IGF 2015 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting 1 December

IGF Open Consultations

 01 DEC 2014

 Geneva, Switzerland

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to the open consultations and MAG meetings for the 2015 cycle, the first one.  

 Just before we start, I would just like to say two things.  When you are requesting the floor, if you want to request the floor, please just put up your name plate and put it down like this, and then we will write your name down and the Chair will call your name and then you can speak.  If you don't have a name plate, just raise your hand.  And then I will indicate when I've seen you and I will write your name down.

 Before we start, I also have to read this.  The ITU has asked me to read this.

 The ITU is pilot testing a system to allow the remote participation of delegates.  When making an intervention remotely, please remember that your remarks are being interpreted into six languages.  Please closely follow the procedure that was submitted to you.  

 It is also important to keep the following points in mind.  Audio quality deemed satisfactory by a delegate may be insufficient for interpretation purposes.  For interpreters, the audio quality has to be near perfect.  Audio quality may deteriorate without prior notice eventually hindering an interpreter's ability to provide a smooth rendering.

 In extreme cases, despite their training and experience, our interpreters may have to refrain from interpreting all together.  A remote delegate may on occasion be asked to repeat a statement and may have his statement paraphrased by an official in the room.  Thank you very much for your cooperation.

 And also when you request the floor, when you are given the floor, could you please state your name clearly and slowly and also the organization you're from and whether you are speaking in your individual capacity or for the organization.  Thank you.  

 So without further ado, I will give the floor to Ambassador Karklins, the Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Chengetai.  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is Janis Karklins.  I am ambassador of Latvia and the Chair of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group.  Let me warmly welcome you to the open consultations that are the first in the series in preparing the next IGF meeting which will take place in Joao Pessoa, Brazil, November 2015.  So we are holding this meeting in the premises of ITU and prior going to adoption of agenda.  I would like to invite Mr. Francois Rancy, the director of ITU Radio Communications Bureau to make a welcoming remarks on behalf of ITU.  Francois, thank you.

 >> FRANCOIS RANCY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Excellencies, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure for me to welcome you on behalf of Dr. Hamadoun Toure, welcoming you to the ITU for the IGF open consultation Multistakeholder Advisory Group meetings.

 Dr. Toure apologized for not being here today.  He is looking forward with great interest to hearing the discussions of today's meetings.

 Today is the first day of the last month of 2014, which has been a tremendously busy year for all of us, particularly with all the various meetings and new initiatives on Internet governance.

 Last month also was held the ITU plenipotentiary conference, which reviewed the three plenipotentiary resolutions on Internet-related issues.  And Mrs. Bogdun this afternoon will make a presentation on the outcome of this important conference.

 Wrapping up this very busy year in Internet governance, one thing which is clear and obvious to all of us here today is that the Internet is now universally recognized as a global public good.

 What is less obvious perhaps is that the exceptional growth of the Internet, one of the greatest engineering feats ever achieved, was only made possible by a level of collaboration and cooperation between stakeholders which has very few parallels in the history of mankind.  

 As a result, the Internet is not just an inspirational story of coherence and continuity but an inspirational story of community, too.

 Today more than ever we must continue to work together to ensure that all people wherever they live and whatever economic means have secure, equitable, and full-level access to this vital resource and that we can use it with confidence.

 We must also work together to harness the power of the Internet to help drive the post-2015 development agenda, empowering a (indiscernible) suitable, social, and economic development for all.

 I firmly believe that we have the moral responsibility and obligation to expedite the implementation of this by understanding each over and finding better ways to work together so that we all become winners and partners.

 Welcome, again, to the ITU.  I wish you very fruitful discussion over the next two days.  Thank you very much.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Mr. Rancy, for your opening remarks and warm welcome.  Certainly we're very grateful for ITU for hosting us during these three days.  That is very kind of symbolic gesture, specifically after the renewal of ITU leadership team during the plenipotentiary conference.  We're really looking forward to working very closely with ITU and ITU leadership.  So certainly looking forward to have many ITU representatives among us during the preparatory process and at the IGF meeting itself.

 And congratulations to you for elections.

 So, ladies and gentlemen, before going further, I would like to seek approval of the agenda of open consultations.  Agenda was published on the Web site.  You have opportunity to examine it.  Basically, we will be going through analysis of positive achievements during the IGF 2014 and we'll be talking through a few challenges that need to be taken into account in preparing IGF 2015.  During that debate, there also will be opportunity to outline your vision about IGF 2015 meeting itself.  So that debate should bring us maybe to lunch or slightly after that.  And in the afternoon, we would be talking through and receiving information about the processes linked to IGF or Internet governance that may have some impact to the shape of IGF 2015 meeting in Brazil.  So we will be listening to presentations of outcomes of plenipotentiary conference of ITU, CSTD, WSIS +10 review preparations, the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation results, the ICANN CGI and WEF initiative, otherwise known as NETmundial Initiative and WSIS +10 review preparations that are scheduled in December 2015 in New York.  So this is agenda for today's open consultations.  And then tomorrow we will be going into MAG meeting mode with presence of observers as usual.

 So are we in a position to endorse today's agenda of open consultations?  Any comments?  Any questions?  I see none.  We may take that agenda as adopted, and we will follow our work to this adopted agenda.

 So, ladies and gentlemen, abusing my power of the Chair, I will take the floor now as is suggested by the agenda.  And I would like say a few words how I see our task and preparatory process of next year's meeting.  So, first of all, let me start by congratulating new MAG members who were appointed by the Secretary-General to serve in the Multistakeholder Advisory Group and at the same time express my sincere gratitude for those MAG members who have accomplished their round of duty in the MAG and helped us enormously in preparing Istanbul IGF meeting.

 So this year is of particular importance because we're entering a preparation of the last meeting of the cycle of five years.  And the preparations and the IGF meeting itself will be under maybe strengthened scrutiny by intergovernmental machinery who will be talking and reflecting on the implementation of WSIS +10 outcomes as well as renewal of IGF mandate for next period of time.

 You know that this discussion is ongoing in New York during the Second Committee of U.N. General Assembly.  There is a proposal of Brazilian -- sorry, Mexican delegation on the table which suggests extension of the IGF mandate.  But it is not clear whether this proposal will be accepted or not.  The negotiation round will take place in New York today and maybe tomorrow we will hear some news from New York in this respect on the development.

 Nevertheless, whatever decision will be taken at the second committee, it will be -- it will have impact on our preparations.

 The preparations should take into account also results and dynamics in other organizations or foras where Internet governance questions are addressed and certainly everything that is linked with WSIS +10 review and preparation for December 2015 meeting in U.N. General Assembly as well as ITU plenipotentiary conference that took place earlier this year in Busan, Korea, as well as processes that are taking place in other international organizations.  And UNESCO is the first that comes to mind specifically taking into account the task which was given to UNESCO at the last general conference to work on questions related to freedom of expression, access, ethics on the Internet.  And that will certainly have impact also on our preparations.

 So in a run-up to Istanbul meeting, the work of the MAG was guided by the recommendations of the working group on improvements of IGF.  And this year should not be an exemption.  I think this should be our -- I wouldn't like to call the name, but that should be the only reference book that we have in thinking about the IGF 2015.

 Why?  Because this will be the reference to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the IGF MAG when it will come to discussion about extension of the mandate of the IGF.  So, therefore, that is important to keep that in mind.

 I will send around maybe slightly later the document which was prepared in 2013 analyzing how far IGF and MAG has gone in implementing the working group recommendations, but that would be only for your reference.  And specifically for those new MAG members, that would be interesting for you to read and familiarize yourself with what we're supposed to do.

 And, finally, I would like also to mention the link or potential link that we may wish to consider between the IGF Brazil and WSIS +10 review process and the preparation of the high-level conference in December 2015.

 As you know, the modalities of the preparation of that intergovernmental meeting suggests that U.N. General Assembly president should consult other stakeholders on the substance of the intergovernmental negotiations.

 The two co-facilitators will be nominated in June 2015 by the U.N. General Assembly president.  And after nomination, most probably we will hear the outline of the process and timeline of intergovernmental negotiations that will lead to the meeting in December in New York at the General Assembly.

 Our IGF meeting will take place in November from 10 to 13th November, and that will be time when this table draft of intergovernmental negotiations will be already in place.

 We need to consider whether not at the IGF but on the margins of IGF we could arrange kind of consultation process between other stakeholders with a negotiating team on the substance of the December document.

 Again, I'm just outlining this idea for your consideration.  We will have a possibility talking it through.

 But the advantage as I see it is ability of reaching out a large number of other stakeholders, certainly much larger than if consultations would be arranged in New York at one point in time in second part of 2015.

 So we have a lot of things in front of us for today, and Tuesday and Wednesday.  I will maybe talk more about the expectations of the MAG meeting tomorrow morning.  

 And now I would like to invite Ms. Aysel Kandemir, the Chief ICT Expert from Information and Communication Technology Authority of Turkey to take the floor, in the capacity of the outgoing honorary chair of the IGF.  

 Aysel, please.

 >>AYSEL KANDEMIR:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  Esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it's a great honor for us to be here at the open consultation and MAG meeting on the preparation of next IGF.

 On behalf of chairman of IGF 2014, Dr. Tayfun Acarer, I'm very pleased to present you today's report briefly.

 As is known, the 9th IGF happened in Istanbul in September this year.  There were over 3,500 participants on-site and remotely from 144 countries.  With these figures, this IGF -- this year's IGF noted the highest number of participation in its history.  As pre-conference event, as you may have attended, Turkey organized high-level leaders meeting with the topic on capacity-building for economic development.

 33 high-level speakers from deputy prime ministers, ministers, chairmen, and CEOs addressed on this important topic.

 Inspired by the unique location of Istanbul, overarching theme of IGF was determined as "Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance."

 People gathered on this theme and discussed the issues from various aspects.

 During the preparatory work, MAG held two face-to-face meetings and several online meetings.

 More than 200 workshops proposals were submitted by the community.  Proposals are examined and rated by MAG based on determined criteria.  We all appreciated extensive and excellent work done by the MAG, with the great assistance of IGF secretariat team on the preparation of IGF program.

 With the energy of new MAG members, we are sure that MAG will continue to provide their expertise and knowledge for the success of upcoming IGFs.

 Through the week of IGF, pioneers, leaders, and prominent experts representing different stakeholder groups came together and exchanged their views and ideas.

 Lively debates and the maturity of the discussions drew close attention and interest of participants.  With the main sessions, workshops, and other events, important issues were discussed in open and interactive manner.

 New setup and format of the sessions contributed to inclusive discussions.  Fruitful results and outcomes lead to recommendations and formulation of possible ways forward.

 As noted in the chair's report, in this year's IGF there were some innovations.  Those are to mention a call by the MAG chair regarding collection of inputs from the community on the action taken by stakeholders as a result of participation to IGF, best practices forum on five challenging issues, and also new format and the content of the IGF summary are new modalities to this year's IGF.

 Dear colleagues, I would like to give some of the highlights underlying the chairman's report.

 For renewal of IGF mandate with longer cycle, participants prepared statements on the subject for the United Nations.  To achieve sustainable funding for IGF, Internet governance support associations formally launched in Istanbul.  The input was formulated by the participants on the right to privacy in the digital age for Human Rights Council.

 Many participants emphasized that there's a need for increased interaction between the governments and interested stakeholders on trust in cyberspace.

 Recommendations were made how and -- how the debate on net neutrality can be taken forward.

 To facilitate the connections for the next 5 billion, a call was made for the inclusion of ICTs and Internet access in the post-2015 development agenda of the U.N.

 Youth representatives emphasized the need to strengthen existing mechanism and empower youth in the Internet governance ecosystem.  

 Issues of the IANA transition and enhancing IANA's accountability were discussed on this IGF.

 We believe that recommendations made and next steps envisaged needs to be considered carefully for the preparation of next IGF in Brazil.

 Having this chance, we wish Brazilian administration great success for a best-ever IGF.

 I'm sure that it will be very remarkable event.  We'll look forward to be there.  Thanks for hosting for the 2015 IGF.

 As a final remark, we would like to thank UNDESA and IGF secretariat team and MAG, once again, for their close collaboration and cooperation and support in the organization of the IGF 2014.

 Thank you very much for your kind attention.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Aysel, for your presentation and certainly for the hospitality that the Turkish government has extended to the IGF, which helped us enormously in succeeding in organizing this meeting.

 So -- and also thank you very much for sending the report of the IGF Istanbul meeting to the ITU plenipotentiary conference.  I think that that was a very useful move by the Turkish delegation and Turkish government, and certainly that informed the discussion about Internet governance issues at the plenipotentiary conference and certainly contributed to the better visibility of IGF at the plenipotentiary.  So thank you very much.

 Now let me turn to the 2015 honorary co-chair, the Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho, the Director of the Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs from Ministry of External Relations of Brazil.  

 Fonseca, please.

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and let me start by also thanking the previous speaker from Turkey for the kind words and the wish of success for the meeting in Brazil.

 We were very happy to be in Turkey and participate in this important meeting, and for us it will be certainly a challenge to stimulate the community to -- for the same level of interest and participation as we had in Turkey.  So thank you very much.

 It is a great pleasure and an honor for me to serve as co-chair of this preparatory meeting on behalf of Brazil.  And by that, I wish to specify that not only on behalf of the Brazilian government but on behalf of the Brazilian steering committee, which is also here represented by the executive secretary, Hartmut Glaser, who is very well known by all of you, and other members, Flavio Wagner and Carlos Alfonso.

 We are very happy to be able to contribute to the success of this meeting in Brazil, and will be available, Mr. Chair, to contribute with you and the larger community in order to prepare for a very successful meeting in Brazil.

 As we start the preparations, we are very happy to see the level of interest that has already been expressed through the contributions we have received.

 We have gone through the contributions and we see there is a lot of good ideas and proposals coming forward.

 We look forward to working with all of you to ensure that this meeting will, indeed, close this first cycle of IGF in a very successful way.  

 Building on the nine years of experience we have had in regard to the previous IGF meetings, building on the innovations that were introduced at the meeting we had last -- this year in Turkey, we see there are many elements that add -- that will contribute, in our thinking, for this.

 I would like to highlight the importance of reviving the Best Practice Forum, the dynamic coalitions.  At the same time, also some very important developments that have been taking place in different fora, exciting developments such as the ICANN transition, the hosting of NETmundial we were very happy and very proud to host this year.

 We feel that this indicates a renewed interest on the part of the community at-large in regard to Internet governance issues, also in regard to what is taking place in other fora, so we see there is very favorable ambiance for -- to strengthen IGF, to reassert the role of IGF in all this framework that is being refined over the last few years, and especially in the last one and a half years.

 So again, we'd like to restate our interest and our willingness to work with all of you to ensure we'll have a very successful meeting in Brazil.

 I'd like to welcome all of you to Brazil, to Joao Pessoa, next November, and we'll certainly be counting on your energy and your commitment to this process.

 Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Benedicto, for this encouraging statement, so we're very much looking forward to the preparations and to the meeting itself.

 So now let us move to the next agenda item that we agreed to examine, and that is stock-taking of IGF 2014 and setting expectations for IGF 2015.

 So during this segment, I would encourage you to sort of reflect on what did work, what lessons we would need to bring to the preparatory process of IGF 2015 and maybe also how you see the outline of the Brazil meeting in light of experiences we gathered in Istanbul.

 So this is -- since this is the open consultation process, we would be looking to different inputs, and maybe first I would like to invite those who are not MAG members to take the floor, and after that, also MAG members to join the discussion.

 Before opening the floor for debate, I would like to invite the secretariat, Chengatai, to maybe briefly introduce the results of the survey which -- I mean, of the comments which were made by delegates during the comment period on this very subject, and after that, I will be looking to the discussion.  

 Chengetai, please, you have the floor.

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

 Okay.  I'll just read a summary of the synthesis paper which summarizes all the contributions that were received.

 The purpose of reading it is so that we don't repeat all the comments.

 If you hear me say a comment and then in the comment period you could comment on something else that has not been already said.

 Starting off with the comments, there were comments on the improvements in the preparatory process that were noted in many contributions, such as seeking inputs from all stakeholders on suggested themes and subthemes prior to the first open consultations, combining the open consultations with the MAG meetings, and also holding regular MAG virtual meetings.

 These were all considered to be improvements.

 And elements that distinguished IGF 2014 from previous IGFs.  The IGF made progress towards becoming more outcome-oriented.  The five IGF 2014 best practices forums and the resulting outcome documents represented a good step forward in this regard.

 The new format and substance of the chair's summary was also noted as a good development.

 Other notable aspects of the meeting were mentioned.  

 The launch of the IGF support association, the launch of an African declaration on Internet rights and freedoms, and the endorsement of a message that was forwarded to the Human Rights Council on a panel on privacy in the digital age.

 For the main sessions, for the positive aspects, the topics of the main sessions and focus sessions were well-chosen and reflected current high-priority issues.

 Comments also praised the "U" table format, with more moderators standing and moving between the panelists and attendees, which was heralded as an improvement for more interactive sessions.

 Critics, they say that some of the sessions had too many panelists and they suggested keeping the sessions and durations below two hours.

 There were some three-hour discussions, and this was said to be too long, and if there were a three-hour session, it should be split into two. 

 For workshops, some contributors commented that there were too many workshops held in parallel and some of the workshops addressed similar topics so they said that the workshop streams should be reduced.  Last year we had 11 workshop streams.

 The schedule online tool that was used in IGF 2014 for the -- the schedule was seen as an improvement.

 Appreciation was expressed for the timely availability of session transcripts and video recordings on the IGF Web site, as well as for the multiple ways to remotely participate through the WebEx, Twitter, Webcasts, and YouTube.

 Aspects that could be improved was the room naming, the signage within the venue, WiFi access, interpretation for more sessions, and less speeches, more interactive debates.

 As suggestions and recommendations regarding IGF 2015, including the preparatory process and intersessional work, the recommendations were made for the MAG and the IGF community to actively engage in intersessional work, which is seen as critical to continuing the discussion and debate on key issues.

 Two themes were proposed for intersessional work:  Policy, menus for connecting the next billion, and impact of Internet on jobs and skills.

 For themes and issues, one input recommended that the IGF community should agree on two to three high-level themes and should try to work throughout the year towards the production of common best practices or policy messages.

 The IGF should address policy questions that are controversial and/or time-critical, and that are currently lacking any other multistakeholder mechanism for global coordination.

 An input noted that it was timely and relevant for the IGF to explore themes at the intersection of ICT and development with an Internet governance focus.  One proposal for the overall themes of the 2015 IGF meeting was Internet governance for sustainable development and promotion of human rights.

 Other inputs suggested surveillance, cybersecurity, online privacy, and primary themes of the 2015 meeting.

 Workshops -- one recommendation was made to encourage organizers to -- of successful workshops to submit follow-up proposals for the following IGF.

 For the agenda, some inputs noted that the IGF could benefit from a more structured agenda with eventually fewer workshops.  An opposing view was also expressed, noting that the number of workshops should not be reduced, as the dynamism of the IGF comes from workshops.

 There was also comment noting that an alternative -- as an alternative to the usual IGF schedule would be to have each day of the IGF focused on a specific issue, with various sessions in various formats.

 As far as the dynamic coalitions were concerned, there was a recommendation that was made for a more structured process to develop -- to be developed for dynamic coalitions.  Further discussions should be held on whether and how the 12 dynamic coalitions that are currently active within the IGF should contribute to or support the IGF's intersessional work.

 On more tangible outcomes, whilst still maintaining the key characteristic of being an open platform for discussion, the IGF should continue to develop more tangible outcomes.  One recommendation was made to develop innovative ways to capture the conversations that occur at the IGF and share them globally, wherever possible.

 The 10th IGF could take a step forward in this direction if it were to practically use designated main sessions, workshops, and other sessions or working groups to develop nonbinding opinions, recommendations, or policy principles that stakeholders could use to address currently pressing Internet-related issues.

 On linkages with other IGF entities, contributors noted that the IGF should establish better coordination across the intergovernance platforms and initiatives, strengthen its ties with regional and national IGF initiatives.  And the IGF should ensure that there are regular exchanges with various intergovernance foras, meetings, and initiatives throughout the year.

 On remote participation, increasing remote participation, eParticipation at the annual IGF, and during intersessional work were stressed by many stakeholders.  Dedicated working groups and additional funding should be sourced to address this important issue.

 Other suggestions were a more developed dynamic landing page on the IGF Web site for all aspects related to remote participation and remote participation guidelines for participants.

 Remote moderators should also be empowered to insist that remote participation and interventions should be considered.

 On the youth, several inputs noted that more youths should be represented as speakers and organization -- organizers of sessions.

 Logistics, improvements were encouraged in the following areas:  Media operations, badging, beverages, food and drinks, broadband, and WiFi connections, host country Web site printing, et cetera.

 And there was also a contribution that professional event organizers should be also engaged.

 General suggestions for the MAG, it was suggested that the MAG could establish a series of working groups dedicated to critical issues such as communications, outreach, intersessional work, best practice forums, et cetera.  The MAG should continue to organize working groups in specific areas, provide organizational leadership for them, and open them to those willing to participate and contribute to the process.  

 I think that's all for the summary and for the IGF mandate, but that's not for the meeting.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It's not necessary, ladies and gentlemen.  We are now already entering our working tempo.  And I would like to underline that we have simultaneous interpretation in the six United Nations languages.  So anybody wishing to speak in any other language than English is welcome to do so.  We have Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic or French, not any other language.

 And now I would like to open the floor for comments.  Any participant -- consultation process?

 While you're thinking, please before taking the floor, introduce yourself.  That is for the sake of -- also for the sake of transcription.  And I see the first request.  Please, Victoria.

 >> VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Thank you.  Actually, I'm not Victoria.  I'm Virginia.  I'm in good company anyway.

 I am a new MAG member.  Ginger or Virginia Paque from Latin America via Venezuela and the U.S. and DiploFoundation which is global.  

 And my major link here, my major prominence or my major worry, concern is that online participation, whether it be remote or local because I'm not sure who is local and who is remote right now, is that, first of all, participation online takes place 365 days a year.  Remote participation is way more important than we give it credit for because most of our participation of everyone even that is in this room is online.  So I think we need to make sure that we design the sessions and that in our criteria for the workshops and all the sessions, we make sure that we're including the people who are not in the room and that not just -- starting with the idea of secretariat, that the organization of the meeting, then the organization of each session and each workshop take into account how -- and this has already been done, but theoretically more than in practical application.  So that we actually include in full participation, not just observation and that dynamic movement that we're trying to generate within the room, include the people that are in the rest of the world who are actually the majority.

 So I would like to be very active in pushing this, and that includes, of course, any accessibility issues for people with disabilities because that works very well to get together.

 So I would ask that we please take that into account right from the very beginning which, of course, is now and that any suggestions -- and I'm willing to put my energy behind my words.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Virginia.  This is what I want to say, but I didn't find quickly enough your name on my list.

 So please, further requests?  Who is willing -- can we move to the next agenda item?  We're satisfied with the review which was done and conclusions that were outlined by Chengetai?  Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Chair.  Good morning, everybody.  I was waiting to make sure that the observers and the new MAG members first had an opportunity before putting up our flags.  I think there will be other colleagues who will want to join in on the session.

 Firstly, our huge thanks goes out to Turkey and the government.  We didn't have enough time in the last MAG meeting on the last day at the IGF to pay our tributes to the outstanding work that has been done in Istanbul.  

 Just for the record, 1600 delegates from 128 countries participating in Baku, Azerbaijan, that went up to over 2,000 at the very excellent IGF organized by the Indonesian government in Bali.  And in 2014, broke all previous records by clocking 3,694 participants of which 2,403 were onsite.

 They represented 144 countries, which is nearly 75% of the U.N. membership.  This is an all-time record for IGF.  So a huge achievement and big thanks to the secretariat as well as the government.  My numbers may be off by a little, but I think that's what came through.

 The developing countries constituted nearly 60% of all participants.  That's a big vote of confidence by developing countries, something we need to make inclusive.  

 Civil society were the largest participants with nearly 779 participants.  And contrary to the popular belief, the government is not very active.  There were -- actually 23% of all participants onsite were government, only third -- very close to the business community in terms of numbers.

 There were several innovations that have been spoken about, so I won't get into all of those.  But I think a few deserve a mention, especially on the main sessions where the chair had -- actually everybody agreed to only have 2 1/2 main sessions as compared to five or six main sessions.  And the subjects that were chosen were carefully picked.  But more importantly, I think when the NETmundial conference was held in April, in spite of the fact the decision had been made to hold only 2 1/2.  For some of us who are new here, there are six slots available for main sessions, if you look at the four days, counting out closing and opening ceremonies.  So we started with 2 1/2, went up to 3 1/2 and after the May Paris conference, a third slot was opened up and a three-hour session on net neutrality was held which was a prominent outcome piece that was stated in the NETmundial statement.

