This is now a legacy site and could be not up to date. Please move to the new IGF Website at

You are here

IGF 2015 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting 20 May

The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the May 2015 IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings, in Geneva, Switzerland. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.



IGF  Open Consultation
 Wednesday, 20 MAY 2015
ILO Geneva, Switzerland

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to start.  Can you please sit down.
 Thank you.
 [ Gavel ]

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just before we start -- Bill?  Just before we start, I'd just like to make --
 [ Gavel ]

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  -- an announcement on the badges.  Please remember that you have to return your badges to the secretariat before you leave, and we have your names and the badge numbers, so we will follow you up if you don't.
 [ Laughter ]

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  And we have remote participation and when the chair calls your name, can you please remember to say your name very clearly for the transcribers and also for interpretation, your affiliation, and whether you're speaking for yourself or for your organization.
 And also, we do have power in the room but it's down below the desk.  You have to go right down below and you'll see the power plugs.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  It is a great pleasure to see you, so many in the room.
 Let me introduce myself, for those who do not know me.  Janis Karklins, Ambassador of Latvia and chairman of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of IGF.
 This is our second face-to-face meeting in this cycle of preparation of Brazil IGF 2015, and the first agenda on our -- first item on our agenda is adoption of the agenda of the meeting.
 The agenda was circulated prior to the meeting.  We had a discussion during the conference call and we tried to accommodate proposals that were made by MAG members.
 This meeting, first and foremost, is to collect comments of different stakeholders during the open consultations this morning and this afternoon, and share information which is relevant to preparatory work we are doing, and tomorrow and day after tomorrow, the main task is to finalize selection of the workshops, and this year we have a very challenging task to select approximately 100 best workshops out of 240 which have been submitted by different proponents.
 So let me very quickly go through today's proposed agenda and see whether there would be any comments or suggestions.
 So we would -- after adoption of agenda, we would listen to the update from the host country on the state of preparations.
 Then we would maybe see if there are any non-MAG members in the room who would like to make any comments of a general nature.
 After that, we would listen to briefings on different initiatives related to IGF, like GIPO, of European Commission, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, of the Netherlands, NETmundial Initiative.  
 That would naturally lead us to a further conversation and decision on establishment of liaisonship between IGF, MAG, and NMI council.
 And after that, we would talk about the structure of the IGF and main sessions.  We would try to identify what would be the right topics for the main sessions and appoint facilitators.
 In the afternoon, we would continue the work on this topic, if needed, and otherwise we would talk about intersessional activities, preparations for IGF, first and foremost, on policy menus for connecting the next billion, intersessional work stream, and then we will examine the state of play on best practice streams, all six that we have identified for 2015 IGF.
 And finally, at the end of the day, time permitting, we would break and would leave some time for best practice teams or dynamic coalitions to meet and further their work.
 So that is for today.
 So with that introduction, I'm seeking your advice whether the proposal would be acceptable or not, and I recognize Marilyn.  Please, Marilyn, you have the floor.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  And thanks to the secretariat. 
 My name is Marilyn Cade.  
 I wish to support the agenda, but I would like to propose one small addition, and perhaps it could come under 4 or it could come under -- in this afternoon, and that is, I'd just like to ensure that we add to our discussion a consideration of a roundtable or a special session for the national and regional IGFs.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Noted.
 May I take that with this proposal, agenda is acceptable?  Yes?  Thank you.
 Then we can proceed to the next agenda item, and that is a briefing on the state of preparations by the host country.  
 Hartmut Glaser, please, you have the floor.

>>HARTMUT GLASER:  Good morning.  My name is Hartmut Glaser.  I am the Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and the organizer of the event in Brazil.  I am the local coordinator related to all infrastructure for IGF in Brazil.
 Please, if you have your computer connected, is the Web site.  This is the beta version.  We need to improve some details, but I'd like to underline three points.  
 One is the visa-related questions, one point is related to the hotels, and the other point about flights.  
 And you can navigate on this Web site very easily and you can see all the details.  Exactly on this screen, you will see "Shuttle," "Flights," "Tourism," "Visa," and "Hotels."  So you can go to this Web site and you will see that most of the information already is there.  
 The conference center is a new conference center in the city of Joao Pessoa.  I need -- I think we need to try to speak this correctly.  Joao Pessoa.  I know that Mark from England is straining.
 [ Laughter ]

>>HARTMUT GLASER:  Joao Pessoa.  Again, Joao Pessoa.  It's a nice city in the northeast.  The first city in the morning who receive the sun in Brazil is Joao Pessoa.  So it is an easy distance from Brazil to Africa.  You can swim over, 2,000 kilometers, so it's shorter to go to Africa than to go to south Brazil.
 We have a very, very good meeting there with United Nations staff, and Janis also was there.  We go to all facilities.  We visit some of the hotels.  Everything is already in place.
 You have a lot of selections, options for the hotels there.  Probably some concern will be related to the flights.  When you see the page with the information about the airports, we recommend that you arrive in Brazil through four or five airports.
 One is Sao Paulo, one is Rio de Janeiro, one is Salvador, and one is Brasilia, the capital.  International airports with international connection, and from these airports, you have nonstop flight from Joao Pessoa.  
 In Joao Pessoa, the airport is a domestic airport.  It's not an international airport.  You will have transfer to all the hotels, and from all the hotels will be transferred to the convention center.
 So everything is in place, everything is contracted, everything is already there.
 Next week, on Tuesday, I will be there again to check and to have the final decisions with the local authorities, but we have very high-level meetings with security, with all the tourism agency.  Everything is in place.
 Probably you can navigate and see details, and I prefer, Mr. Chairman, if there are questions, to answer the questions, and I don't need to spend more time.  Shuttle, flights, tourism, visa, hotels, everything is there, and more information will be coming day by day after this week.
 I wait to include our Web site in the IGF Web site, so that we will have connection on both.
 So I am ready to answer questions.  I hope that they'll be easy questions.  If they will be complicated, I send this to our ambassador and he can answer for us.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Now the floor is open for any questions you may have to Brazilian host.
 Just to confirm that the meeting place I think is really extraordinary and one of the best we -- IGF had in these past 10 years.
 The meeting place will be away from the city, from hotels, and transportation will be arranged.
 We also spoke about IGF hot spot on the beach in one of the hotels, and -- but not in the morning, as initially Brazilian host suggested, but after the day where people could meet, relax, rub shoulders, talk further, and enjoy Brazilian hospitality.
 So that is what we also are thinking to arrange.  And I hope that Hartmut can confirm that hospitality will be arranged.

>>HARTMUT GLASER:  Yes.  Sure.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So please, ma'am.

>>ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Andrea Saks.  I am the organizer/convener of the dynamic coalition on accessibility and disability and I'd like to address our representative from Brazil to ask a question.  I will go through your Web site.  
 Are there special arrangements in place for persons with disabilities, both physically and possibly blind, to be able to navigate, once they get to the airport, to be able to get to the hotels?
 And also, are the hotels prepared to reserve rooms specifically for persons with disabilities so they're not given to people who are not persons with disabilities?  
 Is there anything organized?  And if there is not, I'm really happy to help, because there are ways of making this sort of thing easy for persons and putting things on the Web.  
 As I said, I haven't had a chance to go through this Web site yet, but I would be pleased at the break to have a conversation regarding that.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for your question.  Any further questions to the host country?
 I see -- I see none.  
 Hartmut, would you like to respond?

>>HARTMUT GLASER:  Very short answer.  
 Yes, most of the hotels have facilities for access.  
 In relation to the airport, there will be a reception on the airport for everyone who is coming, and the transfers will be from the airport to the hotels.  
 So the Web site already mentions this, and there are some selected hotels that we recommend for accessibility.  The conference place is on the same level, no difficulties, so it will be very, very easy from one room to the other.  Everything already is there.  But I can go in more details if you like some other questions.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  
 In absence of further questions, we then thank our host for this information.  
 Michael Nelson?

>>MICHAEL NELSON:  What's the status of the host agreement?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Chengetai, would you like to comment on that?  Status of host agreement?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, okay.  With the host country agreements, we've -- it's been far -- it's far on its way to completion.  There's only two items that the wordings have to be changed.  It's not a disagreement with the actual articles; it's just, you know, finding the right wordings, which the U.N. legal department and the Brazilian legal department are looking at.
 So I don't think there's any difficulties or anything to worry about on the host country agreement.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much.  Mark Carvell?  Mark?

>>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Janis, and good morning, everybody, and thank you very much, Hartmut, for the presentation and steering us to the excellent Web site for the IGF in Joao Pessoa.  
 How am I doing?  How am I doing?
 [ Laughter ]

>>MARK CARVELL:  I think, Hartmut, you were going to say something about visas, is that right?  Thank you.

>>HARTMUT GLASER:  I will ask that our minister of foreign relations, Mr. Jandyr, explain some details.
 There is some information on the Web site, but he can go in details.

>>JANDYR SANTOS: Thank you, Hartmut.  
 And if you refer to the visa section in the -- at the Web site, you'll see that there's information available that shows once your registration is approved and you have obtained your confirmation letter from the IGF secretariat, you'll be entitled to a visa free of charge within Brazil's generous visa rules.  
 So this is pretty clear and all the information you need is available at the Web site.  Thank you.
 And on top of that, you'll see that there's a number of countries that do not need visas to go to Brazil.  A list of this countries is also included on the Web site.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for this clarification.  
 Juan?  Juan Fernandez.

>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Yes.  Because I'm new to MAG, I want to ask:  Do MAG members have to be in a specific hotel or it can be spread all out?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I will ask Chengetai to answer that question.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, there's no specific arrangements for MAG members being in one hotel.  You can choose whichever hotel you want to.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  
 United States?

>>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, Chair.  Thank you, Hartmut.  Good morning, everyone.  
 Hartmut, I just wondered if there was any more information about the plans for events hosted on the day zero, in addition to some of the other site events that are happening?  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I will ask Brazilian delegation to respond.  Hartmut, you or -- 

>>HARTMUT GLASER:  Let me start.  Until now we have three requests for day zero.  One is the next generation Internet conference.  It already is done every year.  They like to have a room for a hundred people for day zero.  They are already in touch with the Brazilian organizers.  
 The second request is from Stanford University for a polling that will be done during the conference.  They will start on Sunday late, for a meeting on Sunday in the evening and all the day on Monday.  Probably Tuesday in the morning.  These are under conversation.  Janis and myself are requested to be helping them.  So we are working with this joint effort to have this polling project in place.  And Brazil will use also day one for NETmundial Initiative.  So we are working on an agenda that we will put together the NETmundial Initiative to go in some details and explain how the progress of NETmundial is working.  
 We'd like to use this day zero to explain.  We can do it now, but we don't have so much time.  We can do it until November.  There is a lot of misunderstanding, and we like to clarify and to show that NETmundial is not -- the noise is very negative, but NETmundial is supporting IGF and we are working together to have a very strong, let's say, relationship.  
 So day zero until now we have three requests and three programs on the agenda.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think the meaning of the question was also whether Brazilian site is planning high-level or ministerial-level event on day zero as it has been a practice.

>>HARTMUT GLASER:  The idea is probably to use the time that we normally use for high-level to be used for more NETmundial explanation.  We will invite high-level participants but will not be a specific, let's say, high-level meeting.  
 It is not a closed position.  Ambassador can help me.  But the idea is to have probably in the opening session some multistakeholder approach, equal footing between all the partners.  The decision to have only high level probably will be not fully supported by the country because we are very full adopted of the multistakeholder equal footing process.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  I see Virat seeking clarification.  Please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Good morning, Chairman.  Thank you.  Just wanted to know a little bit more about the Stanford polling project.  That sounds sort of rounded.  Is there any more information on that?  Sounds intriguing.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We are now clarifying.  It may happen that organizers of this deliberate polling process will join us at the end of today, which will be early morning in Stanford with some additional information about the project.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn, please.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I have two -- I have two separate comments.  One is a comment about the Stanford polling project.  I have taken a look at the information that is available about it.  I guess I will reserve my judgment until I hear the briefing.  
 I feel a little bit like it is a mob-sourcing approach of taking the temperature of a list of participants in a closed environment and then trying to come up with an evaluation of what their views are.
 In my past, I spent a lot of my previous employer's money on doing polls and hired a lot of pollsters and academics to do this kind of thing.  And I welcome the fact we're going to hear the briefing and have an opportunity as the MAG to understand what the purpose is and what the goal is of using this particular approach.
 My second comment is to the host about the idea that there would be a high-level event which is focused on NMI.  I think that is a -- that's somewhat of a surprise to me.  The NETmundial Initiative is, of course, a welcomed parallel activity.  We're going to hear more about it.
 I think in the past what we've seen is the high-level event that is focused on encouraging senior government people to come on day zero has resulted in ensuring that there's a more senior participation that continues through the rest of the IGF.  
 So I would like to just have us come back and talk about the goal of making sure that there are high-level government officials that are attending throughout the IGF.  And if the high-level event is not the way to attract them, what other things might be done by the host and by the chair of the MAG and the MAG to make sure that we are getting that attendance.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much for those comments.
 ICANN, please.

>>ICANN:  Yes, good morning.  Good morning, Mr. Chairman.  Good morning, colleagues.  Just to thank Hartmut for that overview of the IGF.  It's very encouraging to hear about the venue.  I won't pronounce it -- I don't want to embarrass Mark.
 [ Laughter ]
 It certainly sounds an attractive venue.  It sounds very attractive program that's being developed.  And certainly in terms of day zero, I recall, Mr. Chairman, we discussed this a bit at our last session here in December.  But certainly these three events are very interesting indeed, as long as I think there's adequate notification of them so people can sign up or whatever.  It certainly sounds very interesting to hear different perspectives ahead of this very important IGF meeting.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I see no further requests from the floor.  For remote participants?  If none, then I will maybe ask Ambassador Fonseca to conclude this agenda item.  Benedicto, please.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you, Janis.  Good morning to everyone.  I would like to ask Hartmut to complement anything that would be missing from what I say.  
 But, basically, what I wanted to inform is that, as Hartmut has indicated, there is not yet a final proposal for organization of day zero.  There was preliminary discussion within the Brazilian steering committee which indicated that could be -- that should be the main theme for day zero, for the event to be organized by the host country.
 Virgilio Almeida, who you know well, who was the chair of NETmundial and who is also the coordinator of CGI, is holding consultations both within the government and in coordination with CGI, of course, in order to have a better understanding of the format and the content of the day zero event.  
 And what I can assure you is that all the comments that are made in this meeting will be forwarded and will be part of the decision-making in regard to the final shape and format of this event.
 I think for the moment maybe is what I would like to say.  But I would like if Hartmut -- I think it's there.  Thank you, Janis.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  
 Hartmut, something else to add?  No.  
 So thank you very much.  Let us move to the next agenda item.  We have a remote participant.

>> Yes, we have Subi.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.

>> (Audio playing).

>> We have some problems with this.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Actually, Subi just sent an email to the mailing list saying that she has an audio problem.  So maybe secretariat could look at it and make sure that remote participation is possible.  Because a few of our colleagues run into different type of trouble and couldn't come to the meeting today.
 So can we hear now Subi?  No, seems it is not working.  It is not working.  Okay.
 So let us move then to the next agenda item, and that is comments of general nature by non-MAG members.
 Is there anyone who would like to speak, ask, make general comments on state of preparation on any issue of any particular concern?  Please, ma'am.

>>ANDREA SAKS:  Thank you.  Andrea Saks, the organizer of the dynamic coalition on accessibility and disability.  We've had an issue, an ongoing issue -- and the fact that your remote participation just didn't work right this minute brought this straight to my head.  
 We've had problems in using the remote participation tool because it's not accessible to persons who use screen readers.  And we have problems in call-backs.  The only way they can participate remotely is to be called directly.  We had the same problem in some of the other U.N. organizations when we do meetings, so this is not unique.
 But I would like to know if this has been addressed.  If it has not been addressed, are we using the same remote participation tool, which I suspect we are.  Are the organizers aware that this has to be -- I don't know if there are numbers from Brazil that allow a call-back situation.  
 So I need some help with this because we will have some remote participation from people who are in India who are blind and people who are in Ireland who are blind and possibly even a remote participant who would like to present.  So if you could help me with that, Chairman, I would be very grateful.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much for your request.
 The way how I can help you is to ask secretariat to help you.  That is what I'm doing now.  Secretariat, please, take note and then do whatever we can do help.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We are aware.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:  Good morning, everyone.  This is Cristina Monti, European Commission.  I would just like to highlight that this IGF is going to be special.  It is the tenth anniversary of the IGF.  And we are all very aware that the future of the IGF is going to be addressed and decided at the end of the year.
 So I just would like to highlight the importance of having an explicit connection and linkage to the WSIS+10 review and the future of the IGF in particular.
 In the European Union, with our member states, we are working on this.  We are trying to align our positions and to have, you know, concrete messages.  
 We are a little bit worried that we might find ourselves in a situation where IGF could be considered as a bargaining chip.  And as we see a lot of value in the IGF, we would like to avoid this as much as possible.
 So I just wanted to raise this point.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that all of us were well aware of this situation.  And I think we will have an opportunity to discuss in substance what -- to make sure that we really deliver on expectations.
 European Commission -- sorry, Council of Europe, please.

>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  And hello, everybody.  Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe.  Thank you, Ambassador Karklins and to the IGF Secretariat.  
 Just a few introductory words to say to you, that the Council of Europe, we have, of course, member states -- 47 member states and the Secretary-General are very supportive of the IGF this year, of course, and also the national and regional dialogues, including the EuroDIG which will have its meeting in 4-5 June in Bulgaria.  
 I think it's very important to note just following up from the European Commission that the Council of Europe member states are going to discuss next week a declaration -- a political declaration on WSIS+10 review and IGF extension, which could lead to the adoption of a text in support of -- of this review and, of course, in support of the extension.  So I think it's very important for you to take note of that.
 In addition, just a few words to say that we're very committed to the -- in particular to the subtheme for the Internet and human rights subtheme for the IGF.  A lot of new work has been coming through on transboundary Internet traffic, on Internet freedom, on mass surveillance.  We would very much like to share that work in the IGF with our Brazilian counterparts.  Thank you very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Lee, for this information.  
 I see whether UNCTAD can tell us a little bit about the outcome of CSTD meeting and decisions which were made.  And then I will see if there are any other non-MAG members who would like to speak.  I see after that United States.  
 And, Mark, I will keep you in the line.  And I will give you the floor after non-MAG members and after that remote participation.
 UNCTAD.  Mervi.

