and it comes in, maybe it's not officially on it, but it also is going to happen during the same event, and some of those organizations, even though they don't even have any consultative status on ECOSOC or -- whatsoever.  So I think there should at least be some review of those little events that is going to happen in the first day in order to avoid any things that could be inappropriate for this event and that it could tarnish the -- you know, the good happening of this event.

 I could elaborate later on with you in a sideline in order not to get more time from -- from this meeting.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sure.  Noted, yes, and we can talk later and find out but -- yeah.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES: Yeah.  Thank you for your comment and questions, Juan.

 The surrounding events to the high-level ministerial that happens on day zero, we're taking the leadership on that specific day, nonetheless.  But, I mean, by saying so, we bear the responsibility and we welcome any support and feedback from any of you.

 By saying so, we would like to say that we believe we're going to be strengthening the agenda itself.  I'm not going to call it up for revision because in essence, what we're trying to propose here is to strengthen the agenda of the next days in a way that we also respect the next days.

 So Juan, you're very welcome to contribute.  You're very welcome to be in the organizing committee, if you can choose to do so.  But we definitely acknowledge that by taking leadership, we also bear the responsibility of that -- of those events happening on the -- on day zero.

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

 We have participant number 2816 in the queue. 

 Okay.  If you could introduce yourself, too, and then I'm sure we'll get the names noted.

 >>IGOR OSTROWSKI: Sure.  Good morning, everyone.  Igor Ostrowski. 

 I just had a quick question.  I wasn't here yesterday so I apologize if this was already discussed, but we have had in the past IGFs an opportunity to meet as a MAG and I was wondering whether you're planning to organize a MAG meeting either on day zero or at the very last day to summarize the event. 

 These events, I think, are very useful for us, just to exchange ideas while we're there.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  My view on the MAG meeting is that it's very, very hectic throughout the week, and so having a MAG meeting where everybody's there and we actually have time to discuss things is a little bit difficult.  The last day may be a possibility, but then the last day everybody's leaving, there is -- you know, so that's a little bit difficult.

 We didn't have one last year, but the previous years --

 I mean, it's -- it's up to you guys.  We will make the time if you feel that it is necessary, but I personally feel that it's so hectic, especially on my part, that -- to get everybody there to actually have a discussion.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think the two options are either we try and find some time on line -- it's not even clear to me how many MAG members actually go to the IGF in any particular year, but at a minimum, I think we should schedule a follow-up call pretty quickly after the MAG for lessons learned and that sort of thing. 

 So I think we could plan on sort of an extended two-hour call or something in the, you know, week or two after the MAG meeting.

 But why don't we take that to the list, if people feel strongly that we should try and organize a MAG meeting physically.

 Next I have Liesyl in the queue.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thanks, Chair, and good morning, everyone.

 I just wanted to follow up on the conversation about the day zero events.

 Noting that we've always been very -- ever since there's been day zero events, whether it's the high-level meeting or others, we've always been very diligent, I think, to keep the day zero events related but discrete from the IGF.  It's not the IGF that takes place on the day zero events.  And while I think there's a general desire for any of the day zero events, whether they're, quote-unquote, official because they take place in the venue, or because they're hosted by the host country or anyone else that organizes one, I think there's a general desire that they all not tarnish, shall we say, the brand -- the IGF or the notion of it, but I think we've always been very careful to make sure those aren't branded or named as IGF events.  And I think that is something that's an important distinction to retain.

 And also -- so I don't know that there can be the same kind of selection or vetting or evaluation like we do for the workshops, to Juan's point.

 And I guess just if I might -- forgive me, Victor -- but press you a little bit for some of the further discussion or comments of what you have in mind for the day zero events.

 I mean, I -- we spoke -- you spoke a lot about it last time we were here and I don't know if there's -- or at the last MAG meeting and I don't know if there's an update on that as far as content or other plans that you might have that you can share with us in just a few minutes, if the chair permits.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No, I think that would be a useful discussion.

 With respect to the day zero events, a call has gone out.  It's posted on the Web site for the day zero events.  And we certainly have expectations for how that process will work this year on the basis of past years.

 I think the one improvement I think we made to the process is that it was agreed by the host country chair and the secretariat that the proposals for events on day zero would be shared with the MAG, and I think that's -- in terms of ensuring that their complementary, and, you know, to my mind obviously if there's a very strong concern on the MAG's part about some session, we should engage with the session organizers and I would expect that we could resolve it to everybody's satisfaction.

 Maybe we can see how that process works this year and suggest improvements for next year's process.

 But the -- as I understand it, the day zero proposals actually come in quite late.  You know, they -- there's sort of a long tail for them.  So perhaps we can make a standing item at our virtual MAG meetings to review the status of those as they come in and just sort of track that over the course of the next few months.

 And so Victor, would you lake to share some of your developing thoughts on the --

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  Well, what I -- what I can share right now is that we will be sharing --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  -- the proposal for the agendas as soon as we are -- as soon as we're ready to have that conversation.  It's going to happen very quickly, very soon, Liesyl.  But thank you for your interest.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think one other thing that Victor has mentioned he's trying to do is ensure that the high-level ministerial event doesn't feel and look a lot like the opening ceremony, with just a similar parade of speakers, and I think we could all really get behind that as an improvement.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  One thing also is we're focusing very much on regional and national initiatives, so you will be seeing some of that happening on day zero.

 We're -- we're definitely inviting the region, as to Central America and the Caribbean, to join the conversation.  We believe we have a responsibility to do so on the region that has definitely an eye on Mexico to take leadership on many of those topics.


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

 Next in the queue, we have participant 2842.  Yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Avri Doria speaking.

 I have two things I wanted to mention.

 One is, in terms of day zero events, I want us to be careful about bringing it into MAG logic, because very often it has been the place for us to discuss things that we weren't quite ready to put in a full blessed workshop or a full blessed main session, a place where not only are -- is it technically testing out the waters of the place, but it's testing out the topics that are talked about and talking about some of the topics where the disagreement may still be a little bit more visual -- visceral.  Not necessarily.  But more apparent. 

 So I want to be careful that we don't apply the whole MAG logic to the day zero that we've applied to other things.

 And this is -- I'm sure this is not the intent, but in terms of the event that Victor -- the Mexican government is organizing -- and I don't quite understand the balance between speakers and paying for seats and such, but I just want to make sure that if there is anything like that, that civil society that can't pay for seats still has seats.  Thanks.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  Thank you very much for that comment.

 The quick answer is yes, of course. 

 I think we definitely acknowledge that, you know -- the perception really of those -- of what we set out on that phrase of, you know, having the seats themselves, I think the industry understands it better.  They're used to engaging many events in such a way.  And our interest there was to really develop a -- you know, a difference for the ask of support that we're getting from the industry already.

 Our priority, as I mentioned many a time, is to have a very well-balanced event.  In doing so, we have actually taken a step back as to even how we fund it as government.  I mentioned it yesterday.  It's not because we actually have the money to fund it all because we don't.  It gives us the opportunity to really engage in those conversations with different stakeholders and ask for their support because we believe in our core that it should be done in such a way.

 But to be very clear, the voices will be there.  We will be heard as many states we have.  If I take the hat off the current official I am today, I'm civil society, we all are.  I have the same concerns.  I bear the same responsibilities, and I would like those concerns to be addressed in a similar way.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I would just like to make another quick administrative announcement.  I think everybody is filling in seats in the middle.  And I can appreciate how awkward it is to have your back to a significant portion of the room.  So you should feel free to find any other seat that works for you, and we will adjust the name plates. 

 And then I also want to make sure -- because I don't have a great line of sight with Anja who is managing the online participant queue. 

 I think probably the best thing, Anja, is if you get a request from online participant, Skype or just press your button to speak. 

 For those who aren't in the room, we are actually using highly automated queuing systems.  So it automatically recognizes who was the next in the queue and what that particular order is.  And that would be the fairest way to ensure online participants are inserted into the queue appropriately. 

 Having said that, if Chengetai and Anja can figure out a better system, I'm all for it.  I just want to make sure there is a really clear, strong route for online participants to be heard.  So with that, we have Marilyn Cade in the queue.  Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I am a member of the business community.  I would like to make a couple of comments, first of all, by thanking our host for the work they are doing.  I'm also very excited about how well things are progressing.  I'm also very excited about the new and unique opportunities that this IGF presents. 

 I would just make a couple of comments.  I mentioned yesterday -- and the reason I take the floor, yesterday I mentioned that the NRIs might ask for a day-zero event of 90 minutes to do an admin management discussion.  That might put them into the day-zero lineup.  I hope everyone would think that would be keeping with our interest.  I'm also working on a separate possible day-zero event. 

 I have a lot of faith in the secretariat and in the host.  I think I agree with Avri that rather than bringing day zero directly into the MAG, let's just ask for an update and a briefing and then be able to better understand whether there are core principles that we feel very strongly shadow into the IGF and deal with it in that way.  But try to be as open and inclusive and maintain the perspective that the secretariat and the host country have as much investment in a positive outcome of the day zero event and a reflection into the IGF as all of us do.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I'm hoping we can wrap up the day-zero comments quite quickly and move on to some other parts of the session. 

 Having said that, I have Cheryl Miller in the queue.

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I definitely wanted to thank the host country for being such an innovative approach to day zero.  I know historically day zero has been a day for the host country to kind of shape and mold.  So I do agree with Avri's comments about keeping the MAG logic out of that, although that's the first time I have heard that phrase.  It scares me a little bit.

 But I really look forward to seeing what the host country and the secretariat have put forward and definitely would appreciate updates.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Cheryl. Next is Segun in the queue.  Segun, you have the floor.

 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to found out if there will be a provision to still make an update on the national IGF initiative maybe later in the course of the meeting.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Segun, there's time on tomorrow's agenda to come back and kind of revisit any kind of open questions or items on those.  So maybe we can touch base with you offline and understand a little bit more about the request.  But there is time on the agenda tomorrow.

 I think Victor wanted a short remark before we go to Mourad.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  Thank you, Madam Chair. 

 Just to be very clear, when we talk about seats -- I hate the word -- it's not about the entrance to the event itself.  The entrance to the event is open.  It's the same format.  But we are just talking about the gala dinner.  That's a little bit different.  That's for the industry to acknowledge.  The event itself is an open event.  You'll have full access to day zero.  Thank you.

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

 Mourad, you have the floor.

 >> MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  Thank you, Chair.  Good morning, all.  Mourad speaking.  The event is not part of day zero.  But, however, would you like to update us on the preparations regarding the high-level event, I mean the level of participation, the standing of invitations, the main topics which will be discussed there and how -- do you plan to attract more participants from -- on the level of ministers and the level of executives from the private sector?  Thank you.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  As I mentioned, we will be sharing the agenda we're building for day zero.  And it's -- and we'll be expecting really feedback from your end.  We don't want to do this alone.  We don't want to set the agenda by ourselves.  I really believe that we should build it together.  Yet we definitely have an interest to develop like a regional approach and a national approach towards that.  There's going to be many events happening, many, we believe, interesting speakers coming forward for different topics.  And that's what we're going to be sharing as soon as possible.

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

 I have -- I will go to the next individual in the queue who at this point in time, I would like to make the last intervention and then ask the room whether or not one more trip through the actually facilities themselves and the set up of the conference rooms would be helpful for today, if you have a clear enough picture from yesterday's presentation?  And I believe the presentation is online, then we can obviously skip that.  Just so you can think about it, I will come back to a question whether or not as to whether that would be helpful.

 At the moment, I would like to give the floor to Elizabeth.

 >> ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  Good morning, everyone.  This is the first time I'm taking the mic.  I wanted to say I'm happy to be amongst all of you and so far so good on the productive meeting.  Thank you, Chair and secretariat, for facilitating that for all of us.

 I also would like to thank the host country for the efforts that are going into the preparation.  It's been a long road that you've already accepted to do this and have been moving this forward.  And I know there's a lot of planning and hard work going on behind the scenes.  So I would like to thank you for that. 

 I participate on the MAG from the perspective of myself as an individual.  I work for an organization, the International Chamber of Commerce, which represents the private sector across the globe.  And so while I have members who come from large corporations who are able to fund sponsorship packages and things like that, I'm also a little bit concerned from the perspective of my members who are small business people or people from wanting to engage in the IGF and participate and be present and seen and recognized on an equal footing.  So I just wanted to share that not all of the industry and business has the capacity to engage in the funding model.  And so a lot of people that aren't able to fund their seats would probably want to be able to access the seats as such in the same way that civil society and others would be able to.  So I just wanted to share that perspective and speak a little bit for them because they're not necessarily in the room or able to do something.

 I also wanted to share the idea that the IGF isn't the same kind of event as other events around the issue of industry funding or sponsorship.  There's a concern I think if we perceive it in the same way, that we're missing the idea that we are working all together in a community-oriented fashion.  And so I think it's worth having a deeper discussion and we can do that through the course of the meeting with each other and I think talk about the role of the different stakeholders and supporting and helping to make sure that the host country is able to do what it needs to do and isn't carrying the load alone and doesn't feel alone in that.  But I just wanted to caution the idea that we might see this as an event like other events that can have branding of large players because the implications of that, I think, are quite -- are quite significant to the way the event would be perceived, the inclusiveness within which all of the communities but including other members from the business community could participate and engage.

 So I'm really interested in having further dialogue and making sure that we can help and support your efforts and look at how we can do that.  But I would like to explore that within the unique and I think worthwhile principles and understanding of what the IGF is as an event.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  And we share exactly your same concern, Elizabeth, and first let me -- like I want to be thankful and I want to say thank you to you because, you know, the way that we -- that you reached out to us yesterday and the conversation that we've been having so far.

 We want to make it the most inclusive IGF, and that's basically -- we're bearing that very close to our hearts, if I can say so that way.  So -- and within Mexico, even the ecosystem is one of many diversities and many gaps, so we're reaching out and we're trying to bridge those gaps between, you know, either socioeconomic, size of businesses as well, gender gaps, and accessibility-related diversity, and we're developing each of those aspects as we speak.

 We do not want to change the format.  We believe there is an absolute value in maintaining the core spirit into how the IGF was created, so we -- definitely we acknowledge your feedback and also your input into the developing days.

 We are setting -- or we're sharing ideas, and also we're new to IGF, and I said so on my first day.  I've attended three IGFs and I'm cochairing now, so it's very unfair to many of you because you've been here 10, 11 years and you're deep experts into what you're doing and the people that you represent and the companies that you represent, and the organizations.

 So within that, we're very humble.

 On the other side, we do have, because we're probably not that knowledgeable, an opportunity to put forward certain ideas and we definitely acknowledge and are very open to this debate, but we want this debate to happen here and let's discuss it in an open way, in a way that basically you're bringing it forward.  We're extremely open and it's in our best interests to have this discussion happen very quickly so that we set out and we understand that the actions that we're taking are in the best interests of IGF as a whole.  Thank you.  Thank you, Elizabeth.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  There are two more speakers in the queue, but, I mean, I'd like to try and move on to another subject.  I think this has been covered in full.  Chengetai and I have had a number of meetings with Victor and Yolanda and I am completely convinced that they understand the spirit of the IGF and I actually appreciate the fact that they're exploring some new initiatives such as how to improve the high-level ceremony and those sorts of things.

 I'm fully confident that we will come to all the necessary agreements and arrangements.  Certainly appreciate all the comments, questions, concerns, people have shared and they should continue to do that, but, I mean, I think at this point they've probably been covered fairly well and we should try to move on.

 So I have three people in the queue. 

 Sala?  Sala, you have the floor.

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  Thank you, Madam Chair. 

 First of all, I'd like to thank you, Victor, for the clarification.  Yesterday when we were at the open consultation, there was some feedback from the floor in relation to the sale of slots, and so that raised some concerns among several members of the MAG, but you've clarified that pretty much.

 We also -- speaking in my individual capacity, it's encouraging to see the immense effort that you're putting into the logistical preparations for Mexico, and even during the discussions of some of the challenges of the funding of the IGF, one of the -- one of the things that came up from Shita, if you don't mind me mentioning your name, when they had the Indonesian IGF, they had similar challenges as well, and so this is perhaps something that the NRIs -- and I'd like to draw the substantive coordinator, Marilyn Cade's, attention to, you know, one of the challenges that potential host countries might face in terms of hosting future IGFs, and I know in previous mailing list discussions there was an email thread generated -- initially generated by Wisdom Donkor, who is not physically present but is with us in spirit and he mentioned early this morning that it might be useful to perhaps look into, if not this year, Madam Chair, certainly something that the future MAG would look into, potentially creating guidelines around the area.  Not hard guidelines but soft guidelines.  Because we don't want to -- we don't want to necessarily antagonize or to break the spirit of host countries, but essentially how can we help the proliferation of IGFs, so that it's not only the rich countries who can host it, you know, but you can certainly move it across the global landscape.  So thank you, Madam Chair.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sala.  I do hope we can start to move on to some additional topics soon, though.

 Jivan, you have the floor. I think it's because they're looking at your first name, which I'm sort of loathe to pronounce.  Ljupco Jivan.

 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  Thanks.  So, yeah, just quickly, just like there are small NGOs and small businesses, there are small countries, so, you know, small countries also have -- might have an issue of affording something that is like that.

 So I think that we're all kind of clear that there is a great idea here brewing and I think that this room is quite ready to contribute to a great idea and I think that something that would be quite useful would be, for instance, a concept note, like a one-page, two-page concept note of how exactly that could -- so that we can all kind of contribute, and -- if we can with our knowledge, perhaps by next week or something like that.  Next Friday.  Just an idea.  Something that could center the discussion.

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

 UNESCO, Xianhong, you're in the queue.

 >>XIANHONG HU: Thank you, Chair.  Thank you.  I'd also like to thank Victor for this interesting and useful presentation.

 Actually, UNESCO is sending a very large delegation to Mexico, headed by our assistant director general and also we're getting our office colleagues involved to attend the event.  I'm concerned that if the -- the facility of interpretation will be provided for also Spanish because I will imagine there will be many local participants from the region, so we like to know if the -- how many languages will be translated on the ground in the event.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's actually a question for the secretariat, so maybe Chengetai can -- or Anja.  Chengetai is stepping to a mic, or running around the room to a mic.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: The question was about interpretation, specifically would Spanish be available, but what is the -- the plan for interpretation at the IGF?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So at the IGF, only the main room has got the six languages.  Well, it's six languages are required.  The host government may want to put in Portuguese or whatever.  It's up to them.  But the six U.N. languages are required.  And then there's also another room where there's three interpretation booths but then these booths are at the request of any workshop organizers that might want to have another language there, but then the workshop organizer is responsible for hiring the interpreters and they can do that through the host country.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Do you have a follow-up question, UNESCO?  Mic, please.

 >>XIANHONG HU: Chengetai, thank you.  Still I'd like to confirm, at the workshop room is all the -- all the room Spanish and English available for all the workshops?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  The requirement is that only in the main room --


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  -- there is the six U.N. languages.


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  And then in one other room, there's three booths, but then all the other rooms, the requirement is that it's just the floor language.

 If there's any additional, that's up to the host country, but usually no, because it's -- the expense gets quite high.

 >>XIANHONG HU: So yes, I understand it's expensive to provide interpretation to all the rooms but something when we were proposing workshops to the -- to the IGF, we received some request from the speakers and the participants, they said they only want to speak Spanish or they're only able to speak Spanish.  Is it possible that they can be sitting on the panel.  So simply I imagine there will be also many participants in the room from regions, they only understand Spanish, so it seems quite, I mean, beneficial to provide, if we can have this resource, to make the Spanish available in the room for all workshops.  And then from my experience last year from the IGF in Brazil, I thought that sometimes the local language was very useful to help with the debates.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I agree with you.  I'm just telling you the standard requirements we have.  We have another room.  If we have any additional requirements, the question goes to the host country.  The question goes to Victor. 

 Just for the main room alone for interpretation, it's $100,000.  So, I mean, it kind of adds up just to give you a kind of idea of the amounts involved.  But it's really up to the host country about the other rooms.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.

 Sala, you have the floor.

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  I'm just wondering if we have any sort of ratio or some sort of mathematical analysis in terms of using the information that the host country gave yesterday.  I noticed when you were presenting the rooms, room sizes, I can't remember off the top of my head but it's something like 16/24/48. 

 Do those numbers mean that depending on the type of session, those are the numbers that the room can actually take or -- and then I have a follow-up after you answer.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  There's -- small numbers that you saw were for the bilateral rooms.  We also have some figures around the workshop groups.  They go higher and, of course, depending on the topic, it's up to these rooms to decide where they should be hosted.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  From memory, I think there are two rooms between 250 and 300 people, depending on the setup, the chapel and the cinema.  And then there were eight rooms that could support between 70 and 100, again depending on the setup.  That's separate from the plenary hall or the main hall session. 



 Just to follow up, it would be useful to see like within the slot of, say, one hour 45 minutes or within two hours, how many rooms would be occupied and in terms of capacity.  Those figures can be given to us in a table form.  That would be useful.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  In fact, we have them.  We'll get to them.  We will get to Chengetai's -- the secretariat's presentation in a moment.  We both have a draft schedule that's been prepared by the secretariat for review by the MAG.  And in that information, it does actually indicate how many slots are available for which workshops at which time.  I think we'll go to that in just a moment.  And maybe if there are any more questions on the venue, we can just leave Victor and Yolanda to answer specifically and/or put up any other schematics that might help.  But I think there's probably enough information in front of us now to move to the next topic.

 First, I have Avri and then Chengetai, if you can start to move through the overall presentation.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I don't know if I'm actually asking -- it was about venue that I wanted to ask something.

 One of the things that I don't understand since we do have some flexibility -- some workshops that require flexibility, is which of the rooms allow for the people inside the room to readdress chairs, to put them in circles?  In other words, when they come into a room -- a lot of workshops come into a room and they want to deconstruct the nice little rows and make that -- how many of the rooms will allow that kind of flexibility is the question that I had.  Thanks.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thanks, Avri.

 Reconfiguring the rooms is -- well, I think the best thing to do is to wait until we see how many workshops there are which require which type of configuration and then we can build it to those specifications.

 But there's also some other issues with reconfiguring the rooms.  First of all, we have the power running through the chairs, underneath the chairs for the laptops.  So it's a bit difficult for people to change the layout of the room.

 And then the second thing is the security and safety because there's quite some strict standards that after every five rows, there should be a gap, et cetera.

 Well, no.  That's why I'm saying if we know beforehand, then we can configure the rooms.  Or if we know beforehand that in this room, they want to start off in theater style and then go to a circle and then come back or something like that, then we can try and make some adjustments to that.  But we have to know beforehand what's going to happen.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  2850 participant has requested the floor.  Not quite sure -- is that you, Anja?  Online?

 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Yes, I think that's me.  So Ginger would like to speak.

 Ginger, you have the floor.

 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Thank you very much.  This is Ginger Paque, civil society.

 I would like -- I think it's very, very important that we go back to the intervention from UNESCO.  I personally don't feel that we have addressed this adequately.  I appreciate the (indiscernible), and I understand the requirements.  But I think that it's very important that we note the comments that must (indiscernible) about what really will be.  I think that to not include Spanish translation in every work room is backwards, if we're not even totally including the host country.  Spanish is also a very, very important language, probably the premiere (indiscernible).  That's another reason to include it.  Spanish speakers dominate not only in Mexico, not only in South America but the world.  So I think we need to have -- back to that, and I would ask that could we ask Victor to (indiscernible).  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ginger.  I have to admit the sound was quite choppy.  But I think we managed to hear most of it, and the transcribers did quite a good job of capturing it.  So your point was that you feel it's very important to have Spanish translation in every one of the rooms given the majority of the world's speaking population and specifically asked Victor if he would address that. 

 And I assume she's pointing that towards you, Victor, given Chengetai's earlier responses about what the minimum expectations are from the U.N.  So this is clearly above and beyond the specs you were given before.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  What we're doing as we speak is we -- understanding the funding that we have, expanding into how many rooms can we actually have the whole translation facilities deployed.  So we're not ready today to give you a solution or to answer the question fully.  I hope we will be ready I guess very soon.

 We do acknowledge that both English and Spanish, you know, should, in essence, as a best practice be in every room.  But the specific answer and the (indiscernible) answer I will be ready to provide to you very soon.

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

 Anja, is there another online participant?

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

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Can you hear me?

 >> ANJA GENGO:  Yes, we can hear you.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Hi.  Am I audible? 