 So it showed that there was flexibility in the IGF process to actually take on board important and contemptual issues.  It was after many IGFs that almost all the main sections had full halls.  They were between 80 to 90% attendance.  So I know there was a comment about not keeping it for three hours, but nobody left the room.  That's the other side of equation.

 And many of the main sessions were actually broken into two parts.  And so that worked really well.  People were out to do exercises and stuff like that, so that was kind of interesting.

 There was also the issue of turning the lens on IGF itself.  There was a full main session on the Internet governance itself and its future and how it's been doing.  And there was a frank and formidable discussion with some governments sort of giving us very candid feedback on what they thought was working and what's not working.  So it wasn't as if the IGF or the MAG was playing softball for themselves.

 You've spoken about the open, transparent process that was adopted.  There was also an improvement in the regional and the gender representation in almost all panels.  We compared this to the previous ones, and I think Istanbul saw not only high participation but also high participation from regional developing country governments, most of whom who served on the main sessions, much help by the U-table format that was played out.  

 Much has been spoken about the best practice sessions, so I won't go there.

 On the workshops, I think the preannounced criteria which improved in many ways by giving higher points for first-time submissions, for developing country submissions and for specific policy questions.  

 To sort of step back to the main session again, I think the point about picking policy issues through a public consultation and then including them through the moderators was a major improvement.  In fact, our session, the one that I was co-leading with 16 of my very able volunteers and friends from the MAG had a Facebook page for a month which invited comments.  And then that went into the discussions.  So the online engagement that has been commented upon was actually an improvement.

 We have to say the location of Istanbul made the cost of participation for participants, that was a big factor.  Five-hour flights from Asia and Europe but also the range of accommodations and the location.  It's really helped bring people in.  I think we need to sort of give some thought to how when the location is right, you can get so many more people to participate, especially from developing countries.  This major spike in the numbers is basically attributable to the host country's finding a location that had hotels from five stars to three stars to guest houses, everything almost within walking distances.

 I also want to give some thought to the improved IGF Web site and the color coding of programs that I think went really well with several people.  We didn't have time to explain the use of that, but I think the innovation that was formulated there was very useful.  The secretariat took this great initiative to change what was happening in the past.  A very substantive session by the youth which was held in the main room.  I wish more of our colleagues had attended that.  I think three of us on the MAG supported that session.  It went exceedingly well.  We are really proud to see one of the members here.  She was the moderator of that session, and now she's here as a full-time MAG member and we welcome her with open arms.  That's an outstanding development for the MAG.  I don't think we have had a youth representative before on the MAG, and that's sort of a reflection.

 There was an enhanced use of remote participation, also use of social media.  I think IGF 2014 saw 1,297 remote participants.  There was an increased participation due to platforms such as Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr.  And as I said, there was Facebook sessions organized.

 I just wanted to close this by saying that the MAG last year embraced a lot of -- well, I think starting 2013 when they started embracing issues such as surveillance and a big session was held, we should remember that 45 of the 90 workshops were directly or indirectly related to human rights which was a big part of the workshops and, again, a mandate that the MAG and the IGF took on from the NETmundial outcome statement as well.  As a special main session that had not been planned in February but came in after May, after the April conference.  So I just wanted to leave all those thoughts for our new MAG members and also observers to think about.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Virat, for your comments.  Izumi.

 >> IZUMI AIZU:  Izumi Aizu from Tokyo.  I'm the outgoing or retired MAG member.  I just came here to say good-bye, guys.

 [ Laughter ]

 But that's too short to say for a three-day meeting.

 To follow what Virat said, I would like to share some of my observations of 2014 in Istanbul, especially we have done some ad hoc interviews during the IGF meetings.  And it was very rewarding or helpful for a MAG member to understand how the participants of the IGF really feel in taking things back home or not.  And I would really encourage you guys, the new MAG members, to do something similar, not only just organizing the conference per se but at the same time listen to -- especially the newbies, the new participants, not only in the orientation sessions, although I'd do that, during lunchtime or coffee break, also from those from developing countries, those who are not really exposed to the IGF podium so far.

 So here are two things I would say.  Well -- although we did only a few, about ten myself.  But many said they feel very much isolated unless they are the speaker or the organizer of the session.  You may think, well, there are many people frustrated with the lack of interaction time because there are too many speakers, et cetera, et cetera.

 But I think we need to really consider more about some of the new ways of organizing conferences these days, there are certain ways like unconference, BOF, or open space.  That's one modality.  Or you may have heard of a flipped classroom.  

 One sort of the leaders of this field suggested to me -- he was the first-time participant to IGF Bali, he prepared all the presentations of his session in video in advance and let the audience or participants watch it before they come to Istanbul so it is ready for them to go into the direct interaction.  So there are a number sort of innovative ways that we could really try out more for the new meetings of IGF.

 I also again just want to repeat that MAG members listen, don't really only to speak to the many, many people at IGF.  That's very valuable.

 Last, but perhaps not least, just to pick up with (saying name) just said, we know the value of the remote participation but also the limitation of and beginning with the term "remote."  It sounds like we are the center and they are the periphery and they are remote.  They also feel very remote from the center when they participate during the night for their time zone.  They need to stay very concentrated if you try that.  

 How much you get for intervention?  Not that much.  So most chairs say, oh, are there any remote participants after all the major points are covered or when you find opportunity in the room to take the floor.  So perhaps we could use the technology of the Internet and the latest ones.  The NETmundial did a good job of showing the videos from Indonesia or India so you feel much more intimate and much more kind of throughout the globe.  So these are some thoughts I felt I would like to share from the outgoing member of MAG.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Izumi, for your thoughts and proposals.

 Now I will turn to Ms. Shita Laksmi.

 >>SHITA LAKSMI: Okay.  Hello.  My name is Shita Laksmi.  I'm a new MAG member from Indonesia.

 I think one of the suggestions that I would like to see in the IGF 2015, learning from 2014, is that since IGF is a very new discussion in Indonesia, in particular, or in Southeast Asian region, I would like to ask whether the MAG member -- or when we do the proposals review, we can make an affirmative actions so assure a percentage goes to developing countries that they are able to be part of the IGF discussions because IGF just started being a discussion in Indonesia, in particular, and we are trying to have more tangible outcomes out of it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Shita.  

 The answer to your question is affirmative.  Yes, we -- in preparing Istanbul IGF, we did a little bit of positive discrimination and we brought proposals from the developing countries who were lower graded than maybe others to the agenda simply to give the preference to representatives from the developing countries.

 So now the next on my list is Marilyn.  Marilyn Cade.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 I'm going to open my comments by saying how exciting it is to see all the participants who are here.  Not just the MAG members, but broader representation from the community, and to repeat a comment that I made last year to rounding laughter when I announced that I was a new MAG member and that I had been a very active participant for eight years before becoming a MAG member last year.

 So my comment to Izumi and all other MAG members who are rotating back into the community is that, in fact, you must not leave us but you must continue to attend the planning sessions and to contribute your expertise.

 The MAG has a narrow function and we are very dependent on the broad participation of all of the stakeholders, and Izumi, you and others who have been so active as MAG members in the past, have really helped to bring us to where we are today.  So I just want to offer that comment to those who may be thinking that they are rotating out of the MAG.  I think we, in fact, think we still own you.

 That was not the entire purpose of my taking the floor, though.

 I want to make a comment about an innovation that we introduced last year that I was perhaps very committed to and able to contribute to and found it to be a very beneficial contribution, and that was a shift away from the role of the MAG as central in the planning of workshops and even the introducing of workshops and really limiting the role of the MAG in workshops, not -- MAG members no longer as individual MAG members propose workshops.  We evaluate the workshops.  We coach.  We mentor.  We do plan the main sessions.  That has been really a big change, and I think it also has done something that's vitally important.

 Since we are committed to bring in new players and new contributors, we as MAG members have the opportunity to play the role of coach and mentor to help to facilitate bringing in lots of new voices, and I'm very pleased to hear some of the suggestions that Izumi, for instance, and others have made about new formats because I think opening our minds to new formats also will enhance the opportunity for broadening participation.

 I too want to support the perspective shared by Virat Bhatia about the location of Istanbul really did provide the opportunity for all of us, regardless of what stakeholder group we were in, to, I think, put more encouragement into the opportunity to attend because of the accessibility of the location.

 Finally, I want to make a comment about one of the benefits that I have seen of the attitude and openness of the secretariat to including other groups who want to come to the IGF and perhaps hold a side event in parallel, but then integrate their participants into the IGF, has helped tremendously in bringing in some new voices.  And I will just give as an example a couple of groups that I've had the benefit of collaborating with.  That is WAVE, the Women's Alliance on Virtual Engagement, and also the Arab Business Internet Alliance that brought a number of attendees to Istanbul held a parallel meeting, but then integrated their attendees.

 So 30 to 50 new attendees at the IGF who were -- might not have been able to come to the IGF if they had not been able to have that parallel meeting as well.

 They were able to participate in the village, and that also elevated their access to others from the community at IGF who came into the IGF and met with them.

 So I want to continue to encourage that openness of attitude that we have brought of if there's a room available and groups come and legitimately are interested, that there's a way for them to take advantage of being in the space with us.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Marilyn.

 And next on the list is Avri.  Avri Doria, please.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri Doria speaking.  I am a new MAG member.

 I wanted to talk about two concepts that I think we need to work on.

 One is the whole notion of audience.

 At last -- in fact, at every MAG meeting and at many meetings I go to, we talk about panelists and we talk about audience, and I think that that is a problematic concept when it comes to a forum.

 When it comes to a forum, I think we should be really working hard at the notion of everyone being a participant.  Some happen to be up on the dais and some happen to be down on the floor at a particular point in time, but I think that when we have this concept in mind of "audience," we tend to sort of have a separation and we end up with a row of talking heads talking at these people who are sitting and listening as an audience should.

 And I think that from the very beginning, we really need to be casting what we do in terms of how do we build a forum type of behavior where there is a very dynamic conversation, dialogue -- well, "dialogue" is between two, but a conversation and discussion among the many participants in a room and also those that are attending remotely.

 It was the reference to remote being remote that reminded me of that.

 The other one has to do with the notion of intersessional work.

 I'm very happy that we're starting to do work between the two meetings, but when we think of intersessional, we're sort of thinking that the work is bounded by the meetings, as opposed to the meetings being a point in the progressive and steady state of the work where you sort of coordinate the expression of that work, you make it wider, you have a goal that you drive to.

 But again, if it's intersessional, we still have the meetings as the main marker, as the main milestone, as opposed to the work and reaching the outcomes.

 So I'd just like to sort of suggest that as we move forward, when we come to these concepts, we try to also look at the obverse of the concept and try to basically not have audiences and not see the yearly meetings as anything more than an annealing point where the work comes up, comes forward, some of it gets brought -- taken to other places and some of it then continues.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Avri, for your thoughts.

 Now I see we have online participants willing to speak.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  We have an online intervention from Anriette, who will speak for herself.  

 Anriette, I'm giving you the floor now.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Seems to have a slight technical difficulty.  We will come back to Anriette and I'm going now to the next speaker.  ISOC?  

 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone.  I'm Constance Bommelaer, from the Internet Society, the technical -- who is part of the Internet technical community.

 I won't reiterate some of the points that were made this morning, but I would support what Avri just said about the intersessional work and also other points made by Marilyn and Virat this morning.

 I'd like to focus on the outputs or the outcomes of the IGF and just say a few words about the experience of the best practices and a few thoughts on possible new outputs for the IGF.

 With regards to the best practices forums, I think it was a good first step for the IGF, definitely.

 I'd like to emphasize a few things that were not said in the summary of the taking stock synthesis paper and highlight, first of all, that new individuals and new communities have come to the IGF through the best practices.

 On the mailing list, we have about 100 to 120 people, people who do not go to the IGF normally, who will probably not go in the future, but who have an interest in the work that was kick-started through the best practices.

 From here, the question is:  How do we sustain that community?  How do we make sure we retain these individuals, these experts in the IGF community, and actually get them involved in future editions of the IGF?

 I think throughout my comments, you'll see that it systematically boils down, of course, to the resources of the secretariat, but it also shows that we have tremendous opportunities for the IGF today.

 I would also emphasize that through the best practices, we did not negotiate text, and I think that's an important point, because there are some sensitivities about finding the right balance for IGF's outputs.

 We want to make progress on difficult issues, but at the same time we want to keep the -- the nonbinding nature of the IGF and we don't want the forum to become a negotiation platform.

 We talked about the means, the resources needed to support intersessional work.

 I think this also raises the question of the role of MAG members versus secretariat versus external consultants or help that can come in support to the secretariat.

 Here, I would like to say that I think that the MAG -- as Marilyn said, MAG members have a very specific role but at the same time we cannot substitute ourselves to the secretariat, and as the IGF strives to develop more outcomes in the future, I think this barrier between the role of the secretariat and MAG members will be extremely important because we want any outputs, any outcomes, to be perceived as neutral.

 Allow me also to add that with regards to format of outcomes, we've talked about the best practices.

 There were also some good policy messages coming out of IGF 2014, a message that was sent on behalf of one of the groups to the Human Rights Council.  I think that was the demonstration that the IGF has a lot of potential to offer in this regard.

 At the same time, it seems that some themes lend themselves to best practices, themes that have been around for a while where we have documentation, existing practices, that can be compared.  Other themes would perhaps be more suitable for policy messages through main sessions or other mechanisms, but emerging issues such as ethical data handling or other new issues might be more suitable for other types of formats.

 Finally, and just to conclude, with regards to the main sessions, IGF -- in my view, IGF 2014 really gave the impression that we had a hybrid format.  We had introduced a few new elements, and at the same time we had preserved elements from the historical IGF format.

 I think it's important to see the historical elements that need to be maintained as we develop and take the IGF forward.

 At the same time, we also heard that many participants felt that main sessions were too long, there were too many main sessions, and I liked the idea that was expressed, I think, by -- maybe it was Chengetai that presented it as part of the synthesis paper -- of having maybe one theme per day and only one main session at the end of the theme to conclude the work and ensure we have progress throughout the day towards some sort of outputs that would be reflected through the main session.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Constance, for your proposals.

 Now I'm going to United Kingdom.  Mark?  Mark Carvell? 

 >>MARK CARVELL: Yes.  Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everybody.  Mark Carvell, United Kingdom Government, Department for Culture, Media, and Sport.  First of all, I'd like to express on behalf of the U.K. government our deep appreciation to Turkey for hosting such a successful 9th IGF and achieving such record levels of participation.  That's a great achievement, and as you said, Chair, it's very timely as we engage in, at the wider U.N. level, scrutiny of the IGF, that we ensure that the IGF continues to build on success and evolve as it has done in such demonstrable way.  

 And Virat earlier on recounted the breakdowns of stakeholder participation, and just a footnote with regard to government participation.  

 The U.K. government delegation, in Istanbul, was the largest ever.  We had more policymakers from across our administration attending in person than ever before, and I think that is a reflection of the strength of the -- of the program, the importance of participation and engaging with other stakeholders in such an open and dynamic way.

 With regard to other aspects of the Istanbul IGF, we very much appreciated the innovations introduced there, the sense of capturing more concrete outcomes, but in a way that as has just been said, not -- not to try and negotiate these things, but to see where there was consensus or a variety of opinions that can help our understanding of the issues.

 So that's -- that's a very important conceptual sense for the IGF that we should continue to hold dearly.

 Secondly, the best practice forums, very, very effective, very good, and I think it was just the right number of forums, and indeed, the dissemination of the results of those is an important thing that we should ensure is taken full regard and that has already been noted as well.  You know, sort of taking forward of the outcomes of so many experts coming together in the best practice forum that is truly global.

 New formats?  Yes.  Very welcome.

 And the commitment to developing intersessional tracks of work, we very much support that, and we look forward to the discussions here at this meeting about how we implement those so that we can ensure the work between now and the Brazilian IGF really does help secure effective moving forward of issues by the time of the Brazilian IGF so that the Brazilian IGF then will be able to take them further even more without risk of going over the same ground that's been looked at before at previous IGFs and without the risk of duplication.  So that's a very important development of this IGF that was instituted in Istanbul, the commitment to intersessional activities.

 Just a few final points.  Very much appreciate the engaging and commitment of those youth participants in Istanbul and we support elevating their participation into center-stage activities of the IGF in Brazil.  To give them more visibility and help refresh our understanding of issues and what is of importance to young people.

 Main sessions.  I think the number was about right in Istanbul, but still we have to work a bit harder to ensure that they maximize participation, that we avoid clashes with other program activities, give the main sessions enough space.  And we should also look at the number of panelists.  I do sympathize with the view that for some of the main sessions, there were too many panelists.  Those are my comments for now.  I hope they are helpful.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Mark.  Very helpful.  I understand remote participation is not yet ready.  Or we can try.

 >> We would like to try it now.  Otherwise, we will fix it after the first coffee.  If Anriette and then we also have a second one that has been in queue with Subi.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Let's see if we can get Anriette.

 >> Anriette, if you are ready.  I will give you the floor right now.  Thank you.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I don't think the mic is working.  Can you read my comments?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Anriette, we can hear you.  You can go ahead.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Should I go ahead?  Okay.  Now I need to find my comments again.

 [ Laughter ]

 Let me just get them back.  Okay.

 Well, as Izumi as an outgoing MAG member, I would like to thank everyone.  It is good to be here.  I plan to continue.  

 I noted Marilyn Cade's comments about outgoing MAG members being owned by the MAG.  

 And, Marilyn, I look forward to the challenge of being owned by you in particular.

 So just some remarks.  Thank you to the host country, and thanks to everyone.  I think the IGF was a success, even though we want to improve it.  So just a few key points to add to the Secretariat's excellent synthesis.

 I agree that we should strengthen the intersessional process of the IGF, and this has been said by Avri and others.  In particular, I think it can help with the outcome orientation through the best practice forums, which I see as part of the intersessional process.  

 It can also help with workshop preparation.  I think if we have more workshops that are prepared intersessionally, we will have stronger workshops.  It can also help with developing country government participation.  If there are intersessional events that involve them, which are then synthesized or brought up to some process at the global IGF.

 I think it can also include or succeed in better inclusion of regional IGFs.  One of the criticisms of this year's IGF was that some of the regional IGFs were not adequately reflected and did not consist of remote participation.

 Secondly, on human rights, as Virat pointed out, there's an (indiscernible) of interest of this topic.  And it is a complex topic that has (inaudible).  

 And I really do think we need either a main session at the IGF and to synthesize discussion on human rights-related topics or a roundtable as we did this year.  And the roundtable was very successful, so I thank the Secretariat and the MAG for allowing us to include that.  But it still clashed with rights-related workshops.  It wasn't able to synthesize everything.

 Thirdly, then I think on event design, I agree with Izumi, I think we need to be innovative, not to employ external facilitators but just to make sure we design the event in such a way that the workshops compliment one another, that workshops on one theme that address different facets of that theme are not run in parallel, that workshops are well coded and maybe the device of a theme a day is one way of doing it and having some form of synthesis.  But I think some professional design support can help.  Also to address the issue of participation that Avri brought up.

 And then my last point is just to note that we had in Istanbul the ungovernance forum, and it was a successful device for bringing in more local voices.  And it complimented the IGF, so I think it is good.  But I also think the MAG should guard against such parallel events and preventing the Internet governance community for raising critical issues inside the main IGF.  So, yes, a parallel event is fine, but we shouldn't avoid addressing challenging issues inside the main event.

 And that's it for now.  I will be with you for the rest of the day and look forward to the rest of the meeting.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Anriette, for your contribution.  I will take now next onsite participant before going to next online participant.

 So next on my list is Cheryl.

 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Now?  Sorry about that.  Thank you very much.  My name is Cheryl Miller.  And I'm a new MAG member this year from the business community.  I work for Verizon Communications.  And I just wanted to thank you all.  I actually participated in the meetings last year, and everyone on the MAG was so welcoming and so it was a really great environment to come into.  And so I'm much appreciative for that and to the secretariat as well.

 I have two comments and then a quick question.  One observation that I had, I guess, as an outsider through last year's process was how balanced the relationship was between the host country and the MAG.  And I understand that there are different responsibilities that you both have.  And so I guess another thank you and another compliment to the host country for really kind of creating that synergy with the MAG.  I think it definitely helped 2014 IGF, added to that success that was there.

 Another comment that I had, I guess I'm hearing from a lot of MAG members some good things about the main sessions and some things that perhaps didn't exactly go the way they would have hoped for.  So I note that many have said that there was good balance in terms of gender balance, regional diversity, and so that was definitely a plus.

 But on the other side, there were too many speakers on some panels.  And I definitely noted that as well.  This is where my question comes in.  I'm just curious as a new member whether or not there was a specific rule that was put in place to kind of encourage the enhanced balance or what the structure was.  I don't know if any of the folks who were a part of organizing the main sessions have any comments or thoughts on why it turned out that way since so many people seem to indicate that they didn't want so many people in terms of number of participants.  But it seems we got the balance right on the other end.  And so thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Cheryl.  I will let fellow colleagues to clarify that question.  I think that there's one very important guiding principle.  We should be guided by common sense whatever we do.  And if we will apply that, I think we are on very safe ground.

 Now I'm going to online participant that I understand is Subi.  Please.

 Please go ahead, Subi.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Hi, Janis.  Can you hear me?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, we can hear you.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  It is really exciting and thrilling.  Everyone, my name is Subi Chaturvedi.  And I come from India.  And I now teach at the State University with about 800 engineers.  This is my third year on the MAG, and each year is equally thrilling and exciting.  

 Janis, thank you for your excellent leadership.  And what we have this year in the MAG is a phenomenal team with such an amazing skill set.

 So some quick points on what I think worked and what we can retain in essence.  I think the engagement between the host country, Turkey, and the (indiscernible) handedness and the fact that they were so facilitative has been amazing.  It's beautiful in terms of how translated.  We had excellent chairs for main sessions.

 Our session in particular looked at IGF Internet ecosystem and the role of IGF and how is it that we can strengthen the IGF.

 Perhaps some of the things that have been raised, we could respond to that as well because as main sessions, it is important to speak to a lot of essential questions and formats.  We can't have a blanket approach to all sessions, whether they're main sessions or workshops.  So I think that sensitivity to the issue and to the format is something that we retain going forward.

 What was a particular delight to me was a 13-year-old, not quite 14, as one of the closing speakers.  I thank the secretariat and the Chair for this innovation.  I think that sends a very positive message.  This is both about nimbleness, innovation, and the ability to listen and respond from the floor.  And that is the essence of the IGF.

 I welcome the fact that we do not spend about 75% of our time on negotiated outcome documents because the ability to bring people and create a safe space is what I'd like to see cherished going forward this year on the 10th edition.  We have already been through the numbers, and it is enthusiastically reaffirmed by the greater presence of people to travel and engage.

 On the remote participation, yes, I think it's a very important tool and shouldn't be like watching television.  So people participating through remote and being recognized prominently.  There's a remote moderator being positioned in a room prominently.  And consistently reaffirming the fact that those who are not in the room are part of the conversation is something that is fantastic, and we need to keep working on that.

 The substantive Chair's report I thought was, again, a highlight, two pages, four pages.  And then a phenomenal extensive report that came out as the Chair's summary of taking that concept forward worked fantastically for me.

 I completely agree that according to the Tunis Agenda in paragraph 72, one of our key tasks as MAG is also not just organizing the program but also enriching the knowledge agenda and contributing to capacity-building.  

 Outgoing colleagues like Vlada and some of the others have done very good work.  These are standards that have been set.  We have to continue working at that, and best practice forums were truly a translation of that.

 Meeting a lot of people from developing countries, being one myself, I think those are themes where we're enriching in terms of good practices.  They might not be the best.  They might not be immediately relevant or completely fit every ethos.  But these are raised in which the IGF has contributed, and you have given things to people that they actually take away.

 Coming back to the main sessions, also something that worked with the deeper format and the fact that some of the main sessions were able to make the moderator stand up and walk the room.  That goes back to Avri's point of not treating people who are in the room as an audience but also integrating them while the session is on, not keeping a question and answer format at the end of when the speakers have spoken.  But looking at it from -- looking at it from the perspective of keeping that engagement alive and vibrant while the session is on.

 What I also would like to see, I don't know if somebody has already spoken to that, is more volunteers so that MAG members are not running around in these sessions.  What was also amazing is the fact the secretariat managed to give one of the youth workshops and put them in the main session.  