>>MERVI KULTAMAA:  Thank you very much, Chair.  My name is Mervi Kultamaa.  I'm the WSIS coordinator in the CSTD secretariat in UNCTAD.
 Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on the ten-year review that the CSTD conducted on WSIS in its annual session.
 That ten-year review included a substantive discussion which took place on the 5th May.  So this is a very recent development during the Commission's 18th session.  
 I could report from that discussion that a very large amount of speakers, both CSTD members and non-members, called for the extension of the IGF's mandate.
 Now, the summary of that discussion will be submitted through the ECOSOC to the General Assembly as an input.  And there is also a Webcast available of that discussion on the CSTD Web page.
 In addition to that discussion, the CSTD secretariat prepared a publication implementing WSIS outcomes, a ten-year review, which is, basically, a comprehensive assessment of all the main outcomes of both the first and the second phase of the WSIS summit.
 And resulting from its deliberations during the annual session, the Commission decided to recommend to the ECOSOC that it submits that review publication as an input for General Assembly as it conducts its overall review of WSIS.
 And I might add that publication is available in the back of the room by the entrance.  So please take a copy if you don't have one.  But please limit yourself to only one because I just brought them myself.  And the amount is limited.
 I could add that we would -- from the CSTD secretariat, we would request to hold an open forum on the CSTD ten-year review during the IGF sessions.  So we would be happy to organize this event and discuss more on the experiences that stakeholders have had on WSIS implementation over the past year.  And perhaps we could also try to come up with some recommendations resulting from those deliberations for the overall review.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So, thank you very much, Mervi, for this brief.  I would highly recommend those who are not familiar with the report, which was prepared by UNCTAD secretariat based on inputs of different stakeholders, to take a look.  This is a very comprehensive document.  Includes also part on Internet governance.
 Apart from that, there was also another interesting document which was prepared by UNCTAD secretariat, and that is a mapping of enhanced cooperation or Internet governance landscape.  And that is also in my view a very useful document to inform discussions we will be having in December in New York.
 So I will ask now remote participants to take the floor.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  We have problems with connecting audio.  We will try to fix this in the break, but in the meantime, Subi sent her notes, so I will read them now aloud.
 Subi Chaturvedi, MAG member.
 For the host country, thank you for the excellent presentation.  Government participation remains a concern and an important one.  The host country does a lot of outreach.  A high-level event in the middle will allow us to retain senior government participation.  While drawing up the schedule, can we bear that in mind?  
 And also, share with us plans on how efforts will be to augment -- will be augmented to build on the excellent relationship that exists because of NETmundial.
 And second, thank you for keeping the high-level event multistakeholder.  We deeply appreciate that.  We also hope it will be kept interactive and not end at speeches which don't really allow for interactivity and participation from the floor.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, and thank you for the promise of fixing audio.  It's really important.
 United States, please.

>>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, and since I neglected to follow the instructions my name is Liesyl Franz.  I'm with the State Department.
 Thanks for giving the opportunity to take the floor.  I just wanted to mention that I've been following all of the intersessional work that has been going on and I commend the team and participants that are working on all of those issues, and I also appreciate taking the time during the course of the meetings this week to talk about them in more detail, perhaps have the opportunity to ask some questions and get some more information about some of those, with the stages and the phases for each of those projects, including the one on the framework regarding the policy menus for the -- connecting the next billion.  So thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to have a conversation about that and learn a bit more about that this week.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  UNECA, Economic Commission for Africa.

>>ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR AFRICA: Thank you very much.  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Makanye Faye from UNECA, representing also African Union.
 I would like to give one generic comment about the messaging we used to prepare because we were approached last week by the African group at the U.N. about the WSIS process and the renewal of the IGF beyond 2015.
 So I think we need to come up with additional messages like what we did for UNESCO, if you can have one for the African group, which I would like to coordinate with the outreach committee.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I see Patrick or -- or from Google.

>> Hi, Mr. Chairman.  I'm (saying name) from Google Brazil.  Just a quick introduction.  I would like to explain that Google is fully committed to helping the host country, especially given that I'm from there, and anybody that needs any information in particular regarding Brazil and the whole process, so be happy to be in support.
 And as far as disability, it was a topic that was mentioned quite a few times.  Brazil is about to approve its new disability code, and essentially it's a very important part of the conversation and I know it's coming later on, but I definitely think that it should be one of the -- as the process goes on regarding which panels are going to be approved, we definitely should be looking out for that.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for this reassuring message.  
 I see no further requests from non-MAG members.  
 Mark is asking for the floor.  Please, Mark.

>>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you.  Chair.  Mark Carvell, United Kingdom government, Department for Culture, Media, and Sport.  I just wanted to comment in support of Marilyn Cade's earlier intervention about the role that the high-level meeting does play in enhancing governmental participation in the IGF.  In particular, the opportunity for ministers and very high-level officials to engage directly in the IGF that the high-level meeting provides.  For many governments, it will be a long-haul travel logistically to get to Joao Pessoa, and I mean obviously there's the opportunity to speak -- for ministers to speak in the opening session of the IGF.  That, in tandem, at the high-level meeting, I think, helps more junior officials like me, when we are submitting to ministers, to make a strong case for traveling and taking part in the high-level meeting.
 So I hope that factor can be borne in mind.
 I think the prospect of a successful submission to a minister based solely on the opportunity to speak formally in the opening ceremony is not as great if there is a high-level meeting on day zero as well.  You know, the two elements of the programming, if you like, for a minister is very important, and certainly in my experience in the U.K., when ministerial travel is not always easy to secure and there's the cost and the time and so on that's involved with a visit to -- and participation in the IGF.
 So I hope an early decision -- I note what Ambassador Fonseca has said about this being still under consideration, but I would also urge that a decision is made as quickly as possible, so that it will allow officials to secure that opportunity, if a high-level meeting is, indeed, arranged with ministers being invited.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Mark.  I see that Ambassador Fonseca is taking notes.
 I see no further requests for the floor at this -- on this agenda item, and therefore, we can move maybe to the next one, and that would be briefings on -- related to IGF initiatives, and if I may invite European Commission, Cristina, to speak about GIPO initiative.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for the opportunity to present you the ongoing work for the creation of the Global Internet Policy Observatory.
 We have some slides, yes?  
 Thank you, Carl.
 So in this presentation, I will briefly go through the main ideas and objectives that are behind this project and will provide a short update on ongoing initiatives.
 Next slide, please.
 So first of all, what is GIPO?  GIPO is inspired by the idea of making full use of available technological tools to support Internet policy and governance.
 These tools can, indeed, play an important role in making information widely and easily accessible.  The purpose of GIPO is to facilitate a more inclusive participation of all stakeholders.  In particular, those with limited resources.  So in short, GIPO will be an online platform to automatically collect, analyze, and visualize real-time information on Internet policy development and decisions across the world, and the -- I would like to highlight the automation aspect is really important in this project.
 We believe, indeed, that such a tool can be very helpful in increasing expertise and understanding among all actors, especially those who, so far, have been marginalized in Internet debates and decisions.
 Next slide, please.
 So the basic idea is to use new technologies like data mining, semantic analysis, data visualization tools, and apply them to available data.  And we have a lot of data.  And in this way, we wish to help identify links between different fora and discussions, to identify policy trends, and, in short, to provide easy-to-use information, thanks to modern visualization techniques and also information which will be customized according to users' needs and interests.
 Next slide, please.
 So why do we think this initiative is important and useful?
 Well, I'm sure you all agree that as the Internet becomes more and more important for our lives, our societies, our economies, the number of policy areas impacted by the Internet constantly increases and touches new areas and fields.
 Additionally, the way the Internet works is quite complex, too, with many players, many organizations and entities, and many different layers.
 This generates an enormous amount of information.  And this complexity can be an objective obstacle for several stakeholders who wish to participate in discussions and in processes where decisions are made that will also affect them.
 Basically, at the moment, there is a massive amount of information spread over too many places, so not all stakeholders -- for instance, in developing countries or from civil society -- might have the resources and capacity to follow all these processes and to analyze all this information.
 Of course this is a well-known problem and it has been recognized in the past by others, and we think that GIPO will help sort of weak stakeholders -- weak in the sense of not having enough resources and capacity -- and enable them to find and access and use information which is available to them, but that will allow them to also participate effectively in Internet governance discussions.
 So by creating -- by building capacity, GIPO will also build confidence, and this, we hope, will lead to more informed and inclusive discussions, and the general purpose is then to have an approximation also of positions.
 Next slide, please.
 So how do we intend to build GIPO?
 We have identified some core principles that have to be at the base of such a tool.  Like, for instance, we -- the idea is to use open-source software solutions, whenever possible; to have a modular approach so as to allow for different technologies to be plugged in or out to perform specific functions; and also we will follow a step-by-step approach.  At first we will focus on some core functions, but with the idea to add on other additional functionalities and to allow third parties also to add additional functionalities.
 Here you have a very -- you know, a snapshot of the initial architecture of the tool.  The proposed solutions for many components are now being discussed through a series of Webinars and conversations we are having with interested parties, and we are very open to suggestions.
 Of course this can become easily very, very technical and therefore if some of you is interested in some specific aspects of the architecture, I will be happy to put you in touch with the -- with the developers.
 Indeed, we -- we see this as an open and collaborative effort, so we are open to ideas and suggestions by all interested stakeholders.
 Next slide, please.
 Also, I just wish to briefly clarify the role of the commission in this project.
 The commission believes this is an important project.  That's why last year we asked for a feasibility study to show -- to analyze the available technologies and to see how we could move forward, and then at the end of 2014 the commission allocated specific funding to develop the technical tool, so we have awarded a contract to a group of companies.  The three logos of the companies are at the bottom of the presentation.  And this consortium is now tasked to develop the technical tool.
 At the same time, the commission is seeking the involvement of other partners and stakeholders.  This is supposed to be a global resource for the global community, so it's not supposed to be a European Union-only initiative, and that's why we have been reaching out to a number of partners and we are keen to continue these conversations.
 Next slide, please.
 Also, we are very well aware that there are a number of related initiatives with which we have established contacts and with some of them also we are discussing how we can really, you know, work together, find synergies, and avoid duplication of efforts, and here you can see some of them.
 Indeed, we now have a Web site,, where you will find all the relevant information.
 Next slide, please.
 And through this Web site, you can also get involved in the creation of GIPO.  You can share ideas and proposals on what kind of information you wish to get through the observatory.  You can also follow regular Webinars on the project and discuss directly with the team.
 Some of you, I think, already participated in the first Webinar in April.  
 We will also have physical events.  We have an upcoming workshop in Sofia during the EuroDIG, the regional IGF, on the 4th of June, but of course you can also, you know, subscribe to the newsletter and stay in touch through the social media channels to get the latest developments.
 So next slide.
 Just to thank you and to invite to join the GIPO community.
 Thank you very much for your attention.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Cristina, for this presentation and let me move on immediately to the next presentation and that is on Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, which was proposed by the Cyberspace Conference, which took place in the Hague, Netherlands.  Arnold, please, you have the floor.

>>ARNOLD van RHIJN: Thank you, Chair, Janis.  Thank you for taking the opportunity to inform you about this Global Forum on Cyber Expertise.  
 As you all know -- and you said it already -- the fourth Cyberspace Conference in the so-called London Process took place on the Hague on the 16th and 17th of April.  
 Its overall goal was to strengthen the coalition for an open, stable, free, and secure Internet.
 It had a broad geographic and multistakeholder participation on a strategic level, and the conference was, in particular, looking for practical solutions.  Therefore, its motto was, "Putting Principles into Practice."
 And the conference had six main themes.  I'll name them very briefly:  cybersecurity; cybercrime; economic growth and social benefits; freedom and privacy on line; international peace and security; and capacity building.
 The last one, capacity building, was a cross-cutting theme.
 With respect to the capacity building, the Cyberspace Conference did put principles into practice.  Namely, by launching this so-called Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, GFCE, on the 16th of April.
 I will shortly touch upon a few questions related to this GFCE.
 Why is the GFCE important?  
 What are the goals?  
 What are the key elements?  
 And how is this set up?
 Why is the GFCE important?  First, the need for cyber capacity building, assisting others, including, in particular, developing countries, and exchanging knowledge, best practices, case studies, et cetera.
 Second, the need for overview of efforts globally.
 And thirdly, the need for fresh impetus to capacity building.
 What are the goals of the GFCE?
 First, to create new political momentum for capacity building.  
 To promote -- second, to promote new initiatives that provide sharing of knowledge, best practices, and expertise and to provide a dynamic inventory of existing efforts.
 Thirdly, the goal is to create a platform for high-level policy discussions on capacity building.
 It all has been set up in a so-called framework document that was annexed to the so-called Hague Declaration on the GFCE, and this declaration was signed by 42 countries, private sector, and international organizations.
 Initiatives -- well, the key of this GFCE is the process of taking up initiatives, and the initiatives are being taken up by groups of countries based on their own needs and interests in four thematic focus areas, and these are:  Cybercrime, cybersecurity, data protection, and eGovernance.  I think it is a synonym for Internet governance, only for cyber diplomats.
 This whole process of taking up an initiative has been explained in the framework documents.  It consists of four phases, setting up one, identifying recruitment and implementation.
 The initiative is taken up by two or more members of GFCE, one sharing knowledge and the other asking for assistance.  So it is order to match the supply and demand.
 There will be a database coming up.  At this moment, Oxford University is setting up such a database.  And it will be a specific GFC zone at the cybersecurity capacity-building portal.  And it will be fully dedicated to capacity-building initiatives on a global scale.  You can find their information on best practices, case studies, and articles and more.
 There will also be, as I said, a moment for high-level policy discussions.  The next GFCE -- the GCCS meeting, the Global Conference on Cyberspace meeting, will be held in Mexico in 2017.  In the margin, there will be some space to discuss further the evaluation and taking stock of all the initiatives taking up within the context of GFCE.  Discussed can be best practices, emerging challenges, and promoting innovation.
 As I said, there is a limited group of participants who signed The Hague declaration on the GFCE.  I name a few of them:  The African Union, Senegal, Bangladesh, some European countries, and United States.  From the private sector, I can recall that Microsoft signed, Symantec Corporation, Huawei, and many more to come.  
 I said countries, international organizations, and private sector are at this stage members of the GFCE.  But we especially would like to see a very close involvement of other stakeholders from the civil society and the technical community, academic community.  
 And foreseen is that they can participate in the whole process of taking up initiatives because they have also a lot of knowledge and expertise.  And there will be a moment where they can join.
 In concluding, Chair, the GFCE is still in its early stage.  A secretariat will be soon established.  It will be a very light organization.  And more information can be found on The Hague declaration as well as the framework document on the Web site of the Global Conference on Cyberspace, which took place this year.
 As I told you also, there will be a separate Web site.  We are building on it right now.  But as soon as this will be available, we will let you know publicly.
 Last, but not least, we hope to share more information during the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Brazil.  Thank you very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Arnold, for this information.  And I will move to the next initiative, NETmundial Initiative.  And I understand that Bill Drake will speak about it.  Bill, please.

>>BILL DRAKE:  Thank you, Janis.  Good morning, everybody.  I'm Bill Drake.  I teach at the University of Zurich, and I'm a recently departed MAG member as well.
 I'm here also with Marilia Maciel from the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargus Foundation in Rio.  We are both here as members of the inaugural Coordination Council of the NETmundial Initiative.  And we just wanted to give you a quick update on what our activities are all about.
 I will say a few words just briefly about the NMI itself and its relationship to the IGF.  And then Marilia will tell you a bit about our recent activities.  And we will do that rather quickly.
 First of all, the NETmundial Initiative, it should be understood, is exactly what the name suggests.  It's an initiative.  It is not a new permanent organization.  And it is most certainly not a new policy-making organization.
 What it is, is an effort led by a multistakeholder group of volunteers to create a new multistakeholder space in which like-minded actors can share information and seek support for some new activities that are not currently being undertaken elsewhere.
 These include tracking and reporting on progress in the implementation of the NETmundial principles in carrying forward some of the new ideas that were mentioned in the road map section in the Netmundial multistakeholder statement that was adopted in Sao Paulo last year.  
 Among those activities are such things as, first, serving as one of the sites performing an clearinghouse sort of function -- and I think what GIPO is doing is related to this as well -- of aggregating and disseminating information on issues, solutions, sources of expertise, and resources on Internet governance.
 Secondly, providing a neutral platform on which diverse actors can promote projects that are consistent with the NETmundial statement, solicit partners, and establish collaborative relationships.  
 Thirdly, promote the application, evaluation, and implementation of the principles and encourage community reporting about them.
 Fourth, facilitate participation in the Internet governance ecosystem particularly in the developing world and advance multistakeholder processes at the national and regional levels.  This is not to say IGFs.  National and regional IGFs already exist but rather actual policy-making processes such as we see in Brazil and other countries.  
 And assisting developing country communities, governments, and underserved stakeholders by enabling capacity-building developments and networking with partners around the world.  There are some synergies with all the various types of initiatives that have been discussed so far.
 Our terms of reference state explicitly that the initiative will seek to complement and support the work of the existing Internet governance dialogue and normative processes and institutions, particularly the Internet Governance Forum.  
 Many of us who were involved in NETmundial Initiative are also involved in the IGF and in some cases have been from before the beginning.  And we remain deeply committed to strengthening the IGF and seeing it succeed, and we see the NETmundial Initiative as a vehicle to contribute to this.
 Indeed, one could easily imagine the NETmundial Initiative's activities being performed in close cooperation with or even as part of the IGF intersessional work, should that become more deeply institutionalized and supported going forward.
 So we are hoping to development an ever closer working relationship with the IGF.  And to that end, we will be organizing an event in Brazil at the IGF.  And we'll see from there where we go together in trying to enrich the global ecosystem.
 In the same spirit, I would like to simply point out that we would like to invite everybody to the reception after the open consultation at 1830 in the restaurant down stairs.  Chengetai will share the details later.  But this is an effort by the NETmundial Initiative to reinforce to everybody in the IGF community, lest there be any misunderstanding, that we very much are part of the IGF community, want to contribute to the IGF community, and want to see all these initiatives go forward hand in hand happily into the future.
 And with that, I turn over to Marilia Maciel to say a few more things about our operational activities.