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We can hear you, Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  Good morning, everyone.  It's my first intervention.  This is Virat Bhatia, MAG member.

 First, I just wanted to quickly thank the host for the excellent presentations yesterday and the work that has been done so far.  I also want to say we understand the particular difficulty faced currently (indiscernible) and work towards a solution that would be (indiscernible) and we can move this process along. 

 I just wanted to remind ourself that almost all IGFs (indiscernible) not obligated on any country to host an IGF.

 In the main room, we made a request -- for the most part, main room participants usually require a U-size -- U-shaped table which has about 10 to 15 seating and four or five in the front on the face and the capacity of about 500.  I wanted to check if the main hall or the main room where the main sessions will be held has the configuration to accommodate such an arrangement or is it different than what we have had in the previous IGFs.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Virat.  I'm just looking to Chengetai to confirm.  The last question specifically was whether or not the main hall could support a U-shaped format similar to what we have done in past years.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just recalling, yes, but it's in the (indiscernible).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think the answer is yes.  Chengetai is just identifying if people will recall from yesterday that, in fact, the main session is in a courtyard which will be covered, but there is flexibility there for the structure.

 There are three people in the queue know.  I will take these three and then I really want to close the queue and move to Chengetai's presentation which will give some additional sort of contextual framing for the workshop proposals we have seen, the slots that are available, the overall scheduling grid which I think is really important before we look at the workshop evaluation.  But I would like to move some of this forward. 

 So we have UNESCO.  UNESCO, you have the floor.

 >>UNESCO:  Thank you.  I'll be very brief.  Just about the translation, I understand it's really, really costly to provide simultaneous interpretation like we have here.  But one option we can consider is to have some volunteer students from local university to help in the room with translation when it's necessary.  I think we had good practice in some previous IGFs in country.  It works.

 Secondly, I also want to ask if I missed it.  Is there any security measures be in place in town?  Because we also receive some concern from some speakers.  They said they couldn't make it because they receive some security concern, that it seems not completely safe.

 So I wonder if the organizer has put in a particular measure to secure -- security for the international guests as you know

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Victor, do you have a response?

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  We are working with alongside our foreign affairs ministry to ensure that visas are issued promptly and that there is special treatment for all the guests that we receive into the country.  We see this more than a security approach.  We are seeing it as a diplomatic approach.  We are working very closely with that ministry to ensure that the visas get issued in time, and there's no issues around that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think the issue was also whether there are any precautions in the city or the village itself.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  We'll be working within -- the U.N. security has a foothold on the venue itself, and then the state and municipality level enforcement has responsibility for the surrounding area, but it's going to be monitoring more than securing or building another wall around the event.  So really it's -- it's U.N. security detail, the ones that will be ensuring and protecting the venue itself.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I mean, of all the places we've been to, yes, we do have the venue, but there's also increased security patrols within the city itself and where the participants are, you know, by the hotels and et cetera.  I --

 Let me leave it at that.  I mean, there is increased awareness, and just as long as you also, you know, don't go down a dark alley and et cetera, I mean, it's fairly safe.  I mean, I've been there.  I didn't see anything that worried me.  I didn't hear any gunshots or anything like that.  It's --

 [ Laughter ]


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  If so, you might have thought you were in L.A.


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I just like to always bring perspective back to these questions of security and safety.

 We have an online participant in the queue, and maybe we could also ask them to change 2850 to online, and then Victor and Yolanda, there were some requests, as I understand it, to take another quick look at the actual room possible configurations and layouts from the presentation you showed yesterday so perhaps we can get that queued up.

 So Anja?

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  Ginger would like to follow up on her question.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes.  We'll come back, Anja, then if there's a problem.  The connection really isn't very good.  There's a lot of interference.  So, I mean, while it's always better to hear people's voices, if they could perhaps type their question in well, then we can at least make sure we get the full essence of the comment.

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Do you have to press anything?

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  This is Ginger.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Hello, Ginger.  Go ahead.

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  I would like to follow up (indiscernible) with the host country (indiscernible).  Thank you, UNESCO from (indiscernible) Venezuela.  I do know that (indiscernible).  I do have (indiscernible) however.  (indiscernible) language available in the rooms (indiscernible) I suggest it can be (indiscernible) speakers (indiscernible) consider that the language to be spoken should be Spanish.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Ginger, I'm very, very sorry but I'm not sure we heard your comment well enough.  Could you type it, to make sure that it's actually captured fully, and we can ask Anja to read it out here. 


 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  I'm going to read Ginger's comment.

 "Thank you very much for addressing my point.  Coming from Venezuela, I do understand that these things are more complex and difficult than they often appear.  However, if only one language is possible, please consider whether it should be Spanish, not English."

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

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES: Madam Chair?  So within all the workshops, there will be three languages available.  So that's as far as I can -- as I can go today, but in all the workshop rooms, there will be three languages. 

 I was punching, right?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  I was very happy.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  I think the fair way to say it is everybody's happy but somewhat surprised.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  Within all the workshop rooms, there will be three languages available.

 [ Applause ]


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Victor.  Marilyn, you have the floor.

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

 I just wanted to make a quick comment for those who have asked questions about security.

 I have done two industry events with WITSA in Guadalajara, both of which brought CEOs from major corporations and ministers, and the security situation was absolutely fine and the national government, as well as the federal government, was really excellent to work with.  And some of the corporate CEOs have corporate security officers.  They were the pain to work with, but all worked out well.

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

 Bianca, you have the floor.

 >>BIANCA CAROLINE HO:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I just wanted to echo on the UNESCO rep's point on, like, you know, having youth there and I also wanted to clarify whether there will be a youth IGF like the one last year that goes congruent with the Mexico global IGF.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  Yes.  We're engaging fully with our younger generation.  We're building the program as we speak.  So, so far, we are actually inviting a lot of, you know, on the one hand, volunteers, but we're engaging the local universities and national-level universities to be able to bring them closer to us and to the conversation.

 So that in itself, I think, will make a very valuable -- more valuable IGF.

 And on top of Marilyn's comment, and I apologize.  Living in my country -- and I've been away for so many years but living in my country, you lose the sensitivity as to the security issues that, you know, we hear.  And some of them are true, some of them are only heard outside because we usually just -- you know, news usually travels faster if it's bad news.  So I wouldn't -- I wouldn't worry about it.  That's what I'm trying to say. 

 We have full support from the state level, federal level, and local authorities.  We have response teams.  We're used to organizing these type of events and these level of events.  We just hosted the OECD ministerial digital economy meeting in Cancun and so on. 

 So in essence, we're not relaxed.  We will be deploying fully.  You'll have all full support of the local authorities.  Nonetheless, I do urge you to, of course, as Chengetai says, do not go into that dark alley because then, you know, we won't be able to really ensure what could happen.

 The area and the neighborhood are quite open.  They're open to the public.  I mean, you'll be walking to your hotels, of course.  It's not a -- it's not a neighborhood that will be, you know, blocks and blocks secured.  So you'll see that you'll be part of the city which we will feel very proud for you to enjoy even, you know, the local restaurants and the local -- in the vicinity.  So within that, you'll see more security detail in the area itself.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Victor.  Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thanks, Lynn.  Sorry to go back to the organizing of the main session room. 

 One of the things that we found out last year was really the flexibility of the room is quite important.  So more than just the U shape.  If you wanted to have a more participatory main session where the main session is not just a series of talking heads in a U shape, then some flexibility of moving the chairs and thinking through how this could be possible would be very usable.

 So that's one.

 And secondly, I think the IGF is also like an important space, as we've seen in many previous IGFs, for I guess local communities to raise their concerns and issues, and I would like to ask a question maybe like -- I guess as -- maybe we can think about how IGF can provide an opportunity for protesters to kind of raise their concerns at the event itself in a peaceful way so that it doesn't become sort of, you know, disruptive or dealt with in too disproportionate a way as we also have experienced also before.  And perhaps this could be a slot at the closing session, that that could be something that we could think through, because it's really -- and I think the openness of the host country would be quite important to ensure that this could be something that could be materialized.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I fully understand the request or the desire for flexible rooms but it's also a balance, as I said.  If you want flexibility, then you won't have power and, you know, things like that.  So -- you know --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Electrical power. 

 So it is a balance.  And then also the cameras are there.  I mean, it's a lot of things to set up.  And the Webcasting, et cetera.

 So it is a balance, but I'm sure, I mean, that the host country will work towards that, and of course the IGF secretariat.

 Sorry.  What was your second point?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  I mean, so spontaneous protests are not allowed because, I mean, it is an event.  The U.N. security is there.  If they see something happening that they don't know about, of course they will react because they never know where it will end.

 So if there is going to be any type of protests, they should come to the secretariat and state that they want to do something and then we can discuss and see maybe there's a little area or something, but there is a very, very low tolerance for, you know, protests, as such, because you never know which way they're going.  If some people start doing something that the security are not aware of, their primary role is the security of the participants and they never know what's going to happen.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Will you give Jac the mic, please.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thanks.  So given that spontaneity is something that's a little bit like, you know, you worry about, if we can plan it, I think that would be really good.  If you can say like the closing session, let's have like, you know, this particular period.  If you have issues that you might want to raise, this would be a space.  That might be possible then.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  I'm not ruling it out, but then again, this is my view, saying that people protest if they're not allowed to voice their opinions.

 Now, I have a feeling that -- I mean, this is my view, which I hope is shared by everybody else, is that at the IGF meeting, everybody has a chance to have their say, correct?  But this is a conversation we can have off line, but, yes, that's my thing.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  Can I pitch in? 

 IGF in Mexico is giving us the opportunity to actually address many, many topics, and we've been doing so already with I would call them special interest groups or different interest groups or -- and I shared, you know, their concerns. 

 In essence, part of what we want to do, even at day zero, is to have that conversation closer, but we're not -- we believe we're not waiting for that event to happen to engage in, for example, freedom of speech conversations, privacy conversations, and other human rights concerns that are deeply rooted into what we believe is kind of the highest priority agenda within the country.

 But we're engaging in those conversations as we speak, you know, to have that as a goal within the IGF.

 That's what we call strengthening kind of the IGF conversation in the country and in the region.

 So that -- that is already happening, and we've already engaged with many groups within the country that were in many ways confrontational, if I can call it that, or we didn't -- we didn't have -- we were not sitting at the same table which we are right now and we're deeply grateful for that.

 On the other hand, I think there was some mention yesterday around having -- someone called it an unconference, I believe, or -- there was a key word that -- that I may actually propose to call it open mic sessions and we could definitely build that into the agenda so we can have an open mic session within the MAG, if you deem appropriate.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Victor.  And Benedicto, I don't want to put you on the spot but is there anything you want to share from any learnings or experiences?

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA: Thank you.  I was just thinking that if I should also comment in regard to the demonstrations because in Joao Pessoa there were some instances in which there were some spontaneous demonstrations, as you have said, and in the context of the meetings of the plenary, the U.N. security, they have protocols and they have to apply those protocols in a way that takes into account not only the need to ensure the freedom of expression but also the security of the event.  Because as Chengetai said, once something unravels in that, you don't know what can happen, so there are protocols that can -- must be applied.

 Nonetheless, we worked together, Brazil -- the Brazilian government, together with the Brazilian civil community and the U.N. staff, together with those who demonstrated, and I think there was a solution that was found that was appropriate.  I think at the end, everyone was satisfied.

 I think the basic thing is to make sure that all participants are aware of those rules of engagement, and also that any unexpected situation that can emerge can be dealt with in the best spirit with very good will.  We counted on the part of the U.N. staff the best of wills.  Also, there was very reasonable reaction on the part of the demonstration.  So we think there -- those things, there are protocols, there are rules to be followed, but I think working in a very good spirit and cooperation, we can solve anything that can emerge in that regard.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I think that was a very good conversation.

 The slides are up behind you.  I don't think there are any behind me.  Maybe we can just walk through again the layout, the venue, some of the slides, so that people have a refreshed idea, and then we'll move to the next topic. 

 I'm not sure if Yolanda or Victor will speak to them, but...

 >>YOLANDA MANCILLA: I'm just going to go very quickly into the main venue.  Accommodations, formats, everything follows U.N. rules, so basically outside the venue will be the village area, and that's basically secured by local security, government -- state government and municipal government security.

 Inside the venue is the entire U.N. territory complex, so everything inside Institute Cabanas is U.N. territory and follows U.N. rules.

 Inside the Cabanas, we have a major patio just at the entrance, and in that patio is going to be the registration area. 

 Oops.  Okay.  Sorry for that. 

 So as we commented yesterday, we're going to make a note on how the registration could work, to make sure that we commit with the U.N. rules of checking passports against the badge of every participant. 

 The patio is big enough, we're going to make sure that we also recall on the recommendations of the MAG yesterday regarding having enough security arcs so we can have a lot of people flowing into the venue.

 All totems for information will have the six U.N. official languages and the (indiscernible).  We have a lot of signs on the floor so people can find their way into the different workshops and bilateral rooms.

 The conference area is the major patio.  We have the layout that the U.N. requires.  In that patio is also going to be the main meeting room, which can allow 500 people, at the max.

 We have all the bilateral areas, and bilateral rooms provides enough capacity.  We have rooms for bilateral meetings that can handle 39 people.  Some other rooms can handle 47 people.

 We can play with the layout.  I think Chengetai was clear on his point regarding that he has to deal with power and to having all the connections ready so people can work during the meetings.

 And in the workshop areas, we have different layouts decisions to make.

 If we have a layout like this, we provide enough space for people with disability.  Basically a wheelchair.

 If we want a different layout, we need to have less people because a round table requires more space and we still need to respect entrance facilities for people with disabilities.

 And in the major workshop areas, we have a capacity between 150 and 300, which is in the chapel and the cinema, and within those spaces we can definitely play with the accommodation.  We just need to take into consideration that if we want a very different format, we need to schedule that so the agency can work at night in changing the layout that the workshop may require.

 And remember that we have 11 workshop rooms, so usually it's 10 and we have one that we can use for different formats.

 And this is just an example.  I mean, we're going to leave the presentation to the secretariat, if everyone want to take a look.

 And that's basically it.  I don't know if you have any specific questions.  Is that okay?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Yolanda.  I'm hoping that that serves well enough that we can actually move to the next topic on the agenda, which was, Chengetai's going to walk us through the overall grid that the secretariat is proposing, obviously based on past IGFs, a little bit about the number of workshop format slots, and a little bit about some of the statistical evaluation that the secretariat -- specifically, Eleonora -- prepared yesterday.  So we'll turn the floor over to Chengetai and then we'll come back to the workshop selection review process.

 Miguel, you have a question?

 >>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA:  Just a little clarification on the -- on conference format.  This is something different at the open mic sessions.  I don't want this to be confused.  This is a different format.  There are different ways of doing that.  That's just a clarification.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  That's a good clarification.  Thank you.  Chengetai, you have the floor.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.

 Okay.  So I sent out this morning the files that Eleonora prepared, so the first thing that I would like us to look at is the PowerPoint.  It just has a breakdown of the statistics.  Just because I think we are a little bit over time so we have to rush a little bit, this is basically the basis of how are we going to select the workshops. 

 If we start at slide number 11, please.

 Sorry.  Let me just jump around.  Yeah.  Slide number 11.  There's ways of selecting the workshops.  We can say, okay, by merit.  If we select them by merit, we just take the top and then say, okay, those ones who scored the highest.  But then, again, we have to make allowances for newcomers, developing countries, et cetera, who don't -- who may not have as well-written proposals as the other people who are long timers in the proposal game.  So we have to take that into consideration.

 The other thing as well is the number of topics because I'm sure we all want to have a balanced IGF meeting with a fair range of topics to interest the greatest number of people.

 So those are just some of the things that we have to take into consideration when selecting the workshops.

 Usually in the past, we've taken a mixed approach.  So one of the things that we can look at is either start with the top 60 and then select the rest -- top 60 by merit and then select the rest just to fill in the gaps which we see are in the workshop selection process, whether or not we want to add more people from the technical community proposers or more people from developing countries or more first-time proposers.

 So these statistics, we've made the dividing line the top 60, the top 85, and all of them.  So the first slide which we're going to look at is slide number 11.  Slide number 11, if you have it on your computer.  This is just by the tags, how people self-identified what kind of theme or topic area that their workshop proposal falls under.  And as we can see for the top 60, top 85, and all, they more or less correspond in all three of the categories except for human rights comes first in all.  But in the top 85 and the top 60, it's access and diversity. 

 And here we have the percentages.  So, basically, we have in red the top -- I think the top five access and diversity, human rights, multistakeholder cooperation, freedom of expression online, and Internet for ICTs for sustainable development.  In the top 85, the bottom one is -- cybersecurity comes up there.  And overall -- there's no cybersecurity in the overall one for the first five.  But that's just an overview of it.

 If we go to slide number 12, these are just the session tags.  Other, of course, comes on top because it's an amalgamation of all the other types.  We have in the top 60 debate panel.  But in the overall, it's the breakout sessions.  But panel comes number three here.  So that's one thing we can also look at and compare.

 For slide number 13, which I think is the most important slide, it's compared -- based on whether or not it's developing or developing country.  As we can see for the top 60, it's 60% from developing countries and 40% developing countries, which more or less aligns.  For the top 85 it's 40/60, which is the same as the top 60.  And for all, it's 54/46.  So in my view, that's not a great variation.  So we can choose to make the cut either the top 60, top 85 to carry on.

 For the first timers, there you see a little bit more of variation because for overall, we have 43% of the overall proposals are from the first-time submitters.  But for the top 60, it's 22.  And for the top 85, it's 27%.  So whichever way we make our cut, we do have to make some allowance to include more first-time proposers when we go through the workshop proposals.

 And then the comparative view as we're looking at from the stakeholder groups, I think it's more or less the same from the overall -- well, if you compare the top 60 and the top 85, I think it's more or less balanced.  59% of the proposals came from civil society.  That's in keeping with the current trend.  And, I mean, of course, civil society is the largest stakeholder group.

 Government, of course, is the smallest, so we may want to make allowances for government.  And it's fairly standard for the intergovernmental organization, it's 5%, 5%, and 6%.  And private sector, it's 13, 12, and 10. 

 I beg your pardon?  Sorry.

 I'm almost finished.  Just almost finished.  I'm just going through very quickly.

 Then for the other slides, 14, 15 and 16, it's the standard deviation.  I would actually defer to Mike who loves this stuff better than I do.  I lost my quantitative methods a long time ago.

 So if Mike can just say a few words about -- you know what to say, Mike.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you very much, Chengetai.  And thank you for doing all the extra calculation that is involved in doing the standard deviation. 

 The reason I advocated for making that calculation two years ago was because we really want to get those proposals that are very controversial, and the very controversial topics may be the ones that don't get rated very well.  If you can imagine a topic that half the people in the room just don't want to talk about and give -- they all give 1s to that proposal, Whereas the other half of the room is really excited about the topic and they give it 5.  So by doing the standard deviation, we have a very non-biased, very effective way to quickly spot those proposals which may not have made the cut except that a whole bunch of us think it's really important and the standard deviation flags that.

 When we did this in the past, it was useful.  There were a couple of proposals that people got talking about.  And there were a few people who took -- put up their hand and said, hey, this is really important and they explained why it was really important to the people who hadn't understood and hadn't realized why it was a new topic worth doing.

 So, again, thank you for doing this.  And I do also think that this exercise is one more reason why we don't want to just arbitrarily take the first 85 proposals because that doesn't leave much room for some of these more controversial topics or some of the topics which may be of interest to a niche community and a real interest to that community but not to the overall audience.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Mike.

 Then there's two other files that I sent in the email.  One file was the top 60, 85, and all which has the top -- which has the statistics in it.  And then, also, if you go to the third tab which is the overall evaluations. 

 So these are rated by order; and you can sort them out by the average grade, standard deviation, total grade, and also by whether or not it's a new proposer, stakeholder group, et cetera.  So we can use this file when we're going through the proposals.

 So the two cut-offs that we are proposing is either on row number 61 or row number 86.  So that's one thing that we can look at.

 And then the other file is just a schedule, the schedule grid, which is just a proposed schedule grid which is IGF's 2016 sample grid.

 For the workshops, it's -- as we can see, there's different types of workshops.  There's 90-minute workshops, there's one-hour workshops, and there's 30-minute workshops.  Now, if we just take it by the top 60 or top 85 and if you look at the bottom of the sheets there, I'm mainly looking at day four.  But it's fine, you can look at any other sheets.  It's the same information at the bottom.

 I get 110 slots.  And we can see that's 81.5 -- 80 90-minute workshops, five one-hour workshops, and 25 30-minute workshops.  And then we have the open forums which is -- 30 open forums.  And we have the 11 dynamic coalitions, and then we also have the best practice forums, which are five of them, and the main sessions which are seven.  That is a total of 163 sessions in all.  But for our workshops, we're dealing with roughly 110 slots.  I say "roughly" because depending on whether the timings are different.  So we have to calculate that at the end.  But it's roughly 110 slots.

 I will stop there for questions.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sorry.  One second.  And Sala had had a small question.  She wanted to get in the queue.  So we'll come to that in a moment, Sala.

 What we've done the last couple of years is there's been a brief discussion with respect to where there should be some line drawn with respect to a reasonable expectation would be that the bulk of those proposals, the top 60 or the top 80, are taken into account because of the breadth and diversity of the reviews, et cetera.

 We do go back and look at them through an exception report which is if some of the MAG members have questions or believe something is too redundant or inappropriate or the format doesn't really match the description, those sorts of things, we do review those.  And there have been a couple of different processes, I think, used over the years to pull those out.

 And then past MAGs have actually looked at what are some of the other aspects of diversity that we want to ensure reflected appropriately in the panel and identify if there are any concerns or shortfalls or sometimes perhaps overemphasis and look to adjust those as well.

 So I think we want sort of general reactions at the moment in terms of is that a reasonable process.  If anybody has a better process, we're certainly up to it.  That's the process that has sort of emerged over the last couple of years.  I have to admit, it's not always the smoothest process because it's an awful, awful lot of material to go through. 

 I think we need to start with some base assumption that says we have to assume that these proposals are thoughtful, are well-supported because of the number of reviewers, because of the high rankings and then find some other way to cull out those that other MAG members feel are an exception.  We can't start with a baseline of zero and expect to get through a 100-workshop selection here.

 I put that out there for people to think about.  We have Sala in the queue and then a few others.

 Sala, you have the floor.

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  Testing.  Thank you, Lynn.  First of all, I'd like to commend the secretariat for putting up the statistics and also thank the working group that dealt with the guidelines that help make our work easier.

 It was an easy probably hardest thing I ever had to do.  Grading, what, 274?  274 proposals.  But by the time they got filtered, it was 260.  Yes.

 One of the things -- you know, I started off grading it one by one.  And then I realized I was better off grading apples with apples.  So I used the hashtag in terms of I looked at all the privacy workshops and compared them to each other.  And so when I suggested mergers, it was stemming from that.  And I'd also like to take the time to acknowledge the incredible aggressive outreach done by Juan because there were lots of Cuban proposals.

 [ Laughter ]

 It was amazing.  So there was some workshops -- I would find that if you go through the guidelines, they would get a low score because they would not meet the representation guideline.  But, however, they would be new entrants.  But in terms of mergers, they would be fantastic with other mergers. 

 So, yes, the scoring helps.  But, again, going back to what Mike mentioned, if you can imagine, like, a bell curve -- if you can imagine a bell curve where you have the fringes and you have the density that is sort of centered in between from the mean, from the average, and so as I begin to compare the human rights proposals to each other or the gender proposals and that sort of thing, what I found was there was interlinkages to other subthematic categories that may not necessarily fall within the epicenter but would intersect with some other ones.

 And so this is just a thought, Chair.  It might be useful to consider having maybe breakout groups where we could, like, yes, take the standard deviations but, before we are quick to cut, to also look at ways where we are not letting new voices go that might have low scores but might fit very well into mergers.  Because there were lots of potential mergers.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sala.

 Peter, you have the floor.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Chair.  Peter Dengate Thrush.  Just a question, when I was looking through them, I found that people had called their proposals a debate, and it wasn't a debate and they had given it a title that seemed to have nothing to do with the content and so forth.

 What I didn't look at was how accurate the tags were.  And I wonder if anyone has had a look at that because if we're going to start using the tags as a grading or classification or aggregation system, I'm just a bit concerned.  But if someone has looked at how accurately people have tagged their proposals, then I'll have more confidence in using tagging as a sort of aggregation method.

