IGF 2017 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting Day 3 Afternoon


The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2017 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting from 12 to 14 June 2017 in Geneva, Switzerland. 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. 


14 JUNE 2017 15:00

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Ladies and gentlemen, we are a precious five minutes behind, so first of all, Luis, the screens, please.  Ah.  Okay.

 All right.  I'll just hand it over to the chair right now.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Welcome back, everybody.  Appreciate your coming back on time.  We do have an awful lot of work to get through today, and I see a special request from Brazil for the floor, so I'll do that and then we'll come back to the agenda and the work ahead of us today.

 Carlos, you have the floor.

 >>CARLOS FONSECA:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  

 I just wanted to take two minutes to mention this whole debate that we had just before the lunchtime about rules of procedure, rules of conduct, rules of behavior, et cetera.  

 I fully agree with what Juan said and Chengetai.  I think rules are here to be respected.  It's important that they are respected.  It's a matter of behavior, basically.

 But what I wanted to say, that those rules should apply, of course, to the main sessions but also to the workshops, and especially here.  This is a formal meeting, right?  This is not a gathering of friends in a bar.  This is a formal U.N. meeting.  So the same rules that apply to the main sessions should apply here.

 And also, I think that rules, of course, should apply to NGOs, et cetera, but they should also apply to private sector and especially -- I dare say, especially, particularly, to government officials.  

 That's my message.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Carlos.  I mean, I think it's an important reminder for us all here, so thank you.

 We have a lot of work in front of us in the next three hours.  We have the main session -- main and focus session discussion to finish, we have the discussion on workshops which also needs to be finished, and there were a number of items in the afternoon on kind of catching up from the open consultation.

 I'm going to make the observation that those are likely to move to our virtual calls just in terms of the work ahead of us, but I think it will give us time to reflect not only on the discussions from the open consultation but also on the work here over the last few days.

 I spoke to the secretariat to understand, you know, which was the preference, start with main focus session or start with the working groups.  Their recommendation, which I support, would be to go back to the working groups because that allows us to finish our work here, which allows them to get back to the proposers ahead of the northern hemisphere summer break, and complete a lot of the scheduling and the timetable, and it's much easier for us, I think, to make progress on those issues when we're all here together.

 So I would propose that we go back to the workshop schedule, which is the Excel spreadsheet that was sent this morning, and I think we said it was sent about 8:00 local time, 8:00 CET.  And I also note there was a -- you know, a couple of comments made that said we need to make sure that we don't penalize those workshops that are coming in the second part of our review because people start to worry about the overall count and whether or not they fit.

 I think what we're likely to have to do is to -- after we go through and judge each one of them on their individual bases by the same criteria, and hopefully with no difference in the change of urgency, perhaps go through a prioritization section with the secretariat who could take another look at some of the imbalances and just prioritize some of them in a wait list mode.  

 So if that's acceptable to everybody, I would ask if somebody could put it up here on this screen as well so that I could see the Excel spreadsheet.

 Luis, can...

 Or I can...

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If we can have the screen working.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Or -- so which one are we on now?  Which was the last one we did, Eleonora?  160?  Which?  What number?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Right there.  Okay.  So the one that we're going to be discussing is ID Number 133.  It's an Asia-Pacific region proposal.  It was ranked 104 and the title is "Governance Innovation in the Age of the Sharing Economy."  

 So I'm hoping people have had the chance to look through this.  Again, it made this short list in that it was one of the next five highest rated proposals from the Asia-Pacific region.  Again, specifically to try to address some of the imbalances we saw.

 Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, Chair.  Considering we're short of time, I will be very brief.

 I would like to propose that we con- -- you know, combine this proposal with the Number 134, Digital Economy 2.0.  These two, both of them are from east Asia.  In east Asia, we really do making fabulous progress in the area of Internet or digital economy, and from, you know, mobile to, you know, online financing, shopping, sharing of rented apartments to dating, everything.  We're now -- we are now looking less and less cash and even beggars on the street collect money using the two-dimensional barcode.  So we do have a lot of good experience in the practice to share with the international society, and with the combination of these two, I think it will make it a more attractive proposal.

 And I have approached the proposers and they have generally agreed to such a propose- -- you know, merge.  And after that, I think we -- of course the mainland is also part of Asia-Pacific, but with these two combined and given the priority, I will try my best to shut my mouth so that we can have an early finish of the meeting.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I don't think there's any need for anybody to not speak.  I think we just need to keep it succinct and to the point.

 So just so that we're clear on the workshops we're talking about, the two ID numbers that Ji just approved merging are ID Number 133 and ID number -- where did it go --

 >>JI HAOJUN:  74.  79.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  79, right.  134.  So 79 and 133.  And he proposed a merger and said he has spoken to the proposers.  I'll give everybody a moment to think about that and see if there are any further questions or comments.

 So I think the merger answers one piece.  I mean, I think we need to agree that it's an important topic and that we support it because it's from an underrepresented region, and we still need to decide if we're actually pulling this in for definite or is it conditional.  I think we ought to -- I would characterize your proposal as conditional, given the merger.

 Is there support for that?  Is there any comment or reaction from the online participants, Anja or Luis?  No?

 Then I think we go forward with that as conditionally accepted.  And I'll ask Eleonora to note that.  

 Thank you, Ji.  That was a really -- really helpful and succinct intervention.

 The next one on the list is ID Number 134, was rated 105.  Blockchain as Fact Checker, the Solution for Fake News?  And I believe this was suggested as a wildcard by a MAG member.

 Arnold, if you could introduce it.  Thank you.

 >>ARNOLD van RHIJN:  Thank you very much, Lynn.  Good afternoon, all.  Yes, indeed, this was a proposal I would like to see as a wildcard accepted by the MAG.  That would be wonderful because in looking at this title, I really like it.  It's result oriented, focused, and a catchy title.  It inspires audience who will come to this meeting to think by themselves what do I expect and what can I contribute to this interesting topic.  It's a serious topic.  As you all know, fake news from professional journalists, news sites, user-generated fake news are around for a long time.  But scope is rising rapidly since the rise of social media.  Emerging technologies such as virtual reality, artificial intelligence, a smart algorithm have a huge impact on the spread of this news.

 Algorithms that determine what news we can see, for example, on Facebook, this creates the so-called filtered bubble and that prevents us from seeing the whole picture and makes us susceptible to manipulation.  And there's a growing need for fact checkers, which is currently mainly journalists who are looking at it.  

 But the main question is can blockchain, a new phenomenon, can this be start of the solution of fake news from journalists, news site, and user-generated news?  

 The IGF panel session will discuss possible solution whether such new developments such as blockchain can help journalism.  

 So that's the content.  But who are behind this content?  This is an enthusiastic group of youngsters, the young IGF community, who presented this proposal.  They're all young.

 And some of them were also quite active at previous IGF meetings.  So it's the youth community who has dedicated a lot of time and energy to come up with this much-promising, future-looking topic.

 Earlier comments from MAG members referred to the size of the panel.  And the reason behind this huge panel was -- I asked them, was the uncertainty whether there was sufficient funding to let the proposed panelists, all youngsters, come out for the debate.  Now I have got confirmation that five proposed panelists are in position to come to Geneva for IGF 2017 to have a debate on this very hot topic.

 And ask you, Chair, to the MAG to consider this proposal in a positive way.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Arnold.  That was a very useful introduction.

 I have in the queue Sumon and then Renata.  

 Sumon, you have the floor.

 >>SUMON AHMED SABIR:  Thank you, Chair.  I mention there is a seven submissions on fake news, and four of them already selected.  But I am pretty much aligned with Arnold that the content of this proposal is extremely good, and I really love to see this in the IGF agenda.  

 But there are already four same topics, people already selected.  One is 33.  It ranked 3.  68 ranked 14.  197 ranked 39.  And there is a 301 that is ranked 71.  So I can see either we could have -- it's difficult to see they are different topics.  We can mark (indiscernible) on fake news.  That also covers blockchain technology to help categorize the fake news.  This is something we can address actually.  Otherwise, there will be five sessions on fake news.  A little bit too much to me.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sumon.  Thank you for providing some perspective on the workshops that we have already accepted through our usual process.

 Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Thank you, Chair.  I support accepting conditionally this proposal.  I do not think it can be merged with other blockchain proposals.  Blockchain is an emerging topic.  Fake news is an emerging topic.  And bringing them together is very important.  Blockchain can be used for contracts, can be used for media.  We already discussed in a workshop on sextortion.  

 And I would note that despite coming from the Netherlands, there are some panelists from developing countries.  But I would even like to see more regional diversity.  There's kind of a separation between the different youth movements and to encourage it, I do think it's good.  

 I would like to see, for example, youth from MENA and Asia in this panel as well as Latin America.  There's only one Latin America, very good speaker.  I congratulate the group on the speakers.  But definitely find -- reach out to the other youth groups everywhere.  Thank you.

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

 Carlos, you have the floor.

 >>CARLOS FONSECA: Thank you, Chair.  Just a small word to express my interest in support for this proposal.  I'm not going into details about diversity.  I think Renata has a point.  

 But I think the idea to use blockchain to fact check is really interesting, considering the crisis in some countries.  The press is undergoing in different countries legitimacy, et cetera, et cetera.  I think the topic is really, really, really interesting.  I just say that.

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

 Pablo, you have the floor.

 >>PABLO BELLO:  I think that is a very important -- I think it is a very important issue, but I have to express my -- there is a problem with the diversity in terms of representation of differing multistakeholders.  I think that's a problem.  Almost everyone are from civil society, and I think this issue has to be more diversity in terms of stakeholders.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.  That's a good comment.  I'm just sort of wondering, though, if you are a youth how you are in any other category other than civil society.  You are not likely in government.  You are probably not in private sector.  So I think we maybe need to put a slightly filter.  But I think some of the geographic diversity, if we can accommodate that, would be good.

 The speaking queue is empty.  It seems they are having difficulty getting in.  

 Aida, you have the queue.

 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC:  Thank you.  I would like to express my support for this session.  I agree that we should take a slightly different approach to it.  

 As regards to the geographical differences, I have to say that I know more than half of these people here.  And geographically-wise, it's quite different.  

 However, whenever it comes to having -- not having enough stakeholder groups, those are all very young people but very enthusiastic and working a lot on different issues.  And it was probably -- it is probably harder for them to know people within the community.

 So what we can do is reach out to them and give them some sort of help, you know, in order -- because I know that they do want to make their session as better as possible for them.  So just my support.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Aida.

 I have Renata, Flavio, and Segun.  If we could be really succinct, yes, no and really crisply why you support or not so we can move forward through the rest, that would be helpful.  

 Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Thank you, Chair.  I will just say again I support the proposal.  There is a need for regional diversity.  But as stakeholder groups, you have a lawyer from a Brazilian bank talking about blockchain.  You have a journalist.  Sometimes the stakeholder groups are very defined as well.  And you do have here quite a variety of professions.  So I don't think the group needs to include that.  Thanks.

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

 Flavio, you have the floor.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  So, of course, the subject is very relevant, but just analyzing the merit of the proposal, that the session focus seems a little bit too narrow by concentrating on the discussion of a single technology, blockchain, to fight fake news.  It seems a little bit too narrow.

 Another thing is that the proposal lists 11 speakers which are too many for a 60-minute debate.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think Arnold actually said in his comments that the number of speakers was because they weren't certain who would manage to find funding, that they now have verified that there will be five.  So the number will be cut down.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  But it remains a problem, the focus of the session, which is just a little bit too narrow.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes.  It's funny.  I actually don't see it as narrow because I think blockchain is so big in terms of blockchains --

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Yeah, but the discussion is on blockchains for fighting fake news in particular.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I'm going to go to the queue.  I have Segun and then Moedjiono.  

 Segun, you have the floor.

 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Yeah.  Thank you, Madam Chair.  

 I'm fully in support of this workshop because that is exactly what we are looking for, too.  The fake news is everywhere, and it's impacting countries adversely.  And also, most of the people that are on the Facebook, so to say -- I don't have the empirical facts but I can only speak from my home country point of view.  They are huge.  So if the youth themselves are coming up with the solutions, I think we should give them the privilege to offer what they have.  I'm in fully support of it.  Thank you.

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

 Moedjiono, you have the floor.

 >>MOEDJIONO SARDJOENI:  Okay.  I support to be conditionally accepted.  After reading the description of this one, it's okay.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So I think I would have to call a consensus here on conditionally accepted, with the conditions noted, and let me just see if there's anything to add from the online participants.

 Okay.  Thank you.

 Moving on to the next one, which is ID Number 191, it was ranked 109, Public Policy to Deploy IPv6 in Develop Countries.  

 Is this the one that we -- I know there was quite an extensive discussion on the MAG list about taking the IPv6 and merging them.  Is this the one that we decided is the one that would be merged?

 >> Yes.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Can we just call this one done, because of -- no.  Seriously, because of the discussion on the MAG list.  There was a specific proposal two, three days ago to merge the two, and an awful lot of support on the MAG email list for that.  Lots of thumbs up and head shaking in the room.  

 Online participants okay?  Any further comments?

 If I'm moving too fast, Anja, and one does come in, then just raise your hand and we'll take a step back because I know it's difficult.  


 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  And Lynn, if you need someone to help with the merging, I volunteer.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Excellent.  I can see Eleonora typing "Raquel" right now.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  So we are on Proposal 50, which was from the MENA region, ranked 181.  The title is Data is the New Oil, Shaping the Digital Economy of MENA.  Is there somebody who can speak to this?  Rasha, was -- were you the one that moved this one forward or someone else?

 >>RASHA ABDULLA:  Yes.  Actually, I vote for all MENA workshops just because there were four and it might be helpful for me to just give a few pointers on the four, if you don't mind.  

 I think 50 could be merged with 147 or 203.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So just one second, Rasha, to make sure.  Rasha is saying she has suggested, because of the imbalance discussion on regions yesterday, that we consider the four that were in from MENA, and she's actually -- she obviously reviewed them and looked at them in the context of the four, so she just wants to walk us through what she's actually proposing from those four.  I'm going to wait a minute because there's lots of chat in the background.  There are a few mics on in the room as well.  If people could turn the mic off if they're not speaking.  

 Point of clarification, Juan?

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Why we jump from 191 to 50?  What happened with the ones in between?  We're not going to check those?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  79 is the one that -- if we're talking about 79?  79?


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  That was the proposal by Ji had that that be merged.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  And 48 and 238?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Oh.  Okay.  That was my mistake.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  No.  I'm just asking.  No, you could -- you could do it.  You're the chair.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No, no, no.  I obviously moved too far down the queue.  Thank you for keeping us straight here.

 So we are on -- 

 Rasha, I'll give you a few moments to prepare your comments on MENA and then we'll come back.

 So we're on ID Number 48, The Future of Internet Identifiers, How the DNS will Function in a -- smart world?  I can't see the rest of the title.  It was ranked 142.  

 I'm assuming that a MAG member put that forward as a wildcard.  In a Smart Cyberspace.  It's a 60-minute possible, WEOG, covers Internet of Things, and the comments were, "This workshop raises a good question for consideration but it needs regional diversity."  Another comment was, "A very important topic.  There's a lack of diversity and not enough information about the format."  Christine, you have the floor.

 >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Chair.  Well, actually, the -- I think this proposal had a technical problem because the speaker list is actually -- was not entered into the system and the comment that came in that it's lacking diversity but the speakers are actually confirmed and they do have diversity in terms of coming -- I mean, if you look into the -- into the proposal itself, it actually is written down in the description.  There are speakers from different -- so I would suggest that, if it's possible, to actually get the list of speakers or see what was the technical problem that was done with that one.  Because on one hand, it was a technical problem.  On the other hand, it's actually a very important topic.  It's -- it brings in the dimension of identifiers and also brings the perspectives of IoT, ITU-T 20, and the GAC, the ICANN GAC, so I think it's worth reconsidering.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sorry.  I just got kicked out of the speaking queue.  I'm going to recognize Dominique and then --

 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  No.  I was going to say I can't -- the IGF Web site is not loading, so I can't actually -- I think it's the same problem.  So I can't actually get in to see that particular one.  Thanks.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's what we're all experiencing at the moment.  So what we have access to is just what's stored locally on our computers here at the moment that we can -- right?

 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Can you bring up the description just for all of us, so we can -- 

 Do you have a cached version or...

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We're checking whether we might.  Right back to you.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes, Renata.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  I want to address something not specifically only to the proposal but it was spoken about this proposal and I will -- it was spoken about other proposals as well, and it's something to consider in general.

 The organizers are Germany.  Christine said that the speaker -- in the speakers list, they had diversity.  We are constantly coming back to workshops that are WEOG, but that have speakers from developing countries, so I'm not saying to change the criteria that a workshop is from a developed or developing country, given the countries of the organizers, but I'm saying that we should have a way to see this more directly when a workshop -- even if it is from a developed country -- attempts to find developing country speakers.  Perhaps a change on the form, on the way the proposals are written, on the -- the organization of the sessions, some sort of way.  But we need to find effort to try and find speakers from developing countries as well as in the submission form, in the proposal.  It is very important for developing countries to be recognized in these areas.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's a very important point, Renata.  

 Juan, are you able to talk to the proposal that's in front of us while we continue working on the site issues?

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  It's a good proposal, good speakers, good moderators, very well organized, but I'm -- I'm going to ask you a question.  

 Are we deleting some?  Because I think we are accepting everything, so I don't know what's going to happen.  I think we have to increase our level of exigence or -- because otherwise, I think we're -- everybody's good.  And all are good.  All are good.  All that are presented are good.  So not this particular one.  I think this -- but I think that the way that we are going, we will not -- later maybe off line -- on line in a virtual -- we will have to go through the whole list again, because in some moment, we have to toss some out, and we're not doing it now so that's what I wanted to -- maybe we should lower the razor, how we call -- the knife a little bit, you know.  The bar.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  I agree with your meta point that we can't just accept everything in because we are well over the allotment.  I think the complexity, of course, is raising or lowering the knife --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- but it -- and then it just impacts those that are coming in later in the review, is my only comment.

 If we can try and stay with this one for the moment.  If that's not possible, because people can't get access to it or haven't cached it --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Well, do you have it cached on the machine or no?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I have it in mine but my computer is so overloaded and between speaking queues and everything else...

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>LUIS BOBO GARCIA:  Should be back okay now.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So we are -- the proposal we're looking at, for anybody that does have it cached or is on it, it's ID Number 48.  It was ranked 142.  This was a wildcard that was put forward.  Partly because -- because of some technical glitches it hadn't been represented appropriately in the -- 

 We're back on line now?  Luis says we're back on line now.