>>MARILIA MACIEL:  Thank you very much, Bill.  And good morning to all.  My name is M-A-R-I-L-I-A for the record.  
 I would like to share some information about the status of the work carried out by NETmundial Initiative.  I think this is useful to understand how the initiative is being conducted.
 First of all, a Multistakeholder Coordination Council has started to work early this year.  The call has been the guiding leadership behind the NETmundial Initiative so all internal governance decisions have been made collectively by this council.
 The first task in front of us was a development of the terms of reference of the initiative.  All members of the council were invited to join a subgroup dedicated to this task.  
 The subgroup decided then to conduct a public open-ended consultation to collect views from the community and better understand the expectations regarding the initiative.  
 Most of the comments received were very thoughtful and useful to us in carrying out our work.  The secretariat developed a summary of contributions, and both the full text of the contributions and the summary are available online for review.
 Based on this input received, we developed the first draft of the terms of reference, which is also on the Web site.  This version was refined through ten online weekly meetings conducted with council members, and the text was endorsed by the full council in late March when the council had its first face-to-face working meeting in Stanford.
 The document was put under public consultation, again, for one month.  And last week the TOR subgroup met to assess and incorporate the suggestions that were made by the community.  So the finalized version of the TOR would be reviewed by the full council and endorsed in the inaugural meeting of the council that will take place in Sao Paulo.  And I will give some information about that shortly.
 In Stanford, in our physical meeting, we also decided to create three working groups that are led and facilitated by council members.  One of them is devoted to governance and operational procedures of the NETmundial Initiative, so how the initiative will work, the role of the council, the role of the secretariat.
 Another one is devoted to standards for projects:  So what is expected from projects that are proposed through the platform, what are the modalities of support that council members can give to the project.  And the third one is devoted to outreach and strategy.
 The three working groups are producing output documents that are currently being reviewed by the full coordinating council and will be online soon for review of the community.
 I think that this brief summary helps to stress three key points.  One of them is that it is very important to us that the ownership of this initiative belongs to the full multistakeholder community.  This is a key principle.
 Another one is transparency.  So a detailed summary of all the meetings that I have just mentioned have been published online.  And they are available for review.
 And the third one is participation.  We are making sure that every step that we take we turn to the community and we ask the community to give their input.  
 So what is coming up next?  As Bill mentioned, there will be a reception today.  But not only that, there will be an inaugural meeting of the NETmundial Coordinating Council that will be kindly hosted by CGI br in Sao Paulo June 30.  So it will be just after the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires.
 Remote participation will be available to all that wish to attend remotely.  And the meeting will be open to onsite observers as well as space permits.  We have 20 seats available.  They will be filled on a first come, first served basis.  And the CGI will be responsible to process the expressions of interest for those who wish to attend.  A call for expressions of interest will be published on the Web site, I think, by tomorrow.
 So NETmundial Initiative will also hold some activities during the IGF.  There will be an open forum and also an activity on day zero as Bill mentioned.  And we would like to welcome you today at the reception later on.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for this information and three presentations.
 Any immediate questions to any of the three presenters?  Marilyn Cade, please.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  My question is I think to all three, if they find it applicable.
 During the past several months, I've been privileged to be one of the business participants on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation which undertook the mapping exercise and very recently was also attending a meeting of another U.N. organization in which there was a discussion about a best practice repository and the idea that any individual could post a project or a description of an activity to a repository and that would be called a best practice.
 So my question -- this gives me great pause since the IGF is working on best practices.  We're putting rigor into it.  
 I come from the business sector where in order to qualify as a best practice, there needs to be some kind of evaluation of what the -- sort of the standards are.
 I'd like to hear from those who -- the speakers about what the evaluation or peer review process is in order to have something on their Web site which implies to users that there's some kind of standard or quality checking behind it.  And it's just a quick question.  I'm interested in hearing from all three.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I will collect questions, if there will be further ones, before giving the opportunity to answer.

>>ICANN:  Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  Nigel Hickson, ICANN.  Like Marilyn, I'd like to thank the three presenters.  Found the information to be exceedingly useful.  And, indeed, the GIPO platform, we've heard quite a bit about it in its creation and certainly be very interested to see its development.  
 On the developments that took place at The Hague at the excellent cyberspace conference last month, very interested indeed to see the developments there and, of course, in relation both to the wider discussions on Internet governance but also in relation to what was said about the NETmundial Initiative.
 Mr. Chairman, I just wonder in terms of, I suppose, a question as there are a number of initiatives in this area.  As Marilyn has referred to, we were privileged to be able to see the mapping exercise that took place.  Some of the authors of that are in this room for the CSTD which was one of the background papers that we looked at, at the 18th plenary meeting the week before last.  And that was a significant piece of work.
 Of course, there is the Geneva Internet platform which is doing good work here in Geneva in again mapping various issues and initiatives.
 I just do wonder given the all-encompassing and broad remit of the Internet Governance Forum whether it is possible that some of these initiatives or all of these different initiatives can have a session or can in some way inform the wider global community when we reach Brazil of their work and the synergies between their work because I'm not suggesting that they're in competition or anything like that.
 But I think from any stakeholders, they want to understand how they can best sort of take advantage of these various initiatives.  Thank you very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Nigel, for your proposal.  I think since this meeting is open, transcribed, and will be -- all transcripts will be publicly available, this is already a very good way how to promote these initiatives and spread information about that.
 Remote participant?

>> I will try to wire Subi again.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, Subi, go ahead.

>> No, no.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Doesn't work.
 Mourad, please, Algeria.

>> MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  Thank you, Chair.  My apologies for being late.  First of all, I would like to thank the presenters for their presentations.  I have two questions.  One, I guess, is for the NETmundial Initiative promoters.  To what extent developing countries are involved in the NETmundial process?
 Secondly, how the promoters from the GIPO and GFCE can see in practice more effective participation of developing countries, particularly governments?  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I see no further -- there is one.  Please.  Shita.

>> SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chairman.  Hello.  My name is Shita Laksmi from Indonesia.  I would like to ask at the level of activities for the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise.  Are the activities can only be implemented by those countries or organizations that are signing?  How can other countries which are not signing but interested to be part of the activities can take part?  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Shita, for this question.  I see no further requests.  And time is running.  Yes, please.

>>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO: My name is Ephraim Percy Kenyanito.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yes, Ephraim, please go ahead.

>>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO: Yes.  And my question is also regarding the GFCE.  I just wanted clarification regarding stakeholders on board, the type of stakeholders, and if it's open to everyone or it's only government and private sector only.  Thank you.
 And then also to just mention something that you had talked about earlier about day zero.  There was a request for next generation young people having a place there, so just wanted to insist on that, because someone reminded me about that.  Thank you.  It's from the youth coalition on Internet governance.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Now, remote participation.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Let's try Subi again.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, Subi, go ahead with your question.
 (Audio playing) 

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Look, I think you better fix the technical problem and we will try the remote participation on line in real time in the afternoon session.  
 I would like really to close this Q&A and to move to the decision related to our liaisonship to NMI, but Virat is asking the floor.  
 Virat, please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to very briefly mention some discussions, as I could, about events on day zero.
 I think just -- I wanted to make two points, other than understanding the Stanford poll, which you said we will towards the end of the day.  
 This is a very sensitive year in terms of renewal, so whatever events we plan for day zero should not be a surprise to the MAG to the last minute.  We should know all the details in advance so we can participate and distribute the information.  We don't want any of that stuff happening because it's considered outside the IGF and, therefore, it's last-minute information.
 Second, we should try and use day zero to advance our relationships and objectives with governments, especially the governments that are not wholeheartedly supporting the renewal of IGF.
 We don't want to hold events on that day that then gets into conflict with those who have to go forward on the renewal of IGF.  So we should not use day zero in any way to make it an opportunity where others can find ways to then pick on IGF, saying, "Look, this is the problem and this is not something that we want to get done."
 So I just want to be careful about those two comments and an overall umbrella that we should keep in mind as we look at and approve our talk through day zero events.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We will get -- we will get to this day zero discussion.
 Now I would like to --

>> I will read Subi's intervention.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  So Subi said, "Thanks for all the presentations, the questions for the Cyberspace Conference update.  Glad that other stakeholders are also invited to contribute.  Cyberspace is not and should not remain the business of governments and intergovernmental organizations alone.  How can other stakeholders from academia and civil society contribute?  Is there a Web site and a contact person's email?"

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Now, we have questions to three presenters.
 I will start with the European Commission.  

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: I'll try to be brief and to cover the questions which seem to be more relevant for GIPO.  
 So the first one, concerning the evaluation of standards, well, as I mentioned, GIPO now is focusing on developing the technical tool.
 For that, we had -- we went through a very strict selection process to identify the companies who would work on this through an open selection procedure, so according to the European Commission standards, and before that, we also had a feasibility study where we tried to map and to see what were the best technologies available on the market.  But of course, again, also I mentioned that we are looking at open-source solutions as well.
 At the same time, we are now -- you know, we have an initial proposal but we are working in a very transparent way, so we are open to collaboration, we are open to input from technical sector, from the business community, so to make sure that we have the best possible tool and using the best possible technology.
 Again, then the -- the final say, it will -- it will come from the users who will -- you know, it will depend on how the users see the GIPO as something that will be of help to them.  Concerning the synergies with other ongoing initiatives, I think, I mean, there is a lot of things that we can do together because there are different -- the initiatives are different in scope, in objectives, in the way of working, and I think that GIPO, by focusing on automation, by focusing on the technical aspects, and by, you know, trying to bring to -- collect automatically available information and to also analyze it in an automatic way can be, you know, a tool also to bring together some of these initiatives and to exchange content.  
 Then again, the content or the analysis that can be done through a tool like GIPO can feed into the other initiatives as well.
 And then a third question was concerning developing countries and how can they participate.  Especially governments.  I think here, I mean, they are our ideal user -- users, so I think they could contribute very well by highlighting their problems, highlighting their needs and their difficulties.  This could be very helpful also in outlining user case scenarios.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Cristina.  Arnold, if you could answer questions related to GFCE.

>>ARNOLD VAN RHIJN:  Yes.  Thank you.  Arnold van Rhijn, Dutch government, Ministry of Economic Affairs.  
 It has been said already by the representative of the European Commission on all the initiatives taken up right now, we have to find some synergy, and I think we have to work on that.  Perhaps the next IGF meeting in Brazil could be a place where the initiators could get together to find the best way to work on that.
 With respect to the GFCE, I've already said that it touches mainly on cybersecurity, cybercrime, and data protection, and so I think that is more -- somewhat different from the other initiatives.
 There was a question on how to participate by developing countries more by this initiative.  I said already that the African Union is one of the founding fathers, so to speak, of this forum, and through the African Union, we hope to reach more African countries to participate.
 Furthermore, when the Web site will be available, there will be a lot of publicity to reach out to other developing countries to come on board, so we are working very hard on that, too, at this stage.
 To name an example, we are already in contact with Bangladesh to find some common ground to work further on the initiatives which could be available for both of us.
 There was also a question concerning the membership.
 The membership is, at this stage, open to governments, the private sector, and international organizations.  In my intervention, I also stressed that we are -- very much would like to see more involvement of other stakeholders.  There will be a possibility of other stakeholders to work together on all the initiatives.  That's in the process of all the initiatives which are being taken up.  As soon as an initiative has been taken up, they can have a say, too.  They can join.  But they have to -- to get permission of one of the initiators to join.  We are still discussing how to make this more open to all the other stakeholders, to get a really truly multistakeholder approach, but in fact, there is -- there are ways to involve the civil society, the technical community, and others to work on the building of the initiatives, because they have, as I said, lots of expertise, experience too, and it would be a waste if we would not -- if we would ignore this valuable expertise and knowledge.
 So at this stage, as I said already, the -- it is all in the very, very preliminary first phase, setting up this GFCE, and more information will come in the near future.  Thank you.

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

>>MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much.  This is Marilia Maciel.  I would like to take Marilyn's question on review and standards and peer evaluation.
 Regarding the documents that are produced by the NETmundial Initiative, we are making sure that they are published and made available on the Web site, and we are collecting input from the community, as I've mentioned, and this input is being carefully reviewed and assessed not only by the secretariat, but by all council members as well.  So we are making sure that the community is being heard.
 When it comes to the projects that are being supported or will be supported by the NETmundial Initiative, this is a very important question to ask.
 As I mentioned, the document with the criteria for assessing the project is being discussed right now.  All I can tell you is that this is a concern from the working group, and there are ideas being discussed, such as the possibility to make a crowdsource evaluation of projects and calling in experts to conduct an evaluation to make sure that the projects that are being supported by the initiative are really attentive to the needs of the community.
 So there will be opportunity for the community to go into the platform and assess and give their views on the projects.  Thank you.

>>BILL DRAKE:  Bill Drake.  I'll just answer the other points that were directed at NMI.  
 Nigel's comment about some effort to promote greater synergy and perhaps using the IGF to hold a session on these things, you know, I -- we have had many types of activities that have spun out of the IGF over the years that I think haven't always gotten full recognition.
 For example, some of us were involved in launching the Global Internet Governance Academic Network, which meets every -- every year before the IGF for a full day on day zero, which has been really important for catalyzing work in developing countries and transitional countries by people doing Internet governance.  
 We've launched all of these schools of Internet governance in Europe, Africa, Latin America/Caribbean, and so on.  
 All these kinds of initiatives as well as the ones we've talked about all contribute to enriching the ecosystem, and I think it would be high time to find some way to feature all this kind of activity as -- in a positive way, because they all -- there's lots of room for many initiatives and there's lots of room for more coordination and cross-fertilization among all of them.
 The last point I would make in response to the colleague from Algeria, the -- the question of developing country engagement was central to the whole thinking and launching of the NETmundial Initiative.  That's what this was all about from the beginning was trying to figure out how to reduce the friction and the difficulty faced by developing country actors in engaging in global Internet governance processes.
 And so we have been giving a lot of thought to exactly what kinds of projects, what types of information-sharing activities, and so on, would be supportive in promoting multistakeholder activities at the national, regional, global level, and that's very much on our agenda.  And the governance and planning of the NETmundial Initiative itself is done by a coordination council that involves representatives from each of the world regions, so we have people on the council from Africa, from Latin America and the Caribbean, from Asia, Middle East, participating in the decision-making on the design of this thing.
 So we are fully on board with and committed to trying to make the NMI very much geared towards the interests of developing countries and other nondominant stakeholders as well.
 So that's that.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think we have heard a lot of new and interesting information, and that is very useful for us to know in proceeding to the next agenda item, and that is to make a decision on liaisonship with NMI, NETmundial Initiative.
 I would like now to temporarily suspend the open consultations and formally open the MAG meeting and invite participate in the next agenda item MAG members exclusively.
 So let me -- let me put the question or initiate the question.
 If you recall, we had talked about a relationship between IGF MAG and NMI already during our December meeting.  At that time, we could not reach a consensual decision, and we addressed the issue on a few conference calls.
 In between, in the meantime, the invitation of -- of NMI to the MAG was slightly modified, and from members of the coordination council, now the MAG is invited to identify and select, appoint a liaison to NMI initiative, and we had discussion and interim decision in one of the conference calls where we agreed to point interim liaison to NMI, and that would be, depending on availability, either the chair or secretariat of the MAG who would be performing this function, depending on the need and availability.
 At that meeting as well, it was decided that the final decision will be taken during the face-to-face meeting, and that is why this question is on the agenda, and I would like to seek opinions, and I recognize Virat is seeking for the floor on this topic.  Or that was on another one?

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get the status of where we are, so you've just given that.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.
 So we need to decide whether we accept invitation and would nominate a liaison permanently or any other option that will be supported by consensus by all MAG.
 So I recognize three members seeking the floor.  
 I'll start with Avri, Marilyn, Juan, in that order, and then the others.  
 Avri, please.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri Doria speaking.
 When we first talked about it, the NMI was still sort of an unknown and there was a lot of fear, there was a lot of sense of threat.
 I think the intervening period has shown that it isn't at all a threat and is, indeed, compatible and complementary with the stuff we do and with what the IGF wants to do, so I'm very much in favor of -- of establishing the liaison relationship.  I think it's reasonable that it be the chair.  I don't think it necessarily needs to be the chair and could be anyone else, but I do think it's reasonable and I was in favor of it then but sort of softly.  Now it's not quite as soft.  It just seems something we really should be doing.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE:  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I listened carefully to all of the previous discussions which were quite extensive and have been following the work of the NMI on line.
 At the time that this discussion came up, I proposed at that time that a -- listening to the very diverse views, that a compromise could be the appointment of a liaison of both the chair and the secretariat.
 I do not consider it at all appropriate that anyone else other than the chair and the secretariat take that role.  For instance, I don't think that a random MAG member should fulfill that role, as we have other purposes.
 I continue to support the idea that the secretariat and the chair can fill a liaison position, but I want to be very careful to make it clear that I do not consider it appropriate in any way for the MAG chair or the secretariat to become a full member of the coordinating committee of this group or any other group outside of the MAG, as that would begin to imply that we, the MAG, have some sort of official status that we confer on other groups, which I'm extremely cautious about.
 I'm very familiar with what the purpose of the individual appointments by the secretary-general are and are not, but a liaison position for informational purposes, I consider appropriate.
 I have heard some comments made by proponents of NMI, which seem to imply that there could be a closer relationship with the IGF.
 The IGF itself is not an entity, and I think we want to see interaction and support from activities like the NMI, GIPO, others, in helping to support the IGF, but I want to be careful that we not begin to think we're building some sort of special structure.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Juan Fernandez.

>> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  In the past face-to-face meeting when we discussed this, I mentioned -- and I'm speaking here as a person -- as an expert, not representing a country or anybody else -- that I don't see any trouble in collaborating with any initiative.  But that initiative in those days in order to participate or to try to get into the council or whatever, you had to sign an agreement or a statement not only you, your organization endorse that.
 I mentioned that was a bit bizarre in terms of collaborating with a supposedly open organization.  So I wonder if that is still the case.  Because if still the case, then I have some reservations for doing it.
 The other thing is more formal.  It is in the line that Marilyn just expressed.  I think that the MAG, we are not an organization.  We are an advisory group for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to aid in organizing the Internet Governance Forum that was an initiative that was agreed a summit, in an U.N. summit.
 So I think that we should -- we are not the one who have formal relationships with any other entities.  That decision has to come from the Secretary-General itself or for whom he decides to take that decision.
 I agree with Marilyn that the only thing we could have is some informal liaison for informational matters only.  But any formal relationship of the MAG with whatever -- not the MAG because the MAG is an advisory group.  It has to come from the Secretary-General, that is the convener of the IGF that, as Marilyn said, is not an organization.  It's a policy dialogue forum, international forum.
 So with those -- those are the two concerns.  One is more substantive, and the other is a formal one.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Already previously we discussed and learned that no strings attached.  Every conditionality has been removed.  And, indeed, there is no question any longer about formal relationship.  There is only a proposal to establish liaisonship for informational purposes, as liaison is supposed to be.
 Constance, please.

>> CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you.  Good morning, everyone, I'm Constance Bommelaer from the Internet Society.  I'm also advisor to the Chair of the MAG on intersessional activities to help develop practices and the theme of connecting the next billion.  
 We had noted, I think, in December that there were still some pending questions about the Coordination Council, the nature of the NMI itself, the initiative.  I think some of those questions probably still remain to be addressed in a clear way.
 At the same time, this idea of perhaps an informal liaison certainly seems more appropriate than formal membership of the Coordination Council of the NETmundial Initiative.
 We heard in Bill Drake's very good presentation about NMI that there was perhaps support of the intersessional activities, to support the work of the IGF.  
 So I guess my request would be to have more information about how concretely the NMI, if we have an informal liaison to this initiative, could support intersessional activities.
 I see personally several possibilities.  If there's a pre-IGF event organized by the NETmundial Initiative, I would encourage organizers of that event to pick up the themes of the intersessional activities, connecting the next billion, developing policy menus for connecting the next billion, and the six themes that were identified for best practice forums.
 There's a lot of heavy lifting to do.  There's a lot of members from the MAG who have volunteered, but we need more energy.  We need more -- more support from initiatives outside of the IGF.
 So if we do have an informal link with the NMI, that would be -- that would be my proposal, to have a clear link with the work of the intersessional activities of the IGF.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Mourad.

>> MOURAD BOUKADOUM:  I will be very short.  I think we have to be positive toward the NMI invitation.  Thus, I support the interim liaison solution.  Thank you very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Virat.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, let me get a clarification.  So we are basically discussing the approval or the continuation of the decision that was made on our virtual call of interim liaison status, in which either Chengetai or you would represent, not one of us random members.
 [ Laughter ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We were discussing whether we can remove "interim" from the decision we made during the virtual conference call.