 So I welcome especially the three young members on the MAG.  There is a lot that we have to learn from them.  That workshop was one of the best workshops that I attended last year.  So in terms of a resource pool and seeing more of them on main sessions as panelists, these are things that people who represent net mission and young colleagues on the MAG are already working in terms of initiatives.

 Intersessional work is very welcomed.  But what I would also like to see more reflection on is the parameters, how is it that we will decide on themes and where is it that we would go from there.  So that framework I understand will evolve organically, will be taken offline through virtual concepts.

 This year as well there was excellent support for remote moderation.  The number of microphones in the room for audience engagement matter.  They matter hugely.  If you are in a workshop and you just have a microphone up front and people are already speaking, it's difficult.  If you have a roving microphone and more volunteers around in the room, I know that has a cost input but that's something that actually works.

 What one would also like to see is a venue which is also contained, something which is easily accessible because accessibility and giving priority to people with disabilities is something that one really wants to see.  

 So in terms of -- I mean, going forward, three key points:  More women, more youth, more children.  Also more governments in speaking roles.  A venue which is not too difficult or too expensive to be present at.  The insistence of having more young people and more new people on main sessions and main panels.  And more guidelines and clarity on mergers and feedback for the suggested proposals or proposals that didn't make the cut.  

 So these are some things along with a very specific interest which is taken in a multistakeholder format while we're planning the session from the host country, particularly civil society groups that are part of the process from the initial days of planning.  That's about it for now.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, thank you.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I will stay online.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Subi, for your input and clarity that needs to be taken into account going forward.

 So next on the list is delegation of United States.

 >>UNITED STATES:  Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Chair.  Thank you, Janis.  Welcome to everybody.  I want to join -- my name is Liesyl Franz.  I'm with the U.S. Department of State.  And here along with my colleagues I want to join everyone in thanking the government of Turkey for hosting such a successful and vibrant IGF this year and also extend our thanks to Brazil for, once again, hosting as we look forward to the next IGF 10 in 2015.

 We also want to thank Mexico for their kind offer to host in 2016.

 Thank you, too, for the ability to put in a submission for the call for input, and we certainly did that.  So I won't belabor our submission now, but I did want to highlight just three things that we mentioned that might be useful for discussions.  One of the things that we have always appreciated is the nimbleness of the IGF in being able to have timely discussions about whatever is going on in the Internet space because it moves so quickly and is so dynamic; that as we look to workshops -- that either themes or workshops that we might encounter, leaving space for whatever the issues of the day are has been something that has been very useful.

 Secondly, as we look to capturing the output and capturing the conversation, the best practice forums and other inputs and outputs that have come out from the IGF have been very useful to continue the conversation and appreciated the comments made earlier that the spirit in which the best practice forums outputs were done were collaborative and not negotiated outcomes.

 I'd like to join my others in congratulating the new MAG members to this year's IGF planning process, and one of the things that we highlight in our submission has been addressed today as well is to encourage you to continue to look at the community -- not just old MAG members but those that have been coming to the IGF for years and those that have just started to come, to continue to look to incorporating the community into the planning effort, as well as capturing outputs that might be useful for going forward.

 You know, we really believe that the IGF provides a space free from the pressure of formal decision-making and negotiations where all stakeholders can communicate and understand each other's perspectives and thereby develop more collaborative relationships that then help reduce misunderstandings across them when we engage in other venues and I think that is why the interactive nature that so many others have talked about of the workshops and the discussions that take place at the IGF is so important.

 And so as we look forward -- as we look to developing workshop criteria or workshop formats, that that interactive nature is really something that is emphasized.

 Also, I'd like to join others and pick up on your comment, chair, that we are looking toward the extension of the mandate for the IGF next year, and the United States believes that as we do that, we must look at it as retaining the nature of its original mandate, even as it continues to evolve and improve to meet the community's needs in the discussion and the dialogue that is so -- that is really its value.

 So thank you.  I look forward to the discussions over the next couple days, and good morning.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Liesyl, for your comments, and now I am turning to Ms. Kee.  

 I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I can pronounce your first name right.  If you could just introduce yourself for the future reference, as I say.

 >>JAC SM KEE:  Thank you.  

 Hi.  My name is Jac, Jac sm Kee, and I'm with civil society, APC and I generally work on women's rights issues.

 I wanted to give a couple of comments.  

 One was around the capacity-building track.  I think that is a very, very important and useful priority area for IGF to be improving on because that also directly supports kind of more diverse participation of different groups of people, and for me especially, I'm more -- I'm very interested to see how this can promote active participation and not kind of like audience, as Avri was talking about, of women's rights groups as well, and also speaks to the -- to the recommendation for different modalities and how we can look at this in much more creative ways to think about active learning processes.  

 Because I think this is really quite critical, especially for trying to encourage new and different actors to come into the space, and I think national and regional IGFs can also play a role in terms of building capacities of national and regional actors from different stakeholder groups, and I especially welcome to see how this can directly also feed into the kind of global IGF processes and vice versa in terms of sharing of learnings.  

 And perhaps this could be even a best practice thematic area.

 And the other thing I wanted to talk about was also to support the whole focus around intersessional work and to also look at capacity building as one of the key areas of work for intersessional work.  

 And also the colleague from ISOC, the speaker from ISOC, was talking about how best practices forum is actually in a way also facilitating greater participation of more diverse actors into the process of IGF without actually being present at the IGF itself as an event, so I think that that is something that is really worth exploring more into, to really look at how these particular thematic and topical areas can really also facilitate more discussions by, I guess, unusual suspects into Internet governance and policy areas.  Especially with the greater interest around -- demonstrated around human rights issues and how IGF has really demonstrated a kind of maturity around human rights issues and will translate into looking at human rights, I guess, in more depth.  

 So things like disability issues might come up, sexuality, gender, and so on.

 So I think that is also a -- something to take into consideration.

 And finally, the report card.  We've been working on the gender report card for three years already and, really, thanks to the collaboration and support by the secretariat to also make sure that this is part of the formal reporting process, and it's been incredibly helpful to see in the past three years how the report card has helped us to have a sense of to what extent gender has been incorporated and included into the workshops, but somehow the report card findings are not included in the formal reporting for the statistics of IGF itself and maybe there needs to be a bit more of a stronger connection there, and to see how we can also improve the report card to not just look at numbers but also to look at the extent of the substance of the content and how numbers in participation -- whether that translates into inclusion of the issue.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for your observations.

 Before going to Turkey, I will ask an online participant to take the floor.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  I have -- I will be reading an intervention from Brazil, from Marilia Maciel of the Fundacion Gergulio Vargas.

 Marilia says, "Best practices forums were a valuable exercise that produced interesting documents.  They could further benefit from clearer questions proposed to the experts from the outset, based on real problems.

 The work of those involved in best practices should be more visible.  The reports should be open for comments before the IGF through a structured consultation process.

 NETmundial could offer insights on how to do it and intersessional work should be used for that.

 From what we saw in the reports, the best practices fora are still not the concrete outcomes that the working group on IGF improvements called for.  Outputs could be a guide to policy development elsewhere.

 More efforts need to be done in IGF Brazil to render the IGF more outcome-oriented and useful.  

 And lastly, the call for inputs on actions taken by stakeholders as a result of participation at the IGF should be made again this year with full publicity.  This material could make a strong case for continuation of the IGF.  Thank you."

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Now, next, government of Turkey, please.

 >>IHSAN DURDU:  Hi.  Much better.  Okay.  Well, I'd like to -- this is Ihsan Durdu.  I am speaking on my personal capacity this time, and I would like to thank to the chair, to you and UN DESA, and secretariat, and the MAG members, and the whole community for their contributions in the success of IGF 2014 Istanbul.  

 And I'll be honest with you, at the beginning I had some concerns because there were so many events taking place this year so I wasn't sure how the attendance will be, but luckily it turned out to be a good one, a high number of participation from not just developing countries but also from developed -- developed countries but also from developing countries.  

 And I hundred percent agree with the summary made by Chengetai, and also Virat made very good summary, on success factors on the success of IGF 2014.  That also could be a guidance for the future work that we are doing here and the host countries that will be hosting the next events.  And I know that the contribution -- the summary made by Virat, there were some other contributions from Marilyn and Cheryl and Subi and Liesyl and a few others.

 Yes, just a few more things.

 One thing was the -- especially for the attendants coming from the developing countries was it really helped with the ease of obtaining a visa free of charge and -- and we also introduced the eVisa.  To be able to get a visa on line was quite helpful.

 I strongly suggest that we can have the similar work for the future -- I mean, the host countries can also think -- can consider using similar visa issue processes.

 And one other thing was the ease of the flights.  The frequency and the number of the flights and the carriers serving to Istanbul was quite useful, but also the possibility of using low-cost carriers.

 Many people that I met in Istanbul, they came, they arranged their flights in advance and at very low prices, so that was also an important factor in obtaining a high attendance.

 Of course all the listing of being able to find accommodations for all possible levels and ease of transportation within the city was also a good contributor.  And let's not forget, Istanbul is a quite interesting city for many people.  They all would like to be part of any event taking place in Istanbul.  

 And again, I think the -- I'm sure our host country doing the -- the next 2015 IGF will be a very -- will do their best to make sure that it's a very successful event.  Hopefully even better than Istanbul.  

 As far as I know, I attended NETmundial and it was quite successful and personally I trust Brazilian colleagues that are organizing the event.

 Well, thanks again to departing members, MAG members who contributed to IGF 2014 and earlier ones, of course, and congratulations for the newcomers, and thank you and I -- nice to be a part of this beautiful team.  Thank you again.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Ihsan, for your comments.  

 Of course as we saw from -- at the closing session of the Istanbul meeting, the environment where we're planning to be in November 2015 will be slightly different from Istanbul, so instead of historic buildings, we will have the beautiful sea, but nevertheless, looking forward also to a change of environment.

 So next on the list of speakers is UNESCO, please.

 >>UNESCO:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Xianhong Hu from UNESCO.  First I would like to echo with other colleagues to congratulate the success of IGF Istanbul and we look forward as its success will be continued and advanced in the forthcoming IGF in Brazil.

 Secondly, that I think Mr. Chair has mentioned that UNESCO is conducting an Internet study in five areas, including free expression, privacy, access, and ethical dimensions, plus options for future as mandated by our member states.

 We have presented a study in the Istanbul IGF and have received so many significant inputs from the stakeholders there.  

 Again, this shows the special value added of IGF to IGOs such as UNESCO to engage with stakeholders and discuss those complex and very edge-cutting issues.  This really helps us inform our strategy and also with our member states to the post-2015 agenda.  

 And so this links to my next point that I'm also impressed by the very vibrant discussion on human rights-related issues in the IGF in Istanbul.  I'm also very aware that actually the U.N. is so much mobilized to promote free expression and also human rights and privacy on Internet following the HRC resolution on promoting human rights on line and also the UNGA recent endorsement of privacy in the digital age, and now we are having a parallel conference organized by the office on human rights -- commissioner's office on the human rights and eBusiness in the United Nations here.

 I really agree the proposal by former speakers to have a special major plenary, main session on human rights in the forthcoming IGF in Brazil.  This will also help the United Nations on this ongoing debate to shape the post-2015 development agenda by highlighting human rights aspects since the Internet is really advancing and also posing challenges to all human rights in a profound way.

 Lastly, let me come back to the UNESCO study.  It's well underway.  We are going to discuss first the draft of the study with a conference we are organizing in March, from 3 to 4 in March, 2015, and we also are very happy to host the next MAG meeting in the same week.

 So I hereby welcome all of you to UNESCO in the first week of March, and both for the UNESCO conference and also for the MAG meeting.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much, Xianhong, for your comments and also for invitation.

 Of course we need to see how that fits the -- our timetable for our preparations, so we will be discussing that tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

 Next speaker on my list is Fatima.  Please.

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Thanks, Mr. Chair.  This is Fatima Cambronero from Ageia Densi Argentina business society organization.

 I agree with the contributions received and shared by the secretariat.  I will also add some comments, trying to avoid repetition.

 Regarding the main sessions, I agree that three hours are too long.  I prefer a main focus session on two hours of duration without the workshops running in parallel.

 Regarding the panelists of some main focus sessions, we had a lot of panelists in the -- in some main sessions and in some cases this not allowed the interaction and the dialogue with the community and the remote participation.  

 I also think that we need to put more focus on sessions of regional IGFs.  I am also member of the program committee of the LAC IGF, the Latin American and Caribbean IGF, and in -- for this year, we are not -- we were not invited to the regional IGF session when we had seven years of experience of the regional IGF.

 I think we need more inclusive regional IGF sessions for next year.

 I agree with the comments on Constance on best practice forums.

 I think we also need more outreach on that best practice session.  This year, this worked very well, but I think we need more people involved in the best practice sessions.  

 I also think that we also have to reduce the number of workshops running in parallel.  In some cases, we have workshops running in -- focused on the same topics or similar topics at the same time, and it is complicated to assist of them.

 In relation to the organization of the main sessions, I consider as MAG members we have to have a special rule or something -- a rule, and we can -- that say we can involve as organizer in only one session to avoid the capture of the organization of the main sessions.

 I also think we have to elaborate a guideline to the moderator of the main session to help them to include the community and the remote participations in the conversations.

 I also think that we have to be careful in the inclusion of external events in the agenda of the official -- in the official agenda of the IGF to avoid confusion for the participants.

 I also consider that we -- we have to set the subthemes of the next IGF in this meeting and also we have to create some working groups related to this subthemes to start working on the organization of the main focus session and start to discuss about the subthemes at the beginning of the next year.

 I also think that we have to push the capacity-building activities in a similar sense in this year.

 We have -- this year, we had regional (indiscernible) Webinars in different languages and related to the organizers of the regional IGFs, and I also think that this year -- the next year we have to improve the (indiscernible) Webinars.  And I also agree on the comment of the intersessional work and I will stop now.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Fatima, for your comments and suggestions.

 Next is Olga.  Olga Cavalli.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair.

 Sorry.  Can you hear me?  Yes.

 This is Olga Cavalli from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina.  I'm a retiring MAG member after many years.  I have learned a lot from this group.  I want to thank all the colleagues who shared their knowledge with me and patient with me when I started.  And I also tried to help new members when they came in.

 I'm also very happy to see so many friends from the region in the new MAG composition.  So I'm happy to help them, if they need.  I plan to be around and I plan to contribute not as a MAG member but as a member of my government and we really like this process.  We want to congratulate Turkey for a very successful -- friends from Turkey for a very successful IGF.  We thought it was a very important meeting for the history of the IGF.  We are extremely happy to have a new IGF, the next one in Brazil, our brother country from the region, and also the next one in Mexico.  For Latin Americans, especially for some of us who have been working in trying to engage the community in the region, this is a major, major thing, a major achievement.  And I really want to thank Brazil for hosting two times the IGF.

 I remember the first IGF in 2007 being a very nice one.  But at that time, we were a smaller group.  The meeting was not so well-known, not so well-attended.  And at that time, we saw that the participation of the Latin American countries was not so strong.  So since then some of -- of all the regions, some of us in the region, we have been working towards that.  

 So I would like to stress this value for our Latin American and Caribbean region and try to work with our colleagues from the region and at the global level to work intersessionally, to engage our community as much as possible.

 We are not -- we are a region that is not so well represented in all this international meetings.  Sometimes they are very far away from us.  We are very -- especially Argentina and other countries in the south, it is very expensive to travel.  This is a great opportunity.

 I would encourage all of us to promote intersessional work at the regional level.  At the regional IGF, we will host the next School of Internet Governance in the region in Costa Rica.  Very happy to do that with my friends from Costa Rica in April.  And we grant fellowship to all the participants.  So please tell us if you want to participate.  Participation is open.  We are receiving expressions of interest.  

 We have the national initiatives in different countries of Latin America.  We have ISOC, our chapters, and many activities and many other things happening.

 So I encourage our friends in the region to engage our Latin American and Caribbean community and make them stay, not only come for one or two IGFs but stay involved.

 As a general comment, I won't repeat.  We as Argentina welcome you for months and happy to discuss with other colleagues during these days.  We think it is very important to have the human rights or a session or an open table but it really has a space and it doesn't collide with other activities that could diminish the participation.

 We will keep being involved with capacity-building activities.

 I also would like to support the comments from our friends from APC about gender reporting and gender information.  And we believe that IGF could address a problem that we see as important, is a total lack of very few gender balance in leadership in ISTAR and Internet governance organizations.  So I would be happy to join maybe our friends from APC -- I'm trying to find them, where are they -- in preparing perhaps a workshop about reviewing why that is happening.  We have a lot of women well-prepared, professionals that could be perfectly part of those boards and leadership positions in these ISTAR and other organizations in Internet governance.  Thank you.  I will stop here.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Thank you, Olga, for your comments.  I would like to say that we have a long list of requests for the floor, at least ten.  And we have about 50 minutes remaining.  I would like to now start imposing a little bit of limitations in the speaking time.

 So next is Mexico, Maria Caballero.  Please.

 >> VICTORIA ROMERO:  Thank you, Chair.  Good morning, colleagues.  I will be brief as my colleague.  My name is Victoria Romero, sorry, from the Mexican government.  This is my second year with the MAG.  Being very brief, Chair, I will just touch on some of the comments my colleague Olga Cavalli already said.  It is very important not only for my country but for the region that the next couple of years will be extremely important.  

 One of the points I wanted to touch upon was the participation of developing countries.  As Olga said, we have to really strengthen participation.  And here in Geneva, we see that the knowledge of IGF is extremely limited, and I can say, among permanent missions or representatives of the government.  

 This comes because one of the challenges that we have for the next year would be to include them in MAG preparation of the next events.  And we have to take advantage that some of these governments are represented here.  And it's in a way very (indiscernible) that while governments are deciding the future of IGF, their knowledge is kind of limited.  And we can take advantage of having some of them here in order to have a successful conclusion at the General Assembly, the adoption of the extension of the mandate of the IGF.

 The second component was related to what Olga already explained about the integration of the regional and national perspective into the process.  And the third point, Chair, that I wanted to talk this morning was following up on outreach.  And this comes along with what I was saying at the beginning of trying to be as much as practical as much as possible and trying to share with developing countries what the IGF is and what has been happening.  And there are lots of things going on and lots of good work that has been done.  And only -- it remains only in the community of IGF.  And I think our challenge has to be to make it as wide known as possible.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for your comments.

 I'm now giving the floor to Jim, Jim Prendergast.

 >> JIM PRENDERGAST:  Thank you, Chair.  This is Jim Prendergast with the Galway Strategy Group, not a member of the MAG nor not a member of the incoming MAG or the retiring MAG.

 I just wanted to add some comments to some of the things we've heard already and reinforce and bring up some new issues.  First off on the new formats that Izumi had mentioned earlier, as somebody who worked on some of the more creative and innovative and interactive sessions in the past, I think I could not agree more.  I think one of the challenges we have with these new formats is some of the criteria that we use to evaluate the proposals.

 So, for example, on diversity, when you don't have a panel, it is tough to have diversity on your panel.  So I think we need to look at the evaluation criteria and take into account some of these new formats that we're trying to encourage.

 On the best practices, I think that's a great innovation.  A ton of things to Constance and ISOC for really getting that off the ground.  Like any Version 1.0, I think there's an opportunity to improve, and I would suggest a couple of points.  More lead time to advertise and get the word out about the best practice sessions.  

 I know last year we were challenged with the calendar.  We started late, and we had a very early IGF.  I think the calendar for this year sets up well for that and will only help us get the word out to more participants and get their input as well.

 The outcome documents, you know, I think -- I'd like to see a little more visibility into how the feedback from the community was synthesized and considered and either accepted or rejected into the final documents.  I think that would provide some valuable feedback to folks if those documents are developed.

 And then, finally, you know, picking up on a comment over to the right about the day zero events, I think a little more clarity about the day zero events and the role they play in the IGF or the role that they don't play.  

 I remember hearing in one of the sessions on Monday in Istanbul that in an effort to try and encourage more participation from the group there was a comment to the effect of, "What we're seeing here is going to be forwarded to the Chair for inclusion into the final report."  And I don't think that was the situation.  I don't think that's what we had intended for the day zero event, so just a little more clarity around that I think would help delineate those from the official IGF schedule as opposed to providing an opportunity for folks to have events on the edge.

 But overall, excellent event in Turkey.  Great logistics.  I heard some of the issues that folks had raised about logistics.  I personally never experienced any of that, so either I was lucky or it was a good session overall.  So thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Jim, for your feedback.  Just to say that I will give floor first to those who have not spoken yet, and then we'll come back to those who are asking second time for the floor.

 ICANN is next on my list.

 >> NIGEL HICKSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And is it afternoon?  Good afternoon to you and fellow participants.  This is my -- Nigel Hickson, by the way.  This is my first open consultation.  I'm not a MAG member.  I haven't been a MAG member.  And I haven't been to this open consultation before, so it's a pleasure to be at it.

 So a couple of reflections I suppose on Istanbul and then looking forward.  And I realize there is always a balance on how much we look to the past and how much we look to the future.  Certainly Istanbul was very enjoyable.  I think it was very constructive.  I think it was very productive.  It was well-organized.  It was in the right place at the right time.  It allowed participation as has been said by Turkey and others from a wide variety of stakeholders, from a wide variety of countries.

 And in that, I think that's exceptionally important because the Internet Governance Forum, if it is anything, it has to be diverse.  It has to attract participants.  It has to be dynamic.  It has to be relevant.  And I think Istanbul passed those tests.

 Yes, one can always look at individual things that one would have preferred to have done better.  I mean, I think some of the practical comments have been made already.  Perhaps some of the panels were too large.  People spoke for too long.  But then that's always a difficulty.

 I always have some confusion about day zero.  Inherently, I don't like day zero.  I think it's a -- one of those phrases which is rather -- I can't think of the right English word.  My English is not very good.

 [ Laughter ]

 But I think day zero has the sort of connotation of superficial.  It is vacuous.  Is that okay?  I think I'm getting the message across.  I think it is great to have side events.  Great, let's have side events.  Let's have fringe events.  Birds of a feather, that's another great expression, isn't it?  Let's do that, but let's not have events that are restricted to certain people.

 If we're going to have -- if we're going to have events on the fringe, then invite people to come to the fringe and whatever.  But I think we need to refocus day zero.

 I think the point that Avri made about participants is really important.  And I think this gets back to the panelists, and let's be a bit more innovative on how we involve people in terms of a process and some of us were privileged to be at the Geneva internet Platform conference a couple of weeks ago here and saw innovative ways of including everyone, including remote participation.  

 And there again, I think there are some lessons to be learned perhaps from NETmundial in terms of having hubs which seemed to work so incredibly well and was so evocative.

 So looking to the future, I think there are a number of substantial issues that no doubt will be -- have to be tackled in Brazil and as you said yourself, Mr. Chairman, the WSIS +10 review and how that's going to be formatted and formulated is exceptionally important.

 And that really brings us to this notion of:  Is the IGF an IGF meeting with regional and national meetings, or is it a dynamic process?

 And I think it has to be the latter.  I think as we go forward in this incredible and ever-increasing Internet sort of with a political -- Internet governance with a political and a social dimension, then the Internet Governance Forum comes into its own as a dynamic process.  

 And I think you put your hand on it when you said that in terms of the WSIS +10 preparation, it is no good just coming to the meeting in November and being presented with a paper that's been negotiated by governments and then the stakeholders saying, "We don't like this paper" because legitimately it will be too late.

 Multistakeholderism implies that we have to be involved in the early stages of this preparation and, therefore, your comments about intersessional dialogue, whatever, I think is absolutely right.  And to finish I think that whole notion of dynamic IGF brings into context the resources that are available to the IGF.  The IGF is a unique experience.  It is a unique way of getting people that aren't involved in Internet governance issues involved, and we owe that to the wider community.  And we owe that to the community that aren't involved in these issues at the moment.  

 And, therefore, the resources in the MAG, the resources that the U.N. give to this process -- and I know there's many calls on U.N. time and resources -- but I think that's incredibly important as we move forward.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Nigel, for your comments.  We can call it instead of day zero, we can call it pre-event day, if you wish.  One thing, I mean, it does not matter how we call it.  We need to understand what purpose that serves.  That I note as well.

 Next on my list is delegation of Egypt.

 >>CHRISTINA ARIDA: Thank you, Chair.  My name is Christina Arida.  I'm speaking on behalf of the government of Egypt.  I have the honor of working with the MAG representing Egypt as a former host of the IGF.  

 First, I would like to express on behalf of Egypt our appreciation and congratulations to the government of Turkey for the successful hosting and organization of IGF 2014 meeting in Istanbul.  

 I would also like to thank the secretariat for the excellent and comprehensive synthesis of comments and contributions.  Valuable comments have been expressed by many colleagues.  I will not try to be repetitive but would just like to briefly emphasize a few specific points.

