You are here

December 2014 - IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meeting - Day 2 - Morning

 IGF MAG Meeting
 02 DEC 2014 (MORNING SESSION)
 Geneva, Switzerland

 

 

The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the December 2014 IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings, 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 session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

 

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Do I have my hammer?

 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  You see my gavel is gone and -- oh, there.  It remains on the other side of the room.  

 So warmly welcome to the MAG meeting, first in the series of preparations for the Brazil IGF.

 Since we have new MAG members, I think it would be very appropriate to start the meeting with a brief tour de table, or tour along the lines of the table, and asking every MAG member to briefly introduce him- or herself so that we know each other better.

 So why don't we start with -- so let me start from this side.  I think Ginger, you start as you're a MAG member.

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Good morning.  My name is Virginia Paque.  Most people call me "Ginger."  I am new on the MAG this year.  I come from Venezuela for the last 40 years, although I'm currently based in the U.S. for medical reasons, for family reasons.

 I have high hopes for my work on the MAG, particularly many of you know me already for remote or on-line participation, as we'll be calling it, and of course the IGF is a showcase for that, and with Brazil now, we expect to set an example for the world.

 So I look forward to working with everyone on that.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER: Good morning, everybody.  My name is Flavio Wagner.  I am a member of the board of the Brazil Internet steering committee, and this is my first year as a MAG member.  I am looking forward to working with you and helping you as we can in Brazil to make a very successful IGF.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.

 >>AYSEL KANDEMIR: Thank you.  My name is Aysel Kandemir.  I am from the host country of IGF.  I work for the regulatory authority of Turkey and am an ICT expert.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Maybe before going to the second row, we would -- I would like to also ask other representatives of Brazilian delegation to introduce themselves.

 >>JANDYR SANTOS: Good morning to you all.  My name is Jandyr Santos.  I'm the head of the Information Society Division in the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil.  I also attend the ICANN meetings and I'm also a member of this IANA transition group in ICANN.  Thank you.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER: My name is Hartmut Glaser.  I am Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and I am watching to see the decisions that you are taking because I need to put everything in place.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So Hartmut, thank you.  You omitted to say that I asked you last year to help me out and then be my -- be my advisor.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  Okay.

 >>CARLOS ALFONSO: Carlos Alfonso.  I am also a member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and part of the Brazilian delegation.

 >>IHSAN DURDU: Hello.  This is Ihsan Durdu.  I am -- I'm representing the Turkish government and I'm also a member at ICANN GAC, Governmental Advisory Committee.  Thank you.

 >>MERAL OZTARHAN: My name is Meral Oztarhan.  I am from government regulatory authority of Turkey.  Also we are host of IGF.

 >>LEA KASPAR: Good morning, everyone.  My name is Lea Kaspar.  I am an incoming new -- incoming MAG member from Croatia as part of the civil society community.  I currently work for a U.K.-based Internet policy organization called Global Partners Digital, and the bulk of my work for the last two years has been facilitating civil society engagements in Internet governance debates.  I'm looking forward to working with you all.  Thank you.

 >>AMELIA ANDERSDOTTER: Good morning, everybody.  My name is Amelia Andersdotter.  I've been a member of the European Parliament, and so in that capacity I have been considering a lot about the regulatory implications for the Internet and also Internet governance.

 >>ANA NEVES: Good morning.  I'm Ana Neves from Portugal.  I'm the Director of the Department for Information Society at the Ministry, so I'm from the governmental part, and I'm in the MAG for two years.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Good morning.  I'm Virat Bhatia.  I work for AT&T in south Asia and I've been a MAG member for the second year.

 >>DESIREE ZACHARIAH: Good morning, everybody.  My name is Desiree Zachariah.  I'm from Antigua and Barbuda.  I work the OECS -- that's the organization of Eastern Caribbean States -- and I've been a MAG member for two years.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: (Speaking in a non-English language.)  

 Why is that?  Okay.  Well, my name is Juan Fernandez.  I am a senior advisor at the Ministry of Communications of Cuba and an assistant professor in University of Informatic Science.  I participated in the negotiation process of the outcome documents of both phases of WSIS and also was a member of the working group in Internet governance.  I'm looking forward to -- well, I'm the first time in MAG and I'm looking forward to collaborate with everybody, all the members of the MAG, without exception, in order to carry out our mandate to have a good organization of the next IGF in Brazil.

 Thank you.

 >> (Speaking in a non-English language.)

 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR: I'm Lynn St. Amour, president and CEO of Internet Matters, although previously I was president and CEO of the Internet Society for about 13 years.  I participated in all the WSIS 1 and 2 and all the associated PrepComs.  I'm an incoming MAG member, and along with Jandyr, Hartmut, and probably one or two others, I'm also on the IANA steering committee.

 >>VICTORIA ROMERO: Good morning, Chair.  Good morning, Colleagues.  My name is Victoria Romero.  I'm the Mexican mission here in Geneva.  I'm second time MAG member and as you know, Mexico is extremely committed to the process of IGF and having also offered to host the session in 2016 and although I am here in a personal capacity.  Many of the -- of the priorities of Mexico are -- I will be retaking and bringing -- bringing them to the MAG.  Thank you very much, Chair.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Good morning.  My name is Peter Dengate Thrush.  I'm from New Zealand.  I'm a first-time MAG member appointed by the technical community.  I've been involved in Internet governance since about 1995.  I'm the former chair of Internet New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific Top-Level Domain Association, and most recently am the immediate past chair of ICANN.  I've been involved in ICANN since before it existed, and as a result of a long commitment to the multistakeholder model, transparency, accountability, and good governance, and I'm also a longtime supporter of the IGF.  I attended the first IGF meeting and the most recent.  I think I've been to six of the nine.  I've also attended quite a lot of the regional IGFs, including from memory those in Russia, New Caledonia and Hong Kong, so I look forward to assisting the IGF in what should be a very crucial year for Internet governance.

 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Good morning, everybody.  My name is Dominique Lazanski.  I'm a new MAG member, so an incoming MAG member.  I work for the GSMA, which is the mobile phone trade association, and we're based in London and I'm based in London as well.

 I have been attending the IGF for four years, but I first attended as a different stakeholder under civil society, so I look forward to working with everybody and with my background in -- in Internet governance.  Thank you.

 >>CHRISTINE ARIDA: Good morning.  My name is Christine Arida.  I represent the government of Egypt as a former IGF host country and I work for the National Telecom Regulatory Authority.  I'm also representing the secretariat of the Arab IGF.

 >>MARILYN CADE: Good morning.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I am a second-time MAG member.  I have been involved -- I was fortunate to attend both phases of the WSIS, to the extent that business was able to participate in the first phase, but also very heavily in the second phase.

 I work across most of the Internet governance ecosystem activities and organizations.  I was recently at the ITU plenipot as a member of a country delegation.  I am also a member of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, but previously a member of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF.

 I spend a good deal of my time following the activities of the national and regional IGFs and focusing on trying to encourage additional particularly businesses from the developing countries and associations from the developing countries to become engaged in Internet governance and I'm particularly interested in how we're going to be able to broaden and deepen the participation of all stakeholders in the upcoming IGF.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Hello.  My name is Hossam Elgamal.  I represent the business group and this is my second MAG membership.  I represent Africa ICT Alliance and also ICC/BASIS.  Thank you.

 >>BAHER ESMAT: Good morning.  My name is Baher Esmat.  I come from Egypt and I work with ICANN and I've been on the IGF MAG for three years.

 >>BIANCA CAROLINE HO: Hi.  Good morning.  My name is Bianca and I'm from -- a NetMission ambassador, an incoming new MAG member, so I'm very honored to be selected as one of the younger MAG members, and I've been involved in Internet governance since Egypt in 2009 and helped as the secretariat for the first Asia-Pacific regional IGF.

 So I'm really looking forward to making IGF a more user-friendly place.

 >>CHERYL MILLER: Good morning.  My name is Cheryl Miller and I am currently with Verizon Communications.  I also am a member of the business stakeholder community.  This is my -- this will be my third IGF and I have previously also held, excuse me, positions with the United States government in the administration and the U.S. Congress, and I'm very, very, very honored to be here, so thank you all very much.

 >>ANGELIC ALI HUSAIN CASTILHO: Good morning.  I'm Angelic Ali Husain Castilho.  I'm from Suriname.  I am a senior policy advisor and diplomat at our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I've been part of the MAG for two years now.

 >>GUO LIANG: Should other members introduce ourselves?  Okay.  Good morning.  My name is Guo Liang.  I'm working for Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.  I'm one of the first generation Internet users in China and I used to do research on Internet use and impact in China.

 So before I became a MAG member, I know nothing about IG, so using a Chinese metaphor, I jumped in the water before I know it's so deep.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>GUO LIANG: Anyway, I learned a lot.  I will continue to support IGF like this, and -- okay.  Thank you.

 >>IZUMI AIZU: Hello.  My name is Izumi Aizu.  Unlike my Chinese friend, I'm one of the usual suspects --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>IZUMI AIZU: -- from Asian civil society, and involved with the -- like Peter, the formation process of ICANN back in '97-'8.  Also worked at at-large at ICANN and attended almost all the ICANN meetings since 1998 to 2010.  Then I stopped and then I got involved with the WSIS, IGF, including AP regional IGF, and I don't know how long I will continue, but this is my outgoing opportunity from the MAG.

 But I will stay perhaps chasing you guys.  Thank you.

 >>CHEN HONGBING: Good morning, dear colleagues.  I'm very happy today -- this morning that I could sit next to Mr. Izumi, Professor Izumi, and Mr. Guo, so we can form our bloc of east Asia.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHEN HONGBING: My name is Chen Hongbing.  You can call me "Chen" because it's very easy to remember.

 I'm a councillor from Chinese -- permanent mission of China in Geneva.  It's my second year of -- to be the MAG member.

 I know that when you say -- when sometimes you claim you are a representative of the government, you will face some difficulties, or maybe suspicion, or prejudice, or even hostility.  I know, indeed, sometimes government representatives deliver some message -- disturbing messages, but we are sincere.  It's just part of the process.  We are sincere to contribute.  More than that, China now has the biggest population of Internet users, so for me as a representative of Chinese government, I would like to assure all of you that we -- I -- can contribute much more to the work of the MAG.  I'm committed and dedicated to helping -- working together with other colleagues to better -- to achieve a better delivery of the mandate of IGF as well as MAG.  Thank you all.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think Constance.

 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Good morning, everyone.  I'm Constance Bommelaer, Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships, at the Internet Society, and I've been on the MAG for three years.  Thank you.

 >>SOONJOUNG BYUN: Good morning, everybody.  My name is Soonjoung Byun from Korea and I work for Korea Internet and Security Agency.  This year has been my first year as a MAG member and I'm really looking forward to working with you.  Thank you.

 >>YULIA ELANSKAYA: Hello.  Hello, my name is Yulia Elanskaya and I represent Russian Federation and, in particular, Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communication, and I'm first time in MAG as a member.  And, actually, I recently joined Internet governance and also I joined GAC this year.  And before I have quite a deep background in mobile communication.  So I have the possibility to compare these two telecom areas.  And actually I'm very happy to be here, and it is quite symbolic for me to be here in ITU building and in particular in Popov Room.  So I'm happy to be here.  Thank you.

 >> ROBERT SHLEGEL:  Good morning to everyone.  My name is Robert Shlegel.  I'm a member of Russian parliament.  I'm journalist by training.  I am also a member of Parliament and Assembly of Council of Europe and reported -- report about Internet governance to them.  And I'm user with 15 years' experience, and I am very happy to be here.  Thank you.

 >> MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Mourad Boukadoum.  I'm from Nigeria.  I was brought here as a diplomat in the permanent mission for five years.  Currently, I am a deputy director in the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Algeria.  And I am a MAG member in my second term.  Thank you.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Good morning, colleagues.  My name is Mark Carvell.  I'm a senior policy advisor on Internet governance policy in the U.K. government Department for Culture and Media and Sport.  

 I have been a MAG member for two years.  I'm also the U.K. representative on ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee and also U.K. representative on the Council of Europe's Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Towela, please.

 >>TOWELA JERE:  Good morning.  My name is Towela Nyirenda Jere.  I work with the NEPAD planning and coordinating agency as a programs manager.  And this is my second term as a MAG member.  Thank you.

 >> SHITA LAKSMI:  Good morning, everyone.  Hi, my name is Shita Laksmi.  You can call me Shita.  I'm working at HIVOS, technology and transparency and accountability initiative in Southeast Asia.  I'm representing civil society, and active in the national IGF in Indonesia and also I'm representing Indonesia in general.  

 I'm a new MAG member, and it is an honor to be part of this group and looking forward to bringing more developing countries' voices.  Thank you.

 >> PETER MAJOR:  Good morning.  My name is Peter Major.  I'm an advisor to the permanent mission of Hungary here in Geneva.  I have been on the MAG for three years.  I'm an outgoing MAG member.  I hope to be able to continue to give you some support.  In addition to that, I have been the chairman of the CSTD working group on the improvements of the IGF, and I have been chairing the other group on enhanced cooperation.  Thank you.