 So what I actually have here is The Future of Internet Identifiers, how the DNS will Function in a Smart Cyberspace, 60-minute panel, Germany, civil society, and the speakers are two German and two Swiss.  So that's what I think you need to help me understand, Christine, where the other speakers appear.  Thank you.  You have the floor.

 >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  Thank you, Chair.  Well, as far as I understand, the glitch was that the name of the speakers are actually the name of the organizers, not the speakers.  So the actual speaker list was not --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHRISTINE ARIDA: -- was not put in and so it should cross down to the part where it talks about having speaker diversity.  It would mention, for example, a speaker from UAE, being the chair of the Group 20, it would mention other speakers from other regions, so I think it was a technical glitch and the topic I think is worth the debate.  It's quite important maybe to discuss, so it would be good if we can consider it.  Thank you.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sorry.  Thank you.  Consider it from the perspective of is this an underrepresented topic or subject and assume that we will get the appropriate diversity in the panel.

 Again, the topic is The Future of Internet Identifiers, How the DNS Will Function in a Smart Cyberspace.  Do we feel that that topic -- I think the only reason to rule this in is if we feel that that topic is underrepresented in the program selected to date.

 So I have Juan and Dominique and I'll get the speaking queue back up here in a moment, so apologies if I've missed anybody on line.  Juan.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  So I said this is no worse than many that we already have in the "maybe" list.  

 Definitely the topic is very up-to-date, as you see, because, you know, the value of the DNS is -- that's very interesting because, you know, all the things are -- all the money is moving around that.  And so -- but your question is still valid.  This is what imbalance we are taking.  Maybe the topic.  So -- but it's interesting.  So I will put it in and then we will have to deal, when we -- when we have to toss some out, we will have to come back with it.  I'm not getting very much complicated here in the details of this or that.  I think now, the way that we're working, only the obvious discards we are doing.  Then we'll have to go with a finer-toothed comb and see how to take it out.  Maybe we'll have to do that off line after the proposers have fixed, taking into account this, and then we will have to go with a finer tooth.  

 But for now, in the methodology we are using, this actually can go in with no problem.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So I think that's probably a good way to work.  What we can do, it's the 21st of June that the open forums -- or later in June, right, that the open forums list --

 So by the end of June, we will know how many open forums we have, which is -- which also determines how many additional workshop slots we have.

 So if people are okay going forward the way Juan said, we will come back and look at what's been in or conditionally in, we can do a preliminary prioritization on the basis of the imbalances which we've actually discussed, take a more thoughtful look in the secretariat at a topic level, as well, to see if any of those are oversubscribed, and put forward just a recommendation to the MAG for a prioritization, if that works.

 I mean, I do think it's probably about the best we can do, given where we are in the process here now.

 So I have Dominique in the room.  I have the speaking queue back up now.  And then Shita, you're the first in the speaking queue after.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair.  No, actually, I was speaking before, for the previous point.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Oh, okay.  Okay.  Thank you.  You have the floor.

 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  So in light of what you just said, do we want to discuss this particular one or are you -- do you want to just move on?  Continue?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  I think we're still looking -- so my last comment was to the process overall.  I think we still need to decide -- discuss if this is one we are discarding or are we keeping it in with conditions.

 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Okay.  So then I will make a comment about this one in particular.

 So I -- when I was reviewing them, there were a few relating to DNS and the future of the domain name space.  I think there's this one.  There's another one that was ranked quite -- like very much ranked at the bottom of the list, and I can't remember.  Anyway, there's a couple.  I can look at my notes.

 The concern I have with this one is that if you go down to the bottom, there's not enough clarity about the diversity of the speakers.  Study Group 20 and the work that's being done there is one of about 55 to 60 places that IoT and future identifiers are being looked at.  There's probably over 30 organizations that cover this topic area.  

 And so just saying that "Invited speakers of this session represent all the stakeholder groups" is not sufficient enough, I believe, and pointing out one particular group that's working on IoT standards and identifier standards is really -- I think it's a bit challenging.

 As a sort of alternative to this, I would suggest that maybe there's possibly some other way that we can look at an overall view of maybe the future of Internet technology or whatever, but I think having a specific workshop without the clarity of exactly who's being invited and the representation and focusing on one of many, many issues around identifiers is probably not, you know, best served for an IGF.  So thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Dominique.  So I have Sumon in the queue next, and Luis, if you could take Shita out.

 >>SUMON AHMED SABIR:  Thank you.  This is the kind of issue affecting the future so I find it very interesting and full support on this proposal.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sumon, and thank you for the brevity, too.  

 Rasha, you have the floor.

 >>RASHA ABDULLA:  Thank you.  I'm actually not an expert on this topic but I'm just going to say if we have any doubts there was a technical glitch with the system or with the list of speakers, that I think it's only fair to email the -- either the first -- the first name that appears as a speaker here, who I suppose is the organizer, or Thomas Schneider, who is on the list of speakers, and just get a proper list of speakers and then judge, because, otherwise, I think this is unfair.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I support that point.  It's a good point.  

 Elizabeth, you have the floor.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  I was actually going to support the process that you had described where if we have this reservation about this, we can put it into the other stack and then re-evaluate it.  I have difficulty supporting it right now given the goal that we actually have for rebalancing and all of this kind of things.  But in view of what was just said, I think to re-evaluate it with the proper information at a different time would be a better action.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Let me see if I can move that.  Certainly in the room here there are hands, fingers up and heads moving.  

 Any comment in the online chat room?  

 What we are basically saying is we are going to back to the proposers and ask them to clean up the submission and then we'll take another look at it.

 I think that's agreed then.

 I don't know, Sala and Christine, no need to be in the queue given that discussion?

 We just agreed we don't have enough information to evaluate it.  

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: I wanted to comment.  I graded this workshop, and I marked it down.  The reason I did was I felt that -- I noted that it meant -- the workshop proposers mentioned the ITU-T -- sorry, the representative who happened to be a chair from UAE would represent the views of the developing world.

 That to me was ridiculous.  So, of course, I graded it down.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: We'll note that in the comments we send back to them.

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  I would just say that I don't support the workshop.

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

 Now I have Ginger and Ji in the queue.  Is that to this proposal?  Again, I want to note that I think there's consensus to put it back to the proposers for more clarity given the glitch.  

 Ginger, if you would like the floor, it's yours.

 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Well, actually -- good morning.  Actually, I am (indiscernible) from the floor in case there are problems later.  I'm in the eQueue.  But please let me speak when we get to Number 4.  Thank you.

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

 We'll make sure you're there.  

 Ji, did you have a comment?

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, Chair.  Very briefly, I really don't understand this technology.  But I have an impression the DNS is very out-of-date thing.  And we know when we are entering the age of quantum technologies, when quantum computers will be commercialized in the near future, these technical things will also change accordingly.  And so I don't see the value of discussing this now.

 And taking this chance with your indulgence, I would like to have a tweak to my earlier proposal that -- you know, to merge the two East Asia proposals with the understanding that the number -- original Number 133 is among the top five from Asia-Pacific.  Could we put it in the definite list, with the understanding that 79 will not be listed in any list?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So if I understand you correctly, your previous proposal was that 133 and 79 be merged.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And now you are proposing 133 go forward and 79 not?

 >>JI HAOJUN: I would still advise them to be absorbed by the earlier one.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: It's still a merger by the definition.  We'll note that.

 >>JI HAOJUN: The first one is on the definite list, maybe we can forget about the next one.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think the way this will be handled by the secretariat is 133 is in and we're asking them to work with the proposers of 79.  We're asking the proposers of 79 to work with them if, in fact, their concept is going to go forward.  Is that right?  So I think we're in agreement, Ji.

 So let me -- the next one is one of the MENA.  I think Rasha's proposal -- since she suggested on the basis of the regional imbalance discussion we had yesterday putting all four of the MENA proposals in for discussion here in the MAG.  I think it does make sense to take them as a whole.  

 Maybe you can introduce them all, Rasha, and then we can see how we proceed from there.

 You have the floor.

 >>RASHA ABDULLA:  Thank you.  I looked at the four proposals again last night.  My order preference would be Number 140, which is an update on the Arab IGF; 246 which is on freedom of expression; 50 which is data is the new oil about digital economy in the Middle East; and 238 which is on local content.

 And my rationale is the following.  On Number 140, which is my preference, part of the feedback says that it lacks a background paper.  But I don't think one is required because there was no prior submission.  And it says that the workshop was -- the proposal was written from the proposer's point of view.  And I'm just wondering if aren't all proposals written from a proposer's point of view?  I mean, I don't think that's -- I don't think that's saying as such.

 I think it's an important discussion on how to get the Arab IGF going.  I'm not sure if -- if this is not the fora for it, I'm not sure where else they can do that.  I think it's a good opportunity for them to do that.

 On Number 246, which is on freedom of expression, I do agree that the proposal is not very well-written but the topic is important given everything that's happening in the Arab world and the Middle East.

 There are a lot of challenges to the practice of just being on line in that part of the world.  So I think that maybe worth giving it a shot.

 Number 50 I think is a very good idea, but I think it could be merged with either Number 147 or 203, which are both on digital economy from a multicultural perspective.  So I think maybe 50 can go in as, like, an Arab aspect of that.

 246 -- I'm sorry, the remaining one is 238.  And that was actually -- that was the one that Zeina had emailed about and she said she was pulling herself out of the speakers' list.  And I'm actually not sure -- I don't see much Arabness through the proposal once Zeina pulls out.  There are a couple of names listed as online moderators and offline moderators.  I'm not sure how that really adds to the discussion, but maybe Zeina can clarify that.  So this is my perspective on the four workshops.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Rasha.  I have Zeina in the queue and then Jac.


 >>ZEINA BOU HARB:  Thank you, Chair.

 I would like to give my opinion on the four workshops that was proposed for the MENA region.  

 But can I please have a clarification regarding how would we cover the imbalance presence of the MENA region if we were to just take, let's say, one, two, three workshops?  What is the criteria -- how should we cover this imbalance if we are just re-evaluating only four workshops and we might choose one or maybe neither of them?  I need, please, your reply here on this.

 Regarding the third workshop that was proposed to be reconsidered, I stated yesterday I prefer to have a workshop that is -- that the proposers come from two different countries.  Those are in the MENA region or outside of the MENA region.  For example, the one that Rasha was talking about was proposed by Morocco.  And when I said I will remove my name, it is because I propose also to merge the other workshop with it.  I propose to merge 238, which is on local content, with the other workshop, which is 246.  We can find a solution to merge both those with -- at least the speakers will be more diverse but still the MENA region will be well-represented from the speakers' point of view.

 The workshop 50, actually I find it's very good.  It's in line, though, what has been discussed tomorrow in the WSIS Forum when they said that the countries now, they should measure the indicators of their economy health by GDD, which is the growth domestic data instead of growth domestic -- instead of GDP.

 I think it was to be reviewed, especially the speakers, they are from the Arab region which should be presented, should be present during the IGF '17.

 If I need to choose between those two or three remaining workshops, actually my priorities will go to 238 merged with 246.  Then the workshop Number 50.  

 Actually I would like to express my reservation regarding the workshop 140 because, first, it's not relevant anymore because currently the Arab IGF is under -- a whole process is under revision and it's being reviewed.  That was declared during the last meeting that was held in Beirut.  

 What's really bothering me is the two meetings that are criticized here, they were held in Beirut.  And one of them, the last one, it was my organization was hosting this proposal, I mean, the Arab IGF meeting.  And it was attended by 750 people which expressed -- they all appreciated that meeting and even the social -- the civil society, they were there represented by 21% of the attendance.

 For me, I think this workshop should not be presented and at least it will not be fair to the two main components which are the UN-ESCWA and the League of Arab States who are supervising this process.  When you say it lacks transparency or it's not multistakeholder, I mean, this is an accusation for them for not following the U.N. rules.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Zeina.  I'm going to work backwards from your comments.  From what you said -- and even Rasha's introduction of 140, the Arab IGF debrief, I don't think it actually meets the criteria for an interesting workshop for the broad population if it's simply a debrief on an IGF.  And I think, you know, with your latter points as well, I'm sure the secretariat would be pleased to provide a room if people want to meet on site to try to resolve some of that since they are there but that it wouldn't be part of a workshop.

 So can we get support for that going forward?  So that was for 140.

 238 and 246, Zeina actually proposed merging.

 Jac, did you have a comment on the Arab IGF debrief, 140, or something else?

 >>JAC sm KEE:  As a group or starting with 140?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I was going to try to separate them out a little bit because I'm worried that people will get lost if we move back and forth between them.  So right now in front of the floor is the 140 moving to providing a room for an internal meeting, should that be helpful, but that it doesn't really meet the criteria for a workshop proposal for a global session.

 >>JAC sm KEE: Okay, yeah.  I was reading through the workshop proposal.  And I really note Zeina's comments as well.  There was one comment I thought it was actually quite valuable to sort of organize the workshop, to have the sections, share insights, sort of do what works, what didn't work, plans for the future.  I thought that was actually quite a valuable thing to do.

 I saw also in the list of speakers -- because at first I was quite concerned it might just be one stakeholder dominance.  It seems there is an effort to sort of make sure that it's multistakeholder, that there's people from different countries and Arab region as well to participate and with Zeina's comments to make sure that part of the organizers, which she mentioned, which is cited, is also invited to be part of the conversation.

 So I do think there's value in that.  I'm not sure what will be -- what the pros and cons will be in terms of it being a closed planning session as opposed to kind of an open session which is around sharing of best practices or insights or learnings that other maybe NRIs can also benefit from.  So I'm not entirely decided on that, but I do see the merits of this session.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I feel like there's a whole bunch of subjects here that I'm not comfortable with.  But if this is an ongoing discussion amongst the stakeholders in the Arab region who want to have a debrief on what worked well within the Arab region, I have to say I'm not sure that that works appropriately as a top-level IGF workshop.  I mean, it sounds like some of the points of disagreement are things that need to be ironed out amongst the parties that are in disagreement.  And there may be learnings which come out of that which could be shared subsequently in terms of things they could have done to address it differently.  But I'm still looking at lots of faces around the room here, and I'm not quite sure.

 Rasha, you have a comment on that?  We'll come back to the others in a moment.  Again, we're still trying to move through these just as succinctly as we can.

 >>RASHA ABDULLA: It's more of a question/comment.  Just to point out there is a Latin American representative on the session on the Arab IGF.  So obviously they're trying to learn from other regional IGFs to see what are the lessons learned so it's not purely from an Arab perspective.

 But I'm also not sure -- I mean, would that maybe qualify for an open forum or something of the sort?  I'm not sure what the answer would be.  I mean, I'm not adamant on having it if it doesn't meet the criteria, but I'm not very clear on that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Anybody want to speak directly to that?  I see Renata and then Mamadou Lo.

 Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Yeah, I'm confused.  I would like to submit something about the workshop from my country, but I also do think it's quite limiting to talk about my house in somebody else's house.

 [ Laughter ]

 I don't know.  It's confusing.

 However, I agree with the point that we need more MENA workshops.  So I would propose the following.  I would support the merger that Zeina put forward.  

 The data (indiscernible) is a fantastic proposal.  I think it's amazing also that they have the global perspective on this which is very important.  

 And why not then if 140 gets considered, which I don't really understand why, again, I come back to working group session format to maybe take it as a lightning talk.

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

 Mamadou Lo, you have the floor.

 >>MAMADOU LO: Thank you, Chair.  I will not be long.  I want to use the line of Zeina just to stress my disagreement on workshop 140.  As for me, it is not dealing with a specific Internet governance issue.  For me it is a structural issue in the region, which deals with the division Internet governance.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Mamadou Lo.

 I have Jac in the floor -- in the -- Jac, you have the floor, and then I have Sala in the queue.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Sorry.  I was going to -- because I was wondering about whether the inappropriateness was because it was a very specific region.  Then I looked at the workshop proposals and saw that APR IGF had another one.  I read through it very quickly as I put my hand up and realized it's a completely different one, something about synthesis document process, so I'll just put my hand down, because I was going to suggest a merger maybe, sort of then they can go together and talk about what worked in the NRI process, but maybe it doesn't.

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

 Sala, you have the floor.


 I'd just like to pick up on Juan's comments earlier.  We need to start -- as a MAG to start cutting and slashing some of these workshops, primarily because of the time and efficiency.

 Secondly, if we are concerned about geographical representation from some parts of the world, then what we could do is extend an invitation through Anja and the secretariat to the NRIs for participation in any of the workshops.  Otherwise, what we're doing is circling around the wilderness, and frankly, it's frustrating.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sala.  Segun, you have the floor.  And then I'm going to try and close on this, wrap these up.

 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

 I think I would propose that we probably give this workshop a chance.  Why?  Because Arab region is a peculiar region.  And let me read the first paragraph of that proposal.  It says that, "After four meetings from 2012 through 2015, the regional Arab IGF has been heavily criticized by civil society groups and other for not being a true multistakeholder forum for Internet governance."  Now, the reason why I'm emphasizing that is that we have always been bombarded with information and data that Arab countries and regions are not yet operating in an open process, and if we are talking about encouraging penetrations of Internet governance in that region, I think we should be able to give them the privilege to share their experience and let us know what they are doing, what could be the challenges.

 So I would like to propose that we give them -- this proposal a chance.  We can merge it with any other workshop, but I think it's actually worth giving a chance.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Segun.  I mean, I think everybody that wants a chance should be given a chance.  I'm not sure there's a consistent position across there that they want this particular chance.

 I'm still -- 

 Let me just check and see if Ginger is in the queue on this topic or is she lining up for when we're finished with MENA, and on 4?  

 Because I -- this -- honestly, I'm going to have to push a little bit here.  I think specifically Workshop 140, an Arab IGF debrief, I don't think -- with all the other workshops that we are not able to pull into the program, I just don't think that that meets the level of a workshop that would interest, you know, a wide cross-section of participants.

 I, you know, fully agree it sounds like a lot more discussion is required.  We can provide a room.  I'm sure you can pull in other people -- other participants to talk about their experience if that would help.  You know, whatever would help you to actually advance that understanding.  But I don't think it actually meets the criteria of a workshop.  

 And I really just want to do a yes-or-no sort of thing in the room, would this be that this would not be a formal -- 

 It's no.  It doesn't go forward as a formal workshop proposal.

 So that point, I have -- I will allow Christine to come in and comment.

 >>CHRISTINE ARIDA: Thank you, Chair.  Well, I think, yes, it doesn't look like it could be a workshop maybe.  I do agree with your point.  So -- but it maybe deserves a discussion and maybe this is applicable for others, so maybe if there is a space that is made for open discussions that could be allocated by time and that's a generous thing, I think maybe it could be helpful maybe for them and for others.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Chengetai is saying that it can be a side meeting and I think those are addressed by simply sending a request to the secretariat.