 Has someone looked at that?  Does somebody have a view about how accurate the tagging has been?  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sala, to that point specifically.

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  I would say that whilst there's some tags that were accurate, there were additional tags that were on the fringes.  So I would say that probably roughly 75% accuracy.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sala.

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I have several comments that are going to be of concern.  I'm going to start out with the first one, which a few years ago, I was part of an international organization where we had an elected officer who came to all the meetings, public meetings.  But it turned out when the report card was published, the participation in the conference calls, he had a 40% attendance and participation rate overall.

 The highest number of raters is 44.  There are, I think, 55 MAG members.  This means that 11 MAG members -- our job as MAG members is to do this work, and this means that we have a gap in fulfilling the work.  I say that to look forward to future improvements in making sure that MAG members do the work.

 Secondly, like Peter, there were many debates that were not debates.  There were many panels that don't have background documents.  And, yet, I look and they are rated very high.  Some of them in the top 65.

 We agreed if you proposed a panel and didn't do a background paper, you're disqualified or at least you're penalized.  I have a strong objection to the fact that the people who did the work -- and it's not fair to say I'm a newcomer, I didn't know I had to do a background paper.  That was very clear.

 There are some other situations which, if you didn't open the background paper, you didn't notice that it wasn't a background paper.  It was just a republication of the workshop description.  That's not a background paper.

 So, guys, like all of you, we're all out trying to encourage submissions but we're also responsible for being fair in the ratings, and if we rate people who propose panels and didn't do the background and let them stay in the top category, I'm very concerned. 

 I'm happy to move them to the category we debate about and let them -- and I said in my comments, give them a week to submit a background paper.  But I think it's unfair to the people who did the required work, and particularly because we have limitations in the size of the -- some of our time slots are going to be 30 minutes. 

 So that's generally the concerns I have.

 I do think we need to be careful about balance of some kind.  Rough balance.  I don't think it's exactly the same number from each stakeholder group.

 Then the final comment I'm going to make is, I can't comment on flexibility for government or IGO workshops when those same parties may have open forums, and I'd like to have the overview of the open forums and the topics before I support the idea that we adjust the number of workshops, because overall we have a program.  The program is the entire meal.  And if I'm serving part of the dessert, I might not deserve to get to also make the salad.  I'm so bad at sports analogies. 

 Thank you, Chair.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Let me try and see if there's support for one or two of the points that Marilyn just brought up before going back to the queue.

 So the first comment I'd like to bring up is, Marilyn made the point that some of the sessions that were -- in fact, really didn't fit the criteria for a submission, is it worthwhile to take those proposals that didn't submit a background paper? 

 It sounds like Marilyn has a list of those that didn't.  See what the room thinks about them and we can certainly ask them to submit a background paper in a moment, but, I mean, to me that's a matter of was it a strong criteria that people feel strongly about and it ought to be one we uphold and they're ruled out and at the same time given a chance to come back in and supplement the paper or do we show some flexibility and move forward?

 So if I can just get comments on that position.

 So I have Juan in the queue and then Mike Nelson in the queue.  Juan, you have the floor.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Raise your hand, then, so they can -- there you are.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yeah.  I'm sorry to disagree with Marilyn because we always agree.  Or almost a hundred percent.  But I think that during the -- the virtual meetings, you know, the telephone meetings, I stressed that it's very hard to ask people from other languages to present descriptions of these workshops, and to -- on top of that, to ask them to do the background paper.  I think that we have to have flexibility with people that their original language is not English.  Otherwise, we should accept them in some other languages.

 So I think that we should not put that as a go/no-go criteria.

 I think that we have to do -- exert our criteria in terms of the content of the workshop.  The tags, as Peter said, is a good way because it's a guidance to the content.  But I think that we have to exert our criteria.

 Having said that, I don't think -- I've only been in the MAG this time and last time for Joao Pessoa, and I think that this time we have gone a little bit backwards.

 Last time, our selection of the top 85 or top 60 was more balanced.  I think this year we have gone backward in this.

 This means that this numerical grading only on the merit, I -- I like -- I don't like to use the word "on merit."  It's numerical.  Because that is not the same.  To see that is -- because I think that Michael explained what is the deviation or whatever.  It's about the number that was given.  Because that number can be given for many reasons.  And I think that merit deserves a discussion.

 Having said that, having said that, Chairlady, I have a proposal that is a hard one because it means a lot of work for us.

 I think that we have to do -- maybe begin with a small selection that it has to take into account not only the grade but also the standard deviation and to select a group -- maybe 40 -- that could be already in, and the rest I think we have to take a closer look in -- order we have to -- we have to balance not only the stakeholder that proposed but also the topic.

 This is being held in Latin America, in a developing country that has their own challenges and processes that are going on, and so we don't -- maybe I'm going to be now a little blunt but there's many topics there that are only a concern in a first-world country, in a developing -- in a developed country.  All those things of Internet of Things and many things are very arcane for the three-fourths of the population of this earth.  And on the other hand, this is the year that we are linking this with Millennium Development Goals, with development, and so I think that we should be -- exert -- that's our role of the MAG.  To put some sense on this.  And maybe there are things that are very well written and that but that are only for developed countries, even for the rich people in developed countries, that can have all those gadgets and things like that.

 And so we -- I think that we should exert as a MAG.  I think it's a hard way because I told in the -- in the meetings, in the telephone, that this is always subjective.  Of course it's always subjective.  So we have to argue on that.

 For instance, let me put an example.  I was ethical enough not to vote for any of the Cuban submissions.  Apparently I had a very successful outreach in Cuba because there was a lot of submissions.  Not the big amount that was there.  That was a mistake.  It was not 32.  There were 18 submissions of workshops and two were retired by the secretariat because it really -- the topic was really not for that.

 But of the 16 left there, none are in the top 85.  I know that.  And I've checked that the redaction that the description is not very well done and all that, but maybe it's not the moment but I could argue -- I didn't vote for any of them, but I could argue that at -- for instance, one of the -- one that I think is the -- three of the last of the -- of the points average grading that it has, of the whole list, is one of the last.  I can say -- and excuse me because it's -- I am defending a particular workshop from Cuba.  I think this one is more relevant in all this Internet Governance Forum, and not only this, but many Internet Governance Forums, because you know what it's about?  You know that Cuba helped more than a hundred countries in the world with medical personnel that goes.  It went to fight the Ebola in Africa.  It has -- in many Latin America, it has a lot of -- (off microphone).  Do you know what the way that the doctor helps to use each other which diagnosed and that is through Internet?  With the Internet?  And that is there?  The medical collaboration?  And it only took 2.29 points.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Juan, thank you.  I really appreciate your -- your enthusiasm --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  And I always appreciate your enthusiasm and passion. 

 What I heard specific to the question that I asked was for those panels that didn't submit background papers, should we pull them apart and look at them by exception.

 I would say from what you just said your response to that was yes because you said there are some exceptional circumstances where maybe English isn't their first language and they found that too difficult but it's still a reasonable proposal.

 But I want to go to Michael and then we'll come back to the queue.  There's quite a long queue now.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just very briefly, yesterday I started off by agreeing with everything Marilyn said in a particular intervention --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>MICHAEL NELSON: -- but not today.

 First, her criticism about some MAG members not rating, I think, is a concern but some of the people who didn't rate are here not actually as -- as -- more as liaisons to particular organizations, and perhaps they didn't feel that it was their place to do it.  I'm not sure.

 But the more important issue, the one that you're asking us about, is whether we should reject those panel proposals that did not have a background paper, and I think the answer to that is simply no.

 There were a whole bunch of proposals that clearly could have been a panel or could have been a breakout session or could have been a debate, and for whatever reason -- and I think the reason was they didn't want to do a background paper -- they chose another format.

 So I think it would be unfair and -- to just pick on those people who chose to put down a panel proposal without a background paper.

 I also think that for some cases it was very easy for the proposer to put down a background paper that may have been something they published a year and a half ago about a topic that they've been working on for many years.  That is a minimum amount of effort.  There are people who put in very impressive brand-new topics which they haven't explored for more than a couple months and those people could not have pulled together a good background paper.

 So we'd be punishing ourselves, I think, to grade those -- or to eliminate those proposals.

 I just think we should, again, look at the top 60, assume that those are well critiqued, well reviewed, and then work from there.

 I do think Juan has made a point.  There are a number of interesting proposals that dealt with one particular project in Cuba.  In many of those proposals, I suggested how they could be merged with some of the very impressive proposals that are in the top 60.

 I also think it's important that we -- by taking the top 60, we have a platform to build on, and as we look at the other proposals, we can look for places where we might be able to plug in panels or panelists to those 60.

 It's very hard to do that if we are actually going to start and build from the very start and just assume that we haven't approved anything.  I hope that's clear and I hope that's helpful.

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

 I'll go to the queue in a moment but I do just want to correct one thing. 

 In fact, there are 55 MAG members.  The other liaisons that you mentioned, which I assume you're talking about some of the other international organizations, are not counted as the 55 MAG members.

 So still, though, the 44 that did review out of the 55, Chengetai said yesterday, was significantly higher than in past years, and I -- I know that UN DESA actually looks at the participation, many different components of that of MAG members, and that's certainly taken into account with subsequent-year renewals.

 So I just -- just for clarity there.

 Let me -- the next in the queue is Avri Doria. 


 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  Thank you.  I want to sort of cover several of the things that people have spoken of, but also go back to some of the criteria.

 First of all, when I look at these, we have 40 some-odd that got 4 or better.

 Now, I think that we should pretty much trust the aggregate scores that we've gotten because I think a lot of us took these issues into account, whether it was deducting for absence of paper or for mislabeling a debate a panel.  Those things are pretty much already in the mix.

 I think to apply them now in any sort of hard-and-fast manner would be problematic because it's already in the weighting in a lot of things.

 I think that when I look at these, this almost seems to fall in a pattern of three where we've got essentially a third that are above 4, they can't have gotten a lot of deductions, they can't have a lot of standard deviation, because they're clustered towards the top there.  And they seem the kinds of things, to me, that should pretty much be accepted unless someone has a strong objection to them.

 Then you look at another third group there and you start to see where there's a break and you could say that these are ones that perhaps need to be dug into a little bit deeper.  What were the issues?  What was the standard variation?  When was the balance?  And so on.

 And then you finally have the sort of lower scored set where you really have to go looking for how do we use these to make the balance.

 But I think if we could sort of start dividing things.

 I'm very much against telling people that, "If you submit a paper now, in two weeks we'll give a better score."

 I think that we should come out of this with deficiencies that we expect people to fix and certainly say, "Hey, you know, you scored really high on a panel but your paper was not really panel quality and you really got to fix this."  That kind of thing is good.  But --

 So in terms of your specific question, I'm kind of saying "no, but," you know, or "yes, but."  I'm not sure which one comes first, but yeah.  Thanks. 

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And thank you, Avri.  That was very helpful. 

 I've got quite a list of speakers now and I'll just go through a few of them quickly so you know where you are in the queue.  If people could speak specifically to the sort of process you want to move forward, we've got about -- less than an hour left before the lunch break and we need to leave this morning with that process agreed.

 I suspect it's going to require people to go back and look at their scores and figure out which ones they'd like to call out for exceptional or more detailed review here in the room, so I really think in terms of what we have in front of us, we need to agree the process before we break for lunch.

 So I'll just go through the next three or four quickly.  There's about 10 in the queue.  We have Julian, Jac, Cheryl, and Peter as the next four. 

 So Julian, you have the floor.

 >>JULIAN CASASBUENAS:  Thank you, Madam Chair. 

 Going through all the review of the proposals, I found that it seems that most of the proposers are not aware about the facilities for remote participation, and in general, remote participation proposals lacks of good strategy for that.  So I think it's important to highlight to the proposers the resources that IGF offers for remote participation because most of the proposals are just based on social media but not really on the -- on the tools that we have on site, and it would be very important to increase the participation, so probably to organize some online workshops for the -- with the proposers to enhance that will be important.

 I will mention also some issues regarding the evaluation process, and I think it will be very important in the future to have some kind of filter of the proposal -- proposals by subteams so they will be easier to evaluate similar proposals for -- that are candidates to merge their proposals.

 Also it was very difficult to evaluate gender balance because we don't have the gender specified in the participants of the workshops and it will be very important to have gender specified so we can better rate this kind of gender balance in the proposals.

 And also to clarify where the proposers come from.  A lot of participants came from Afghanistan.  I thought that Omar was doing a good job, like Juan probably did in Cuba, but it was not the case.  I mean, it's a lot of proposers that are not linked to their countries.

 And also encourage proposers to include from different sectors and regions.

 There are proposals that are only for -- all the speakers are from the same country, and it's important then to recommend to have perhaps an online meeting for interested parties to prepare their proposals in advance so they will have more chance to be selected.

 As I said, highlighting remote participation tips and requirements from the IGF in order to have stronger proposals.  Thank you.

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

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC sm KEE:  Thanks, Lynn.  I just wanted to say I agree with Avri.  I think we should accept the ones that got four and above and just say sort of, okay, this should be fine and accept that. 

 And then for the middle basket, to also include those that ranked really high in the standard deviation.  I think that's a really interesting thing to actually put into the mix as well, to look through really opposing points. 

 And while thinking through the middle basket, some things to bear in mind, in relation to the background paper, I think some of it is also very loosely defined.  Like, some is mainly an iteration of the workshop proposal itself and then PDF and then turn it into a background paper.  So I think that's also something to think -- to bear into consideration on top of all of the other very good points that's already been raised by first-time proposers and stuff and how difficult that might be or different periods of going through a particular thematic area.

 And, also, to raise that first-time proposers had quite a lot of challenges with the submission.  I think there were some technical glitches that was being raised in relation to the submission platform.  And you couldn't, for example, remove the name of an accidentally -- you click on someone's name, you couldn't remove it.  You had to do the whole thing all over again. 

 I think I also heard another feedback that the name was not actually selected, but then it appeared in the final proposal -- in the final proposed workshop.  So that could also explain why some names kept appearing all the time.  Like, there were really a few names that just kept appearing in every single workshop which was a bit weird.  And that might have counted against some of the scoring as well.  So maybe that should be borne into consideration.

 And then also to just re-emphasize the point that the criteria is -- I guess is a basket effect that we take into account, that sometimes you can't really adhere to it so strictly.  What that would inevitably end up doing is privilege those who are very familiar with submitting IGF workshops.  And we want to also be guided by end objectives which is to promote diversity and participation and encourage newcomers, developing countries, and diversity in stakeholder groups.  So I think that can be very useful to help us just think through some of this.

 And, finally, to agree with Julian, I think for future proposals for the submission, it would be really great if we can have gender specified the same way as we do with stakeholder group as well as geographical location, to have that as one of the things that you need to kind of just put forward.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jac. 

 Cheryl, you have the floor.

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I also think right now that looking at those that have four and above, I think we can probably trust the scoring thus far and let those go through.  For the middle ones, I do think there's a lot to be said, that there are some significant language barriers, and there are barriers to entry if you are a first-time proposer really not understanding and knowing.  So I think we should be a little bit flexible with the fact that perhaps not everyone had a background paper where they should have.  I think if it is overall a good proposal, and we think it would really enrich and benefit this IGF, then, you know, we should give that consideration.  So those would be my comments for moving forward. 

 I know there's a long queue.  So I'm sure we can come back to this maybe in terms of thinking about next year how we can do better and make sure that we get -- we kind of improve on what we've done.  Thanks.

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

 I am going to come to Peter in a moment.  But then the next four or five speakers are speaker 2840 -- I don't know if that's online or not -- Xiaodong, Renata, and Laura.  And then there's a few more after that.

 Peter, you have the floor.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Chair.  Peter Dengate Thrush.

 I think this is a really important topic, and I think we've got to be very careful about just coming to a quick, easy solution.  This is actually quite hard, and we have to think it through quite carefully because a lot turns on it. 

 So my position is largely in support of the principles that Marilyn Cade put forward except perhaps as to remedy.  And I'll come to that, Madam Chair, because you've asked for a process.  And I will finish with what I think we should do.

 But along the way, I think the first thing you've got to notice is you have to reward the behavior you wish to see repeated.  If you ignore infringements and you ignore people who don't follow your rules, then nothing good happens.  They don't get better at it.  You don't get better.  And nobody has any respect for you, the process, or the institution.  So although I'm a lawyer and I tend to have a rule-based approach to many things, in this case the reason why we have rules is so that we can create things so that people know where they are going so they can put energy and time into things and other people can benefit from it.

 So these are constructive, if you'd like, rules.  These are not punitive rules that we create to try to punish people.  These are rules that we create so that people know what to do so that we can have a good outcome.  And if you don't follow those rules, then you don't have a good outcome.

 Sorry.  Let me just make sure I don't repeat myself.  I think in this case, these rules were very clear.  I think it's been -- there's a couple of publications in the process that said the secretariat will go through and will eliminate people that don't comply and said what compliance was. 

 And in relation to the background paper issue, there's a special page on the Web site that tells you not only must you put together a background paper but what it has to consist of.  It's not a language issue.  There's a whole set of criteria that a whole lot of people put time and energy into thinking about and publishing.  And it's not good enough just to publish an abstract.  And most people haven't done that.  The rules say it has to have a title.  It has to have a middle.  It has to have a beginning and so forth.  And you can look it up on the Web site.  You've got to say why it's relevant.  You got to put time into showing why you've done this.  And, again, that's a constructive rule that we need so we can help do evaluations and people can put in proper proposals. 

 And not to do it and not to suffer any kind of a penalty when you don't do it seems to me is backwards.  People were clearly on notice.  And a lot of people did do it and followed it through, and it's unfair that having done the work and complied with the rules that they have then treated the same as if they were disobedient.

 I have a great deal of problem with Juan's suggestion that we should now change the selection criteria to develop -- to favor proposals that are good for developing countries.  While that might have been something that we could have decided, that's the whole point of creating a theme and subthemes and tags is for.  Not now.

 I want to add to the list of admissions that I think should be punished, if you'd like, and that's the failure to do a report from a previous workshop.  That's a really serious, obvious point.  And I think the secretariat really doesn't need any decision from us.  The rules are quite clear.  The rules say the secretariat will eliminate from consideration anyone who has done a proposal, done a session before and not done a report.  It's hard to think of a clearer sort of obvious point that if we ignore, we just make ourselves look completely foolish.

 I don't think that saying -- and this is Avri's point.  I think there is some people -- some people will have reacted subjectively to some of these admissions, but I don't think that's the point.  These are clear breaches of clear rules.  And if we don't do something...

 So you can't -- the other thing my experience tells me, it's very hard to creep up on discipline.  It's very hard to slowly introduce and expect that you'll slowly -- you actually have to just start.  You have to start having your meetings on time if you want people to show up on time.  You can't just say, look, it's not good enough.  Please turn up on time next time.  You just start the meeting on time.  And after a while, people realize that you mean what you say and they show up on time.  And, similarly, you have to publish a background paper.  If you don't publish one, your proposal won't go through.  It's very hard to keep saying we're going to have these rules, we are going to enforce them, and then not enforce them.  This goes by a variety of names.  Sometimes "tough love" is one of them in some areas.  But you actually have to start discipline to actually get the benefits of discipline.  Talking about discipline is actually not discipline at all.

 So what I suggest we do is we mark all these ones that don't comply with our rules and we put them on hold.  We go and we develop 80% of the program.  And then we include them when we go back to do the diversity, gender, other balancing process because some of them will have contributions that we want to do.  But we make it very clear that that's what's been done with them and that only on this occasion will they get the second reconsideration.  In the future, all of the rules will be applied strictly.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So I think that was very well-said, the last part specifically with respect to the remedy.  And where I was trying to get to earlier when I said we note that there are exceptions and then we look at whether or not we allow them in exceptionally.

 Maybe there's quite a long queue.  And I'm not quite sure what people meant to talk to.  But if people could just give me a quick reaction in your speaking comments as to whether or not you would support that again.  So whether it's the top 40, the top 60, the top 80, if some of those proposals have not met specific criteria that they be flagged, be set aside for an exceptional review a bit later in the process.  I hope the ask is clear. 

 And I'll take a few more comments and then see if we can get support from that in the room and then move on to some of the other subsequent steps.

 So 2840 is in the queue.

 >> KONSTANTIN KULIKOV:  Good morning.  My name is Konstantin Kulikov.  I'm from the permanent mission of Russian Federation.  I have a question on MAG rating and selection process.  I noticed that the topics are preselected according to their popularity only. 

 Will the final workshop agenda formed by the MAG also take into regional balance apart from the thematical balance in order that some topics which are of utmost interest to some specific regions won't be totally discarded? 

 As long as the IGF is under the auspices of the U.N. and our work here is all about leaving no one behind, I believe this criteria is also very important.  I heard that certain members may find some topics of low importance.  But in that case, it would be really great aside from the hot topics, there should be at least some regional quarter.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I think we do try and ensure diversity and a good regional balance as well in the workshop. 

 Xiaodong, you have the floor.

 >>XIAODONG LEE:  Thank you, Madam Chair.

 Thanks for the (indiscernible).  It's very clear for us to figure out the issues which need be improved in this year.  What's most important for us is to work together to improve IGF and make sure IGF's success in the next decade with big influence on comprehensive support by the stakeholders.

 But I still remember last year in Geneva when we select the proposals, I think it was lack of participation from the technical community.  But I'm very happy now in this year, the proposals from technical community in the top 60 and also in the top 85 is almost double than last year.  That's very good.

 But the balance issue is still a big problem.  If we look at the top 60 and also top 80, the lack of the proposals from private sectors and government and intergovernmental organizations only around 20%.  It is very small number.  If they prefer to improve the influence of IGF, it's not exactly right for us MAG members to consider to increase the proposals from those stakeholders, to encourage them to join the IGF discussion and make contributions. 

 So my suggestions has two points.  One, if we treat government and intergovernmental in the same categories, we can allocate maybe 14 or 15 for each stakeholder categories.  And then we have another 25 additional proposals which don't belong to any categories and give the 25 proposers to the best proposals by the ranks.  Another suggestion is try to merge as much more proposals into the selected proposals and to encourage more people to join the IGF.  It's a lot of first proposals.  It's very good.  But how to make sure those proposals were selected all merged into the proposals selected to encourage them to join IGF discussion.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Xiaodong.  Can you just give me a short reply as to whether or not you would support the remedy that was put on the table before which said assuming there's a top 40, 60, 80 or so, that those proposals that didn't met the criteria be set aside and looked at on an exceptional basis?

 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I will try and will give you a response later.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you.

 Renata, you are next in the queue.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  Renata Aquino Ribeiro here from Brazil, MAG member.

 I would like to address some of the observations before.  First question, are the slot numbers definitive or can be changed from the spreadsheet of the evaluated -- sorry, from the spreadsheet of the sample grid?  There were a few numbers, slot numbers, workshops.  80 workshops --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, they can be changed because depending on the timing.  If it has got more 60-minutes, then we can have more.  If we have more 30-minutes, we have more, et cetera.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Thanks good to know.  Thank you, Chengetai.  Because some observations we can see that there are real issues that we should flag of the proposals that were approved.  For example, the background paper standards, some background papers were just description of panel routines.  Is that acceptable as a background paper?  Speakers come in, five-minutes presentations.  That to me should be a background paper that is not really acceptable.

 Also, I'd like to readdress the issue of merging country and regional workshops and the importance.  New proposals from our (indiscernible) Brazil also were not on top 100 as it happened with Cuba.  This brings up the suspicion that new proposers and new developing country regions are not getting the priority they should.  This point needs to be addressed by MAG members. 

 Also, we should address the issue of reviewing who the author is in the proposals, which shouldn't be a criteria.  The usual suspects as IG voices has already been pointed out as an issue in IGF.  Yet, we see them again in the selection list.

 Also, it should be noted that some proposals claiming to be from developing countries, these proposals were not from developing countries.  So -- again, new proposals.  So, again, this review is very necessary as well as platform challenges from new proposers.

 The inclusion from speakers from developing countries should be noted.  I was included in a workshop as a proposed speaker, and I could not even check what the workshop was about so I did not confirm. 

 Afterwards, I found out that a name similar to mine had been confirmed.  This is probably an error.  So how do we address it? 