 That is one, the importance of providing stronger and more inclusive linkages to national and regional initiatives, not only within the IGF meeting itself but also during the preparatory process.  For that I believe the meeting merit in providing both space and support intersessionally for engaging and integrating national and regional IGFs, especially from developing regions, and to have -- then provide input early on in developing the program and to be inspired by discussions that are happening within their own regions.

 I would also like to join Marilyn in expressing how valuable it is to make available space for different side meetings and events.  For that I thank both the host of IGF 2014 and the secretariat for providing support to the Arab IGF MAG to meet over two days in Istanbul at the venue, although this was even prior to the pre-event day.

 I have to say this had a quite positive impact on the overall engagement and participation from the Arab region and the IGF meeting itself.

 I also see value in the IGF expressed by Constance earlier to focus on one theme per day, then having one main session on that theme at the end of the day to capture discussions.

 Finally, Egypt is looking forward to the Brazil meeting and thanks Brazil for hosting the IGF for the second time.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Before giving floor to Hossam, I will ask our remote participation -- remote participants to either speak or be read out.

 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  I will read from Anriette who is in South Africa and speaks as part of APC.

 Some day zero events are actually very substantial and provide the opportunity to talk about specific issues in detail, for example, the NETmundial event and the sexual rights pre-event.  The event we feel should be evaluated is the high-level event for governments.  Is it really succeeds in achieves its goal of government participation?  Can this be evaluated?  

 The MAG assesses the extent to which the current high-level pre-event with governments formats is effective in facilitating government participation in the IGF.  But the statistics seem to indicate it's not working that well.  So I propose an evaluation and for Brazil to take learning into account for next year.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Anriette, for your proposal.

 I see Benedicto is writing it down.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Hossam, please.  You have the floor.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Thank you, Chair.

 Well, my name is Hossam Elgamal, and I represent Africa ICT Alliance, and ICC/BASIS and I come from Egypt.

 This is my second year on the MAG and the first year for me was quite an eye-opener.

 I've learned a lot, and with the help of many existing and outgoing MAG participants, it was a great opportunity.

 I just have a few comments.  

 For the way the sessions are organized, I think more mind map organization style needs to be implemented.  Again, connecting best practice forum, intersessional work, workshops, leading to the main session, so that we -- we have something well-structured and no conflicts would take place.

 I think more -- sorry.

 Again, something important is, we need really to allocate more specific time to the floor for participation because with too many on the session itself, we don't have really time for the floor to express and we don't get enough input from the floor.

 I think we need to engage more, from now till the IGF time, in making more outreach -- and this is, I think, one of our objectives is making more outreach towards other and different stakeholders.  

 And I want to mention here again that we have many stakeholders that we need to engage, especially in sectors of great interest for developing countries.  Health, education, finance, agriculture, energy.

 We need more participants from this -- from government, from business, from academia, technical, and end users.

 We need to see the challenges for access for those sectors and need to see how Internet can make a difference for those sectors as well.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Hossam, for your reflections and comments, and now I'm turning to Liang Guo.

 >>GUO LIANG:  Okay.  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Guo Liang.  I'm a researcher for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.  I'm also an outgoing MAG membership, will be retired after this MAG meeting.

 I think MAG is not just a place to work but also a place to learn.

 I think I learned a lot, and more than I contribute to -- what I contribute to the MAG.

 I would like to thank all the MAG members.

 During the last IGF meeting in Istanbul, I participate in a workshop on developed countries participation and the panelists mainly talk about education, to teach developing countries how to participate, but I would like to share my comments.

 First, I intended to share my comments during the open microphone session but I thought there are too many MAG members taking the open microphone, so I would like to share it here.

 I think the more important keywords is not "education" and "language barrier," but "motivation."  Why developing countries want to come to IGF to -- what they can get, what they can learn, and what they can contribute to IGF.  That's more important than these difficulties.  

 I'm happy to -- I remember three years ago when I first attend MAG meeting, I raised questions to have more developing countries participate, and the last year I raise questions.  It sounds fair if we have the same standard to evaluate this workshop proposals, but actually it's not fair to developing countries, and I'm happy this year we have special consideration to these developing countries.  

 I just heard from Izumi that at the World Internet Conference in China recently at least it showed the Chinese government's willingness to participate in world IG, but I've been a MAG member for three years.  Up till now, I have never heard a formal speech from Chinese government.  I wish -- in the near future, I wish I could hear.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Now I'm turning to Cisco.  

 Chip Sharp?

 >>CHIP SHARP: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Chip Sharp from Cisco Systems.  I am observing.  I'm not a MAG member or previous MAG member, and my comments here are mainly -- are my own, don't represent Cisco's position on anything, but observations from the last IGF, which was the second IGF that I attended.

 I think it was -- I had a much, I guess, better time, a much more organized time, I think due to some of the logistical improvements.

 First, I want to -- I do want to congratulate and thank Turkey for being such a great host of the event.  It's a little bit daunting having a meeting in Istanbul, considering the great history the city has.  It's a crossroads of civilization, you know.  

 And I also look forward to the meeting next year in Brazil as well, and a good meeting I anticipate there as well.

 A couple of things to go -- to mention.  I think a lot of these issues have already been covered so I won't try to cover everything, but quickly, I was just concurring with the input from Mr. Prendergast concerning the best practice forums.  I think we had a very truncated schedule last year and I think this year we will have much more time to work on these things before the IGF meeting.  

 One thing is, I think in terms of how the best practice forum reports evolve, the reports that I looked at identify, you know, further work needed and, you know, the question is, you know, how do we keep the best practice reports up to date while adding and working on new issues, and that is a concern, and I look forward to, you know, working with ISOC and I appreciate the work that Constance did in bringing these things together.

 I think it was very good, considering the short time frame we had.

 The other intersessional work, one concern I have is, you know, if the intersessional work is to produce output, we need to -- the MAG needs to clearly identify what the goal is and what the output will be.  How will input be included in that work.  And what process will be used to decide what goes into the -- to the intersessional work and how it gets put into the output.  I look forward to working on that further as well.

 WSIS 10-year review, I think Mr. Hickson also mentioned this.  I am hoping there will be a consultation before November.  Of course, you know, I don't -- I'm not in charge of that process and other people will be deciding these things, but I think earlier consultation will be necessary in order to actually have any input to what comes into December.

 I don't oppose any kind of -- I do -- I do like the idea of having some discussion of that at the IGF, but I think actually starting at that point is a little bit too late.

 In logistics, just one quick thing.  I appreciate the online schedule.  It helped keep things organized.  But I would like an easier way to get the online schedule into my local calendar for those times when I'm not actually connected to the network.  It will be easier to get to the right session.

 Thank you very much for your help and thank you for your work.  Bye.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I hope you will stay with us.  You said "bye," but I hope you will still continue with us.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So now I'm going to invite Kossi Amessinou to take the floor.  

 Kossi, please.

 >>KOSSI AMESSINOU:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 I thank the ITU secretariat and the organizing country, the host of 2014, for the hospitality which we have received, and I urge the organizers of 2015 IGF to do the same or better.

 In fact, there are challenges which we have managed to accept, but there are others, as so much is at stake.  

 When we have high-level meetings and opening and closing sessions, we see that the regional representation is not always there.  It would be very interesting that each region of the world be properly represented so that the point of view of the regions be heard, as the stakes are not the same in various regions.

 So if we could do that at the opening and closing sessions.  Especially at the opening sessions.

 And then at the closing sessions we would probably wrap up and see to what extent these comments have been taken into account.

 Then there are parallel sessions.  This can be well-managed if there's topical workshops, but the panelist sessions are confusing for the new members of MAG.

 I was lucky to be there in 2014 with someone from the public administration, but I needed to understand many things.  It had to be explained to me.  At the end of IGF -- at the end of IGF, I had the feeling that something was missing.  

 So perhaps we are not using the most efficient way of speaking to people who are there for the first time.

 How do we convey the information to the high-level persons who arrive?  How this information is transmitted is very important.  And if there are good practices, we'd like to use them.  

 I am from Benin.  We would like in Benin very much to adopt these good practices, but of course we have to base on what has already been achieved.  So the past experience is very important for us.  The question of education, health, agriculture, all of that can be helped with the ICTs and the technology.

 I've also noted that we have specific sessions for regional discussions, yes, but frequently the same people would take the regional decisions and come time and again in order to state the same points.

 We have -- is it possible to have these interregional sessions, rather, so that the regions share their experiences, see whether experiences -- instead of having parallel sessions in an isolated room?  Then the regions could have a greater exchange.

 Now, I'd like also to urge the actors who are participants in the parallel sessions to participate more because there was a linguistic barrier, after all.  Each time when we were switching from one room to another, we had to check whether interpretation was provided for participants.

 If it is provided, then the people can benefit best.  Thank you for your attention, sir.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Kossi, for these comments, and now I turn to Ms. Ho, Bianca Caroline.  You have the floor.

 >>BIANCA CAROLINE HO: Hi.  Thank you, Chair.  This is Bianca from NetMission in Asia, which is a civil society in Asia, and I'm a new MAG member, so I really want to thank MAG for having youth members on here this year, and there are three other young terms including myself, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito as well as Aida Mahmutovic.  I'm sorry for the bad pronunciation.

 We are very thankful for having a main session with interpretation for the workshop 173, the youth involvement in Internet governance, and also young members to speak at the closing session.  I think those are very promising progress that we've seen with youth participation.

 As mentioned earlier in the synthesis paper, we already talked about better youth participation but it hasn't been elaborated so I just have a few ideas in mind.

 I think one of the good ways would be to build a resource platform for intersessional work as a dynamic process.

 For example, things like a youth-friendly toolkit which could be congruent with a capacity-building idea to better prepare and have a better quality of the discussion in IGF with youth.

 The other thing is also to engage more youth in panels, which they might be experts in the panel topics that you might mention.

 So there's an idea of having a youth resource person as a platform so people can share, you know, what youth are good at and you can also look for the right youth members to participate in your panels.

 The other thing that I think would be important is to have reporting.

 So I've heard a lot on gender reporting.  It would be also good to see there's reporting on youth participation.

 Number three, I think as MAG members, one of the main things that we can do is we can be a mentor of youth members or even new MAG members, as myself.  I would find that greatly useful.  And number four, I think for the Brazilian IGF, we would love to see more local youth engagement and we would be very happy to help with that process as well.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 Matthew is next.  

 Matthew Shears.

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thank you, Chair.  Matthew Shears with the Center for Democracy and Technology.  

 Much has been said so let me just pick up on a couple of things.  

 We very much support Anriette's comments on day zero.  We felt day zero was an incredibly substantive and valuable event.  And we also support the notion that we need to do as much as we can to improve the high-level event, and if that means an evaluation of sorts, then that would be incredibly useful.

 We also support intersessional work.  Our suggestion -- I think it's already been made, actually -- is that this intersessional work is a good way of drawing a thread through the national and regional IGFs as well, so perhaps we can find subjects for the intersessional work that can be discussed at different levels across the year for 2015.

 We need to give local activists a far better voice.

 I have to say that probably of all the -- the criticisms one might have of IGF Istanbul, it was our inability, for whatever reasons, to actually be able to give activists a voice in the IGF, and that does need to be addressed.

 We talk about strengthening outputs, and I'd like to talk just -- just make a -- put a pointer in for the Friends of the IGF Web site, because finding -- accessibility of reporting and the videos on the IGF Web site itself is not that easy, but fortunately there's this other Web site that you can go to and search through the videos, and that's an excellent resource.

 And finally, also on the issue of outputs, I'd like to highlight the reports from the best practices forums that I understand have only just been put up about a week or so ago.

 Those are -- and I'd just like to point to the one on spam and CERTs.  

 Those are incredibly useful and substantive outputs and are definitely the kind of materials that we want to be looking at contributing to and creating going forward.

 And then of course the question has to be asked:  How are we communicating those reports and those outputs to influencers and policymakers, and I think that comes to an issue that I'm assuming will be discussed over the next two days, which is, how do we communicate better about the substantive outputs of the IGF as a whole.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Matthew.

 Netherlands?

 >> ARNOLD VAN RHIJN:  Thank you, Chair.  I will keep it short.  A lot of this has been written down in the synthesis paper and has been said in the room about improvements of the IGF process.  We fully support the suggestion made.  I have to express my name.  I'm Arnold van Rhijn, Dutch government, Ministry of Economic Affairs.  

 As I said, we fully share and support the many suggestions made by the participants.  However, I would like to highlight one thing, the need to have intersessional work.  I think we should have an online platform where discussions can continue between IGFs.  Perhaps that could be an online spot on the Web site of the IGF where all stakeholders, regional and national IGFs, can meet and continue the discussion on all kinds of Internet-related issues.

 Furthermore, day zero, I noted the remark from ICANN that we should refocus the program.  While I don't have the experience of having attendance at day zero because the Dutch IGF has our own program in the host country by meeting all kinds of stakeholders to discuss Internet-related topics.  And this has been very useful.  

 However, one could think of perhaps -- part of the program could be meeting between the organizers of national and regional IGFs together with the IGF secretariat to share best practices and to see where we could strengthen ourselves much better.  This could be perhaps a suggestion.

 Finally, Chair, last week, from Europe, there was a very clear and strong political signal because the European Council concluded very important conclusions on the Internet governance process.  And it was strong support of the multistakeholder model as well as the support of renewing the mandate of the IGF.

 And I think, Chair, it's now up to the IGF to show that, indeed, there is life for this unique platform after 2015.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Arnold, for your comments and encouragement.

 We are approaching 1:00, and it seems to me that we will not exhaust the list of speakers before the lunch.  And, therefore, there are -- there is one new participant -- remote participant, and then there is another one who already spoke in line.  And maybe I will take -- I will take now remote participants in order the first one who has not spoken yet.  And that is Ephraim Kenyanito.

 >>EPHRAIM KENYANITO:  Thank you for this opportunity.  I just wanted to emphasize what Bianca and Matthew talked about locally.  Sorry.  I'm Ephraim Kenyanito.  I'm one of the new MAG member.  Thank you for this opportunity.

 Just to keep it short, I just wanted to emphasize local engagement and involving people in the host country because, for example, during the workshop (indiscernible) in the youth coalition Internet governance sessions, we had a brief discussion with some of the young people who were serving.  And they were very helpful in the venue in Istanbul.  And some of them were not aware about the meeting until that week before.

 It will be good to have a way of the host country, especially Brazil, to reach out to (indiscernible) universities and just local involvement so that they can be more aware about why these discussions are important to them and why they should participate.  

 And then just to emphasize on Bianca's point, during the workshop (indiscernible) in Istanbul and the youth coalition, we had a suggestion of having best practices forum on youth involvement because that's a challenge.  We had one on child protection which was -- it went really well.  But we would suggest that we take into consideration having a best practice forum on youth involvement.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Ephraim, for your comments and suggestions.  And now I'm turning to the next one.  I think it's Subi.  Subi, please -- since you are talking second time, please try to be as brief as you can.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  I will keep it as brief.  So I just wanted to highlight something from NETmundial and the lessons that we learned from the ability to enhance multistakeholder participation and process for an integral part of it.  

 We have been having a lot of conversation about enhancing new voices and their presence physically at the IGF.  And I hope and pray that cgi.br through its incredible means and ways may continue to do the same at this IGF.  IGF SA is also a new initiative, but we need as many resources to pull in to facilitate new voices.  And that's one barrier that we can easily overcome because it is going to be expensive to get there.

 One quick point from the high-level panel, I hope that we can also enhance both stakeholder and gender balance this time and explore that the high-level panel can be in the middle of the program because key government decision makers tend to leave by day two.  And we would like them to be here and listen in.  So this is one strong request, if we can explore in terms of suggestions for programming.

 And the third and last point is about regional and national IGFs.  A bit like the Nobel Prizes, when you recognize an issue, you give them a platform to go global.  The main sessions at the IGF are a little like that.  So if we can look at creating more value and also putting the spotlight on regional and national initiatives.  

 To end my comments, I strongly support Bianca and Ephraim, the resources for youth and enhancing youth participation is an absolute must.  And I would be delighted to join my young colleagues in this initiative.  Thank you, Janis.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.

 Next is Jivan.

 >> JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  Yes, hello.  I am sorry.  I unfortunately wasn't able to attend the IGF in Istanbul because last minute I was called in to go to the NITA (phonetic) summit, and it was at the same time.  But I was following it from the side.  And not only what the discussions were developing but with an eye on how it was communicating to the world that is not following it directly.  And I think that we still have some improvements to do on this front.  

 I think we can communicate our messages much better and what is going on here much better.  So I think that this is another thing that -- I think we should put at priority between now and next year to really develop a communication strategy, strategic engagement.  The British government has been great at developing this and others as well.  

 I think between now and Brazil, we have to think what are the messages that we -- what are the things we want to emphasize, not messages but what are the processes we want to emphasize and not necessarily only from the IGF but also from other processes, whether it is ICANN or other technical bodies that are going on.  

 One of the things that we do is to put a spotlight on important Internet issues, and that is something that we should do more actively, I think.

 Turkey is a great host.  I keep on hearing that.  I know that from being from the region, I have no doubt about.  Thank you for reminding us, Chair, we will be by the sea.  That is frustrating enough to be able to work with the coastline close by.  But perhaps this is where day zero comes in as a good thing so we can climatize and find out how to work in such an environment.

 So just that.  I do think we should put it as a priority to really think of a communication strategy and how to communicate the importance of the Internet governance process between now and Brazil and while we're at the IGF in Brazil next year.  Cheers.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Jivan, for your very optimistic comments and also proposal to think about strategic communications or communication strategy, rather.

 So now I would like to invite Towela.  Towela, take the floor.

 >>TOWELA JERE:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Towela Nyirenda Jere.  I'm from the NEPAD agency, a technical arm of the African Union.  And I am a MAG member for the second year.

 Just a few comments which I will be very brief with mostly reinforcing what has already been said.  

 The first thing is really on the high-level meeting on day zero and just getting a lot more clarity on the purpose and also the participation in that meeting.  I think that the missed opportunities in terms of engaging African governments in that process, because of perhaps the way in which the communication is actually done.  And I think it will be useful to actually explore mechanisms that would actually engage more African governments to participate in that session.

 Also, I want to register a concern about the speakers in the opening and closing sessions.  I think it has been expressed in terms of the lack of regional balancing, but I think there is also a very noticeable gender skew in those sessions.

 I would also like to echo the (indiscernible) to consider how to work with and through the national and regional initiatives as far as strengthening remote participation.  One of the challenges that I personally encountered with trying to set up remote hubs is that I think when you look at the messaging that comes from the secretariat, there is a tacit assumption that those are organizing the hubs would already understand the space.  And I think we need to think about how do we actually reach out to people who may not be actually actively participating in the IG space who may not even have an understanding of what a remote hub actually is beyond the description that is actually put up on the Web site and how one actually goes about organizing a remote hub.

 I would also want to echo the comments that the remote participation, the remote hubs.  I think this is something that needs to start much earlier and should be part of an ongoing process of engagement and not just focused on the event itself.

 As far as the visa issues, I do take note of the government of Turkey's efforts as far as eVisas.  I would also want to mention that this -- there were problems with visa applications, especially for some African participants.  We do not get eVisas, and we had to pay for the visas.  So I think this is something that people have to look at.  It is not very always easy for African stakeholders when they want to participate because of visa issues.  And this needs to also be taken into consideration.

 In terms of the output that comes out of the IGF, I think the Chair's summary and the best practice forums are a good initiative.  And I think that there needs to be now a way of determining how those actually are communicated to the different stakeholder groupings.  And, again, I think there is maybe a need to think through how to actually use the regional and national initiatives as channels for disseminating and communicating some of these messages.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Towela, for your comments.  I will now before giving the floor to the last speaker this session, I will ask Virat briefly to say what you wanted to say already hour and a half ago.

 >> VIRAT BHATIA:  I want to respond to some of the points that have been made by a number of people on the main sessions.  I want to just very briefly make that specific point.  

 Firstly, we take on board, I think, we should start calling everybody participants or delegates.  We should all agree and move to that language lingo as it were.  Secondly, I think the point about intersessional work carrying across IGFs and does not end at IGF, I think we sort of support that.

 Let me come to the main session because a lot of comments have been made.  And that, by the way, formulates the -- 25 new MAG members, but that formulates a large part of what the MAG does apart from the scheduling.

 Here is the deal.  We have about -- in terms of numbers, we have six stakeholders and five regions.  So that's 30.  On top of that, we have the need to balance gender and new voices.

 Even if you were to cut that by half and ignore half of those as representations in the main sessions, you are down to 15 or 16.  If they spoke for only six minutes each, two, three-minute interventions, one their opening intervention, one perhaps a response, you are up to 96 to 100 minutes.  So a two-hour session will leave you 20 minutes, including the moderator and the chair's comments which I've not added in this.  So we cut it to half.  We limit them to six minutes.  Two brief sessions.  And we still have a challenge.

 So as we discuss the main sessions and somebody who arranged a main session with 16 of my MAG colleagues, I can tell you that there are some serious time challenges which we must take into consideration as we get into the main discussion.  But that's what it is.

 You can't get people into the main session and have them make a three-minute intervention and leave after two hours.  So we'll have to think about all of those points in view of the time limit and meaningful main session.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And the last speaker for this session will be Susie Hargreaves.

 >> SUSIE HARGREAVES:  Thank you.  I'm Susie Hargreaves.  I'm from the Internet Watch Foundation in the U.K.  I work in the child online protection field.  I just wanted to raise a couple of issues in relation to that.  First of all, there was quite a lot of concerned feedback about the best practice guide on child online protection as we felt it was a very rushed process.  And, in fact, what it did do was duplicate but not very well the child online protection guidance practice pulled together by ITU which we've all worked on for many years.

 So our message on that would be that we think any best practice guides need to add to and complement and add value to what's existing but not try and replace.

 The second concern that I have is that if we move to theme days that child online protection could potentially get lost as it is currently seen as a marginal activity.  And it needs to be focused at the heart of everything.

 A third point on this is that there is a lot of talk about young people being more involved, and I would wholeheartedly endorse that 100%.  But I think we need to also recognize that the issue of child online protection relies on a multistakeholder approach and including young people won't be the answer in itself.  That actually we need to ensure that all the relevant stakeholders are there and in a particular industry that I don't think are well-represented at the IGF.

 And then, finally, on another point completely, nothing to do with child protection, I just wanted to raise the fact that I agree with previous speakers that IGF is quite an intimidating process for people who are new.  I have been to three IGFs.  But certainly it's quite hard to kind of know, you know, where to go, what to do, who's what, where, and how and actually some kind of user-friendly introductory guide would be really helpful.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Susie, for your suggestions.  So that brings to the end of this morning's session.  We had very interesting and fruitful exchange and gathered a lot of information that I will try to sum up during the afternoon session after listening to interventions from other participants.

 I have three more on my list, Markus, Lea, and ICC-BASIS.  I see more.  They're remote.  And then there is also Baher.  So we are breaking now, and we will resume at 3:00 sharp.  And I mean 3:00 Swiss time, not 3:00 international organization time.

 [ Laughter ]

 You saw that I did not specify because this is very generalized.  Please, 3:00, be back in this room and we will resume our work.  So thank you.  Bon appetit.

 For those who are not familiar with this building, please, when you go out and you continue in the direction how you came in, you got your badges, there is a canteen, cafeteria.  Otherwise, you can go out.  There are a number of restaurants in this area.  Thank you.  See you at 3:00.  

 (Lunch break.)

 

 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  As I mentioned, we are working according to Swiss time and my Swiss watch says it is time to start.

 We had a very lengthy conversation in the morning.  We have not exhausted yet the list of speakers, and I am calling on Markus, Markus Kummer, to take the floor.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Chairman.  

 I would like to say a few words about the best practice forums.  I was planning to come in tomorrow when we discuss about intersessional activities but many speakers have already touched on that and as you asked me to conclude the work on this at the secretariat, I would like to report briefly on the outcome documents.

 Many people already have pointed out that these are both very useful work but also that there is room for improvement and they have already pointed out that maybe the biggest challenge was the limited time at our disposal to conduct this work.

 Nevertheless, I think I'm happy to report that last week the secretariat posted the final documents and they are substantive documents.

 If you have not yet done so, I would strongly encourage you all to take a look on the Web site and look at the reports.

 You don't have to read every page of them.  Together, I think it's quite a substantive compilation of work.  But at least read the executive summaries.  They give you an overview of the main findings and they also point to future work.  They make suggestions for work that could be carried on.

 Now, obviously there was limited time at the disposal of the experts dealing with this work, so they are not to be considered to be the final truth on any of these issues, but they point towards further elements that could be deepened.