>>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  I want to support removal of the word "interim."  I think it's important for these two multistakeholder spaces, which as we've heard from Bill Drake and others have clear synergies, overlaps.  There will be NMI sessions in Joao Pessoa.
 [ Laughter ]
 I'll check with Hartmut later on how I'm doing.
 And NMI has presented here, reception here.
 There's obvious value in ensuring that we have a channel of communication so that we ensure that we understand how NMI is progressing, is launching the kind of project its issuing, as the MAG develops the program for the IGF and so on.
 It just makes obvious sense to me that we an informal liaison relationship to secure that vital channel of communication.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Baher.

>>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.  Good morning, everyone.  This is Baher Esmat.  I'm with ICANN, and I'm also a MAG member.  I'd like to join others in again trying to have more sort of formal relationship between IGF and NMI.  So, of course, I support the removal of the "interim" sort of relationship.
 I think we've heard from Bill, Marilia, and others about synergies and linkages among the many initiatives, some of which have spun out of the IGF.  Some were sort of naturally born within regions and territories.
 I think the important thing here is to realize the importance of NMI in building on work that has started at the IGF and other fora.  Some have alluded to the work of the mapping exercise that was part of a CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.
 And today NMI is trying to build on that and trying to provide a sort of solutions map, building exactly on the same kind of work that started here at the IGF.
 So I don't see a reason why we as a group should refrain from trying to explore the sort of formal relationship between the two groups.  I mean, it was made clear during different and several occasions that there's no competition between the two activities.  NMI stated it clearly that it supports the IGF and its mandate, its activities, its work, and so forth.
 So I'd like to see this process move forward, and I think this discussion is also very important and very timely.  It's important here, not only for the IGF.  It's for the global multistakeholder ecosystem and showing the global community that there are synergies among the different fora is key.  Showing the global community that the multistakeholder model is strengthening, it's not -- I mean, it's developing, it's evolving, and it will continue to evolve.  I think this is an important message that the IGF should send.
 There is also something that came to my mind about having the IGF as a formal representative in some group.  I think -- I think we have a similar case, maybe it is not exactly the same case, but I thought that the IGF secretariat is a member of the IGF Association.  And I think that makes a lot of sense because the IGF Association was also formed to support the IGF.
 I think NMI maybe with a different mandate or different function was also created to support many of the multistakeholder efforts, including the IGF.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We have a number of requests for the floor now.  Please mind the time.  We have -- this is not the only item on our agenda.
 And I'm very tempted to ask:  Is there anybody who is not in favor of removing?  That maybe would be helpful.  
 But still remote participant, I think Subi, and you will read hers.

>> We have two actually.  The first one is Ginger.


>>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Ginger said:  I support the liaison position.  But regarding Constance's input, the NMI should join IGF activities.  The IGF should not join NMI and other activities.
 And Subi said, I support the Chair as the liaison on NMI.  But, additionally, I raise a concern as we may need to lower diplomatic standards here and speak with clarity.  In the era of renewal of the IGF in the context of day zero events, can the group please highlight the initiatives being taken to amplify the value of IGF and how NMI is working to strengthen it?  We are concerned as we see a conflict of interest or at least a division of efforts as the hosts are also deeply invested in both processes.
 It was mentioned earlier during the NMI presentation that it will aim to emerge as a clearinghouse function in an attempt to do what's not being done in other IG spaces.  
 I rather err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting and advancing IGF interests as a MAG member especially at the IGF.  While all of us recognize the importance and potential room for improvement, I do wish that the time on day zero be used judiciously and after due deliberation.  Some clarity would be helpful.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair.  I'd just like to echo the comments made by our colleagues Mark Carvell and Baher Esmat and express my support for a non-interim liaison position between the IGF and the NMI.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael.  Michael Nelson.

>>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you.  It's always useful to know if there are precedents or what other groups are providing this kind of liaison to the NMI.  Maybe I missed it.  Maybe Bill or someone else can talk about how many liaisons there are to the NMI and what level those people are at.  Because I'm very concerned that Janis can't -- that you can't be everywhere and that presumably if you were the liaison, you might often send somebody else.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So the invitation was extended to two organizations.  One is ISOC -- or ISOC technical community and one is MAG IGF.  This as I recall was also sent to us.

>>MICHAEL NELSON:  Do you know if other groups were asked to be given a liaison role?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, I don't.  I think this is not something that should prevent us from making our own decision.
 Mexico, please.

>> MEXICO:  Thank you, Chair.  Good morning, colleagues.  I would like to raise the point that Marilyn and Juan Fernandez made, that we support establishing the liaison -- informal liaison for information purposes.  We have to bear in mind the mandate of the MAG that we were entrusted by the Secretary-General.  And we would also have to bear in mind that we can set precedent for other initiatives like the GFCE that was introduced this morning.  And that was the point I wanted to share with you.  Thank you, Chair.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Lea, last speaker.

>>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you, Chairman, I'm Lea Kaspar.  I'm with Global Partners Digital, and I would just like to keep my intervention very short and to support the establishment of the liaison position as I think that would increase the likelihood that the IGF -- interests of the IGF community and our initiatives would be strengthened rather than undermined.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  And before taking a decision, Avri will say a word.

>> AVRI DORIA:  The one thing I wanted to add that came out after the discussion is the notion that it could only be the chair or the secretariat and, of course, other MAG members couldn't participate in such roles.  And I just wanted to put in a comment against establishing such a precedent.  We see already that we are collecting an ever-larger bevy of special advisors to the Chair to do A, B, C, or D.  
 And in the past, we've also talked about perhaps sharing some of the chairing activities of the MAG across other stakeholder groups.
 So I just wanted to put a stake in the ground that sort of said, you know, I think it's very good that you're doing it.  
 I also think if the IGF and if the MAG starts having more and more liaison activities, we don't want to box ourselves into a place that it is only the chair that can fulfill that function.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 So let me try to make a proposal since I did not hear any intervention opposing removal of "interim" from the decision we made during the conference call.  May I take this is the wish of the MAG to establish a liaison with NMI?
 I see no objection.  This is so decided.  Thank you.
 We now resume the open consultations and the next agenda for consideration and discussion is main sessions during the IGF.
 And would you like to introduce or you want me to do it?


>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Chengetai will give us a frame for this discussion, and this frame is limited only with the number of days meeting is taking place.  And it is just a setting the scene for discussion.  Chengetai, please.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Janis.  We just have to discuss the main sessions and the formats of the main sessions.
 At the moment, in the schedule that I sent out to everybody just now and also last week, we have the schedules that -- a template for the schedule.
 Last year and the previous years, this is what we've had for the main sessions, starting off with day one, the orientation session, setting the scene, and then there's nothing going on with the opening ceremony -- when the opening ceremony and opening session is going on, and also, with the closing session.
 That was last year.
 We've noted that in some instances, the main sessions have been poorly attended.  Basically from my point of view and also from Janis' point of view -- like the taking stock session and the open mic session as well was not that well attended.  
 So we may have to rethink maybe the format of the main sessions.  And main sessions have never been in parallel, but with some discussions with the host, I think there was a suggestion that we may have two main sessions in parallel, so -- but we have to think about that, because if we do have main sessions in parallel, we'll also take away from the workshops.
 So that's one thing we have to think about.
 Another thing we have to think about is will all the themes have a main session.  Traditionally we've tried to have all the themes having a main session, but the main sessions on the day one, of course, we can't have the workshops of that theme before the main session.  
 So what we've usually had is tried to have all the workshops based on that theme before the main session and the main session would be some sort of consolidating and summarizing what has happened in that main theme.
 Should we continue this process this year as well?
 And lastly, we also introduced the main session for the best practices.  
 And if I'm not mistaken, there was also one other suggestion for a main session.  I think, Markus, you had suggested -- can you just quickly remind me?

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  Thank you.  Markus Kummer speaking.  Yes, on one of the calls, I also suggested, like we have a main session for best practice forums where they can report back their findings, that we include a main session for dynamic coalitions where the broader community can discuss their findings.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Thank you.  Yes, a main session for dynamic coalitions.
 And not a main session, but we can count it as a three-hour session, we also had the interregional dialogue session, so that's one thing that we have to keep in consideration as well when we are discussing this main session idea.
 I think that's all.  And apologies for talking quickly.  I tend to do that sometimes.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Chengetai.
 So in other words, we have a daunting task to identify and select the subthemes or themes for these main sessions, taking into account that a number of slots is limited.
 So if we look to the agenda schedule, taking -- or assuming that we want to maintain the orientation session and the setting-the-scene session, which is kind of traditional events throughout previous IGFs, and opening session on the first day, we have either two three-hour slots or four 90-minute slots on the second day, we have three 90-minute slots on the third day if we consider best practice session already approved, as we discussed, and then we have either two 90-minute or three 90-minute sessions on the fourth day, provided that we agree to cluster open mic and closing session in one 90 minutes at the very end of the fourth day.
 So that's -- assuming that we are talking about 90-minute main sessions, we have remaining four plus three plus three which means 10.
 Out of those 10, the call has been to use one for interregional dialogue, one is for dynamic coalitions, and certainly if we are heading towards a document on policy menus for next billion, that is kind of natural that one of the main sessions is devoted also to that theme as well, which leaves us with seven potential main sessions.
 The floor is open.  Marilyn was first and then -- and then Cheryl.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I want to discuss the practicality of using a main session for the dynamic coalitions.
 The dynamic -- before -- and I say that.  I'm open to the idea but I want to better understand it.
 Before we -- we've talked before about whether the interregion- -- the national and regional initiatives actually rise to the level of a main session or deserve their own dedicated time slot where they can interact with each other, which is different from interacting with a town hall approach.
 The dynamic coalitions are very different and distinct from each other, and I'd like to better understand what the purpose of the -- making this a main session, where the only way that I could see this working would be a series of update informational presentations and then responses from the audience.  And given the diversity of the dynamic coalitions, I think the audience interested in some of the topics would be very different than the audience interested in other topics.
 So I just want to park that and see if we could better understand it.
 Then I want to go on and say, my observation is that I'm not sure the open mic on the closing day really works.  
 In the early days of ICANN, we used to do a town hall on day one, which was really an open mic, and at that town hall -- it was called the General Assembly -- anyone -- any topic was fame game and it was brief but it was an opportunity to really kind of air a question, a concern, and I wonder perhaps the MAG could talk more about whether an open mic might work better on a different day before the closing when many people have left or are thinking about the need to leave, and I think that may contribute to the inability to really devote a lot of attention to an open mic.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for these ideas.
 Everything is open for discussion.  Nothing is preconceived for the moment except those traditional sessions which have been identified already.
 Cheryl, please.

>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I wanted to raise an idea for a main session.  I had actually raised it on one of the lists, but I'd be happy to repost it on the MAG list.  I think this is a really important year, as you've mentioned and many of the other MAG members have mentioned, for the IGF, and I think we're at a point in time where a lot has happened with respect to different improvements from the best practice forums to the intersessional work to a lot of the other improvements with respect to how we're dealing with workshops.
 I was pleased to see that we had a higher number of newcomers who were approved as well as developing countries and I think that that's something that, you know, we should definitely be watching and understanding what we're doing right and things that we can still be doing a better job of.
 And so my thinking is that this main session, it would -- it would just draw upon the IGF's growth over the past 10 years and also look forward.
 I had originally posted it as "taking stock looking forward," but I think something more along the lines of perhaps "learning lessons looking forward" might be even more appropriate, and I'm very open to any other ideas and suggestions from my fellow MAG members on how we can best shape it, but I think that this theme is a really important one for this year and I just wanted to raise it again.  
 And for the benefit of those that didn't have a chance to read it, I'd be happy to repost it again, with your permission.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Free flow of information is the fundamental principle of our work.  No permission needed.
 Please feel free to post whatever you feel appropriate.
 I see Virat, Constance, Andrea, and in that order, I will give the floor.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I just -- to some of the points that Chengetai made and I think this is important since we're discussing formats and numbers.  I just wanted to put on the record again, to refresh memories very quickly, last year there were three three-hour main sessions and all those main sessions were running to the brim.  In fact, in two of the main sessions, there was standing room only.  Namely, access and evolution of the IG ecosystems and role of the IGF that was organized by Marilyn and Subi Chaturvedi.  
 The net neutrality main session was also three hours and we could have gone on for two more and nobody left the room.
 So I think this perception that we have that main sessions are not useful is actually being defied by the people who actually sat in those rooms day after day for three hours all the day -- all the way to day three.
 Even the one on IANA transition was 80% full.  Admittedly, the rooms were slightly smaller so it will help to understand how big the main session room is in -- I won't take the name because now everybody is worried.
 [ Laughter ]

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  But we want to go through a practice session at lunch.  We want to do that.
 And I think that the best practice main session actually was the sort of standard, about 50%.  So I just want to make sure that we are not walking away altogether from three-hour sessions, because some of these require discussions, and we shouldn't make the flow of all the workshops into the main session a precondition because some main sessions will occur in the morning of day two and there will be no opportunity, like access last time, but it was full.
 So we can pick one of the main sessions, perhaps the one that my distinguished colleague, Cheryl, just mentioned which is the IGF at 10, which can bring a lot of high-level speakers since they'll already be there on day two morning, and also national and regional IGFs to come and talk about what they have learned and what they want to do.  Maybe two-minute interventions.  That seems like a really good program to get a lot of people involved and listen to people and what they have to say.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Actually, equally, orientation session also could be sort of seen in that light and we could easily, during -- not orientation session, but setting-the-scene session also could be seen in that light and then could be used -- not necessarily should be, but could be used for taking stock on the previous 10 years of experience.
 Constance, please.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much.  
 So if we have too many main sessions overall, one way forward, perhaps, could be to gather in a unique main session the discussion about the best practice forums, dynamic coalitions, connecting the next billion, but then we would need more than 90 minutes.  We would need two hours, maybe three hours, and it would be a main session where we would present the outputs of this year's intersessional activities.  If that feeds into the taking stock main session, why not, but it could be a nice moment where we present the work achieved during the year overall.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  While you are also proposing, I would be also interested in -- in hearing reactions to different suggestions that have been put forward.
 Andrea, please.  Andrea Saks.

>>ANDREA SAKS:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  
 Initially -- and I'm still of this view -- I quite liked the idea of having a session on dynamic coalitions.  However, I take Marilyn's concept that not everybody might want to sit through all of them, and that perhaps separating them a little bit might not be a bad idea.
 As all of you know, my baby is disability and persons with disabilities and access, and we did have one, like the previous speaker talking about having a full session, in Sharm El Sheikh, where we had a main session on disability which was also packed.
 And some of -- I -- my feeling is that even though we thought that it might be a good idea, we could at least get disability out there a little more visibly instead of having it under "inclusiveness and diversity," which it gets buried in.
 And my other thought from the comments that have been made to me in the dynamic coalition in our captioned conference calls, that we would like accessibility and disability to be an actual topic, full stop, all the time.
 Because it's going to hit every single one of you if you get over 50.
 So it's -- and a lot of us in this room are already there.
 And the point being, it's going to impact all of you someday, somehow, some way, even if it's just a friend who has a problem.
 So it is an extremely important topic.  
 So I'm throwing this out there without a solution.  I'd be real happy if there was a dynamic coalition meeting for everybody to participate.  I also think Marilyn's comments are valid.  I also would like to have another session like I had in Sharm El Sheikh where I could get people with disabilities and get the new technology really exposed and have them make comments and participate to a larger audience.
 So those are my thoughts and maybe having a classification of accessibility and disability as a separate classification just like the other ones.
 Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Remote participant?

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  We have two submissions.
 The first one is from Subi.  Two recollections, one suggestion.
 The first one is IGF at 10.  The second topic of national and regional IGFs, they deserve a main and we deserve a main.  Not just a quite roundtable but a structure of the session.  And three, exploring the IGF and what's in it for governments.  This will help us retain senior government heads and get them to travel for the session.
 That was the first.
 And the second one is from Haskell Sharp, and it goes like this:  Since the last IGF, there have been discussions for the IGF to validate output or statements of the dynamic coalitions.  Would the MAG please provide some clarity on what is meant by the term "validate" and what process the MAG proposes for the IGF to validate the output of the dynamic coalitions.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for these suggestions and questions.

>>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just a few comments.  
 I wanted to strongly support Cheryl Miller's suggestion for a main session on lessons learned going forward and note that of all the proposals we've considered, two proposals that got very strong support, one of them Section -- was Number 150 and the other one was 82.  They were the fourth and fifth most popular and they were looking directly at the question that Cheryl mentioned.
 The one problem, though, is that in order to have a really good discussion, we should have some IGF skeptics, or at least people to ask questions -- you know, really hard questions -- about how we can make IGF better.
 By the nature of this process, most of the people coming to Joao Pessoa are going to be people who are very supportive of IGF, but I think -- I do think a main session would be more likely to bring skeptics.  You might be more likely to get some high-level government people there, particularly if you do this on the first day after the high-level event.
 I would argue, though, that having a main session and all of the other proposals to look at IGF as workshops might be overkill, and I don't think we want to do all of the -- this having main sessions and do all the workshops in this area and, instead, combine them.
 Second issue is on the dynamic coalitions, and I strongly agree that having a grab-bag session, a main session where all the different dynamic coalitions come together and talk about what they're doing, would not get you a very good or well-engaged audience.  You want to have more focused discussions around the topics that those dynamic coalitions have, and I do think the main sessions can be very helpful if we have them focused enough on a particular key topic that people will actively engage and we're not just trying to have a bunch of reports.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Markus?  Markus Kummer?

>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes.  Picking up on a few of the comments, starting with Marilyn, who questioned the need for a main session on dynamic coalitions.
 Yes, I fully agree there are different dynamic coalitions.  They're different in nature.  There's not a one-size-fits-all model.
 But the problem we have is that for the past -- well, nine years ago, I think, to the month in this very same building, we came to the conclusion that dynamic coalitions would be the way forward, as there was no agreement to have some kind of IGF working groups, and they have evolved over the years outside the mainstream IGF.
 Some of them have done very good work, and Andrea gave -- teed it up very nicely.  The dynamic coalition on accessibility has actually produced guidelines and we have tried, over the years, to bring the mainstream.  Sharm El Sheikh was a very good example.  But they were never actually endorsed as IGF guidelines.  They're the guidelines of the dynamic coalitions.  
 And there, I think I would pick up on what Constance said.  We need some kind of plenary session where we bring the intersessional work and the work that was developed on the margins back to the mainstream, and that would not necessarily be a substantive session but more of a formal recognition of that work in whatever way we will do, and we also have to recognize that some of the work that has developed may have been controversial and may not find the approval of the mainstream IGF community.
 However, we will have -- I think the dynamic coalitions are on the agenda of tomorrow's meeting.  There is obviously more discussion needed for that.  But I think for the time being to have a placeholder in for one main session where we can bring the intersessional work and that includes the best practice forums, that includes the dynamic coalition, and that includes the work on connecting the next billion back to the mainstream in a way which would be more akin to a plenary in a traditional U.N. context.
 Now, I know that sounds a bit boring.  That's what we wanted to go away from when we started the IGF.  But if we embark on intersessional work, we have to find some way of linking it to the IGF.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Markus.  If you noted, Chengetai is photographing all of you, especially those that are sleeping now.
 [ Laughter ]
 So I will give first floor to those who have not spoken yet.  And ICC-BASIS is first on my list.  Elizabeth, please.