 >> Good morning.  My name is (saying name), and I come from the permanent mission of Greece here in Geneva.  This is the first time I attend such a meeting.  I don't know if this makes me an observer.  For sure, I'm not member of MAG.  I'm here because we received a letter in the context of the European presidency and as we understand to enhance the presence of E.U. member states within this procedure.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, actually Greece was the host of the first IGF meeting in 2006.  So that's why you're here.

 [ Laughter ]

 >> Yes.  This makes us a member?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That ensures your presence here.

 >> Okay, thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Fiona, please.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Hi, I'm Fiona Alexander.  I work at NTIA, which is the part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.  I have been there for just over 14 years and been involved in a variety of Internet governance discussions, both phases of WSIS, ITU obviously and ICANN and a variety of other things.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Who is next there?  I don't see that far.

 >> OLGA CAVALLI:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Olga Cavalli.  I am a senior advisor of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina.  I'm a departing MAG member after several years.  I have been honored to be part of this group.  I have learned a lot, and I hope to contribute from outside the MAG now.  I am also involved in ICANN activities.  I am the Argentina representative in the GAC where I'm also the vice chair.  I'm a university teacher at Universidad de Buenos Aires.  I'm the academic director of the South School of Internet Governance since 2008 and a member of the regional Internet governance committee.  And all the best to the new MAG.  And I hope I can contribute from the community.  Thank you.

 >> SILVIA BIDART:  Good morning.  My name is Silvia (saying name) Bidart.  I'm the vice president of the WITSA, which is the World Information Technology and Services Alliance that covers 80 countries of ID IT around the world.  And also general director of ALETI, which is the ICT in Latin American Industry Federation.  I'm also vice president of the IT Industry task force of the WSIS process in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is ELAC from ECLAC U.N.  And I'm looking forward to working with all of you.  I'm a new MAG member.  Thank you.

 >> JUUSO MOISANDER:  Good morning, all colleagues.  My name is Juuso Moisander.  I'm a new incoming MAG member, but I have been around the Internet governance for about six years.  I represent the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.  And I'm the desk officer for information society and ICT questions.  So I'm responsible for WSIS follow-up.

 I have a background in trade policy and on market-exit questions with ICT products.  

 Currently, I represent my government in several international organizations.  I'm the Finnish rep in ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.  I was also on the CSTD.  I was a member of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and so on.  

 Nationally, we have a WSIS follow-up coordination group and I'm chairing that.  That group also organizes Finland's national IGF, the Finnish Internet forums.  So, consequently, I'm also the Chair of that.  Thank you.

 >> CRISTINA MONTI:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Cristina Monti from the European Commission.  I'm international relations officer, in particular at DG CONNECT, which is the Director-General for communication networks, content, and technology.  

 As many of you know, the European Commission has been a committed supporter of the IGF since its beginning as well as a stable financial contributor.  And we look forward to its other strengthening and evolution as it is now clear that it has become a fundamental player in the Internet governance ecosystem.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  On the last row?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I'm Avri Doria.  I'm new to the MAG, but I have been involved with the IGF since it was just a concept.  I'm an independent researcher and educator involved both in Internet technology and the IETF and policy as a civil society person, in the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization, and in the Working on Enhanced Cooperation.  I was nominated for the MAG by the civil society coordination group, and I live in Providence in the U.S.

 >> LEE HIBBARD:  Hello, everybody.  My name is Lee Hibbard.  I'm internet policy coordinator on human rights, rule of law, and democracy at the Council of Europe, which is an intergovernmental organization of 47 countries based in Strasburg.  

 The Council of Europe has been an observer to the MAG since the inception in 2006 of the IGF.  I was involved in the WSIS phase, Tunis phase also.  And I'm also participating in other fora including ICANN and the EuroDIG, the European Dialogue on Internet Governance.  Thank you.

 >> SANDRA HOFERICHTER:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Sandra Hoferichter.  I'm the managing director of the EuroDIG, the European Dialogue on Internet Governance.  And I'm involved there since its beginning in 2008.  And, furthermore, I'm also a European representative to the ALAC -- to ICANN's ALAC.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So no MAG members on the last row any more.  Then maybe we can get on that side.  Jivan.

 >>JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  Good morning to all.  My name is Jivan Gjorgjinski.  I'm deputy chief of cabinet of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia and also head of the Department of Public Relations and Public Diplomacy.  

 I have been involved in the IG story since I was an advisor to the president during the WSIS process in Geneva and in Tunisia and after that, and I have done a few other things in between.  Pleasure to be here and is an honor as well.  This is my second year starting right now on MAG.

 >> MICHAEL NELSON:  I'm Michael Nelson.  It is my second year on the MAG.  I've worn many different stakeholder hats, usually at once.  I have been doing Internet governance since before we had the term and have worked at the White House, IBM, Microsoft.  Currently teaching Internet studies at Georgetown.  And in a couple weeks, I will announce my next job.  Very glad to be here again.

 >> SLOBODAN MARKOVIC:  Hello, everybody.  My name is Slobodan Markovic, and I'm a new MAG member.  I work at the Serbian Registry at Internet Domain Names as an advisor for ICT policy and Internet community relations.  

 Before that, I worked as advisor to Serbian minister for information society and telecommunications.  And even before that, I was a member of civil society.  And I founded the first Serbian NGO acting in the area of ICT policy.  So I'm an all-in-one, a walking Internet policy multistakeholder.

 [ Laughter ] 

 And I'm really, really looking forward to working with all of you on improving the program, the format, and looking back to what Ginger said at the beginning, improving the remote participation and the quality of remote participation in IGF.  Thank you.

 >> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC:  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Aida Mahmutovic.  I'm from Bosnia and Herzegovina, working for OneWorld Southeast Europe dealing with human rights and Internet.  Istanbul IGF was my third IGF to attend.  I'm an incoming member to the MAG, and I really look forward working with all of you.  Thank you.

 >> FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Fatima Cambronero.  I am from Argentina, from Gordoba, Buenos Aires.  I have been MAG member for two years.  I'm research director AGEIA DENSI, Argentina, a civil society organization.  

 I am also ALAC member of ICANN via Latin America and Caribbean.  I am also a member of the Program Committee of the ELAC IGF, Latin American and Caribbean IGF among other voluntarily activities.  Thank you.  Welcome to the new MAG members.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  On the second row, I think Patrick.

 >>PATRICK RYAN:  Hi, my name is Patrick Ryan.  I'm a strategy and operations principal at Google.  This is my third year as a MAG member.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I think in the meantime, there have been two MAG members arrive, Giacomo and then Jac.

 Giacomo.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Giacomo Mazzone from European Broadcasting Union.  I'm continuing my mandate within the MAG, and also I am representing the broadcasting union within the ICANN GAC.

 >> JAC KEE:  Hi, morning, my name is Jac.  I am from the Association for Progressive Communications based in Malaysia.  We are a civil society organization working on social justice and Internet and Internet policy issues.  I head the women's rights program.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you and we have two GAC members participating remotely -- sorry, MAG members.

 [ Laughter ]

 That is the recurrent mistake.  When I say in this context, if I say "GAC," please read it "MAG."

 [ Laughter ]

 My apologies.  The old love never rests is the proverb.  So we have two MAG members participating remotely online.  Subi?

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  I reaffirm that I am a MAG member.  So this is Subi Chaturvedi.  Good morning, everyone.  I come from India.  And I'm currently with the IIT-Delhi, which is a state university focusing on information technology.  I have been a proud MAG member now for two years, this being my third term.  2012 was my first IGF and this goes on to reaffirm my belief that IGF is bottom-up transparent and inclusive.  And if you would like to, you cannot just participate but also decide and enrich and enhance the program.

 I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome all the new MAG members and invite them to own this and enrich this space with the energy that is uniquely their own and inform the discussion with their insights.

 As a developing country, an emerging economy MAG member, access, gender, ICT, multilingualism and enhancing multistakeholder participation, especially from underrepresented stakeholder groups like women and youth, is a priority.  I have run a collective called Media for Change and disseminating discussions at the IGF, good practice, best practices, and what we do here is a priority.  I do that by writing articles and participating in panels on national media.  

 And just to end, I'm also part of the India IGF MAG and serve as the convener of its working group, working towards the first-ever Indian IGF.  

 It is a fantastic new team.  Janis, thank you for your leadership.  

 And, Chengetai, thank you for doing what you do each year.  I'm really hoping for the best-ever IGF 2015.  Thank you, Brazil, for having us.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And then Ephraim?  Ephraim, are you with us?

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Ephraim is on mobile so I will introduce him here.  Ephraim Percy from Kenya is a policy fellow at Access Now working on the connection between Internet policy and human rights and is also an affiliate in the Internet Policy Observatory created by the Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.  He has a passion for democratic governance, youth work, human rights, transparency, and international development with a background of engaging with diverse range of research and social development organizations such as Transparency International, Mercy Corps International, and the Center for Law and Research International, among other business and media, journalism and foreign policy regional integration institutions.

 He is scheduled to graduate from law school in 2015 and also has training in Internet policy and media law from the University of Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania.

 In addition, he is an ICANN fellow from Singapore and the USA and more is available online.  We did want to welcome.  Ephraim is with us but on mobile.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And Ephraim contributed yesterday to our discussions during the open consultation.  So thank you very much.  And all these presentations are very reassuring because we see the wealth of knowledge and expertise in this room and certainly that will be very helpful for us in preparing the Brazil meeting.

 So let me go now to the formal part and seek your approval for the agenda for the MAG meeting.  So agenda has been sent out and is available online on the IGF Web site.  And the question is:  Can we follow suggested agenda during today and tomorrow?  Of course, the timing may differ slightly depending on our -- speed of our decision-making process.  But in principle, we should follow that order if you do not object.

 Marilyn, please.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm not raising an objection but a question.  I note that it is proposed that we talk about intersessional activities as Item 4.  I would just say for myself, I'm struggling to know what intersessional activities would be the most appropriate until after we engage in the discussion on shaping the program and shaping the structure.

 To me, intersessional work will augment and enhance and feed into the main program.  So I would probably prefer to discuss intersessional activities after we spend time engaging in discussing the overall program in at least a little bit of detail.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think we could easily take what is currently Point Number 4 as Point -- new Point 5 and swap 4 and 5 in that order.

 Avri, please.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.

 I actually beg to differ.  I think that the intersessional work is important in itself and needs to be discussed as a primary feeder into discussing what will be in the next meeting.

 We certainly have ongoing work that needs to be understood in the best practice forums and how to schedule that and how to make sure that work continues, and I believe that we need to start looking at the IGF meeting not as something that blossoms from the brains of the MAG but as something that basically derives from the contributions and the work done intersessionally.  

 So I think that starting to talk about what we will have in terms of meetings, in terms of content at the meeting, is putting a cart before the horse and would really prefer that we stick to the agenda as was agreed at the beginning in terms of understanding how to do work between the yearly meetings so we're not just a yearly meeting programming committee.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Actually, nothing has been agreed from the beginning.  What we -- what we are now talking is the proposal of the secretariat and hopefully we will agree on the agenda and so we will follow.

 What -- you see what I would like to suggest, not to lose more time, I promise you that all questions will be examined, and let us see after a discussion of Point -- suggested Point Number 3 of the agenda whether we go to discuss intersessional or we go to discuss IGF meeting.  

 So I think we will have more information because I -- I have some preview of what -- what information will be shared on the Agenda Item 1 and 2 and then that may logically lead us to further conversations.

 So I did not hear objections on the substance of the proposed agenda.  We will follow that, and the order we will see as it goes.  So thank you.

 Now I would like to invite the 2014 host country to make remarks, to give us blessing, and I call on Ms. Aysel Kandemir for doing that.

 >>AYSEL KANDEMIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  Dear Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure for us to be here in MAG meeting on the way towards the next IGF.  In the yesterday meeting for open consultations as host country of the past IGF we are really delighted to hear the many words of gratitude and appreciation.

 We thank you all for your comments and also constructive criticism made in some of the issues.  We think that they will be carefully considered for all of us for the preparation of next IGF.

 As noted in yesterday's meeting, record high participation in this year's event showed interest and eagerness of people for discussing Internet issues in an open and interactive manner.  Increasingly by the years, through the meetings and different formats, IGF addresses many challenging issues.  

 As it has been stated, IGF provides enabling platform for international dialogue on Internet issues which leads to informed decisions.

 We all recognize that MAG plays a very important role in accommodating these needs with the efforts of -- in the preparation of IGFs.  Being the kitchen of IGFs, MAG brings prominent expertise and knowledge together in shaping the annual forum.

 We are confident that again in this meeting, further results will be achieved and more advanced for next year.

 Having this chance, we congratulate new members of the MAG and thank the previous ones as they did a great job for the IGF in Istanbul.

 In Istanbul, connectivity, network neutrality, digital trust, human rights issues, IANA transition, and youth involvement are just some of the important topics which drew interest and attention of participants.