 And maybe not all of the subjects chosen were equally well suited for best practice forums.  They -- essentially, the original proposal put forward by the Internet Society for reviving best practice forums was to seek inspiration from the Internet Engineering Task Force to develop outcomes that could be adopted on a voluntary basis, and that also points to what many people have already alluded to, that this should be seen as ongoing work that is a process where the annual meeting is a halt in the process but it's not an end in itself but it is a place where we can take stock and discuss on how to move forward.

 In my opinion, maybe those with the most concrete practical outcomes were the best practice forums related to spam and those on CERTs where actually the experts concluded that CERTs maybe was not the best definition and they suggested another acronym and that is CCERT, and there are reasons for them to do so.  That can be read in the report.  I don't want to overextend my speaking slot, but once again, I think all the suggestions deserve close attention on whether or not to continue the work and it has also, of course, resource implications as the secretariat will need to be staffed in accordance with the workload given and also I think it will need considerable work investment by the members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group.

 Thank you for your attention.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you, Markus, for your report and suggestions.  

 And let me use this opportunity to thank Constance and then yourself for taking up and coordinating the work which seems has received a lot of positive feedback and seems to me will be continued also next year.

 Next on my list is Lea.  Lea Kaspar, please.

 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you, Chairman.  

 As I'm speaking for the first time, I'd like to introduce myself.  My name is Lea Kaspar.  I'm from Croatia, and I'm a new MAG member from the civil society community.

 I'd like to reinforce a couple of points that were made this morning and perhaps strengthen one thing that didn't come across as strongly as I would have hoped for.  

 In terms of looking back, I'd just like to echo the previous speakers in recognizing the important steps that were made this year towards implementing recommendations for IGF improvements.  Especially through the work done in the best -- with the best practice forums, and I'd like to join everyone who has thanked the work of Constance and the secretariat and other MAG members in pushing that work forward.

 This is closely related with the calls to set up and structure the intersessional work going forward, and I hope that we will have enough time tomorrow to discuss concrete proposals.  I think at the end of this meeting, we would like to have concrete steps on how that's going to progress, and I'll be happy to join that conversation.

 And just quickly, something on going forward and the lessons from this year.

 The point that I'd like to emphasize -- and this was touched upon in the synthesis report -- is about the need to coordinate between -- the need for coordination between the IGF and other forums and processes that are taking place.

 As we all know, I mean, the IGF does not operate in a vacuum and the relationships are two-directional, so it's not only about what the IGF projects and what comes out of the community discussions taking place here, but also what happens outside affects what happens with the IGF.

 So on that -- in terms of what happens outside and how it affects what we do here, one important thing is that discussions are happening right now in New York about IGF renewal, and several speakers have mentioned this.  And just a suggestion in that regard is for the MAG members and the MAG as a whole to be a much more prominent communicator in the value of the IGF, the role of the IGF in the overall system.  I think it was my colleague from Macedonia who made the point about needing to have a communications strategy and think we could do a better job in communicating not just the value of the IGF but also the progress that has been made, particularly the last couple of years.

 So that's one point.

 And the second point and building on that is how the IGF really could be used as a proactive -- just providing input into other processes and not just be reactive in terms of what's happening outside.

 Perhaps an example is the WSIS review taking place next year.

 I think it would be great if next year's IGF could look at a stable draft that is produced in November but I do think that it is important to have something happening before that.

 I don't know whether it's feasible, but one way of doing it is to make sure that the intersessional work topics take on something that is relevant for these processes so that we have something happening before next year's IGF that we can then use to input into those processes going forward.

 Yeah, I'll stop there for now.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you for your contribution.  You did not sound at all as a new MAG member.  You sounded already as a fully fledged and very experienced MAG member.  So thank you.

 ICC/BASIS is next and, for the moment, the last.  

 Please, ICC/BASIS.

 >>ICC/BASIS:  Hello, everyone.  My name is Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud, and I am the new lead for the ICC/BASIS secretariat.

 This is my first MAG as well.  I'm not a MAG member but I'm very pleased to be here and participating with everyone.

 I'd like to extend a personal thank you to the IGF secretariat and MAG chair for coordinating this meeting, as well as the warm welcome and inclusion of all of us non-MAG members.

 ICC/BASIS members wish to congratulate the host country of Turkey, the organizers, the IGF secretariat team, the UN DESA, on a successful event in 2014.

 We look forward to working with all of our stakeholders to prepare another successful IGF in 2015.

 In the spirit of solidarity from one international organization secretariat team to another, let me express our special thanks and recognition to Chengetai Masango and the IGF secretariat's team whose professionalism and tireless efforts for the IGF and its community of stakeholders deserves very -- much appreciation.

 So a lot of discussion has occurred already on the topic of intersessional work today.

 Business sees this as a very important and substantive new addition to the IGF 2015 program and beyond.

 In fact, ICC/BASIS has made a specific recommendation with regards to intersessional work in our written submission.  We will share an abridged version of that proposal for discussion and consideration when the scheduled discussion comes up tomorrow, but I'll just highlight about six elements from that proposal for your consideration.

 The first one is a linkage between intersessional work and the MAG chair's summary for IGF 2014.

 We also want to speak about a process for inclusive, wide-ranging, and bottom-up stakeholder -- multistakeholder views for inclusion in that intersessional work.

 And a process for managing the online engagement and face-to-face dialogue across stakeholders in the working groups, including the need to strengthen the secretariat as a neutral credible platform for facilitating these discussions.

 And a set of parameters in which the MAG needs to consider by which a theme for intersessional work can be chosen through a consensus process.

 Linkages involving national and regional IGFs contributing to the intersessional work, and in turn, usage of the intersessional work in output for substantive capacity-building in country and in region, not just in 2014-2015 but beyond.

 And finally, we have recommended a topic for consideration along with any others that might come in during the discussions.  

 We will table a proposal tomorrow, but note that this proposal has been covered in the ICC/BASIS taking stock and looking forward submission that has already been posted on the IGF Web site.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  My apologies to Baher.  Simply Chengetai hid the list from me.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  He just wanted to get over this agenda item.

 Baher, please.

 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Janis.  

 Good afternoon, everyone.  My name is Baher Esmat.  I'm with ICANN.  This is going to be a quick intervention.  Much has already been said.

 Just wanted to echo a couple of important points that have already been mentioned.

 One was in relation to the improvement of the IGF outcomes and making them more visible.

 Much has been said about the best practice forums experience, which in my view, at least, is a very good experience and led to a number of outcome documents that are very tangible and I think what we need to do is to make them very visible, too.

 And though the documents have been posted on the IGF Web site, I don't know whether they have been sent to other organizations.  You know, whether U.N. or non-U.N. organizations or other Internet governance-related bodies.  

 This was also one of the recommendations of the CSTD working group is to improve the linkages between IGF and other IG-related bodies, so this is an example that we need to -- or this is an experience that we need to, you know, leverage and to make it successful and to build -- to build on it.

 Of course the other -- the other document that came out of the IGF meeting was also the chair report, which was also very informative, and it also needs to be shared with, you know, the broader -- the broader IG community.

 The other point is in relation to intersessional work.

 I, too, think this is an important development for the IGF.  I am sure that we're going to have more time to discuss about topics and issues to take on for the intersessional work, but something which is very important -- and it was mentioned by the previous speaker -- is about resources.  You know, taking on intersessional work without having the adequate resources on the secretariat side is not practical, so we need to make sure that we have the resources, whether human resources, whether technology resources as well.

 Talking about intersessional work that would, in my view, involve MAG as well as other non-MAG members requires online tools that enable the broader, you know, community to participate and to engage, so we also need to make sure that we have such tools in place.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Baher, for your comments and advice.

 And now I'm turning to remote participant.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, everybody.  

 This is Izumi Okutani, a MAG member serving for the second year, and it's really great to see a couple of -- several specific feedbacks on improvements for the coming IGF.  

 Actually, Baher has covered a lot of the things that I wanted to say and I'd like to touch about intersessional work and transparency briefly.

 So I think I do echo with the need for more strengthening -- strengthening intersessional work, and one possible approach is to address and building on what is already being done, and I'd like to raise best practices forums as an example of work which was carried out in 2014 and which we received positive feedback.

 And (indiscernible) doesn't mean that the only intersessional work would be restricted to best practices.  I think there are things that we can learn from experiences.  It did demonstrate that we were able to work on line and through some teleconferences, mailing lists before and after the session, and I think there are things that we'd like to consider in addition which I think Baher has covered.  

 Outreach is one of the topics which I would like to emphasize as well.

 And in addition to outreaching to a wide range of stakeholders, I think it's also important that we make sure we reach out to the stakeholders of a particular topic.

 For example, if we take like intersessional work for IXPs, I think we really want to make sure that we reach out to IXPs and its customer, at the minimum, and we want to be a little bit more structured about outreaching when we consider intersessional work, so that we are reaching out to the people who are affected and -- rather than leaving outreach on a volunteer basis.

 So that's something that I'd like to talk -- mention about intersessional work.  

 And I'd also lastly like to mention briefly about transparency.

 I think transparency on the content of the program for the IGF is very important and I did feel that this year we did quite a good job on workshops, especially with Susan and Fiona's initiative in documenting workshop selection criteria.  

 But one thing I would like to raise as an additional room for improvement is transparency for sessions which are not planned by MAG members.

 For example, I heard some feedback individually that it is not clear how speakers for opening and closing sessions are chosen.  There may be some similar issues for other sessions which are not planned by MAG members.  

 So even if the speakers are not so openly called for or selected based on public submissions, it still helps to clarify how they are chosen, whether they're based on invitation or some other certain criteria.  Especially for clarifying what to do for government-related meetings.

 So that's all from me.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Izumi, for your comments.  Thank you for joining us.

 Answering your question, I think there is no mystery how the opening and closing sessions are constructed.  They are constructed upon proposals and initiative by secretariat.  In the opening sessions, we normally tend to let ministers who are present talk as well as representatives of all stakeholder groups to make their comments.  And basically the same thing in the closing session.

 I think Chengetai is very nervous looking at me and maybe discovering how the opening and closing sessions are constructed.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I can expand.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  But, in essence, that is how they are.  And we see if there are any specific issues that we need to address immediately without any delay and so on.

 So, yeah, Chengetai, please, continue.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  As Janis says, for governments, if a government minister comes, he gets to speak in opening session.  For the civil society, we ask the civil society groups to nominate two speakers.  Same for business.  So we ask the stakeholder group to nominate their own speakers.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for not contradicting me because that is on the record.

 [ Laughter ]

 And now everybody who will be asking how the sessions are constructed will have a chance to read that.

 So we have another remote participant, as I understand.

 >> MARILIA MACIEL:  Yes, again, from Marilia Maciel from Brazil.  She says:  The overarching theme of the IGF 2014 was not very clear and it was hard to connect it with the sessions.  The idea of 2015 will take place a little while before the WSIS review, and it should be informed by this context.  The WSIS process is a cornerstone of Internet governance and the base for the existence of the IGF.

 The discussions in IGF 2015 should be broadly oriented towards questioning:  A, an assessment of the development of the information society.  What does an inclusive people-centered development-oriented information society mean today?

 B, what changed in the scenario since 2005?

 And, C, what should be the main challenges post-2015?  Although the WSIS high-level event has set the vision for the post-WSIS work -- for the post-WSIS, work still needs to be done in framing that vision clearly.  Being our main multistakeholder platform, the IGF could contribute to this effort when discussing issues under its subthemes.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Marilia, for your contribution and proposals.  I think the overarching themes is full of symbolisms and, of course, it is rather abstract and most probably will remain like this because there is an attempt to combine many different issues in a very brief sentence.  And that is why -- that allows also a certain degree of interpretation.

 So I do not see any further requests for the floor, and I will not have remote participants on this subject.  So let me try maybe to sum up discussions.

 What I heard in these interventions was that the overall assessment of the IGF Istanbul meeting is very positive and we need to continue working, advancing in the same direction with the same approach we took in preparing the Istanbul meeting, to be guided by the recommendations of the working group on improvements of IGF, and to strive to implement the recommendations, particularly on a number of issues.  Those were seeking more tangible outputs from IGF and better communicating them.

 I think that this is one of the keys that we need to look at very seriously and see how well we can develop that part of our activities because if we look backwards and see the contributions or outputs of nine previous IGFs, we certainly see that there is a wealth of documentation, a wealth of knowledge.  And one cannot say that IGF hasn't produced anything.  I think IGF has produced a lot of documentation, a lot of ideas, a lot of materials, a lot of knowledge.  But that knowledge may not be properly communicated and used.  And find the best way how to do communication maybe is something we should look at.

 Best practice -- best practices seems to me, got really good traction and good reviews.  The only thing what was mentioned that there were not enough -- there was not enough time to develop materials.  And I fully agree.  And, therefore, intention is to discuss best practice themes tomorrow and day after and start the process of compilation of those best practices as soon as we will walk out of this room on Wednesday evening.

 Another element that I heard here in this discussion but I do not recall reading in synthesis document is trying to reach out those communities or those industries particularly that haven't been present in IGF so far.  And I think that this is something we need to think very strongly and find a way how to get more fresh participants, fresh blood in our enterprise.

 The most comments were received about intersessional work alongside with caution that we need not to overstretch and align our desires on intersessional work with our resources, both financial resources and human resources.

 And, again, I think that this will be one of the topics that we really need to drill down and maybe identify what would be those topics that we could take up and what would be those modalities of intersessional work without overloading already a very heavy list of meetings, IGF-related meetings -- or Internet governance-related meetings and see whether and in what way we could use national IGF and regional IGF conferences in order to address those topics that we could possibly identify.

 And as you recall in the synthesis paper, there are two proposals that we may want to look at.  One of them was about how -- the policy mix in finding -- in bringing the next billion online, and another one was the impact of Internet on jobs and skills.  So I'm not saying that these are the only ones but, remember, these were mentioned and submitted for consideration during the comment period.

 And most importantly is not to forget all these lessons that we have identified during our work.  I remember we started preparations for IGF Istanbul with good intentions, and we ended up a little bit compromising those good intentions because of the pressures from different sides and need to accommodate different sort of proposals.

 So let us be as strong as we can be in order to take those lessons into account when we will be designing a program next year.

 So I would like to thank all those who participated in the discussion and who made submissions in writing, analyzing the successes and challenges of IGF in Istanbul.  And, once again, thank you to Istanbul meeting hosts, the government and administration of Turkey for hosting us and letting us have a very successful meeting.

 Now, we're bringing -- going to the next agenda item, which is overview of existing Internet governance initiatives and their impact on IGF 2015.

 So here I would like to make a little point of caution.  This segment or this discussion that we will have after presentations is not to -- was not meant to be expressing our attitudes towards one or another information that we will hear but rather to think how these processes that we will be informed about may impact preparations of IGF Brazil and what issues we need really to take into consideration based on the information that we were receive now.

 And we will start with the first presentation about the outcomes of ITU plenipotentiary conference that have relevance to Internet governance.  And we will hear from Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, chief strategic planning and membership department of ITU.  

 Doreen, thank you for being with us.

 >>DOREEN BOGDAN-MARTIN:   Thank you very much, Janis, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  It is a pleasure to welcome all of you here to the ITU.

 As Mr. Rancy mentioned to you this morning, the ITU has recently concluded its 19th plenipotentiary conference which was held from the 20th of October to the 7th of November in Busan, Korea.

 The conference brought together some 2500 delegates from 171 countries.  We considered 452 proposals, and we ended up approving 21 new resolutions and we also amended 51 resolutions.

 The importance of our plenipotentiary conference is to set the strategic agenda for the union for the next four-year period.  So we approved our strategic plan, and we also approved our financial plan.  We elected the new ITU senior management, the 48 members of council, and the 12 members of our radio regulation board.

 As some of you may know, the conference in its first plenary meeting took an important decision, and that was a decision to open up all input documents to the conference as well as the output document to the conference.  And that decision was reached very quickly by consensus.  And it is important to underscore the word "consensus" because I think our plenipotentiary conference was so successful because from the first plenary session through, until the end of the conference, all member states demonstrated that good spirit of consensus.

 It was also an important decision because it was a sign of transparency and openness, and that's something that many of you in this room have been calling for as well as members of civil society.

 The conference also decided to open up the plenary meetings and the substantive meetings of the committees to non-password-protected Webcasts, so the Webcast for those sessions was open to all.  And we certainly had a lot of interest and a lot of followers in those sessions.

 I would also like to mention that the conference did not have a single point of order, and we did not have any vote during those three weeks.  We did have some difficult issues on the table.  We had some very long hours in particular on the Internet resolutions.  Our chair of that particular group spent some 51 hours with many of you in this room.  But the results were quite positive, and we're very happy with the outcome.

 The conference also introduced a number of new innovations.  We had our first ever gender empowerment and mainstreaming award.  And one of the awardees is sitting in the back of this room from APC.  I would like to recognize her.  She was awarded at our plenipotentiary conference with six other amazing individuals and organizations.

 We also introduced a young ICT policy leaders track.  That was an important innovation.  We brought some 50 young persons from around the world, and we had special sessions for those young ICT policy leaders.

 We also had a number of roundtables under the theme of "Connect 2020."  And we also had two briefings with civil society as well as an open Q&A with the Secretary-General-elect, Mr. Houlin Zhao.

 The last sort of innovation we introduced was we crowdsourced a resolution on youth.  It was tabled in the summer months, and we opened that up.  It is the first time we have ever opened up a resolution to get public input, and then that resolution was retabled by a number of member states.  And it was finally endorsed by the plenipotentiary.

 I see many familiar faces in this room and many colleagues that were with us at the plenipotentiary.  So I won't go through each and every outcome.  In terms of big picture, as I mentioned, we did endorse our strategic plan.  One thing I want to stress with the strategic plan, that's also a document that we put out for open consultation.  We didn't get a huge takeup, but I think it is a beginning of a new way of working here at the ITU.

 We did endorse our financial plan, and we also have a new resolution on Connect 2020 which sets out a number of goals and some clear targets.  And we know if you can't measure it, it usually doesn't get done.  So we are seeking to try to have targets so that we can measure and make sure that it does get done.

 Just quickly on the Connect 2020 goals, we have a goal on growth.  We have a goal on inclusiveness.  We have a goal on sustainability.  And we have a goal on innovation.  And those four goals will basically set the direction for the union over the next four years, but they are also goals that are not for the organization on its own but something that we encourage all stakeholders to take up and open that we can achieve by 2020.

 We also had some great discussion on the WSIS, on the WSIS+10 process, and our member states have asked us to carry on hosting the WSIS forum, which we intend to do.  For the moment, the dates are set at the end of May.  And of course those decisions in the area of WSIS will be subject, of course, to those decisions that the General Assembly will take at the end of -- at the end of 2015.

 The conference, I would say, reinforced the Union's role in the area of Internet and cybersecurity.  The council working group on Internet -- international Internet public policy issues is now empowered to conduct both physical and online consultations.  

 You may recall that in the past, it was just on line, and now we are very pleased that we can also do physical consultations together with the council working group on international Internet public policy issues.

 In terms of the council working group on child online protection, we are very pleased that the plenipotentiary agreed to open up the council working group to all relevant stakeholders.  We think that's important and it will certainly -- certainly bring the debate to a higher level.  

 As well, in terms of that group, the output documents that will come out of that council working group will also be open to the public and we will also be holding one-day online consultations for youth the day prior to the council working group on child online protection.

 The conference also stressed the need for affordable international Internet connectivity and they also stressed the importance of multilingualism.  And those of you that are familiar with the ITU resolutions, that's Resolution 133, and all member states are encouraged, paying particular attention to the issue of multilingualism.

 In terms of IXPs, of course member states were encouraged to establish IXPs, and ITU was encouraged to help member states in the area of capacity building, in particular towards least-developed countries.

 The urgency of facilitating the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was also reiterated and ITU was asked to continue to work closely with other organizations, in particular in relation to capacity-building efforts.  

 Throughout these discussions we saw a recognition and an appreciation of the multistakeholderism process.  Member states were particularly pleased with the multistakeholder preparatory process that was used to prepare the WSIS+10 high-level event earlier this year, and they were also pleased with the way that the informal experts group ran that prepared the WTPF in 2013.

 There were a number of other resolutions that were endorsed.  One resolution in regards to academia.  We had a new decision regarding our academic members.  Now if they join ITU, they don't have to join a sector, they can join the union as a whole, and so we're excited about implementing that resolution.

 We also had a new resolution on flight tracking, and they will have their first meeting this coming spring.

 We had a resolution on using ICTs to combat Ebola.  

 We had another new resolution on protecting users and consumers, a new resolution on youth, as I mentioned before, a new resolution on combating counterfeit devices, a new resolution on the Internet of things, and a new one on connectivity of broadband networks and many others.

 We do have available on line for free the final acts as they were presented to the plenipotentiary conference, and the final, final document, once it gets numbered, will also be placed on the Internet and will be available for free.

 And so as we look forward to next year, the ITU will be celebrating next year its 150th anniversary.  On May 17th, the ITU will turn 150 years.

 We will be celebrating next year all year.  Although the theme for May 17th is "Innovation and Innovating with ICTs," we also have a number of themes that we will be celebrating each month, and so we look forward to all of you joining us in those celebrations next year.

 But also, next year's really important for two major processes.  

 One I mentioned before, WSIS+10.  

 And the other one -- and Janis, I believe you referred to this this morning -- it's the end of the MDGs and the beginning of the SDGs, the sustainable development goals, and what we need to do is to make sure that those two major global development agendas come together.

 And so we're very much looking forward to working with all of you not just for WSIS+10 but also for the sustainable development process.

 Today, for those of you that are aware, what's on the table are some 17 sustainable development goals.  If you look at those 17 goals, there are four references -- only four -- to ICTs.  We need to work together to make sure that those references that talk about the important role that information and communication technologies have to play in the sustainable development agenda, we need to make sure that those references stay there, and even better yet, if we have more references, because we all know that ICTs are key enablers for the sustainable development process.

 So we do look forward to the year ahead with great optimism, and hope that we can count on all of you to make sure that the post-2015 WSIS process and the post-2015 development agenda process do come together.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Doreen, for this exhaustive presentation, and congratulations on -- I would qualify -- easy sale during the plenipotentiary conference on discussions on these highly sensitive topics, so good outcome.

 I -- of course I would wish to know how much the knowledge that government experts acquired during the IGF meetings contributed to the -- that very positive outcome of the ITU plenipotentiary conference but that, most probably, history will tell us.

 So now I would go to the next presentation and since we do not have Nora Abusitta among us but she's waiting from her office, maybe if you would -- if you don't mind, I would ask Nora now to step in and we would advance the presentation of ICANN/CGI/WEF initiative, and we will hear from Nora, and also we will hear from Flavio Wagner, representative of CGI, a presentation on this initiative.

 Nora, if you hear us and are ready to speak, the microphone is yours now.

 Okay.  While then we are looking for Nora, let us move then to the next presenter as -- 

 She's in?  Okay.  Nora, do you --

 >>NORA ABUSITTA:  Yes.  I apologize.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So please, the microphone is yours.

 >>NORA ABUSITTA:  Thank you.  Many thanks to all of you for inviting me to give you a very quick update on the NETmundial Initiative.

 As part of the secretariat, I'm very honored to be with you today.

 I will give you a very quick overview of the initiative itself and then I'll spend a couple of minutes on the latest developments.

 As you all know, as a follow-up to the NETmundial Sao Paulo meeting, CGI.br, ICANN, and the WEF worked together to enable a platform that energizes bottom-up collaborative solutions towards a distributed Internet governance ecosystem.

 This platform supports and enables the identification of collaborative solutions that address existing and emerging issues.

 The platform is designed to contribute to the improvements of existing Internet governance framework.  It will focus on solutions, not being in solution formulation, specifically for nontechnical Internet issues.  This is an online platform, as you all know.  

 It was launched on the 6th of November, and currently the process is very iterative.  The secretariat's work is being overseen by a transitional committee.  That will be dissolved as soon as the coordination council is established.

 The composition of the council is really very representative geographically and sector.

 I think it's very important to note here that in order to affect the outcomes of this platform, participation is extremely important.

 Most recently, there was a meeting of the transitional committee that really reflected taking in feedback from communities, whether from social media platforms or from over -- from analyzing some of the comments that were submitted on the NETmundial Web site and other areas, and some changes were made to reflect those suggestions.

 For example, the five suggested permanent seats for the council that were originally announced are now removed.  The council seats will be open to -- as I said, to all geographies and to all sectors.

 I'm happy to take any questions later, so let me know if you want me to stick around or if you want to ask the questions now.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Nora.  Now, let me first invite Flavio Wagner from CGI to take the floor, and then exceptionally, since you are participating remotely, we will take questions on this particular issue, if there will be any, before moving to the next items.