>>ICC-BASIS:  My name is Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud.  And I represent the ICC-BASIS members from the International Chamber of Commerce.  I just wanted to add our support for the proposal that main session topics should be of a substantial nature and appeal to a wider audience.  We would definitely support the idea of an IGF at 10 main session and like the reorientation of it towards lessons learned as opposed to a taking stock session.
 I think it's important.  This approach could actually have more appeal to high-level stakeholders that might come to the event if placed at the appropriate time.  And definitely it's the right year for us to showcase what the IGF -- the sort of multistakeholder on equal footing experiment has yielded.  
 And I would agree with Mike that it would be important to bring out those devil's advocate arguments that could be presented and discussed and debated in this context openly and courageously.  But at the same time, there is a lot that can be culled together and discussed in what I think would proven a very meaty session.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

>>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair.  I'd just like to follow up on something that Mike Nelson had said with regard to workshop proposals of similar subject matter across -- that shares similar subject matter with main sessions.
 As we work through our evaluations tomorrow, may I suggest that we be open to the idea of when we're discussing merging proposals, we consider merging proposals on the same subject matter into a main session, if we feel that there's an opportunity to do so.
 So I think this would help us with two different objectives.  First of all, this could help us conserve MAG resources.  Last year MAG members played quite an intensive role in organizing the main session workshops.  So those resources could also be used to combine or merge similar proposals.  In this way, we could also increase diversity and participation by including more people.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Remote participant.

>>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Thank you.  There is one addition from Subi on Proposal Number 4 on emerging issues session.  And equal emphasis on policy questions at main session and formats.  We need to work on interactivity from day one and not as an afterthought.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, thank you.

>> UNESCO:  Thank you, Chair.  I think this discussion is very useful because, yes, it is quite a challenge to make it more attractive and well-attended and actually useful.
 I think at some point in the past IGF, that we had built up the reporting component into the main session which means that since there are so many parallel workshops in the IGF, nobody can really manage to attend all the interested ones.  So it could be a useful exchanging point to share other outcomes from different workshops.
 So maybe I would suggest at the end of the day, we have a main session to allow the workshop organizer to give a very brief report on their discussions.
 I have seen some good practice from the original IGF, like EuroDIG.  I was quite impressed by their reporting session which was well-attended and helped with the participants exchanging the major discussions.  Same as the UNESCO conference, "CONNECTing the Dots" in March.  I remember our reporting sessions in the afternoon was also very well-attended.  We allow every workshop organizer to participate five minutes reporting.  It can help.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

>>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Thank you, Chair.  So this is Izumi speaking.  I very much like the idea that Markus has shared in terms of we may want to have some kind of streams of discussions which took place in dynamic coalitions and possibly some of the best practices forums and maybe also have a broad sense of wrapup of what has been discussed during the week and a direction forward.
 Because one of the comments that I hear about the IGF is since there are since a large number of workshops and topics which has been discussed during the week, which is a very good thing in terms of diversity, it's also quite difficult to get an overall sense of what has been discussed.  
 So I actually feel that giving this kind of -- like a main session which would give a wrapup and would feed into what has been discussed would be really helpful in giving some specific take-aways, not in terms of decision-making or negotiation way but it would give a good idea of people to remember and highlight on the core points that has been discussed and hint what will be a helpful way forward.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Izumi.
 Juan.  Juan Fernandez.

>>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you.  I have a question first because I'm inexperienced in this MAG work.  And, also, I have a comment afterwards.
 My first, the question is that:  For me, I am not clear.  What is the difference between the main session and a regular workshop?  It is only quantitative that it is in a larger hall and with more time?  Or is there some qualitative difference between the main session and a workshop?
 I ask this question because a main session will be sessioning in parallel with workshops.  So people that go to a main session has to stop going from a workshop.  So I think that we should -- at least I don't have clear what is the difference in that sense.
 And the comment that I want, or my recommendation, is around the lines that previously was given by Susan, that we have to look at the planning of this in a holistic way in complement with the workshops because it is not reasonable to have workshops in the same topic going at the same time of a main session of the same topic.  So we have to take that into account.
 And, also, I strongly support Susan's suggestion, that if we find during the examination of the workshop that there are many workshops in the same topic, maybe that's -- that could be put all together in a main session.  And then we will have a main session that the success is already guaranteed because it's been sponsored by many presenters and many participants.  So that's the thing.
 A question about the differences and that recommendation to do this planning not independently from the workshops.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 In responding to your question, yes, indeed, these sessions are special.  They are different from workshops.  The first difference is that they are organized by the MAG, and they're suggested by the MAG based on best assessment what are the most important issues that IGF should address.  That's Point Number 1.
 Point Number 2, they have gone through different iterations.  Initially they were reflecting fully the subthemes of IGF, identified subthemes of IGF.  They were organized as a federating session, that every workshop on specific subtheme could feed the information in that session and so on.
 Not necessarily that worked all the time.  And gradually we have sort of departed from the idea that main sessions should be federating sessions.  Some of them still are.  Some of them are not.  But they are linked with the subthemes in one way or another or some very important themes for the MAG.
 For instance, two years ago, the main theme -- main session was organized around privacy in a direct response to events that were revealed not long before.
 So this is the main difference.  And the MAG has been in charge of those preparations and remain in charge also this year.
 So I see Jac is asking for the floor.

>> JAC KEE:  Hi, my name is Jac.  I'm from APC.  I just wanted to respond to a main session around dynamic coalitions.  I think that I will support the proposal around having a main session that sort of brings together all of the different intersessional work.  This will include the dynamic coalition work as well as the BPF work and for the reason that was stated, which is to really recognize the work that's done at the margins and bringing it into sort of, like, the mainstream.
 And the second reason is also to kind of facilitate deeper and more engaged conversations between different dynamic coalitions.  I think that was also discussed in the last MAG meeting.  And it would be good to see how we can think about a process or methodology that can actually support this happening that is much more participatory, for example, like a facilitated world cafe session where different dynamic coalitions are acting as lead discussions or other things we can explore.  So yeah, thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  

>>LEA KASPAR:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  First, let me just support what Jac was just saying.  (indiscernible) -- work of the intersessional. 
 I would like to go back and make a proposal for consideration of the community here and the MAG members for a potential main session that would focus on something that I know a number of people here have already said is crucial in the Internet governance ecosystem, which is the WSIS+10 review process.
 Having gone through -- I know we are going to talk about workshop evaluations in the next couple of days.  But having gone through the proposals, unfortunately there aren't any that actually address a WSIS review.  And I think it is really crucial for the IGF community to have that on the agenda.  And I do think that it would merit a place as a main session.  Although I do defer to more experienced members in terms of criteria what makes a -- how to frame the session that would make it most relevant for the community.  Thank you very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  
 For technical purposes, I would like to ask MAG members to speak slightly louder that interpreters can hear, also people helping us to transcribe what we're saying.
 I have still a number of requests for the floor.  ICANN, Virat, Cheryl, Mark, and Bill.  In that order, please.

>>ICANN:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  Nigel Hickson, ICANN.  I will be very brief because I think Lea has already mentioned it.  I think it would be extremely opportune and, indeed, somewhat odd if we didn't have a session on the WSIS+10 review process.
 Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I think -- (no audio).
 I do think the accessibility and disability track is a very important one.  I think there's a lot that many companies and governments and different organizations are working on, and there's still a lot that we can learn sort of from what we're doing and what still needs to be done in that area, and I definitely don't want to see that slip back onto the back burner, so to speak.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Cheryl.  

>>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, I just wanted to add support and try and sort of bring some concrete ideas on the table for us to think through, through the lunch.
 I think to Constance's point about combining intersessional work and best practice forums, which is a year-long work, in three-hour -- and it will take three hours to do this -- on maybe day three is a good idea, to get two days and day zero to do additional work there, if more needs to be done to then have a really good three-hour session, combining.  
 Otherwise, last year we had best practices themselves, and slightly thinly attended, but this is a really good idea to have one three-hour-long session.  
 And then I'm not sure if dynamic coalitions can be a part of this or separate, but I think that's -- we need to sort of get that in.
 I think another one, which is the IGF at 10, lessons learned as we move forward, I think that will be an ideal platform for high-level speakers.  It could combine what is in it for governments because that's a really good point that Subi made.
 The one on governments at Bali, I think, was extremely well-attended, and there was a very innovative session, full room.
 So maybe you can combine with this, bring in those speakers, get the theme right, and that's three hours, maybe, on day two, morning or afternoon.
 And then a 90-minute session on WSIS+10 review that Lea spoke about and I can support it.  I think that also seems to be a concrete idea.  
 And I think I just want to go back to Susan's point about bringing in workshops that have talked about IGF at 10 and bring them into this discussion and bring those contributions in in a substantive manner and that will need time.  So two three-hour session, one 90-minute, and maybe one more 90-minute as we evolve after lunch.  
 I just want to say that, to Mike's point about skeptics, you will find several of those will be there.  They will make very concrete points.  Last year, at the evolution of IGF session, which Subi and Marilyn organized, several spoke from the floor and very long substantive meaningful interventions were made, and so we should keep time to go to the floor and invite delegates, and that always allows for substantive pieces to come in.  Last comment.  And IGF at 10 could also be the place to get conclusive work from the outreach group that has been working because they're looking at a number of pieces to be done, and this probably is the session in which they could bring in all the contributions towards the end of the year.
 So two three-hour, one 90-minute, and then we could discuss one more.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think we're getting already very close to a good proposal.
 Mark, please.

>>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  Mark Carvell, United Kingdom government.
 A couple of quick comments.
 With regard to the proposal for a session on the IGF and the value of it for governments and government participation and so on, I think that's a good idea, but it seems more ideal for day zero.  In particular, bearing in mind the programming of the IGF.  
 It's not going to be easy, if you want ministers and high-level officials to contribute to that, if it's on day two or day three, because it's unrealistic to expect a minister or high-level official to spend more than two days at the IGF.
 So I would suggest that be considered as a potential high-level meeting topic for day zero.
 I agree with and support Markus Kummer's suggestion for a session that brings together the dynamic coalitions, the best practice fora, and the next billion agenda.
 I think that's good in terms of developing the IGF's profile as output orientated.  I think it's a great idea to bring that together in a single session towards the end of the IGF.
 Thirdly, open mic session?  I think that's good, but also towards the end of the IGF program, perhaps on the morning of the final day.  
 It's good to hear from stakeholders on issues that have been raised or gaps, maybe, identified during the course of the IGF, and that's the value of an open mic session, I think.
 And finally, a session on the WSIS+10 review of the implementation of the outcomes of the WSIS, I think that's highly valuable as well.
 Hopefully, there will have been stakeholder interaction in New York prior to the IGF.  I think it's an opportunity also at the IGF for stakeholders to engage on the review and the prospects for the high-level meeting in New York in December.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  
 Bill?  Bill Drake?

>>BILL DRAKE:  Thank you.  I like the idea very much of an IGF at 10 assessment.  I think that's a very good idea, given the desire to bring this to the attention of governments more.  
 I also wanted to strongly support the idea of the WSIS+10 session.  I think that, you know, for people who are really inside the diplomatic community and closely following these things, they may have a sense for what's happening and what the modalities for participation will be and how stakeholders can get interventions input into the process, et cetera, but I think for a lot of other people, really they won't know what's happening in WSIS+10 and yet this is going to be a very significant meeting and it could be that there will be quite a bit said there of relevance to Internet governance generally, and the IGF in particular, and so I think that, you know, given that going to New York and engaging directly that way may not be the most amenable thing for everyone.  The IGF, coming a month before the UNGA, provides a really perfect opportunity for people to mobilize, recognize what's happening, get informed, and express some views around these things, and so I would very much support that initiative.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi notes that main sessions are key to the program, alongside workshops, and that MAG members remain heavily invested in the preparatory process, working up to six months.  It is also a way of drawing attention to important and key issues by putting them under the spotlight and calling them "main."
 Also, another suggestion for the main session theme, "From Tunis to Brazil, Defining Rightful Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders in the IG."
 She's also suggesting that the government sessions should be on day one and that she would be happy to facilitate it but not on day zero, because if it was on day zero, it would be out of the formal program.  
 And Subi thanks Mike for the support.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 I also want to support the importance of a WSIS+10 session, but I'd like to perhaps add a couple of additional elements of information, and perhaps some of us who are very close to this might even also post some information to the full list.
 The -- if we are going to do a real consultation at the IGF, I think we should remember that we've done something like that in 2010, when we held a special consultation session that I believe was held at a particular unique period so that it did not compete with the rest of the program.
 If we integrate it into the program -- and I personally favor our integrating it into the program -- I would just note that it is not just the two co-facilitators that we should invite, but also the PGA's office.
 If you read the U.N. resolution 68/302 -- and I will post it to the list -- it is the PGA's office who is responsible for consultation with the stakeholders.
 So it would be helpful to have representation from both, who would be able to interact with the community, but I think again if we're going to do -- if we expect this to be a consultation, we should realize that the zero draft will be published and we should decide if we're going to be making comments on the zero draft or we are going to be making general comments that we hope the co-facilitators and the PGA office will listen to.
 I'm very interested in this topic and interested in working with others to consider what the options are.
 My final comment is going to be to suggest that perhaps we should consider looking at the use of the foresight approach.  I heard a comment earlier from Jac about the world cafe approach.  That particularly uses a foresight approach.  There's been some really effective uses of that recently at CSTD.  It's also been trialed in some of the WSIS forums.  And it might offer an approach that could be augmenting the consultation with the co-facilitators and the PGA's office, if they, in fact, are able to attend.
 We must remember we are both Webcast and transcribed, so that even if it turns out that someone from New York doesn't attend, we will have information that would still be useful to be able to package up, summarize, and provide to the missions in New York.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that this is -- this question is beyond our control.  The proposal is made, and we know that PGA is changing in September, and we will have a new PGA who might have his own views on the -- how to better implement the decision that was made by General Assembly.
 It would be useful, in my view, to have a placeholder for that type of engagement, but again, that is our collective decision.
 I see Virat and then UNESCO.  Virat, please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chairman, I wanted to, in view of the points Mark made, I think it's an important intervention that we should try and get maximum number of senior-level government officials to participate in the IGF+10.
 So here's my recommendation.  
 Since day zero is not considered formal IGF, I would say setting the scene is perfectly positioned to move to day zero, rather than day one, second half, as it's currently showing up, because that also allows people to get additional information about the entire IGF on day zero afternoon anytime.  It's probably a two-hour session.  It's one of the many parallel sessions.  A group of IGF people try and get an -- sorry, MAG, try and get and organize that. 
 We can also work with the local community there and the -- and the host country to see how we can best organize this in terms of information.
 And then following the opening ceremony on day one, we should hold the IGF at 10, which is guaranteed, at least for that day, anybody that we want to target for opening ceremony would also be available for IGF at 10.  
 I also request our Brazilian friends to delay all flights beyond 6:00 on that day.
 [ Laughter ]

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Just bad weather.
 [ Laughter ]

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  And then on day two, I -- if I could recommend the morning or the afternoon of intersessional work and WSIS+10, because WSIS+10 also requires, as Bill Drake pointed out, people to be in it and have discussions and some of those with day one are staying on, so we should try and get these in day one and day two, first and second half, and then decide if you want any more main sessions for day three or four.  That's probably the way to structure this and get the best attendance, both in the way of speakers and interest of the delegates attending.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for helping structure all the proposals that have been made.
 UNESCO, please.

>>UNESCO:  Thank you, Chair.  I want to echo with many colleagues about the idea of discussing WSIS+10 review process in IGF.  It's really very much crucial, as this is a turning point year, 2015.  
 As we all know, there will be a WSIS forum 2015 next week to take place in ITU.  It's really to connect the WSIS process with the post-2015 development goals.
 So this can be a very visionary discussion to see how IGF contributes to those development goals as we are envisaging for the forthcoming 15 years.
 And also, from the side of UNESCO, I'd like to share updates on this.
 As you know, we are complementing -- we are doing an internet study mandated by our member states.  We have organized a connect-the-dots conference to discuss a first draft, and also one major outcome from the conference is an outcome document maybe many of you have already noticed.  Just one month ago, at our executive board meeting, consisting of 58 member states, has agreed to submit this outcome document to the UNGA General Assembly to be part of WSIS+10 review process.
 In this outcome document, we have affirmed our commitment to the ongoing value of the WSIS review process, including the Internet Governance Forum, so I think it's really a timing to integrate WSIS review process with IGF process since it's beginning as part of the WSIS.
 And UNESCO is ready to contribute since we are facilitating six action lines of WSIS -- WSIS action line implementation.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I see no immediate requests for the floor, and we're approaching time of lunch.  And it is very dangerous for the Chair to stand between lunch and the participants of the meeting.
 So, therefore, I would like to conclude this session of open consultations where everyone who asked for the floor, being MAG members or non-MAG members, were offered that opportunity to express themselves with the following conclusion.
 I gathered from this last part of the conversation that we have a fairly good idea what type of main sessions we could organize.  And that is on IGF+10 as proposed by Cheryl and supported by many.  It might be WSIS+10 review in the context of contribution and multistakeholder consultations organized by PGA provided that PGA will take up this opportunity.  And that was also a session -- main session on outcomes that was suggested to combine a different type of sessions like best practices, like dynamic coalitions, and next billion policy menus.  Nevertheless, I think it would be useful maybe to think in terms of placing those sessions in the meeting schedule.  
 And, therefore, I would like to suggest that those MAG members who are interested in continuing this discussion in an informal group format together in this room at 2:00.  And I ask Benedicto and I'm now asking also Virat to co-facilitate this conversation, that at 3:00 we could have a proposal that we could continue, discuss, and identify those volunteers who would like to be in charge of preparations for those sessions.
 I would also like to say that we need not to strive to fill every main session with a topic.  You know that one of the best cheeses in the world are Swiss cheeses, and most of the Swiss cheeses are full with holes.
 [ Laughter ]
 And that's the beauty.
 So let's leave some holes also in the schedule of main sessions because there might be a suggestion that something unexpected will come up at the last minute where we will badly need some adjustments.  So we may do it also that way.
 So with saying that, I wish all of you bon appetit.  And those who are interested, please come back at 2:00.  All others please come back at 3:00.  We will start sharply.  Thank you.  (Lunch break.)