 We think that they will continue to be the important topics at stake for the next year's IGF.

 For more inclusive discussion and results, inputs from national and regional IGFs need to be fed to the annual Internet Governance Forum.  Better outreach, clearer guidelines, transparency and publicity of all process on the preparation of IGFs are crucial for the success and inclusion.

 We think that in the first MAG meeting at each year's cycle, it would be good to have informative session -- informative session or documents which explains basic instrument of IGF, its mandates, roles and responsibilities of respective parties -- namely, MAG, host country, and IGF secretariat -- and the relation between them.

 Also it would be a good chance for host country to hear and learn expectations from parties and incorporate them accordingly on the preparation of the annual meeting.

 We believe that considering the accomplishment and challenges noted in the -- and experienced in Istanbul, upcoming IGF will go one step further in achieving more tangible outcomes.

 We think that recommendations and next steps formulated in this year's forum will provide guidance and valuable input in designing the program for next year's forum.

 And now we have very ambitious agenda in our front.  I don't want to continue too much.  I'm sure that this meeting will be a very fruitful one in achieving planned purposes.  

 As a final remark, wishing Brazil's administration great success for next year, we would like to reiterate our strong willingness to support them in their journey to the 10th IGF.  

 I thank you very much for your kind attention.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Aysel, for these remarks and wishes for best luck for all of us.

 So now I am turning microphone to our host, the Brazilian -- Brazilian host, and invite Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca to take the floor for remarks.

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Janis, and good morning to everyone.

 Well, I -- I want to be very brief because I have already spoken yesterday.  I do not want to repeat most of the things that I've said, and also because we look forward to the discussions that will follow.  I think this is, indeed, the most important part and what has brought us here.

 However, I'd like to reaffirm that we are very honored and pleased to host the next IGF in Brazil in November.  We look forward to welcoming all of you here in the room and also the wider community that is involved in those issues that will be dealt with by the meeting.

 And just by -- I'd like to just refer briefly to one point I made yesterday, which is that from the Brazilian point of view, and particularly from the point of view of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we try to ensure we have participation in all Internet governance-related foreign processes that is consistent with the vision that is conveyed by the Tunis Agenda.

 So by participating in the process in ICANN, ITU, United Nations General Assembly, UNESCO, and -- we could go on -- the human rights institutions discussing issues regarding to cybercrime, we try to follow the -- this notion of the need to ensure a multistakeholder approach always, while respecting that in some issues a decision-making process will be multilateral, but even in those cases should be informed by multistakeholder discussions.

 And also, we try to -- to be as helpful as we can in order to try to bring together different perspectives.

 I think in Brazil, we have both the -- I think it's a lucky circumstance, but at the same time a challenge because we have so many different aspects, different dimensions in Brazil, different contradictions, and I think it's the synthesis of what takes place in a wider context.  So I -- and we are also very happy that we can dialogue and be a bridge to almost any partner.  We do not have any difficulty to partner with anyone.

 In that overall structure, we value very much the role of IGF.  We think IGF plays a unique role and an irreplaceable role in this ecosystem because it provides a place for the true multistakeholder discussion, interaction.  The role IGF has been playing those last nine years clearly shows that it is a body that should be made permanent, that there is value in having IGF as a meeting place for all those ideas and which will impart ideas and proposals that will be fed into other processes, as appropriate.

 So we are committed to strengthen IGF.  We are committed to work together as the community to ensure IGF has a stability from the financial point of view, from human resources, so that it will serve best its purposes.

 We look forward to the discussions that will follow.  That will help us shape IGF -- the next IGF in Brazil in a way that will be consistent with this vision, a vision that was condoned by the NETmundial meeting we were also very honored and pleased to host earlier in the year that exactly indicates the need to strengthen IGF.

 So we are looking forward to working that direction with you.

 There is for us, as our national delegations (indiscernible) -- and again, I'm speaking not only on behalf of the government but on the Brazilian steering committee's behalf -- it is both an honor but also a very big challenge to try to build on what we have been doing those last nine years to follow immediately on the steps of the Istanbul IGF, the IGF in Istanbul, which is widely recognized as a successful meeting, one which brought very useful innovations that helped us move forward, and also live up to the challenge of providing a context for this meeting that will be also found as warm and as welcoming as the Turkish government and people provided us in Istanbul.

 So with those very brief words just to state again that we will be looking forward to be as helpful as we can, working with you, working with Janis and UNDESA, to ensure we have this successful meeting, one that will fit into those developments that are taking place in so many other places.  And it is important that we ensure both that IGF will remain relevant, discuss relevant issues in the most structured way, in the most harmonious way in itself, but also it is very important to think how to communicate what we do in IGF to other processes so that we can have an influence on developments that are taking place elsewhere, particularly in regard to these United Nations General Assembly high-level meetings that will take place in December.

 So we are looking forward to look -- to work with you with regard to -- in all those avenues to make sure we have the -- that we can achieve the best decisions we can.

 So thank you.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I would like to ask now whether -- MAG members, do you have any questions at this point in time to the -- Ambassador Fonseca, to the host country, based on the information or outline that Benedicto gave?

 Peter, please.

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

 I don't have a question for Ambassador Benedicto but for the previous speaker, if I may, to the previous host, and I noted that she said that one of her recommendations was that the MAG should have at its first meeting a set of documents, including those that set out relationships and mandates.

 So if this is that first meeting, can those documents be made available or are we looking at having those made available at another meeting?  Because I look forward to receiving those.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 They are not available now, but we certainly can make them available.  They are available on the Web site, actually, but we can make a compilation and the essential documents we could -- we could provide to all MAG members just as reference information by tonight.  Meaning by this afternoon.  That's not a big deal to compile them.  Including also the recommendation of the working group on improvements to the IGF, which also is a reference document, as well as actually there was one study that was done by the working group of the MAG that analyzed the results of implementation of those recommendations in 2013 and I found that that was very useful also to see how MAG itself sees how far we have gotten in implementing those recommendations.  

 Mark, please.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  And just on that point, if we could ensure that the analysis of implementation of those recommendations by the CSTD working group are really up to date, to take into account the innovations introduced in Istanbul, I think that would be extremely grateful.

 And we ought to communicate that to the wider community, including to the General Assembly in New York.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Mark.  It will not be possible because that was a special -- specially established working group that looked at improvements and what has been achieved, and that was in 2013.

 If we want to compile that -- that type of documentation or do that type of analysis, we need to establish that working group and ask them -- I mean, working group from MAG members and ask them to do that analysis.

 What I can tell you, to my knowledge -- and hopefully Elia will confirm that later today -- that there was an independent evaluator hired by UNDESA who did the analysis of the IGF, including taking into account the recommendations.

 I am not very sure where -- where the process is in terms of report- -- reporting on that analysis, but certainly that might be also a good reference document as soon as it is published as a -- from external evaluator.

 Virat, please.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  This is a related point, Mr. Chairman.

 If this is an important area we need to communicate some of these messages to the UNGA in New York from the point of view of renewal, then it might be worth considering setting up a working group or a task force within the MAG to try and accumulate innovations and the achievements, including the implementation record, and put that into some sort of a communique or document with an outreach program for the UNGA between now and October.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for that suggestion.  So that's in our -- in our purview, in our hands.  We can do that.  

 So I see Elia is coming to the podium.  She was in the room, in the back of the room.  So if you could -- if you could, Elia, tell us where we are with this evaluation and when it will be available and if it will be available at all.

 >>ELIA ARMSTRONG:  Good morning.  Apologies for being late on the podium, but I was behind, participating.

 On the question of the project evaluation, you know it was called for in the project document and I think it was called for to be done after the first mandate but I think it was not done.  So at the moment, we are looking at the entirety of the existence of the IGF project office and the project.  

 The evaluator -- it's an independent evaluator -- has done his report and part of that report requires management response, so we are busy collecting the management response so that it be annexed to the report.

 And then I believe that we had made a commitment to make that report available to MAG.

 So we hope to get it out shortly, but that's where it's at.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  So we will have a view of independent evaluator at one point, which will also inform our own thinking and analysis where we have gone that far.

 Marilyn, please.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm going to follow on to Mark Carvell's comment.  Thank you, Elia, for that update and for the comments that have been made so far.

 But I want to go back to what I understood Mark Carvell to be proposing and to enhance perhaps that recommendation.  I do think it would be good to continue to have a MAG working group that is looking at documenting the improvements and enhancements.  That is kind of a self-governance, self-assessment contribution that I think we will want to make.  And for the longer term -- to respond to Virat's comment, for the longer term, looking into next year, that would be perhaps a periodic reporting even that we could make.

 But for now, I would suggest that it would be important to capture in a letter perhaps with an attachment some of the enhancements and changes that have already happened in the IGF that we could use, we could send it widely to other organizations.  We could also post it on our MAG public Web site which is not necessarily the best way to distribute information, but we could also use it as sort of a formal communication and agree to it within the MAG as we did to last year's communication Chair when the MAG asked you to communicate on our behalf our call for renewal.

 But this letter would be sort of documenting some of the changes that have already happened, in particular delivered by the time of the Istanbul-hosted -- the Turkey-hosted IGF.  Thank you.  I would be happy to collaborate with others on beginning to prepare that attachment and also as a former member of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements would be interested if we do set up a small working group for ongoing self-assessment.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Actually, this was the -- the last what you said was what I was waiting for all the time, so the volunteering to do the job.  This is how we work in the MAG, on volunteer basis.  And I note that Marilyn is volunteering to do the self-assessment -- or assessment of the work of the MAG in implementing the IGF working group recommendations.  And based, of course, on the work which was done in 2013, adding elements of improvement that we introduced in preparation for the IGF meeting.

 I see there are requests for the floor from Lea.

 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you, Chair.  I'd like to express my support for this proposal, and I would like to volunteer as well to participate in any way possible and to support that work.  I think it is an excellent idea, and that it could also help us streamline efforts in communicating our messages more broadly for each individual MAG member in different fora as well as to feed into the U.N. processes.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you for volunteering.  For MAG members who may not know or may not have experience, I would like to tell that there would be a number of working groups.  It is very good that you're helping us and volunteering to work with them.  But you need to know that this is not the only opportunity that you can volunteer.  There will be many more.  That's point number one.  

 Point number two, I would like to see that every working group that we establish would have a clearly defined coordinator and others would help and we would know who would be the key coordinator of that particular working group.  And that coordinator would provide updates on activities and then progress.  In this respect, I will take now Virat's comments, and we'll move on on our agenda.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify that the idea of the working group that I floated which Marilyn sort of had expanded upon is both assessment and outreach, especially given this year.  So we should sort of -- when we are defining the mandate, we should be clear that we have a specific purpose for this year.  And in the following years, it could do assessment work alone.  But this year we would have to do both and are targeted to provide something towards the end of September/October.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, your understanding is correct.  That would be assessment for the outreach.

 Avri and then Fiona and then Subi remotely.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I just wanted to confirm that any letter that's written does, indeed, come back to the MAG before it gets sent on.  You didn't mention that in your discussion of the process, so I just wanted to ascertain whether that was the case.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That is always by default.

 Fiona, please.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you, Janis.  I think similar to the concern that Avri raised, there are a fair number of new MAG members this go round, I think the largest rotation we have ever seen.  So I think clarity is important.  And as you establish these working groups, I think we should be clear to establish terms of reference for the working groups so there is a shared expectation as to what people are doing and how the process works going forward.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I think that's a fair proposal, and I certainly ask Chengetai to write down.  But, in essence, the terms of reference is based on the report which was done by the working group -- MAG working group in 2013 in evaluating the progress in implementing the CSTD working group on IGF improvement recommendations to -- I mean, to add elements of improvements we introduced in the run-up to the Istanbul meeting and using that information in drafting communication which would explain how MAG is implementing this working group recommendation.  And then we need to see whom we will be sending this information, most probably to member states delegations who will be working on WSIS+10 review; that they have information what is happening and they can factor that in in their discussions.

 Peter?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I was going to say, I think, much the same thing that Fiona had said.  Really the first -- I'm not sure whether this is a practice in the MAG.  But the very first chore of any working group ought to be to get agreement on its charter and report that back, and that might be a good time to call for volunteers once people understand what the actual work of the group is, but...

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I see where you are coming from.  The difference between ICANN where you could always ask for the charter and you have 200 staff members working, we do not have that luxury.  

 No, no, we do things a little bit more informal way.  But understanding should be present; that's for sure.  And a writeup will be done and everybody will be able to contribute.  

 But, in essence, the idea is to sort of put on paper what improvements we have introduced as requested by the recommendations of IGF -- working group on IGF improvements.

 Subi, please.  Very quickly.  I would like to move on to the next item.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  This is my first MAG meeting through remote participation, and I'm learning and discovering.  I support the creation of the working group, and I'd like to volunteer.  I had a question, though.  

 When we're discussing the working group, are these working groups -- I understand that there will be several more that will come through organically.  There is also the best practice fora that exist already.  Will they be the ones feeding into intersessional work?  