 So, mainly, I would like to first take another look at excluded developing countries workshop.  If you look at the stats of the top 60 proposals, 40% only are from developing countries.  The IGF has as part of its main mission to include developing countries in the decisions about Internet future.  If this is exactly the audience being left out, what is there to go on with?  Thank you.  That concludes my intervention.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Renata.  And I do think those are some other categories.  I think we had a few proposals which have commented that we should look at those proposals that are in the highest standard deviation for inclusion.  I think the same thing with respect to the new proposers, and the developing country issue that you and Juan mentioned is another category that we should look at and potentially look to bring in.

 Laura, you have the floor.

 >> LAURA WATKINS:  Thank you, Chair. 

 Thanks to the secretariat.  To be honest, it has been really helpful to see the grading breakdown in this way. 

 I think in theory I agree with looking at the top 40 and accepting them, but I would strongly support Peter's comments.  We can only judge -- as the MAG members, we can only judge the proposals on the information we have been supplied with.  We set the requirements that people needed to comply with for a reason and I think it's unfair that people haven't complied with these don't get penalized in some way. 

 I would strongly agree there should be a severe penalty for lack of providing a report in previous sessions.  It's a clear requirement.  I would think regardless of how dynamic or exciting the sessions were in person, if they haven't provided a report, then it means that conversation dies straight after the IGF and it's not accessible to anybody outside of that room.

 Just picking up on Xiaodong's comments on mergers, there's a huge, huge number of proposers this year.  And maybe we need to focus more on mergers than we have in previous years where we didn't have such space limitations. 

 There could be sort of similar process -- similar suggestions in that top other 60 top 40 that have quite a lot of overlap in them and cover maybe the same ground.  So I think it would be helpful if we could see a list.  I know when you went through the grading, you had to suggest mergers.  It would be helpful to see a list against with which topics -- with which other suggestions had been -- which other workshop proposals were suggested for mergers just so we can have that in our mind as we're going through the proposals.

 Also, a number of people have spoken about grouping by themes, and I would support these comments.  I think it's important that we've had quite a spread of thematic workshops.  And I think that when you look at the breakdown by the top 60, that spread is not necessarily reflected and I think we need to be conscious of having a spread of themes in these sessions that are accepted. 

 I personally worked in a very similar way to Sala and grouped things by sort of apples and pears so it was easy to compare and I think we can then compare like with like and work on merging to then make sure we have a spread of things.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I've got quite a long queue of speakers here and I really do want to urge us to try and come to an agreement on the proposal before lunch, which is 30 minutes with a sharp finish at the top of the hour.

 So let me try and put a chair's proposal out and see if we can get sort of acceptance for that.

 With the assumption being that those -- for the moment, let's just say top 60 -- those proposals that didn't meet the criteria, such as the background paper or a report out after the last IGF, are marked and set aside and are not at this point part of the assumed accepted workshop proposals, I have no idea how many that would reduce the 60 from.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Quite a lot.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Quite a lot, Chengetai says. 

 Then, you know, possibly Peter's point is even more important about setting hard criteria, if in fact, they're not really being assumed by most.

 So if we said the top 60 and quite a lot comes out, I don't know, that's --

 Assume 20 are set to the side, so that says we have a fairly solid 40 that we could start with as a base.

 The secretariat actually prepared a list of the top 30 with the greatest standard deviations, which if you buy that that means there's a great range of, "We strongly support this" or "We think this is a particularly bad idea," as opposed to perhaps not well written, but if you accept that premise, that would seem to be a reasonable group that we might review and see if we want to pull in -- pull those into some of the accepted workshop proposals.

 I think the other category we've heard was those that -- from developing countries or first-time proposers, which from my own personal perspective are the sort of things I'd like to look at and give a little more attention to and see if there's something we can do to mentor or support those coming up to the standard that the MAG actually thinks is appropriate for a workshop proposal.

 You know, failing -- so let me just stop there for a moment.  Is that a proposal for which we could actually move forward on?  And maybe instead of looking for comments, we can look for if anybody has a clarification or thinks they can phrase or word that better, happy to hear that, and then what I'd like to do is to go for sort of a show of hands from MAG members as to whether they would support that or not.

 So it looks like Jivan has a clarification or question and Mike has --

 Oh, show of support. 

 So Mike has a worried look on his face, as does Marilyn, so let me take Mike and Marilyn in the queue and then Rasha. 

 Short comments, though, please, so we can move forward.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON: Just a practical question. 

 Are we also going to eliminate those people who submitted a background paper that wasn't really a background paper? 

 I -- I would argue we've found out that this doesn't work.  This is a broken rule.  We should have just told people they could submit a background paper and we will give them extra points if they do, but it's very clear this hasn't worked.  People have gamed the system and we don't have a way to correct for that.  So I just -- I'm curious, as a matter of practicality, would we actually eliminate poor background papers as well?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yeah, I guess that's a key point.  If -- let's say the top 60.  If the top 60 said that, "We now are ruling out 40 because they didn't really have a background paper or they didn't share a report or they didn't"-- then I would agree with you, Michael, that that's not -- you know, it's not something which was specifically ruled in.  I don't know what that number is, though.

 I -- I find it hard to believe that they would get 4s and above if they had really poor background papers or no background papers from such a wide number of MAG members, though, so I think there's some law of numbers here that I think certainly helps correct some of that.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks.  Chair, thank you for that proposal.  Marilyn Cade speaking.

 I have a -- perhaps a mild suggestion.

 Let me defer to Peter, who made a more concrete proposal that would respond to this last question, but I want to address the idea that we need to reward some of those who did the work.

 So I'm happy with taking the first 60, pulling out those who didn't do reports.  People have been told over and over and over, "You don't do a report, you don't get in." 

 So pull them out.  Pull out the ones that didn't do background papers when they said they were going to do a panel.  The instructions were clear. 

 I'm going to defer to Peter on whether, if you fudge the background paper, we're going to give you a skate on that.  I'm not going to comment on that. 

 But I am going to comment on the fact that before we go overboard on moving first-time proposers and developing country proposals up, let's also look at the next 20 or 25 who really did the work and realize we need to reward -- and I liked what Peter said.  I probably would have used a different word than you did, Peter.  I would have used the word "integrity" about our process.

 We said we were going to do things.  We published criteria.  Let's show some integrity about our process. 

 Let's show some humanity as well.

 But I think if we realize that when we pull out the guys and gals who just frankly didn't do it, they didn't put in a background report from last year, and I would just say that in my view, I expected the secretariat to not put them into the spreadsheet.


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We're going to make this really short, people.  We need to -- Rasha, you were in the queue, and then Peter, and then I'm going to try again.

 >>RASHA ABDULLA: Thank you, Madam Chair.  Can you hear me?

 There are lots of good points being raised and I think it's important to keep going back to how to try to make this a better process next year, and I think again one of the important points to keep in mind is that this is all happening because we don't really have a clear process of how are we grading the workshops.

 And so, again, you know, I mean, some people probably did take into account the fact that background papers were supplied or not and how well they were written, but some people clearly didn't.  As a matter of fact, the number -- the number 2, the second highest ranked entry, is a panel with no background paper.  And I understand it's about disability and diversity, and of course that's a buzzword, and so we need to keep in mind is it enough for people just to throw a buzzword that we obviously welcome a session on that topic but then there's really no information whatsoever in the proposal other than that two people are proposing to speak about their personal experience? 

 That got through the second highest ranked workshop, so clearly there is something wrong with the evaluation process and we need to take that into consideration for next year.

 I'm not sure if we're all speaking the same language when we're grading workshops, and that's the problem.

 The standard deviation, while I do appreciate the concept, I don't think is going to make much difference this time around because I'm not really seeing much diversity in the numbers, so I'm not sure if that's going to help us.

 And, again, I completely agree that people have sort of steered away from writing that "This is a panel" even though it could be because they don't want to submit a background paper.

 So should we be -- should we now be penalizing those who did not submit a background paper but then letting those pass who said, you know, "This is a debate" when it's really a panel because they didn't want to do a background paper? 

 So, I mean, there are lots of -- it's a complicated issue, so if we're going to penalize those with no background papers -- and I'm kind of leaning towards that -- I think we should also penalize those who submitted an inaccurate format for their panel and those who submitted a background paper just copying and pasting what they submitted in the proposal.

 So unfortunately, practically speaking, if we need to do that this afternoon, I'm not sure if the secretariat has a very tough job to do during lunch, but I'm maybe suggesting that we take maybe 40 or 50% of the highest ranking proposals who did do everything according to the criteria that we have established and then consider a larger margin of maybe 60 -- 50 to 60% of those who sort of didn't really follow everything through, based on what topics we would need to see, inclusiveness and diversity of topics and gender and geography and other aspects.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you. 

 Chengetai actually just quoted me a figure which I think puts a different spin on this discussion.

 If I heard him correctly, he said out of the top -- it's actually 46 that were 4 and above, but out of the top 40 or 46, only 9 submitted background papers that should have submitted background papers, is that right?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'm just asking for a double-check.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  That's what I said.  "That should have."

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, sorry.  Yeah, yeah.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah, yeah, sorry.  Panels.  Sorry.  I got it wrong.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  He's --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yeah.  No.  Exactly.  If it's 9 out of 10, that's perhaps not bad, but...

 Peter, let's make a point.  Peter, you have the mic.  And then really we need to try and agree a way forward.  We cannot leave -- and we must finish sharply at 1:00, both for the interpreters and also for another meeting that's going to be held in here.  Peter?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Chair.  Peter Dengate Thrush.  Just a very quick response to the suggestion that we move to grading the quality of the background papers.  I think that's a sophistication for future years. 

 At the moment, our rule is you have to have a paper, and people who have that -- so we've got a pretty binary, you either have or you haven't.  Nowhere in the rules does it say you will be fired if your paper is not a good paper.  That's a sophistication we can grow to future years.  Thanks.

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

 Elizabeth, you have the floor.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  Thank you very much.  I am really uncomfortable with the way this conversation is orienting itself, and I'm going to go to the subjectivity of words and meaning that we all have, and that we choose diversity amongst ourselves in order to balance that in and have the awareness that we all have different views and perceptions about words.

 And when -- so when in a discussion we're using words like "fairness," I always see fairness from, you know, that 360 point of view and I think it's really hard for us to say that it's fair when you cut somebody off at a rule, as such, when, is the rule in itself fair?  Is the -- are there aspects of, you know, deviating around the rule fair?

 So I -- I take the point and the perspective, but I want to go back to what our role is and the work that we've done. 

 As Sala said, we have spent a lot of time and effort evaluating these, and I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we would extract certain ones out because of certain rules that we might perceive a certain way, and then in a face-to-face meeting by whoever is willing to speak or not willing to speak, we're going to then re-evaluate them.

 I think that's not a good use of our time.

 I accept and support very strongly the proposal that Avri had made earlier in the day about continuing with the process that all of us evaluated with that sort of perception that we will do this three-tiered process, and I -- and I also recognize the points that other people made about the large number of workshops that we have and the need to look at how we -- we might propose mergers or talk about supplementing weaker proposals with, you know, contents and ideas and cooperation with other workshops.  But I would say that it's -- I'm exceedingly uncomfortable with this idea of selecting out the panel sessions, and I think that there are more people in the room that don't have time to speak but that would echo that concern.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So thank you, Elizabeth. 

 Chengetai just said -- well, give them the figures you were --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, yes.  Sorry.  Yeah. 

 Okay.  So what I get is that we have 5 proposals who got 4.0 and above and are panels, and 3 of them did not submit --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  Okay.  Good.  Thank you.  It's always good to double-check.  Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So let me go back, then, to the proposal that I actually made.

 If we assume, again, the top 60, I guess we can ask everybody to look through the top 60 and if you think there's an anomaly or they didn't follow the process appropriately, let's all agree that by the end of lunchtime, you send that -- those figures to the chair and we can just asterisk those and figure out when we come back and review them.

 I think what's almost more important is not spending so much time on figuring out which ones we're going to kick out that were highly related by a very diverse group of people.  I would prefer we spend our time on those proposals where we're looking to get a better balance in the entire program and figure out what we do to actually help support the developing country, the first-time proposers, and the other areas where we recognize there's -- not well enough.

 So I'm not saying those that didn't submit a panel would be ruled in or ruled out.  I think we note them, put them to the side, and then I would suggest we go away and look first at --

 If some people want to look at those that are in the standard deviation group and suggest that these are ones that we call out for review with the whole MAG, we can do that.  I'm sure Michael will.

 I think the other important category, again, is the new proposers and the developing countries. 

 And I also agree -- and we did this last year -- was we determined to look at the next sort of 25, because if you're rated 4 versus 3.98, I mean, it's so qualitative, what do we think about that next batch of 25.

 Last year we put a process in place which said we asked people to be a champion for a proposer, so somebody would say, "In the next batch of 25, or in the first-time proposers batch, I think these -- this proposal warrants consideration for the MAG," and would basically give a very short intervention as to why they thought that proposal was worthwhile being a part of the program and we took a reading from the whole MAG.

 You know, so that's sort of where I am on the process here.

 Can I see if there's support for that or any significant -- Marilyn has a question.  Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Chengetai gave the information that there are only three in the top 46 that should have submitted a background paper that didn't, right?  But I didn't hear the answer on how many of them, if any, should have submitted a workshop report and did not.  Can we have that back, please?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>MARILYN CADE:  -- follow the chair's suggestion.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Can we ask the secretariat to go away and do that and asterisk those in the same manner they will asterisk those that didn't actually have a background paper? 

 Michael, you have a --

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is a question about the workshop reports.

 We might have to have a double asterisk because in some cases people spoke eight years ago and they didn't -- we didn't have a requirement about workshop reports back then and so when they answered the question, "Did you submit a workshop report," they said, "No.  Didn't know I had to."

 So it's -- we have to watch out for that end case.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Jivan?  Sorry.  Jivan, you have the floor.

 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI: Sorry.  There's a lot of green lights that are here.  We keep on circling with three people who keep on saying -- I mean, I'm sure there's wisdom in this room for other people to say other things, right?

 I think that much of this room actually agrees with what you said, and I think that we can come in the next 13 minutes to a formula and perhaps that formula is, cut out the ones without a background paper, put in the 60 with the best marks, work on the next 40 and see if there's something from the other ones that needs to be renegotiated, so let's --

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  And that's why I haven't been following the queue is I have been trying to get the sense of the room and the support on the proposals, specifically, so apologize if that wasn't clear.

 Let me try and close on that now, then.

 So I -- the proposal we put forward said accept the top 60 provisionally, if we want to use those words, because we're going to note those that didn't submit a background paper or a report.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  For a panel, for a panel.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So we will -- we will identify those, and when we come back after lunch, we will have some signal as to whether or not that 60 is, you know, now 40 or something significantly lower and adjust from there.

 I think it would be very helpful if -- and, I mean, you said something about diversity, Rasha, but that's the beauty in this MAG and in all of us being here, is that it actually does hopefully reflect a significant piece of the world at large as we actually try and develop this Internet Governance Forum.  So all those differences of opinions, I think, really enrich the whole rating.  Which is not to take away from the fact that we certainly need to find a better way to --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  -- to do this.

 In just one second, then.

 So the other categories, I think, we really wanted to ask people to go away and identify those workshop proposals that they'd like to put in front of the MAG for inclusion in the program, and there were three categories we've come up with so far.

 That was the top 30 standard deviation group, which is in the documents that Chengetai circulated this morning. 

 The other one was first-time proposers or developing country proposals specifically. 

 And then there was also a notion that we move to the next 25.  So in other words, 61 through 85.

 Certainly the difference between the 85th and the 60th proposal was not an awful lot, in terms of the aggregate rating, so it's probably safe to assume that there are some reasonable proposals in there that we should pull in.

 What we had -- I can't remember how much we processed this before last year.

 I thought all the specific workshop numbers that people wanted to review in those categories were sent to the secretariat and we worked through them.  Failing that -- and that may be a little too much processing given the other things we have going on over lunch. 

 Failing that, I think we can probably just say, okay, now we're going to open up the floor for first-time proposers, developing country individuals.  Who would like to speak in favor of some of those workshop proposals?  Was that clear?  Does that work?  Is there support for that as a process?  Any significant concerns with going forward in that manner?


 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  I think, first of all, whether subjective or not, MAG members did vote -- did score.  So if we are going to enhance next time, this is good.  But already we rated and we had good rating for some proposal, so we should somehow stick to it.

 Now, second thing is -- which I think is very important, if we could have with those top 60 the potential other proposals would be merged which already all of us put some of it, this will help us in making shorter steps because if we are going to choose other proposals that are already a duplicate of the top 60 list, then we are again doing duplication and not leaving room for potential new proposals that may come in.

 So maybe if the secretariat can help us putting the potential merged proposal with the top 60, this will eliminate some of what we are going to choose after that.

 Now, another point is what about the proposal related to where there is no -- well, first of all, the report thing, I think the reporting was extremely crucial because this is the way we have the knowledge base.  Now, if during the last couple of years people had submitted a proposal around their workshop and did not submit a report, I don't think this is appropriate to carry on with the same.  So proposed paper is something, but report is very important.  Not submitting a report is really crucial and should not be included moving forward.

 The last point is related to specific workshops submitted with very non-diversified stakeholder.  So is there one stakeholder only or a very specific, narrow geographic location only?  Are we going to suggest to those proposers to enlarge at least -- if they are selected, enlarge their stakeholder diversity or geographical diversity or are we going to accept it as is?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  To your last point, I would hope that if there were sort of a singular diversity, that it was rated low.  And there are very few instances of that in the top 60 or the top 85.  But if, in fact, there are instances of that, I think they should be encouraged to pull in other diversity.  And I think we can maybe make that as an overall statement when we go back to those assumptions.

 Chengetai did have an answer to one of the questions earlier.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  To Marilyn's question, there are none.  For those that have not submitted a report, it means that they were first-time proposers.  But everybody else has been weeded out.

 I just want to make a comment on mergers.  It's always very, very, very difficult to get two parties to merge.  I mean, they always say -- even if they have exactly the same title with a difference o a full stop and a comma, it's totally different.

 [ Laughter ]

 That's one thing.  And then the other point is that:  How do we do the mergers?  Because we have a very strong workshop, let's say it's rated 3.7, and then we have a weak workshop which is rated 2.7 or something like that.  If they refuse to merge, they both don't get a slot or does the weaker one not get a slot?  But then the strong one will always, in most cases, say, No, I don't want to merge.  It's okay if they're the same points as such.  Then you can say, okay, they are equal and they have to merge if they want a slot.  So, I mean, that's one of the things.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's been a fairly consistent experience and set of comments over the years.

 Hossam, you have...

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes.  All what I'm saying is I don't have any problems with the logic Chengetai is highlighting.  I'm just saying if we don't know those potential mergers, then we may come and select them in this coming next stage.  (indiscernible).  

 Now some of the remaining with the potential merger with those 60, if we don't highlight them now, then probably some of us will suggest them again.  And then we'll have two or three proposals that are related to exactly the same topic that were having different rating.  So we need early enough to highlight them ahead so we can keep them aside.  Either they merge or they don't get in the queue.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  But if there's -- if there's a strong belief for the MAG members based on past history that mergers just don't work, then suggesting that you merge a lesser-rated proposal with one which is higher rated is not -- it's not solving anything.  You know, I would say that the ratings hold.  If you got two proposals that are similar, one's rated high and the other one is rated low, I think the collective wisdom of the MAG chose that one.  And we shouldn't have a lot of discussions on which ones we can merge and suggest.

 (off microphone).

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Then we don't -- if we know this other one, we are not going to suggest it between the 60 and 100.  We are going to suggest other proposals.  So we need something that highlights for us some of those proposals already have a more stronger proposal in the top 60.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  If MAG members actually indicated that two proposals were fairly similar and rated them and were thinking merger, I think each MAG member needs to look at whether or not that whatever they liked about the lower-rated one that they thought should be brought forward, whether or not that's been adequately captured in the other one and make a decision as to whether you bring it forward to this room and suggest a merger with what, I think, is a pretty clear sense of the room that mergers just haven't proven to work.

 I'm not sure if I'm answering or not.

 Jivan or Liesyl.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you.  I have actually a lot of responses to your questions, Lynn, from the prior discussion.  But I'll hold those for now and just deal with the merger question.

 I think it's a different thing to think about two workshops that might be similar that could be candidates for mergers.  But having been in a merger workshop before willingly, I think it's possible -- not in every case is it turned down, but I think what we can do if there are two workshops, one is strong and one is weak, the weak didn't make it -- pass muster by whatever rules we choose to use at this point, that what we can do is suggest that some of the speakers or the organizers of the workshop that didn't make it be incorporated into workshops that do make -- that do make sense for them.  That kind of speaker engagement is something we need to do after the fact. 

 The second thing I'm going to say because I do now have the mic, I want to go back to Jac's comment earlier about the number of speakers that were repeated throughout the workshop proposals.  And there was no way really -- I mean, that became a subjective judgment about how you graded the diversity in the panels -- excuse me, the diversity in the workshop proposal.

 And I think another thing we can do after the fact is to take a look at all the accepted proposals, whatever they are at the end, and see if the people that are in three or more panels, whatever number we choose can deselect themselves and find somebody who is -- they can even be from the same organization, if it's a new voice maybe from a different region, to replace them on whichever panel they choose.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  All right.  I think those are good comments, and we can figure out how we actually mentor and further improve the agreed proposals. 

 Jivan, I will give you the last comment because we are being told we need to let the interpreters go.  And there is another meeting in the room here.

 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  When going into a room that is very messy and a lot of clothes are thrown out, I think it's best to start with the clothes that are clean and then go to the next one, or a drawer.

 So let's just -- I think that if we have a little system to start things going after the lunch and we start going, the feeling will be that we start checking things off and it will be a different feeling.  I think we just start going based on the formulation we were discussing earlier.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I appreciate that.  I mean, I also suspect -- expect to feel a lot happier about reviewing some of the key proposals and figuring out what we do to actually bring in appropriate balances and things.

 So with that, I'm getting some strong signals here from the interpreters that we need to stop.

 Juan, if you have a very short --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I have one announcement.

 >> (off microphone).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I don't know if the queue stays here or not.  But in this case, I think -- I don't know if people would have the same comments or not.  I think we'll wipe the queue, and we can start over when we come back after lunch.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Interpreters can go.  I just need a general announcement.  Please, if you are sponsored to come here, can you please see Adriana and sign the attendance sheet and also give her your boarding pass.  That's very important.  Otherwise, we will hunt you down and...

 [ Laughter ]

 And, also, for tomorrow, if people are leaving, the U.N. doesn't allow you to bring in baggage here.  So...

 [ Lunch break ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  If we could ask everybody, please, to take their seat.

 Good afternoon, everybody.  And let me just ask Anja if we're all set with the online participants as well.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  So I want to thank everybody for bearing through the morning session, I think is probably the right word.  I hope we're off to a good start this afternoon and can really start looking at some of the proposals and determining which other ones we should pull in.

 I also want to apologize if there was any concern over the way I was managing the queue here in the room.

 When I tried to call the question in terms of support for a proposal, I was suspending the queue at that point in time and looking for general agreement in the room.  There was quite a long list of speakers -- it was either 10 or 12 at most points -- that I thought were probably speaking to the previous comments, not the, you know, motion or initiative, if you will, that I was putting on the floor, but I'll make that more clear if I need to do the same thing again this afternoon.

 So if we could just ask everybody to take their seats.  It's a small room and all the other background noise kind of carries.

 So the secretariat, over the lunch period, amongst all the other things they were doing, took a look at the top 60, and I think Chengetai is prepared to tell us which workshop proposals by number did not meet those minimum criteria.

 And, again, according to what we had agreed this morning, we're going to asterisk those and set them to the side for a moment.  They're neither in nor out.  They're just set to the side until we actually progress through some of the other reviews.

 Are you ready to do that, Chengetai?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Subject to just a double-check, I have workshop ID 46, 204, 118, and 225.

 204, 118, and 225.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  46 is the first one.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  46, 204, 118, 225 are the workshops in the top 60 that did not meet the minimum requirements, e.g., if you have a panel you have to have a background paper.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  You still have a question, Liesyl?

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Sorry.  If you could just -- I'm sure some people may want the numbers again but I want to know what exactly you're describing as these workshops.  Either they didn't meet the minimum requirements -- which -- were they the ones regarding a report and -- and a background paper?


 >>LIESYL FRANZ: Both.  So four out of 60 didn't meet those requirements.


 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  That's not bad.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  It certainly is better than what the earlier discussion certainly left me believing, so I think that's very good.

 Now, we had also said there were four other categories that we wanted to evaluate with respect to filling out the other 40 slots and that was going to be some from the standard deviation group.  The secretariat had pulled together the top 30 that had the largest deviation.