 Flavio, please, you have the floor.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  So thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 CGI.BR, the Brazilian steering committee, as one of the entities proposing this NETmundial Initiative platform, has been approached by many stakeholder groups in the last days or weeks asking for clarification about the platform.

 As Nora explained, this is still something going on, so there are no final decisions on nothing.  In fact, it's open to contributions from the whole community.  And because of this situation that things are still moving on and still being defined, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, in its last meeting last Friday decided to approve a clarification, a statement that will be made public maybe today, but that I will read for you already now.  It has been approved by all board members of CGI.BR.

 So the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.BR, in the meeting in November 28th, 2014, at its headquarters in Sao Paulo, while fully subscribing to the last public note on the NETmundial Initiative prepared by its working group on Internet governance as available on its Web site, decided to provide this additional clarification in view of the starting of preparations for the 10th edition of the Internet Governance Forum.

 First, the NETmundial Initiative aims to provide a platform for presentation and discussion of proposals and ideas that contribute to personalize the multistakeholder NETmundial declaration adopted at the end of the event with the same name in April 2014 available on its (indiscernible) Web site.

 Second, on one hand, adherence to the principles for Internet governance contained at the NETmundial declaration is a requirement for the submission of proposals and ideas in the context of the NETmundial Initiative.

 Third, on the other hand, proposals and ideas to be presented should consider the roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance, also part of the NETmundial declaration, which recognizes the need to advance the governance of the Internet in various fora and processes, existing or under discussion, for the treatment of topics related to the Internet, bearing in mind different roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders.

 Fourth, the NETmundial Initiative is not intended to replace the existing or to-be-established Internet governance fora and processes such as ICANN, IGF, any new fora on enhanced cooperation and on forwarding issues such as cybercrime and cybersecurity, among others.

 Fifth, working groups and spaces for discussion that may be created under the NETmundial Initiative will not have decision-making power over issues being discussed, nor will they constitute mechanisms for implementation of the proposed solutions which should, as appropriate, be referred and remitted to proper fora and processes.

 Sixth, in particular, the NETmundial Initiative does not intend to overlap with the IGF.  IGF's role to serve as a focal point for the global Internet community in terms of the tasks set by the Tunis Agenda must be preserved.  However, nothing prevents any concrete actions conceived within the NETmundial Initiative to be taken further in discussions at the IGF, to be forwarded to the IGF, or to dialogue with the IGF at any time.

 On the contrary, the NETmundial Initiative, by allowing the working multistakeholder format on issues, in line with the discussions in the IGF, may serve to strengthen the IGF providing continuity and practicality to the discussions in the IGF realm.  

 Seventh, any questions or proposed solutions involving the government sector, such as cybercrime, for example, must necessarily be brought to the attention of national governments and/or be channeled to existing or planned international processes.  This procedure is consistent with the provisions of the NETmundial declaration which recognizes that certain issues require international treatment, taking into account the role and responsibility of governments on specific topics related to their sovereignty, but at the same time reaffirms the need even in these cases that the discussions take place in a multistakeholder format.

 Eighth, when selecting the members who will compose the coordination council of the NETmundial Initiative, the transitional council will be guided by consensus within each community.

 Ninth, there will be no permanent seats in the coordination council for the initiators of the NETmundial Initiative, ICANN and CGI.BR, with the support of the World Economic Forum.  

 Once installed, the coordination council will establish modalities for the selection of future members by consensus.

 From its second term, every member should also go through a selection and validation process by the global multistakeholder community.  It will be the task of the coordination council to ensure funding sources for further development of the initiative.

 Tenth, the initiators of the proposals, and in particular CGI.BR,  have been sensitive to the concerns and criticisms raised by members of the Internet community.  Several modifications have been already introduced in relation to the proposal of the NETmundial Initiative originally drafted, and other changes are likely to be made to ensure that the initiative is structured so as to ensure the participation and involvement of all from the beginning.

 And eleventh and last point, many questions and concerns that have been expressed should be mitigated on the basis of proposals and concrete ideas and the confirmation, as appropriate, of working groups and specific discussion fora.

 This will then demonstrate that the NETmundial Initiative intends to operate simply as a bridge between participants who have concrete proposals and ideas and others who are willing to contribute with expertise, funding, or other forms of contribution to achieve these proposals and ideas.

 The initiators of the NETmundial Initiative will not have power to intervene in the development of such proposals and ideas and, once formed, the coordination council will serve as a facilitator, also without power to intervene on any initiatives.

 So thank you, Mr. Chair.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Flavio.

 Now we have heard two presentations from two proponents of the idea and I would like now to open microphones for questions.  Not for comments at the moment.  If you have any questions, either to Nora, who is following this discussion from her office, or to Flavio, it would be time to ask.

 And I -- while waiting if there are any questions, my question, Nora, would be, if I understood correctly, so that there are no permanent seats in the council and the question which was asked to IGF MAG is also now off the table.  

 Am I right?

 >>NORA ABUSITTA:  Thank you, Janis.

 The invitation for the MAG to join the coordination council, of course, still holds.  The participation of the IGF in the NETmundial Initiative is critical, and so I hope the fact that there is no more permanent seats is not an indication that the invitation is no longer on the table.  On the contrary.  So I do hope that the MAG is still considering participation in the coordination council.

 The fact that the word "permanent" was removed was really a reflection of community feedback.  The first year, we will have these seats, and as Flavio mentioned, thereonafter, all the members of the council will have to go through the same process to secure their membership.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for this clarification.  That's crystal clear.  The modalities or suggested modalities for the council most probably could be found on the Web site.  I have Netherlands with a question.

 >> NETHERLANDS:  Thank you, Chair.  Just a question for clarification.  As we all know, the llves panel started its work and finalized it in Dubai at the World Economic Forum was hosting this event.  And it was followed by the Commission Bildt.  The Commission Bildt as we all know was launched during at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.  My question is:  How does this initiative link -- is there any linkage between this initiative and the work of the Commission Bildt, which we all know will last for two years?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Arnold, for your question.  Any further questions?  There is Ginger, yourself, please.

 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  My question is for Flavio.  It's referencing that the NETmundial Initiative will be guided by stakeholder group recommendations for the Coordination Council.  I would like to ask who will make the final decisions then if you're going to be guided by the stakeholder recommendations?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  My question, I think, will probably go to both Nora and also Flavio.

 Taking note of comments that seem to continue to be made of "we seek not to compete but to support the IGF," I think it's a little unclear to me personally since all resources are finite such as human resources, financial resources, time resources, et cetera.

 I'd like to hear more about how this initiative is going to contribute particularly in support of financial contributions to the IGF.

 The IGF is -- is at a critical stage and having been a member of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF and also on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and participating actively in ICANN and in a number of other fora, I'm particularly aware of the need for significant financial resources for the IGF to be able to broaden and deepen the active, informed participation from all stakeholders from developing countries.

 So I hear that this is an initiative that is complementary.  I would like to hear more about the tangible financial contributions to strengthen the IGF.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  And I will take the question from remote participant before going to Nora and to Flavio.

 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Okay.  I will read it from Subi.  NETmundial was bottom-up.  It was about stakeholders coming together and voluntarily associating to discuss and evolve a future roadmap for global ID.

 While in the new NETmundial/WEF initiative, we need to adhere to the principles and propagate them too.

 >> VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Subi, I'm not hearing a question there.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Nora, please, could you elaborate on those questions that have been asked so far?

 >>NORA ABUSSITA:  Absolutely.  Thank you for the questions.

 On the first point which is the relationship of the Bildt Commission to the NETmundial Initiative, I think both -- the two serve different goals.  The NETmundial Initiative will take into account any work that's being done on Internet governance.  And so we are -- we have been and we will be in constant coordination with the Bildt Commission.

 Regarding Marilyn Cade's comments on the plans to support the IGF from a NETmundial Initiative standpoint, any details -- to take two steps back, the NETmundial Initiative is very committed to the IGF, so there's no question there.

 What resources, what support will go into the IGF is something for the Coordination Council to decide on.  As I have mentioned before, the council will be fully representative geographically and sector-wise.  And as soon as they meet, they will discuss many things having to do with details, one of which is how to support the IGF.

 The more participation there is in the council, the more there is a guarantee of these issues coming to the council's attention.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Nora.

 Flavio, would you like to respond?  Maybe we can wait until the discussion.

 Fatima has a question.

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Yes.  Thanks, Mr. Chair.  My question is for Nora.  Is ICANN staff or ICANN the corporation going to have a consultation with the ICANN community about the involvement in the NETmundial Initiative?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

 Any other questions?  There is one from Subi, a question?  No?  Something else?  Please.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Anriette from APC asked me to clarify.  As a member of the Bildt Commission, properly known as the Global Commission on Internet Governance, I can share that it is completely independent from the NETmundial Initiative or any other Internet governance form or platform.  It is currently completing research on the topic of intermittent fragmentation and Internet governance and will release a report in the course of 2015.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ana Neves, question?

 >> ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much.  I would like to thank to both of you that tried to explain what this NETmundial Initiative is.  Unfortunately, I didn't understand.  But it should be my fault.  

 So I'm trying to see how it fits in all the ecosystem and to make it something with some added value.

 Because I'm a bit afraid that today we have this council and tomorrow we'll have a very complex governance system in this NETmundial Initiative because we know that the World Economic Forum and ICANN that is no more -- so we don't speak about ICANN anymore.  But we all know that ICANN is really related to it which is not a bad thing, of course, but it is something that is part of this ecosystem.  

 And as Marilyn said, we have a lack of resources and they are finite.

 So my point is -- sorry if I'm being very naive -- if this point should not be discussed at the IGF 2015 as one of the main sessions, and to think how to put this into the ecosystem and not another thing but to integrate it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  In other words, Nora, the question is how NETmundial Initiative contributes, what value that adds to existing mechanisms.  There is another question, and then that will be over.

 Another question from remote participant.

 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  This is the question that Subi was formulating.  She asks that Flavio respond.  She says -- sorry -- how do we evolve stakeholder consensus if we need to adhere to the principles and first buy into the principles and evolve them?  She says it is a little like putting the cart before the horse.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Flavio, you now have time to reflect on that.  We're going back to Nora.

 Nora, if you would like to answer questions.

 >>NORA ABUSSITA:  Yes, thank you.  To Fatima's question about an ICANN public consultation, I would like to point out that ICANN is one of the enablers of the NETmundial Initiative.  Every entity that is involved has donated the time of a staff member to be part of the secretariat.

 We do intend to update our community in the upcoming Singapore meeting, but no public consultation is planned as of yet.

 The other important point to note to all of you here is that on Thursday, this coming Thursday, there will be an open call for the community.  It is a Q&A session with the three organizations that basically allow you to ask any questions and get more detailed information from the transitional committee.  The details of those will be on the NETmundial Web site.

 Now, how does the NETmundial Initiative fit into the ecosystem?  It is yet another initiative that complements existing efforts.  It is not here to replace any of them.  It is not here to take over any of them.  It is really another way of complementing the existing initiative.

 Now, we do understand the point about the resources being limited.  What the WEF initiative is doing is bringing new players into the mix.  And so the involvement of the World Economic Forum and the link between the NETmundial Initiative and the other initiatives such as the WEF initiative in Davos on Internet governance will really open up the discussion and bring in more contributors than we've classically seen.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Nora.

 If you can stay on, please do.  If you need to leave, thank you for your contribution to these -- to the discussion.  And we will continue with other presentations.  And we'll come back after other presentations.  So thank you, Nora, for that.

 Flavio, now the floor is yours.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  I will answer to Ginger, I think, about the choice of the seats for the Coordination Council.  For instance, with civil society, the Transitional Council which has one representative from each of the three entities proposing the initiative is working together with the coordination -- the civil society coordination group, CSCG, yeah, to come together with a list of names that are a consensus from CSCG.  So the Transitional Council will not try to impose any names.  The Web site where candidates for those seats self-nominate them or can be nominated by entities.  And from this list -- from this pool of names that have been nominated, CSCG will propose names that consider regional diversity.  And then this will be decided together with the Transitional Council.  So the Transitional Council will not decide by itself.

 And in answer to Subi, yes, NETmundial was bottom-up.  And as one of the outcomes of the event in Sao Paulo, there was a declaration that was approved by a rough consensus among the participants from all stakeholder groups.  And unless the community itself decides on the contrary and wants to reopen the discussion on the principles for Internet governance that have been proposed and accepted by rough consensus in Sao Paulo, we see no reason to reopen discussion at this moment.  

 Of course, there are many processes and fora for discussion of Internet governance.  The main one is IGF, of course.  If IGF, for instance, in its next meeting in Joao Pessoa, in Brazil, decides to take a -- IGF is not recommending things.  But one dynamic coalition or some group inside IGF proposes amendments or evolutions of the principles in Sao Paulo, of course, everybody will be happy to see this evolution.  

 For the moment, the principles we have are those.  And they have been decided with all segments of the community.  So we think it is a good starting point for accepting proposals in this initiative, that these are adherent to the principles that have be defined in Sao Paulo.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.

 I see that there are other requests for the floor, but the thing that we opened up for questions was simply because Nora is not here, not to keep her on the phone all the time.  So what I would like to suggest, maybe we proceed with other presentations and then full requests for the floor, Cheryl, Virat, ICC-BASIS, and (saying name) we will take immediately as the first four questions or comments in the subsequent discussion.  Will that be agreeable?  Thank you.

 Now then let us move to next presentation.  That is Commission on Science and Technology for Development, WSIS+10 review.  Presentation will be made by Ms. Mervi Kultamaa, WSIS coordinator from Division on Technology and Logistics of UNCTAD.  

 Mervi, the floor is yours.

 >>MERVI KULTAMAA:  Thank you very much, Janis.

 It is a pleasure to be here today to represent CSTD and UNCTAD.  As many of you know, I'm a former MAG member.  And it is nice to see so many familiar faces here today.

 I will begin by quick review of the ECOSOC resolution which mandated the CSTD to conduct its ten-year review, and then I will present the work that the secretariat has done to collect inputs from all stakeholders for the review.

 I will then talk a little about the draft ten-year review report that the secretariat has made available for the CSTD.  And, finally, I will brief you on the way forward on the review and the discussion that took place last week in the CSTD intersessional panel on this issue.

 Can you go to the next slide, please?  And two after that.  Yes.  We are now in the right place.

 So to start with the mandate, in 2013 and again this year the ECOSOC asked the CSTD to make a particular contribution to the WSIS follow-up.  And basically it made three requests to the commission.  First, it requested the commission to collect inputs from member states and all stakeholders for the review.

 Second, it requested the commission to organize a substantive discussion on the review report in 2015 and the substantive discussion will take place at the Commission's 18th session which convenes from 4 to 8th, May, 2015.  

 And the third task that the council gave to the CSTD was to report through the council to the General Assembly as it makes an overall review of the implementation of WSIS outcomes in 2015.

 Next slide, please.

 I will just briefly explain what the secretariat has done to facilitate the Commission in this task.  So between June and October 2014, we conducted an open invitation to all stakeholders to share their views and experiences on the implementation of WSIS outcomes.  And I would like to thank those who submitted their contribution.  In total, we received 96 contributions, which is a very good outcome.  And they are available on the CSTD Web site with the exception of those who indicated that they didn't want their submission to be in public.

 And also in order to reach stakeholders from different regions and sectors, the secretariat organized seven open consultation sessions in different parts of the world.  Two of them took place during the IGF meeting in Istanbul.  One was a pre-event that we organized for the Latin American region.  And another one was an open forum for all IGF participants, and I would like to thank the IGF secretariat for collaborating with us on this review.

 Yes.  And of course we need to take into account all related outcomes and inputs, such as the WSIS+10 high-level event, UNESCO's WSIS +10 meeting, and Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development Report.  So these have been taken into account as the secretariat has prepared the 10-year review report and hopefully the commission will also look at this when it makes its review in 2015.

 Next slide, please.

 So the information that we have gathered, both by the open consultation and through the analysis of relevant literature, has allowed us to prepare the draft 10-year review report.

 The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive summary of evidence concerning WSIS outcomes and the development of an Information Society since the conclusion of the World Summit in 2015.

 You have the draft version of that report available on the CSTD Web site and it was discussed last week in the CSTD intersessional panel as I just referred to.  

 We will still -- it's still a draft version and we will prepare an executed summary to it, and then we will finalize it through the 18th session of the commission.

 But at this point, I would like to point out that it is the secretariat's review report and the commission will make its review in the annual session.

 Next slide, please.

 So this is basically the structure of the report with its chapters and an annex on multistakeholder implementation.  Next, please.

 Here are some of the key points which are made in the report in terms of the most important changes which have taken place in ICTs since WSIS, and one common denominator of these changes which underpins everything is really the Internet and its role in the Information Society today as well as its technological progress.

 It is important for international policy and programs concerned with the future implementation of WSIS outcomes to be located in this rough understanding of the current circumstances, opportunities and challenges, and that's why we decided to devote a whole chapter to these changes in the review report.

 Next slide, please.  

 Now, here are some of the achievements that we have seen in the ICT sector from 2005 onwards.

 I won't go through the details but these are all reflected more in detail in the report.  Next slide, please.

 Now, talking about achievements in the WSIS implementation, I would perhaps highlight two issues today.

 One is the multistakeholder cooperation which has really become established as a key part of both ICT and ICT4D agendas.

 It was strongly advocated in the WSIS outcome documents and especially in the IGF part of the outcomes, the action lines and the WSIS forum.  All of these have fostered the multistakeholder participation.

 And then the final point in my presentation, the report discusses the IGF as one of the main achievements in the WSIS implementation.  This was clearly -- this came clearly out in the submissions that we had from different stakeholders.

 So the report revisits the mandate of the IGF, lists the IGF meetings that have taken place, and notes the outcomes of the CSTD working group on the improvements to the IGF.

 For example, UN DESA commented, in its submission, that the IGF has matured over the years, now routinely discussing issues which were once considered too controversial for multistakeholder cooperation, such as critical Internet resources and human rights.  

 So we note some of these inputs in the report, but also the fact that there were some more critical voices of IGF's performance among the contributors, but these were, of course, in the minority.

 As an overall observation, the report concludes that the IGF has become an important annual event in the ICT and Internet calendars with strong support from across stakeholder communities.

 Next, please.

 The report identified four major challenges, and perhaps I would like to point out one that Doreen pointed out earlier, that we are still learning the best ways to mainstream ICTs into development.  I mean, this is particularly crucial because ICTs will become increasingly capable and increasingly important in the future, and many contributors to the consultation for the review expressed concern about the need for more attention to be paid to the Information Society in the post-2015 development agenda, and this is also something that the commission deliberated last week:  How do we get ICTs mainstreamed in the sustainable development goals and in that post-2015 development process.

 Next slide, please.

 Now, we also made some suggestions that emerged from the evidence in the report, and in contributions to the consultations.

 The need for any targets concerning WSIS implementation to be forward-looking and measurable.  Improvements in data gathering and analysis.  Ensuring that action lines cover new developments that have taken place since WSIS.  Pay more attention to the gender dimension, for example.  The need for WSIS outcomes to be better integrated into United Nations development assistance frameworks, and also strengthening the work of (indiscernible).

 Also need for more attention to financial mechanisms.  And one that may interest you is the need to resolve differences of opinion and achieve consensus on the future of Internet governance.

 I don't know if this is too optimistic as a goal, but it would certainly take us forward.

 And also, the need to build on the body of experience that has emerged from the work of diverse stakeholders and multistakeholder cooperation in order to improve the effectiveness of future actions to implement WSIS outcomes.

 And these are really some of the suggestions that we want to put forward for the commission as it makes its review in the annual session next year.

 Next slide, please.

 So as I mentioned in the intersessional panel last week, one whole day was devoted to the discussion on the 10-year review.  That was Friday.  We had the presidents of the two phases of the summit who gave us their views.  

 Thank you, Janis, for being there with us.

 And we had a lively discussion on the draft report and on the 10-year review in general.

 The secretariat got the feeling that there was a general satisfaction in the content of our review report, even though there were a number of comments that were made for further adjustments such as addendums, deletions, or making the report more balanced so that different options could be reflected.  This applied particularly to the enhanced cooperation part of the text which we knew would be perhaps most discussed.

 And we gave a two-week period to send comments in writing.

 If you have any comments on the draft review report which is made available on the CSTD Web site, I would encourage you to send them to us in writing.  You can see the email address on the screen.

 Next slide, please.

 And finally, the commission discussed the way forward with the report and with the 10-year review.  

 So the report is going to be finalized by the secretariat after this two-week period has concluded, and it will be submitted as final publication to the 18th annual session.  Actually, we have to finalize the report already in mid-January for it to be made available as a final publication in May.

 So it will be an information document for the commission as it makes its own 10-year review report -- or 10-year review during the annual session, and the outcome of that review, whichever format it takes, will then be submitted through the ECOSOC to the General Assembly, and it will constitute an input from the CSTD 10-year -- from the CSTD that -- to the General Assembly as it carries out the overall review of WSIS outcomes around December 2015.

 Well, with that, I will hand it back to the chair and I'm available for any questions that -- or comments that may arise.  Thank you for your attention.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Mervi, for this presentation, and I think we will go through all presentations and then we will do the Q&A session on all five of those presentations.

 So let me now turn to the next speaker, and that is Mr. Peter Major.  He's a special advisor of the Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations and he's the chairman of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and we would like to hear from him a brief report on the outcomes of this working group.  

 Peter, please, the floor is yours.

 >>PETER MAJOR:  Thank you, Janis.

 It's really nice to be here back in the ITU, which I used to work for, 23 years.

 Janis, you mentioned that I was -- or I'm the chair of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, and probably many of us don't even have a clue what enhanced cooperation is.

 I think you are the best person to clarify it.  If not, well, I'll eventually give some background, but I spare you from that.

 So enhanced cooperation just popped up in the Tunis Agenda, which you know, I think all of you, by heart.  

 In most IGF -- Internet governance-related meetings, participants usually quote, eventually by heart, or usually take the booklet and quote the appropriate paragraphs, what they think is appropriate.  

 And in particular, with regards to enhanced cooperation, it's Paragraph 69, which says, "We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future to enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters."

 So that is one of the key paragraphs.  

 And of course the other one is "The process towards enhanced cooperation to be started by the U.N. Secretary-General involving all relevant organizations by the end of first quarter 2006."

 If I'm not mistaken, we are in 2014.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PETER MAJOR:  Well, I don't want to imply that nothing happened because it wouldn't be right, so after some hesitation and some really interesting consultations within the U.N., within the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the United Nations General Assembly, by the end of 2012, in its resolution invited the chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to examine the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation through seeking, compiling, and reviewing inputs from all member states and all other stakeholders, and to make recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate.  

 And this group was to report on the 17th session of the CSTD.

 The resolution is usual U.N. language, very well balanced.  What is important to note from that, that it is a multistakeholder working group within the U.N. system.

 So the process itself.  After the resolution, the CSTD created the working group in consultation with the appropriate stakeholder groups who nominated their participants in the working group, and basically the working group was established similarly to the previous one which was already mentioned during many occasions.  That is, the working group on enhanced -- on the improvements to the IGF.

 This multistakeholder working group had 46 members, I believe.  22 member states -- no.  42 members.  22 member states and 5 are representatives from other stakeholder groups.

 We tried to work in compliance with the mandate and in a multistakeholder approach, in mutual trust, tried to achieve some results-based consensus, and of course observers were allowed to attend the meetings either physically or remotely.

 So everything seemed to be very bright at the very beginning.

 We had four physical meetings, and in the first meeting we compiled a questionnaire.  Well, usually what you do you just reach out to the stakeholders and you come up with a questionnaire asking their opinions related to the particular topic, this time about enhanced cooperation, and this questionnaire was -- contained about 18 questions.  And we received a pretty good -- pretty good responses to the questions.  There were, I think, close to 70 contributions and the questions were quite lengthy because we had 18 questions.

 So we evaluated the questions and it turned out that in case we want to have the full compilation, we have to deal with a document of 1,000 pages.

 I know that you love to read 1,000 pages, indeed, but I am not very sure that this is the most efficient way so we decided to ask the secretariat to prepare a shorter document, and in the end we came up with a 25-page document which was kind of manageable.

 So after the second meeting, which was -- which was based on this reduced document which also encompassed all the essential points and which is made available on the CSTD Web site so you can still go to the Web site and read it, if you feel like, we found out that we should group the responses into five categories and we tried to manage the five different categories.

 And of course one of the most important was the role of the stakeholders.