 >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  So I would suggest maybe responding in that way, if it's possible.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think we can be quite thoughtful about the note that we actually send back to the secretariat on that.  

 Zeina, since you had a comment on that, let me just see if there's any other comment on it and then I'm going to move to the rest of the MENA proposals.

 >>ZEINA BOU HARB: Thank you, Chair.  Just replying on Segun's comment, I have the statistics regarding the participation in the Arab IGF.  For the last year -- the last meeting, which was in 2015, the participation was 21% civil society, 27% government, 23% business sector, 6% academia, and the other -- the remaining, I don't have the exact number.

 So let me -- this means that everybody was present and everyone was participating in and it's not a problem of multistakeholderism or no.

 Regarding the meeting that is requested, I think the Arab IGF component -- main organizers, which are the ESCWA and the League of Arab States will be here to present the result of the enhancement process that was made.  They will be here in December to present it during -- with the NRIs.  They will reserve a slot of time to present this process.

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

 238 and 246, there was a proposal to merge those.  I'm having a little bit of a hard time trying to -- understanding who is in the queue specifically on that.  I think Sala is out.  I'm not sure about Ginger, but if Anja could give me a signal.  And Renata looks like she's definitely in, so Renata, just may I give you the floor while we understand whether or not Ginger wanted to come in on this particular one?  You have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Yes.  I want to address that merger specifically.  Jac commented they are different issues.  Yes.  They are both about content but however one of them is about freedom of expression in the region and the other about producing local content.

 I think we have this continuous challenge with mergers.  What if the proposers don't accept it?  That's why, again, I do support a merger because we need to have a workshop from the region and because I do believe it can be done.  Arab media is always a topic that can be explored in terms of freedom of expression, but it was -- there was a comment on when we do mergers, I think we have to give someone the right of denial not to do the merger and then they move forward.

 So my right of denial here would go to freedom of expression.  246.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So if I understand, you're saying that 246 should go forward and it has the option to merge with 238?

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  246 merged with 238.  However, if they don't want to merge, it stays 246.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  246 goes forward.  

 Zeina, you have the floor.

 >>ZEINA BOU HARB:  I propose to work on the merger of those two and I think I can do it.  I know the proposers and we can do it.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Anja, can you tell me, is Ginger in the queue on this item?

 >>ANJA GENGO:  I'm trying to clarify, but Ginger is waiting -- was waiting for the Number 4.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  4.  That's what I thought.  Okay.  But I really don't want to just assume that.  

 So Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thank you, Chair.  Actually, the merger that I was recommending earlier wasn't in relation to this at all.  It was in relation to 140 and the one on APR IGF, which I can't remember what the number is right now.  And if -- I'm just -- I know we've decided on 130 but I think I would just -- yeah.  I guess I'm not really understanding the criteria, so some clarification would be good.  And also, the -- in that -- there are many -- many workshops that also sort of appeal to quite a specific group of people, whether by region or not.  So, yeah, I think I'm just not understanding.  I'm not really pushing for it -- that, you know.  I'm just trying to understand because it then has an implication on a bunch of other things.

 So that's just one.

 But the 246, I marked it up.  This is one of the workshops that I actually was marking as well.  I marked it up because it was a first-timer, it's an important conversation, but I would -- I was putting as recommendation to have more diverse stakeholder groups as well as gender participation because so far, I think it is an all male and all civil society panel, if I'm not mistaken.

 I do agree that the topic is critical and it will be a valuable contribution from the region.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I'll come to the 140 point in a moment but just to pick up with where you left off, the -- Renata put forward a proposal that said 246, freedom of expression on the Internet and its contribution to human development, I'm assuming, should be in, and they should be asked to look at workshop 238 to see if there was an opportunity to merge, and if not, 246 goes forward, 238 does not.

 And I think we had Zeina, as a MAG member, agreeing to work with them to see that process through.  

 Is that something this room would -- the MAG would support as a way forward?  

 Is there anybody who has a strong objection to that on line or in the room?  

 Then let's go forward on that basis.  

 And to your previous point, Jac, on workshop 140, the Arab IGF debrief, I actually think as a debrief, with I think the conversation we were exposed to here in the room, it just sounds very internal and that it is going to work to solve a number of internal problems that honestly some people made quite clear they were more comfortable discussing amongst themselves.  My main point is I just don't think it meets the criteria of would a significant portion of the community be interested in going to that meeting.  

 If it was a straightforward debrief which says, "The Arab IGF has done all these great things and these are the learnings that we can take forward" I think that would be a different position, but I'm not getting the feeling that that's what the discussion would be at all.  

 And I see heads moving, including people from that region, so if we can remain with offering 140 an opportunity to meet amongst themselves.  

 And again, they have the opportunity to bring in other participants, if they want, and they can structure that meeting however they want.  It just will not be listed as a formal workshop in the program.

 I hope that clarified.

 We have one more from the MENA region.  50.  Data Is the New Oil, Shaping the Digital Economy in MENA.

 We had support from Zeina for that going forward, and I think from Rasha as well.  I see Renata with her hand up in the back.  

 Is there anybody that wants further discussion on that?  Any concerns?  

 What were the comments on it?  

 Oh, I like the first two words.  Yeah, the first two words in the comments say "Excellent submission."


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So the -- basically it says "Needs an improved stakeholder balance.  Right now it seems to be more of a local and regional character.  And could benefit from a broader geographical reach, as it concerns all the regions."

 Can we ask either Rasha or -- yeah.  The first one says, "Excellent submission.  Diversity stats could be improved but I understand that may be a challenge given a regional format of the session," and I suspect a topic which is quite unique to that region as well.

 Is there support for that going forward?  Going forward conditionally?  People still with me here?  Getting to the end.

 [ Laughter ]

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

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, Chair.  My impression is that this data thing is very good, very important, but this is a global issue, not a regional issue, and, you know, how to collect and use big data, its benefits and its risks, we should put the big data thing in a larger context rather than in a subregional context.  That's my concern.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ji.  Good comments.  And it is quite -- Chengetai just pulled up the speakers.  It really is fairly region-centric, and given the focus is data, there's no reason for it to be so region-centric.

 Should we put that on a wait list and ask the secretariat to go back and look at some of the other data workshops and see whether or not we can pull some of the speakers perhaps into that workshop or is there strong support for going forward that way?  

 Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  And apologies.  I can't get in the queue right now.  But it's Asia and MENA, so you have the global south there, and this is also interesting from the regional perspective because the title is Data Is the New Oil.  This is a region -- a region which not long ago had the Arab Spring, so to me these correlations are quite clear.  I don't see why we should pull off, for example, global north into this workshop, which would -- to me, it would be very artificial.  I think it is quite interesting to have these perspectives of Asia and MENA in the Data is the New Oil workshop.

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

 Rasha, you have the floor.

 >>RASHA ABDULLA:  Yeah.  Just to clarify that if there was space, I would argue to push this workshop on its own.  I think it's a worthwhile topic.  I had before suggested that if there wasn't space, that it could be merged with either 147 or 203, but I -- my preference would be to see it go -- go forward as a stand-alone workshop.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Let me get a -- thank you, Rasha -- a quick reading from the room in terms of any strong position on going forward as a stand-alone workshop?  And I -- so Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Chair, I'm very flexible, yeah, on this.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ji.  It's always good to have a reaction.  You have the floor.

 >>SAMUEL BAMBO: Thank you, Chair.  I think if there is a group that understands what oil is all about, it should be the guys from Asia, and if they are shifting their stance towards data, I think this presentation is going to be a very interesting one and I strongly believe it should be pushed forward.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.  I also note, going back to one of Zeina's comments when she asked what are we doing to address regional imbalance, out of the four MENA proposals we're looking for, to date we have pulled in one.  

 If people feel that this one is interesting enough and topical enough, then I would suggest we pull that forward as well with the regional imbalance.  

 And I didn't hear a lot of conditions on this either.  

 So is there support for proceeding that way?  Heads nodding in the room, for those that are reading their mail, and on line, is there anything?  Thank you, Anja.  Okay.  So we'll go forward that way.  Which means we're going back up the list to 4, and Ginger?  

 I think Ginger was looking to introduce that.  She's made a couple of comments on the MAG list.  

 Thank you for your patience, and you have the floor.

 >>ANJA GENGO:  I'm sorry, Chair.  Ginger said that she will use the MAG mailing list to post.  She will not intervene through Adobe.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Can she not intervene through Adobe because...

 >>ANJA GENGO:  Maybe she finds the system ineffective for online participants.  I don't have a concrete input.  In any case, she said that she will use the email.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yeah.  I'm not sure that's particularly effective.  

 Maybe we can ask the secretariat if they can pull up the email.  She sent some emails on it already and we can read from that here so we take a decision in that format openly, the way we have with all the other workshops as well.

 So I will ask -- well, we'll, first of all, introduce it -- Chengetai and I will introduce it quickly, then, and in the background, maybe Anja, if you have the email from the MAG list, maybe you can pull it up, unless we can do it quickly here.

 So it was a small island developing states roundtable.  Are We Running Out of Resources and Bandwidth?  90-minute roundtable, technical community, Latin America and Caribbean.  Not --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Can you scroll up to -- so I can see it up there on the screen, Eleonora?  I want to know where it was ranked.

 And then Chengetai is going to pull up the comments in a minute.

 So it was ranked 162, ID Number 4, and the comment was, "Would be interested in understanding how this year's discussion will be different from previous years and how this year's discussion can show evolution in the discussion progress and new challenges."  Another comment said, "It's an important issue but too specific and narrow for the IGF.  The structure proposed for the workshop is fine" -- which was a town hall style -- "but the success depends critically on the number of participants and there are only three confirmed speakers."  

 Renata, are you able to speak to this proposal?  Maybe reflect what Ginger put in the earlier emails?

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Yes.  Thank you for considering Ginger.  I can try to sum that up.

 But, yes, I don't understand why the only proposal that brings in regions that are completely overlooked has reservation.  It's a traditional proposal in the IGF exactly because it is incredibly difficult to bring in small island developing states together to discuss Internet governance.  And the IGF is the only space these people have.  I'm saying "these people," yes, because I am from Latin America.  But the issue that the Caribbean faces are way different from all other island states even.  And it's incredible that this proposal got a low rating.  I think they are traditional contributors to the IGF community.

 I would also note that, yes, they may have a few speakers confirmed.  But we have been through over and over the issues of speakers, countries, and confirmation and resource persons and funding.  So they have all reasons in the world being from a small island developing state to not have this proposal as, I don't know, pristine as others.  But they should -- if we have to defend someone, it would be them.

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

 I do agree that the comments on the participation are ones that we've seen in many of the other workshops as well.

 I have a queue.  I have Liesyl, Sala, Jac, Rasha, and Shita.

 Liesyl, you have the floor.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you, Chair.  And good afternoon, everyone.  

 Of the ones we're evaluating here for wildcards, this is the only one that shows up in the batch that I evaluated.  And I was completely surprised this didn't make it.  And I was sort of shocked.  I would have put it in as a wildcard if I had known it would be one.  I ranked it a 4.  Funnily enough, we have a high bar of 4.04.  But anyway, that notwithstanding...

 Just to associate with some of the comments that Renata had, I like the fact that it's even two regions really.  And it may be a specific problem but it is a very big one.

 The first comment on the comment chart is mine, saying I would be interested in sort of how this progresses, how the discussion will show progression and improvements and new challenges from last year.  So I fully support this proposal.

 And I will say this is the only one I'll going to come in on, but it doesn't prejudice my support or not support of other workshops.  But this one was in my batch.  Thank you.

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


 And if we can all keep our comments support for these reasons or I don't for these reasons, it will allow us to move through the rest.

 That was good, Liesyl.  That was not a comment on your comment, Liesyl.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ: I wasn't sure.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Just a general reminder as we go forward because the queue is growing here.  So it was a response to the size of the queue.

 Sala is next in the queue, but she's not here so I'm moving to Jac.

 >>JAC sm KEE:  We support this for the reasons that Renata and Liesyl already mentioned and also to point out that the format is also really innovative and for that purpose as well.  

 And just also to try to read some of Ginger's comments because she's struggling to get online.  She is saying that while -- I would point out that while the focus of these issues are SIDS where they are critical and clear examples, the points apply to the whole world, one, because SIDS are a global region.  Two, the issues affect everyone, not just SIDS and, three, the issues require global attention.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jac.  And thank you, Ginger, if you can hear us, we really appreciate you hanging in with all this.

 I have Rasha, Shita and Ji.

 Rasha, you have the floor.

 >>RASHA ABDULLA:  Very quickly.  I fully support the workshop, and I agree with what Renata and Ginger said.  I don't think just because we have a regional workshop that has enough diversity of speakers within the region, that's good enough to learn from that particular region.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI: I would like to support this proposal not only because of Renata's point but also the interactive sessions that they have.  Also the diversity of speakers as well as they also include young people.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.

 Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, Chair.  I think small island nations deserve a special favor and privilege.  Thank you.  100% support.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  So I heard this was a definite yes, and we may or may not want to say something around the diversity of the panel but that it was a definite yes.  Thank you, everybody.  And thank you, in particular, for keeping the comments quite to the point.  I'm sorry, Julian, did you want to come in?

 >>JULIAN CASABUENAS:  Just wanted to support the proposal.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Great, thank you.  Gave you the floor because you haven't actually taken it a lot.  So I always want to make sure that we're allowing all voices in.  Thank you.

 We are now on -- and we have to be getting to the bottom of this list, I think -- ID 251 which was ranked 171, Fast Tracking Digital Dividends for Women in CASA.  I'm assuming that was a wildcard since it's an Arab region. 

 Is there a MAG member that actually proposed it deserved a deeper review?  Do we know who sent it in?  Eleonora is looking to see which MAG member supported it.

 Oh, it was Omar.  Did he send an email in justifying?  Do you think maybe you can give Eleonora the mic and she can read the justification from Omar.

 Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, Chair.  Procedural issue.  I think we should continue working on addressing regional imbalance.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We're just working our way through the list.  This list was the list of all imbalances.  Regional is one.

 We are getting to the end.  So this was -- okay.  So this is a MAG member wildcard because he said it was submitted with the wrong country.

 Renata, can you speak to this one again?  Introduce it?  You found it quickly.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  This is clearly not a United States proposal.  It's about women in central and south Asia and helping them have better life through digital economy.  I don't even know how to start but I think we really need to think the allocation of countries and speakers because I do understand we have the criteria that the main proposer gets to be the country registered there.  But this is nothing to do with United States.  So I have no idea -- it's absurd when you read the country in the proposal.  So we really need to think about a better way of doing this.

 Yes, Afghanistan should definitely be a region that's addressed in regional imbalance.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And I agree with your comments with respect to the classification.  Again, the co-proposer is from Afghanistan and the speakers are from south Asia and central Asia.  And, again, the topic is fast-tracking digital dividends for women in that region.

 Comments on this workshop?  

 Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, Chair.

 As always, I always have problem with the gender factor in Internet governance.  Dividends is for all, for both men and women.  And in China, many ladies opening up shops on line and they're dating on line so they can avoid forced marriage.  Internet makes people's life easier not only for women but also for men.  I'm a bit uncomfortable with this gender-biased approach.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I'm not sure I would rate this as a gender-biased approach.  I know Omar has done an awful lot of work in the region.  I don't want to unilaterally declare something in or out.  So I actually need input from the room here at-large.  I think the reason it wasn't rated highly is because it was erroneously characterized as a U.S. or WEOG workshop.

 But I need comments.  Is this filling a topical imbalance or otherwise?  Jac, you have the floor.  And then I --

 >>JAC sm KEE:  Thank you, Chair.

 Start again?  Okay.  I will stay focused.  Stay focused.

 I think the issue around regional imbalance, if we can clarify whether the proposer is from the U.S. or not.  And actually even if it were, it sort of doesn't really matter because the content and the speakers and the discussions are other regions.  So it is addressing a specific regional imbalance.  That's one.

 With regard to gender issues, I would -- what I would maybe recommend is that, Ji, you and I have coffee and talk about this, no?  

 Really, it's not about -- first of all, there is the need to really understand it.  There is gender discrimination and inequality that is just there.  That needs to be addressed at all levels, including around access to the Internet, including around benefits to Internet, including around participation, and so on and so forth.  I will not speak too much around this for now.  But, yes, I would really present an open invitation for a conversation.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  There are certainly plenty of statistics that support that as well.

 Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  I'll ask the same that was asked before.  If there is any technical problem with the proposal, the proposer has the right to get back to the secretariat and ask again to be checked how he registered the proposal.

 So someone from Afghanistan studying temporarily in the United States registered this proposal as United States.  And this proposal is not a developed country proposal.  How come?  Just take a look at the country.  Bhutan, Maldives, this has nothing to do with the United States.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Renata.  We don't need to talk about how our statistics and administrative process works.  We should take some of this as we go forward next year.  It's very clear when you look at the list of speakers.

 Aida, you have the last comment.  And then we will try to move forward.

 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC:  Thank you.  I would like to (indiscernible) what Jac said, and I will invite myself for the coffee.  

 Why do I support and why do I think it's important to support this session and all the sessions that include a W much less "women" is why do we need gender talks here and everywhere?  As long as there is one person who underlines how we have reached equality because someone's girlfriend or wife has better phone than her in 21st century, we still need to talk about gender balances.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.  And I think you know I'm much in agreement with that given my comments the other day as well.

 Ji, I have to ask, do you really need a response to that or can we move forward to the workshop consensus?

 >>JI HAOJUN: I'm drinking coffee already.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think that was an invitation -- or an acceptance to the subsequent discussion.

 Can we move forward with pulling that workshop in?  I think it's a great topic from an underserved region.  I think it's one of the -- it addresses a couple of the imbalances, as Jac said.  There's support for moving that forward.  

 Again, Anja, is there any comments in the chat room or Adobe Connect?

 >>ANJA GENGO: There are no objections.  Just support to what Aida said, Jac said.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Giving the comments earlier which is just as important to register when there is strong support, so that's noted.  Thank you.

 Jac, are you in the queue on this again?  You just popped up.  We'll move forward with that one.  

 Where are we next?  16, ID 16, ranked 192, What's the Right Age to Start Digital Education for the Future Generation?  Why does that sound so familiar?  Did we not discuss that the other day?  That was -- I am guessing somebody put that forward as a wildcard.  Do we know who and can they do a very brief introduction?


 >>KENT MOCHIZUKI:  Thank you, Chair.  This workshop is actually from my company.  And I already explained by email and also yesterday.  So I don't need an explanation on this session again.