 There was some conversation about setting up a framework.  So some clarity on that account would be helpful.

 Also, those of us who are not in the room and are participating online, if we could -- before we come to any concrete discussions on the formulation of the working group or we could volunteer, if we could take this online as well and open it up for us on the mailing list, that would be something that I'd appreciate greatly.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  No, certainly everything will be on the mailing list.  This is the way how we function.  Again, I think that we're talking about the same thing from different aspects.  Working group will be created.  We will put the tasks ahead of working group, and we would expect the working group would produce a document or information to be peer reviewed by all MAG members maybe in a couple of months from now.

 Mr. Chen?

 >>HONGBING CHEN:  Thank you, Janis.  

 Since this year, we have the biggest reshuffle of the MAG members.  I suggest that when we have our discussion, we better give all the audience, all the members a bigger picture or whole picture to facilitate them to better understand the situation.  I think now what we are talking about is a working group about the governance issue of MAG.  But there are also working groups about who will be responsible for substantive works.  I suggest it's better for Chengetai to give us some briefing about how many working groups we have, which are responsible for what, and then so just to give the members -- especially for the new members to get a better picture.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  That is very important.  And we had the orientation call for new MAG members a week ago or ten days ago where we tried to explain how MAG functions and what MAG does and what MAG does not actually.  That was also part of the discussions.

 The terms of reference of the MAG can be found on the Web site, and we would follow those -- I mean, MAG should follow those terms of reference because they have been established based on the decisions of the Tunis phase.

 So the question, how many working groups we will establish, that is up to us to decide how many we feel need to be established.  And there was a feeling that we need to look at improvements that have been introduced and how we implement the recommendations of CSTD working group.  This is important because if or when IGF will be evaluated by the member states of United Nations in their analysis or decision-making whether the mandate should be renewed or not, I think the question of implementation of recommendations of CSTD working group will be scrutinized very closely.  So as a result, this is the only reference document we have apart from a charter itself, terms of reference of MAG and terms of reference of IGF which are spelled out in Tunis Agenda.  

 Those are the documents we will be evaluated against.  And we always need to keep that in mind.  That is our sort of holy document that we need to keep in mind all the time.

 So I would like to move further because we're already discussing some substantive things, but we need still to hear presentation from the host country about logistics and then move into substantive discussion.

 But I see Fiona and then Peter.  Fiona, please.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you, Janis.  

 Not to drag this on too much longer, but just for clarity and expectation, normally these working groups when we curate them, there is a mailing list and the mailing list is open just to sort of conform with the ideas of transparency.  And I would expect we will be doing the same thing here?  And is the idea that the working group would be MAG members but open to other interested parties as well?  Because we have operated that way in the past.  I would hope that's what we were doing, but I wanted to confirm that in terms of a process point.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, I confirm that.

 Peter?

 >> PETER MAJOR:  Thank you, Janis.  

 It seems I have been chairing this working group on the evaluation, and the results were taken up by the secretariat.  That was the report from the secretariat which was sent to the CSTD, and the CSTD during its meeting endorsed the report itself.

 However, it was before Istanbul, and I think it's very useful to carry on this work.  Personally, if I may, I would volunteer to be part of this group.  

 And other information as for the extension of the mandate, it's being discussed right now in New York by the Second Committee.  It is mentioned that the improvements proposed by the CSTD working group should be implemented, further implemented.  So it is very crucial.

 I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing because we may be late in terms of having an impact on this decision.  On the other hand, I think it is a very useful proposal to move forward for the future.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for volunteering.  The CSTD will meet in May next year.  We have ample time if we decide also to send the essence of the report or to communicate our own self-evaluation to the CSTD, if we wish to do so.  So thank you.  I think we are done now with this round of -- with this issue and this round of consultations around that.

 Let me maybe ask the host country to do the presentation of facilities and logistics, and after that we would start the discussion on general outline.  Prior to that, I would maybe do overview of main lessons learned from 2014 as is suggested by the program.

 So may I invite the host country?  Hartmut, please.

 >> HARTMUT GLASER:  Good morning, everyone, again.  Before I go in details, I'd like to use one or two minutes to explain the way that the Brazilian Internet works.  Since '95, we have Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and multistakeholder model.  The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee is not a legal entity but is a coordination body.  We have 21 members, 12 elected in a bottom-up transparent democratic process, electronic election process.  The members are elected by elected by the stakeholders.  We have different stakeholders.  And itself there is an election process.  So they really represent the different stakeholders in the country.  

 The government has nine seats appointed by different ministries and agencies, but they don't have the majority.  21 in total, only 12 -- only 9 from government but 12 elected.

 The steering committee is not an incorporated entity, but we put in place nic.br, Network Information Center.  That is the non-for-profit legal entity who take over all the responsibilities, the legal responsibilities.  All the employees, we have today around 200 people working full-time not only with domain names and not only with I.P. addresses but we have also a SIRT security group.  We have a statistic group who go to the country, to the different stakeholders, and see the penetration of the Internet in the different areas, health, education, government, penetration of the Internet in households, and so on.  And we also have the department for new projects that we try to put in place in agreement with universities and other entities.

 The first project -- or the first steering committee starts in '95.  But now after 18 years, I think we have a long history.  We organized two ICANN meetings in the past.  We organized one IGF in Brazil, and last year we organized the (saying name).  2013, the WEF conference in Rio de Janeiro.  We have a good history looking backwards in relation to organize in the country and also international events.

 This multistakeholder model works in a very, very strong cooperation with the government.  Not because we have nine members on the board, but also because we have a strong input in the policymaking process for the government.

 So when we are sitting together, ambassador and others from the government, we already work together.  We are not government but we are working with the government.  That is very, very important.  We don't receive money from the government, but we are working together.  

 All the money is coming from our domain name system.  We charge the domain names.  We have 3.5 million domain names in the country.  We charge an average of $12 a year.  So we have our budget, we have our money, and with this money the steering committee decides the activities.

 We have a small surplus that we can use for training, for capacity-building, and we like to be part of the Internet governance system, ecosystem, worldwide.

 Going over to the IGF in Brazil, I have the privilege to introduce in Istanbul a video.  We show seven minutes.  I don't like to represent this.  We don't need to spend the same time.  But I will highlight two points.

 I like that you introduced the first and the name is "Beach."  Joao Pessoa, Brazil Beach.  That is very, very important that you know the place.  

 So this is the place that we will have our event in Brazil.

 Because this place will be a temptation for everyone --

 [ Laughter ] 

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  -- we have a proposal that we start our meetings only at 12:00.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  We will have a flexible time in the morning.  This time can be used for bilateral meetings, can be used for recovering from the night before, can be used on the beach, but we need to work.

 So we already have a strong proposal to work from -- we start at 12:00, with lunch, and then at 1:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., the same working time that we spend in other places -- now we will go to the second picture -- we will have this nice place to work.

 This is one of the newest conference centers in Brazil.  It is in the city of Joao Pessoa.  

 On the right side is the building that we will use for all the meetings for the working -- the working groups.  The building in the middle will be for the square with the exposition, and will be the restaurant that we will have our meals, our lunch and our break.

 And the left building is the auditorium for the opening and the closing session.

 I don't like to go in details because we will in general a meeting with Chengetai and the UNDESA team to see the best way to use this space, but you see we cannot use all the time only at this place.  We need to have our time split in the morning for recovering and for some preparation.

 The idea is -- when you go back to the first, please -- all the hotels are on the beach so we will have transport, buses, from all the hotels.  It is only four or five minutes -- probably 10 minutes in the morning -- transfer from the hotels to the conference place so it's not a large city.  No rush.  No problem with the transport.  So we will have easy, easy way to go from the hotels and from the beach to the convention center.

 My understanding is we had the same experiment last year with the 2013 conference in Rio de Janeiro, and on the end, everyone was happy.  On the beginning, we have some questions.  "We are working."  "We cannot lose time."  "We are paying travel to go to a convention center."  But I can say that we will have the same working time and the same opportunities to have exchange, bilateral meetings, and a lot of time to exchange our experience.

 Before I go further, probably we need to discuss if you like to have this or not, so I give it back to the chair, and if there are questions, I am ready to answer.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  I mean, if you have further things to tell about facilities, logistics, please go ahead, because I suspect that this question on the sort of time allocation for the meeting may take longer than just a few minutes.

 So I would suggest that you continue.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  We are -- you know that in Brazil we just had our election, so we are waiting to have some new ministers in some new positions coming in place.  We are waiting after Christmas, after the holidays, to have our first meeting in Joao Pessoa, and -- but the Web site will be ready probably no later than the middle of January, so we will have all the information there.

 The big problem or the big question that probably some of you will have later is how we reach the city of Joao Pessoa.

 For sure, the easiest hubs in Brazil are Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro from every part of the world.

 If you came in over Sao Paulo or over Rio, there is -- there are a lot of flights, more than 20 flights every day to Joao Pessoa.  It's a three-hour flight from Sao Paulo, so it's not the shortest distance but you can come in from U.S. through Brazilia, you can come in from Europe through Salvador and Recife, so other cities offer good connections.  

 From Salvador to Joao Pessoa is only one-hour flight.  From Brazilia to Joao Pessoa is one and a half hour flight.  So we have a lot of other connections and other ways to come in.

 The nearest city with an international airport is Recife.  Recife is only a hundred kilometers far away from Joao Pessoa and there will be buses.  Very, very new highway.  No problem with transport.

 We are one and a half hour bus from the city of Recife to Joao Pessoa.

 So we will have all the information on our Web site let's say very, very soon, in January, so I don't have now all the details, all the numbers, the timing, but will be very, very easy to reach the city.

 Some -- I receive a lot of questions, "Why you go to Joao Pessoa?"  

 Normally we have all the events in Brazil in Sao Paulo, Rio or Brazilia, sometimes in other places.  We tried to show that Brazil is not only the capitals or the big cities but also the northeast is a very nice place, very famous for vacation, very famous for holidays, but they are working very, very hard to be also very known for conferences and Brazil selected the city as a typical northeast city in the country with very special restaurants and options for everyone, so you will be welcomed and you will feel the Brazilian flavor in Joao Pessoa.  I hope that you will be very happy to be in this city.

 All the details will be on the Web site very, very soon.  I am waiting to have some local information.  I will be there very soon to work, and then Chengetai and the team from UNDESA will be there again and we will try to have everything in place let's say in the first -- we have more time this year.  It's November.  So probably until February, everything is on the Web page.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any questions on logistics to Hartmut?

 Myself, if you would speak a little bit about visa issues which are on everybody's mind, and then hotels.  Will there be enough -- sort of the whole range of hotels available, from 5 to 1-star, or if you could give us additional information about this.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  Let me go back first to the hotels.

 The stars depends on the place.  When you sleep on the beach, you have a hundred stars --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>HARTMUT GLASER: -- so it's no problem.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  But we have 3-, 4- and 5-star hotels and very cheap.  When you go to the Web page, Joao Pessoa as the city, you will see prices between $80 to $200, so not as expensive as Sao Paulo and Rio.

 A lot of flats, very nice apartments, new hotels, and the city offers between 20- and 40,000 beds, so we -- space for everyone.  No problem.  And from all the hotels will be transfer to the convention center.

 In relation to the visas, Brazil try to do the best.  We had a very good experiment last time with NETmundial.  We offer free visa.  We don't have the electronic visa system, as other countries, but we will send a letter to all our embassies that will be a joint agreement between the Ministry of Foreign Relations and the steering committee that we announce to all the embassies if they have the invitation letter, sign it by us as organizers, they receive a free visa -- visa for -- normally it's for 90 days but if you came over for 30 days, you don't need to have a longer visa.  But there will be one for all of the participants.  No problem.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Ginger.

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Thank you very much.  And I really welcome and love the idea of flexible hours and using the -- making the most of the hours in the day and what flexibility we can, and I can't think of a better place to try it out than in Brazil.

 I would ask -- I wonder if we could postpone talking about the hours until we have a chance to look at how that will affect the hours for remote participation.

 Normally, that would be perfect, to start later, because then the people in the Americas and other parts of the world wouldn't be getting up at 2:00 in the morning, like we normally have to, to attend meetings in Geneva when we're on remote.

 Since Brazil is in the Americas and there's a change in time zone, could we take the time to look at that first before -- or I ask that that be taken seriously into account because the people in Europe then might be quite a bit later in the day and it might be difficult.

 So could we take that into account, please.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  I don't see any problem, but my answer is probably we need to go around the clock, so if we have one continent that will be better served, we have others who will be on the opposite side, so probably -- I think we need to see the people who attend the conference and all others probably must be more flexible.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Silvia, please.

 >>SILVIA BIDART:  Yes.  Thank you.  I'm sure you're going to do that, but just to remind you that as well that you suggest two or three or four hotels where MAG members can be -- have the option to be in those hotels, because sometimes we use the breakfast or any other time to gather and to work or discuss or whatever.

 And the other thing is, I would suggest everybody to -- that those who need visas to arrive to Brazil, to do this with a long time, because -- and not to ask our organizers at the end of -- a week before just the letter to get the visa, because it takes time.  So thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Silvia, for the reminder.  