 Well, during the meetings, it was found out that the root issue -- and by "root," I don't mean the Internet root but I mean the heart of the matter -- was the identification of existing mechanisms.  Global, regional mechanisms where questions related to enhanced cooperation are being dealt with.  

 And based on the responses to the questionnaire, we managed -- well, the working group, first of all, set up a correspondence group and there were two volunteers and I would like to name them.  Lea Kaspar, who is a member of the MAG now, and Samantha Dickinson, who volunteered to do the data mining from the responses and identify the issues which have bearing to enhanced cooperation.

 They managed to identify 483 issues, and later on, this was downsized to 200-plus.

 So we had our third and fourth meeting and in the end, the resolutions of the CSTD as usual are quite political.  The opinions were divergent.  While some said that nothing happened in the spirit of enhanced cooperation, others said that much happened.  The basic issue was that eventually a new body was needed to deal with the enhanced cooperation.  Majority of participants said that the existing ones aren't enough.

 As for the approach, there were voices that said that eventually multilateral approach should be adopted for treating these issues.  Again, the majority was for the multistakeholder approach.

 So basically for the mapping exercise, it was half empty or half full.  So my assessment of the meetings was that basically we are on the same side but with different views.  We really want to have a stable, secure and unfragmented Internet.

 Of course, we should sequence the recommendations as to what, how, and who is doing things on enhanced cooperation.  And, of course, recommendations should be implementable, stable and flexible.

 So we had very, very rich responses.  We have very valuable documents.  But for the lack of time, we didn't manage to finish our work.  If you think about it, we had about one year to work on that.  So compared to the previous eight years, I think we have managed not too bad.

 So it has already been mentioned that there was a resolution of the ECOSOC.  ECOSOC means Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.  I know that you love abbreviations, and all of you are familiar with all of the abbreviations we are saying here.  That's why I'm telling you ECOSOC is the Economic and Social Council.  

 Its resolution -- the Economic and Social Council of the U.N. asked for continuation of the mapping exercise which was the essence of the work or one of the main points of the work and asked the CSTD secretariat to continue this work.

 The resolution was passed, I think, in July this year.  So the secretariat took this job and organized a peer review team and started the work.

 In two months' time, I believe the secretariat provided a very, very good report on the results of the mapping exercise.  And this report is made available on the CSTD Web site again.  And alongside with the report, there is another document which is called a database.  To my mind, it is a spreadsheet, but we don't really want to go into technical details.

 You are also encouraged to look into that.  And the reason for it, during the intersessional meeting of the CSTD last week, we had a 2 1/2-hour session on the mapping exercise.  And there were many, many views announced.

 And basically I think most of the statements and contributions in the discussions were quite positive about the outcome.  Of course, there were suggestions how to improve.  So I think this is an ideal place to ask for your opinion to contribute.  We have allocated about a one-month period to comment, and we would like to see your feelings and your arguments pro and con for the enhanced cooperation issues which have been identified and the mechanisms which have been identified.

 So the -- you can submit your contributions using the UNCTAD's email address preceded by the WGEC.  So it is [email protected] .

 If you didn't have a chance to write it down, I will be available.  And Mervi will be available because I have to pay tribute to her as well because she was coordinating this exercise as well.

 So I think it was a very good exercise.  It is a very promising one.  And I believe it will be discussed again during the main session of the CSTD in May.  And I don't really have to be very, very foresight -- have a good foresight to say that eventually it will be passed through the ECOSOC to the United Nations General Assembly for consideration as one of the inputs to its review.

 With that, I finish my presentation.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Peter, for the presentation.  Indeed, this is -- the latter part of your presentation refers to the mapping of international Internet public policy issues, the question which has been discussed a number of occasions.  There have been attempts of drafting that type of list of public policy issues.  One was done by the working group on Internet governance.  One was done by the ITU Council working group on information society.  But it has never been properly sort of drilled down and consensus has never been reached on that among governments, not to say that after that of all stakeholders.  So hopefully this exercise will bring to better understanding and maybe even consensus what do we mean by using the term "international Internet public policy issues."  So thank you very much.  And certainly that would contribute to the discussions we're going to hear next, that is WSIS+10 review process which will be organized by United Nations General Assembly.  

 And I would like to invite Ms.  Elia Armstrong, the chief of the division for public administration and development management from United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs to share information that she has about the preparations for that process.  

 Elia, the microphone is yours.

 >> ELIA ARMSTRONG:  Thank you very much.  I'm very delighted to be here, and I would like to welcome all the new MAG members on behalf of our Secretary-General Mr. Wu and our Assistant Secretary-General Mr. Thomas Gass.  We at UN-DESA are constantly amazed at the activism and the dedication that the IG community demonstrates and, of course, the leadership of MAG and the current -- under the current leadership of the chair, Janis.

 The benefit of being the last speaker in a way is that a lot of my work has already been done, and I don't really want to bore you with additional details.  

 I think what I want to do is say, you know, in true U.N. fashion, any sort of major review or major activity usually has sort of a process side and then there's a substantive side.  So maybe I could kind of try to make a few remarks on first the process side and then maybe ask some questions about the substantive side.

 On the process side, as Janis has mentioned, there was a modality resolution that was passed by the General Assembly in July of this year and it didn't give a lot of details beyond to say that a high level -- a high-level meeting will be held in December in New York and that -- and that there should be also multistakeholder consultations prior to that.

 In the current draft of the ICT4D resolution that is now being discussed before the second committee, there is a paragraph that's saying they're also hoping for an intergovernmentally agreed-upon outcome document out of that session.  So that sort of highlights the two points that I made, one which is the process issue and then secondly is the substantive issue.

 So going back on the process issue, if you go up the food chain of the intergovernmental process, if you'd like, you've heard from our UNCTAD colleague about CSTD processes, currently consultations, and in the report that they will submit to ECOSOC in July of next year.  And then that session will then feed into the GA session.

 In addition to that, we also know -- and we've heard this morning about ITU's own review process, WSIS review process, and UNESCO's review process as well.  So you see sort of multitrack going on in terms of procedures.

 The high-level review by GA review will also be under the auspices of two presidents of the General Assembly.  That is a lot of the preparatory process is being done by the current president of the General Assembly, who is from Uganda.  He will be the one to appoint the two facilitators in June of 2015 that will be, you know, starting the negotiations on the outcome document.  And then in September, that will be taken over by the new PGA of 2015.  So the process will undergo that.

 This is just to give you sort of an overview of the procedural part.  

 I just want to make sure I don't miss out on anything.

 So what my team did last week is that we approached our colleagues in General Assembly department and asked them, is it possible to set a date at least.  And they said that it will be done within the context of the overall program of the General Assembly work for next year.  So it is too early now but, you know, it will be set sometime soon.

 And there will be two facilitators that will also be appointed by the PGA and that will happen in June of 2015.  So you can sort of see a timeline emerging.

 On the substantive side, I just want to take you with me to New York and imagine that this is September 2015.  What's going to be going on?  There's going to be a lot of discussion about the end of the MDGs and the ushering in of the new post-2015 development agenda with the SDGs at the center.  Doreen alluded to that, the SDGs and also the mention of the ICTs around some of the -- around some of the SDGs.

 And we can only anticipate what's already being given in the SG's report to CSTD that will be before ECOSOC.  So we are hoping that somehow the two tracks, the discussion of the post-2015 development agenda will not conclude without a really firm placing of the role of ICTs and WSIS and, of course, Internet governance in all of this.  And the trick is how to bring the traffic together so that you come out in one car.

 [ Laughter ] 

 Come out of the same tunnel, something like that.

 So getting back to the substance side, I guess because I see the richness of the number of issues on Internet governance, which is but a subset of information society, if you'd like, as a relatively newcomer to this substantive area, I've been asking the question:  What after WSIS?  What does that vision look like?  Is it more of information society?  Is it a grander part of information society?  And I think this is where all stakeholders have such an important role to play in trying to crystallize the vision because I think there are many strands.  And the more clear and earlier consensus that can be achieved on this vision, the greater chance that it will survive through these various parallel processes that will come out at the end of the review.

 And I think that we mustn't lose sight of the ultimate goal of that review which is looking at did the objectives of the original WSIS, the two summits, were they achieved and where does the international community go from here?  And how does that vision fit in?  How is that part and parcel of the vision of sustainable development?  And I think that's just a question that I would hand over to you at this point.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Elia, for this presentation.  Of course, there are more questions concerning that part than answers.  The question is:  What will be the modalities of negotiations?  Most probably will be defined by co-facilitators after their nomination.  Question:  Who will be servicing that process?  Most likely that would be UN-DESA as you are well-placed, strategically placed in New York.  And it would be difficult for any Geneva-based organization to do the job.  As well as what will be the modalities of negotiations and how the interaction which is suggested by the UNGA resolution with other stakeholders will be organized.  Of course, these are questions that we still need to look to answers for.

 Nevertheless, thank you very much for these presentations of the processes.  That will in one way or another, directly or indirectly, impact the preparations for the IGF Brazil.  And now I would like to open the floor for any comments, questions in relation to all five presentations.

 And as I promised, first it would be four requests in order -- following order.  Virat, ICC-BASIS, Cheryl, and then Chip.  Virat is absent.  We are taking the next one.  ICC-BASIS, please.

 >>ICC-BASIS:  Thank you.  My question is going back to the discussion we had earlier before the most recent presentations on the NETmundial Initiative.  ICC-BASIS has submitted a letter to the Transitional Council with a long list of detail questions.  And in particular, those questions are addressing issues around the difficulties of practically participating for some stakeholders and individuals.

 And so while we are really pleased to hear the comments that Flavio has made, that the initiative remains open to other changes and likely to be made, these are likely to evolve and the initiative will aim to ensure that participation is possible from all.  

 We were wondering about what the next steps were and when we might be able to have some more detailed responses to these questions because they are quite extensive.  We noted in one case that question was addressed.  But for the rest of them, we'd like to know.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I think that I would suggest that we collect all the questions and then I will ask all presenters to respond to all of them at the same time.

 Virat, please.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Chair.  Congratulations to all the presenters.  Outstanding summaries of the discussions and the importance as it links back to the Internet governance.  In fact, the last IGF as you are aware, held a main session in the linkages.  And I hope you can do more work there.

 Specifically in regards to the initiative-related discussions, there are some threshold-related issues for stakeholders because of the preconditions that are included in joining the Coordination Council.  And that flows -- those preconditions then flows to organizations as it is currently worded in terms of embracement.

 So if we can get clear responses to some of the issues that business has raised through ICC-BASIS, that will certainly help as early as possible to understand how to proceed because they are not just procedural issues but also legal implications on how people can associate themselves as a group because of the language that's currently on the Web site.

 The more important point which maybe you could respond right now would be that while clearly NETmundial principles came out of an excellent process and in definition of which the IGF itself gave it (indiscernible), there are stakeholders who accept or may accept NETmundial principles fully, partially, and some not at all, which is a likelihood.

 But if the precondition exists the way it is, then it would mean that even though we call the process open, several large numbers of stakeholders, including governments may not be able to join this discussion, to begin with, because they are not in a position to fully embrace everything that's out there.

 There is a difference between nonbinding rough consensus and embrace, accept, advocate.  There's a big difference.

 How do you then start a process where, right at the beginning, you would have a realization that a large number of stakeholders, due to legal or other issues, may not be able to contribute even though their presence in what you're trying to look for, which is solutions for specific problems, may be a critical need for the initiative to succeed.

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

 >>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you very much.  And thank you again to all the panelists.  It was very substantive, all of the presentations, and very informative and very useful.

 My questions are geared towards the  NETmundial Initiative presentation, and Verizon did participate in NETmundial.  We thought it was a very forward-looking and excellent two-day conference, and some good things definitely came out of it.

 With respect to just, I think, clarifying a couple of items that I heard in the presentation, I noted that there was a discussion of the WEF initiative on Internet governance and there was also the  NETmundial Initiative.

 Are these separate or are these the same?  I just -- just to clarify that, so we're on the same page.

 Also, secondly, I heard that the principles, there could be a possibility of them changing in the future, whether through perhaps a process at the IGF such as dynamic coalition or otherwise.  Just -- I know we're not there yet, but if that were to occur, how would individuals or organizations who have signed on to the principles as they were, moving forward, would it be assumed that they adopt the new ones or would they need to readopt or would they -- you know, would it be recognized in some way that they had adopted the old ones and just what would that process be and what would it look like.

 And then third, I think there was an interesting comment with respect to resources at the IGF.  We've all been talking about what an important year 2015 is going to be, and we had some interesting discussion, actually, in the donors meeting today with respect to resources, time constraints, et cetera.

 I'm not sure if -- if the seat is definitely a MAG seat or if it's an overall IGF seat or -- so clarification on that.

 And then just I would highlight also, you know, just the concern that if we are taking on intersessional work, we are doing the best practice forums, I don't know that we decided the exact role of the MAG chair and secretariat's office in terms of who will be doing what, but just making sure that the -- we're not overextending our resources in such a critical year.

 And so those are my comments on NETmundial Initiative.

 I had one comment also on the CSTD process.

 We try very hard to participate in as many of the meetings as we can, but sometimes due to resource constraints we're not able to, and so I did participate remotely in one of the CSTD meetings, and I thought it was great.  It was very easy to do so, and I really appreciated that.

 I think moving forward, really enhancing remote participation capabilities for all the meetings will be increasingly important, especially as we add new things and different organizations have different levels of resources.

 So thank you very much and I'm sorry for too many questions.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Cheryl.

 Next is Chip from Cisco Systems.

 >>CHIP SHARP:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  

 Also, I'd like to thank the presenters for giving us a nice update on what is happening in the other areas of Internet governance in the U.N. system.

 One question I think I -- I think the previous speakers here asked most of my questions, but I would just maybe ask a request rather than a question is that perhaps in -- as we get closer to June, and if there is a meeting -- a MAG or -- meeting in May, that we get another update on what the process is for the 10-year review at that time.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The question on the schedule for preparations to Brazil meeting, we will be discussing tomorrow and the day after, and then we will decide what will be the sequence of MAG meetings, but certainly your request is taken on board and we will update at every occasion on the WSIS+10 review.

 Do we have remote participation -- participants?  Two of them.  Please.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  First, just very quickly, before Nora had to leave, she asked -- she left a note that there will be a call on Thursday to ask any more questions regarding the  NETmundial Initiative at 5:00 UTC.

 And then we have a comment from Subi.  

 "This is Subi" -- and I'm not going to try and say her last name -- "Chaturvedi.

 For all the initiative presenters, many thanks.  Excellent summaries, all.

 I speak for myself and for those not in the room.  For many new voices and participants willing to engage, we welcome the various new initiatives, existing and new.  Wish that 1,000 flowers bloom.  The challenge has been to keep track of the various initiatives.

 Would request UN DESA, perhaps through the IGF, to integrate a global IG events initiatives map, and also if we could get a specific response to the IG extension mandate position from DESA, what we as MAG members can do to carry this message forward on the value of the IGF.  The clock is ticking and we have now just under one year.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  As far as I know, the map -- map holder is Marilyn, so she always has this nice --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- map of all meetings related to IGF.  So yeah, Subi, Marilyn will send it to you.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So Izumi.  The floor is yours.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  I have a question before I make -- to the chair that I'm going to talk about not the five ones that have already presented but a different one, called World Internet Conference this year.  I mean, may I do now or later?  It's up to you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, no.  Please go ahead.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Now we have a free-floating discussion and everything is on the table.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Okay.  Good.  Some of -- or many of you have heard the word "Internet conference."  Don't know how many.

 That was organized in November 19th to the 21st in a small town of Wuzhen, about two hours outside of Shanghai.

 I got invitation through the -- from the organizing committee through the CNNIC.  But it was very amazing conference.  I see only a few -- Pablo and a few others -- were in the same conference.  But it was aimed by the very strong will of the government of China to become the Davos of the Internet conference.

 So they tried to assemble many leaders, especially from the business side.  The founding chairman of the Alibaba, Jack Ma, who is now the richest individual in China, showed up like a rock 'n roll star.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  But the founder of LinkedIn came from the U.S.  The CEO and president of ICANN also joined.  That's a big name.

 They say four out of the world's richest 10 Internet companies from China and they are all there.  China Telecom Unicom there.  World GSM Association chair was there.  On and on.  So it was -- and I hope that Pablo may follow me up in this evaluation.

 I have a very mixed evaluation of this conference, but it certainly has some implication to the kind of discussion we are doing.  Whether positive or not, I don't know yet.

 As I mentioned, the very strong will of the government was expressed via the fact that the -- deputy prime minister came physically to reel out the message from the president, the Chinese president's message specifically (indiscernible) as well as the prime minister came to the next (indiscernible) on the day two.

 Somehow he didn't show up to the site, but all the VIPs were invited to go there and have a talk, and still about 600 reporters to the participants of 1,000.  They were all mostly mobilized by the government but they're very keen to cover.  Very interesting.  I was interviewed three or four times, by the way.  

 And the composition of the meeting was also very interesting, in that they combined business aspects of the Internet as well as some political, people's safety and security, governance.  There was a very interesting Internet governance forum hosted by the CNNIC again.  High-level dialogue.  On and on.

 And unfortunately somehow the English Web site is not available anymore.  It was up active.  Don't know why, but it's very difficult now to see.

 But there were several media coverages including Wall Street Journal and stuff.

 At the early morning of the day three, the last day, we got the envelope beneath the door, and there was a draft declaration that was given to all participants and we were asked if we want to make any changes or, you know, revisions, please contact the secretary sending the information with your comment by 8:00 in the morning.

 We all expected, therefore, to have this declaration read out at the end -- you know, closing ceremony, which never happened.

 And I have reported that to some of the MAG members through the mailing list.  I don't want to go through the details.  But what we found out from the conversation at the reception was the minister organizing this said, "So many people, you guys, didn't agree with, so we didn't call it a declaration."  

 But they actually defined this Wuzhen as the permanent place for holding this Internet summit for many years to come.

 The positive -- and I would say is they at least showed sort of willingness to dialogue, no matter how the positions are different.  It's a pity that high-level western countries' governments didn't really show up.  They largely sent their consulate and embassy people.  But the business participated.  Of course there are certain other aspects such as it's not really multistakeholder.  There were no civil society representation as such.  It's not bottom-up.  But still, having these different people on board and having different topics together, much wider than the IGF, gives us some thought that whether to discuss the Internet governance issues by an Internet governance sort of people or involve the other kind of interests together, there are different ways to address these issues.  And clearly to China the Internet is very much an engine of growth and economy.  They take it very, very seriously from the top to the bottom.

 So that's where I see.  

 And another -- finally, I would say very strong emphasis onto the mobile.  That was really given.  That led sort of the entire agenda.  That's another finding.  

 I will stop here.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Izumi, for this -- for this information.  So very good, the Chinese hosting that type of event.  The biggest Internet community -- user community live in that country, and so that -- I think to my knowledge, there's many dozen replicas of World Economic Forum annual event in Davos in different areas so maybe that will become one in -- related to Internet.  

 So I will now look -- Marilyn is next on the list.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.

 My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm going to call attention to all of you for how important it is to pay attention to the scribes' capturing of your comments and your name.  That's not why I took your floor but a correction to Izumi's comments, for instance, is that there were a thousand participants, not 61,000 participants.  And other speakers are not actually getting their name captured.

 So let me just note that, because it's important for the transcript, particularly for those who are remote and are not able to participate.

 I wanted to speak -- I'll speak, first of all, about a very brief comment about -- in follow-up to my comments about the  NETmundial Initiative in the following way.

 My view is that we have a huge amount of work to do as the MAG to advise on planning our IGF 2015.  

 We have also been alerted to now, as a MAG and a stakeholder community, to a number of very critical events and activities where our future is in the hands of others and not perhaps so much in our own hands.

 What is in our hands is to do with excellence the job that we are appointed to do or that make the contribution that we can make.

 Too much time spent on any other debate may be a diversion from our focusing very, very closely on our own work.  Having said that, I want to -- 

 And my comment there is related to the issue of in order for us to fulfill our responsibilities, take up intersessional work, improve and extend best practices, approach the national and regional IGF initiatives about perhaps engaging in a more direct linkage in some way, if it suits their bottom-up consensus-based organizational structure to do so in the IGF itself, that means a huge amount of work for us and a huge amount of work for our MAG chair and for our secretariat.

 Let me go on now to comment on -- and to thank the other presenters.  I'm sorry Doreen is gone, because I was present at the ITU plenipot as well as certain other -- some others who are here, and observed and even contributed, perhaps through discussions, to the resolutions that are passed.

 There is, indeed, significant work for all of us to be aware of, including the interests of the ITU in engaging in the WSIS follow-up.

 It is particularly important to me as a member of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to support Peter Major's call to attention for all of us the fact that the mapping exercise is open until the end of the month, and I hope that all of you will take a look at it and consider making a contribution.

 There are a number of us who are members of that working group from civil society, the technical community, and business, and I know that we would all welcome the opportunity to talk with you about how to effectively do that.

 On the concept -- the road ahead that Elia Armstrong mentioned that we will learn more about really only in June, I think we do need to be thinking in parallel as concerned stakeholders about how we work collaboratively across all of the stakeholder groups to engage with government colleagues in New York who will be making decisions and think about how we help to contribute to providing information and even advice on how to best engage with stakeholders and how to consider the way forward post-2015.

 To me, last Friday I had the opportunity to hear Adama Samassekou, the president of the first PrepCom, and Janis Karklins, the president of the second PrepCom, preparatory process for WSIS, and Adama really struck a chord in me reminding me that it is really -- the WSIS was about creating the Information Society for all, and that is really a vision that I think the IGF was supposed to contribute to, which is what we're here to do in the next three days, but it also reminded me that the Information Society is not just about access but it is also about capability and expertise and also about content.  And I -- it was a very inspirational reminder that looking ahead, hopefully the IGF will be able to contribute not just this year but in the years ahead to creating the Information Society.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Marilyn.

 I now call on Jivan.

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  Hi.  My name is Jivan, and that's J-i-v-a-n, for those taking the transcription.

 Actually, I'm amazed at whoever is taking the transcription that they can write so quickly everything that is written, so kudos for them.

 But, yeah, it is a challenge with all the names that we have from different places in the world.

 I am in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia.  I'm head of the Department for Public Diplomacy and Public Relations, but at the core I'm a multilateral diplomat.  And I say this only because I think that I've been in many general debates since September, and it's quite a hectic affair.  If the Internet Governance Forum is a lot of people whizzing around and about from one place to another, there's the same thing in New York but it's only prime ministers and presidents with about -- bodyguards varying between 2 and 20 around them.

 So it's -- but it's a good time to get the attention of the people that I think that we should be trying to get the attention of about what we're doing.

 Especially given that the vote will be coming -- well, the mandate will be renewed through ECOSOC and the General Assembly and that will be just before the November meeting of the IGF.

 So in line with my previous comment on a communications strategy, I think that this is one of those milestones that we need to think about of communicating the importance of not just the IGF but I would say the Internet and I think that a celebration of the Internet that we start off as a strategy of engagement from now until then is a good way for us to present the importance of the IGF just before our mandate is renewed and actually for the mandate to be renewed exactly in that in that frame of thinking.

 So I think that we should think about there are government representatives here, quite a few, I think.

 We should think about some kind of an event during the general debate in New York in September, perhaps under the auspices of UNDESA or perhaps under Brazil or perhaps another country that would hold it at a relatively high level, so ministerial level is high enough to attract attention.  It doesn't have to be a summit.  It doesn't have to be anything higher than that.  And then present it as an enabler of the SDGs that are coming as the new framework of thinking in terms of development goals for the future.

 If there ever was a good enabler of growth and the development, that's the Internet, and we need to show that to the world next year.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Jivan.

 A small remark.  If the decision on the extension of the mandate of IGF will not be taken by the second committee this year, I think that then the next opportunity will be as a result of the WSIS+10 review event in December 2015.  I don't think the General Assembly in 2015, September, October, will take any decisions.  That will go automatically to the high-level meeting.

 So I have next Mark Carvell, U.K., on my list.

 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  And many thanks to all the presenters for their clear, informative presentations on all the initiatives and processes that are intersecting with the IGF.  The updating is very valuable, and I hope colleagues are taking count of the timelines and opportunities to contribute.

 I would just make a couple of points with regard to the CSTD key documents.  Firstly, the draft report, we think it is a very thorough study of the background and implementation of the WSIS recommendations.  I will just make one observation where I think it understates the situation, and that is with regard to the regional and national IGFs.  There's a paragraph covering this, just one paragraph covering this, on page 148 or thereabouts.

 I think it fails really to take account of how the IGF template has been replicated at the national and regional level in all continents and has, therefore, become an important network within the Internet governance ecosystem which, indeed, we are going to discuss here with regard to intersessional activity.