 Just wanted to put this proposal on the table for your evaluation.  But, you know, according to the essence of the discussion, the merger of two proposals, meaning Number 6 and Number 16, actually rejected.  So it seems like I think this proposal cannot survive, cannot be -- stand our own session, workshop proposal.  So it's totally fine to withdraw this proposal.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So I guess one of the proposers -- if I heard you correctly, you are suggesting that in light of the discussions yesterday and the objection to merging the two, that this one be withdrawn?  Or not supported to go forward?

 >>KENT MOCHIZUKI:  Sorry.  That's totally fine for me.  Yes, because of the conflict of interest.  So I cannot support this proposal.  Just I have to be neutral and independent.  So it's all right.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Kenta, I think that's excellent and just a great, great spirit.

 Let me just see if there's anybody else who has a strong contrary view.  

 Sorry, Renata.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Yes, so I'm trying to understand here.  This proposal was proposed to merge with Number 6.  And if I understand it correctly, Number 6 also has a few observations.  

 Again, it's about the process of mergers.  Are we to consider then Number 6 can move forward if this merger cannot be done?  I would support that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So Eleonora is telling me, in fact, yesterday it was conditionally accepted probably for some diversity and it can go forward.  It's not contingent upon a merger.

 Jac, are you in the queue again?  Sorry.  I can't quite tell.  It's slow.  So you are or you aren't?  You have the floor.

 >>JAC sm KEE:  I apologize for taking the floor quite so often and struggling with the queue system because I keep dropping off the connection.  I assessed this workshop, and I actually found it to be really interesting, a really interesting approach to look at young people in terms of how young people engage with technology from a developmental, evolutionary process.

 So it was actually a really interesting proposal.  The only two recommendations that I gave was that I wasn't quite clear -- like, it would benefit from some tighter specificity in terms of what it would like to have at the heart of the conversation.  And, secondly, wasn't clear if there were actually going to be young people participating in the session.  Otherwise, I actually thought it was worthy of thought.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I thought it was very interesting as well.  I'm wondering if maybe we ask the new session format people to look at it and see if it can go into one of the flash sessions or something.  Let's go forward that with a thumbs up.

 And, Anja, let me know if there are something in the queue.

 We could spend the last hour on the main or focus sessions and at least kind of get the overall grasp of that picture.  So I would like people to really be succinct and see if we can move forward.  Again, we don't want to shortcut it but give it just enough time and no more.

 So we're on ID 282, Biometrics and Identity in the Global South, ranked 196.  This looks like a wildcard submission.  So, Flavio, if you would introduce it.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER: In fact, this proposal that has been put there as a wildcard by Ginger.  Since she is on remote and having some difficulties in speaking, so she asked me to help her.  

 So this proposal is on biometrics.  And the various types of problems that arise when people have their biometric data collected different places and whose data are then used without control from the people.  So there are human right issues around the implementation of those technologies will be dealt with in this workshop.

 Some weaknesses have been pointed out by the evaluators of this proposal.  This is why it has -- it is not very well ranked, but in fact, the organizers and speakers are all new to the IGF, and this is something that we should try to accept and even motivate them to come, and this is maybe one of the reasons for the proposal weaknesses.

 However, they are willing to work with Ginger and other MAG members to improve the structure and presentation, building on this unaddressed topic.  It's a topic that is not covered in other proposals that we have in the top 72.  

 And of course most of the proposed speakers come from different sectors of the civil society.  Speakers from governments and private sector are missing, but this will improved as Ginger helps the organizers improve the session.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Flavio and Ginger.  That was very clear.  

 Is there anybody who wants to comment on that?

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  And comes from the global south, yeah, from -- a proposal from Latin America, yeah.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So what I heard you say is it addresses regional imbalance and a topical imbalance as well and was quite a strong proposal, and given the question is around the speakers, that that's fairly easy to address.

 I see lots of heads nodding in the room, and again, not wanting to go too far forward but is this one we want to put forward?  

 And it's a definite?  

 There weren't many conditionals.  Again, I'm reading the room.  I recognize I'm pushing a little bit here, but not trying to go too far.  

 Anja, I'll give you a chance to see if there's anybody on line and --

 >>ANJA GENGO: So Ginger did post a comment but I think Flavio covered everything.  She's just adding the section of youth importance that is included in this proposal.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  So she's adding the fact that there's youth -- a youth focus as well.  

 Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, Chair.  Global south includes South America and also Africa, and metrics and identity is all very much an important issue in Africa, so I'm wondering if they can include some speakers from Africa.  That will make this topic more -- more relevant.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ji.  It's a good suggestion.  And Flavio is shaking his head yes.  I'm assuming Ginger will work with them.

 Okay.  Excellent.  Then we will move that into the "yes" category.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sorry?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Renata, do you need to say something on this proposal?

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  I support this proposal but I made a comment and I'm going to touch on a very simple topic, comments guidelines.  

 If you check the comments on this proposal, one says it's excellent, the other that it lacks everything.  I can't imagine the proposal receiving these comments from MAG members.  It's like what?  Two very -- two totally different comments.  

 So I'm not saying this to limit MAG members' freedom of expression, but I think we should have comments guidelines for our feedbacks, because we are apparently writing everything and the proposers will be very confused.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Well, I think that's good input for Rasha and the working group on workshop evaluation.

 We had hoped that we would move through this quickly enough today that we could sort of spend 20 minutes and get a reaction to this process.  We also need to go out to the community and ask the community about this process, how well it worked for them, so we will ask the working group to take that up, but then also note the comments that are made here over the course of the -- of the review.

 The next item is ID 15, ranked 197, Learnings from Multistakeholder Collaborations and Cybersecurity Response and Capacity Building.

 It's a 90-minute panel.  Private sector.  Asia-Pacific group.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And yeah.  And the comments are, "No gender breakdown in speakers but sounds like it could be an all male panel.  Also format could be more interactive."

 "The proposal would benefit from more speakers diversity, both gender and regional, and check for possible merge with similar topics."

 That one also looks like somebody put that in as a wildcard.  

 Carolyn, can you speak to that, please?

 >>CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.

 I sent some comments around out to the MAG list.  I'll just repeat the comments from there.

 So basically this propose -- this workshop was co-proposed by Microsoft Korea and the government of South Korea, and what it's proposing to cover really is some practical learnings, some collaboration between governments, so it's really between KESA and the government of Oman and Rwanda, and also an academic from China.

 It's intended to be fairly practical.  

 With respect to the diversity of the panel, currently there is one woman and four men, and the proposers are willing to invite -- there's currently a male expert from KESA and it's proposed that there can be a female expert instead.  

 With respect to other comments on the format could be more interactive and also the proposal would benefit from more speakers diversity and also check for possible mergers with similar topics, it would be great if there are potentially other participants or, you know, one of the suggestions was given the discussion from the NRIs and what seems to be a fair amount of interest from other people in Africa otherwise who would have similar practical learnings, I mean, I think that's really the idea is if there are some practical experience, can we have a dialogue around this.  You know, so we're open to anyone in particular from the NRIs or others who can share -- who would be happy to share within the -- you know, within the experience because I think that there's some -- it's really intended to share the experience.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Carolyn.  I have Elizabeth in the queue and then Segun.  Elizabeth, you have the floor.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  I just noted in the proposal that we were looking for governments and so we've got a co-proposer that's governments.  We're looking for Asia-Pacific, so we've got a proposal that's Asia-Pacific.  I don't know.  I hate to use the same barometer as Juan about the lowest common denominator, but I've heard a lot of proposals that don't actually meet those criteria for rebalancing being discussed and so I would like us to consider this one on the grounds that it does.  Of course recognizing the amendments that could be made.

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


 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Well, thank you, Madam Chair.  Naturally, I would like to support this workshop and probably I also would like to volunteer to provide a condition in terms of bringing an institution from Africa, because it's actually dealing more on capacity building and sharing of experience and all that.  Thank you.

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

 Carolyn is nodding her head "yes," which I assume means they're willing to do that.  

 I think at this point there's -- oh, Juan?  You're in the queue, yes.  You have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  I only wanted to make a suggestion to the secretariat.  This is one of the cases that for one reason or other will be several workshops with the same subject and probably and hopefully a main session.  I only wish that they are not programmed to be simultaneously, so that people that are interested in this topic could navigate through all these workshops and maybe also a main session.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  That's a good comment, Juan.  Thank you.  So is there support for moving this forward, given the regional diversity and the fact that it pulls more governments in?  

 It's obviously a key topic as well.

 And if we can just make sure that, in fact, these are all complementary and not redundant or overlapping.

 We'll pull that one forward down to the penultimate one, I think.  We have ID Number 162, ranked 220.  Towards to a Digital Geneva Convention.  That was a wildcard as well.  Sorry?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yeah.  But it's a roundtable, it was a wildcard.  Were you the person that moved it forward, Aida?  You have the floor.

 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Yeah.  Thank you.  So this is somewhat specific, because if you open two sessions, one is this and the other one would be Number 34 that is ranked really high on the Number 13, a Digital Geneva Convention to Protect Cybercrime, and if you compare those two, they are ranked so differently, yet they are equally good or bad, however you want to see it.  

 Those things that the one that is ranked very high lacks is what actually this one has, when it comes to diversity, for example, and I feel that Number 34 that was ranked high is just because we a priori saw that it was suggested by private sector while the other one is by civil society in the western Europe.

 So what I'm suggesting is to use this session and merge it with the one that is ranked high, in order to help the one that is -- I don't know how it ranked that high.  

 So this proposal is truly looking into capitalizing on Geneva's academic capital and the fact that we're having it here in Geneva we should, without a doubt, want to attract that, on having that.

 Second is the simple fact that Geneva convention are inspiration on the work of IG-related issues.  

 And then if accepted, it would also be a unique opportunity to build up for discussions on new conventions that just recently, also, I think The Economist discussed in the sphere of cyber-convention.

 So if we can merge these two segments, they would both improve having different ranging equality, as I said, bad in terms of stakeholder representation, so this would help there, and also geographical representation, which is interesting that this that was ranked low has more diversity in geographical representation than the one that was ranked very high, so I'm not sure what happened there, and also this is the reason why they should be merged, to fix obvious -- what it seems to be un- -- sort of unfair grading.  I lack better choice of words here.  And if this merge -- merging would be accepted, it really will not influence the slots that we have left for additional proposers, but would just bring to the equality and valuable exchange of views.  And lastly, I would volunteer in helping with these two merges.  So that's it for me.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Aida.  I think two comments.  I mean, if everybody had reviewed the same proposals, then maybe there would be a comparison for assuming that there were different biases but that's not the process we're in, so I think that that's impossible as a methodology.  

 Never mind, I would like to say in practice I would hope it absolutely isn't supported.  

 But nevertheless the -- Jorge has the floor in a moment, but the way we've tended to do this is when a proposal has come through the evaluation, particularly one that's ranked so high, that one is automatically accepted and we can certainly suggest to them that they look to this one and see if they can pull in some of the strong points of this one, but the earlier proposal is not conditional upon accepting this as a merger, just to make sure we're clear.

 Jorge, you have the floor.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:  Thank you and sorry for coming in on this proposal, but I'll put my national hat on, on this and I would like to make some points which go in the same line as Aida's.

 First is that proposal 162, as proposal 34, addresses a very hot topic, which is Digital Geneva Convention.  Under 162, it's with a question mark because it tries to trigger a debate.

 The second point is that we are talking about newcomers, except for one person from the DiploFoundation.  We have somebody from academia representing the knowledge of the University of Geneva in the field of international law.  We have a member of the Swiss parliament with proposing to be one of the speakers, so I think this attaches a lot of political relevance to this proposal.  And we have also somebody from the business sector with the CEO of a very large European communications group.  So I think we should take that very well into account.  Perhaps it wasn't known to the evaluators, but I think these are very important factors, especially if we are talking about bringing international Geneva into the IGF.

 And there's some -- one point that struck me as being very difficult to understand because in the comments of the evaluators, one of the comments says that "This is a flash session, that it lacks diversity, and is not connected to a theme and is not linked to any of the SDGs.  Proposal not relevant to Internet governance." I don't really get that comment, how it is related to the proposal.  And perhaps it was some kind of glitch or some kind of misunderstanding with another proposal.  I don't know.  And this could also explain the low -- the low -- the low points that the proposal got, because it's one of the proposals with the strongest variance of all the proposals that have been evaluated by the MAG.  It has a variance of 1.35, when normally we are talking about variances of 0.2 or 0.3.

 So I think these are arguments that give this proposal a special -- I think make that it would deserve special consideration.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jorge.  Is there an online?  

 And then Ji and Juan.

 >>ANJA GENGO:  There's a comment from Ginger that I will read.  "Could you enter my support for Aida's comments and this merger -- this is an important topic, where we should support a complete airing of the topic, especially bringing in the Microsoft view on this -- very topical, even trending."

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

 Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Okay.  Thank you, Chair.  I also support to have this -- to give this proposal some special treatment.  First of all, this is a host country proposal, and secondly, as I understand, Geneva Convention in Cyberspace is something very important.  The UNGGE is focusing on many new international law norms in the cyberspace in comparison with the other space international norm is very lacking and it is -- you know, in comparison with the -- the -- another Geneva convention proposal, this one is -- has a different dimension and it handles far more issues.  It's about peace and stability of -- in the cyberspace and the peace and stability of the world in general and considering Geneva is the original --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JI HAOJUN:  -- Geneva is the origin of international humanitarian law, this topic is very pertinent and we are looking forward to innovative proposals from experts and, you know, scholars from Switzerland but we can push forward global governance in the cyberspace by establishing or negotiating any future conventions in this regard.

 So I hope this can be stand-alone and be treated with priority.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ji.  

 I'm going to go to Juan in a moment, but I don't know that we're actually discussing a merger at this point because there's nothing to ask the earlier proposals -- proposal 34 to merge, and given the list of people you said were actually on this particular proposal, I'm not sure those are mergable in that -- in that sense.

 So at some point we'll have to look for clarity as to whether or not we're suggesting that this proposal move forward and be examined by proposer 34 for merger and to bring forward some of those ideas or are we going to support, or not, a second stand-alone proposal.

 So I have Juan in the queue and then Aida.

 >> Just quickly to say that that's absolutely acceptable for them to communicate each other.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chair.  I want to ask a quick question and then follow on with my comment.  

 Carolyn, because I'm sorry I wasn't here at 2:00, I think this was presented.  Do you have some or your company have some involvement with 34 or not?

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: No.  Answer and then I will go on.  Your company has to do with 34?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Carolyn, you have the floor and then Juan is saying he'll come back in after you have the floor.

 >>CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Great.  Thank you, Chair.

 So we're happy to reach out to the proposers of 162 and consider how to add in an additional, you know, perspective.  I mean, I think that if you look at the type of speakers who are in 34, it is fairly varied in terms of the different stakeholders involved.  You have civil society and also the different regions.

 But we would be happy to reach out to the, you know, proposers of 162 and see how to best work in --

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Now I have an idea that may be some difference from before but that's why we're here, to put crazy idea.  Because everybody agrees this is very important.  It's very important to keep both.  But, maybe what would be my preference and maybe we can save some time for some slots for the other is to -- because those are proposed 90 minutes.  To put those 60 minutes and put it back to back in the same room.  To keep it as separate workshops but back to back -- Ji doesn't agree.  Okay.  Then it's not...

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I do like the creative spirit, though.

 Liesyl, you have the floor.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you, Chair.  I actually have a question for clarification that might be helpful for others who may be deciding to come in one way or another on this proposal.

 So given that this is a proposal from the Swiss government -- and it's not?  Did you not just say it is?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Jorge, can you clarify?

 >>JORGE CANCIO:  If I may.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Yeah, please.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:  Perhaps this is our very multistakeholder way of organizing.  But it's coming from civil society, but there's people involved in organizing this from all the stakeholder groups.

 Aida is the point person.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Okay.  Perhaps I was confused because you spoke for it in that way.  Sorry.  I misunderstood.

 With that, I withdraw my comment -- my question.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So I think we have two proposals in front of us.  One is that 34 speaks to the 162 proposers and the 34 has indicated that they're willing to do that.  People that are proposing 162, I think some of them were okay with suggesting a merger and approaching -- I'm not too sure others were.  

 Are you okay with that as well,Jorge?  The other option is we keep them both.

 So Carolyn has the floor.

 >>CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Thank you, Chair.  I would propose that we consider reaching out and trying to figure out if we can have a single session.  Part of the purpose of the briefing at 2:00 is that there's a lot of misunderstanding about exactly what the Digital Geneva Convention is.  And I think having it as a single conversation, you know, with the different perspectives will be more enriching and a more helpful dialogue on what exactly the concept is.  Because we find it a little bit difficult to have a conversation about a concept that we propose without us really being able to defend what it is that we meant.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Given the two proposers seem to be aligned around a conversation and perhaps getting to a point where there's one conversation, let's go forward with that, which means this one would be listed as a merger possibility with 34.  And I think that was excellent discussion.  Thank you, both proposers.

 Thank you, Aida.  Thank you, Carolyn.

 Are we on the very last one, Internet of Things for Smart City, Green and Sustainability?  It was Asia-Pacific.  ID 42, ranked 247.  Panel, 90 minutes.  Is it colored already?  Was it discussed already?  The comments are -- I actually don't think so, Juan.

 The comments are:  It's not very relevant to Internet governance in the theme.  Another comment is this is a good workshop submission on a very interesting topic.  It would be beneficial to include other regions and stakeholders and that it's an all-male panel although a good regional and stakeholder diversity.  Format is limited for discussion.  Another one says good proposal.  Needs government or IGO participation, et cetera.  So there's a lot of comments saying it's, in fact, a good panel but would require some additional diversity.

 Ji, you have the floor.  Avri, and then Wisdom.


 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you.  I'm surprised why this -- this is one of my favorite.  I'm surprised why it gets such a low ranking.

 In terms of diversity of speakers, we already -- they already included speakers from Arab world and Russian-speaking world, I think.  And male and a female.  I think it would not be a problem, they can figure out.

 This -- relevant or irrelevant, I think this is very relevant thing.  In China and in Asia, we are doing lots of -- in many cities making everything in this regard.  Some small cities in China are doing much better than Beijing and Shanghai.  For example, I'm living in Beijing.  And on the smartphone, you click on a button on the phone, I can pay electricity bills, water bills to date, many things.  And we are not using much cash these days.  And I'm sure the speakers will -- is not talking about imaginary things.  They will present to what we are already doing.  This will be a roadmap example for other countries to follow.  This is not only about -- this is important, relevant to Internet governance.  And they go much further, beyond the Internet governance.  It touches on how do we save energy and to improve economic efficiency which would help we handle the challenges we're facing in climate change, et cetera.  So this is a very important and very meaningful proposal.