 Another one was the first-time proposers, developing countries.  And then of course there was the notion that we would take the next 25 below the 60.

 I'm pretty agnostic about which, like, category we might move towards at this point.  You know, the -- at one level, the logical thing would be to work down through the next 25, and that would give us, I think, a pretty good profile, then, of the ones that the MAG actually rated quite high, which should mean they've got good support and good confidence of everyone here in the room.  And depending on how far we get with that today, we could then ask the secretariat to rerun some of the diversity statistics so that we had that in front of us before we go to the first-time proposers, developing countries, and I think the greatest standard deviation is possibly in a different category but --

 I see lots of heads nodding around the room.  Is that an appropriate way to go?

 So that means we're starting with workshop proposal numbers -- we're starting with the workshop proposal that is designated as number 61 in the Excel spreadsheet.  I don't actually have that open at the moment but maybe Chengetai can call that out.

 We want to go from 61 to 85, and we could either walk through each one of them quite quickly -- that might be the best -- and just see if --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So we're going from 60 -- oh, row number 62.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes.  Or whatever the row.  Yeah.


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Row number 62, and just go through it quite quickly and see if anybody, I guess, wants to comment on the proposal either from the point of inclusion or not inclusion.

 My assumption is that these meet the criteria as well, but in the background I'd actually like to ask the secretariat to just do that quick check, too, because in fact, if they don't meet those criteria, then we should asterisk them and set them to the side just as we did with the earlier batch.

 Jivan, you have a question?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI: You took out the four -- so it's basically highest-grade 60, you took out the four, and then --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >> Okay.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Just to be clear, when Chengetai says he took the four out, he's just -- he didn't take them out of the spreadsheet.  His numbers haven't changed by row.  He's just coloring them differently to set them to the side.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  -- so we've taken out -- you know what I'm saying.  We've taken out the top 60 and now we're starting at number 61.  The 61 highest graded workshop.  Yeah.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Is it?  Oh, then there's something wrong, then.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  What are you looking at?  What is your 60th -- your 61st?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Could you give me --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  Because the first row -- row number 1 is the header row so we don't count row number 1.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So for ease, maybe we should use the Excel spreadsheet row number --


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- which I guess is 62 --


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- which would be the 61st one rated.


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Jivan, you have the floor.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  -- in the ranking you just tell us the ID number and we'll look at the ID number.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  ID number 170.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And let me just check. 

 Sala, did you have a comment or question as well?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  Sorry.  I just wanted to comment that the dashboard has been opened by the secretariat to all the MAG members, in which we made our individual scores.  We can always open that up, too.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, that's correct.

 So you can go into the evaluation, the site, and then you can look at your comments because there were some requests that some MAG members wanted to look at the comments that they made for each workshop, so you can do that now.  Just go to the IGF Web site where you inputted in your evaluation scores and you can see your comments.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chair.  I have a couple of questions because I'm not really sure that I understand the exercise that we're doing. 

 We are taking out those from -- from the list or whatever, but with which proposals we're going to replace it? 

 We're going to continue the list the way that the list goes, so if -- for instance, if we take out 10, only the 10 following will go in?

 If that is the case, then I want to tell what I asked for the floor this -- at the end of this morning to say two things.

 First, merger is important.  I know that it's difficult, but it's important for two reasons.

 First, because if we merge two similar workshops that are in the top 60, we clear one slot.  A slot is a very valued asset here, so -- and on the other side, also to have two very similar workshops, it doesn't make sense.

 Of course we need analysis, and that is why I agree with what Jivan says.

 If this is going -- all going to be done by the scoring, then we should not come here.  We could have a software to do it or maybe an expert system based on rules and it can be done automatically.

 We have to be here because we have to reason.

 In merger, we need to reason.  I could put an example from last year in Joao Pessoa.  We had two workshops on the IANA transition, but both were relevant because one was from the ICANN point of view, what we were doing, and the other one was from the other point of view.  So both -- it was two points of view in the same -- so both, it was relevant.

 We did that analysis and both were kept.

 So we need to do that analysis.

 Going back, one of the things we have to do as the representative from Russia said before, I think that it's good to -- I believe in rules and I believe in scoring.  As a matter of fact, I defended the diversity in scoring.  But that is not cast in stone.  That is only a guide, a guide.  And in order -- it serves us to move. 

 But I think if we have no diversity -- regional diversity or we don't have diversity on the proposer stakeholder group and if we don't have diversity in topics, that's why we are here.  We have to do that analysis and that criteria.  As Jivan says, we have to be wise and do it.  Because if we are only taking out and moving the list up, we are not exercising that discretion.  That's why we're here for.  So that's my comment.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Juan.  I'm not sure that we're actually in disagreement.  So let me just back up for a moment.  When the secretariat put up the chart this morning that showed the various diversity profiles against the top 60, the top 85, and the 260, they were all fairly close.  So whether we start at the top 60, I think the profile we had in the top 60, whether it was first-time proposers, stakeholder group, or developing country, was, by and large, fairly close to the 260 that came in.  We can certainly and fully expect to keep track of that over today and tomorrow so that we maintain, I think, that relative profile and, in fact, augment or increase some of them if we think that's more appropriate.  So this isn't just a numerical exercise.


 With respect to looking at two proposals in the top 60 and addressing whether or not they're mergers, I actually think that's a bit like moving the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.  If there are two strong proposals that this room collectively thought were very strong, to ask them to merge, it really is about moving a chair on the deck.  It's not going to make a significant difference. 

 I think what would be most helpful once we got a few more than the top 60 chosen, we can look and see if there is, in fact, any similarity or commonality.  Those of you that said, "These two proposals are very similar and maybe could be merged," you should look and see if both of them are in.  If one of them is not in and the other one is in and rated quite heavily, then I think we need to go with the will of the group to some extent.

 So I think we fully expect to put a lot of thought into this process, but we need to start to get to the point where we can discuss if we have the top 60 minus the four that we have set aside for the moment, so an assumed 56 as a really strong base that this room actually supported collectively and gave high marks to, what are the other 45?  If I just did the math right.  What are the other 45 or so that we want to pull up and bring in to the workshop selection process.  That's what we're doing now.

 And there were three large -- four large categories that people said they wanted to look at:  First-time proposers.  There might be some very, very good ideas in there but they weren't completely thought out or complete submissions.  And we want to support and mentor those so that they do come in.  Same thing with proposals which really focus on issues specific to developing countries or from a developing country.

 I think the other one, Mike explained about the standard deviation because perhaps there are some really interesting topics there which do actually have a wide disparity of views.  And we should look at those to pull those in as well.  And then the next one was -- I think there's probably an ingrained assumption that out of those three categories we probably don't find another 55 or so.  So we ought to look at the proposals from 61 to 85 or 86 because there should be a fairly high percentage of those that we can pull in.  So that's the exercise, I think, in front of us.

 We can either move to Proposal Number 61, which is line 62 in the Excel spreadsheet, and just get a sense as to whether or not -- unless people really feel strongly that should be or it's one we can set to the side or is it redundant or were some of these marked lower because you thought they might be merge capability.  This is what we did last year.  We literally went through the next 10 or 20 and said, Is there a strong argument for keeping it in or a strong argument for keeping it out?  And I think the bias was probably towards keeping it in, again, because it had a high level of rating and high level of support from across the full MAG.

 The other alternative is I can turn -- and I already asked Renata, if Renata would like to talk about two of the proposals that come from a developing country that she thinks are important and should be supported to go forward, which might mean we need to take some actions within the MAG to go work with proposers to help them develop or augment their workshops.  We can start at that end, if you'd like.

 In the queue, I have Elizabeth. 

 I also -- just one quick point.  Michael is in the queue as well. 

 I want to make sure we are giving time to everybody in the room, though.  I did, in fact, have a couple of comments that said it was a little bit hard if you were a first-time MAG member or even from a developing country to feel like you have the ability to jump in as forcibly as perhaps some are to make your point.  I think we need to work to welcome everybody and allow time for all voices.

 So with that, Elizabeth, you have the floor.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS RAYNAUD:  Thank you very much, Lynn.  And actually I think I can be quite brief because you started to address one of the questions I wanted to raise and what I would like to seek in terms of guidance because this is my first time as a MAG member.  This is my first time going through this process, but it's not my first time witnessing it.  And so watching it last year was a good learning experience for me. 

 What I wanted to ask this year was that when we decide on the process to move forward and we agree that there's going to be some that stay where they are and then some that we're discussing whether we move others up, et cetera, that we proceed with a common understanding and acceptance of what the goal is because what I found created a problem last year was that we thought we had an idea but it was sort of broad in what that goal was and then everyone had their own perception about what they thought they wanted to evaluate and come to some sort of outcome with and wanted to articulate that in a way in which it was sort of moving us all more towards that direction.

 I think as long as before we start the process we know what those criteria were -- and you mentioned the first-time proposers, developing countries, and this notion of the standard deviation -- and I think we might need to get a little more specificity on what elements we would look at around that.  And so then -- once we have a common agreement on that, it would be excellent to proceed and kind of stick to that so that our outcome, we feel like we did achieve the goal we wanted and not just lose time debating different people's perceptions.

 So thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Elizabeth.  I just need one quick consult with Chengetai because he had another good suggestion a moment ago, but I couldn't...

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It was just another suggestion that if we go to the top 60, the pie charts, for instance, if we want to make sure that there is some balance, we could order the list -- for example, in the top 60 we know that there's 60% developed countries, returning 78%.  We can order the list according to the grade.  We could just select developing countries -- people from developing countries who are first-time submitters who -- and don't challenge me, civil society -- who do not come from civil society, for instance.

 [ Laughter ]

 In order to, you know, make the balance a little bit more or who only come from governments who are only 2%.  And we can look at those and then see which ones we want to put on the list.  And then we can go down to the next one -- the next smallest group which is private sector and then go on like that, or intergovernmental organizations, and then just try and balance those numbers out a little bit.  That's one way of doing it, and it's very easy to do on the Excel sheet that we have.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I see a lot of heads nodding.  I also still have Michael in the queue.  So we'll go to Michael and then come back and see if there's support for that.

 Michael, you have the floor.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just a very quick comment on mergers, you're right.  It is hard to take two panels and merge them together, particularly if one is ranked higher than the other.  But it is quite easy to merge two panels that are proposed by the same person or the same group of people.  This year we have an extraordinary number of panels that are almost exactly the same.  They just were proposed three different ways.  And in a few cases, we have main sessions that are duplicated now in the workshop proposals.  So we have to make sure we catch those.

 The other type of merger that's easy is when there's a relatively low-ranked proposal but there's a particularly good panelist that could be brought in.  And that, I think, is pretty easy to do.

 A suggestion on the way we proceed, we might think about looking at five proposals at a time and then just seeing if there's one in there that stands out or two of them that stand out that people want to push forward rather than going one at a time.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Michael.  I think that's a good point, that not necessarily all mergers are difficult or of the same value.

 Renata, you were in the queue.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Yes.  I would just also like to refer to Chengetai's comment searching out proposals by type, the issue of flash sessions, which is also related to innovative sessions format, I think we should dedicate some time for that because those clearly -- also you have some sessions that -- some proposals that are not really flash sessions.  So we would need to carve them out of this category.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's a good comment.  I saw a lot of heads nodding to Chengetai's suggestion that we sort the Excel spreadsheet and look at first-time proposers or developing country proposals or proposers.  I think that maybe speaks to Michael as well, which is in a group of five, if we think there's a fair amount of commonality between small groups.  Are people okay with proceeding that way?

 >> XIANHONG HU:  Thank you.  Just a quick input.  As an IGO, UNESCO is in an embarrassed position because I saw that in terms of geographical scope, we're categorized as a developed country.  That's not true.  We are representing 195 states.  I mean, they are global.  Even majority are developing countries.  So we can't be simply -- simplistically categorized as a developed world so if you are really going to look at in this category.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's true.  Any time you try to categorize any large number of things.  I don't think we're trying to treat any of this as that definitive.  It's more kind of indicative, and I think by looking at them individually, we can make sure we're nominating them properly.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So, Chengetai, do you have the sort ready where we can start to look through?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I can just walk you through what I'm doing and double-check me.  Basically, what I did is I copied all the proposals from line 62 downwards, put them onto a new Excel sheet, clicked the filter.  And then what we can do is just to go to the new proposer, for instance, and just select "yes" for new proposer.  So that gives us all the new proposers, right?  Correct.

 And then we go to the next row, which is --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I can -- if you need a bit --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I may need a little --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Chengetai is trying to do a selection of sorts to get to a smaller grouping that we can -- and maybe we can leave a little bit of time for you to do that and --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.  (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Because I do think that's actually a good idea.  Then we're grouping like proposals with like intent, which I think a number of reviewers here said was the way you actually reviewed them in any case. 

 Once we get down to the workshop proposal numbers that we're trying to -- I think it will be easy.  You all won't have to change your spreadsheets.  You can just go to the database -- the dashboard for which you actually submitted your scores or to the Excel spreadsheet which links you directly to the proposal, so then you'll have all the those proposal details there as well. 

 The -- you know, in the background -- and I see Renata has asked for the floor, maybe we could ask Renata, for instance -- this could be a pilot -- to talk to one or two of the proposals.  I think she said there were two proposals that she felt quite strongly should be considered for inclusion.  Have her talk us through them.  She can identify them by proposal number, do a short introduction as to why she thinks they should be included.  If you think there's some things we can do to strengthen any obvious weaknesses in the proposal, then we should talk about that, and then we'll just open it up quickly to see if there's sort of support for the room for including that as a potential workshop or not. 

 I don't know it doesn't sound very elegant.  It is the way it was done last year and the last few years.  At some point you need to get granular and get to the specific workshop proposals and look for support to pull them in or leave them aside. 

 So Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I would also -- just before I talk about the workshop proposals that I would bring up, a category which is transversal, which would be measurements of IGF impact or IGF procedures.

 Two of the developing countries' workshops that I selected, one of them is the only workshop proposal that measures what happens in the region after the IGF happens there. 

 It is a proposal by northeast Brazil, proposed right after IGF 2015 happened there, so the people from the region talking about what happened in the region after IGF passed there.  It's proposal 169, and it had a 3.6 score and I do believe we need to have in mind those measurements which are not in any criteria but should be an important data indicative of the importance of the IGF.  And coming from a developing country, coming from new proposers, this workshop proposal should be definitely taken into account by the MAG.

 Also, 127 --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Actually, Renata, can we just stop with that one there and --


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- I would be interested in seeing if there were any other comments or support for proposal 169. 

 I'll give everybody a minute to find it in their dashboard or in the Excel spreadsheet.  I mean, again, this is the process we used last year where we looked for champions to stand up and talk about why they thought the proposal was worthy of a workshop slot and engaged in some relatively brief discussions and then opted to leave them in or pull them out.  I'll give you all just a minute to look it up. 

 You said it was rated 3.6, right?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  It's row 138 in the spreadsheet that was sent out.  148.

 >>UNESCO:  Thank you.  I find it difficult to proceed it in this way, Lynn.  Last year, I remember when we proceed that way, we kept the top 70 and then we go through the list.  It's easier for all of us to figure out which one is what.  And then we go through the -- maybe the next 20, 30, and then we have maybe 20 or 30 slots that are flexible if anyone can pump up with what they feel strong about it. 

 And this way I feel it's more fair.  Because with respect, with the scores by the MAG members, we already got our experts and we should trust them, their judgment, that they have really evaluated every proposal considering all the dimensions.  We should really respect this order and then we -- by -- in this way, we really have an opportunity to look at every proposal in order, in priority, by the -- set by the MAG member, and rather than going too early to the ad hoc proposals by some.

 So I'm just a little concerned about -- I think last year that went well, because in this way, and also maybe Mike has said that it is more practical that we can look at every five proposals together after top 60.  We go through the -- from 61 to 65 and then every five, and then people can come up whenever they feel something very strong about it.  Would this be a better procedure rather than going to the sheet?  I couldn't find it actually.  So difficult every time when somebody come up with numbers.  It's just not working so well as what we did last year.

 Sorry to intervene.  I'm not a MAG member, just as an officer, I feel it's more comfortable in that way.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you.

 We can certainly do that if it's easier for everybody to manage through the spreadsheet that way.  I think, you know, that means we probably have a bias towards the -- those that were rated more highly, but then I would also request that we come back and we do look at some of the other categories that people feel strongly about that we've had a couple of strong interventions that really say it's probably worthwhile looking at some of the developing country proposals and the first-time proposers to see which ones which maybe weren't rated quite so high still have a lot of good ideas and can, in fact, be mentored and nurtured in.  That is a big piece of what we all said we wanted to do and a big piece of the diversity we were looking for in this workshop selection.

 So Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thanks, Lynn.

 I think I -- I think that makes better sense.  So for the next 20, so from what we were doing earlier -- right? -- from basically 62 to 80, so just to go through that first and then see if that makes sense or if there's any strong objections.  And then the following, I think, 30 -- I think there's about 30 left, right?  Something like that.  That's the ones where we used the criteria, including the criteria of all of this:  developing -- perspectives from developing countries, new proposer, you know, points that you've raised as well, those to help us and champion and pull that probably is a much more logical way.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think it will certainly be less confusing for everybody in the room.

 So then the proposal is to look at the 61st through 65th rated, which I guess is on Lines 62 through 66 in the Excel spreadsheet.  And we either have a presumption that they're in unless people speak against them, since they were rated so highly, or we go through each one of them and look for a champion and look for a quick sense of the room as to whether they're in. 


 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thanks.  I'm sorry if I'm misremembering, but for 60 -- Lines 62 through the last number that you gave, Lynn, do we have an indication of which of those didn't meet those minimum criteria?  Because the ones you gave earlier, Chengetai, were 1 through 60, right?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  So that might be a way to -- at least to have a -- sorry to ask for another calculation.  I know you guys are spending a lot of hard work doing that.  I appreciate it.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  That's a good point.  Avri, did you just say that 63 didn't --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  63 and what?


 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So 63 and 69 would --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So Line Numbers 72 and 85 did not meet the criteria, would be asterisked and set to the side.  And I do hope Eleonora, Brian, or somebody are keeping a clear track of these.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Let me just clarify with --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So it's row 72 and 85, ID number 63 and 69.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And these 46 -- are these ID numbers?  This 46, 204 --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, ID numbers, uh-huh.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  So I know there are professional systems that do this better --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- and probably professional workshop evaluators that do this better than me as well. 

 Chengetai gave us four ID numbers earlier.  46, 204, 118, and 225.  So if we can -- and Avri has just given us the line numbers which Chengetai translated to the ID numbers.  If we can make sure that we speak, ultimately, when we're doing things, in ID numbers --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Right.  I know. 

 But -- so we're going to need to be clear whether we're on Excel line numbers or ID numbers.

 So the two additional ID numbers are 63 and 69 that do not meet the minimum criteria, so are asterisked and set to the side.

 Chengetai and Avri, was that out of the first 80, then?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Out of the first 85?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  So just to underline this, then, out of the first 85 proposals that were ranked most high by the MAG members, there are six that do not meet the minimum requirement.  And I think we all have those numbers now, right?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sure.  The six proposal ID numbers that do not meet the minimum requirements that are, at the moment, just asterisked and set to the side are 46, 204, 118, 225, 63, and 69. 

 So if we go back to the -- I've got two more people in the queue which I'll come to in a moment and then when that's done, I think the plan is to go back to the Excel spreadsheet, look at line item 62, I guess, Excel sheet line item, see if we can take -- again, I don't have the sheet open -- I do have the sheet open in front of me but I can't see it, actually.

 We can either take that one as an individual proposal and look for quick support as to whether or not it should be in or not or we can take a group of three or four, as Michael suggested.  I'm sort of agnostic either way.

 At the moment, I have Cheryl in the queue, Shita, and then Rasha.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Just Rasha has a question.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>RASHA ABDULLA: May I suggest that we maybe go by line number because it's easier to find the ID rather than going up and down.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We are.  No, we are.  So we're on Line --

 >>RASHA ABDULLA: I thought we were going by ID number now.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We're going by line number.  Line Number 62.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So Chengetai is suggesting we try and use both because some people have sorted their Excel spreadsheets according to different sort criteria and therefore don't have the original Excel spreadsheet in front.

 So we can do that.  I think our -- as our first starting salvo, we ought to say the line number from the rated worksheet that the secretariat sent out, and I will look to Chengetai to give us the ID number that's associated with the Excel line number.

 So I'll let you do that in a moment.  You can line up the Excel Line Number 62 with whatever the ID number is while I go to Cheryl and Shita who are in the queue. 

 So Cheryl, you have the floor.

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thanks.  I just wanted to clarify because I'm -- I think I'm still confused on a couple of points.

 When we're saying the minimum requirement, is that the -- not having the background paper?  Is that what we mean?  Or are there other minimum requirements?  That's just my --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  I'm sorry?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  With it being a panel and the background paper.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  And also the -- so the work -- past workshop --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  What we're using at the moment is that workshop report.  If you held one previously, if you're not a first -- first-time proposer, you should have a workshop report.  So if you don't have one, you are disqualified. 

 And then if you have a panel and you don't have a background paper, you are put into the limbo.

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Okay.  And second question.  I think I heard something earlier but I might have misheard.

 So are there plenaries for the best practice forums and also workshops, or did we decide that we were moving just with plenaries for those or --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  Best practice forums and the main sessions are a different discussion.

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Completely different discussion.


 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Okay.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Cheryl.  Shita, you have the floor.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  I would like to support proposals, but if it's not the time yet for the top 65, then I should not -- I should do it later.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We've actually passed the top 60.  Right.  So now we're looking at line item 62, workshop ID number --


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  170?


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  170.  So the floor is open to either support or, if somebody feels strongly that that's not an appropriate workshop for the slot, to state so.

 Please get in the queue, Rasha.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Chair.  170 is about Internet of Things and I found one, two, three, four, five, six workshops around Internet of Things.  Three of those workshops, I think, are in the top 60.  35, 170 that we are seeing now, and 188.

 So I strongly suggest at least to do the intent of merger.  That could give some slot space.  Because, you know, here between us, three workshops on Internet of Things I think is too much.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yeah.  I'm not sure an absolute number is a criteria for ruling something out.  If we want, we can put those three workshop proposals up, look at them, see if we think they're substantially different or not, and if not, the MAG can certainly recommend that we go to a lesser number.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  35, 170, and 188.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I will give you the whole group because maybe some on the bottom.  So 35, 123, 139, 170, 181, and 188.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  All those.

 >> (Off microphone.)


 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  67 is also Internet of Things?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  No, no, no.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  No, no.  Okay.  Maybe I missed one.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So when the MAG members reviewed, I'm assuming people noted that there were quite a number on. 

 Are there any proposals coming from the MAG members for either merging or choosing one or two because they were more substantive than others?

 I have Jivan in the queue, Marilyn, and Jac.  Please use the queue. 


 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  I would be against taking out any proposal because there are others in there.  And especially in Internet of Things, I think this is a topic I would recommend next year's IGF be about the Internet of Things.  I think it's such an important issue that we're not looking at properly.  But -- so, just two cents on that.  I don't want to take any more time on that.  But I think it's a very important topic.

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

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 Let me see if I can just go back for a minute.  I think we also talked about ultimately the need to have some balance.  And so I think it was very difficult for MAG members to keep track since we didn't have the workshops in clusters.  You had to look for both the description and then the tags.  I think it was so very -- I personally think we have either six or seven workshops on a topic in order to have balance.  I think it would be overwhelmingly challenging to have seven workshops on the same topic without our looking at them.  I know we're going to have that same number on human rights, that same number on privacy, that same number on access and diversity.  But I think we get that many, whatever the topic is, I think we need to park them and come back and look at them.

 Some of them may fall under the rating, but they might have speakers we could move or recommend moving.  And that might mean we end up with four.  But I think we have to think about ultimately balance.  But maybe we can't do it at this step.  Instead we flag them like Juan did so we now know we have seven.  And then we come back and we think about how we balance everything.  We might regain one or two.

 I'm going to back to the question Cheryl asked because I heard you say, Chair, that the discussion about the best practice forums and the main sessions is later, but I need to ask a clarifying question.  In my notes -- I could be wrong -- I thought there was the suggestion we were reserving both workshop slots and for both best practice forums and dynamic coalitions, there was a number mentioned five or 11.  And then we also have main session proposals for best practice forums and dynamic coalitions.  So if we don't decide that we're going to -- if we're going to allow what would be workshop slots to be allocated to all of the best practice forums and all of the dynamic coalitions, I'll just say we're going to have a challenge because the NRIs have agreed to just have a main practice session and not be crowding the workshop slots. 