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Let us resume the open consultations that we suspended for lunch.  I understand that during lunchtime, there has been significant progress in discussions related to themes for main sessions.  And if I may ask the secretariat to put the proposal on the screen, that we can look at once again with a fresh eye and see who would be interested in organizing or coordinating organization of those sessions.
 Could we get slightly bigger font?  Or could you enlarge the picture, please?  A little bit larger on the screen.
 So thank you very much.  If I may, a couple of comments that we need to keep in mind.  First of all, setting the scene, if setting-the-scene session is organized in day zero, it will not be part of the formal chairman's report.  That needs to be understood because only IGF meeting itself is reflected in the chairman's report.
 Secondly, I think that we also need to decide whether on the last day in the afternoon where now closing session is scheduled for three hours, closing ceremony, whether we allocate 90 minutes for workshops and leaving closing ceremony only for last 90 minutes because if not, then -- we need to make a decision today because that will impact our decision and work tomorrow.  That will impact the number of workshops that we need to select.
 So let me ask whether all MAG members feel comfortable with the proposal that was worked out during these consultations during lunchtime.  I see Cheryl, Marilyn, and Virat and Hartmut in that order.  Please, Cheryl.

>>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just wanted to address, there was a proposal that was raised in our group to actually combine the IGF+10 and the WSIS.  And I just wanted to share my experience last year in being part of a main session and why I think that I would -- I would not support merging these two.  
 Last year I was part of that session on net neutrality, and we thought we had a lot of time in the beginning.  And it was very difficult to keep down the number of participants on the panel, number one.  And we tried really hard to balance that yet include everyone.
 Number two, once we shifted to audience participation, there was even less time.  And I think for a lot of these main sessions, I think it is equally important to make sure that we have a really robust participation from the audience.  I think the WSIS and the IGF, they do have linkages obviously but there is so much there in terms of substance that each could easily take up a two-hour slot or three-hour slot.  And I think giving those the appropriate time, I would be more in favor of that approach.  Second, I had mentioned it earlier.  I wanted to offer to co-facilitate the IGF+10.  I don't know if there is anyone else from one of the stakeholder groups that wants to step forward and take that on with me.  But I wanted to put that back on the table.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 I am not comfortable with -- now that I consider this program, I'm not really comfortable with moving setting the scene outside of the main program.  I think it is extremely important to have that session within the full program and also part of the chair's report.  So I think my view is I would like to find a way to move it back into the main session.  That's my first point.
 My second point is there are others here who like myself are actively engaged in national and regional IGFs.  I find the interregional -- the international, interregional dialogue -- as I said before, I'm not sure it rises to the level of a main session, but it rises to the level, to me, of needing the big room and an opportunity when all national and regional IGFs who sign up are able to come and participate in a room that is large enough for those who are interested in listening.
 I've never found much of an audience in the main room that's really interested in sitting through reports from the national and regional IGFs.  But I have found lots of interest in sharing information across those groups.
 My third point is that I'm very interested in the WSIS+10 session and would be interested in collaborating with others as a co-organizer of that, if there are others.  Thank you.

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

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chairman.  There is a remote online request for comment for Subi.  Maybe I can yield my slot to her and then come back.

>> We have hopefully solved the audio problems.  I asked Subi if she would like the floor, but she didn't respond.
 But if you have something, please read it.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  There was just a request saying, can we contribute.  That's all.

>> Ah, okay.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please go ahead, Virat.  Continue.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Quick comment this time as a random MAG member.
 [ Laughter ]
 First on setting the scene, Mr. Chairman, for the last two IGFs, setting the scene is -- sorry to use the word but rather poorly attended.  There is an objective for setting the scene which is to try and tell first-timers and newcomers about what are the sessions and what to expect during the IGF.
 So in terms of scheduling, I know it doesn't form a part of the report of the chair.  All it does is tell them what to expect over the four days, where to go, in which room, how to do the color coding.  Last year we spent some time trying to explain the fabulous new Web site that the IGF secretariat had put up with color codes and stuff like that.
 It doesn't have content -- it shouldn't have content to try and put speakers in.  It actually should not have content.  It should be about what to expect over the next four days, which rooms to go, why did we pick these themes, et cetera.  And that's for the first-timers.  
 So I think if it is -- so we should rethink what it was meant to be originally, what it has become.  And, therefore, if it's just a description of the four days, then maybe not that important to move it to day one.  But if you can find a way, I'm not against it.  I'm just saying that's what it's meant to do.
 With regards to the opening ceremony, a comment was made to check with the host.  I think I got a thumbs up from the hosts saying we can do this in the morning.  But I think they should check if they can.  You know, maybe start, half an hour late going to lunch, whatever that time slot is.  But I think it will be a good idea if you can get the opening ceremony going in the morning because the challenge is when you don't have the opening ceremony in the morning, you waste a full slot.  The morning slot is wasted.  We can actually use it for a main session in the second half.  It's impossible to do any main session before the opening ceremony.  So you can have workshops or something, but you actually have left yourselves 3 1/2 days then.  So if that can work out, that would be perfect.
 I support your point, Mr. Chairman, about having a closing ceremony for 90 minutes.  That should be sufficient unless there is a strong move for that.  I think 90 minutes will make a lot of sense and which also then provides dynamic coalitions a second slot of 90 minutes in the second half of day four.  That's as towards the end as you can get if that's what the dynamic coalitions wanted.  But it will give them 90 minutes only.
 On IGF+10 and WSIS+10, I requested we keep them separate, even though very strong arguments have been made why we should.  These are linked but different, so they're not the same.  
 Second, time is not enough.  I think IGF+10 will certainly require three hours.  It is ten years of work.  It is one of our main purposes.  WSIS is not small either.  We might be able to wrap it up in 90 minutes to two hours.  But if we put these two in one three-hour session -- And we can't exceed three hours.  If you had a four-hour session, then it's different.  I think the MAG can't go over three hours.  That's where we are, which is the other reason -- the practical reason why we need to have it on two different days.
 Finally, I think the level of information and participation of WSIS is different from IGF where a huge amount of national and regionals might want to contribute.  They have three-, four-, six-year experiences they want to contribute.  WSIS is quite different.
 So, again, linked but different, time challenged, and, therefore, I would request that we keep it for three hours and maybe either 90 minutes and two hours, whatever the facilitators believe will work efficiently for WSIS+10.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Virat.  I learn in my life that nothing is worse than wounded pride.  That's about the "random MAG member."
 [ Laughter ]
 And I noted that you most probably mixed up orientation session and setting the scene session.  In orientation session, you explain color coding.  And in setting the scene session, you do -- let's say you frame minds of participants, those who want to be framed, and then tell what this IGF will be about.
 And I see no reason why orientation session shouldn't be or couldn't be organized on day zero and setting the scene session brought in in day one.
 That said, time is running.  And I have many, many interventions here.  Hartmut will be the first.

>>HARTMUT GLASER:  I remember that we discuss the possibility to increase the time, not three-hour slot in the morning and three-hour slot in the afternoon.  My first concern is:  Will there be a breakfast -- excuse me, a coffee break in the middle of each morning and afternoon?  So we will lose a half-hour.  
 So my proposal is that we start at 9:00, work 1 1/2 hours, then have a half-hour coffee break, and then again 1 1/2 hours, the same in the afternoon.  So we need to have 3 1/2 hours in the morning and 3 1/2 hours in the afternoon.  This is only to correct this time schedule.
 But my proposal is to go further, to include a half-hour in the morning and half-hour in the afternoon.  We don't need long time for the transfer from the hotel to the conference, only 15 minutes.  We can be there at 9:00 and work from 9:00 until 1:00, four hours.  We lose only a half-hour for the coffee break.
 Then we can have a 1 1/2-hour slot and a two-hour slot in the morning.  The same in the afternoon if we start at 2:00 and work until 6:00.  So we are fighting for time.  I am introducing a new factor.
 The problem probably the beginning of the discussion of the three hours was the translators, but we have the flexibility that we have United Nations-approved translators that we hired in 2007 in Brazil.  And we will do the same for 2015.  So we have extra translators, interpreters that will work more than three hours so we have more time to put everything together.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Hartmut.  Indeed, the half an hour coffee break has not been factored in.  And that's an absolutely must because coffee breaks is part of the bigger game.  Informal contacts and conversations is extension of discussions during the sessions.
 So we can do it either shortening lunch.  Two hours' lunch seems a bit long for that purpose.  Or we can start earlier.  But I think that this is just a question of technique we can look at.
 One thing is clear.  Sun is rising at 5:00.  From 5:00 to 8:00, everyone can be on the beach and then to the conference room.  Please take it as a joke.  I mean, I tried.
 [ Laughter ]
 Mark, please.

>>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  I don't support merging IGF at 10 and WSIS+10 review.  I agree with previous speakers that these are separate, though linked agendas.  As I understood it from discussion this morning, the IGF at 10 would consider issues like the role of governments in the IGF and the evolution of the IGF.  
 WSIS, as was articulated very clearly by Marilyn in particular, is a much wider scope.  And there I thought our intent was to engage in the negotiating dynamics of the WSIS+10 review.  So that is a three-hour session.
 Setting the scene, on bringing that forward, is it too difficult to actually start the IGF at that stage so it comes within the scope of the Chair's report, if we do the setting the scene at, I don't know, 3:00 at what's now day zero?  Is that a possibility to get around that sort of problem?
 I support shortening the closing session to free up time.
 With regard to the intersessional wrap -- that's spelled with the W -- for the BPFs and the dynamic coalitions, I would favor that being on day four.
 We heard in our lunchtime breakout session that numbers drop off significantly by or during day three.  So that argues, I think, in favor of days one to three being really on the substance of issues and dialogue and developing solutions and so on through the various workshops and fora and main sessions.
 So I would argue that adds to the argument that we do the intersessional coming together as an output session on the morning of day four.  We'll have had the opportunities to draw on the individual BPF and dynamic coalition session during days one, two, and three.  As well as, as I say, the overall sort of articulation of outcomes of the IGF seems to be appropriate to do on that final day but in the morning.
 I hope that's helpful.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  If I may add a little bit on the subject of the WSIS+10, there might be also an aspect of consultations with other stakeholders that is part of the UNGA resolution.  And as you know, we are still hoping that U.N. PGA will accept our proposal and would organize these consultations that he's asked to do by the UNGA resolution during the IGF meeting.
 If that will be the case, then, of course, we will need to accommodate that proposal in some way.  And I see that, for instance, the second day of the IGF, the main sessions, could be sort of earmarked for that purpose, the whole day, because we will have substantive consultations on the WSIS+10 document.  So that, of course, would require slightly more than three hours if we're serious about it.
 And, also, I'm not sure whether that was discussed or sort of reverse discussion and then decision.  But previous before lunch, we spoke that the dynamic coalitions, best practice forums, and policy for next billion would be looked at once in one three-hour slot on the second part of the third day.  And now I see intersessional BF DC and DCs all over the place on the second day and then on the fourth day and the third day as well.  Just my question to coordinators.  
 Virat, please.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Here's what it is.  Intersessional and best practice forums, whether they are global dynamic coalitions or not, given the three-hour slot is undecided.  The dynamic coalitions wanted a separate slot.  They don't believe they can do this with that.  
 And one of the facilitators suggest -- Constance suggested we should do it together.  So we put them as two different square brackets.
 We put that as day two only because that's what came from the floor.  But day three is completely vacant at this stage.  It can go to day three.  
 I think the first question that needs to be decided whether all three can be done in one three-hour session or not.  That's the fundamental question. And then there are three vacant slots, one on day two and two on day three, any one of which can be occupied.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yes.  Thank you.  Looking at the -- the screen, I think we don't need any more of the separate best practice forums, if we agree that at least the connecting the next billion and the best practices can be in one intersessional main session.  Then whether or not that session should take place on day three or four, that has been discussed, I think Mark had a preference for day four after the dynamic coalitions.  
 In addition to this, just for the -- as the secretariat will compile the contributions, the best practice forums then need to take case, in any case, before the main session on intersessional.  Last year we had a little mix-up on that, so it's important that this year they take place before the intersessional main session, hoping that dynamic coalitions would join the effort, if they're willing to cooperate in the context of that main session.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  

>>MEXICO:  Thank you, Chair.  
 I would like to go back to the proposal of having together WSIS+10 and IGF at 10.  
 And I understand the reasons that some of the colleagues have said, but from my view, this will be the only chance that our ministers will have to listen and to have all the ammunition they will need to -- for the process in New York.
 So it's -- it will be very good opportunity to them there, and if we separate them -- 
 I understand there are different issues.  One is the assessment of what the IGF has done over this 10 years, but at the same time, we have to present that to the ones that are going to take decisions in New York, and this will be the ministers, and it will be a very good opportunity to have, at the very highest level, all these decisions being -- from up down to the colleagues that will be negotiating.
 So we believe that it will have some merit in having it at least in the same morning.  Thank you, Chair.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  

>>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 Just -- and I'd like to thank colleagues for all the work they did in the break to put together a fulsome program.  
 Just an observation that in previous years of the IGF, we've had a variety of three-hour thematic sessions, and I notice that in this proposed schedule there's not a single thematic three-hour block that people want to tackle at this year's IGF.  Instead, it's very focused on sort of, you know, obviously appropriately the 10-year anniversary of IGF, WSIS+10, and sort of highlighting all the intersessional work.
 Is there a particular reason we don't want to actually have a thematic session, or is that to be discussed later?  Just out of curiosity.  Just an observation.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Do you have any specific proposal on a topic?
 Please think also about the question that Fiona raised.
 So we have remote participant?

>>  Yes.  This is Subi.  I will now unmute her.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Good afternoon.  I'm really happy to have found my voice back.  I think this is, indeed, testimony to the power of the IGF.  I do want to put this on record that (no audio) a learning experience trying to participate remotely and on line.  I do want to say that as facilitators, it's, indeed, a very difficult job to actually take all inputs on record, and we did try posting inputs, but I don't know if there was remote moderation available during the lunch break while the main session deliberation was going on, so a couple of comments.
 I think it's fantastic that we have more first-time MAG members proposing to be facilitators of main sessions.  We really need to encourage that and provide all the support we can.
 I believe IGF at 10 is a fantastic proposal, but I also see that there is synergy in combining it with WSIS+10.
 Last year, we handled two large chunks and they were interlinked sessions on the evolving Internet ecosystem as well as the way forward for IGF.  I see a similar synergy.  
 In terms of interactivity, we did have talking heads, but we decided to flip the conversation and did not wait for the speeches to end.  We kept the session interactive all through.
 Second point, I believe that a session on what's in it for governments and re- (no audio) roles and responsibilities for stakeholders is still a separate session.  It is a different session from that of IGF at 10 and I do believe that day one first half would be an appropriate slot for that, and as we'd originally proposed, to keep IGF at 10 and WSIS+10 review on day two might be a consideration for colleagues of the MAG.
 And third, I just suggest that if we can also attempt to ensure that there is youth participation as speakers across main sessions, it would be something that will be very, very heartening to see.
 That's all for now.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Subi, for your suggestions.

>>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair.
 I would like to acknowledge what our colleague, Fiona, said about the kind of -- I don't want to say "inwards facing," but the focus on these -- having the main sessions focus on the various different fora that they have focused on, and I think that in terms of the three main session slots that are remaining, these holes in the Swiss cheese, I guess you could say, I think that perhaps -- would it be possible to address these holes in light of our workshop evaluations tomorrow?  Because I feel like, again, it might be an opportunity to bring a few different workshop proposals together, at least to get creative there, but if there was one suggestion I would like to make for a substantive topic, a thematic topic for a main session, I would suggest network neutrality.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 A couple of comments.
 If we are fortunate enough to have a "yes" from the PGA, from the United Nations President of the General Assembly, to either attend in person or to send someone, or from the co-facilitators, then I think that really changes the structure of the session on WSIS+10.
 If we're doing it ourselves, that's kind of one thing and we would end up with a transcript, we'd end up with an organizational structure that we have a lot of control over.  But if we are fortunate enough to have these senior guests and participants from New York, I think we would need to accommodate more time, as the chair suggested, and also understand that the consultation would probably be run by them.
 So one way to possibly look at this might be to plan the session for IGF at 10 and WSIS+10 perhaps on the same day, but with the idea that if we get a "yes" from the PGA's office, that we move the session in order to be able to have more time to go into a consultation, including on the zero draft.
 That would take us asking for some flexibility in the schedule from other main session organizers, and it may be that the thematic ideas that are being raised, such as in the merging of some of the workshops, we might be able to look to those groups for providing that flexibility.
 I'll just make a comment about the selection of topics for thematic workshops.
 I'd rather we wait until we go through tomorrow's session and also see if we can pick one or two topics that we haven't done before, if at all possible, but to postpone that decision until tomorrow.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think we will not conclude this topic today.  It doesn't look like that.  So we have a proposal on net neutrality as a topic for a main session.  That was put forward by Susan.  I would like to hear your reactions on that.
 Cheryl, please.

>>CHERYL MILLER:  Well, my initial reaction, I guess, since it -- it is a timely topic but we already had a large main session on that last year, and so it would afford an opportunity this year to do something different.
 I do agree with Marilyn's point re themes and waiting till tomorrow, because a lot of the proposals that we have seen that have come in from the community, they may, in fact, shape our theme and may lend support for -- you know, final support for some of these other main sessions in terms of which of these different workshops are going to have themes that are going to run up and support these main sessions.
 So that's my two cents.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  That was worth three.  Mark, please.
 [ Laughter ]

>>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government.
 Net neutrality, first of all.  There are workshop proposals.  I'm just quickly scanning the top 60, but let's look at that tomorrow in the light of the proposals on net neutrality.
 My general feeling is, if there are very strong proposals to discuss net neutrality in a workshop format, I think that sufficiently covers it in the light of previous focus of the IGF on net neutrality.
 My -- I have two suggestions, again, for looking at tomorrow, I guess, as the MAG, on thematic main sessions.
 First of all, we may have lost sight of the overarching theme of this IGF relating to sustainable development, and then secondly -- 
 So maybe, you know, a main session related to that theme is arguable.
 Secondly, the number of proposals in the area of rights and freedom of expression that were received, again, I think that is worth exploring in terms of a main session on the area of rights, the free Internet, freedom of expression, rights generally, and so on.  Maybe there's scope there for identifying a main session thematic topic.
 Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Flavio?

>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 During the lunch session, I made a proposal for another main session.  We still have maybe two or three slots left, and a proposal that we would -- could take stock of the NETmundial declaration.  
 It will be 18 months after the event in Sao Paulo in April 2014, and we could discuss what is the real impact of the NETmundial outcome on the community efforts, our organizations on following the principles that have been laid down in the document, is each item in the roadmap being covered by the current ecosystem, by whom and how, are they being covered according to the principles in the document, what else should be done or initiated by the community.  And I think this would be a nice time point to address these issues.

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

>>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  This is Dominique Lazanski from the GSMA, just for the first time I'm speaking.
 I just want to support Marilyn's idea as well about looking at the themes that are emerging in the workshop proposals.
 I think that there are quite a few themes -- and Mark probably looked at it a little bit better -- coming through that are stronger than net neutrality, but really, to Mark's point, I think we really do need to have something on the overall theme of the IGF, so I'd like to support that as well.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Juan Antonio?

>>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Well, it's Juan Alfonso, actually.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Excuse me.  Juan Alfonso.