 And I hope that it can be supported.  Thank you.

 And, of course, if there was any suggestion for improvement, I can personally convey these suggestions back to the proposers.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ji.

 Avri, you have the floor.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.  (indiscernible) -- I personally can't support the proposal or the panel.  I think that there is a presumption that there aren't female experts in this area, and I think that's very problematic.  

 When we are talking about cities, half of those residents are women at least.  To say that, oh, it's not important that there are no women shows a great misunderstanding.  

 I also don't -- really see it as much as an Internet governance proposal as a (indiscernible) proposal or a smart city proposal.  The Internet governance aspects are not clear.  I do not support this one.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Avri.  We'll take a comment from Wisdom.  Wisdom, you have the floor.

 >>WISDOM DONKOR: Thank you, Chair.

 I have taken a look at the proposal, and it's a good proposal but he addressed my concerns.  And the concern is that it has to be balanced.  If you look at the resources on it, about seven males.  So if you can guarantee us that we will get some female resource persons in there, then it would have my support.

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

 Yes, I have Renata in the queue.  Refreshed just in time.  

 Renata, you have the floor.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Thank you, Chair.  I want to agree with Wisdom and compliment him for getting our mentoring idea in action.  

 I believe Ji Haojun is a great mentor to find female experts for this panel.  Certainly he can find the representation of 50% women experts in Internet of Things and smart city in this panel.

 I would only wish that other MAG members would be so collaborative.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So I think what we have on the table in front of us is certainly a clear requirement that the panel has gender diversity, which I actually understood you to say that you would pull some women in.  And the only other substantive different point I heard was from Avri which questioned whether or not this was really about Internet governance.  And I have Jac in the queue.

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC sm KEE:  Yeah.  This is also a session that I reviewed.  And I have the same question apart from diversity and gender.  I couldn't really discern what was the Internet governance question or the thing it was trying to pull out, although the topic is very interesting.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So we could -- I mean, if there's a question, we could put this on the wait list.  It does help with a regional imbalance, but we could put it on a wait list.  And if there was subsequent room, allow it to go forward with the other diversity.  So I have Juan in the queue and then Ji.

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  This, of course, has to do with Internet governance.  You have seen -- unfortunately, it's a topic I really don't like because I don't like talking refrigerators and all those things.  Denial service attacks, a few months ago was triggered from intelligent bulbs, light bulbs.  I think all of that is baloney, but we are going in that direction.  We have to understand that, to discuss that, the implications and to prepare the people.  Definitely it's related with Internet governance.  

 The other concerns are valid, to have more females in the panelists and all that.  Definitely this has to do with Internet governance.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Juan.

 Ji is in the queue and then Jac.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Okay.  Let me explain again why it's relevant.  By establishing or creating smart city, people can turn on their lights at home, which saves the time of the ladies and it is about the digital dividends for women.  And I hope that solves the concern of some people.

 And in the meantime, I can promise you the proposers can definitely pull in as many ladies as you wish.  And hopefully that, you know -- it can be accepted.

 And secondly, I would like to reconfirm that the earlier proposal made about 133 and 79, my wish is to put 133 on the definite list and forget about 79.  So without any merge.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that's where we were, but we will go back and check.  I'm not sure these days when you are joking with us and having fun, able to see Ji's face up here.  

 In any case, I think we should kind of manage ourselves a little bit better here.

 Jac, you had a comment, I think, to the -- whether it's a question of Internet governance?

 >>JAC sm KEE:  I did, yeah.  But now like a whole bunch of thought bubbles are all together.  

 Can I just say that I very much value a kind of civility in the discussion space?  While we can jibe with each other a little bit and be a little bit informal, I do not appreciate remarks that are denigrating or frankly they are (indiscernible) and sexist.  

 I think it is a shame after a decade in Internet governance work, after a decade of deliberation of gender in Internet governance issues that we are reduced to such comments in the public forum.  I think it is not acceptable actually.

 With regards to the question around whether or not this is -- this relates to Internet governance, of course, Internet of Things and smart cities is a very critical IG issue.  My point was question was that I couldn't see what the question was related to that in the session proposal.  That was not evident to me.  Although I am happy if this can be improved in some ways so it becomes more evident than simply a kind of show and tell, for example.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jac.

 Ji, I really would appreciate conversation off line so we could --

 >>JI HAOJUN: Right of reply.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: The right of reply --

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Yes, yes.  I also have no intention to apologize for what I have said.  I don't see any point of what I have said is denigrating to ladies.  As a matter of fact, in my family, I am the one do most of the housework.  But in most of the Asian countries, the ladies take most of the burden in the house.  So turning on air conditioner, rice cookers remotely reduce the burden of ladies, that's true.  I don't see any inappropriateness in this.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I understand that's your position.  I think at the same time you're hearing strong opposition from the people who are on the end of your comments.  And I need to ask you to take that very, very seriously.  This is a public forum.  It's a U.N. forum.  Our discourse needs to be respectful and civil and despite what you believe personally, I think it really is important that you take into account the feelings and position of other people in this room.

 I'm going to move to Carlos and then I want to close on this workshop and move to the rest of the agenda. 


 >> CARLOS FONSECA:  Thank you, Chair.  A while ago I made a comment on behavior, et cetera, et cetera.  

 Anyway, I'm sort of intrigued about this sort of views that our colleague is expressing around gender issues.  I'm wondering if this is in a personal capacity or what.  Because two months ago, one month ago, a little more than a month ago, the G20 approved a very important document on gender issues that was an annex to the Digital Ministers document.  And that actually was supporting a concrete initiative.  I think it was called (indiscernible) for Girls or something like that.  The Chinese government supported that document.  And it was a very straightforward document supporting gender issues and gender gap and et cetera, et cetera.  So I am trying to understand this.  This is a personal thing or what.  But I just wanted to raise the question that, you know, the Chinese government supports this sort of document in this sort of position.  So just to make a point.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Carlos.  That's an excellent point and our discussions are always better when they are actually supported with data and facts.

 Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  I just want to say all MAG members work in personal capacity.  Thank you.

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

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Chair, first of all, I would like to thank you for being open to seeking more female experts on this panel.  

 And Ji being a new MAG member, this is quite a challenge to mentor for the first time, the first mentoring experience.  So I would kindly ask chair to let two MAG members conduct this process.  I would like to work with Ji on his choices.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So, Renata, the proposal we have in front of us on the floor now -- sorry, my mind is elsewhere at the moment. I have to admit.

 The proposal we have in front of us is we allow this proposal to go forward, that MAG members work with Ji to make sure that the proposal actually addresses the concerns that have been noted here in the room.  Is that appropriate?  I mean, is that a fair --


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Is everybody supportive of that?  I think it's recognition of the fact that the topic is important.  So we'll go forward noting that in that way.

 Anja, let me just check and make sure if there's anything substantive we need to put forward from the online, too.

 >>ANJA GENGO: Trying to clarify with Avri just whether this means she does not support it.  Can I come back?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes, yes.  That actually concludes the workshop review.  We will work with the secretariat to get this set of tables updated.  We'll be clear on where we are according to the three categories.  I suspect it will take a little bit of time to turn that around, at which point I don't know if we would have at that point an indication of the open forums, which would give us a better indication of the slots actually available to us.  So we will keep the MAG informed as we actually go through those processes and just continue to consolidate as we go forward.  

 And, Anja, you can continue.

 >>ANJA GENGO:  Avri asked me to read her comment.  "I'm not supportive.  It's not an Internet governance issue, even if fixed in gender."

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Avri, your comment is noted.  I think there were many people in the room that actually do believe it's important and that there are governance aspects and so it will go forward with MAG support to address some of the deficiencies.  And maybe we can take into account your concern and make sure it's actually positioned appropriately there as well.

 Wisdom, you want the floor?

 You have the floor.

 >>WISDOM DONKOR:  Thank you, Chair.  I was just trying something.  Sorry.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you.  So we have just over a half-hour left.  I assuming there's very little appetite for going over later.

 It would be helpful to us to get a reading with respect to where we are on the main sessions.  If I could ask Eleonora to put up the main sessions grid.

 So I'm -- I don't know if there's more time, what we're doing with the open mic, taking stock, closing ceremony component.  I think that's something we can noodle around with the MAG on a virtual call.

 If that stays roughly the same, that gives us five main slots of three hours apiece.  Last year we had a couple of sessions that were split in two.  Splitting them in two can be a bit difficult because, of course, you need to allow one setup to leave and the audience to change into another.  So, in fact, you end up with probably sort of, you know, 75-, 80-minute panels.

 So if we assume that we're looking -- I think most of the proposals have all come in looking for three hours.  If we can leave that there for a moment, and then can you put up the list of main session proposals?  While that's coming up, there was a main session proposal which was up from Israel Rosas who has since withdrawn that proposal.  He said he did not find another MAG member to help him move that forward, I believe was his message to the MAG list.  So that one will be removed from the list.

 And then this is where I need your help, Jorge.  So the -- the second one, the Impact of Digitization on Public Trust and Democracy.  That is the thematic one.  So, in fact, if we're moving forward with the thematic one on the Tuesday morning, that is not -- that is not another request for another main session.  So the ones we have are Juan Fernandez and Jac on gender inclusion and future of the Internet.  I note that it's only listed for two hours, so there is an opportunity to do something there perhaps with another session and an hour, unless, in fact, your requirements have changed.  I'm just going to go through them quickly so we get a look at what's in front of us.

 We have the Creating an Inclusive Workforce in a Digital Economy with Kenta and a number of private sector and government individuals.  We have Human and Social Dimensions of the Internet with Zeina and Renata.  Again, the main sessions have MAG champions, that are MAG proposed and led.

 We have Empowering Global Cooperation, Cybersecurity for sustainable development and peace with Segun and Juan.  Wisdom has put in Data for Sustainable Development Roadmaps.  The next one is Internet Security and Combating Cybercrime.  

 And then we have -- I think it's the final proposal from Flavio and Ginger, Local Interventions, Global Impacts, How Can International Multistakeholder Cooperation Address Internet Shut-downs, Encryption and Data Flows?  And I want to thank Flavio and Ginger on an initiative working together to merge the two proposals into one here.  So those are the proposals in front of us.

 If we had time, we could perhaps give five minutes to each one of the proposals to do an introduction so we heard from the MAG owners some additional context on the proposals, which I think better informs than perhaps just the proposal in front of us.

 I'm hesitant a little bit because I'm not exactly sure how useful that is, if we then break and go away.

 If there's something that the room feels would be more helpful as a process or helpful to you in your deliberations, then please let me know.  But I have Elizabeth in the queue and then I have Zeina and Ji.

 Elizabeth, you have the floor.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  Thanks, Lynn.  Just a quick clarifying question.  I had understood you to say that main sessions need to be proposed by MAG.  And I remember we had that issue come up last year.  But there's still one proposed that isn't on the list for consideration that isn't actually proposed by a MAG member.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  What I said is that the main sessions are MAG-led.  I don't think I used the word "proposed."  Wout is clear he was looking for MAG support and a MAG co-facilitator.  He has been unable to find one to date.  And I think we'll make a decision as to whether or not somebody from the MAG wants to join him because the MAG thinks that that proposal has some merit or it comes off.  I think that's one of the decisions in front of us.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  Just because last year this issue did come up.  It was in the guidelines that we won't have a MAG facilitator.  So I'm just wondering -- if we're going to deliberate on some why we would include that in the deliberation.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think a number of MAG members who had had similar proposals to see and we he heard back one from group but had not heard back from the other.  

 I think one of the other groups is interested in potentially working with him.  So it was kind of a pragmatic approach to keep it in front of the MAG.

 I actually have Zeina in the queue, Ji, and then Arnold, Raquel, and Flavio.

 Zeina, you have the floor.

 >>ZEINA BOU HARB:  Yes, thank you.  I just want to point out that we requested 90 minutes for this session, 90.  Yes.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay, thank you.  Who else did I say was in the queue because I'm managing -- Ji and then Arnold.  I have got a mixed queue again.  If people could use the electronic, it makes it much easier.

 >>JI HAOJUN: Thank you, Chair.  I hate to make myself a nuisance again, but I think to work on this topic one by one, maybe it would be better that we divided these topics into different categories.  For example, security, cybercrime, to merge the similar topics rather than eliminate, to have a beauty contest and eliminate others.  For example, social and human dimension could merge with gender inclusion and the future of the.  Internet, for example, human and social dimension of the Internet would focus on gender inclusion.  

 I surrender to the dear ladies in this room that gender is a very important issue.  Okay?

 [ Applause ]

 >> Thank you, Ji.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Some specific topics may be too small.  We need to combine these specific topics with more macro topics so that it could capture more -- a bigger category of speakers.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ji.  

 Before we continue with quite a long queue, Chengetai is saying we could, in fact, stay an extra hour if people wanted to do that in advance.  What do we think?

 We should probably take a call on that now so we understand how we process ourselves forward in the next 25 minutes or an hour and a half.  Are people willing to stay till 7:00 local time?

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Chair, can I say something?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Sure.  Is it to that point?

 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  Yes.  First of all, we've received all of the proposals on the mailing list and we have all read them.  I don't think there needs to be repetition of presenting on the proposals again.  We can just go into deciding which ones.  And I don't think it needs an hour.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So I agree with your proposal and I actually think we've started down that path already.  

 I do just want to know if there is support in the room for staying up until 7:00 local time.  

 I see lots of heads nodding "yes."  

 On line?  

 If it does disadvantage anybody, sincere apologies and we can make sure we brief them on line in some way that's possible, but I think that will actually help us to make some significant progress and ease future virtual calls.

 So let's go forward with the queue.  If people could speak to any suggestions or thoughts with respect to support or lack of support or other suggestions or considerations for the proposals that are there, and we'll see where we are in --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- sort of a half hour or so.  

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  A question.  The one there from Jorge is the one for the high-level studies, so we have here nine, and counting that, we have six slots.  We have to get three of three.  

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Well, yes, because of the timing.  The times.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: But let's --


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Let's ask if -- if Eleonora, if you can just move that down to the bottom, so maybe we can actually get on one screen all of the proposals that are there.  

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: No, no, no, no.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: The second one is the Tuesday morning the -- 


 >> (Off microphone.)


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So remove it, if you want, yes, and then we'll make sure we've got them all together somewhere else, yeah.


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We haven't lost the earlier spreadsheets.  We can --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Oh, okay.  Eleonora is just going to try and fix that so we can actually work on the screen here.  

 So what I have in front of me for the queue, Elizabeth spoke, so I have Raquel, Flavio, Arnold, Liesyl, Wisdom, Segun.  And Markus, we'll recognize you to speak.

 So Raquel, you have the floor.

 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  

 Just for a point of clarification, we have five slots or six?  Five slots?  And then -- yeah.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We have five slots of three hours, but there's one proposal up there that is two hours and one proposal that is one hour, which is always what we need to do to adjust, so --

 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Okay.  And then a total of seven -- nine proposals?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Seven.

 >> Eight.

 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Seven, but then the national and the dynamic coalitions are counting as -- so nine.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Yes.  Sorry.  I was just talking about, yes, the proposals that are in front of us.  Yes.

 >>RAQUEL GATTO: Okay.  Five slots.  Nine proposals.  One that could be --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Five or six slots -- 


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- depending on the timing and --

 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Yeah.  No, that's just to get a sense that we need to have -- 

 First, echoing the appreciation for Flavio and Ginger, who worked to merge the proposals, but just to, you know, get this clarification that we have a lot to short here and make decisions so making our time effective.

 My proposal will be to just look into the merge of the security ones, the one proposed by Wout, and I can't read any more but the one from Segun.  

 I think there is a lot of synergies between them that could be explored, and at the end of the day, we will have to choose either of them or, you know, approve both with the compromise to merge, so that's important.  That's my first suggestion.

 The second one is also to merge or to look for interfaces between the proposal on the Workforce -- it's a little up -- in the Digital Economy.  Yes.  Creating an Inclusive Workforce in the Digital Economy.  And then the one about Data for Sustainable Development Roadmaps.

 The one on Data for Sustainable Development Roadmaps is, in fact, asking for more data to support the SDGs or the -- with the development dimension and -- but having, as a bottom line, the digital economy.

 So it could be -- based on the structure of the first one, the workforce proposal, it could be another track or -- inside it to bring in this evidence-based policymaking and the development angle.

 So that's just a suggestion.  And just to finish my comments, also on the human and social dimension, perhaps it could be a clarification or just a suggestion to work with Zeina and Renata.  There are diverse topics listed there.  It needs to have -- or -- either a grouping or a focus to make it -- the narrative more consistent, but considering if we integrate the data for sustainable development, I think we would lose a point also on the language for sustainable development and sustainable development goals.  

 I think we've mentioned that in our first face-to-face meeting, and the importance of having this common language also in the IGF with the other mechanisms.

 So I would suggest to have this title or this perspective of I.T. for sustainable development, human and social perspectives, and bringing back, you know, a terminology that we've already used.

 It also -- I mean, I know mergers -- and we've talked about it -- are sometimes difficult, but keeping in mind that we have a lot of proposals and we've already done this exercise with the workshops.  We need to think about the same process for the main sessions.  But also that the main sessions should be the landing part for our intersessional work, for the BPFs, and for the CENB, so that's my proposal on the table.

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

 Flavio, you have the floor.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Thank you, Lynn.

 So most comments are similar to the ones Raquel already listed here.  I've also seen the whole list.  I don't think that we can approve two sessions on -- both on cooperation and security, so either they merge or we select one of them or none.

 So this would be the only possible solutions regarding those two proposals.  And it's a pity that they did not merge the proposals before the meeting today.

 I agree with Ji that this proposal on Data for Sustainable Development Roadmaps, although very interesting, is maybe a little bit too narrow for a main session.  Besides, it also shows super-positions of subjects, so if you take the description, there are super-positions with the second proposal there, Creating an Inclusive Workforce in the Digital Economy.  

 And the third proposal, Human and Social Dimensions of the Internet, in fact, it collects a large number of issues, of different issues, that have -- show super-positions with the two other main sessions, both Creating an Inclusive Workforce for the Digital Economy but also super-positions with this proposal on Data for Sustainable Development Roadmap.

 So I think we should try to see that those super-positions between these three main sessions and try to avoid them and factor out that the -- the subject -- the subjects that are there, to maybe combine the three into two by factoring.

 There are also a few similar things between the Human and Social Dimensions and Gender Inclusion.  Not too much, but also.

 It would be good to take a kind of holistic approach to the themes that are covered by those four proposals and try to factor these themes in a different way, and then we can reduce the four to three or even to two proposals and then reduce our problem.