 I just park for something to come back to, to understand how we manage space.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So Chengetai has just clarified that the slots that are set aside for the best practice forums and the dynamic coalitions, which I believe are at their request, are not part of the hundred workshop slots that are there. 

 Is this the same practices we followed last year? 

 So it's the same practices we followed last year.  If the NRIs want some additional rooms or something so they can do something similar, meet amongst themselves, we can look at a way to accommodate that within the venue.  But certainly for best practice forums, these were requests for them.  And I think the work do is significant enough that allocating five slots for them for their work is not a bad idea.  I think it's a good idea to be on the positive side.

 If the dynamic coalitions are more worrisome because they are more numbers, then we can talk to that later.


 Michael, you have the floor.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Real quickly, I agree with Marilyn that just because a topic has lots of proposals, particularly if the topic is as broad as Internet of Things or sustainable development, that's not a reason to knock things out.  We have to look for similarities. 

 About half of these proposals are on Internet of Things in less developed countries.  And I wanted to strongly support the one we were just arguing about because of the ones that I've looked at -- and I know a lot about the Internet of Things -- this was the strongest one in my opinion.  And it is very well-rated by everyone else, too.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  You're talking specifically to workshop proposal 170?

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  There are some mergers.  There is another one -- number 69 in particular is one that could be merged and it brings some more expertise from the less developed countries.  But I don't think it's a good merger with this one.  It's a better merger with one of the other Internet of Things one.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  69 was one of the ones we asterisked and set to the side because it didn't meet the criteria.

 Let me go through the queue.  I have Dominique Lazanski. 

 You have the floor, Dominique.

 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Thank you.  Good afternoon, everybody.  I have two comments.  One is a general overall comment and then one about this particular workshop and IoT.

 Just having sat through the morning and also this afternoon, it's clear that we're going to need to think strongly for next year about not just a framework and sort of a set of principles for how we're going to do this next year but also how we would like to see the content and the workshops displayed and perhaps improve that tool.  But I will leave that to the side for now.

 The other thing I just wanted to say is I know I'm a speaker on this particular IoT panel, but I strongly support the actual -- the workshop.  But I strongly support it as well. 

 Chris was on a panel on IoT at EuroDIG, and also he's organized many panels before, and RIPE NCC.  And the people he got together other than me obviously are -- it's a really interesting panel. 

 And in general, just to comment on IoT, I think it's probably one of the most important emerging issues that we're dealing with at the GSMA, particularly for developed countries across standards, across enabling a development of everything from access to resources to things like that.  So I just completely think it really needs to be -- a lot of these workshops need to be considered because as Jivan said, it's really, really important.

 So thank you.

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


 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  I withdraw my opportunity to speak.  Dominique and Michael have already mentioned what I want to say.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And, Izumi, you have the floor.

 >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Thank you, Chair.  I would like to join in supporting to make sure that we have 170 -- proposal 170.  The reason being that I think this actually makes very specific approach and relevant to the IGF by the fact that we have other stakeholders, not just a technical community or the people who are directly involved in the IoT industry but then calling for collaboration between the technical and policy as well as calling for specific standards for IoT vendors, which is the kind of opportunity that we need for wider outreach and making sure that we raise awareness to the groups of people who are not just related to the IoT itself but then for wider policy or technical considerations.  That's the reason why I support inclusion of the IoT 170 proposal.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you.

 There's nobody else in the queue at the moment.  But let me see if we can progress on this.  I also agree it's -- I don't think our starting position can be if there's some -- more than some number of proposals, that they're automatically ruled out or that it's automatically a bad situation.

 Chengetai is checking right now to see which one of the six or seven numbers that Juan read out are actually in the top 85.

 Right now I would park those six or seven workshops, and Chengetai can complete the analysis.  From my perspective, if there were three of them that are in the top 85 or so, then we let those go for the moment.  We can note sort of on a flip-chart notion that there was a comment that perhaps there are too many IoT workshops and come back and review those if we really find ourselves pressed in some other time.  181 and 188.

 And it sounds like we should count on 170 coming in.  There were significant support for that in the room.

 So if we go -- asking you to change again, Chengetai.

 [ Laughter ]

 If we go to the next batch below the 62 cut-off, what are the -- we were looking at the five from 62 to 67 or something, or the Excel line item numbers, which I think work for most of you.  But those of you that have sorted them through ID numbers, the ID numbers you need to look up are 62 to 67.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So line number 63 is workshop number 60, "TransPacific partnership, good or bad for the Internet."  And then line number 64 is workshop number 6, "Can law enforcement catch bad actors online anymore?"

 Line number 65 is workshop ID number 160, "Social media and youth radicalization in the digital age."

 Line number 66, workshop ID 30, "Strategic litigation, freedom of expression online, southeast Asia."

 Line number 67 is workshop ID 91, "The power of noncommercial users on the Internet."

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So, again, these are presumed to be strong candidates for the workshop -- to be selected as workshop proposals, given their high rankings.  Is there anyone who wants to speak against any of the proposals that are there or any other concerns with any there in the group?

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you.  I'm sorry to take the floor again, but I'm just doing my job because in the evaluation, you put a slot for mergers, otherwise that's why I'm saying.  We're supposed to do that.  I don't mean that automatically we have to merge.  Only we have to, as Marilyn said, to flag it out and then to do the analysis.

 Coming back to 60, that is TransPacific, we have five workshop proposals in that topic.  And through my count, two of them are in the top 60.  We have -- you can write it down and you can check.  We have 20 -- workshop 20, 60, the one we are looking now, 145, 222, and 246.  All those are related in TransPacific and trade agreements and TransPacific. 

 Then we can take a closer look and see if it's valid to have all those or not, okay?  I think it's not the moment now to analyze that.  Maybe later on.  Just we have to flag it.  Please do it.  Otherwise, I will never mention any merger, but I think I should.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think your comments are very helpful, Juan.  So please don't stop.

 I think it's a matter of trying to process how many are similar with how many are assumed in.  Again, if it's a relatively small number, I don't know if the highest priority work for this group is to go away and look at everything that's around some topic and try to restructure them.  We have a lot of workshop proposals to evaluate still.

 We have noted those that are similar there, though. 

 And, again, Chengetai, I don't know if there's somebody else from the secretariat that can even help you.  Maybe you can even manage the spreadsheet and they can manage when -- as Juan has just -- Eleonora. 

 So, Eleonora, as Juan has identified those six that are similar, if we can note those six and look and see which ones are actually in the top 85 so we understand whether or not we have kind of the size of the problem we actually have.

 >> (off microphone).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  You have the floor. 

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Okay.  Just as an example, because we are not covering the workshops more up in the list.  But I think Mike Nelson mentioned, we have two very similar workshops and was proposed by the same people.  It is 113 and 115.  They are number 20 and number 23 in the list.  And they are very similar and are proposed by the same people.  So I think we need to take a look at that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So this is exactly what this discussion is for.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  But this is up or up.  We should not give those -- take it for granted all those lists of 60 up.  We have to take a look at all of those.  That's why I'm telling you that the grading is only a guidance.  We have to look at.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And we do.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Check out 113 and 115.  They are the same people on similar topics.  I'm sure there's some others that I missed because, you know, I'm not --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So we will note those.  We will note those.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm not infallible.

 [ Multiple speakers ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We will note those and come back to those as an exception.  That's noted.

 I have quite a long queue now.  So, Sala, you have the floor.

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  This won't take long.  Just to add to Juan's list on trade, I'll just read out the numbers.  There are actually 34, 56, 60, 106, 118, 124, 145, 156, and 222.  And I noted that two of those workshops were at least similar thing, TPP, were being facilitated by the same person.  That's just to add an extra three.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think one of the things that's becoming clear -- and I think it was Dominique mentioned -- I think in future years we should probably do more preprocessing or prepackaging probably before they actually go out for ratings because, I mean, we haven't even started talking about human rights or privacy or access which are probably going to have 30, 40, 50 workshop numbers associated with them.  So I'm not quite sure how this particular exercise is going to work as we roll out to some of the others.

 And I think we have to assume if there are many, many workshop proposals on a topic, then it's because there are many people that are interested in them and have high interest.  And I think we need to do our best to ensure that there's not an imbalance in the number and certainly that they're not redundant and that the same group isn't putting in the same proposal under two different names.  And if people have examples of that, they should call that out.  Maybe we start collecting a list or something that the secretariat can help us walk through.

 I don't know a better way -- believe me, right now, I wish I did -- know a better way to process through some of those.

 So let me go back to the list.  Jivan, you are next on the list.  You have the floor.

 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  So I think that every year we come to this point where to merge or not to merge, and I think that there is always this feedback that every years it's considered and the conclusion is it's too complex.  And I guess the complexity is that you make two or more workshop proposals or coordinators say you should meet and then see how it goes and then it's either a power thing that determines the outcome or something else.

 But there is perhaps another option, and I think that Juan, first of all, made a good point in the sense that we've given the possibility.  But we've never really fully explored the possibility.  If we are given it, we should explore it. 

 In order to explore it, perhaps the answer is a more active role by some of us or someone to curate a topic.

 So perhaps -- for instance, for Internet of Things, I'd volunteer to curate workshops that are around that and perhaps an active moderation.  So you invite the people who are interested in this and instead of a panel of two, three people speaking, a lot more people and it's very active.  That's a job for either a very skilled moderator, but it's a skill.  So it's learned, and perhaps some of us can do it in order to come to some interesting insights on that given issue. 

 Perhaps this is something that we should consider, if there is an area where somebody's interested in kind of diving into and curating this topic to a main session perhaps.  So even if there's a main session on that topic, you curate, you participate in the workshops and then participate in a main session in that form.  So that is for that issue.

 The second is that every year, again, we keep on -- there's a lot of good ideas about how to make the process better.  And I'm sure that we lose about 80% of them by the end of the year.  Just a quick proposal to create a bucket and the bucket is a mailing list, improve MAG process X in gov.org.  So anyone who has an idea can put in a quick like subject like with a hashtag that is in a given area.  And then within the body, this is what I think about this.  This process can be better like this, and that's it.  And that meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, we look at that bucket and see.  We kind of turn it over and go over it and see what are good ideas, what are worthy ideas.  So just an idea.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We could definitely use a better way to track possible improvements and then certainly a better way to advance them.

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thanks.  I just want to support that bucket list mailing list.  That's a really great idea.  And just so that we're not going back and forth, back and forth, can we stick to the going up to 85 and can we not open up every single topic because I think it is -- you are absolutely right.  If there's a lot of workshop proposals that talks about a particular topic, it's because it is of great interest, and if we look through all of it, it's going to be very difficult and it will then end up being a bit of a subjective decision-making.  But if we wanted to look at repeats, then I think repeats in terms of organizers, that's fair, yeah?  If it's the same organizer, same topic, then that's fair, but maybe after we go through this process, then we go back to see if there's repeats, just to make sure we're moving forward.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's a very good suggestion, Jac, and I think if we get to close to 85, that leaves us with 15, probably a few more, that we can actually flex in tomorrow in terms of diversity, but that also means that overnight, with apologies to the secretariat, the secretariat can go away and rerun those statistics and we can look at things such as the proposers and all those other things and come back and do a high-level view.

 Also, I think if people really are concerned that there are just too many in that top 85, because hopefully by the end of today's session we know what the recommendation at that point in time is for the top 80, 85, we can go away and look at that as well and see if there's two redundant.  We can all look at our own ratings and our own -- and see if there's any topics we want to bring up as exceptions because we now think there's just far too many of Internet of Things or far too many of -- so we can all do that subjective analysis on the 85 and come back and have that discussion tomorrow morning.

 So there's heads shaking -- mostly yes -- around the room.  So with that, I'll just go to the rest of the queue.  I have Mike Nelson in the queue.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Yes.  I wanted to build on what Juan had to say about mergers, although there are a number of these cybersecurity ones, and the one merger that he proposed I don't think is quite as effective as the merger between 115 and 116, which I think would be a much better fit.

 The other place I think we definitely need to have mergers is on these panels about trade because while we sometimes have nice geographic diversity and even gender diversity, for at least three of them we have no political diversity.  Basically you have the same people saying the same thing and nobody able to rebut them.

 So for the one that we were just talking about, number 60, I would propose merging that with number 145, which is on digital trade, and I think that would provide some balance and also would get us a stronger panel overall.  Thank you.

 Can I speak up vehemently for number -- it's Line Number 64, I believe.  It's the one on law enforcement catching the bad guys.  Is that -- which one is that?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  It's ID number 6.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Number 6.  Yeah.  Line 64.  That was -- you know, it was obviously one of the top 63 that we selected.  It was also one of the very top in standard deviation, which to me means that there's a good controversy there and we don't have anybody else talking about these issues so it's a unique opportunity.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  So if I'm staying with the process here, we have ruled in 170, which was line item 62.  I think for the moment, we're leaving 60 in, but it feels like there's probably a check we should come back and look at tomorrow to look at whether or not the Trans-Pacific Partnership is overrepresented in the workshops that are there.

 And there was strong support just now for ID number 6, Line 64.

 Is there anybody that wants to speak against those so we can -- going to Jac's strong suggestion that we continue moving through the process that way? 

 We're okay?  Lots of heads nodding yes.

 Peter, you are the next in the queue.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Chair.  Peter Dengate Thrush.  I just thought I'd begin by saying we have to recall why we're in this position.  We lost quite a lot of time because of the mandate decision in December.  We would normally have had these earlier and would have had more time and I think that would have led, perhaps, to some of this conversation on line and we should look to that next year.

 First of all, I have to agree with Juan.  When I was grading these things, I gave a number of competing proposals the same score.  Sometimes it was a 5.  Because the criteria aren't fine enough for me to discriminate.  And so we need to come here and discuss amongst ourselves which of the five 5s go through and under what process.  So I strongly agree with that kind of concept, that we need to have some way of breaking them down and we need to do it as a group.

 I actually voted quite heavily against the two you are saying that we should put in, 170 and 6, and I have a technical question for Chengetai about proposal 6, Line 64.

 This is one of the many proposals that doesn't actually link to a report.  It links to the same people having a session and a previous agenda.

 Now, is that a -- is that a technical problem?  Are we linking to the wrong document?  Or are we linking to the only thing we've got on these people which is their previous performance?

 So can we clarify?  I mean, that -- if you have a look at that -- and there's many of these.  The link is not actually to a report on their session, it's to the agenda item from a previous IGF that says these people are going to run a session.  That's a previous proposal, not -- in other words, it's the anterior paper, not the posterior one.

 So if we can check that, because as I said, I found many, many of these are not actually reports, they are, you know, appearances in the agenda -- in the calendar.  Because that might get rid of or cause us to review a number of them.

 And I'm vaguely uneasy, I have to say, at the idea that there are people championing individual projects.  I'm not quite sure if there's a better way, but what it tends to mean is that those topics or those groups that have good advocates on the MAG will get away with more than those who have lesser advocates, and that brings up culture and language and all sorts of issues about who's on the MAG and who are good advocates.  It's going to prejudice developing countries, new MAG members, people who don't work in English.  So I'm not sure that there's a better way but I think we need to be aware that simply because a group of topics has a good bunch of advocates may not mean that those topics are actually any better than any others, and I -- I just recall the -- my uneasiness about that as a process.

 I don't have a better solution, I'm afraid.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No, and I think your last point is very valid.  The only thing I would say is that these were ranked -- the proposals we're discussing at the moment were ranked very highly but all those MAG members, so that's my kind of comfort cushion, if you will, with this model.  I think it does change as we get down to those that didn't have a high level of support.

 And the -- the two that we just sort of stated were in were on the basis of the fact that they're in the top 80, they got high ranks, a couple of people spoke to them, and there was support around the room for including them and no strong position for not including them.

 So that wasn't a chair preference; it was, you know, a reading from the room.

 I think the other point you mentioned gives me a little more pause, which is, if in fact they really don't have proper reports associated with them, following our previous conversation where we ruled -- where we set aside those six, we're now possibly having to look at setting aside some other number, and I don't quite know how to assess that and I'm hoping that, you know, some of the adjectives people have used around here come back to us a low number, just as the previous conversation just gave us those six that fell out.

 I don't even know if there's any sort of quick way for the secretariat to go through and make sure that the reports that are associated are reports as opposed to just an other agenda link.

 I also think that we kind of went through this this morning as well, and said -- and Peter, in fact, it was you who said, "I think that's probably a refinement for later if we're meant to judge the quality of the reports and things."  I take it there's a fundamental difference if it's simply a link to a previous agenda as opposed to an attempted report, but in the queue just now I have Cheryl, Laura, and Michael. 

 And do I want to make sure everybody is being thoughtful about ensuring everybody gets a chance to take the floor too.  So Cheryl, you have the floor.

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Chair.  I think just very quickly, in looking at proposal -- I guess it's 60, I think there could be better diversity.  I think someone mentioned that earlier, but I would vote the same on that.  And I think there's a pretty close assimilation between 60 and 20 as well, so I don't know if merger is appropriate or not, but that's something we should definitely consider.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Cheryl.  Let me just check with the -- I mean, I assume when comments are made like this, like there could be very diversity in workshop 60, that that's actually noted and that the secretariat takes it away and -- okay.  I'm just wanting to be sure we don't lose all the value in this conversation.

 Laura, you have the floor.

 >>LAURA WATKINS:  Thank you, Chair. 

 Just a point of admin on workshop 6, where it was noted that it linked to the proposal from the previous year.  If you click through to the proposal, there is a link from there into the workshop report from the previous year.  I guess it's just a kind of admin link in how the Web site works.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  From what I can see is that they do have the links to the report.  It's just buried a little bit deeper in the...

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you, Laura.

 Julian, you have the floor.

 >>JULIAN CASASBUENAS:  Thank you, Madam Chair.

 Just highlighting again the issue of remote participation.  I see on proposal 30 and 160 there is very poor plans for remote participation.  If we select them, I suggest that we encourage to make a better plan so we can get more participation.

 For instance, 30 proposal has the same person as remote moderator and rapporteur.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Those are excellent points.  We'll note that.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I mean, we can send out conditional acceptance, "We'll accept your proposal if you make changes A, B, or C" or something like that.  Yeah.

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

 So in terms of the last grouping we were just looking at, we're down to the last two there, which were line items 65 and 66 and ID numbers 160 and 30.

 Is there anybody who wants to speak against their inclusion or anybody who has any other things which we think should be addressed before, at this point, I guess ruling them in?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO: Hi.  This is Ephraim.  Just I went through this number 160.  I acknowledge that this is a group of experts.  It's a great idea to have this debate.  But then my emphasis would be that they increase the remote participation angle, especially because it focuses on the young people, because the people who are going to debate are not necessarily young people, per se, but then also apart from that, also (indiscernible) to the Mexican government to make sure that the young who are going to be there participate especially in this session because this is something that is affecting us young people.  And I can speak as the youngest person in this room, 24 years.  This is something that is affecting us.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ephraim.  A good comment.

 Izumi is in the queue next.  Izumi, you have the floor.

 >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Thank you, Chair.  Regarding workshop 60, I think that the theme and the topic itself is good and I support having this, but I don't really see a clear description on which speaker will speak for a particular perspective and I think it would be better to have clarity on how different speakers will share, like, their various positions and perspectives on that workshop.  So just a suggestion for improvement.

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

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chair.  Now I'm confused.  Are we talking now 160 or are we still in -- back in 60?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No, no, the -- it was workshop ID number 160.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  160.  Okay.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Which is line item 65.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes, yes.  No, because Izumi was speaking about 60.  She spoke about 60, not 160.  Okay.  But now I'm in 160.

 Okay.  Again, I'm sorry to say that 160 is in the topic of Jews and radicalization and speech and we have five similar workshop proposals and I'm going to say the numbers so you can write it out.  31, 96, 131, 160, and 180.  And of those, 96 and 160 are in the top 60.  So maybe, again, we have to take a look if it's feasible to merge those two because 96 also is about 160.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So I think we can put those two together.  I want to make sure we're not trying to set a trend because frankly I think that topic is extremely important from both -- both aspects of it, which is not -- neither -- just wait a second, Juan -- neither here nor there.  I'm only trying to set a principle that says simply because there are two which have a similar title in the top 60 doesn't mean they should immediately be looked at for a merger opportunity to save a slot. 

 If there's a lot of topics on similar items, it's because there's very high interest in them. 

 So I think we can note that the two are very similar and are in, and we can determine a process where maybe tomorrow we come back and look at these that do have, you know, similarity that are all in the top 60 or the top 80. 

 So we'll look at that but I want to make sure we're just not slipping into a principle that I --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes, of course, Chair.  I'm in your hands.  I'm just pointing that out because I think that's my duty.  If you want, I will never point out mergers but it was in the -- but I don't say that automatically we should do it, we should merge it.  I agree with you, this is an important topic, but we have to take a look.  If it's similar, if it's the same persons, if it's -- we have to take a look.  That's what I'm doing.  If you want, I won't do it.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  I agree and we've noted it and as I said before, I do want you to keep highlighting where you think there's a lot of commonality or similarity.

 So are there any more comments on the last two proposals that were in that last batch that we just put forward?  Again, those are ID numbers 160 and 30.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >> Thanks, Madam Chair.  So I wanted to comment on workshop 160.  Like the reason why I didn't really think it's a good, because it does -- in the description, it says a lot about UNESCO and then their project, and I think it's important to accept this -- if we were to accept and go ahead with this proposal, to have it conditioned that they have more young people involved, because I think this is an important topic, as Ephraim mentioned.  And, you know, having them to describe, you know, why.  And I'm sure they are really keen to participate because they're activists online, you know, in this context. 

 So I think it's important to accept it on the condition that youth are involved.  And similarly, remote participation would be one goal and one means to it, but I think without too much youth participation, I don't think that would be a fruitful discussion.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's a good comment. 

 Michael Nelson, you have the floor.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just I agree strongly with what was just said.  It is an important topic, but a more diverse panel would be great.

 Quick question on mergers.  Is there any way that we can take the data that we all submitted about proposed mergers to find out if there are places where five or six or 10 of us all suggested the same merger?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I mean, the obvious answer to that is yes, and I guess it depends on whether or not we're looking at hundreds of possible merger combinations, but we should be able to do that, even if we get clever with respect to sorting it in an Excel spreadsheet.  You know, "This merger proposal came in and it linked these five in or" -- I don't know.  What do you think, Chengetai?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  We just have to look at the data to see whether or not the mergers are all in one line or we have to go through -- manually go through every single one of the individual ones and manually rate them.  Then that will be a bit of a problem.  But we can always change that for next year as well, make it -- make it a drop-down menu so that the database can automatically count these mergers.

 But we'll take a look and get back to you on that.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Elizabeth, you have the floor.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  Thank you, Chair.  So I don't -- I heard you mention ID number 30, which is Line 66, and I don't have a problem with the particular proposal but I -- I wanted to test a way in which we -- we exercise the ability to choose at this juncture or that we find ourselves choosing by not choosing.

 So I raise the point that in Chengetai's analysis that freedom of expression is a very heavily used tag, overused tag, compared to some of the others, and this is a regional proposal, and so I would just like to know whether we want to look at that kind of a rebalancing in over- -- like pushing aside or not accepting something at this juncture in favor of being able to consider others that might help us balance this.  And I really don't have a strong opinion on this particular workshop.  It's just to test that idea of, if we accept this because we have no strong objection, we're actually then choosing by not choosing to exclude others that might have a new contribution.  So I put that out there, if that -- if that's clear.  I'm sorry.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  I mean, I think it's quite clear.  Again, I come back to if it's rated out there by highly all the MAG members that actually looked at the proposal and they looked at all the other proposals, you know, we can only assume in the absence of a lot more specific data that they thought this was worthy of a specific slot.  If you think it is taking away from something, then maybe we can note it and when we get to enough of the program identified -- again, it's not final until it's final -- but enough of the program identified, then we perhaps could come back and look at it.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  (off microphone).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Could you give Elizabeth the mic, please.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  Yes, my concern is only about the rebalancing issue and that we can't -- if we -- in part of our exercise in reviewing this and -- this is maybe my perception that is not actually something we agree to, is that we don't want to have an imbalanced, overall arching area of subjects.  And I'm not saying the number of proposals that are on one particular topic.  But I mean overall, we're dealing with this one issue a lot more than all the other issues.  And as a result, we think we have an imbalance.  We won't get there.  We won't even arrive at the others unless where we have an overrepresentation and perhaps something else that makes this very specific or regional or a little bit less perfect than some of the others that are there.  So I put it out there.