 Avri, please.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I think the flexible hours is interesting but what I think its net effect will be is that we will have a longer day from morning till night because what will happen is there will be rooms available and sessions possible and ad hoc sessions possible, and so people will end up meeting from the normal times in the morning until late at night.

 So I think it's a charming idea, but I tend to think that what it will mean is that people will be working from morning until later at night instead of stopping at 6:00.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for this reflection.  We are now still on the sort of mode of questions.

 Mourad, please.

 >>MOURAD BOUKADOUM: Thank you.  Just a quick one.  How many participants do the organizers expect to come in Joao Pessoa?  Thank you.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  If we follow the growing, probably 5,000.  I don't know.  After Istanbul, we are ready to receive 5,000.  I don't know.  Depends on the promotion, depends on the way that we have our marketing, but everyone is welcome.

 We received the input from Istanbul to do it better, so let's see if we reach 5,000.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Actually, that is also quality that counts, not only statistics.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat and then -- and then Subi and then we will move on.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I just want to -- I think, again, the idea of beginning late is interesting because it allows us to get sort of meetings going and quality work done, and I think the proposal is carefully crafted that it doesn't lose us the working hours.

 I mean, they're still expecting us to work as many as hours as we were, which is a good thing, so that nobody starts getting the impression that this is a -- sort of a beach holiday in a year when we are up for renewal.

 I think the one challenge, in terms of numbers, which is the question that you asked, is I did some rough numbers and from Asia the destination adds between 800 to a thousand dollars extra as airline costs vis-a-vis one of the large cities in Brazil, and from Europe about 800 pounds.

 So there is that challenge of the cost, especially for some of the stakeholders.  Maybe not all, but some will certainly care about it.  And the overall numbers will, in that sense, matter.

 So I suppose we must take into consideration that factor.  

 And to the extent there are no direct flights into the city itself, but close, and then there are -- in some -- from some places, three international flights have to be taken to get here, I think we must try and find a way to make it easy and inexpensive for a large number of stakeholders, especially from academia and civil society to reach there.

 I'm somewhat indifferent to the hours.  I would just say that if you're doing a late start, let's keep in mind that the U.N. sort of conferences break at 1:00, so rather than starting at 12:00, if you started at 11:30, then at least you have a 90-minute session in.  Just keep some of those things in mind.

 Plus I think stuff that we have with regards to the hours in other places of the world, but that, you know, as you said, it will be good for one, not good for the other.  That's not something that you can help if we change times.  But please do keep in mind these couple of issues as we finalize the exact time and we wish to begin this meeting in 2015 IGF.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I would still -- we're still on questions, not on comments.

 We'll comment slightly later.

 Subi, please.  Do you have a question?

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Yes.  A question for Hartmut.  From NETmundial, we learned that there could be a format enhancing participation, so I'm wondering if -- because the IGF Trust Fund, UNDESA, has limitations on who they can fund, will there be any chance from CGI.BR or the Brazilian administration to offset costs from developing country participations?  Especially for academia, civil society or even small businesses?  Because we'd like as many people to be there.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Juan Alfonso.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: No, Chairman.  I was going to make a comment -- 

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: No. 

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- because everybody is doing comment -- 

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: No. 

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- but as you said that comments are later, I will do it later.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah.  We will come back to comments, and Juan Alfonso, it's good news for you.  Our interpreters, who are extremely professional, just told us that they could translate Spanish and Russian to English and French, so next time when you will intervene, you are welcome to speak Spanish because interpreters will translate you to English and French.

 So any further comments?  Ihsan, please.

 >>IHSAN DURDU:  Yes.  I have a question about the season.  Is this holiday season or off season, the month of November?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Hartmut, please.  You have two questions now.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  No.  It's normal.  It's summer -- not summer, but it's springtime.  We are going to the summer.  But it's nice weather, nice time, November.

 The season is only Christmas and January, until Carnival in Brazil is in February.

 So it's normal working time but it's a very nice place to enjoy all the neighborhood.

 The question in relation if CGI is willing to support, we have the budget only for the expenses for the infrastructure.  We are not in charge to support any travel or any facility.  That is impossible because the infrastructure where we used most of the money, the host agreement signed between the Brazilian government will be supported by CGI, so we will pay the expenses for the event and we are ready to support all the infrastructure to have the hubs, to have everything in place, but there is no availability for any travel support.

 For sure, we will offer lunch and there will be a break in the middle of the afternoon -- probably not, again, a dinner or not barbecue, not churrasco, but we will have some way that we can work from 1:00 to 4:00 or 4:30 and from 5:00 to 8:00 or 8:30 that we don't lose working time.  And my proposal is that we work more than six hours a day.  We can work seven to seven thirty hours if we really have short breaks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Benedicto, you wanted to say something?

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yeah.  Yes.  Very brief.  

 Just a few comments in regards to some points that were made.

 We are aware there is a challenge in terms of maybe the costs involved in relation to other places in the world, the distances.  When you listen to Glaser saying that from some cities it's one hour and a half or three-hour flight, from a European perspective that might seem very large because you can cross most of Europe in that time, but I think that's part of the interest of having more geographical dispersion and distribution.

 I think that that's the kind of challenge that would be faced if we do not hold meetings outside New York or Geneva, but that's part of the game.

 One thing that is important maybe in terms of the time difference is to realize that we will be closer -- that it will be beneficial to those that are closer to us, meaning Latin America, United States, Canada.  They will be one to two or three hours difference behind.  But for Europe, two or three hours after our time in Brazil.  But there will be a challenge, of course, for people that will be in Asia.  We faced this difficulty when we were organizing NETmundial.  We hold many conferences and for people in Asia, sometimes they had to stay awake during the night because we started sometimes working at 2:00 p.m.  For them, it was 2:00 a.m.  But that's -- again, that's part of the overall challenge.  I don't think -- from the moment we make a decision to hold meetings in different places because we want to diversify, that's part of the equation that we -- we must face.

 But we will be ready as Glaser was saying to make the most we can to overcome any difficulty that is faced by the participants.  

 In regard to the financial capacity, while Brazil is a developing country, we have been participating to the extent possible in many processes including as donors for the IGF secretariat.  We have make consistent contributions into other processes, but there is a real challenge to go beyond some context.  And providing financial assistance is something that I think is not within the kind of financial effort we could be prepared, as helpful as we can be in the process.  Thank you.

 >> HARTMUT GLASER:  I would like to enjoy that information about visa.  Silvia mentioned you need to do it as soon as possible.  Okay.  You can do it as soon as possible.  First, no visa on arrival.  The visa must be requested before.  But you don't need to do it one year before.  It is very easy.  The Brazilian Consulate works in a very easy way.  I know that for normal travel, probably you have some difficulties.  But we are sending letters to all the embassies.  And the experience with NETmundial was very, very, very positive.  So, Silvia, no problem for Argentina, just for visa.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It was not about Argentina.  It was a general concern.  And usually visa issue affects mostly participants from Africa.  Of course, Brazil is a big country with a wide network of embassies.  Nevertheless, you are not representing are every country.  So as a result, those who live in countries where Brazil do not have representations, either embassy or diplomatic or consulate, they will need to find another solution.

 Ginger, very briefly.  We need to move on.

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  My question is very brief.  Since we don't have duty here anymore to ask about facilities and access for the disabled, could you please let us know how that will go?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And, Peter, maybe you can ask your question if you have any.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Yes, thank you.  I appreciate the opportunity to discuss later the very flexible use of time that's suggested.  My question is:  Are there any limitations posed by the venue itself?  For example, is the venue only open for 12 hours so we can have it from 9:00 in the morning until only 9:00 at night?  Or is it, in fact, it is open for the entire time and we can be very free how we come to use it?  Are there limitations imposed by the venue itself?

 >> HARTMUT GLASER:  Peter, you know me.  I never omit an announcement if we have some limitations.  24 hours, you can stay there.  You don't need to go back to the hotel.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Hartmut.  You don't have limitations.  I suspect...

 >> HARTMUT GLASER:  The place has access for everyone.  There is no problem with disabilities.  It is prepared for access for everyone.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Of course, our hosts never have any limitations, and we have benefited enormously from generosity of all hosts.  Though, there are limitations because the site is secured by U.N. security.  To my knowledge, there might be limitations based on security concerns.  So, therefore, we need also to factor that in.  

 Marilyn and Patrick.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  My question is about WiFi access.  In the past, we've had a few situations where not all of the hotels had free Internet access.  And one of the benefits for groups that were working was they could stay.  They could come early or stay late to be able to work online.  I know Hartmut is tied up, so let me wait just a minute.

 The question about access to the facility, perhaps we could park the idea that -- what I meant, Hartmut, is not all hotels in all cities provide free Internet access.  And that has in the past been an additional cost.  So many groups have wanted to come early or stay a bit later in the facility to be able to, you know, do their routine reporting and work, et cetera.  So the question of how much access we can have is important to follow up on.  We don't need an answer right now because, of course, the U.N. security issue is a valid -- access is valid.  Perhaps we could just come back to that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Patrick, do you have a question?

 >>PATRICK RYAN:  Yes, Hartmut.  I just wanted to suggest if there is an opportunity to put together, as I'm sure you will very soon, the list of needs and sort of like a wedding wish list of the kinds of things that the private sector can bring to the table, in-kind services, whether it is WiFi access or that kind of thing, the earlier we can get that the better because I can speak for my company.  I know we'd love to participate in supporting the event and to the extent you can help provide details on what -- how that help could be best directed the earlier the better, that would be very good.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Patrick.  Remaining technology neutral.  Aysel, please.

 >> AYSEL KANDEMIR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just wanted to ask if there will be any preconference event, high-level meeting prior to the IGF in Brazil.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That is a question to Benedicto first rather than to Hartmut.  Just an indication if you have thought about it.

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  I think this is part of the discussion we are having on how to shape the meeting.  We have heard some interesting points in regard, for example, if on the location of the meeting should be the first day, on the last day.  I read in one of the contributions that there could be a point of merging the high-level with the opening.  I think there are a number of ideas we'd like to further with inputs from the MAG and maybe collectively try to give us some more elements so we can come back and bring a proposal in that regard.  For the moment, there is no, let's say, finalized proposal in that regard.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  There was a question.  Do you want to answer?  Hartmut, please.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  In relation, Marilyn, for the Internet service in the hotels, I don't visit all the hotels.  But we will work with all the hotels and we would like to have an answer very, very soon.  I don't think I can answer it now.  I know the convention center will have the best connectivity that is available, so it will not be a problem.  Only to remember, we always try to have the academic network connected to the convention center.  That will be the case also in Joao Pessoa.  At the hotels, I need to visit all of them.  I will do it after Christmas.  So I hope that I can answer this in probably no later than January.  So, Marilyn, please give me some time.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Hartmut.  I actually listened, and if you would allow me to go to the next agenda item to discuss the general outline preparatory process and structure of the meeting, unless, Mark, you have a question.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government.  Just a quick question.  Who will chair the IGF?  Is that decided yet?  Just to complete my knowledge.  Thank you.

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  No, there is not yet a decision on that.  This is being discussed in the context of the Brazilian Steering Committee in consultation with the ranks of government interested.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  One thing is very clear, Mark.  That will be Brazilian national and Brazilian official, high official.

 I would suggest now to stop questioning Hartmut.  

 Thank you very much for your presentation and information that you shared.  

 Maybe during the lunchtime, ten minutes prior the beginning of the second session, you could put the video on for those who are in the room can remind themselves how beautiful the video was and how beautiful the place is.  But it should stop at 3:00.

 So let me now move to agenda Item 3, as we agreed to discuss the general outline of the preparatory process and the structure of the meeting.  And, indeed, I would like to sort of hear from the MAG members how they feel we should approach the preparations but without going maybe too much in details but general outline as well as how meeting should be structured, whether we should have this proposal that we heard from Hartmut moving time to noon, starting time of the sessions to noon, whether we should have this high-level session at the beginning or at the end, whether we should have -- how many main sessions we have, how many workshops we should have, whether workshops should be equal length, 90 minutes.  Please keep in mind we're still subject of U.N. interpretation rules, that interpreters work in shifts of three hours.  And if we do not stick to those, then there's additional cost attached to the bill and all these things.

 This should be kind of a free-floating conversation of the MAG.  We heard already from Avri some ideas about the sort of moving or using all the time we have in order to prepare the Brazil meeting and so on.

 But before doing that, I would like maybe just to remind the main conclusions from yesterday's conversation, that we also need to always factor in.

 I think we need also to discuss further -- fine-tune, rather, than discuss the way how we select workshops.  There was a call for more transparency and explanations and feedback from the MAG in terms of how the workshops were selected.

 There's a recurrent issue of the organization of the main sessions, how main sessions should be shaped, how many main sessions should we have, how many speakers in those main sessions we should have, how to interact with the public during the main sessions, and whether we need to have main sessions at all.  Maybe main sessions should be called simply workshops and would follow the same approach as others.