>>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Anyway, I think that at this time, we should focus only on those overarching themes that we're certain that we have to have, like WSIS+10, like IGF, and maybe like sustainable development, and to leave the rest of the issues to where -- to tomorrow when we discuss the workshops.
 Also, I want to point out that after putting the coffee breaks, we actually have -- main sessions can be split in two.  We have too many main sessions for mergers of workshops.  I'm not going to anticipate what we're going to do tomorrow, but I sent a few weeks ago an email in which I did some quick scanning of the workshops and I found out, for instance, that in the topic of child and youth issues, we have 15 proposals of workshops, so that could be a candidate.  Of course we will discuss that tomorrow.  But also in women and gender, we have also many -- nearly 10 -- workshop proposals.  So we can discuss that tomorrow.  
 And I repeat:  By splitting the main sessions in two, we could have those main sessions, like for the mergers, and we can solve two problems.  You know, half -- fill the main sessions and -- and also the workshop.
 And finally, I will suggest to keep, even after tomorrow, some holes, because maybe net neutrality is an issue today but who knows that when we approach November, there will be a bigger issue, something that is in the news, maybe cybersecurity, there's some other attack, or maybe economy, or maybe something that we will have -- we will have no other choice to address it.
 And so we will -- I recommend to keep open to the end.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Juan Alfonso, for that proposal.
 So I have Ephraim, next.

>>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Okay.  Thank you.  So I would just like to jump onto that point and also to reiterate Subi's suggestion.
 As you see, we went through the workshop proposals.  There were many proposals on issues on youth and child issues.  Just to bring it to the attention of the MAG and to the secretariat, previously there was this form where you could fill about the expertise and what they think they could handle.  If that form can be there this time, and -- we would encourage young people to fill and -- so that they can be recognized by people who are having main sessions and workshop proposals so that they can be integrated into the system, because the question is always how do we integrate these people into -- young people and child speakers into these sessions.  
 So that is a way of recognizing them, for them to express interest if they think they are able to do either remotely or participate physically in the IGF.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  (saying name) was asking for the floor but now he's whispering to the ear of Mark and that's why he lost his thought.  Now I am asking Lea to intervene.

>>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you, Chairperson.
 I have a question.  Do we -- is it necessary for us to fill in all the main session slots?  Is that -- we don't -- I mean, we don't necessarily have to, right?  So if we don't -- if it doesn't make sense, we can just leave that for workshops and there's less of a clash.  Just an observation there.
 In regards to the WSIS/IGF merger conversation, I think Marilyn and Mark covered most of the points that I wanted to make.  It just seems that we need to reserve some flexibility, as you said, to see what's happening with the New York process.
 However, regardless of what happens with the formal consultation, it will be worth retaining the information-sharing element of the WSIS+10, and that perhaps means that it can be part of a shorter session and it might be worth looking at whether the afternoon on the first day could then be split between -- like an hour and a half/hour and a half, just to cover IGF at 10 and the evolution of IGF and an information-sharing element session on the WSIS+10.
 I think that that would then enable if there are any consultations taking place on the next day, people -- for people and the participants of the IGF to be better prepared to participate in that process.
 On the thematic sessions, I guess I agree with previous speakers who have mentioned that there's a need to kind of see what the workshop proposals are, and it just seems logical -- and we haven't really discussed this, but -- we have subthemes for a reason and we haven't really reflected that on the -- in the main sessions, and I wonder whether we should look to reflect subthemes that have had the most number -- the largest number of proposals.  I think they were human rights and cybersecurity as the first two.
 So if we want to be guided by anything, we should be guided by the proposals coming -- that have come from the community.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, and the last on this topic today is Marilia.  
 One before last.  Sorry.

>>MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much, Chair.  This is Marilia Maciel speaking.
 I just would like to go back to the point of the thematic sessions.  And I'd like to support Susan's suggestion to make a thematic session on network neutrality.  Last year we had an session about that.  NETmundial also recognized that this is one of the key issues that remains open and to be discussed.  
 And the Chair's summary from the IGF last year says that the dynamic coalition on network neutrality should continue to work on the topic and that we should try to find a way that allows the entire IGF community to wait and validate the findings of the network neutrality dynamic coalition.  
 The coalition has worked throughout the year, and they have produced a policy draft statement on network neutrality.  It has circulated in different lists.  They are also in contact with different regional IGFs.  This topic is going to be discussed in regional IGFs.  So it seems to me that the recognition of the work that has been developed would be to assign a main session to that, and that would be the first option.
 If that is not possible considering the schedule, maybe we should consider giving the dynamic coalitions an opportunity to report back as a stand-alone because we have called them to act and they have acted upon our requests.  So it is important to give them this space.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 And, Virat, you're the last one today.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chairman, thank you.  Firstly, I want to support Fiona's point about the fact that we should keep this discussion at high-level at the IGF at 10, WSIS right now, intersessional work, sustainable development.  I think there are sort of two other points that came out that can be discussed.  In the way of themes, I think if you look carefully, the intersessional work will represent a set of themes.  The best practice forums picks six themes.  The dynamic coalitions, each one of them work on a very important theme.  So there is sufficient representation of the subthemes and themes in that sense.  
 Now if dynamic coalitions are going to get in with a two-hour session as has been suggested, then will be another representation of multiplicity of very important themes.  So I don't think it will be short.  I think Fiona's point.  It is a bit different in terms of the optics unlike the last few years when we had access or one of those things.  But themes will be represented.
 I would rethink the suggestion of having both WSIS+10 and IGF combined, firstly.  I still think they have to be different.  And, secondly, moving them both to the second day, that's not a good idea because we can at least get some people on day one who may not be there on day two.  So we are back to the same old a bird in hand is worth blah, blah.  Just want to expand on that.
 And, finally, I think the point that was made about leaving the main sessions blank so more workshops can be allocated, we can leave it blank but it won't allow more workshops to be allocated because main sessions are not plenaries.  So at best, you'll get a room which you can accommodate two 90-minute sessions, two 90-minute workshops because it doesn't in any event come in the way of more workshops.
 NETmundial, I just think, was done last year.  I think the dynamic coalitions will have 90 minutes this year.  So we should, if we have to -- sorry, net neutrality.  If we have to think of something, then we should really give NETmundial chance or something new that we haven't done previously.  I think that will be an important part.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 The last remote participant.

>>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  We have actually two interventions but one is really short.  So, Haskell, could you please now take the floor?

>>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Yes, I was just wondering.  I apologize for repeating.  But what was meant by the term "validate"?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  There was a proposal that Marilia said the dynamic coalitions on network neutrality worked throughout the year and that the session could validate the results of the work of the document.  So that was proposed by Marilia.

>> The second one from Subi.  Subi, please.

>>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair, for the intervention.  Just very quickly, I do believe we have said this a couple of times.  A main session on national and regional IGFs for consideration of colleagues from the MAG.  We don't see this as the same thing as IGF's initiative reporting into the discussion.  It's a structured conversation that we'd like to have with national and regional IGFs and how their issues are different at multiple levels and require different solutions.  So a suggestion for consideration of a main session on national and regional IGFs.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Subi.
 So I have mission impossible.  Actually, no, I have mission possible.  Just to give the floor to EBU.

>> EBU:  Just to say that I support completely both ideas about the regional and national IGFs.  I think it's very important that we have this space.  
 And about the dynamic coalition on net neutrality, of course, I think the topic is important, especially if we will have before the end of the year an European Union definite position on that.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Giacomo, for your intervention.  Now I have mission impossible. it is to summarize the discussion.  And discussion certainly was not fully conclusive and need to continue.  We agreed there should be -- Hossam, please.

>> HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  I just wanted to add we had for this IGF specifically a new subtheme, which is Internet economy, which goes with sustainable development.  And I would suggest strongly to have a main session for Internet economy with sustainable development.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  More we have such concrete proposals, the better we are.  And I hope that your proposal will also gain support from other MAG members.

>>MICHAEL NELSON:  I just want to speak out on why I think it's not a good idea to have main sessions on relatively narrow topics like net neutrality two years in a row.  And if we're going to do that, I think it make as lot more sense to have a session on surveillance and issues like that, another issue that we had a main session at in Istanbul that was well-attended.
 I really just worry that if we do topics like net neutrality year in and year out, we're just going to get bogged down.  We need to bring new ideas to the table.  
 The newest idea in Washington right now is all about encryption.  And I would say that needs a lot more attention.  I don't know if it needs a main session, but it is certainly is a hotter topic than net neutrality is and it will be a hot topic in November as well.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Michael.  I will add the complexity on encryption.  I will add the dark digital age because we do not know how to preserve digital information unencrypted.  And if we put encryption obligation, then we're really in the ditch.

>> MAKANYE FAYE:  Makanye Faye, Economic Commission for Africa.  I just wanted to add the voice to my colleagues Subi and others who wanted us to have a session on national and regional IGFs.  And also I believe we need to have a session on dynamic coalitions, one session where all of them will come and discuss.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for these contributions.
 But now I will use prerogative of the chair, and we'll conclude this topic without having a decision, as I had hoped that we would have.  Nevertheless, there are some elements that we can identify and that we have agreed.
 We have agreed that one of the topics would be IGF at 10 and another session -- or we would reserve time to WSIS+10 with a view to consult U.N. PGA office and see whether there would be possibility of informal consultations with the stakeholders on WSIS+10 or not.
 And if that would be possible, we then would provide opportunity throughout a day during the main session to hold these consultations.
 If not, then we would revisit those slots and I would reorganize main sessions.  
 We also agreed that the best practice forum would be also looking and presenting the outcomes of intersessional work on policy menus for next billion online and that the dynamic coalitions possibly would prefer to have a separate slot and we would seek to accommodate that.
 We honestly need to see whether an opening session of 90 minutes would be enough.  If there will be a few ministers, then certainly it will be enough.  But if there will be a few dozen ministers, I'm afraid this will not be enough.
 And, again, we do not want to turn open session only in a ministerial parade.  We would want also to have industry generals and civil society kings and queens and technical community gurus also speaking.  So as a result, 90 minutes may not be really feasible.  We will see how to accommodate these concerns, and most likely the decision will be made after this meeting as we will proceed and we learn more information.
 That said I have two -- I have noted two volunteers for issues.  Cheryl volunteered to do -- to be one of the facilitators of IGF at 10 and Marilyn one of the facilitators on WSIS+10.  I did not note any other volunteering.

>>LEA KASPAR:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  If I could just volunteer to participate in the WSIS+10 in whatever capacity is needed.

>> Okay, me too.  I would like to work with Marilyn whenever it's needed on WSIS+10.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  

>> MEXICO:  Thank you, Chair.  We also would like to work with Marilyn.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Marilyn, you are very popular.
 [ Laughter ]
 My apologies.  My memory sometimes fails me on names.
 Shita, please.

>>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair.  I would like to also help Cheryl on the IGF+10.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yes, I'm happy to help with the intersessional one.  But, of course, this is only possible if Brazil helps.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So you will volunteer Brazil as well?

 [ Laughter ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That's good.
 Good.  So we have at least something.

>>VIRAT BHATIA:  Is it necessary for the facilitators to be a MAG member or can they be from an outside?  Like, a non-MAG member can facilitate?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Depending.  We will see.  If we would lack MAG members, then we can invite.  But in any case, we are talking about main coordinators.  That does not exclude that main coordinators could be held by many other volunteers because I would like to have somebody whom to hold responsible that everything goes fine because I want to collect all the glory afterwards.
 [ Laughter ]
 Jac, please, first.

>> Jac Kee:  I would like to help volunteer Constance in the intersessional.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Microsoft?

>> MICROSOFT:  Hi, yes.  This is Carolyn Nguyen from Microsoft.  I would like to also volunteer to help Constance.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Thank you, Carolyn.  So we have now some volunteers as well.  Everything is noted and recorded, and we will call on you to remind that you did volunteer to do this work.  So thank you very much.
 Let us move to the next agenda item, and that is discussion on intersessional work.
 We have two topics here:  Topic on policy menu for connecting the next billion which was coordinated by Benedicto and Constance.  And we will start with that.  
 And I hope we can agree in about 30 minutes or go through this topic in 30 minutes to leave another 30 minutes for best practices -- updates on best practices where I have a number of speakers, starting with Markus, Avri, Jac, and I think Constance afterwards.
 So, please -- yes, Mark.

>>MARK CARVELL:  Sorry, Chair, to interrupt the flow of the proceedings and so on.  There was a proposal for a main session on national and regional IGFs.  What is the status of that now?  Is it going to be discussed further?  Sorry if I missed a reference to that.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  There were two options.  I think for the moment we should say that this proposal is pending like many others because one can imagine that if IGF at 10 gets a three-hour slot, part of that time could be devoted also to regional and national initiatives.
 Outside -- this is not what Marilyn suggested on sort of interregional dialogue.  That would be kind of a working level thing.  But I do not want to talk anymore about main sessions.  I would like to go on with other business.
 You will start, Benedicto, please, if you could introduce the topic.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  So thank you, Janis.  While I was together with some other colleagues, I was asked by Janis to coordinate and to put forward for your consideration a proposal to shape the process towards preparing a document for policy menus for connecting the next billion online.  I don't know if the secretariat could post the latest version with the amendments that were made.
 This document that is -- that I hope could be posted reflects, first, some discussion we had among the coordinators.  And I'd like to acknowledge the participation of Constance, which was, indeed, the main drafter and put together all the papers.  But also Virat, Lynn St. Amour, Baher Esmat, and Avri Doria.  Those were also members of the coordinating group.
 We held some -- one or two conference calls, and we among ourselves worked a document that was later on shared with the full MAG.  And some of you made comments in regard to that document.
 So maybe I'll start just to read the main features in anticipation of the document to be posted.  So basically what we propose is that some principles should guide the preparation of the documents.  That's -- of course, the process should comply with IGF's and MAG's working principles, that the process should be open and inclusive.  We think those are very important aspects:  That it is open, inclusive, transparent, that all stakeholders can contribute and should be able to participate actively in the process.
 We intend to capture diversity of ideas and opinions and views.  And while consensus will be encouraged, differences of opinions should also be acknowledged.  So, therefore, we are not talking about the negotiated document, rather a document that will compile recommendations and best practices.
 Contributions will be addressed and incorporated in a neutral fashion.  And the chair of the MAG, of course, will work with -- all along the process in preparation of the document to ensure it complies with the principles -- those principles.
 So the format of the document we intend to be able to present for the IGF would be in the format of policy menus, so we are not talking about not necessarily a single unified, completely consistent document, but rather, a document that will contain a variety of views, if it is the case.  If it is the case.
 And for that, we intend to use a Web platform, allowing for people to upload comments remotely.  So basically, we are talking about the process we have followed at the NETmundial, but also in other processes that were led by ISOC and others through which a virtual platform serves as the main tool for collecting comments remotely.
 MAG members will be invited to work with us.  Of course this meeting is aimed for the consideration of MAG members to consider.  And the proposal is that an open-ended editorial group will be established to work on the draft.
 A public call for submissions on the theme will be issued.  Actually, national and regional IGFs have already been appraised of this, and in anticipation of our meeting, so they can prepare their contributions.
 And all contributions in relation to the theme will be accepted and published on the IGF Web site.  Input from the regional and national IGFs would be acknowledged.
 So here again, we are talking about transparency.  Any comments, any contributions should be made available for all to see.  
 The secretariat will assist the group of co-facilitators and the open-ended editorial group in extracting subthemes and suggestions of policy menus for connecting the next billion.
 So here we are talking about some work that is needed to allow the members of the editorial group to work on a more workable document, to be prepared -- the first version of this to be prepared by the secretariat on the basis of the contributions received, but again, the idea of not deleting any comments; rather, trying to put something in a more organized fashion but without having the ambition to delete or try to reconcile any conflicting comments, if this is the case.
 And the draft policy menus will be shared using the online platform, and comments from the public will be incorporated through an iterative process before the final output is presented to the IGF in November.
 Here we are thinking of allowing the community to contribute to this draft at least in two different moments.  The intention to have a first draft to be posted and then we should later on discuss the timetable for that, allow for some comments, and then the editorial group would again meet and prepare the final version that would also -- not the final version, a second version that would also be submitted to public comments.
 So the document to be presented to IGF wishfully will have gone through two rounds of public consultations, to ensure the maximum level of elaboration we can.  
 And the purpose of the exercise will be to gather and present the different policy menus for connecting the next billion on line, and again, not -- it is not intended to be a negotiated document, not to have prescriptive approaches.
 As I said before, when divergent views appear on a specific issue, text would be left out or it will be explicitly stated that a variety of views exist.
 So I think this is something the editorial group will have to deal with as the contributions will come forward and to see how best to deal with this.
 The time frame proposed, well, 27 April has already passed us, so there was the idea to invite the MAG community to join this open-ended editorial group, but this has been done now.
 The idea is that at this meeting, we will have a final decision of the full MAG on the methodology for developing the document on the basis of the document that is before you.  
 26 May, we would launch a public call for contributions.  
 Between 14 July and 11 August, will -- the first draft will be prepared -- will be prepared by the editorial group.
 By September, this first draft document should be reviewed by the MAG during the third physical meeting, if the meeting takes place.  Otherwise, we'll have to decide how this will take place.
 Between 8 and 6 October, there will be a second draft open for public comment.  
 By 2 -- November 2nd, we intend to have the final draft published on the IGF Web site for presentation and discussion during the IGF meeting.
 And this document is seen, as of today, as a living document that will not -- that will need, certainly, to be continuously improved and should also be shared with relevant fora in order to serve as a useful input for deliberation and decision-making in other fora.
 So I think basically that's what I'd like to report, but I would also like to invite Constance to -- if she wishes to add some comments.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Benedicto.  
 Constance, would you like to add something?

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much.
 I think I would have little to add to this presentation.  Just perhaps a few words to say that we know that the invitation that was made to the organizers of national/regional IGFs was welcome.  A number of them -- EuroDIG, IGF France, I think IGF USA, others -- have already picked up the theme.  We're expecting contributions that will come in very different formats, but as Ambassador Fonseca just mentioned, there is no obligation to respect any -- any format.  It's a very free and open process.  
 So the next step is really to find a way to agree on the time line and to find a way to engage with other stakeholders, not just the national/regional IGFs, and it's important to have agreement from this group on the time line but also on the methodology.
 A few comments were made on the document.  Maybe some of the MAG colleagues would like to reiterate those comments orally, but there was a question about the name.  Should it be an editorial group or should we find something -- something else.
 There was a request that this editorial group, or whatever we call it, be open to non-MAG members.
 It was also mentioned that we should do -- we should plan some clear outreach to the different stakeholders we'd like to involve.  Once we have decision/agreement from the MAG on the methodology and the time line, we should work with the MAG working group involved in outreach in this regard.
 It was also suggested that the organizers of national/regional IGFs be reinvited formally, reminded of this opportunity to contribute, and they can contribute even if their IGF event has already taken place, as they usually have structures that allow them to work and continue the discussion during the year.
 So I'll stop there and maybe invite other MAG colleagues who had comments to reiterate their comments today.  
 Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  
 I understood that those comments and suggestions have been already taken into account in this version, so let me maybe reiterate why we're doing this and what is the meaning of the process.
 The meaning of the process is to try to respond to those who have called increasingly and permanently on the need to improve outputs or increase outputs from IGF to make it more meaningful for stakeholders, from one side, and from the other side, to link national/regional initiatives with IGF.
 This is an experiment, in every sense of the word, because we do not know whether that will work or not, how many national/regional initiatives will support it and will examine the question.
 I will say if that would be three, four, I don't think we should proceed.  If that is 10, 12, 20, certainly we should.  Because if there is no response from national/regional IGFs, it means that there isn't really sort of need for that.
 Hopefully there will be, and I ask actually the secretariat to make a list of national/regional IGFs who have responded in a positive way and make sure that their contributions are submitted in free format to the process.
 Secondly, I would not like to see and I would like to change immediately on the screen, in the timetable part, that this will be examined in September, reviewed by the MAG during the third physical meeting.  It will be reviewed by the editorial group during the MAG meeting, or in conjunction with the MAG meeting, and MAG will be participating in this open-ended editorial group alongside with everybody else.  And the question whether others can participate or not, if that is open-ended, of course they can.
 But we need to ensure that there is somebody who holds the pen in this open-ended group.  We need to define maybe a core -- a core group of people who would feel responsibility for putting ideas expressed during these open-ended working group -- editorial group meetings on paper and making sure that there is a coherence in the text and that things come out in a logical sequence and in good language.
 So I hope that I answered to some of the concerns which have been raised about this process, and I recognize Makanye from UNECA and then Izumi afterwards and Marilia.  
 Please, Makanye.