 We have another decision to take if -- because there are two different things.  There are these seven thematic proposals and then there are the two other -- the different ones under intersessional work, so I think there's two sets of decisions that are separate, so we want really to give the main sessions to the dynamic coalitions and to the NRIs and 180 minutes to the NRIs to see what is left for the other ones.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Flavio.  Those are very helpful comments.  

 Arnold, you have the floor.

 >>ARNOLD VAN RHIJN:  Yes.  Thank you, Lynn.  I was informed by the proposer of the main session, Wout De Natris, that Number 9, I think, on the -- the one with the very long title, that he had contact with Segun and Juan on the -- to see whether they can merge, and he is in agreement with merging his proposal with that one from Segun and Juan, so that means the proposal, main session, under Number 9 can be deleted from this list.

 He's also busy working on a session on Day Zero which touches upon the same subject, and what can come out of that session can be hopefully also used in the session which is organized by Segun and Juan.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Arnold.  I saw Juan's head nodding yes, so I assume there's interest and support from both Juan and Segun.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: One caveat.  Segun and I discussed this.  Unfortunately, he's not here.  Maybe we'll have to do it on line.  But it's no problem to do that, but I believe the title proposed by Segun is more encompassing, so to keep that title, because the other is a little bit convoluted, you know, to -- then it would be a very -- if we join the two titles, we'll be crazy, a little bit.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yeah.  I'm --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  You won't have time to say anything else other than the title, if the two are merged.  

 But yes, I wouldn't suspect that that would be a problem.

 Okay.  So then we will take that proposal, which is Row 9 on the spreadsheet there, and that's a -- look at a merged proposal with Item Number 7.

 Liesyl, you are next in the queue.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you, Chair, and I hope before moving forward with that proposal, you might listen to other additional interventions on that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I didn't do anything -- 


 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- but say nine has disappeared, and it would -- 

 >>LIESYL FRANZ: Well --



 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  So you don't want it to disappear?

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Well, I don't want it -- my intervention is going to be about it not disappearing under that guise of a de facto merger.  

 Is that what I'm understanding?  That it's a merge with the other one?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  What I -- what I understood was that Wout said he and Juan and Segun, as the proposers of the others, had a discussion and said that they would work together, and it sounds as though Wout is going to -- what's the word I want -- subordinating his proposal under the Juan and Segun proposal, but maybe Juan and Segun could tell us what the discussion was.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Okay.  I'm happy -- okay.  I'm happy to make my intervention on that basis but what I will say is it's very difficult, as a MAG member that's not privy to those side conversations, to make a review about this on the main session evaluation.  And I had raised this -- this issue on the -- on the email list ahead of time, that I was concerned that there was a proposal -- a proposal without a MAG member co-facilitator, and at the time of the proposals going forward for review, there was still no indication to those of us on the receiving end that there would be this kind of discussion.

 Now -- so therefore, I would say that it really shouldn't be evaluated in the numbers that we have, and it would be up to any of the workshops that may want to integrate his -- the proposal or his ideas in the stakeholder consultation for whatever main sessions get accepted.

 So I guess my proposal would be to take it off the list as a process issue, and if the subject matter and the people involved want to take it on on the stakeholder -- the stakeholder consultation basis, fine.  That would be great.

 That's -- that's my intervention on that one.

 As far as the rest of the proposals, I think given that the -- the thematic tags and the input from the -- that we've gotten from the proposals, I think the ones that make sense to me are a main -- and the fact that we have five slots only now, as I understand it, that we would do a propose -- that we would take a workshop on cybersecurity, one on gender, one on some technical matters.  I'm a little bit -- you know, I'm -- I have another process issue with Israel's idea.  I love the idea but I don't have a proposal to evaluate.

 The merged proposal on the local interventions, multistakeholder cooperation on Internet shutdowns, encryption and data flows, and digital economy.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  And Liesyl, if I can just come back for a moment on the first process issue, I think we allowed a little bit of flexibility for Wout because Wout had initially suggested a BPF on this topic, and he felt he heard -- and I think he heard -- from the MAG that he should go away and try and develop perhaps a main session proposal or some Day Zero proposals or some other proposals that would build up a little bit of context for this potentially going forward as a future BPF.

 So I -- and I think -- and I see other heads nodding around the room -- that he thought he was acting under sort of the direction of the MAG to go away and see if there was a proposal.  He has, in earnest, been reaching out to other MAG members to see if there was a MAG member that would support that proposal, and at some point it just made sense to leave it up there and have the discussion in this room than to just -- just take it off.

 So I think we're trying to work within a process that's respectful with some past context as well.

 You want to come back in on that?  Two-finger -- okay.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  Two-finger reply.

 I -- while I might have my own issues with that particular process, I will take it under advisement, but I still think in the end it didn't meet the criteria for the evaluation we have to make today.  

 And this is nothing against Wout.  This is not even anything against the content.  I've been on his workshops before.  This is nothing about this.  Nothing about that.  It's about a transparent process for the MAG members to review a fair set -- a fair slate of proposals.  Thank you.

 >>WISDOM DONKOR:  Thank you, Chair.  

 I just want to speak a little on the Digital for Sustainable Development Roadmaps.  Looking at all the proposals on the screen, all these proposals are important but I'm looking at the outreach reporting of --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I'm sorry, Wisdom.  Wait a moment.  We couldn't hear you because of another discussion.  

 If you could just start again, please.  Thank you.

 >>WISDOM DONKOR:  Oh, sorry, sorry.  Very sorry.  

 What I'm saying is, looking at the proposal, I just want to talk a little on the Data for Sustainable Development Roadmap I propose.  

 Looking at developed and developing countries, we have serious issues and those issues have got to do with the lack of data, so we realize that reporting on -- giving an outreach report, or let's say solving a problem or issues related to the various sectors within Africa is really a big challenge because Africa and the developing world lack data.  There is no data available.  So I'm thinking with this session we could use this session to address those issues.  We can look at them, we can address the issues of data gap, and as well as encouraging data use, as well as strengthening the data ecosystem.

 So when this is done, we will try to get an outcome that will have -- measuring the various SDGs that we are talking about.

 For example, when you look at the SDGs, we have various -- various indicators, and some of these indicators, there are With interlinkages and all that.  So this session could address those interlinkage issues, taking into consideration let's say health.  Health could be reporting on health issues, whereby another agency or so could be reporting on the same health issues, looking at the various sectors and (indiscernible) and all that.

 So if we have this session, I believe we can solve these data issues and countries will be informed as to what to do in outreach data that would be fed into the -- the global -- the global -- how do I say -- that will be fed into the global level for measuring the SDG goals.  Thank you.

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

 Segun, you have the floor.

 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Well, for now, I don't really have much to say, but I just want to touch on the -- one second point, that we have some discussion with Wout and we've agreed that we are going to work together.  Thank you.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.  

 Yeah, I was just speaking with two hats on, one as co-facilitator for the dynamic coalitions and also as co-facilitator on the BPF on cybersecurity.  

 With my second hat on, the discussion seems to go in the right direction.  I was going to give strong support to having one main session on cybersecurity from the perspective of the best practice forum and obviously it would make much sense and I will work with colleagues that the best practice forum on cybersecurity works closely with the organizers of the main session, so that it can bring in that content.

 And I would also suggest the same if there is a main session on gender issues, as we have a best practice forum there.

 I would also like to strongly support Ji's proposed approach to take a more comprehensive high-level look at all the issues we have before going into the nitty-gritty.

 And lastly, I know the proposed sessions on NRIs and DCs are listed, but I think they have not been taken into account when looking at a slot.  

 The DCs proposed a main session of 90 minutes based on last year's format which we all thought was actually highly successful, it was interesting and engaging, and we would like to have another 90-minute session, and as far as I understand, the same goes with the NRIs.  

 I know there has been discussion going on, and I also know that the MAG has not come to closure on this, but just a placeholder.  If we distribute the slots available, there are also these potential slots claiming for some attention.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Markus, and we are well aware of those, but that was well said.  Thank you.  

 Sala, you have the floor.


 First of all, I'd like to thank all the MAG members and also the individuals that put in their proposals.  I know it took time and effort to put in main session proposals, and for those that have merged them, like you and Ginger, congratulations for -- and thank you also for making our work easier.

 I'd just like to register my support for the intersessionals, particularly the NRIs and the DCs in this instance.  I'm not sure if the -- I notice that the BPFs are not there.  

 But anyway, moving past that, I'd just like to register, for the record, in order of -- in order of ranking, what I -- my preference is.

 The first one would be the local interventions on global impacts.  I have strong support for this particular proposal to be a stand-alone proposal noting that they've already merged.  And, again, thank you for saving the time.  

 The third one would be a merger.  I would suggest a merger which would be between the Human and Social Dimensions of the Internet with the Gender Inclusion and the Future of the Internet.  As I said, main session.  And that would leave us with a fourth one which would be Creating an Inclusive Workforce in the Digital Economy.  

 Sorry.  I would like to bring that one forward to number two actually, Creating a Workforce in the Digital Economy, strong support for that as well.

 And support also for the cybersecurity.  I think with the mergers, we should be able to have the five, I think.  And maybe cut back on the time and look at how -- just as we did last year, look at how whoever is moderating can actually weave in the discussions to be seamless as possible just to how Virat and -- was it Rasha -- had seamlessly executed last year's one.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sala.

 Renata, you have the queue.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Yes, I would like to say I'm super confused at this point, Chair.  I'm still unsure as the reason why proposal by a non-MAG member is on the main session list.  

 I'm even more confused why it has relation to a BPF that was not accepted.  I had a BPF which was not accepted, and it was about an issue that had shown its importance for all this meeting, remote participation.  Do I get a free pass at my main session?

 And, also, again, Sala asked me about a merger with gender main session.  We would have to have their agreement, right.  So far we haven't merged as the other proposal by Flavio and Ginger merged.  Why would they accept now?

 Also, another issue which I find very, very worrying is the fact that we have, again, underrepresentation in the main sessions.  This is incredible.  MENA region was talked over and over again how it is underrepresented.  We have hours of effort trying to pull them in, and we have a proposal for MENA region to seek out -- she worked a way to find a MAG member who would support her to bring more perspectives.  There's stakeholder collaboration.  

 Yeah, there could be problems with the proposal.  But I have MAG members here to support each other.  So we would like to address if you have observations in our proposal.  We received no observations so far.  No reply to our emails.  This is the first time we are hearing people have reservations.  

 And I do not understand.  So you're just going to delete MENA from the main session?  To me, it's incredible.

 And I would also like to address that some of the issues of the main sessions, I'm completely puzzled by the main session merged by Flavio and Ginger.  Seems to me to be incredibly broad and overlooks probably the most important issue for Africa region right now, which is Internet shutdowns.  And I do not see Africa region there.  So I am completely confused to topics, to regional representation in the MENA region and the process.  

 Yes, I do support Liesyl's suggestion to have a non-MAG member remote.

 I would like now to thank my main session last year.  I had a civil society member, seasoned civil society member, Jeremy Malcolm, who came to me, asked me to support his session.  Listen to me, it was incredibly hard dialogue sometimes.  (indiscernible) incredibly hard dialogue.  Elizabeth can vouch for that.  It was super difficult to organize that main session.  Yet, we pulled that off.  And now I see none of this collaboration effort.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Let me try and address just quickly a couple of your points because I saw other looks of confusion around the room.  

 So, Flavio -- Flavio, do you want the mic?  So I think Flavio is probably saying that in his and Ginger's proposal -- in fact, it does address Internet shutdowns which was one of the comments you made here.  


 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  It addresses Internet shutdowns as one of the main subjects of the session.  But just mention that we did not include Africa.  If you look at the proposal, we did not include the names of the speakers at all.  There are no names there.  So no names from Africa, no names from Latin America, Europe, North America, or what else.  So I don't understand what about this you are complaining.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Let me finish responding.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: May I just come back to that, Chair?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: You can come back briefly.  It's getting late, and I think we all need to be thoughtful about our comments.

 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  I would ask he address me in English, not only because this is an international space but because I feel a bit constrained in my freedom of expression here if my countryman is addressing me in my local language and others are not understanding what he's saying.  

 And, also, I did not say that he was not going to look for perspectives from Africa.  I said they are not there, and I would like to see them.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I would like us all to just take a bit of a deep breath for a moment and let me respond to your questions.

 So I think one of your questions was the fact that you didn't believe it addressed internet shutdowns.  I believe it does.  It's there in the title.

 I think one of the other comments you made was we're taking a MENA proposal out.  Our main proposals are not regions centric.  They are topic centric.  And we ensure that they actually have appropriate representation and appropriate diversity based on the topic.  So I think the appropriate discussion there is around the human and social dimensions of the Internet, not the region, the person, the sponsor it might have come from.

 I think the other point is Wout's proposal is Strengthening International Cooperation, we have already explained how it progressed through earlier MAG discussions there.  It is not an ongoing proposal.  And this is probably going to start another conversation.  I certainly hope not.  

 I think Wout had reached out to a couple of folks looking for support.  He reached out to the other proposals that had a cybersecurity proposal.  He has offered to take -- I thought I heard Arnold say quite clear at the beginning he has offered to take his off the table and will talk to the proposer of the other session to see if there are some components of that that could be rolled into theirs.  So that one is off the table.  And Arnold is shaking his head yes.

 With respect to -- I think this is the time, Renata, and other MAG members, for people to start commenting and supporting or suggesting a way forward given we are all here to pull together a set of main sessions that we believe will attract the most interest on the most important topics and help advance Internet governance.  And I think what you're hearing is suggestions from people that are taking, as we always have, too many proposals for the slots we have and trying to figure out how we actually get to the ones that are the most important and have the most support.

 With that, I'm going to go back to the queue.  The queue is Carlos, Jac, Kenta, Carolyn, Renata, and then Juan.

 Carlos, you have the floor.

 >>CARLOS FONSECA:  Thank you, Chair.  Just a couple of comments that you were proposing.  I think the encryption proposal is a very good one.  The subject encryption, data flows, et cetera, is in a number of workshop proposals.  So I think this gives an opportunity for those workshops to fit into the debate.  This is interesting.  I think it's a good proposal, very clear and topic is defined, et cetera.  So it's a good -- methodologically speaking, it's good.

 The shutdown topic is an important one in many regions including our region, and it's the result of a merger.  So definitely support for that one.

 The one on digital economy which is basically on labor force and work and workers, et cetera, I think it's really, really important to have something on digital economy here.  My only comment is that it's supposed to have two parts.  One on digitization in global production, et cetera.  One hour and then another questions than0 minutes on the consequences s of employment, et cetera.

 The third part -- I think the focus should be a little bit more narrower.  To discuss digitization and global possession, et cetera, in 60 minutes, you are talking about everything.  Could be talking from digital standards to syntac (phonetic) or a blockchain or whatever.  Since the main topic is employment, maybe the first part should perhaps focus more on aspects of digitalization in production that will have an impact in job creation or job destruction, direct impact on that because, I mean, like, eCommerce not necessarily will have an impact.  We don't know what the impact of eCommerce will be in terms of job destruction, job creation.

 Whereas, automation, et cetera, nearing those evolutions, et cetera, this is a more specific issue that deals directly with employment.  And so I would suggest that this was part of the session that deals with aspects of digitalization that are linked to production instead of any other thing.

 But that said, I think this is a very good proposal.  I would support that.  And it's really, really important to have something about the economy and employment, especially if we are talking about engaging governments and private sector, et cetera.  This is something that is of greatest interest for governments, for instance, the problems of employment, for instance.  This is for the second one.

 Then digital security, I think it's also very important to have something about that.  I have read both proposals.  I think the one empowering global corporations, cybersecurity, Juan's proposal, it's really straightforward.  It's a very good one.  I would vote for that.  

 Because the other one, Strengthening International Cooperation between Relevant Organizations, da, ta, da, and combating cybercrime, there isn't anything about security and cybercrime here.

 It's basically about enhanced cooperation, strengthening cooperation, et cetera.  I don't see anything about security and crime.  

 I was reading that again to see the reference, except for the title.  I really don't see.  So I would prefer the other one.  And then, of course, I think one on gender is really necessary and perhaps a merger.  I don't know.  So that would be my choice.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Carlos.  Very comprehensive set of comments.  Thank you.

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC sm KEE:  Thank you, Lynn.  Gosh.  So there's a bunch of comments.  I'm trying to organize my thoughts.

 I think the one that Flavio and Ginger worked on is really, really good and really comprehensive.  But I do agree that maybe it sort of meets -- I think all of those sessions probably still need work, but I think it's really very important to look through.  That has my support for sure.

 And the one on Data for Sustainable Development Roadmaps, I'm sort of of two minds about it.  I think it's really, really important.  I quite like the kind of methodology.  That's quite clear.  But I also wonder if a three-hour main session is the best format for it.  I'm not sure if you -- you know, I'm not sure if that's the best format to actually get the kind -- the conversation that you would like to have and sort of output that you would like to get from the end of that conversation.

 I support the topic fully.  I'm just not sure about the main session format.

 And I think the work that's being done on the DC main session as well, I believe last year's main session from the DC is really good in terms of both the methodology as well as engagement and the work that's been done.  Zeina's.  

 And then finally just to say a little bit around the suggestion of merger for the gender main session as well as the one on the Human and Social Dimension of the Internet, actually Raquel and I spoke a bit about it when we were looking at the main sessions.  So like is this a possibility?  We also want to be a pragmatic, understanding that there's a limitation of spots and so on.  

 But anyway, I have to say I don't think it's a -- it's a -- it's a good idea at this moment, and if you'll allow me to explain why, I'll -- I can come forth as well with a few thoughts.

 One is that both human rights and gender have got the highest number of -- one is -- like gender has the highest number or the second -- (indiscernible) I think cybersecurity in terms of tags by the community.  Human rights has the highest submission of workshops for the themes.  So they are both actually -- they have huge amount of support, in and of themselves individually, so to put them together would actually not be reflective of what's important to the community.  That's one.

 Secondly, both gender and human rights are very broad frameworks and to put them together will then again narrow the space that you can go into the specificity of the issue.  It will actually sort of do a disservice to the conversation going too macro.  And having done two main sessions on human rights before, even just looking at one on human rights, you have to really contain, to try and figure out what's in them and then include that it's kind of just, in some ways, trying to do too much with too little.  

 And thirdly, both the session on gender as well as the session on human rights is not asking for a full three hours.  We are already just asking for 2 hours and 1 1/2 hours, so also trying to be quite -- you know, quite careful around the restrictions of time and seeing what's possible or not.