 Important question of outputs.  Output is always on our agenda, how we strengthen outputs and whether current outputs that we have, chair's summary, the compilation of output from all workshops that are provided by organizers of the workshops.  Not all of them provide but in theory they should.

 The compilation of information, what has happened since previous IGFs in terms of decisions by organization -- or actions by organizations involved in Internet governance ecosystem as a result of interaction in the previous IGF, meaning what decisions have been made throughout the year, where, on what topics, and how IGF has influenced those decisions as well as any other outputs that we may wish to have best practice compilations and so on.

 Outstanding question that we did not hear actually yesterday but that was clearly spelled out during the sort of informal MAG gathering after the end of the meeting was about the dynamic coalitions, how we use dynamic coalitions in the process and what input we could expect from them and how we communicate and coordinate activities of preparation with those in the dynamic coalitions.  

 The same applies for the national and regional workshops and whether we involve them.  And if yes, how.

 And, finally, communication strategies.  Sometimes I have a feeling that we're talking about improved outputs but in reality, outputs are there.  They are not sufficiently communicated.  And if we find a way how to communicate an example of sending by Turkey the chair's statement or chair's summary to the IGF plenipotentiary to inform the discussion there, I think is a good example of proactive communication.  We need to maybe think whether that could be a practice in the future that the host of the country sends that report not only to ITU but also to any other U.N. body where that might be -- which might be interested in, for instance, CSTD and a request to publish that report as a document of the formal session to the ECOSOC, to the General Assembly, to the Second Committee of General Assembly.

 These are things that we need to think through and factor them in when we're talking about improved outputs from IGF.

 So the floor is open, and I see Avri is first in line.  Avri, please.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  A great number of topics there.  I'm only going to touch one of them for now and, as the conversation goes on, may contribute to others.

 I think for me one of the most important goals is that we minimize the number of talking-head sessions.  We minimize the number of sessions that are basically a panel of famous and/or intelligent people talking at an audience.  This goes back to what I was alluding to yesterday in terms of having participants in a forum and not talking heads and an audience.

 And so we have to sort of look at how do we bring as many participants as possible into the conversations, into the discussions that we're having, and that the work of the MAG is to look at preparing the ground for that, preparing the ground for making workshops really work sessions.  In some cases, it might be that we have done continuing work from one -- from last year to this year, you know, best practices is one of the issues, but other themes may also be open to that.

 And we've done work on it so-called intersessionally, but work on it in preparation for the meeting so that we do have issues that have been sort of pulled apart, that we have collected the various views on, that we very much followed some of the NETmundial techniques that were developed in terms of putting various texts in front of people and collecting viewpoints and going through various iterative processes to come up with these sort of more consensus-based discussions.

 Sessions should have facilitators, perhaps brief introductions.  Sessions, perhaps those that aren't continuous working projects, should have sets of readings that bring out and then people come and discuss those.  There are probably other -- many other ways to facilitate and to make workshops workshops and not just more opportunities for many sessions of talking-head panelists.

 For example, I would argue that a workshop should have no more than two or three facilitators and that a workshop that has a panel is not a workshop; it is a main session.  

 So that would be the first strong indication I would like to put on, that we really make these meetings a forum and not just another talk fest.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Avri.  I would like to ask our secretariat to add on the list of documentation that should be sent to all MAG members the guidelines for workshop organizers, how they should organize workshops, the evaluation methodology that we have for how MAG should evaluate workshops.  That's in anticipation of our discussion.  Because many things, Avri, you mentioned, they are already written down.  But the thing is not all necessarily all organizers and actually also MAG members organizing main sessions follow those guidelines.  There are many reasons for that.  It is not a criticism, but that's the reality.

 But maybe we need to see whether some kind of fine-tuning of those guidelines should be done before we enter -- I mean, and then we send them out to all workshop organizers and ask to follow.

 I have Mourad and then Subi and then Marilyn, I think, in line.  And there is Lydia -- not Lydia, Yuliya, sorry.

 >>MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  Thank you, Chair.  

 As I -- as outlined by some MAG members at yesterday's session, I think we should develop a broader communications strategy for the next IGF and the focus should be given to important stakeholders.

 The governments says the governments.  Although there was a focus in Istanbul regarding the participation of governments, lots remained to be done in order to increase substantially government participation.  Especially those from developing countries.  Not only in the annual forum itself but also in the preparatory process.  

 I totally concur with the intervention made yesterday by my Mexican colleague regarding the lack of visibility of IGF within the diplomatic community here in Geneva, especially among permanent missions.  

 In this context, I suggest that the IGF secretariat reflect on the possibility to organize an information session to permanent missions here in Geneva, as well as the (indiscernible) done by ICANN last July.  

 A decision could be very useful in terms of liaising directly with the head of missions by informing them on the work that has been done so far by the IGF, but also the advantages that governments could reap by increased involvement in the IGF process as well as in other IG processes.

 The second important stakeholders which attention should be given to, it is important also to enlarge the number of universities and the research institutes involved in the IGF process.

 Regarding the structure of the event, it would be better to reduce the number of the workshops.  The focus should be put on the quality of the panelists and the subsequent debate, and also making sure that the -- the workshops are more interactive.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 Next was Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 I really appreciate the suggestion that Avri made about turning our thinking around and thinking about not an audience but participants.  And -- but I would suggest and ask for others who are here who are newer to the process to also comment.

 My experience has been that we need a range of opportunities and formats, and that sometimes particularly new people come into an environment, they may wish to become active participants initially or they may wish to take more of a learning approach in some areas where they're -- or justify themselves taking the time to be able to participate.  And for many of us we are self-funded participants, and looking for information on the Web site that's a general invitation is not always sufficient, and I think within the workshop organizers and the main session organizers, we need to put together a more formalized invitation which includes the description of expectation, and perhaps standardize that.  Because I found myself last year as a co-organizer of a main session, and I saw others that we were often sort of reinventing the wheel.

 So I think if we can come up with a sort of a standardized invitation to speakers and to panelists that can be customized, that that may be helpful.

 I know that it's been suggested that perhaps -- and I really think we need to look at innovative formats, and some have suggested debates, but I find debates myself one of the most exclusionary meeting approaches unless they are structured in a way that they then include significant audience rebuttal and engagement.

 So I will just share that comment.

 We don't today have a participant's guidebook or handbook or guide to effective participation, and I think we need to be thinking about that and also thinking about language translation of, you know, tips for the new participant in some way.

 We offer them a -- sort of a rapid-fire, you know, indoctrination once they're there, but I think that could really help if we could have a three- or four-page -- you know, sort of a roadmap to the galaxy of the IGF, perhaps.

 And finally, to comment further on our Nigerian colleague's comment about inclusion of governments, I am a big fan of our working very significantly to increase the participation of all stakeholders, and in particular to reach into different ministries that have been involved up to now and to incorporate participation by government officials in a number of ministries -- healthcare, education, economic development, others -- into the workshops, not just into the main sessions.  And when that has happened -- and I've been fortunate to have contributed to that -- that has really, I think, deepened the interest and the attention and developed new follow-up opportunities for engagement back at a national level.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  If I may ask MAG members to be cognizant of time and try to be concise -- as concise as possible.

 Subi, please.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.

 A quick comment on workshops.

 I think that the number of workshops reflects the themes that we choose to work with.  They could be correlated with -- and proportionately included depending upon how many themes and how many proposals per theme.  I strongly advocate not dramatically reducing but finding a balance between the number of workshops.  

 I support the fact that workshops, whether you're a speaker or a participant, are an opportunity to bring in new voices.

 New formats are an innovation from last year.  Whether there are flash sessions, these are things that I want to see retained when we go forward.

 Also a strong suggestion for an open space that could either be on the beach, as Hartmut suggested, but we want one in the venue where people can informally congregate and have free discussion which is visible and not just in some corner.

 Main sessions.  There was conversation about too many speakers in some, or too little, but it's also about the ability of how you're planning it and how interactive you can make it.

 There are -- there is no blanket solution or a one-size format that I'd like to advocate.

 There are some sessions which need people who are experts to come in and advise and engage with new participants, and I don't think we should undervalue their importance or value.

 About six subthemes, also better engagement between national and regional IGFs.  The one thing that I'd really like to see -- and I'm hoping for it this year -- is de-hyphenation of regional and national IGFs.  They're not one and the same things.  Regional IGFs have a completely different host of issues and national IGFs come with a different set of problems.

 I also hope that we can put the spotlight and not do away with main sessions because main sessions are helpful in highlighting the commitment that the IGF holds this year to a particular issue, and the surveillance session at Bali is an example of that.

 Outreach.  Very strong comment of we need blogs.  The chair's blog has worked wonderfully but we need to have an engagement throughout the year and maybe an outreach and communications committee which has MAG members volunteering -- and I'd certainly like to be one of them -- to take this forward.

 While we're bringing in new voices and new participants, I'd also like to see them stay with us.  

 There were many young members who said they felt uncomfortable, so maybe IGF ambassadors from amongst us MAG members, and even those from the communities who are reticent about this who could probably wear a badge that "I am a MAG member" or "I am an IGF person and I'm happy to speak to young people" is something that would be very helpful.

 And just a last point on the schedule.  The schedule this year worked really well, but we do need a guideline, a small guidebook for new participants which can help then negotiate these spaces.

 That's all for now.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Subi, for your comments and suggestions.

 Ginger, please.

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Thank you.  I would like to thank Avri for her reminding us that we need to take the strategy and evaluation of the workshops and the design of the workshops into account right from the very beginning, and so I appreciate the chair's note that these guidelines do exist but often are not followed.

 At this point I do think it's important to emphasize that remote participation should be part of the strategy and design of the workshops so the guidelines for organizers and moderators when they are distributed and updated, as the chair suggested, should include that element.

 I would like to volunteer to work on that -- on those guidelines.  DiploFoundation does have some established guidelines, so I think we probably can draw on those guidelines, combine them with the existing guidelines, and make sure that those are sent out with the call for proposals for workshops.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, and thank you for volunteering to look at the issue.

 I have a long list.  I'm just reading it out so that you know the order.

 Yuliya, Peter, Fatima, Juan Alfonso, Mark, Angelic, Ana, Izumi, Virat, and Maria Victoria for the moment.  And then Robert.

 In that order, please.  Yuliya.

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  Thank you, Janis.  Yuliya Morenets.  

 I just wanted to actually -- I completely agree with Avri and we know that the guideline exists.  I wanted to touch a word on workshop evaluation.  We know -- I mean the workshop evaluation after the workshop has taken place.  We know that we do have this assessment form, but -- which is mostly focused on gender perspectives and gender participation but I think we also need to include the inclusiveness, how the audience was included in the discussion during the workshop.

 So this is what I wanted to underline.  

 And as it's the first time that I take the floor, I wanted also to congratulate the new MAG member because I'm a departing MAG member.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much, Yuliya.  Of course very pertinent comments, but I would like to invite MAG members to follow the order of our discussion.

 We -- for the moment, I would invite you to concentrate on general outline of the preparations for IGF 2015 and the structure of the meeting because the program, as you see, is sort of built in a way that we come from one bigger question to smaller question and down to all necessary elements.

 So therefore, for the moment we need -- as a result of the discussion, I would like really to design the architecture of the -- of the IGF meeting that we have, so the -- the -- let's say the out- -- the structure.  And after that, we will go inside and then we will do all the necessary work inside.

 That said, Peter, please.

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

 I also agree with Avri on the aspects of a good workshop, including fewer talking heads and papers published in advance and reading lists, but I'd make the point that that's not the only form of engagement and it assumes that people are all as diligent and connected as the most learned of us, and another sector of the community of those who are coming to learn and who have no previous expertise and who need to be taught and who benefit from having experts discuss things.  I go to sessions to learn from experts like that.

 So we might also have a set of protagonists around well-developed diverging views where a debate format, properly run, can work best, particularly as Marilyn suggested, leads to a good Q&A afterwards.

 So I think what that means is that we must decide for all sessions in advance what the goal of the session is very clearly, whether it is to inform or to engage or to develop a discussion point not yet ready for decision or something else which might include all of those.  And so as with all planning, a clear view of the strategic goal of the session is required.

 And that leads to another topic which I want to talk more about later, which is more and more rigorous formal evaluation of all the sessions.  I've looked at some of the reports.  There seem to be a lot of sessions for which reports haven't been completed, et cetera.  So I think we need to up the ante on that.  

 But Mr. Chairman, you have asked for a structural debate and I think the way to begin that is at the very highest level and to ask what are the building blocks of the session.  Are we still looking at having the traditional building blocks of IGFs, which is opening sessions, you know, workshops.  Is all of that up for re-decision or are we -- do we assume that we're going to be using many of the same sort of tools?  Perhaps you could help set the scene for that kind of discussion.  

 Is it completely open or should we begin with some or all of the previous building blocks?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  I think that everything is in our hands.

 You see, when the Eiffel Tower was built, the engineer, Gustave Eiffel, was heavily criticized because no one really saw the value of that building.  Today that brings about 13 trillion euros to the economy of France simply because that was a visionary sort of project.  And the same here.