 So I just point that out as one important aspect of developments over the last ten years, the emergence of these multistakeholder fora as something we ought to bear in mind in terms of the currency, if you'd like, of the report.  And, of course, we've also seen governments -- individual governments institute multistakeholder processes into their policy making.  Brazil is a very obvious example.  U.K., we have our own multistakeholder advisory group on Internet governance comprising around 45 stakeholder representatives from business, civil society, and the technical community.  So that's another aspect of implementation which has sort of had a very important ripple effect, if you'd like, throughout Internet governance processes.

 Secondly, the mapping of international and Internet public policy issues, this is, as you've underlined, Chair, a very important exercise with previous attempts at it.  And we really appreciate all the hard work and the monumental effort that's gone into the preparation of the mapping document and the database.

 We've had an initial review of it, and there were comments last week, of course, as Mervi recounted at the intersessional and, indeed, Peter.

 And there is one month left really to react and fill in some important gaps which we in the U.K. government have identified.  So I just draw that to the attention of all the members of this meeting and those listening remotely, that this is a key document you should draw your immediate attention to because it has a critical -- it will be a critical input into the WSIS review, into debates about whether there should be another process with regard to enhanced cooperation, and so on.

 So as I say, I think that's key.  We very much welcome that effort.  We think it needs further work on it in completing the mapping.  And reviewing where real gaps may still persist which need to be addressed in some way.

 Finally, these documents I find pretty difficult to locate.  They are available through the UNCTAD Web site, and I don't know how many times I've tried to lay my hands, for example, on the CSTD working group on improvements' report.  I find it very difficult to get to the exact place online.  So I would recommend for the outcome of this meeting that we have some kind of readily available digest of key links to these documents so that people can access them easily and understand the process for responding.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Mark.  Actually, you're not the only one.  I was looking for that link yesterday and also failed to find it.  That's a hint.

 [ Laughter ]

 So, dear colleagues, we have half an hour remaining for today's session.  And I have a number of requests for the floor.  And I would like to give the floor to Pablo, to Robert, to Amelia, and to ICANN before drawing this list to the end.  I see Patrick is the last one.  Really, we need to finish.  I will take that one, but that's it.  But please be concise because we still need to give a possibility answering those questions that have been raised before closing.  

 Pablo, you have the floor.

 >> PABLO HINOJOSA:  I'm Pablo, P-A-B-L-O, from APNIC.  APNIC is a regional Internet registry in Asia-Pacific.  I'm here on behalf of Paul Wilson, a salient IGF member.  He couldn't be here with you all, but APNIC has been an active supporter of the IGF since its inception and will continue to do so.  We very much hope for the renewal of the IGF next year and to participate in the IGF in Joao Pessoa.

 I think one issue for consideration of the IGF MAG and for the IGF in general for next year is integration.  So many processes have been open and have had progress in 2014.  And we just heard about a few of them.  It's hard to follow all of them for sure.  

 We have had reports of WSIS+10, of CSTD on enhanced cooperation, the NETmundial Initiative.  There is also the IANA stewardship transition process.  In Asia-Pacific, we have the APR IGF.  I was just talking with Shita.  They just had the IGF session in Indonesia last week.

 I would like to agree with Izumi about the importance of the Wuzhen Summit, another very important example of an instance or a space that is really important to follow and take consideration of.  

 All of these processes have some reflection and are summarized or converge somehow in the IGF.  I think it is important that we think about how to make some sense to wrap up, to summarize, to see how these processes are reflected at the IGF, which as we all agree is a very important place to gather.

 So I just would like to throw this into the table and think about integration in next year.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Now I'm calling on Robert Shlegel from Russian Federation.  Robert, please.

 >> ROBERT SHLEGEL:  Good afternoon, everyone.  I'm glad to be here.  I have question for translator.  Can I speak Russian?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, you can speak Russian.

 >> ROBERT SHLEGEL:  Thank you.  You can use channel number 1.

 I have a short statement to make.  This is first about NETmundial.  And it is important not to confuse the issue.  There was -- there was not even a rough consensus.  And it is also important to know that many of the participants, they were there.  They spoke out.  And it is not possible not to take into consideration the position of the governmental sector because governmental sector after all are the people who are responsible for the decisions which they take.  

 And if we set out principles which are not going to be upheld afterwards, then unfortunately it's just an imitation of the process.  

 I'm not against a multistakeholder approach.  I'm not against a dialogue.  But I am for an efficient process, so it is essential to be quite clear and not confuse each other.

 I was also present at the Chinese conference.  The level of the conference was pretty high, and I can confirm that which was mentioned before.

 Now, continuing with NETmundial, I would like to the next IGF attach greater importance to the transparency of our decision taking so that there will be no misunderstanding after all, was there consensus or there was no consensus, was a decision adopted or it was not adopted and so forth.  

 Of course, it is a complex matter because it's not easy to come to a solution which is acceptable to all but the transparency will help a lot.

 I would also like to draw your attention to the need to attach importance to regional initiatives.  As a representative of a parliament, I would be very interested to know what are the regional practices in other countries with regard to the laws pertaining to Internet.  No doubt other people are also interested in that because there is now a certain risk of fragmentation of Internet where the legislation in some countries is not only not harmonized but actually can be contradictory.

 And so understand this is something that we are going to discuss in the future.  But at any rate, I wanted to raise the point already now.  Thank you.  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I thank you very much for these comments and for the suggestions which you made.  Yes, tomorrow, we will discuss those proposals.

 The next speaker on my list, that is Amelia from Sweden.

 >> AMELIA ANDERSDOTTER:  My name is Amelia Andersdotter.  I have been a member of the European Parliament and so I believe I have experience and a point of view which is different from the stakeholders that are normally listed as participants in these meetings.  

 So parliament form a very special role in the democratic system, which is that they are directly elected by the public in order to hold the executive which is normally the government accountable or responsible for its actions.  Also parliaments provide instructions to the executive about what they are meant to be engaging with.  

 In my view, we could easily extend the list of stakeholders to parliaments because their role is so particular in the governance processes of democratic countries that it's a bit unfair to place them in the same category of governments since they are quite clearly meant to be almost the opposite of what an executive is.

 But with this, parliaments assume the moral responsibility for normative decisions in a society.  And I think the problem we're seeing with Internet governance is that a lot of the decisions turn out to be normative, even technical standards can be normative.  Who gets to decide these norms?  It is very clear that the constituencies that I've been representing expect parliaments to decide norms.  And the parliaments additionally also expect to have the leeway to decide norms for their communities.

 And so what we're facing with the WSIS or with the NETmundial Initiative is things like the charter with the NETmundial where the European Commission contributed to the outcome.  The European Commission is an executive institution.  They don't technically have the right to be normative in the institutional framework where they exist.  It is not meant to be their function.

 And so how does an institution like the European Parliament, for instance, interact with this government?  And how do we -- with that kind of charter?  And how do we ensure that the expectation of the citizens in Europe is actually fulfilled?

 There has been some cases where civil society actors in the Internet Governance Forum have brought up the opportunity of making supporting statements, ensuring that the normative discussions that occur in best practices forums or in the IGF at-large can be somehow consolidated into papers that can then be used to help and sustain from the global community normative discussions in legislatures.

 And I would very much like to see the MAG but also perhaps the NETmundial Initiative representative reflect further on these points.

 Also, I feel a bit concerned with an initiative like NETmundial and the formation of a new platform because we have these unresolved difficulties with the Internet Governance Forum where normative discussions are technically being had but not quiet, and NETmundial seems also to be a place where normative discussions are being had but not quite legitimately.  

 And why do we need two global forums for somehow semi-illegitimate normative discussions that anyway at the end can hold very little public support from the billions of individuals that ultimately will be impacted?

 Where I would like to hear reflections from the United Nations agencies but also perhaps from the driving forces between the NETmundial Initiative is exactly how they resolve these normative consequences.  Because we have them -- net neutrality is clearly normative.  Competition loss for the telecom sector clearly; copyright is a very normative discussion.  They are discussions that we have had but where the reconnection back to the people who are ultimately concerned citizens has been extremely low and how can we ensure that that is not the case and how can we primarily help parliaments get a more active role in this.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

 [ Applause ]

 I think, Amelia, you can now constitute a group with your colleague Robert from the Russian parliament.  You will be the deputy group here.  

 Another remark, the legitimacy of IGF stems from the decision of the WSIS summit and the endorsement by the United Nations General Assembly.  So I think that is absolutely clear.

 And we're acting under the auspices or let's say in the framework of that decision.

 I have three more speakers on my list before going to answer and then one from remote participant, but I would like to limit your intervention.  Specifically, Nigel, yours because you have been speaking already once.

 You're one minute, please.  Nigel.

 >> NIGEL HICKSON:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  I will be brief indeed.  I really just wanted to thank the presenters we had and to particularly mention the work that the CSTD have put in, both in terms of the mapping document that's been referred to and the contribution to the WSIS ten-year review.  

 I think these are enormously important contributions.  And they're important not only in their substance but in the way they're put together.  

 And here we return to a theme touched on this morning by a number of speakers in that they have been put together in a multistakeholder way that people have had the chance to input to them.

 The mapping document which has been mentioned and which we have now the opportunity to update as others including Marilyn has talked about, sets out a clear understanding of the issues that we're tackling on the Internet governance front.  Those that have had attention in various U.N -- multi-U.N. intergovernment fora but also in multistakeholder fora.  

 And I think it is a major contribution to the work that we're going to take forward in the WSIS+10 review.  And I think the CSTD should be commended for it, which I think means it is even more important.  And as was suggested by our colleague from Macedonia, having some form of ability where stakeholders can come together to a senior level in New York and reflect on the interaction between the WSIS and the sustainability development goals I think is equally important.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Nigel.

 Patrick, your two minutes.

 >> PATRICK RYAN:  Thank you.  For my colleagues who have seen me at other conferences, you will know that I sort of have a moral obligation to make an analogy at every Internet conference to either Star Trek or Star Wars.  Since nobody has done that quite yet, I will take the opportunity to do that now.  

 This has been very useful, I think, to hear the various updates from NETmundial and other the various other initiatives.  In fact, I have spoken more about the NETmundial Initiative here at this particular event than I have the entire past year about any other single Internet governance initiative.  

 If I could be just a little bit provocative, I think we need to focus a little bit more on the IGF itself.  

 And I would be interested in your view here.  Here is the Star Trek analogy.  In one of the episodes, Captain Kirk calls down to Scotty and says, "Scotty, I need a status report."  Scotty reports back, "In four hours, Captain, the ship is going to blow up."  And what does the Star Trek do with everybody on the Enterprise?  They get together and they figure out how to make sure their destiny continues.  

 And we're in that boat right now.  I'd sure love to have your thoughts, Janis, about what can the MAG do?  Not to be spectators in this, not to learn second or thirdhand what's happening in New York about Mexico or other proposals but how can we be proactive in the sense that Jivan proposed about getting together and really trying to drive the destiny.  How can we support you in the efforts to reengage the IGF and to make sure it is renewed, not just renewed on the same terms as before but actually with a stronger wind beneath its sails in order to move forward.  

 I would be very interested in your view on that.  I know it is something that's really on my mind.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you especially for analogy.  Though, I must say I haven't heard that this ship is going to blow up in four hours.

 [ Laughter ]

 I hope it will continue for next at least ten years after the Brazil meeting.

 I think the discussion or information exchange that we have now which at the first glance may seem not directly relevant to our conversation about IGF, I think still is very relevant because we're getting -- we're absorbing all the knowledge that will help us tomorrow and day after tomorrow to shape the contours of the Brazil meeting in order to make sure the IGF stays on track for long periods of time and is seen as a useful contribution to the ongoing sort of decision-making, which is taking place elsewhere.

 I do not expect IGF to come to the stage that we will start making decisions.  No.  But we will inform decisions which will be taken elsewhere, either in the Russian Parliament or in the European Parliament or in the European Commission or any other government in the world.

 So that is the mandate of -- of the IGF, and of course we need to work to improve our outcomes so that they become more relevant also not only to policymakers but everybody who is involved in Internet -- in their daily work, and hopefully we will get there.

 Silvia is the next on my list, and the last one.  I'm sorry.  We need -- we have a limited time.

 >>SILVIA BIDART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Tomorrow morning there will be a possibility to intervene again.  Silvia, please.

 >>SILVIA BIDART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 My name is Silvia Bidart.  I'm a new member of MAG, so it's my first time in the IGF scenario and I hope to contribute with positive things and with commitment.

 I'm vice president of WITSA for Latin America and General Director of ALETI, but I'm -- even though I'm new in IGF process I'm old in WSIS process, beginning with Paris, Geneva, Tunis, Dubai, et cetera, and I would like to point that the importance to verifying the word "access."

 And we actually need to enhance access.  We are speaking about, for example, growth, inclusiveness, job skills, bringing industries, capacity-building, as well as many others of the points of -- that UNCTAD and UNDESA said before that I really appreciate very much.

 Latin America has shown an effort.  WSIS process in Latin America is held by U.N. ECLAC secretariat and in last prime ministerial meeting held in Costa Rica we agreed to try to show efforts and to hold the next ministerial meeting of ELAC, ECLAC, in Mexico, and along with the IGF of Latin America.

 I would like to know what are the activities and priorities of the other regions, not just Latin America and the Caribbean, and I would like to encourage all stakeholders to join efforts and events as well.

 Finally, I would like to congratulate IGF for the organization of this event.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Remote participant?

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  This is from Marilia Maciel from Brazil.

 She says, "The approved modalities of WSIS+10 review make it mostly an intergovernmental process, even though it will accept the inputs of other stakeholders.

 After NETmundial, it was made clear that a meaningful document could be drafted by means of a bottom-up multistakeholder process.

 My suggestion would be that a WSIS outcome document is drafted in a collaborative manner following the methodology of NETmundial.  This multistakeholder document could offer useful inputs to governments that will be negotiating in New York.  Governments could incorporate the points they find useful.  The document would also be able to reflect a multistakeholder vision for the post-WSIS.

 The process to draft this document could be anchored in the IGF, which is our main multistakeholder forum.

 A best practice group could be created to facilitate this.

 One of the subthemes in the agenda of the IGF should be the WSIS+10 review.  The IGF could present a useful contribution related to issues that fall under its scope.  Thank you."

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Juan Alfonso, either you take one minute now or five minutes tomorrow.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much, Chairman.  First of all, I want to speak Spanish, following -- well, taking advantage of the fact that we have interpreters, whom I'd like to congratulate at this time for their excellent work, something we don't do very often.

 I'm Juan Fernandez, so you can get the spelling right up there.

 I'm new to MAG.

 Just one question.  I'd like to have a minute now and five tomorrow.

 What I -- what I'd like to ask is, I want to look at the agenda here.  There's a problem there.  When are we going to be talking about cooperation, or not, between IGF and this initiative or others?  Can we do that tomorrow?  Is it scheduled for tomorrow?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  We will be talking about the correlation or cooperation between IGF and  NETmundial Initiative either tomorrow or day after tomorrow, depending on advancement of our conversation.

 So -- and certainly tomorrow and the day after, please feel free for ask for the floor.  I cannot grant you five minutes, since you have used already one --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- but I think we will find the right compromise.

 So thank you very much.  I think we had a good exchange and we have a number of questions that were raised during this period and I would like now to ask those presenters who would like to -- not necessarily, but who would like to -- answer very briefly to those questions, and then Benedicto will make a final set of conclusions of today's discussion.

 So Peter, I think I didn't hear any questions to you.  Actually...

 >>PETER MAJOR:  Well, the simplest way to access the document is you just Google "CSTD UNCTAD" and it will take you to the Web site and then you go to the intersessional tag and you find the document.  So this is the simplest.  I couldn't find my way either.  Sorry.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, though I must say that this forum should remain technology-neutral.  There are many more search engines --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- than the one which was just mentioned.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mervi, please.

 >>MERVI KULTAMAA:  Thank you.  I apologize on the part of the secretariat for the challenge that you have encountered in finding the right page, but I'm happy that Peter has facilitated that.

 I just wanted to say a few words.

 First of all, thank you much to those who commented on the work of the CSTD secretariat.

 On the mapping, I just wanted to note that it was really a challenge also for the secretariat.  Given the broad array of Internet governance, we're very conscious that this was just a snapshot, something that we could take forward just a little bit, and also we were struggling with a very limited time span for this work.  

 So we are really grateful for any comments and we appreciate any factual information on public policy issues and mechanisms to improve the document, so please send your comments on that.

 The document will go as a CRP, conference room paper, to the annual session, so it will not be a formal document.  It will be something that is submitted by the secretariat for the reflection of the commission and possibly integration to the 10-year review.

 And then a couple of words on what the chair said in the beginning, how these processes can be linked to the IGF.

 As for the CSTD review, we will be in a very critical phase in October as we meet in the IGF.

 The CSTD's 10-year review is over.  Basically it has been submitted to the ECOSOC and hopefully also adopted by it.

 But then in New York, the delegates, the governments over there, are in the midst of negotiations for the final outcome of the overall review.  So I would see the IGF as an important opportunity for the IG community to vocalize their views on how they see the track that will be most probably available then, and frankly, it's not so long a journey from New York to Joao Pessoa, so perhaps you manage to also encourage some of the delegates from New York to attend the IGF session.

 So thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Mervi.

 Elia, please?

 >>ELIA ARMSTRONG: Yes.  Thank you.  Very briefly, I saw a couple of comments I think that were directed to UNDESA's way and it was really about what can MAG members do to help renew the IGF mandate, how do we map out the process, and are there high-level events that can bring this to the attention of the General Assembly.

 So going back to my traffic analogy, when we -- when I talked about coming out in the same car or out of the same tunnel, I think also because you can see the -- the complexity, the richness of the stakeholders and of the processes and of the issues, my only -- I would say on the one hand it's absolutely important and I think it is the intention of member states to get everybody's input and views put in.

 On the other hand, there is the challenge that without an orderly process, and given that we have such a short time, if we all rush, you could have a traffic jam and not get to your intended destination in an orderly fashion.

 And I can say this because when we watched the post-2015 development agenda, you know, setting process, again, you had an issue where, you know, a lot of stakeholders, a lot of issues, all wanting to get to the same place, but I think there were many tracks, and the important thing was to give the member states a leading role as had been agreed upon previously.

 So I would just say that let's be mindful of all the different roles that everybody has and try to not have chaos but, you know, have well-coordinated, multitrack processes where everybody's views and visions are included, and that also sometimes if we pay so much attention to the traffic issues, sometimes we might get diverted into another direction and not arrive at the intended destination, which is after WSIS, then what?  What is the vision for the world beyond Information Society?

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Elia.  

 Flavio, if you may respond very briefly.

 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Yeah.  Very quickly, yeah.

 As Nora already mentioned before, there will be a Q&A session on Thursday.  In fact, this is part of the meeting of the transitional council.  From now on, all meetings of the transitional council will be open and accessible on line by Adobe Connect or by Adigo telephony.

 So you just look at -- on the site and you'll see the schedule of these meetings and they are open.

 And so -- and there is always a 30 minutes slot in the beginning of the meeting for Q&A.

 So the questions you have, I must honestly respond that I do not have the exact answers to the questions on principle, for instance, of legally binding or partially, acceptance of some principles or if principles change.  I honestly do not have the answers but I think are good questions to be asked at this session on Thursday.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, and now I would like to invite Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca to conclude today's work.  

 Benedicto, please.

 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Janis.  

 This is certainly not an easy task because so many notions were brought to the fore, and so many different issues.

 However, one point I'd like to concur with something you said before, is that the discussion we have had, particularly this afternoon, was very important as we prepare for IGF 10 in Brazil, in order that it will help us to shape the event in a way that is relevant to what is taking place in the different processes.

 I think it's very important that as we prepare for IGF 10, that we try to relate to the existing discussions in regard to Internet governance and we try to dialogue and to interact with those processes in a way that is productive.

 One point I have been making consistently is that we cannot, you know, live in silos, ignoring -- when we are in a multistakeholder forum to just deal with those issues and then we ignore what is taking place at the U.N. and other fora.

 I think it's very important that we try to build bridges in which the processes will be relating to each other, and there is a very important aspect here that this requires mutual respect and mutual acceptance, which is something that is not for granted because either in a multistakeholder format or in multilateral format, some of the participants do not recognize the other way of doing things.

 This is the kind of contradiction and opposition as a national delegation -- and there I'm speaking as governments -- we have tried to reflect on this.  

 And that was the vision that President Dilma conveyed at the beginning of NETmundial, that we are very committed, firmly committed, totally committed, to the multistakeholder approach but at the same time we cannot lose sight of issues that require to be addressed from the decision-making point of view in a multilateral aspect.

 So I think as we move towards IGF 10, I think it's very important to take cognizance of what is taking place at the U.N., at ITU, and try to relate to those processes in a way that is respectful of each process, each fora's understanding.

 I'd like to make very short comments because I know we are already almost behind schedule.

 In regard to NETmundial, the initiative, we -- this is an issue that the Brazilian steering committee will -- is reflecting upon and of course there will be this conference call on Thursday.

 However, having been involved with NETmundial from day zero -- and apologies to Nigel for using that expression, but -- I'd like to make a few points.

 First of all, much was said about financial resources and maybe the kind of finite capacity we have.  I guess one of the points of having supported the NETmundial Initiative is exactly trying to expand that base of support, so we are not looking at a very restricted basis which money will go in this direction, that direction, but rather to expand the basis of financial resources, human resources, by bringing on board new participants.

 I think this is one -- one main element of the initiative.

 And the other -- and then I would resort to the original call that was made by President Dilma -- is there are two tents, and I think that was achieved in NETmundial that this will be inclusive.  

 We are aiming at -- President Dilma was very clear she wanted a very inclusive meeting in which all participants had a fair opportunity to contribute to the outcome.

 We are aware that not all participants, at the end of the meeting, endorsed its outcomes.  That was not the intended result.  And this is something that should be reflected upon as we move forward in implementing, trying to build on NETmundial's outcomes.

 I think we should not lose sight of the initial proposal that that would be inclusive, so if there is some aspect in which people feel alienated and impedes participation, I think this is certainly an aspect that should be revisited by the proponents.

 In regard to the other issues, I would like also to concur with previous speakers, and my delegation was one that in the context of the enhanced cooperation working group was very firmly defending the notion that we need a mapping of the initiative, the processes that are there, so we can move away from the rhetorical aspects that sometimes have contaminated those discussions.

 I think from the moment we have a clear understanding of who is doing what and what can be improved in a systemic way to make the whole environment, I think that will serve the purpose of all of us.  So I think it's very good development that we have this mapping and we look forward for a more formal endorsement of that proposal, maybe with some adaptions, that will give us some common ground on which to work.

 And in that same direction, our assessment of the Busan meeting, IGF meeting, was that it was a very good meeting, in the way that we also have consensus-made decision, no vote was taken, and that also provides others some common ground.

 So I'm saying this because there are so many positive developments taking place, but at the same time some challenges for us to address as we prepare for IGF.

 I think the most important challenge is to shape IGF in a way that will prove, not to ourselves that are here but to people that are outside the process, the value of working that format.

 And in that sense, the colleague from Macedonia and also from Croatia, I think they were reading our minds, because in our internal discussions we have been exactly trying to reflect on what could be done in New York to raise awareness of our process.  I think that will require, and I -- we are -- Brazil feels very much responsible for raising awareness in New York, but we'd like to be in partnership with delegations that are participating in this process that would also assist us, and do so in partnership also with the secretariat.

 It would be important if we could devise some event in New York, maybe more than one event, because I think -- having been in New York, I think we need maybe some event directed to those actual negotiators that are in the daily operations, and maybe some high-level event, maybe even starting in the first quarter of next year.  And it would be important if we could have a setting in which we have developing countries, developed countries joining together with the secretariat to make that happen in New York.

 I think that will show the legitimacy of the work we have been doing here.

 So I stop here.  I think we'll have some -- many more aspects to develop but we'll come back to these tomorrow.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Benedicto, for your concluding remarks.  

 Thank you very much, all of you, for engaging with us.  

 Before leaving, I have very bad news to announce to those who are coming from European region, both from eastern European and western European, because this is not over for you.  You have another meeting following this one.  That's the bad news.  

 The good news is that that meeting will take place in the restaurant and that will be about EuroDIG.  This is just a reminder.  

 So -- and for others, we are meeting -- or, I mean, for all of us, we're meeting tomorrow at 10:00 sharp and that will -- that will be the -- that will be the MAG meeting, which is open to everybody who wants to observe the work of the MAG, and this room will be split in two and our meeting will be on that side.  

 So thank you very much.  Please enjoy your evening and see you all tomorrow.  

 (Meeting concluded at 6:07 p.m.)