 And fourthly, it's really the first time that gender is raised as a main session theme and I really do feel that the time is actually pretty ripe for it.  I was actually very happy that Zeina and Renata will do a session on human rights.  I'm like okay, (indiscernible), and I think it's really timely because looking at the kind of numbers of workshop proposals that has come, you know, in -- in the past around gender has really increased more and more and more each passing year.  I think it's really also demonstrating both increasing interest as well as a deepening of analysis on this issue, and I think that that renders it actually rather valuable for all of this to then be brought forward into a main session to then say okay, where are we right now, what are some of the key and emerging issues, what are some of the intersectionality, what is the framework, what is the -- you know, what are the -- I guess what are the key concerns, as well as to underpin that with a conversation around -- so if you look at a proposal, it's really two things.  So one is really this first half is really trying to look at the key and emerging issues, and this is sort of collated and aggregated from the workshop sessions, both for this year as well as previous years, in an effort to cluster it.  

 And then the second part is really looking at really improving our work around integrating gender in Internet governance as a process, as a structure, as a mechanism, and so on.

 So it's really trying to do very, very distinct things and trying to go quite deeply into the work, trying to bring in various DCs' work into this as well, as well as BPF work.  

 So for that purpose, I would advocate for the gender sessions -- Gender Inclusion and the Future of Internet session to be a stand-alone.

 The human rights session, I'm actually very happy -- I get the -- I was also looking at it, and I also feel that because the session is on Human and Social Dimensions, and therefore, there's possibly quite a lot of different things that could be put into it, and I'm happy to -- to also contribute in any way possible to help think through some of this if that's something that is -- that Zeina and Renata are open to.  

 I would support it, actually, without a doubt, especially if it's like a 90-minute session, because it is of such a critical session to the community.  

 And I will stop there.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jac.  I do have one question, just to verify.  

 You had actually mentioned that the time you were looking for for the gender main session was 120 minutes?  

 Okay.  Thank you.  

 Next in the queue is Kenta.  Kenta, you have the floor.

 >>KENTA MOCHIZUKI:  Thank you, Chair.  

 So first of all, I really appreciate, you know, all those who are, you know, strongly supporting my proposal.  

 And actually, regarding the merger of the proposals of mine and also Wisdom's, to be honest, you know, I feel that, you know, both proposals should be, you know, stand-alone because, you know -- let me explain a little bit about our proposal.

 So our proposal consists of, you know, two parts, and Part A is dedicated to understand how digitalization is affecting global digital production in commerce and impacting development under the title of digitalization and global production and free flow of digital commercial.  Here we would like to discuss a lot of eCommerce in global production and trade chains as well as for inclusion of small and medium enterprises who are taking up the role of international organizations to facilitate eCommerce-related policymaking with various stakeholders.  

 And also, the Part B is dedicated to security and the impact of the digital economy on the job market in both developed and developing countries, especially examining the relationship between the consequences of the sharing economy and automation and the creation or destruction of productivity and labor rights, while taking into account the distinct context of declining / increasing demographics. Here, we would like to discuss like how we can develop various opportunities to benefit from the innovation and flexibility provided by the technology while mitigating risk to the well-being of the labor force.

 And a concrete example in which ICTs is actually creating new jobs, improve productivity, and contribute to the global sustainable development.  

 So what I want to say is that our proposal is a bit different from the -- you know, Wisdom's, so, you know, again I strongly support that, you know, both proposals should be stand-alone.  Thank you.

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

 Carolyn, you have the floor.

 >>CAROLYN NGUYEN: Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  I'll start my comment, but actually, first ask for a clarification because I'm a little confused.  

 From the earlier chart that was shown, it says that we have five 3-hour main sessions.  Does that -- will there be -- 

 I guess let me ask it this way:  So there are five total 3-hour main sessions.  Are we still going -- will we still be discussing a separate session for NRIs and DCs, or is that part of the topics that are also under consideration right now?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  It is part of the conversation.  I don't know that we'll have time to roll those in specifically, but let me just see if I can help at the moment.

 We have, as you said, five 3-hour slots.  We have six open proposals for main sessions in front of us.  One is 120 minutes long, one is 90 minutes long, and I think all the others are three hours long.

 >>CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Three hours, yeah.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We have a proposal for the DCs for a 90-minute session and -- a proposal.  A request for the DC and a request from the NRIs for a 180-minute session.

 So that's what Chengetai and I are trying to do.  As people talk about all these, we're figuring how it fits in the background.

 I think we should continue going forward.  I think we're probably -- maybe two sort of slots short, if we treat the six, depending on what we do with minutes, and maybe we can look at even possibly shortening one of the others or trying to understand, perhaps with the NRIs, what their intent is, if they, in fact, are looking for a few other workshops.  So we're going to have to take, I think, some rounds on this conversation, but if we can get close on probably in the neighborhood of about four of the main sessions from the six that are there, I think we'll -- we'll have something to work with.

 >>CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Okay.  May I continue my --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Please.

 >>CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Thank you so much for that.

 So as I looked at the theme, which is Shaping the Digital Future and also a broader view going back to, "Hey, what is it that the IGF is about," in terms of being able to have policy-relevant conversations and a policy framework, so I go back to -- I fall back to an old framework that we've been using, which is, you know, what are the different dimensions, and this echos some of the previous comments that have been made by others.  So if we look at the different dimensions, there is an economic dimension, there is a social/cultural dimension, there is a technical dimension or a technology dimension, and then a -- and some sort of a governance.

 So if I start with, you know, sort of thinking about it from that perspective and I look at the economic one, so that's clearly the inclusive workforce conversation.  If I look at the social/cultural one -- and Jac's comment, you know, very well taken -- I wonder if there's a way to look at that from two different perspectives.  Not asking for a merger but potentially two -- I think one was already at 90.  If -- if it is possible to consider having the gender session also as a 90-minute, then we have, again, a dimension in terms of social/cultural.

 Under -- on the technology one, again, you know, sort of two things.  

 One is, I really loved the conversation that Wisdom has put forward because this is an important conversation.  We say it's important but we never really address it.  And Wisdom has put out some real issues there in terms of "Here are the things that needs to be done" but perhaps it doesn't have to be a three-hour conversation.

 So potentially, let's have the conversation, let's talk about, you know, the different data repositories that are out there that can potentially be pulled together to, you know, address this data gap as well as a data contribution into the measurements.  

 So potentially make that a little bit shorter, and then the cybersecurity one, there's a fair amount of interest in that.

 And then I look at the local intervention one as being in the governance, you know, sort of approach.

 So if we look at it from that perspective as a framework, maybe we're -- we're getting somewhere.  

 And then in the interventions that have been made by others, there were comments about, you know, sort of the DCs have done work in this area that are -- that would be really helpful, so maybe we can think about potentially integrating the contents, you know, into those conversations as well, if we're looking at the main sessions as being contributions into a policy framework discussion.  

 So that's how I'm thinking about it.  Thank you very much, Chair.

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

 Renata, you have the floor, but she's stepped out, so we'll come back to her.  

 I have Avri, Aida, Juan, and then back to the rest of the electronic queue.

 Avri, you have the floor.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  This time I shut off my speaker, so hopefully it will work better.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Can you speak up, please?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I'm first speaking --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Can you speak more loudly?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I'm speaking.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We can't hear you.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Sure.  I'll try.  Okay.  Sorry.  I'll try to speak more loudly.  The reason the DCs applied for a half session instead of a full, which we could certainly use, is because last year we were convinced that it was important to share the (indiscernible), so I'd like to ask -- and I guess it's good (indiscernible) to what Carolyn (indiscernible) just mentioned, is that more of those sessions look at taking a demi-session instead of a full session.  I know some have.  

 I don't favor mergers.  History has shown us that the watering down that happens to accommodate different sessions results in poorer sessions, so I really would not support that, but do support fitting more sessions in.

 I sincerely hope we can fulfill the DC request, as it's important to bring the year-round work done within the IGF to the main stage and last year's session was a success, this year's session will be better.  

 I think there's merit in looking at Carolyn's suggestion about seeing where it fits to bring in other topics in that discussion.

 I also strongly support the gender session as it is obviously an issue that still needs work.  Given the increasing gender divide on the Internet and violence against women on the Internet, I feel we would be remiss if we were not to have this session.

 I'm sad that Flavio's -- Flavio's session is being withdrawn because Internet shutdowns is such a critical issue for Internet connectivity, Internet access to all people.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Avri.  Very good comments.  

 I just need to correct the last one.  Flavio's session is not being withdrawn.  It's still under consideration.  

 Okay.  So Renata is still out.  I have Aida in the queue and then Juan.

 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC:  Okay.  I will really be quick because a lot of reasoning behind my support to the session have already been said, so I will echo what Jac said and support gender as a stand-alone one.  

 And also just to mention that gender and human rights are not necessarily social/cultural -- have social/cultural dimension only.  It more is a (indiscernible) to all elements.  And, yes, just one more time to say that the gender would really deserve -- it's time for gender to have a stand-alone session in this case.  Thank you.

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

 Juan, you have the floor.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Chair, I'm sad to say that I think that we're -- this algorithm is not converging.  We are in some sort of a loop.  It's unfortunate but we need to choose.  It's not so dramatic because dramatic is -- Do you remember the film of "Sophie's Choice"?  That was a dramatic choice.  Here it's not so dramatic.  Somebody will not be happy, but that will be the consequence.  We have to choose.  Before choosing, I think we have to prepare the path or choose.

 One is about the slot because no matter how -- maybe this will be an interactive question to Jorge.

 I remember when we were preparing for Guadalajara, that Mexico made the proposal or the flexibility to have longer sessions in order to accommodate two main sessions.  Remember the beginning, it was taking some time.  I don't remember if it was from lunch or from the -- not to be strictly U.N. hours.  Because here, for instance, if we want to put 120-minute session with 90 minutes, the other two, smaller there, it goes over.

 My first question:  Can we have a session of 210 minutes to put two places there?  That will be a question.  I don't want to lose the floor now, so I will leave that question there.

 And the other one is that we have to begin to cut corners here.  

 So going back to the intersessional, it's -- can you move it up to see the intersessionals?  Because I don't see it there.

 I think they are saying the NRIs, 180 minutes for that.  I think it's too much.  I am defender of that.  But I think that under the present circumstances, I think that we could -- have to fit both of them in one of the 180-minute session or if we have 120 -- or 210 session, maybe national and regional initiatives have to go to 120 and try to fit both in one of those slots.

 And then when we go back there, I really think that the one updated roadmap, it's very interesting.  But I wonder -- I was -- back in my relation with Internet governance itself because maybe -- maybe somebody from the U.N. can answer.  I think that this is statistical -- statistic for SDGs.  I think it's been handled in the main group of the SDGs itself.  I don't know if this is the real place for that, you know, for the data, statistical data for SDGs.  I think that's also another question.

 And that's it.  We have to make choices and begin -- and I will start by trying to get this, for instance, the intersessional, in one of the slots that we have.  My suggestion would be 90 minutes for NRI.  90, 90, 180.  And it's already in one of those slots.

 If not, 210.  And my question is can we have 210 minutes to fit 120 minutes full of 90 minutes?  Because that will give us more leeway to try to fit all this.  We have to do it.  Otherwise, we will be here until tomorrow.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The timing, unfortunately we can only work -- since this is the U.N. and they are very strict on their time, we can only work in three-hour blocks.  Yes, interpretation, three-hour blocks only.  We can ask them for an extra ten minutes but then that's it.

 >> (off microphone).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I have a queue of about six or seven more people here.

 >> (off microphone).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And that's what we're trying to continue to play with in the background.  If there's some flexibility for some of the others to shave some minutes off -- which is why I was letting the conversation run a little bit.  Sometimes you just need to see that there aren't a lot of options to crystallize something.

 I think we can talk to the NRIs about a 90-minute slot.  I think that's probably going to squeeze them pretty significantly.

 And, you know, while the main sessions are incredibly important, so, of course, is all the intersessional work and all the work that goes on throughout the year in these other venues.  So I think what we're missing is a fuller conversation with the NRIs.  So what I'd like to do is schedule that for a virtual call so we can understand sort of their needs and requirements, desires, as they look toward the IGF not only for the main session but for some of the other sessions which they are in the process of evaluating.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I believe the reason behind having more time for NRIs is because that will be sort of a change of experience and things like that.  But I think that the dynamic coalition is more reporting than some other thing.  Is that correct?  If that's the case, maybe we can put, you know, 80 minutes and 100 minutes dynamic coalitions, 80 minutes and 100 minutes to NRIs and try to solve at least the position.  Everybody has to give something, I know.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think everybody is happy to solve.  I think we don't actually have the NRIs' position here in the room yet, and we have Avri who spoke to the DCs.  But I also don't want this to just focus on those two.  

 We have proposals in front of us.  I think earlier on there was a proposal that said -- that we said we think about thematically, there is one on cybersecurity, there is a main session on gender, there is a main session on economy, and there is a main session on a technical issue.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  (off microphone).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sorry.  Thank you, everybody.  The MAG is responsible for the main sessions.  The NRIs are autonomous entities.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  (off microphone).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes, I know.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Maybe they can put the music in the place we give them.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  When I have a discussion around what somebody's desires are, I actually like to have the discussion with them, not around them.  I just feel at this point we're not doing that.

 I also don't -- I also don't want to get -- we can go work with the NRIs and have a proper discussion with the NRIs on one of our future calls.  I don't think that changes significantly the fact that we're probably looking for four main topics out of the six that are up there.  And we'll find a way to make the time work.  But we can either continue with the six main we have -- and, again -- we can either continue with the six that we have there, see if we can drill down to four or we can go back to one of the earlier proposals I said which was think about having four main sessions around critical topics.  One might be cybersecurity, one might be on economy or economic issues, another one on a major technology issue, and another one on gender.  

 I don't know if that helps people crystallize around those six and how we might shape those to fit into that four.  I need to allow other people into the queue.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  The proposers of the main session say they have to fit into that.  Gender doesn't have to fit into anybody.  But the other two you said, I don't know if the proposers of the other main sessions will fit into that.  That's up to them?  I cannot speak to them.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  The other point that just occurred to me I realized we haven't specifically addressed any of the sustainable development, of course, which is such a key area in international circles and Internet governance as well.

 We have a queue.  It's not fair for you and I to just keep on at the mic.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Everybody can jump in.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Let's try and go through the rest of the queue quite quickly here.

 If you could react specifically to whether or not a helpful way to move forward is to think about it in four or five main topics, the ones I just went through, or whether or not we want to continue working with this list of six and see if we can shape them, which at the end of the day, I think we'll still end up with four main topics or so.

 What I have in the queue now I have Shita, Mamadou Lo, Liesyl Franz, Julian, Ji, Elizabeth, and Sala and Wisdom.  Wisdom, the others have been in for quite a long time.

 Shita, you have the floor.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  This will be very brief.  I have four points.  The first point is I would like to support Liesyl's comment on considering the process of the main sessions.  I think it is important for us to maintain the process for the sake of our accountability towards the communities we are representing.  

 The second points, I would like to support a NRI session.  As we have seen last year the NRI session was one of the interesting sessions at the IGF, not only giving visibility of the NRIs but also making the NRIs feel more (indiscernible) and enthusiastic knowing they were being held at the global level.  I think we need to discuss NRIs on the time allocated for this session.  I agree with you, Chair, we have to discuss them on the time allocated.

 I would also like to support Flavio's main sessions.  I really like the way they arranged the themes, from the encryption, data flows, and Internet shutdowns and how multistakeholders can (indiscernible) that because this is actually the real issues that are being discussed.

 I would also like to support the gender sessions, looking at the gender gap that we have Internet access.  And considering there was no gender session at the main session from the previous IGF, I think it is about time that we put it as a main session.

 Thank you, Chair.

 >>MAMADOU LO:  Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.  Excuse me as to (indiscernible) as main session as first-time MAG member.  But I would like to say main session has to be covered.  At the same time, IGF main theme, the specificity of the venue, this is Geneva, and IGO presentation.  IGO presentation and the biggest government issues are what the governments are facing right now.  In this perspective, my support goes to Proposal Number 4 and Proposal Number 6.  Thank you.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you, Chair.  I would like to come in on -- follow up on my previous intervention with a small adjustment.  I proposed five of the main sessions on the list that I was supporting.  But if there was more time -- if any of those five, say, were to win the day, if any of those five were to be open to less than three-hour slots -- and I believe I'm hearing in the room they would be, then I would also support for the main session proposal on human and social development.  The reason I didn't include it originally is because I think that there is quite a bit of ground to cover in that proposal, and I think it would need to be tailored to a 90-minute -- if they are agreeing to do that and allow for another proposal, they may want to consider, you know, in the consultation process how to make it more tailored and targeted to that time frame.  But I just wanted to offer that up as well.

 You'll note that I did not include support for work main sessions on the intersessional work, either the two that are up there given my intervention yesterday.  There has been a little bit of email chat going on with regard to the interventions on the NRI main sessions from yesterday and the subsequent conversation that a small group of us had on that to understand our respective views.  

 And there is an email chat going around about that, and I know not everyone, including me, has time to multitask that way, so I completely support your approach, Chair, of having an NRI conversation to follow on this, but I would request that it include that discussion as well, so that that slot, those slots, can be considered in that vein, because otherwise, we're looking at a de facto two intersessional sessions and the main session.  

 And then as you can see, there is quite a bit of great content that -- that are valued for those slots.

 The last point I'd like to make is that I think that -- and a lot of that comment you'll see in the -- in the email when you have a chance to read it, that a lot of it goes to the comments that I made yesterday about integration into the program, not siloing in the program.

 The -- so I raise that again because you just made a comment about the SDGs, and I strongly feel that those issues can all be integrated into any of these main sessions as well so it's a more integrated approach to the -- to the content than a discrete track that takes it -- takes it out of the general discussion.  

 Thank you, Chair.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Did you hear any of that?

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I said thank you, Liesyl, for the helpful intervention and I appreciated, as well, your point on the SDGs.

 Julian, you have the floor.

 >>JULIAN CASASBUENAS:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  

 I just wanted to highlight the importance of -- for the IGF process to have the NRIs main session, because I believe that having the opportunity of working directly in these spaces for a long time, not only at the regional but also at the national level, I feel that having the opportunity of NRIs to have this space is very important to continue involving new actors in these governance -- Internet governance issues.  

 And also, I believe that it is important, the role of the NRIs in the stability of the Internet, especially at local level.  

 And it has been also helpful, these spaces, to make them stronger, the initiatives, by changing these experiences in the platform of the IGF.

 I believe a 180-minute session will be a challenge to organize for more than 91 NRIs already in the network, but I strongly support to have this session.