 Everything is -- is up in the air and we can -- we can reshape it in any way we think the participants will benefit the most from being at IGF and engaging in IGF.

 So building blocks, I think those most probably will remain the same.  The -- we will be doing this, as usually as a Lego, where everybody will come up with a small piece and our task is put those pieces together in the most appropriate and most useful way.

 So we have clear limitations.  We have four days of the meeting.  We have three -- sorry, two times three hours sort of session limitations, and whether we use -- we split those three hours in two, as we usually do, in order to maximize the work -- number of workshops, or we keep them long three hours, that's up to us to decide.

 Again, to the best of our knowledge and experience in doing that.

 So I think that there will be a combination of both -- some traditions, some innovations -- that we will test.

 For instance, the best practice forums which were sort of present at the very beginning of the existence of IGF, then they disappear, then they appeared last year and seemed to be -- were very appreciated by everybody.  We heard it yesterday.

 So that does not necessarily mean that everything we have up till now needs to remain in the agenda.

 So maybe something could -- we could drop for a year or two, or at all.  Again, it is up to us.  

 We -- it is our task, actually, to make this event the most useful for participants as possible, that everybody who would come would say, "Indeed, my investment was useful" and not that they say, "No, it's a total waste of money, total waste of time, I will never come again here."  So this is something I wouldn't love to hear at the end of the IGF Brazil.  So that's why everything is in our hands, in other words.

 Fatima, please.

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO: Thanks, Mr. Chair.  This is Fatima, for the record.  Can I speak in Spanish?  Do we have translation?  

 Perfect.  Thank you.

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  No, not working?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  English is coming through on Channel 3 and French is coming through on Channel 2.  

 Please.

 

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Again?  Okay.  

 If we want to strengthen the IGF, as we have been saying since the NetMundial meeting, we must focus on quality and not quantity.

Considering the proposal of sessions to be presented in Brazil, I believe that we must reduce the number of Main Sessions (4 or 5 Main Sessions) and with a duration of 2 hours (instead the current 3 hours of each Main Session). We also have to reduce the number of panelists in the Main Sessions. Main Sessions should not be run in parallel with Workshops.

The Main Sessions are the time to dialogue with the community. We should have a limited numbers of panelists whose role is to encourage the dialogue with the community. We don’t need to demonstrate that they are experts, we already know, this is why we invite them. They need to promote dialogue and conversation with the global community (I refer to Socrates' maieutics, "born" ideas in dialogue with the community).

We also need to reduce the number of Workshops running in parallel, also putting the focus on quality and not quantity, and these Workshops should be related to the overarching theme and subthemes. Perhaps we should understand that some Workshop proposals may not be approved every year and may wait until next year. In IGF2014 we had many Workshops dedicated to the same themes. We need to avoid repetitions and thus reduce their number.

In addition MAG members must have a role of guidance for those who submit Workshop proposals. That's what we have been saying for several years but we have not yet succeeded. We had proposal of Workshops which were poorly carried out, without complying with all requirements because MAG members have not been available to work with organizers.

Also as MAG members we should play an important liaison role with our regional and national IGFs to get them actively involved in the global IGF. The session on regional IGFs should be more interactive and inclusive, not only for the reporting that they have been doing, but also to share experiences from each region or each national IGF.

Again I reiterate, in addition to the rules we already have as MAG members, we have to add another rule: each member of the MAG cannot be involved in the organization of more than one Main Session. At IGF2014 there was a perception of capture by a few MAG members in organizing several Main Sessions. Even if it is not real, the perception existed and we must not let even that perception be installed.

Reports from Workshops must be live documents, which may be nurtured over time and with the participation of the whole community. They should not be reports that are published only on the website of the IGF where it will remain static and will probably not serve many people.

In the Round Table on Capacity Building, Veronica Cretu raised the idea of having a kind of Newcomer's Lounge or booth for newcomers to the IGF, to facilitate their participation, guide them regarding which sessions to participate, allowing them to take advantage of the meeting. The idea is that capacity building should not be performed in the Main Sessions (except for the Orientation Session) or Workshops, while it should happen in the preparatory webinars conducted at the regional level and in the languages of each region, including Orientation Sessions. Having a Newcomer's Lounge can help the capacity building of newcomers.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Fatima.  Thank you, interpreters.

 We have one, though, technical issue and I'm not consulting interpreters.

 When -- you see that on the screen, the transcription is done from Channel 1, and if Channel 1 is not in English, so then we're losing transcription.

 Can you do it that -- no, you can't.  Technician -- seems that that's a question to technician.

 We would need that -- in whatever language participants speak, that English language is always on Channel 1, to make sure that we have transcription always available in English.  It is very useful to have the translation from -- also from Spanish and Russian, which was promised, because of knowledge of those languages by interpreters, but we need English translation on Channel 1, please, if that's possible.  

 Give me a sign.  Is it possible?

 Okay.  Okay.  Thank you.

 Next speaker I suspect also will be speaking in Spanish, Juan Alfonso.  We will try --

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: No.  I will speak in English.  I appreciate the gesture of the translators, but -- well, just to -- just in case, I will follow in English.

 Chairman, I'm new at the MAG, so I'm having -- well, I have to behave and I'm having some problem with that because for me it's difficult to think about the structure of the event without talking first of the themes and the objectives of the event.

 I want to call your attention that -- well, of course MAG has been working very well, all the MAGs, since every IGF has been better than the previous one since the beginning in Athens.  So that's a recognition of the working of the MAG.

 But I think we all know that next year should be the best MAG -- the best IGF of all because of two reasons.

 The first reason is in the year that it's going to be held.  It's a year in which different processes regarding Internet governance are going on place and maybe will crystallize or not but are going, and that's increasing.

 There's also some other processes going on, very important, that relates with IGF.  Maybe not directly.  It's the new sustainable developing goals.  You know, the end of the Millennium Development Goals and the new sustainable development goals.  And also, as well, as you know, the WSIS overall 10-year review.  It will be also that year.

 That raises the bar very high for all.

 And another reason that this IGF, in my view, should be special, is that it's being held again in the American continent, in South America, a continent that is struggling for development in the last year, and especially in a country -- Brazil -- that has had a tremendous success in the last 10 years raising millions of people out of poverty.

 So that also puts a spotlight in hosting this IGF in Brazil.

 In this sense, I think that we have the bar very high and we have to plan for a very -- as the report from the work group of improving the IGF said, that have relevant outcomes.

 We have to plan it that way.

 And in my view, the key to plan to have that result is the theme and the main theme that we select and the themes that we select.

 We need to have coherence.  We need to select themes that really resonate not only with the people that will be there, but with everybody that will be following.

 I have some ideas regarding that.  I don't know if this is the moment to put it forward because I want to behave, I want to be disciplined, Chairman, and you said that now we should speak to structure and to planning, but for me, it's -- it's -- I think that if we put that objective first and we see -- put the themes, then we can move around on how -- the tools that we have in our toolbox and all the Lego parts that you mentioned, how we could put it around and move it around in order to enhance that objectives and that impact that we're -- that we need to have.  Because I think that the IGF, next IGF, should have a high impact.

 So I'm in your hands.  I have some concrete ideas regarding themes and tags, as you say, but I will put it forward when you ask me, Chairman.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I appreciate, Juan Alfonso, your cooperation, and you see this is on the agenda for the afternoon, as soon as we will be done with this conversation, and we'll come to some kind of conclusion.

 Let me, following your intervention, be more specific.

 So when we're talking about the general outline and structure of the meeting, what I was willing to hear and I still am willing to hear, whether we start as traditionally at 9:00, 10:00, or we go following proposal of the host country, we start at noon.

 Do we do -- we try to fill all possible slots in the schedule?  Traditionally, we have 10 parallel sessions.  Do we do 10 again or do we do 5 or do we do 15?  

 Please.  This is the structure of the meeting.

 Do we do grand opening with the ministers at the beginning or we do grand finale at the end when we invite ministers?  Or maybe in the middle, as somebody suggested yesterday, because ministers come and go and basically they do not experience in either way at the beginning or at the end unless it is in the middle?

 Look, these are the things that -- that I think we need to discuss today.  What does it mean the -- how do you see preparatory process?  What does it mean NETmundial-type process, as Hartmut once mentioned and Avri said, we need to do that.

 So how do you understand that?  Because that is our -- we need to develop our common understanding how the meeting will be shaped, and after that, we'll go into themes, and whether that is development or cybersecurity, this is up to us to sort of consult ourselves based on our experience and knowledge what our constituencies would like to see, what our host country would like to see, taking into account the global agenda, sustainable development, as a main theme of 2015.

 All these elements, we need sort of to square in whatever structure we will suggest.

 Juan Alfonso, exclusively one minute to you.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: No.  If you're asking about the time, I think that what Hartmut said, it was -- is very wise.  That distribution of having one long session.  It's more efficient, the use of time.  

 From my experience, when we have events that have lunch breaks in the middle, always the use of time -- the efficiency and the use of time lowers.  I think it's very wise their selection of having one long session with a short break in the middle.  I think that that -- it could maximize the use of time.  Of course we can begin -- lunch could begin at 11:00 to begin a little earlier or, as they said, to have a lunch from 12:00 to 1:00.  But I really subscribe that from experience of many events, not only in Cuba but outside of Cuba where I've been, that a long session with a break is a better use.

 And about your question about if there should be high-level sessions, I think that depends on the themes.

 For instance, this afternoon I'm going to propose two themes, main themes, for the conference.  If that should be accepted in a way, I then would suggest that besides all the workshops being through -- on those themes, we should have two plenaries for those themes, a high-level plenary for those themes, that they could give more force to whatever outcome document that comes out.

 You know, outcome documents in the sense that it's given in the document, in the report.  It does not necessarily have to be a consensus document but a document of the views around the themes.  You know, in a very inclusive IGF way.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  

 We're continuing with the lengthy list of speakers, and again, I'm calling on you, please try to be concise -- as concise as you can.

 Mark, please.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  I'll endeavor to be concise.

 Mark Carvell, U.K. government.  I just wanted to pick up your question about dynamic coalitions and their place in the structure of the IGF in Joao Pessoa next year.

 My view is that their profile and visibility in the IGF and in the preparatory processes for the IGF is very understated and not clearly defined.  As I understand it from the IGF Web site, there are 12 active dynamic coalitions on a range of key issues -- freedom of expression, Internet of things, network neutrality, access, child on-line safety -- so these are all key issues.  The dynamic coalitions, which are permanent manifestations of the IGF, have, I think, a much greater potential role in the IGF programming.

 If I take, for -- as one example, the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles, I was reminded of their permanence when they applied to be an observer at the Council of Europe on the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.

 This coalition has a steering committee, a mandate, a fixed reporting process, an action plan.  

 So I really would suggest that in our planning, we think about how we can incorporate the dynamic coalitions so that, for example, we might invite them to brief the MAG on their action plans and their expected outputs for Joao Pessoa, and then the MAG can take into account those submissions to us and we can then position them more strategically in -- in the IGF structure.

 I think this -- this is an important aspect of the IGF.  It intersects with intersessional activities as well, of course, because these are permanent coalitions.  The rights dynamic coalition includes governments, including, by the way, the Brazilian Ministry of Culture but also French, Italian governments, the Swiss OFCOM, as well as private sector partners like Google and academics and experts involved in rights and principles.

 So that's my suggestion, that we invite the active dynamic coalitions to brief the MAG and then we incorporate them in the planning and we define a more precise place for them in the structure of the IGF next year.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Mark.  That's a good suggestion.  Not only that one you mentioned, but all dynamic coalitions.

 Angelic?

 >>ANGELIC ALI HUSAIN CASTILHO: Yes, Chair.  I just want to be as concise as possible and let me start with the time suggestion that was made.

 I would feel comfortable if we would start -- still start around 10:30 because we have sessions such as orientations sessions and that kind of thing, capacity-building, which I think are much more well done when you start them in the morning.  Not too early, but 10:30 would be good.  And main sessions could start after lunch.  But also make sure that people don't come in, they're tired from the morning running around and having fun.

 We have to make sure people come in with enough energy to get through the day.

 So I would suggest 10:30.

 When it comes to the high-level meeting, looking at how it went and thinking of what purpose it could have to better emphasize the outcome of our IGF, I think a high-level meeting at the end would probably be better, because then people will take with them the outcomes of all the sessions we had and they can put it into the final document that they bring out to their governments and to whomever they represent, which gives us more exposure and takes things more down to earth.

 Then when it comes on the main sessions, again, it is what -- what is the purpose of the main sessions?  Is it setting the scene for the workshops that follow that track or is it summarizing all that was in the work -- done in the workshops?

 My personal preference is for setting the scene, but then again, the main session shouldn't be a lecture.  Last -- during the last IGF, there were some main sessions that really were people had to sit down and listen and then get up and leave.  It was done.

 I prefer less -- less experts, just people who are capable of engaging with the public, and getting -- because there are questions with those who are sitting and listening, but they don't get an opportunity to speak.