 I think it's maybe something we can park into -- for that rebalancing exercise tomorrow.  I throw it up there.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think where we are, is if we can get to the top 80 before the end of the day today, then the secretariat can go away and rerun all the profiles so we know which stakeholders, which region, which set of tags, first-time proposer versus returning and maybe then do a "does this look sensible," "does this look reasonable" on the basis of what our goal was when we established the criteria for the workshop proposals and on the basis of what was submitted.  Because we have to assume what was submitted is an indication of the interest and what people find would make a good program.  But I think we can do that large look tomorrow when we have the bulk of them. 

 UNESCO, you have the floor.

 >>XIANHONG HU:  Thank you so much.  I ask for the MAG members to support the workshop 160 on social media and youth maximization.  Yes, I really fully agree to bring young people to speak and participate. 

 Last year we sponsored a (indiscernible) activist to Brazil.  This year we are trying to do the same thing. 

 By my definition, people under 30 years old can be deemed as young.  For that, I was criticized he was not young enough.  He was in his 20s.  How about the teenager? 

 In that sense, I would think it's important that if the Mexico organizer can organize a youth ambassador from middle school, high school, even university to the IGF, like this session, I really welcome the teenager to be there.  They are using Twitter -- they are not using Twitter.  They are using Instagram, different social media.  They are stakeholders to be there. 

 So if we can organize young people from Mexico, definitely they can be there to join the debates, to challenge our experts if our theory, our recommendations are valid or not.  Thank you.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  I agree completely and I think your input is extremely available.  My approach to it is we need to review the format of certain panels -- of the working groups.

 They -- they have a different conversation.  They engage differently.  They talk about things in a way that we don't even begin to scratch.

 This group -- and I respect it fully -- it's extremely well versed into technical details, into human rights aspects, and so on and so forth.

 The young generation, really their mind-set is using social media.  They're -- they just want to engage, they want to work wherever they want to work, they want to live and use technology differently.  So our opinion and perspective is to really change part of that mind-set on our own, even on the government side, to understand how to engage with them and how to make it -- this conversation valuable to them.

 So we definitely welcome input to do so, and on our side we're connecting to local colleges and universities to bring them forward and understand how they can have a voice heard and a voice really in the -- within the forum.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Victor.  I want to try and go for a close on the last two.  160 and 30 are the ID numbers.  65 and 66 are the line numbers.  And, again, our assumption is that without a specific strong objection, that they are ruled in for this first subset.

 Shita, you're in the queue.  Did you want to speak to that directly?  Okay.  Shita, you have the floor.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Madam Chair. 

 I would like to support actually proposals number 30 because this issue is very relevant to southeast Asia, and there is an really ongoing threat of freedom of expression in this country -- in this region.  Litigation (indiscernible). 

 And I think regarding the balancing mentioned earlier, there is less than ten proposals coming from southeast Asia.  This is already a balancing of proposals.  Thank you.

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

 Avri, you were in the queue, but just disappeared. 

 Rasha, you have the floor.

 >> RASHA ABDULLA:  My comment is on mergers.  I'm not sure if it is a good time.  A brief comment. 

 I just think maybe we should consider why and when do we want to merge workshops because as helpful as that might be, at some point, I don't think simply merging sessions because they're on the same topic is valid.  It seems what we are doing is figuring out similar hashtags, which is a fine thing.  I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. 

 And maybe for next year -- because I'm thinking of what we can do better next year, maybe we can have on the submission form for the speakers, maybe we can actually sort of confine them to certain hashtags so we can do better things into categories and then also have the workshops searchable by speaker so that if you can click on a speaker's name, you can immediately figure out how much sessions is that speaker on and you can maybe rank them according to the number of sessions each speaker is on.  So if we have one speaker that is on five sessions, then immediately that may be a sign.  Maybe the system can have a maximum number of submissions that one speaker can be on.  If somebody else is trying to submit a session with the same speaker, then the system would flag out something that says, you know, that speaker has already reached the maximum number of sessions or something.  And that would save us some...

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  The future is can looking brighter than this afternoon for sure.

 [ Laughter ]

 Thank you, Rasha.  We are ruling IDs 160 and 130 in again for the moment in this exercise of the top 80.  Okay. 

 Then Chengetai is going to give us the next batch which would be 67 through 70 Excel line items.  Actually, I have it here if you want now.

 They're ID numbers 91, 266, 178 and 20.  Again, it's 467 through -70 Excel line item numbers.

 Any overall comments, reflections?  Did any of the raters in your notes have any concerns and anything you think we should bring to the attention?  Just give everybody a minute to look through them.  I'm guessing no strong objections to them and no concerns either. 

 Sala, are you looking for the floor?  Oh, sorry.  Igor, you have the floor and then Michael.

 >>IGOR OSTROWSKI:  Thank you very much.  Just a comment on 108.  We were just chatting about it.  I think it's a very important topic, a very good proposal.  But it seems a very popular one as well.  And taking this opportunity, I also wanted to second everyone who was supporting our effort to try to if not merge, then at least to try to encourage to merge.  This is a perfect example.  108 -- I designated that I found at least five other proposals, 14, 21, 43, 121 and 174. 

 You know, looking from a participant's perspective -- and I was at a MAG -- sorry, at the IGF for several years in a row.  I sometimes feel I'm frantically trying to run from room to room trying to be present in all these events.  And then at the end of the day, I find myself that I haven't really learned more simply because I've heard the same thing over and over again in the different rooms throughout the whole big venue.  So using this example, I just want to second the idea of maybe trying to encourage to merge these as well.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Can you give us those -- I think there were five ID numbers as well.  And I think we can go away and look at them.

 >>IGOR OSTROWSKI:  I identified 14, 21, 43, 121, and 174.

 >> Slower.

 >> Once again.

 >>IGOR OSTROWSKI:  14, 21, 43...

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Chengetai has noted them from the transcript.  Thank you, Igor.

 Michael, you have the floor.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Yes, thank you very much.  This is a similar situation where we have two sessions that are quite similar.  The one on right of access in Latin America.  Which number is that?

 >> 266.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  266, right.  I would actually propose that you merge that with number 194, which is actually ranked a little bit less.  It's 93rd on our list of evaluations, but that one is on the Internet Bill of Rights and the right to access. 

 I think one of the problems with 266 is that it's just Latin America.  And if you combine these two, you would have a much larger audience looking at some of the same issues, which is how do you get governments to make access a right as opposed to a luxury.  Thank you. 

 I would not support including 266 unless we did the merger to make it broader and more interesting to a broader audience.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  There's a few more people in the queue, and then we'll come back to that point, though, because that was a pretty clear statement from Michael.  He wouldn't support it unless some of the deficiencies were addressed and the merger.

 So, Juan, you're in the queue.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Thank you.  I want to endorse what the gentleman said.  And I want to do a proposal because this is about quality education that as you know is the four sustainable development goals, four.  Quality education. 

 So I think that we should, in those development goals, like these that is four, three that is held, we should try to align all the workshops in a way as the gentleman said that not only that it does not have repetition, but even if they're not repeated and we're still having two, not to have it at the same time, so people that are interested in that particular development goal can go.

 And I want to add workshop 8 to the list that he gave about quality education.  I think that we should take a look because that's important, education for this year of sustainable development goals.

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

 I just had a little conference with Chengetai and I think what we're thinking of doing at the moment is taking all these suggestions of these sort of groupings, the Internet of Things from earlier, this one on education, identifying those numbers.  The secretariat can go back and identify which ones we've rated in the top 80 so that we know if there were 12 there, that there are two.  And then I think, you know, those MAG members that feel strongly that it's worthy of more review to determine whether or not we've, you know, looked at merger opportunities appropriately or we're putting the best workshops forward can go away and look at those in those thematic blocks, if you want, and we can come back and take another look at them tomorrow.

 So we're trying to capture these kind of large discussions where people have said there's a lot of similarity and commonality and maybe they could be judged later against a fuller picture.

 With that, Renata, you're in the queue.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Yes.  Hi.  Thanks, Madam Chair.

 I would like to support 266, "Taking into Account Regional Perspective in Latin America."  It's very -- this is a very important issue and I would definitely recommend not merging this workshop.  And also, the diversity of speakers is in agreement with all MAG criteria.  Thank you.

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

 Izumi, you have the floor.

 >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Thank you, Chair.

 Regarding workshop 266, I support Michael's suggestion for a merger, and I would like to make a general observation about the workshop proposals that covers -- like focuses on regional or national perspective.

 I think, you know, it's still worth having these kind of proposals at the global IGF if they actually raise the issues that's relevant to the wider global community, not just from -- only from the regional perspective.

 And in that perspective, I think Michael's suggestion seems to add value to what's relevant to the global community, not just for the Latin American community.

 And I also want to make my observation about merger as well.

 So if like a particular proposal is already complete and covers like diversity and all the criteria, we might not need to suggest merger just because it's -- it covers similar themes, but if a proposal has remaining issues, for example, in terms of, I don't know, not having sufficiently covered like all the diverse participants, and then by merging with other workshops, that would actually strengthen the workshop, then I think a merger makes sense. 

 So that's my general observation about the merger and just to say that I support Michael's suggestion.

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

 Igor, you have the floor.

 >>IGOR OSTROWSKI:  Thank you.  Just a small follow-up.  Just like proposal 108, I wanted just to add that there are similar issues in proposal number 20.  Again, a very important topic, "Aligning Multistakeholder Norms and the Digital Trade Agenda."  And this, I've actually rated it very high.  I thought it was a good approach to take a broader look at not only TPP, but TTIP, RSEP, and all the other agreements.  But, again, a number of other proposals very similar.

 So just to add onto the statement, I noted proposal 56, 60, 118, and 246 as those that could -- we could look at.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Igor.

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thanks, Chair.  I want to say while I think it's really great and important that the workshops are able to speak to the global IGF community, I think there are moments where it is important and where the strength is precisely that it is focusing on a particular region or subregion, and that the -- and that the global IGF then presents an opportunity for the regional issue to also be brought to the global audience.  So, for example, around Southeast Asia or Latin America.  And especially I think for LAC that it should somehow resonate as well to the region in which the IGF is happening.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think those are -- could you give Jac -- Jac the floor?

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Sorry, sorry.  Just to say, I didn't grade that particular workshop in particular.  I was just speaking on the basis of just in terms of principle and thinking through things, because of conflict of interest.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's obviously a good practice and I also appreciate the fact that people aren't lobbying strongly for the proposals which they or their organizations submitted because I think that would be a little inappropriate.

 Let me see if we can go for a close on those last two.  Again, they were number 108 and 20.

 I think we've heard the fact that we should look at them a little more closely and they're coupled with some other merge categories, but otherwise, it feels like at this point in the process we are marking them "in."

 So the next four -- did I just do this or is it deja vu?

 The next four would be line items 71 through 75, and the ID numbers are 26, 63, 264, 72, and 121.

 So, again, we'll give everybody a moment to -- do you want me to read them out again?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes.  63 is out.  That was one of the six that we asterisked to set to the side because they didn't meet the minimum requirements. 

 So in fact, the ones that we're actually evaluating now are 26, 264, 72, and 121.

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  This is just a clarification and I'm sorry, I just can't get on line right at the moment to look up these.

 So we have panels again.  The secretariat has verified that those panels have submitted their background papers, and so what we're talking about, we know these are met the minimum criteria.  The background papers, if they're a panel, and the needed report.  Is that right?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  The ones that I just read out, yes.  Of that grouping, though, proposal number 63 does not.  That was one of the ones we set to the side.  The others, yes.

 We have an online participant.  You have the floor.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  I'm going to read a comment from Aida Mahmutovic, the MAG member.  "Support to Jac's comment about bringing regional voices to global level and giving them enough space and time from southeastern Europe, SEEDIG, and EuroDIG, for example.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Aida.  Good comment as well.  Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Hi.  Yes, I wanted to discuss proposal of the cybersecurity in the global south, number 26.  This is -- was actually one of the issues that came up on the MAG mailing list.  I'm not sure if this is a "manel" with only man speakers.  You have -- I go to Olof's bio.  So I noted that gender balance is important criteria in workshop selection for this workshop evaluation, and I would -- even though the theme is interesting and so on, I think this could be one opportunity for mentorship to include women in cybersecurity in this opportunity.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think your point is very well noted and if it's accepted, this -- the secretariat will get back with such direction. 

 Juan, you're in the queue.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Thank you.  I'm referring to workshop proposal 72, as again they're similar to another one in the top.  That is number 9.  And also similar to another down at the bottom that is 46.  And by the way, if I recall correctly -- I can check -- some of them are presented by the same group.

 So please write 9, 46, and 72.

 And 9 is number -- 9 is up.  9 is 38 in the list, so maybe check that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  No, that's very helpful.  We've noted it and we'll look into that. 

 Are there any other comments in support or questioning any of those proposals down through line item 75?  Looks like not.  Then we will count those in with the exception of ID number 63, which is set aside because of the earlier requirements.

 So the next batch would start with line item 76 through 80, and the ID numbers are 153, 27, 29, 186, and 139. 

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm Sorry to take the floor again, Chair, but -- and I'm referring to workshop 27.  It's the same topic.  We have six proposals of the same topic.  I will tell the numbers.  24, 27, 88 -- 88 is up in the list.  I think it's number is 15 or something. 

 -- 248, 253, and 255 all related.  And this one, in particular, is very similar to 88 because 88 is initiatives and 27 is a particular initiative.  And 88 is about initiative for child protection and 27 is one particular initiative, so it's a very perfect match and both are in the group.

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

 Eleonora, Chengetai and I were just having a quick consult on the side.  Did you note those numbers or are they noted appropriately in the transcript?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  And just one second.

 Sorry.  Chengetai was just double-checking one of the asterisked.

 Indonesia, you have the floor.

 >>INDONESIA:  Yeah.  Back to 75, I support the (indiscernible) education, roadmap to achieving SDGs.  I think there is no title like that before.  Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  So you were in support of that moving forward?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes.  Okay.  Thank you. 

 Cheryl, you have the floor.

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, I would actually like to put my support behind workshop 27.  I understand there are a number of workshops on child sexual abuse and related issues.  But I note that this is a first-time proposer.  I think that the proposal is quite balanced with respect to the representation.  It was well thought out, and I definitely think that this is a key topic.  So I definitely want to put in my vote to support this one.  Thank you.

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

 Dominique, you have the floor.

 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Sure.  Thank you.  Just to support what Cheryl said, in addition to what she said, it's actually also focused on child exploitation which is slightly different from the other proposals.  But, also, it is actually a government -- U.K. government, as Laura knows, issue.  It's a U.K. government agenda. 

 Sorry, I'm very tired. 

 It's something that they do, and it's actually a great example of what they do.  And the U.K. actually has done a lot to reach out to a lot of different countries and a lot of different regions as well as part of their initiative.  And so I think that this particular workshop actually showcases that but also with the multistakeholder and very diverse group of panelists.  So thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Michael, you have the floor.

 >> I have the wrong one.  You have Giacomo by mistake.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you.  Just very quick.  Strong support for 139, security and the Internet of Toys, which is not the Internet of Things.  Real interesting format.  This is the only proposal we had for a demo, and they're actually bringing in some of these new wired toys.  Thank you.

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

 Mourad, you have the floor.

 >>MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  Thank you, Chair.

 I think that 153 deserves to be included as trust building is at the heart of international cooperation in the field of cybersecurity.

 I also support 27. 

 29 is also relevant as it addresses one of the most vulnerable groups, which are the blind.  And these have to be included in the list.  Thank you very much.

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

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I've been involved in organizing child safety workshops probably from 2007, '06 and '07 and '08 and '09.  I have a background IN child safety.  I helped launch many of the U.S. initiatives that are focused on child safety.

 I have two observations.  Some of the workshop proposals are presented by the same people who have been presenting this issue over and over and over.  And some of them are a quite innovative.  So the one on the Internet of Toys is quite innovative.

 Another one that you mentioned, Mourad, which is focused on safety that is about a particular -- sorry, about a particular -- so what I'd like to do is look at these more closely.  Put the unique ones into one pile, put the ones that are building on the previous speakers year over year who -- basically they contributed a lot to the literature, a lot to the research, but they are -- they are really repeating and building on workshops.

 So we might be able to merge some of those that are in that category and then maintain the really unique ones that were identified.

 And if we break into a smaller group, I'd be happy to take a closer look at the ones that I think could go into the clumped merger while we could protect space for these innovations.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Did you give us the ID numbers of those others that you think are in the clump?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I can look at each of them.  I just wanted to comment of the ones that were mentioned, you know, clearly the Internet of Toys and looking at how children are affected -- I did a project a few years ago that involved exploitation of new gTLDs where toys were being purchased on Web sites and children were being harmed by -- basically, the parents thought they were buying safe toys.  They were also in some cases buying violent games that were introducing their children to violence, but they thought it was a legitimate -- so all sorts of misuses of the technology and also the Internet and putting children at risk.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I appreciate that.  I just think if you think there's a clump of workshops around that, if you can give us those numbers, we can get everybody to can looks at them.

 Liesyl, you have the floor.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you, Chair.  I guess for some reason this clump -- this particular clump caught my eye.  So first time to come in on some of the workshop stuff.

 I just -- for full disclosure, I recused myself from grading number 153 because my boss is listed as a speaker.

 [ Laughter ]

 I left that one alone.

 But I ranked the remaining four quite high.  I was also excited by the notion of demos, either whether it was for the blind or the Internet of Toys may be exciting.  My notes say if you can really bring some toys.  And I suggested in notes if they can bring a toy maker.  So there might be some additional mentoring or suggestions that we could make.  I did think those were exciting.

 I also thought workshop 27 was a good proposal from the perspective that it takes and also even though it has -- the issue is something we discuss every year, clearly there are a lot of proposals that come in on these issues, and it is an important one. 

 And I think Marilyn made an interesting point about building on from previous IGFs, which I think is something we always want to see.  So I like the notion of building on and taking -- so we're not doing, you know, issue X 101 every time.  So I liked the building-on aspect of it actually. 

 So, anyway, that's my version on the clump.  I support them all.  Oh, recused on 153.

 [ Laughter ]

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

 Giacomo, you have the floor.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes, thank you.  First, just to be precise, proposal number 29, I voted for it but despite the fact that it's EBU.  But it's EBU, European Blind Union and not European Broadcasting Union.  So I think there is no conflict of interest.

 [ Laughter ]

 [ Applause ]

 A part of this, a part of that.  I want to make a reflection on the proposal about child protection.  There are many more than what has been mentioned.  I just tried to summarize the numbers.  But at least there are ten proposals for child online protection.  And only two of them are at the moment among the eligible ones.

 And there are many proposals for me that are very good, like the one proposed by UNICEF or by John Carr, by Jutta Croll, et cetera, et cetera.  I think this is for us one very important topic.  I would suggest that we make an action as MAG suggesting all this very important and relevant actors to try to work together in order to merge some of this.

 Most of the ideas are good.  Most of the (indiscernible) are good.  Of course, we cannot send ten workshops on child online protection. 

 So if I can suggest that we reserve a number of slots and we ask them to come back to us with a common proposal because I think it is a small network.  Everybody knows each other.  So it's strange that they have not been able to -- those who have the dynamic coalition, probably can ask the dynamic coalition to help to streamline the proposal.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Let me make sure I understand your proposal.

 So you've said that of the ones that identified dealing with child online safety, only two have been accepted insofar and your proposal would be -- and I would certainly support that, that we ask the secretariat to go back and look at those other proposals and determine if there's either a space that could be filled in terms of an interesting view of the topic or potential merger.  So I think we'll put that as an action.

 I will remind everybody as well that we should speak directly into the mic and not swivel our heads about because we lose an awful lot of sound for those that are participating online.

 I have Miguel in the queue and then I'm going to take a call on this last batch of five.

 Miguel, you have the floor.

 >>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA:  Thank you, Chair.  Only to support 139, the security on Internet of Toys.  But if the secretariat can advise on enhancing remote participation, it would be great.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Miguel, I'm very sorry.  Could you repeat what you said.  Sorry.

 >>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA:  No problem.  Can you hear me now?  Just to support the 139 proposal on security and Internet of Toys and ask the secretariat if they can advise on enhancing the remote participation.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  So, I mean, there's quite strong support for all five of the workshops that were in this particular batch here.  So I would move that we move those as well to the "in" list, if I can.

 I would like to go through one more batch to 85 because there are five or six that we have ruled out.  And if we're shooting for roughly a good solid list of about 80 with flexibility for another 20 or 25, we can then move to some of the other categories.

 I also think Chengetai had an update for us on 63.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  63 did meet the minimum requirements.  I'm not too sure how 63 got on, but it did meet it.  It wasn't part of the four.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And that workshop was "ICANN new gTLD program, exploring impact and future direction."

 So I will leave that one open for a moment because we had excluded it when we were actually going through that batch because we thought it was one of the ones that had to be set aside.

 If people are quiet, I'm assuming there's support for leaving it in.  If not, we're looking for strong objections.

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I rated this very low.  There's a second one submitted by the cross-community working group on Internet governance.  That is a cross-community working group, multistakeholder that the ICANN staff attend and participate in.  That one was designed by a group of stakeholders.  So it shows the diversity.

 This one is a -- this is a staff-initiated workshop by ICANN staff.  ICANN has the opportunity to have an open forum.  I really think it's important to -- I don't see the diversity in the originator.  I would be happy to look at Nigel, but I can't turn my head away from the mic.

 But I gave it a very low rating, because I think that marketing the future about what ICANN is doing in new gTLDs, it's actually a very touchy subject that's not really in my mind well thought out.

 So I welcome the fact that everybody has a right to put in workshop proposals.  But I want to explain that I think the other workshop proposal, which is from a diverse group of proposers and has very broad diversity in the speakers, would be the more appropriate ICANN proposal, particularly if they are also taking an open forum.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.

 Renata and then Jac is in the key.

 Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Hi, thank you.  The 133 proposal, again, I hate to be the "manel" police, but there is an issue on cybersecurity that IGF resource persons is a new database that is working hard by the secretariat to bring new experts, especially from developing countries, in if areas such as cybersecurity.

 So, again, we have here a proposal on cybersecurity that has a huge number of names.  Two women invited not on cybersecurity, and one name which I cannot identify the gender.  And the remote moderator which, again, in the list we discussed this gender-balanced masking criteria of moving women to remote moderators or two rapporteurs.

 So this should be something that should be interesting for the MAG to look at and also an opportunity for a mentorship to bring in more women in cybersecurity.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And if those deficiencies were corrected, you would be supportive or not of the workshop?  Yes, okay.

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC sm KEE:  Supporting Renata.  Supporting Marilyn actually.  And I think another workshop proposal that's slightly similar to 63, 64 that also went up pretty high and has been accepted in the list already.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jac.

 Now, ICANN's asked for the floor.  And I want to make sure that if I give the floor to him as a non-MAG member when this day is reserved to MAG members, also that you're not simply -- because you can be here physically present sort of arguing for your position which would put a disadvantage all those individuals that couldn't be in the room and do the same thing for their proposals.  I trust Nigel's development -- whatever -- implicitly. 

 So, Nigel, if you feel there's something you should say to the room, please do.  Otherwise, please do consider the points I just made.

 >>NIGEL HICKSON:  Absolutely.  Thank you, Madam Chair.  Thank you, and good afternoon.  No.  Absolutely and recognize your point.  As I think others have said, it's very difficult.  Not everyone can be here. 

 All I want to do is point out that this proposal was put in obviously by staff but it was on behalf of various community groups.  That's all I wanted to say.  Thank you.

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

 So we have two questions in front of us.

 One is still support for the last batch of line items between 80 and 85.  And then I do think we need to come back to 63 and determine whether or not there's enough support for that to go forward.  The only person who has spoken about that proposal at this point is Marilyn.

 So the floor is open for quick support or comments against the batch of five and 63.

 So let me be really clear.  There have been a lot of comments so far, all in support, some with a few things they would actually like to see addressed, Renata's comments in particular, for line items 80 through 85.  So I'm looking for a sense of the room as to whether or not we count those as in or whether or not there are any strong concerns or objections against those.