 And also, I strongly support gender as a stand-alone session and -- because it's a new issue in this main sessions format.  Thank you.

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

 Ji, you have the floor.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  Okay.  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I will be very brief.  

 Although I -- I don't think gender is a new issue, it's -- it's a millennial or 10,000-year-old problem, but given the grave consequences, I will not object to any gender inclusion stand-alone proposal.

 But since we have limited slots for all these proposals, I call -- I really wish to urge the proposers to consider merger of some of those proposals.

 For example, the Inclusive Workforce in Digital Economy and Data for Sustainable Development, I think these two can be merged under a big topic.  For example, Challenges and Opportunities of -- Posed by Technology to Sustainable Development, and we can, you know, have an annotated agenda telling the potential speakers what is this topic about.  You can put, you know, challenges on workforce transformation and the big -- the challenges and the opportunities provided by big data technologies in the medical -- Medicare, (indiscernible) building of schools, building of roads, supply chain of supermarkets, consumer habits, et cetera, et cetera.  

 You know, you could include lots more things and it will be more attractive.

 And secondly, about the -- the proposal made by Flavio about local interventions, shutdown of Internet, et cetera, I think the theme -- the topic is way too long and we need -- really need to make shorter and it looks more sexy.  

 And for example, we can say "Securing the Free Flow of Data" and saying, you know, the factors affecting this is critical technological and security factors.  That can capture all these things that they want -- want to mention, and in the annotated part, you can explain what does -- you know, you can mention encryption and such, because shutdown can be caused by many things.  For example, cyber weapons released or leaked from certain national arsenals or it could be due to political reasons for self-protection or self-defense.  It could be due to, you know, failure of infrastructure, et cetera.  So you -- you can, you know, make it more -- make it simpler and more inclusive, and -- to avoid -- and can also avoid some, you know, critical sensitiveness and make it more acceptable to all.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ji.  

 One thing that just occurred to me with some of these workshops, the difference in the main sessions, it takes place in a larger room and it has interpretation.  If, in fact -- for some of those that don't make it forward, there's still the opportunity to put it into a traditional workshop slot, if we feel that it's not overrepresented in the room, and that might be, you know, another alternative for one or two of these, just as an option to keep in the back of our minds.  Elizabeth, you have the floor.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  Thank you.  I will try to be brief.

 If I understood correctly, the process point I wanted to support before Shita reiterated it.  

 I also wanted to support the concern I heard Juan expressing, and I think Liesyl offered a suggestion for us, but I want to be very, I think, frank and clear that it is -- it is starting to be disconcerting and a bit of a concern that we're having a conversation in the MAG and then are almost being presented with a part of the conversation that isn't for the MAG to have.

 And I'm not sure where or when that decision was taken, but I don't recall us being a part of it.

 And so if we call a session an intersessional session or a main session, I -- I personally do not see that we have a distinction.  I think we're still talking about a content session on the program and I think the MAG is responsible for the program and I would like some commitment to have an open discussion about the program with the MAG that we're responsible for so that we can responsible to the people that we represent and the stakeholders.

 So that's -- that's on that point.

 I think the proposal that we have an open and clear discussion on this with the MAG interacting with different folks from those who have requested, whether it be intersessional or MAG members proposing main sessions, we should do so.  I don't think we should separate those because we come into a place where we do not actually have all the information we need to make a decision.

 If we do have to just deliberate on the list that is presented, I would like to lend my support for the framework idea that Carolyn suggested, and of the five that I would want to -- to provide support to, it would be the gender session, the digital economy session, Wisdom's proposal, the shutdowns, and I would like to say that I would love to hear a rights in the digital online world main session.  Whether it was organized by NRIs or it was open for NRIs and other people interested in this topic, I would welcome a session on this.

 Finally, on the SDGs, I think that there's a little bit of opportunity in those ones that we've already raised for the SDG discussion to take place and to be part of the context and the dialogue that we have, and I -- I very much hope that that will be the approach that organizers take.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Elizabeth, I certainly would like to talk to you off line as well because I don't think there was any discussion that -- a point made that the discussion shouldn't happen here.  I just don't think we have all the players in the room to have the discussion, if you're referring in particular to my comment on NRIs earlier.  So I just want to make sure that there's no misunderstanding.

 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  I just think it's -- so I -- I did misunderstand.  I understood you saying that you would go back to the NRIs and see what they want, and I -- I fully appreciate that we definitely need to understand if an NRI proposal is reflecting what the NRIs want.  Absolutely.  But when deliberating on whether we have seven main sessions and how we select them, to me in my mind, whether five of them come from main session topics and MAG proposers and two of them come from intersessional proposals, it is still the remit of the MAG to cover the whole program and I would like that to be a comprehensive and inclusive discussion.  And so my impression from your statement was that those two would be segregated and I'm not comfortable with that.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  The first -- the "we" was us, and the proposal was that "we," us, go and have a discussion with the NRIs that are properly set up with the NRIs, and that would be through a virtual call.

 And then the other thing, I think -- I mean, I -- I think it's unfortunate that sometimes this conversation feels a little contentious or tense because I think what we have in front of us is a series of different developments that have grown up over the last 11 years that don't fit seamlessly together yet, and I think -- I'm hopeful that either in the working group on IGF improvements or in the multiyear strategic work plan, that we address some of that, because we had NRIs that started up of their own volition, we had dynamic coalitions that started up of their own volition, we had some things like best practice forums which were pretty much kind of driven by the MAG in response to some requests to have more outcomes for the IGF.  We have all these things that have now become part of this IGF fabric that have different -- I'm losing the word -- different beginnings with different expectations, and I don't think it's a surprise.  They don't fit seamlessly together yet, and I think we need to ensure they fit seamlessly together because we all share the same objectives with respect to advancing Internet governance.  

 So I think to the extent we can just figure out how we move into that whole conversation and sort some of this out will be a lot easier.

 This isn't about some group taking something from another group or -- and it's certainly not what I intend to imply with any of my comments.  I just don't think we even have the right forums to talk to each other yet, never mind, and I think that's part of what we're struggling with.  And I don't take anything different from your comments and I don't want anybody to take anything different from mine.  I think we need to figure out how these pieces fit together, what this whole kind of fabric looks like when it's woven together as one garment.  

 I'm terrible at analogies like that, so Juan is always much better at them than I am.  

 We have three more comments in the queue.  Let's do that and then see if we can figure out how we might go forward.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- sessions there, they're proposers, so those are the persons with which we can interact, try to convince, and in the case of the NRI, who is the proposer that we can talk to, to them or to one person or two persons, because it's not all the NRIs.  There are 91 or something like that.  Who is the person who is representing the main session on the NRIs so we can have the conversation and the discussion.  Is somebody from the MAG?  It should be.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No, it's not.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  It's not?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Not yet.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  How come?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: How come?  Because of their genesis, how they actually started.  We have a focal point in the secretariat which helps to, if you will, be the bandwidth between the NRIs and the MAG.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  That's good.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  The NRIs were actually asked earlier this year what -- and that was actually a discussion with the MAG:  What -- and two-way discussion, right?  So don't anybody misinterpret.  What would the MAG find helpful, what would the NRIs find helpful with respect to -- and I tried to use generic words so we weren't using "focal point" or "coordinators" or -- but what kind of channel or bandwidth or interface do we need between the MAG and the NRIs so that we can figure out how to have these discussions?

 So the secretariat went away and drove a poll.  They came back and said that for the moment, they were still trying to get agreements amongst themselves.  That was not clear yet.  And you can imagine 90 people without the benefit of two or three times a year, two or three days in the same room, trying to come to agreements on these sort of issues takes some time.  

 So they agreed to actually work through the focal point, with the focal point channeling their views --

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  And who is that person?

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Anja.

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm asking a question now.  The answer is Anja, okay, now.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  It's a great point -- a great point, Arnold.  Apologies to --

 >> (Off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  Apologies.  Thank you, Arnold.  So going back to the queue, we have Sala in the queue.


 Post Elizabeth's comment, when you responded, everything that you said was what I wanted to say, and the only addition -- only addition to that is the intersessionals are critical in terms of -- are critical in the main session, primarily linking it to the definition of Internet governance, the mandate and the recommendations made by the Working Group on Internet Governance in terms of the recommendations.  Because at the end of the day, we, the MAG, will be judged.  It's not the IGF.  Like the quality -- the quality of the IGF in terms of it aligning to the actual mandate is what's going to be asked.  

 And I like what you said in relation to the SDGs.  

 The other thing I just wanted to point out:  Until at some point when we, the MAG, are able to make a call for proposals one year in advance to allow for the NRIs to be integrated into IGF processes -- and I say this like one year in advance, meaning like for next year's IGF -- to allow them to plan their processes to be able to synthesize and integrate whatever they need to do, until that time, we still should be -- you know, like they should be given priority.

 And quite aside from that, I also note the concerns raised in terms of put- -- you know, you don't want to create communities within communities and I think you've already raised the point some of these entities, well, you know, like we've evolved and it's coming to a point where there needs to be a -- like the MAG at some point, we need to relook at how we redo things or how things gel and fit together.  But I don't think that's a conversation for today, like you said, and that's something for the working group perhaps to discuss, or the MAG, later.

 But again, I'd just like to support the -- the NRI and the intersessionals to remain there, and for the NRI to remain at the 180 minutes.  Thank you.

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

 Wisdom, you have the floor.

 >>WISDOM DONKOR:  Thank you, Madam Chair.

 I just want to thank Sala for raising my point, and then I'm against the reducing of the time for NRIs.  I really think that time has been too small for them and should -- in case we are reducing that time, then all the other sessions, too, should be reduced.

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

 Jac, you have the floor.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Gosh, what was my point?

 It's the problematics of time.

 And I think -- I think as (indiscernible) I think we have to be quite creative in terms of how we're going to think about these different slots or think through how we might want to organize this.

 I think I put my name up, because when I heard Elizabeth say that she strongly supports this session around rights in a digital world.  I was, like, yes, actually that's what's missing in the framework at the moment.  And I just wanted to lend my support to that, yeah.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jac.

 Arnold.  And apologies again for getting carried away in the other dialogue.

 >>ARNOLD VAN RHIJN:  Thank you, Lynn.  I'll just make it short.  ICANN can support the intersessional sessions on the NRIs and the DCs, the dynamic coalitions.  

 The NRIs, I think they deserve a slot in the program.  And last year, they had a meeting.  It was a very successful meeting.  There were many NRIs who took the floor.  And I think for the next future, I mean, for the upcoming IGF, we should think of perhaps changing the format.  I mean, remember, Marilyn Cade did a tremendous job by having the (indiscernible) NRIs to come to the stage.  Some of the NRIs told me they would like to see her promoted as a kind of a Commander in Chief.  But that's been said, or noted.  

 But at least I think looking at the format, it could have been more interactive, I mean, exchange of views, instead of making only presentations.  And then you need, I think, 180 minutes

 But regarding the time slot, I think we can discuss that perhaps during virtual call afterwards.

 Thank you.  

 But we need -- Sorry.  We need to involve the NRIs to talk about this.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:   Yes.  And it's, as Chengetai's just pointing out, seven minutes after the hour.  

 We have two more people in the queue.  So let me cut it off an Ji and Raquel.  And then see if we can sum up quickly.

 Ji, are you in the queue?  Ji.

 >>JI HAOJUN:  No.  I am not in the queue.  I just don't want to finish the meeting.

 [ Laughter ]

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

 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  I will try to be brief, just for the sake of the hour. 

 I felt pressure to weigh in, especially on the support to the NRI sessions -- session.  I know we are going to have a longer discussion later on the document.  I didn't have the time to really digest, so probably it's going to be repetitive later.

 I think I've been already in many of the national IGFs in the past years, and national initiatives, and I'm part of the program committee for the regional IGF.

 And I can speak by -- by them, but I can speak by my experience how truly important it is to have a mechanism for the (indiscernible) of what they get out of it, you know, from the discussions.

 And it's not a separate process, you know.  It's not that they are doing their own discussions and we are doing our own discussions in the IGF global.  It doesn't turn out to be only about recognition.  I think the right wording would be to support -- supervise support, guidance, and integration.  And I would really like to see things going this direction.  Perhaps it's not a conversation for today, it's a conversation for later, for the WG on improvements.  But I think it's important to keep this long vision long term.

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

 Aida, you have the floor.

 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC:  Very quickly, to agree with what Raquel just said, made my work now easier.  

 And just one thing, that let's consider that it's not NRIs who need us, but it's us who need them, because let's remember that these three days, we were talking how we need all sorts of diversity, and they have that.  So we really need NRIs.

 And giving them 90-, 120-minute slot, I think that's nothing on our side, but it will give us back a lot.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Aida.


 >>JI HAOJUN:  Very quickly, Chair, I'm thinking if we, all the members, can give, Chair, you and our host some privilege to (indiscernible) all what have been said today, to come up with all the themes and the arrangements that will fit into the proposal as made by the host country and come back to us for reconfirmation in our next virtual meeting, that would be more efficient, I think.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No.  Thank you, Ji.  I was going to suggest something like that, because I, frankly, think we have no other option.

 I think what we can do is to go away and carefully look through the transcript, try and capture whatever sort of state we can find.  I think there may be a couple of -- of different approaches -- and consider when we pull in for the fuller NRI discussion, which ought to include the request for some specific sessions as well.

 But if the MAG is okay with that -- I mean, I don't think we're ready to discuss anything here.  I didn't hear any of the proposers that own those workshops taking them out.  I didn't hear any suggestions for additional mergers or time cuts coming from the proposers.

 I also don't feel that there was any kind of merging consensus coming from the room.  And I don't think that the discussions were full enough for us to go away and make a chair proposal.

 So I think we probably need to reflect on -- and, thankfully, we have the transcript -- to reflect on the discussion and see if we can frame it in a way where we can move the discussion forward in the virtual call.

 I'm sure that doesn't feel entirely satisfactory to people.  Not sure it feels entirely satisfactory to the secretariat and the chair, either.  But I think that's really the only sort of possible way forward at this minute.

 Is that okay?


 Anything online, Anja?

 >>ANJA GENGO:  There were a lot of comments online while the discussion has ongoing, so maybe I can just briefly address them.

 So we have from Alejandra, supports Raquel.  From Alejandra, supports Aida.  From (indiscernible) --  

 I'm going to bring us back to the session on gender, where Ginger gave her (indiscernible).

 Just a second, because they have a lot of comments.

 And, yes, in general, there were comments about the remote participation, that there should be a virtual queue maybe, that maybe we should give a priority to it.  So that's something to reconsider.  Maybe we can get it from the transcripts.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think we have a lot of work to do on the workshop evaluation process.  We still need to figure out how we can improve the input side better.  There were some significant comments on that a few days ago.

 Certainly, I think this process, there's clearly room for improvement.

 I'm not able to follow the Adobe Connect and the side chat room fully.  I dive in every once in a while.  And one of the things I saw, which is something I think we should consider, is, I have so much sympathy for the folks that are trying to participate remotely and participate, because there's so much body language in the middle of these conversations and so much moving in and out.  And, honestly, if the only MAG members that are supported to come to the meetings are those that actually have employment that will support that or are able to get funding, whether that's through the United Nations or some other manner, then I think it is disadvantaging.  And it's not only disadvantaging the individual, another point was made that it actually disadvantages the stakeholder group they're meant to represent as well.

 So I think there's probably something we ought to think about in there.  I don't even know if maybe it's something -- I know the U.N. is restricted from supporting people, for instance, from developing countries to come.  But maybe there's something through the IGFSA or something.  I think we need to find a way to fix that problem for at least such a critical meeting as this.

 But I have a couple of hands going up in the back.  I wasn't trying to start a long -- quite -- 


 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks, Chair.  It's Marilyn.  I did post -- Marilyn Cade speaking, a former MAG member.  But the reason I took the floor is because I'm on the Executive Committee of the IGFSA.

 I believe, in fact, the history of this is because of U.N. rules and because we are a U.N.-related project.  I do, however, note that it would be very helpful for us, those of us who are on the board, the Executive Committee of the IGFSA, to have a clear understanding -- I mean, I think I know, but it would be good for us to have a clearer understanding of what the financial implications would be.

 At this point, it's not that our mission would not allow to do -- us to do this, but we -- because we -- our mission and our charter is to raise funds to support the IGF Secretariat and the NRIs.

 So if we could -- Markus is not here, our chair.  But if we could take this up separately, let me talk to him and also to the other Executive Committee members.  I don't think it will happen this year, but I do hope that we could consider it for next year.  It would need to have guidelines.  And the recommendation of who gets the funding would need to come from the -- through the secretariat.

 And, again, I can't make a commitment, because it may be financially threatening to the support to the NRIs unless we can substantially increase our fund-raising.

 But I'm committed to raising it within the Executive Committee.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think you can raise it.  I suspect the Working Group on IGF Improvements will be addressing this as well, because it really goes to the core of participation.  If the participation comes from those with means to participate fully, that is obviously an unfair advantage.  So I think there's some kind of an input problem, again, on the front end.

 Juan, you have a comment?

 >>JUAN FERNÁNDEZ:  For you, Chair, or the Secretariat.  For us -- to give us some dates.  Because there's some work to be done, especially if a main session is going to be -- we have speakers to be addressed and all that.

 So when are the dates that you envisage that the main session would be selected?  When are the dates in which this process for the workshops will be finalized?  What are the dates for the open forums will be?  And it doesn't have to be exact, but something.

 Also, in some parts of the -- of the world, August is a vacation month, so also take that into consideration.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  It's a good point, Juan.  And we will do that.

 And for those that have participated online, I will go back and look through all of the comments in the various chat rooms and queues so that I -- 'cause I -- it's been a very sporadic dive.  I am not claiming at all to have followed all the comments in those chat rooms.  So we will take them into account when we look at some of the work in both the IGF improvements and some of the work in the multiyear strategic work program.

 >> (Off mic).

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No, I don't think --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  I mean, we do have a planning schedule for the workshops, but then we have to find it.  And since it's, you know, 17 paths, it will take us, like -- you know, some time, ten minutes or so.  But --

 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sending it on email is better, anyway.

 So I won't draw this out any longer.  I want to thank everybody for all of the time, particularly for staying late, for really stepping in and acting in the interests of our global mission here.  I just really, really appreciate your support and all the help as we've tried to work through the agenda.

 I'll turn to my honorary host country co-chair -- co-chair? -- see if there are any final comments.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:  Thank you so much for this hard work.  It's been really three days of a lot of progress, although now we are still stuck with a couple of issues.  But I think that progress has been very substantive not only in the substance, but also in the team-building.  So thank you.  And looking forward to continuing to work with you.

 [ Applause ]