 And also, if the people are too high-level, sometimes they speak in a manner that alienates and distances them from the public and people are afraid to ask a question.  So that is on the main sessions.

 When it comes to the workshops, we have to be very careful in saying to downsize severely because you don't want to miss out opportunities for good workshops.  But we have to be very serious in looking at people and really keeping to the guidelines.  As you pointed out, there are guidelines.  And it is important for first timers who want to suggest a workshop, that they are pointed and supported with assistance, especially in getting speakers because sometimes that is difficult if you are a first timer who suggests a workshop.

 And then, last, but not least, I want to ask special attention that we really do not forget capacity-building as part of this IGF because in the last IGF, it was just a roundtable and that's just not enough.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much for your comments.

 Ana?

 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much.  Well, lots of things have been already said, and I cannot say that I disagree.  So I'm going to underline what I think is more important for me at this moment.  

 So I totally concur with the need to organize a meeting with the ambassadors of the missions here to bring to their attention of what is going on on the continuation of WSIS and that IGF 2015 is part of it and because they can be multipliers in their capitals -- and back home in the capitals.  People in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they can very important for the multistakeholderism because it is difficult for some countries to still understand what Internet governance is.  And so we have some stakeholders very engaged, but it's still very difficult.  

 And if ambassadors, Ministers of Foreign Affairs could help, it would be very, very interesting because it drives me to my other point; that is, the assistance that can be given to the speakers to each session.  Of course, we don't -- we do not want lots of speakers in the several workshops.  But we must understand that the majority of them, if they -- they don't have a specific role there.  They don't have the necessary assistance to go there.  And so we have to think about that as well.

 My other point is about the structure.  So I think that we need a grand opening but not a boring one.  So I think that a new model could be -- we could think about.  And we need very important people, and we need other people and we need experts.  We need everybody.

 So I think to give the necessary dignity to this event, I think that we really need everybody.  And we need a grand opening, we need a grand finale, and we need great workshops and good grand coalitions and to pay attention what is really their role.

 And so -- and my final point is about the overlapping of the workshops and the main sessions.  For two years I'm asking not to do these and I understand that there is a logistical problem, but I think we have to overcome this logistical problem because main sessions have a different purpose.  

 And, for instance, the NETmundial Initiative could be a very good theme for a main session and the implementation of the action plan that was adopted in Sao Paulo.  That's it for now.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  It is very easy to say we need a grand opening, grand finale, grand workshops, let's go for it!

 [ Laughter ]

 Still very long list of requests for the floor.  Izumi is the next one.

 >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you, Chair.  I see some general agreement that the next IGF should be much more participatory and productive, and that's perhaps in line with the CSTD's suggestion for the improvement, which I was a member of the working group as well.  

 As for the developing country participation that was also mentioned there, I think it is not only the numbers who come to the IGF that matters but also the quality of the participation.  And that relates to the discussion about the orientation session for newcomers.  I think it will be wise perhaps to have some kind of help desk throughout the meetings, not only first-day session or orientation.  Many people I have experienced and I have interviewed still have problems or questions at the last day and they don't know whom to ask.

 For that perhaps since I'm outgoing, I'd like to beg your pardon that if the existing MAG members will bear some badge "I am a MAG" that's visible so anyone can hold you, ask questions, or complain or convey their expectation and the likes.  That would be much more sort of interactive, participatory on both sides so that MAG members could feel how these people are.

 Quite often many MAG members are busy organizing the sessions or their speeches and stuff and do not have much time to interact with unknown people who came the first time.  That would be my sort of suggestion.

 About the time, I'm fine with starting at noon if that's a culture there.  I would like to know.  And, also, maybe we can perhaps better use some of the time for experimentation.  Of course, I see some hesitance going to that.  But I would like to go for it.

 Also, some kind of a NETmundial type of workings or having more tangible outcomes, of course, I always support that.

 Finally, I would like to insist on changing the terms of remote participation as I mentioned yesterday.  Even Ginger sometimes say "remote participation" instead of "online participation."  I really like to have an equal sense not only how to call but in a substantive manner.  That means if we can prepare some guidelines for the session organizers and chairs that treat as much as possible online participants equal to the onsite participants in their organizing of the meetings.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.

 Virat, please.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I thought I would just spend -- divide my presentation into two parts.  Quickly, one, I think there are 35 new members.  It would just help to get the basic structure out so we could then discuss that.  Essentially we have a full-day event which is divided into two halves each day.  That gives us three hours before lunch, three hours after lunch.  That allows for 20 90-minute sessions in each of the prelunch, post-lunch sessions or 30 60-minute workshops.  That's how the building blocks are built around this IGF for the four days.

 It usually takes away the opening and the closing ceremony.  And what you're left with is six three-hour blocks.  Basically that's what the architecture of IGF is in terms of time available to us.

 I just wanted to say that the comment that has been made about improving workshops, it is important that we point out and note what was done last year so that everybody's on the same page including a comment that was mentioned about bringing greater transparency in workshops.  

 So here's what happened last year for the benefit of everyone very quickly, and then my suggestions on improvements for the current structure.

 Subthemes were decided through public consultation in an open room where everybody was able to participate, provide inputs.  Criteria for selecting workshops was put out publicly.  Criteria was decided publicly.  They were all placed in the public domains.  There were higher scores and first-time scores for developing countries' proposals, for first-time proposals, for new formats as has been talked about by Avri.  There was actually an encouragement to provide new formats so that higher marks could be awarded to people who came in with exciting new formats or different formats.

 We removed -- I think, the last of the MAG got together and removed any marks that were awarded to well-written proposals because that brought down to good English, and that's not something that we should qualify proposals on.

 We also requested and, I think, enforced that no MAG member would submit their own workshops which had been happening till last year.  And all of this was in the public domain.  

 There were also marks for linking it to the subthemes that were agreed publicly and put in the public domain.

 Then everybody was supposed to send out their proposals.  The proposals were put online, so all the 208 proposals were available online for everybody to see.  

 Then each MAG member had to weight it individually.  So there is no chance of three or four getting together or scoring highly on any proposal because there were 55 members.  Unless you had at least 40 voting for one, you couldn't get the proposal in.  That's in terms of balance and transparency.

 MAG members recused from voting, I did and many others did, from writing scores for any proposals that you knew people or that came from your organizations or if you were invited to speak on that.

 And then the selection of the workshops I think took almost a day in Paris where every single workshop was discussed.  Lower ranked workshops were brought up, merged.  All of that stuff happened completely in the public domain after which a final decision, I think we selected 90 out of a total of 200 submissions.  So that's to transparency.  I just wanted to make sure we make those points.

 Now, on top of this, if there is greater transparency possible, we should certainly entertain those specific comments and recommendations because that would be very helpful.  But this was already done and was done quite diligently.

 My recommendations for the structure for next year are the following.  A pre-event which is to be the erst day zero until yesterday should have a serious two-hour, three-hour session on setting the scene for all the newcomers and the first timers so that they are able to discuss after a half-an-hour presentation by those who are arranging the IGF, MAG members, and organizers of the main sessions, they're able to ask questions for almost two hours.  We tried this, but there was very little time left for interaction.  So we should have setting the scene on day zero if possible and everybody should be encouraged to go to that so that there is no -- there is no -- there are no questions left when the actual event begins.

 That doesn't take away the need of a help desk that has just been spoken about.

 My second request for consideration is that we should combine either the opening or the closing with the high-level.  I think there is high-level and then there is opening and then there is a closing.  It is too much indulgence of this.  We should bring it down from three big events to two.  And if we have high-level with the opening, then make it three hours.  Otherwise, two hours.  If you want to take it to the closing, then make that three hours.  Which one of them -- make one three hours and one one hour and 20 minutes so we are able to give more time back.  In any event, at the closing ceremony, 60-plus people have left because of flights and stuff like that.  We should be careful about not piling up too much there.  That's my practical experience from the last six IGFs.

 Just keep in mind, I would recommend we could have two plenaries or main sessions at the end of day two and three because one and two already have an opening and closing and a high-level.  They could be moved toward the end of the day.  Please remember if you decide to have a main session as a plenary which means nothing else goes on, then you do lose the space for 40 90-minute sessions or 60 30-minute sessions.  So everything will come at a cost.  And the community -- remember, we already had 208 proposals and we rejected nearly 60% of those.  That's not something that's a good sign because there are more people wanting to bring in their proposals.  And this is in spite of scoring high for newcomers and first timers.

 My fourth proposal would be to have MAG members assist with the plenary apart from the organizing, actually the administrative work.  They should be available to assist with those who are arranging proposals -- sorry, workshops and events so that that can be all put into place rather than them having to run back and forth with organizers or people who are doing the screen stuff.

 And, last, would be the support for the help desk.  I think the point about the help desk is well-taken.  That should be manned hopefully by MAG members who are wearing some sort of a badge.  It doesn't say, "Don't ask me, I'm already lost."  But I think we should have MAG members assist that process.

 There's one last point that I wanted to make.  But I think -- yes.  To Avri's point about getting more people involved, more discussion, there were high scores for new formats.  Unfortunately, 90% of the workshops which, by the way, come from the community, we have it all in scoring them, came with panels.  Even though we gave them an incentive, 90% of the 208 proposals came with panels as a structure.  So then there's very little that the MAG can do.

 However, I will close with this.  We already have the following formats available.  You can do roundtables.  You can do panels.  We have open forums, main sessions, dynamic coalitions, flash sessions, unconferencing.  We actually do offer a menu of products that are available for people to choose from.  Regrettably they choose panels as their favorite choice, and that's why it looks like people talking to others.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So then maybe we need to take panels off the menu that we're proposing for the workshop organizers.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  That's one way.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I will take until lunch two more speakers.  Maria Victoria and then Robert afterwards.

 Maria Victoria.

 >>VICTORIA ROMERO:  Thank you very much, Chair.  I will be speaking in Spanish, or trying to.

 First of all, I'd like to refer to what a few speakers have already mentioned concerning the participation of developing countries and their particular governments.  One of the main aspects here is the understanding; in other words, let's say quality over quantity.

 We agree that we have sessions for information, both in Geneva and New York.  These have already been mentioned as a possibility.  It is also important that we have all of the online resources we need and available.  It is important that participants have this kind of knowledge ahead of time so they can keep themselves abreast of these structuring of the forum.

 I also agree with the different formats being used that were just mentioned.  

 And let me just say one thing about the high-level segment, it is indeed very important in terms of giving greater visibility and political weight to the forum.

 Nevertheless, I think this is also an issue that should be discussed with the host government and we might even need straitjackets for this kind of event.  

 In any case, this should be done at the beginning of the session.  If it is done at the end, we might find ourselves where the ministers are speaking to an empty house.  It is also very complicated for ministers, our government senior officials talking about a document that hasn't been negotiated previously.  I think all of us in this room are aware of this.  It would be much easier than to have this at the beginning, political representatives that want to attend.

 Let's also not forget the follow-up efforts that made by the government, the host government, that should report on progress made in terms of milestones that may have been achieved and other things.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for your comments, and I'm inviting Robert to take the floor as the last speaker in the morning session.  

 Robert, please.

 >>ROBERT SHLEGEL: Thank you.  Dear Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues, I suggest to start with the work of the plenary session, the opening ceremony, to assuming to the middle of the first day because it will give more mobility for the participants in terms of flights and roads in Brazil.

 In continuing on with the yesterday discussion, I think that we can, if it's possible, of course, to take certain decisions on the forum.  For example, the prerogatives of the outcome document using electronic voting instead of guessing (indiscernible) have a consensus or not.  This can be done using an application from mobile devices, for example.  I suggest we think of a clear structure of the forum.

 For example, different stakeholders may have their own agenda.  This does not mean that there will be some separation or someone will not be able to go here -- somewhere, but it will help to more accurately orient the participants of the forum and for more effective solution.  Also, we have the absence of linguistic diversity on workshops and the lack of interactivity.

 In my opinion, we need clear rules for remote participants.  Given the remoteness of the venue, we must provide more opportunities for remote participation.

 And most importantly, we need to understand what goals we need to achieve.  For what purpose are we going to do something.  The beach, sun, cocktails, and the sunset, this is very well, but we should go there not only to just have a pleasant conversation.  Perhaps we could schedule a special plenary session for decision-making, voting on various issues, kind of the point of decisions, and this may be the runup to the grand final.

 Or we can do it in the end of every session.  Main session.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Robert.  I suspect that the sunset will be absent from the scene.  We will be on the East Coast and we will not see a sunset over the water.  

 So thank you very much.

 I would like to also thank interpreters for staying five minutes longer than you should.  Thank you for those who have spoken on the topic.  We have still another 10 requests for the floor.  The first -- the first in the afternoon session will be representative of the European Commission.  We will start at 3:00 sharp.  Please be back in the room.  You now guess my style.  I'm starting on time and I'm trying to finish on time.

 So thank you very much, bon appetit, and we're gathering here at 3:00.

 [ Lunch Break ] 

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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