 Peter, you have the floor.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Chair.  In my list I have 69 blanked out because of some problem we were alerted to earlier.  Line item 84, is that not one of our -- 69 was one of our removed items, wasn't it?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sorry.  Yes, you are right.  69 was one that was out.  So that means I'm looking for a sense of the room on line items 81, -2, and -3 and then 85.  The ID numbers are 139, 262, 267, 126, and 143.

 Okay.  Chengetai is actually telling me that 69 is, in fact, fine, that the background paper was buried in subsequent links.  So we only have four then out of the 80 that didn't meet the top-level requirements.

 It's simpler now since 69 is, in fact, in.  We're actually looking at ID numbers 139, 262, 267, 126, 69, and 143.  And there have been a few comments on that batch to date.  I'm just trying to look for a sense of the room in terms of whether those are in or there's more discussion required.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Actually strong support from quite a number of people on all those.  You have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: -- (off microphone) -- I would like to support that, and also 63.  Those would be my observations.

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

 Mike Nelson, you have the floor.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Actually, I just wanted to flag something.  We're now getting to the point where if we were to go back and take the ones that are on hold, we're almost to the max, so our -- is this the last batch that we're taking?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  This is the last batch we're taking out of to get out of the 85, yes.


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And then --

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  And are -- is there going to be a chance for people to nominate things that might be further down?  Even 20 or 30 further down?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  That's what we're coming to next, having -- having --

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Okay.  I just wanted to make sure I understood the agenda.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Roughly -- just so people get a sense of where we are, roughly we're probably at an acceptance rate, as we said, of about 80 workshops, with room for a hundred or a hundred and five, if I remember correctly.

 So the plan would be that we move forward with some of the other categories and look for 25 more workshops that we believe are appropriate for the workshop program, and we'll use some of those to adjust for any of the other imbalances or any of the other categories that we want to favor, and that's some of the work that we'll prepare tonight with the secretariat.

 But I have a small queue.  Giacomo you're in the queue.  You have the floor.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes.  Simply I want to say that the -- I was supporting the 126?  I lost the number now.  No.  Sorry.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Line item 83?  "Safe and Secure Cyberspace for Youth"?

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  No.  267.  Sorry.  267.

 >> (Off microphone.)


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that was a little garbled.  Just to make sure, you're saying you're supporting ID 267, "Surveillance and International Human Rights Law"?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you, Giacomo. 

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yeah.  Sorry.  Chair, I'm sorry because I have my data a little bit mixed up, but around 143, my recommendation is to check because there's several above that has to do with this cyber law and all that, and evidence.

 I know lawyers are very important for all of us here, but I think there are very similar ones in the top.

 I don't have it here now.  I had a little problem here.  But please check all these evidence and litigation and -- there's several like that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  We'll note and we'll look for that.  Thank you, Juan. 

 Shita, you have the floor.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair.

 I would like to reflect two issues. 

 The first one is that from all the 80-something or 80 proposals that we have received -- approved, none of them are flash sessions, so most of them are birds of a feather or panel or breakout sessions, so none of them are flash session.  Flash session is part of our innovation session. 

 The second one I would like to ask is if we have 80 program -- 80 proposals and we have 110 or 100 rooms and flash sessions are only 30 minutes, so I think we can have more -- more workshops to be approved, especially for the flash sessions.  Thank you.

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

 And let me just check something.  I -- I believe there's an extra room set aside at the venue that's not in this workshop count which could be used for flash sessions or unconference or --

 Is that a true statement?  I'm looking -- pointing out quietly --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- that, you know, there have been a number of comments over the years that there are too many sessions and too many competing sessions and things, so there's probably a decision here in the room as to whether or not we want to treat things like the flash sessions as additive to the hundred workshops or do we want the hundred workshops to actually include flash sessions and look more as an innovative format.

 So I think that is a very good question.

 Let me -- we have a queue.  I think that's a -- I would like to come back to that but I'd like to have a discussion and maybe we can do that as the last item of business.

 If we can just close on the two workshop discussions in front of us for the moment so we can draw a line under that and then move to that discussion, I think that will set us up nicely for tomorrow.

 So there's a few people in the queue.  Again, the question that's in front of us is:  Are there any -- I'm looking for a sense of the room with respect to pulling in those workshops 80 through 85 and then we have the separate question still on workshop ID number 63.

 So that's what I'd like to close on at this particular point and then go to the flash sessions, overall workshop sessions.  Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Yes.  I'd like to flag 262 again, 262, for improving gender balance. 

 And on the issue of flash sessions, we must at some point also discuss about the innovative session formats if we are going to simply discard those flash sessions or if we are sending proposals -- sending proposers orientation to submit as innovative session formats.  I think that in some cases this would not be good to do.  Specifically, academia has a huge inability sometimes to adapt to innovative session formats, so that would have to be something very carefully done.

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

 Igor, you have the floor.

 >>IGOR OSTROWSKI:  Thank you very much.  On the last batch, just a couple of quick comments.  Proposal 126 deals with cyberspace and concentrates on youth.  It presents solutions for Africa and Asia.  And I did see a number of panels that also concentrates on youth, or at least in the description mentions youth as an important factor when talking about safe and secure cyberspace.

 26, 65, 113, and 115.

 So I was wondering maybe if we can see whether there is any ground for cooperation.

 On Juan Alfonso's comment regarding proposal 143, I am actually a lawyer and I -- if I would say something on behalf of lawyers, I would say 143, if we had to choose, would probably be one of the most important ones.

 So my -- my comment there would be to leave that.

 And then the last one is I believe it's 267 that deals with another very important issue of human rights law and -- I'm sorry, no, is it --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>IGOR OSTROWSKI:  Yeah.  I'm...

 Yeah.  No.  Sorry -- yeah, yeah, 267. 

 Again, just wanted to say that that -- that the idea of surveillance and international human rights law are very important topics that I would support.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you.  I've got quite a long queue now and I really would like to -- so Bianca will be the last one.  I really would like to hear from people direct to the question in front of us, which is:  Is there a sense of support in the room for pulling in those last five, and then again we have 63.

 I do want to come back to the flash sessions and number of overall sessions and get a sense of the room before we leave tonight so that we can factor that into whatever other evaluations the secretariat goes away to do tonight.

 So if you want to speak directly to support for that last batch of five, please remain in the queue.  If you are opening up another topic, I'd like you to hold that for the moment.

 So Jac, you're next.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thanks, Chair.

 69, proposal number 69, is actually quite similar to proposal 68, which has already been accepted.  It's workshop number 60.  Same proposers.  Some overlapping in speakers.  Talks about topic but from different directions and I think this is one that is really, really good for a merger since it's really the same people, so I would recommend that quite strongly.

 And then the other one is 126.  Again, I'm really wondering if there are any youth speakers on a session that's talking about youth, especially proposing solutions for youth, so questions around this -- around youth speakers as well as regional representation.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Chair.  Peter Dengate Thrush. 

 I was going to speak very strongly against number 143, and it was one of my examples of some good ideas that got completely lost, if you like, and didn't meet any of the criteria. 

 And I begin with, if you like, the title, "How to Acknowledge Cyber Evidence, Reform New Parallel Law."  There's three or four different topics in there.  When you look at what they're trying to cover, it's not clear what -- what it is they're trying to achieve and they've taken on literally the entire topic of Internet law as it stands.

 Then I come to the first line, the workshop format.

 The workshop format is clearly described to be a way of taking a topic that's been dealt with in a number of ways and brainstormed in various fora and is at a ripe stage for taking to workshopping.

 This doesn't meet any of those criteria.  This is actually one of these disguised or mistaken panel formats, and when you look at how they're going to do things, they're going to bring people forward, introduce them, they're going to talk, and then someone's going to come and sum up exactly as if it was going to be a panel. 

 And I could go on.

 So this is some good ideas in here, but look at the range of topics.  Conventional format of legislation.  You know, books are written about that.  Trade, cross-border relations, administration, and working procedures, governmental procedures, comparing the real world with what happens on line.  That's just one of five.

 There's a whole topic on evidence and how evidence for online activity should be treated with different --

 You know, every one of these topics is enormous and couldn't possibly be covered in a session such as they propose.

 So -- but any one of those things and any one of these people and any one -- this is the kind of thing that led me to say we should go back to these people and say, "How do we help you turn this into a set of proposals or a proposal," but as it currently stands, I gave it a very low score and I can't see it proceeding in its current format.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I actually see quite a number of heads nodding around the room in agreement with that, so maybe we can note that as one where, similar to the clumps or possible mergers we're looking at, we take a look at that and determine whether or not we think there's room for that in the program and what we might do to actually make it more acceptable.

 Thank you.

 Did you have another comment, quickly?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  -- and help do a reach-out to these people and try and turn it into something.  I don't want to just be negative about this.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So Chengetai is just saying that we'll indicate it as being accepted upon the conditionality of going back and addressing some of those concerns.  But I see some faces not supporting that in the --

 Let me -- for right now, let's just say that that's asterisked, it's set aside.  If we really think that there's a dearth of topics dealing with law and the Internet, that we can come back and revisit that and figure out how we make that really shaped such that it fits in the proposal.  Okay?

 Laura, you have the floor.

 >>LAURA WATKINS:  Thank you, Chair.  I just wanted to flag a concern over proposal 69, which is "ICTs for a Smart and Sustainable City."

 The panel is quite large and I was just concerned that it didn't allow much room for discussion in that session, so I think if we wanted to accept that one, just some amendments to that panel need to be made because there's still another -- there's eight confirmed speakers but there's another few on the list of proposed speakers that haven't yet confirmed and I just think that's a bit unwieldy.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Laura.  That was also identified as a potential for merger, so maybe we can also asterisk that, set it aside, and look at it for a merger capability and/or more rational session.

 Miguel, you have the floor.

 >>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA:  Thank you, Chair.  Just to point out that proposal 126, we are facing here the same problem as the previous one from Latin America.  It's just for one region and it should be global, I think.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Well, it is actually for Asia and Africa.  And I'll also note the comments that were made earlier by some that said there's still a lot of value in having regional as it meets global and vice versa.

 But I will also note at the same time that we haven't had anybody else speak against that one.  Out of that cluster of five right now, 69 and 143 are the ones that have not had unconditional support. 

 So Miguel is asking for a small follow up.  Miguel, you have the floor.

 >>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA:  Thank you, Chair.  Just I was telling this because I want to follow the same criteria for all of the proposals, not to take a different one for each one.  Just that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Liesyl, you have the floor.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you, Chair.  I just wanted to say so my interpretation of the conversation might be a little different than what you said so that's why I maybe made a -- maybe made a face.

 On 126, which is the "Safe and Secure Cyberspace for Youth," I think there was a comment earlier that that seemed to be more of a candidate for merger with other very similar workshops, so I -- which was a comment that I had that, in and of itself, it might not be strong enough.  So I had rated it low.

 So I -- I would actually think that that conversation, and maybe with Miguel's comment as well, means that it shouldn't be considered as a -- maybe it should be asterisked to be set aside, actually, along with 143. 

 And I just wanted to comment on that one to say that I had also a similar reaction as Peter, so I wanted to support his comments but add a couple issues.

 Currently, if you are going to follow up with them, I think there is some good nuggets in there as well.  I think forensic evidence is kind of an interesting topic that we don't deal with very often, but there's no government or industry speaker on there now and it would be great if we could actually get a law enforcement person to speak on a panel like that.

 So just if you are reaching out, those would be my additional comments.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's a good comment.  Thank you. 

 Two more folks have come in after I closed the queue so I'm going to allow them in with brief comments.  We've got about 20 minutes left and I really think we should have a -- at least a beginning discussion on the innovative sessions and flash and total number of sessions.

 So at the moment in the queue I have Bianca, then Giacomo, then Ephraim. 

 Bianca, you have the floor.

 >>BIANCA CAROLINE HO:  Hi.  I wanted to speak on workshop number 84.  I think it's a good idea, though I think there might be workshops that I need to find again, you know, that might be able to kind of like chime in -- you know, like to merge.  But one thing I note is that, you know, there are speakers.  You know, I don't see any of them from, you know, Africa or Asia.  So I think that's important to --

 Oops.  Sorry.  I was talking about the -- the one on like safety in mobile.  I'm sorry, I just lost -- 126.  Okay.  I'm sorry.  I just lost that number.

 Yeah, I don't see any of the speakers from Asia and Africa, which is the region that they're focusing on, right?  So I think that's something that can be addressed.  And also, you know, bring in youth.  I think another comment I want to make.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Very good points.  Thank you.  Giacomo, you have the floor.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes.  I'm a little bit lost here on numbers, but it was number -- excuse me.  The computer doesn't answer to my request.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE: It is number 63 that was -- for me it's quite important because we are now in the middle of a big discussion, so I want to just support that this is something that we need to go for it, and if there are any improvements that could be requested, of course we can work on that, but I think it's crucial in this moment because it's in the middle of the discussion in many other places and IGF needs to be present on this discussion, too.

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

 Ephraim, you have the floor.

 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Okay.  This is regarding workshop 126.  Just to emphasize, this is an experience which we had last year in Brazil.  A workshop was set in a similar manner with experts.  I recognized the experts.  I recognized some of the names.  But these are not the same names which were there.  And in that workshop it was focused on youth but it was, sorry to say this, but old people, white people, and then they focused on countries which were developing countries.  And then when the people in Brazil, the young people, raised a question on some of their research, they were told, "Shut up, we are the experts here."  This is something that Markus pointed out was told, and Janis, the former MAG chair, and we would like to insist on this workshop to -- and not just this workshop but any workshop that focuses on youth, despite experts having researched on this, they should try as much as possible to kind of include remote and accept views from people who kind of would want to challenge some of their views on this. 

 So just my caveat on this was that it should -- they should find a way of more remote participation and more people from those countries that they're focusing -- those regions that they're focusing on to include them in this discussion, just for us not to have a repeat of what happened in Brazil.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ephraim.  I think that's an important conversation.  Let me see if I can try and close on this.  I think from the last batch of five, there was support for 139, 262, and 267.  I think there were conversations that I would say mean we asterisk ID numbers 126, 69, and 143.  And there were some, I think, fairly substantive comments raised by multiple people in each one of those three workshops.  And I think we should just determine what we need to do to actually bring the acceptance up in the room on those more quickly. 

 So, Ephraim, your comments particular on 126, if we can put together some concrete suggestions for things we think should be done to improve that workshop.  You had a couple and Bianca had a couple as well.  Then I suspect it probably could go forward.  So I guess conditionally, in your words, Chengetai, would be 126, 69, and 143.

 With respect to 63, we've had three comments on it.  Marilyn supported the cross-community working group proposal.  I'm not even sure if that's on the top 80.  On the basis of this other one on gTLDs was an ICANN support and lacked diversity.  Giacomo supported it.  But I would suggest that as Nigel -- And Renata supported it as well.  Nigel and Marilyn are so close, that perhaps they can work together and make that a merged proposal which would have the appropriate diversity.  So we will work to merge 63 with whatever the other workshop proposal number is that Marilyn referenced.  I don't have that here.

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  -- that the other proposal which comes from the cross-community working group at ICANN, which is a diverse group that includes staff, has board members as observers -- I might see one of them in the room -- is actually about a totally different topic.  It is also a very well-developed workshop that has been peer reviewed across the ICANN community.  But it really doesn't lend itself to inserting what is an update on ICANN staff's interest in the next gTLD round.

 They're very different topics.  So sorry about that.  I should have been clearer.

 >> What ID?

 >> 64.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Sorry.  It's number 64, right?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  ICANN staff proposal is number 63.  We don't know what.  We don't know what your proposal is.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I thought it was 64.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Why don't we just table that for a moment.  So I think we can go away and look at those two proposals.

 I do also note that I expect ICANN does have, as was stated earlier, an open forum.  And perhaps that's a more appropriate place if it really is simply -- again, if it really simply is an exposé of the gTLD program, perhaps that belongs more there.  Let's just asterisk that since it was rated fairly high, and we'll come back and look at it again tomorrow.

 So where I think we've ended up at this point in time is there's probably roughly, I don't know, maybe 76, 78 proposals that are in that haven't been asterisked and/or set to the side.  The secretariat -- and they have very kindly -- Juan -- I understand that Juan, Mike, and Flavio have volunteered to work with the secretariat to help do a little -- and Sala as well -- to help do a little bit -- or maybe this was from Sala.  Anyway, three or four people have very kindly volunteered to work with the secretariat to help look at the statistics and the profile so they can actually give us a picture of the sort of current diversity characteristics of the current 76, 78 workshops that we've rolled in.

 And we should all be looking for that in our mailboxes later on tonight or first thing tomorrow morning.  And we can use that as the platform tomorrow to go away and look at any of the other imbalances we might want to address or any of the areas we might want to pull up, developing country, first-time proposers, if there's some really interesting panels that come to the standard deviation look.  So we'll address that tomorrow.

 What I would like to do in the ten minutes we have left, I think, is to have a conversation to start to advance the innovative format discussion.  There's a couple of components to that, I think.  The first one -- and I saw a lot of interest when we brought it up a few moments ago -- is a discussion on whether or not those innovative sessions such as a flash session or unconferences should be in addition to roughly a hundred workshop slots or should they be -- should they actually be integrated within those hundred workshop slots.

 Again, one of the comments we have heard over the years is that there are too many competing workshops, too many choices, too many.  And this would certainly be expanding the number of events.

 Chengetai, I don't know if there's anything you want to add to that introduction and then open the conversation up.

 Right now, Chengetai.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I just want to echo and underline what Lynn has said.  Over the years, always, always, always after the meeting, there's also a call that it's too big, there are too many sessions.  We have 11 concurrent sessions going on at the moment. 

 And then when we come to this point in the year, since we have the problem of fitting, you know, 260 workshops into a smaller space, we want to expand.  I would caution against expanding as such, my personal view, because we have 163 sessions.  We have 11 concurrent. 

 If we have an additional room, four flash sessions, et cetera, that will be 12 concurrent sessions.  So it just gets more and more complex.  And that 11th room is not resource neutral.  There's a lot of resources. 

 There's a room now for this year.  We can use it for other things.  But for flash sessions, we've already had flash sessions using the workshop room.  So I think we should keep those there.

 If there's something else we can use the room for, then it's okay.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So we have a short queue, but I also want to point out, did somebody say that, in fact, of the 85 that we'd reviewed -- and not all are in -- that there are no flash sessions which came through?  I don't know if that's right or not.  Somebody did state that, so we should -- Shita said she did, in fact, state that.  That's certainly something we should go away and look at.

 I have Marilyn in the queue.  And, again, the interpreters need to leave at the top of the hour.  And I suspect others do as well.  So if we can just keep our comments brief and just try and get a sense of how we want to treat the flash sessions versus the hundred odd workshops.

 Marilyn, you have the floor.

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

 Chair, I speak in support of prioritizing the 30-minute flash sessions that we received proposals on.  My personal belief is we invited those proposals.  I feel like we have a commitment to prioritize them, if we have space for them, and treat them in our total number.

 I understand the idea of some other innovative -- I don't know what they're called -- maybe poster sessions, ten minutes each or something like that, which we talked about yesterday.  I think that's very different because then somebody stops in and they spend 15 minutes instead of having coffee.

 Those poster sessions are different than the flash sessions.  And so I speak in support of putting some flash sessions in from the 30-minute flash proposals that we received.

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

 We have an online participant, Anja.

 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Yes, I'm going to read a comment from Aida, a MAG member.  I would like to support point by Bianca in the frame of making sure that if we are talking about youth, then they have to be at the table as speakers. 

 And since we are talking also about representation, please make sure we don't have panels talking about gender equality anymore.  Let's at least fix this.  Women in panels is a must. 

 Having said that, I would like to endorse workshop 164 and 127, one from developing perspectives that actually include their points of view and not someone else's, which is very important.  Thank you.

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

 Miguel, you have the floor.

 >>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA:  Yes, this is Miguel.  As Marilyn just said, these flash sessions, we're talking about in this working group are different than the flash sessions.  We don't intend to compete with existing ones, with the proposals existing.  That's why we are trying to set a space during breaks to do them.  So it would be like an alternative for the ones who wasn't selected to have a space -- a little space during breaks. 

 Sorry.  And the unconferences is another different format that we will need a space for this just for an afternoon.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you, Miguel.  I think that's very helpful.  We'll probably need reminding of that tomorrow morning as well when we move forward.

 I have Shita and Liesyl in the queue.  And then Victor to say a few words before we leave.

 Giacomo, if it's important I will allow you in.  Just need to watch the time here. 

 Shita, you have the floor.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I would like to clarify that only one flash session in this 80 something proposals that we have approved.

 And because it's only 30 minutes, I guess we can have more flash sessions.  As Chengetai mentioned earlier, there's one workshop session -- one workshop room designated for flash sessions.  I assume if it's only 30 minutes, then we can have around 12 flash sessions per day.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  And I think this is another diversity characteristic we'll have to look at with the workshop proposals.

 Liesyl, you have the floor.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you.  Part of my, I guess, intervention was going to be a question about the number of flash sessions that would be able to take up the workshop slot.  So whether it's two or three, I wasn't sure.  I wasn't sure what new number it gives us for how many flash sessions we could have.  So perhaps that's something we could revisit tomorrow.

 I'm also really surprised out of the 80, there's only one flash session that made it in.  Maybe in my mind it was ones that maybe should be flash sessions.  But, anyway...

 Yeah, we should look at that more carefully.  But thanks for the information.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Agree, we should look at it tomorrow.  Giacomo, you have the floor.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  I get the message from Thomas Schneider about new formats.  He was simply recommending to consider what he suggested yesterday in the open consultation when he through the remote participation expressed this forum that they used in the IGF Switzerland that worked very well, where there were no panelists at all and was purely discussion based on a list of questions.  Probably something that we need to exploit and to test during this IGF.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Giacomo.  It was a very interesting idea.

 Renata, you did come in the queue after.  So if it's short, because I really do need to give Victor some time to -- so you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Yes, it's very short.  About flash sessions again and different formats.  169 is a flash session with youth and with women proposals.  And 127 which Aida just sent in her remote participation comment is a tutorial, which is also another format akin to a flash session.  And, again, we should think about re-evaluating those flash session proposals.  Thank you.

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

 Victor, you have the floor.

 >>VICTOR LAGUNES:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I just want to take the opportunity to say thank you to you all.  Sadly, I actually won't be here tomorrow.  I need to be -- I need to take off.  I need to be back.  Yolanda will be taking my seat.  You all know her.  You all know that she's extremely well-versed and that we're really interchangeable in many ways.  So we report to the same structure.  We're knowledgeable to the same topics.  So really feel free to approach her.  She's completely open to any conversation, any feedback.

 We're already getting some feedback within the Web site, so quite happy to tell you that we're reading all that.  So thank you for those of you who have been reaching us through there.  So we'll continue to be in touch.  I really want to congratulate any and all of you for the interesting, challenging, and very engaging debate that has been happening.  It tells really about the value that you put into the IGF and also the responsibility that you all have towards making this an extremely and good and valuable event to us all.  So thank you very much.

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

 So if folks are okay, and again respecting the interpreters' time here, we're going to go away.  I volunteer to stay as well and figure out what we can do in terms of helping to move forward tomorrow.  I think there's a number of topics we need to bring back:  Open forums, main sessions, obviously the innovative sessions, overall number of formats.  I think with good prep work tonight we can set that discussion up fairly well tomorrow.

 I'm feeling confident that we'll get through what we need to get here.  I believe we will have an appropriate amount of time to go back and ensure we have the right balance across a number sort of diverse characteristics.

 So I want to thank everybody for sticking with the process.  I know it's not the easiest or most fun.  I can't imagine how happy Victor must be to have another meeting to go tomorrow.  But I really do --

 [ Laughter ]

 I really do really want to thank everybody for all of the effort and support.  And we are back here tomorrow morning in the same room at 10:00.  And those of you that are going to the retreat, please pay attention to the new luggage drop-off point, I guess.

 Are there any other administrative points?  No.  Thank you all very, very much.  Thank you to the interpreters.  Thank you to the --

 [ Applause ]

 Thank you to the transcribers.  Thank you very much.

 [ Applause ]

 And thank you very much to all those that are participating online.  And I can only imagine how frustrating.

 [ Applause ]

 Really appreciate the comments.  And, of course, to the secretariat for all the work they did late last night.

 [ cheers and applause ]

 And in anticipation of all the work that will go on tonight as well.  A prethanks.  A prethanks.  So thank you.  Thank you very much.  And I release the interpreters.

 Such power.

 Thank you all.

 Thank you.