>>MAKANYE FAYE: Thank you.  My name is Makanye Faye.  Thank you, Janis, for your comment, and the clarifications which was put forward by Constance, because some of the IGFs may not meet before September.  The African IGF will be meeting from 6 to 8 of September.  So if contribution can be done with consultations with members and not during the meeting, then we could contribute.
 But my worry is that they say that Africa -- the IGF coordinators have been informed.  I'm not sure if this has been done.  At least for Africa, it has not been done.  I am aware because I am an aware of the MAG and I follow up on the discussions, but no communication has been sent from the secretariat for this purpose and I am not sure this has been done also for other coordinators.  So I think we should really make sure this is done properly that they are informed.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Fiona?  
 Oh, sorry, sorry.  Izumi first, and then Fiona.

>>IZUMI MATSUZAKI: Thank you, Janis.
 So I just want to follow up a little bit on the point that Constance has raised about the need for the outreach.
 I really think this is important because it could be the case that some of the national and regional IGFs are very much interested in a theme, would have wanted to participate, and -- but if they're not fully aware of what's happening and are being quiet, it's like it's going to be a misunderstanding that there's not enough participation and a lack of interest.  
 So I think this is important and so in this respect, I think simply sending this -- an announcement officially is not really sufficient in keeping these national and regional IGFs to be fully informed of what's happening.
 So -- and since we do have like a variety of MAG members from each of the regions, it would be nice if each of us could follow up with their regional IGFs in our region to make sure that this gets discussed and be a little bit more proactive in coordinating.  So I think this is something that -- may be something that we can discuss within the outreach group and so something to raise as a point of consideration.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Actually, there is no need to discuss.  I invite all MAG members to contact those organizers of national/regional IGFs that you know and invite them to -- to do this thing.  Fiona?

>>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Janis, and thank you to the ambassador and to Constance for their work on this.  
 I had sent some specific questions, I think, to the MAG list on Sunday with some notes that are things that I thought might be useful for the document to make it a little bit clearer.  And the reason I say this is that for those that have been involved in the drafting of the document, I think you know exactly what you mean by certain things, and for someone looking at it secondhand, it's less than clear, and for those that are going to be actually asked to provide input, it could even be less than clear to them.
 So I think it would be useful to actually address some of those comments, which were actually suggesting clarifying what certain terms might mean to people just for the sake of actually making sure you get the input that you actually want.
 And the other sort of just general question I have on this is that the call for comments, as I understand from the ambassador, is going to be open-ended, meaning there's just going to be something on a Web platform and anyone can submit comments.  This is not specific to the national and regional IGFs.  Or have I misunderstood what the exercise is going to be?  
 I think it would be helpful -- because I'm hearing slightly different things and I want to make sure that we're clearly all sort of saying the same thing.  And I'm not expressing a preference; I'm just looking to understand.  And thank you again.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Maybe just to have a quick answer to this, we want to allow anyone who wishes the opportunity to comment, but at the same time we want to give -- to give some higher emphasis or importance to contributions coming from national/regional IGFs.  
 I think it's one of the tasks for the editorial group to see how this will be reflected in the document because we'll have wishfully contributions coming from regional IGFs, national IGFs, and from individuals or from institutions.
 So in the body of the document, we don't want to lose any ideas, any proposal of best practices, but this is something that we'll have to deal with, how to -- to reflect and achieve both objectives, to bring on board everything at the same time.  
 And a particular outreach was done in regard to national and regional IGFs.  Besides the general call that will be made, a particular call and outreach effort was made in regard to national and regional IGFs, and as Constance has proposed, maybe that should be renewed, and I'm convinced in the light of comments that were made, that this certainly should be renewed.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  And to add, most probably those national/regional IGFs which would take place after September, of course they would be able to submit their input to the -- to the document because the final version will be worked on during the IGF itself as well.
 So there will be a process when the editorial group will accommodate different inputs also coming prior to the IGF.
 Marilia, please.

>>MARILIA MACIEL:  Thank you, Janis.  This is Marilia Maciel.  I -- first of all, I'd like to thank Ambassador Benedicto and Constance for the work -- and the whole group, of course, for the work being put into the document.  I think that this is a great initiative, and having been part of the working group on IGF improvements from CSTD some years ago, I think that this is an excellent example of what we meant when we were talking about different policy options, and I think that this exercise is very, very valid, and thanks, Constance, for keeping us informed and on track about what is going on in the intersessional work.  Your emails are very useful.  
 I just would like to make points regarding the document.  I understand that this is a document for this moment, for the open consultations and MAG meetings, but I think that if we want to pursue outreach and especially with regional and national IGFs, maybe this document could be clarified, as Fiona mentioned, and completed.
 I miss here any true notes that would kind of explain the importance of the topic that we are talking about and the motivation for carrying out this discussion through this exercise that we are doing here.  Maybe some explanation about the time, why this is timely, why we are organizing this now, what are the policy menus, because for those involved in discussions, maybe the title is explanatory, but for others, not that much.
 What is the desired goal that we want to achieve, what is the outcome of this discussion, and what is the envisioned impact.  Where a decision will be taken forward.  So I think that these key points will motivate people to participate and be engaged in the exercise if we can clarify them.
 Another thing that I would like to comment, I understand that -- that the contributions are open-ended, and this is good, but if we are going to summarize and make a draft out of this, maybe it is important for us to give some guidelines of what kind of contribution that we are envisioning, because we can receive very details -- very detailed and good contributions, but then we can receive, as well, very broad ideas in terms of lowering prices or fostering competition, and I'm not sure if this would be very helpful in terms of drafting.
 So maybe some -- some explanation about what kind of contribution that we are looking for would also be something important.
 Ambassador Benedicto mentioned that divergent views will be taken into account, maybe by including them or excluding divergent views.  My suggestion would be to include them if we are talking about policy menus.
 Ambassador Benedicto mentioned that divergent views will be taken into account maybe by including them or excluding them.  My suggestion would be to include them if we are talking about policy menus, even if things are not consensual.  I believe that there is a value in including always divergent views.  
 And just a final point on the document.  When it says that national and regional IGFs contributions will be acknowledged, I think we need stronger than "acknowledged" contributions.  And they are a key part of the process as we are discussing here.  So maybe to change this language to show that we really find their contribution very meaningful and valuable.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Marilia, for these contributions.  You should be on the group, by the way.
 Segun, now it is your turn.

>>MARILIA MACIEL:  I am volunteering.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Segun, now is your turn.  Segun.

>> SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I just want to provide an explanation concerning the contribution from regional IGF, especially from Africa.  
 I want to emphasize that enough information be sent across to the IGF at the African level.  I can attest to that.  The West Africa IGF, I remember I personally sent detailed information concerning what's the condition they should do as regard the IGF renewal mandate at the IGF of 2015 and the wider Internet policy issues such as the ones we are discussing here, the policy menu.
 And I got a response that a committee will be set up to look into it and provide -- and they are going to provide an issue paper for the west African IGF.  And I'm also aware that the west African IGF will be having their forum in June, and it is one of the top agenda of what they are going to discuss about.
 Then let me come down to the national level.  Nigeria Internet Governance Forum, I'm a member, one of the founding members.  We discussed extensively on the role -- on what role we should play.  
 So I just want to emphasize and also debunk some facts that information has not been passed across enough to IGF at the national and regional level.  But that does not mean that more efforts should be done to ensure that all stakeholders are carried along.  
 I just want to emphasize that if information were passed across from the west African IGF and the IGF, they are going to make an issue paper concerning the topic we are talking about where the national IGFs and regional IGFs are supposed to provide input.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much, Segun, for this information and all your support in promoting this idea.
 I have now Mark Carvell and then Nominet.  Or you will be speaking on behalf of Nominet?

>>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government.  First of all, thank you, Ambassador Fonseca and the team of coordinators for all this work.  It is very valuable.  It is very important centrally for the IGF to pursue this initiative.  In the U.K. we will certainly contribute to it.  We've had discussions.  Nominet may very well comment on that as the U.K. IGF facilitator.
 I think it's very important to be proactive and to secure the input that will ensure the geographical diversity of this exercise, of the results of it and so on.
 So proactive engagement through the national and regional IGFs worldwide I think is important for achieving that, for reaching out to communities in least-developed countries, in small island developing states, developing countries generally is vital.  Otherwise, it will lose credibility in the end result.
 As to the title policy menus, maybe we should have a look to see if that is the right term that communicates this aim and the end results effectively.  I was thinking maybe use the word "options," "policy options," if we can perhaps tweak the language to enhance the ability to communicate the objectives and secure engagement.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Mark.
 Nominet, please.

>>NOMINET:  Thank you, Chair.  Laura Hutchinson from Nominet.  As Mark said, we would welcome the initiative.  We think it's a valid response for cause towards more action-oriented outcomes.
 I would suggest there needs to be some flexibility in the process.  The U.K. IGF event will be held on the 16th of June, which is not too long away now.  And our agenda is fairly well-developed at this stage.  So it's unlikely we will have scape for a session sort of specifically focusing on this on the agenda, but we could be keen to contribute where we can.
 Just on the note of flexibility, not all regional and national IGFs are the same.  So I think there needs to be some flexibility to accommodate that in the process.
 In the U.K., it's not an entity in itself.  Nominet provides the secretariat, and we have an organizing committee.  But in terms of coordinating a U.K. sort of view to put into the document will be a challenge for us, and we just need to work through how we do that.
 So I think some guidance around what sort of inputs you're looking for and if there would be any tools to support regional and national IGFs in this process would be useful.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  It seems to me that at least what I heard until now that there is a general support to the approach.  There might be some additional sort of editing needed for the document but a very minor one.  But what is needed is kind of a blog explaining maybe wider reason why we do this, which should accompany publication of these guidelines.
 When it comes to a title, I think we have discussed it since December last year.  And, of course, menus or options, the meaning is that this should not be negotiated -- or indication of this is not a negotiated document but simply putting together existing options or policies that have worked in different parts of the world, that could inform those that are looking for advice on that particular topic.
 We need to come to conclusion.  And I would like to suggest the following, that the coordination group maybe work a little bit today, tomorrow before the meeting and do these necessary changes and that in principle we agree with this approach.  We try to answer in an accompanying blog to provide the bigger picture why it should be done.  And secretariat would reach out, once again, to regional, national IGFs with a request with any kind of support or guidance -- further guidance as needed.  
 And then we would seek your support, support of MAG members, one or two from the region who participate in those meetings to guide and to help the organizers in providing submission.
 We are flexible in this process.  And nothing should be seen as exclusive or carved in stone.  Everything -- we're experimenting.  And everything is free to do whatever they think is right to do.
 And after we will do evaluation of the process, and then we will see whether further kind of changes are needed, whether this is sustainable and should be repeated next year or we should say we tried, didn't work, takes too much energy away from the process and so on.  We don't know.  We will see at the end of the process.
 If that succeeds, I would personally see that that would be this national, regional coordination event during the IGF which defines what would be the topic for the next cycle, for instance, because then that would not be imposed from above but that would be naturally coming out from conversation.  
 So then the ownership of this intersessional activity should be with national, regional IGFs, and IGF should be the platform where this intersessional activity comes to maturity and is presented -- the result is presented.
 I see that my explanation was not sufficient.  And Fiona is seeking for the floor, although she said she would never contradict me anymore in the time of her life.

>>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Just to be clear, I don't believe I ever said that to anyone.  But that's fine.  
 [ Laughter ] 
 I would just like to voice support for the intervention by Marilia.  I'm not opposed to a blog to help explain the messaging.  But I don't think you can divorce this document from the importance of explaining it.  And I don't think just a blog alone helps do that.  
 I think if there is some upfront language in addition to a blog, because people will often just look at the one document, not the other.  That's my only concern.  
 I don't know about others, but I will having to explain this a lot to a lot of people.  And I think just what's up there is difficult for me to explain to other people that haven't been involved.  And that's the reason I'm asking these questions and making the request.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.

>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yeah, I'd like to comment on this.  I think Marilia and yourself are right, and Janis is right as well, in the sense that this document that is here, this is a working document for the MAG to consider the concept, the methodology, and to approve it.  And it will allow the process to proceed.
 This was not drafted thinking about making an outreach in regard to this.  So in that regard, I think some explanation and purpose, as Janis has said -- he proposed to use a blog, but I think this is something we should not lose time now.  
 We can -- once the MAG agrees with the concept that is there, I think we can devise ways through which we can improve the outreach and provide information.
 In my opinion, there is one single point to which MAG should -- we would like to receive guidance from the MAG as such.  And this to the editorial group.  We have been calling this the editorial group.  Inside the group, there was some discussion whether that should be called drafting group, and we thought that would not be a good terminology, "drafting group."  "Editorial group" was something that emerged that was something more neutral.  This was basically the idea not to try to reconcile or to lead to some negotiating outcome but to more of a compendium and compilation of ideas.  That's why "editorial group" was adopted by the group.
 Also, there was some discussion on how prescriptive it should be in regards to the inputs that we are requiring, whether we should indicate what topics we'd like to see addressed.  And there was a majority of opinions in the group that we should not take this approach, that we should not be prescriptive but, rather, allow people to contribute to the best of their capacity.  And then the group would try to put that document together.
 We thought we'd lose too much energy by trying to -- between ourselves, among ourselves, to decide exactly what should be in the document but rather leave it to the community and then we can work on that basis.
 And, finally, when I mentioned there is one single point, I think we should require a MAG decision, refers to the composition of this editorial working group.  We have not had conclusion in the group whether it should be restricted to MAG members, or it should be opened up and it also includes non-MAG members.  There was a diversity of views, and both sides -- both approaches have (indiscernible) and problems.
 If we restrict it to MAG members, we -- in the MAG, we already have wide representation of different stakeholders.  We have within the MAG the assurance.  We have diversity and representativeness.  So I think that could be an approach.
 But there was a point that also no MAG members should be allowed if they wish to participate.  So I think this is one point that, either now or later on, Mr. Chair, we would like to seek the guidance of the full MAG on how to proceed in regard to that particular aspect of the methodology that is being proposed.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn, you want to talk on this topic?  Answering, Benedicto, your question, I think if we call it open-ended editorial group, it is open-ended, mean everyone, MAG, non-MAG, citizen, non-citizen.  Everyone can participate in that.
 But most probably we're talking about whether we should -- if we're talking about those people who will be really holding pen to paper and then who will be really working on the document, taking listening output, whether they should be from MAG only or not.  So that is something what we want to reflect on.
 Though, again, on these technical questions, we may spend too much time and arrive to conclusion that these people, whether they are in the MAG or not, should be good writers, that they should be good in editing and formulating their thoughts and views that they hear during the conversation.  And usually these type of core working groups, they are not more than ten people who then really do the right thing by taking into account everything they hear.
 So if we take ten as a potential number, then that would be two per constituency, for instance.  Might be good.  But that we may leave for reception and see how constituencies want to proceed.
 Marilyn, please.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I'm very fortunate that when I presented the call received from the secretariat to the IGF USA that there was great enthusiasm by some of our members.
 I want to just mention this very quickly because I will say that the -- this topic did not -- in our public consultation, this topic would not have made it into the workshop themes for the IGF USA.
 But we established a parallel group of those who are interested to work on this.  So that's how we're addressing it.  And the interesting thing is those people are going to be working not only to report out at the IGF USA, which is July the 16th in Washington, D.C., but then they will continue to work.
 The one comment that I want to make in talking to the three or four people who volunteered is they're looking for some structure.  And my experience with the mapping exercise at CSTD is the more open-ended you are in how you take content in, the more challenging the task is for those who need to analyze it and to identify or perhaps data mine the gems that are in it.
 So I offer that as a thought without proposing that there be a lot of structure.  I think some ideas would be very helpful.
 Finally, I would just say, I do think we should be open to the idea of adding a small number of non-MAG members.  The real issue to me is accountability of the group.  That is, people who sign up, do the work.  MAG members are carrying a lot of work.  And it may be that we would find non-MAG members who are willing to commit might augment the resources that we have available.  Thank you.

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

>>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 I would agree that having a little bit of extra structure might be helpful because I think most people can look at this topic and there are so many things that lead up into it.  You can interpret it in many different ways.
 I also agree that we need to find a way to keep it open.  In particular, the different threads that will come up, there may be members of the community that have a greater amount of expertise than some of us on the MAG that may be helping with it, and so we wouldn't want to lose out on that, yet at the same time, we want to keep accountability, as Marilyn mentioned, and keep the ball rolling.
 I don't know if maybe there's a way to have a two-tiered sort of group where I know the ambassador earlier mentioned having -- or perhaps you did, Mr. Chair -- different stakeholder groups having two people each.  Maybe they can be kind of leading, you know, a broader group of editors in some way.  It's just a thought that I throw out there.
 But maybe that's a way we can kind of try to achieve the best of both worlds.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for confirming what I tried to say.
 Indeed, we do it open-ended fashion but we need somebody who physically holds the pen.  
 Lynn, would you like to speak?  I saw your flag was up at one point.

>>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chair.  I took it down in the interest of time and then I supported Ambassador Fonseca's comments completely with respect to some of the next steps.  
 And in parallel, Constance and I have been saying that we'll meet, following your suggestion, either later or tomorrow, and we're trying to reach out to Marilia as well, to try and progress it quite quickly in the next 24 hours or so.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that we can then conclude this part of the conversation so I take that the MAG, in principle, agrees with the suggested approach.
 There will be modifications in the paper based on what was said during these consultations.
 We will add sort of a chapeau explaining why this is happening, and also I will ask the secretariat maybe to think about kind of a template for contribution because I hear that that seems might be useful.
 So with that, we could move -- 
 If that is acceptable?  
 Fiona says yes.  Please, you have a chance to say that this is acceptable.

>>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Well, this is Fiona.  I just have one last question, a question of substance.
 So the proposal actually talks about getting input from the intersessional period and presenting it in -- I won't even attempt to say the name of the town.  I'll give Mark that opportunity again.
 But is there no thought of actually incorporating any input from the IGF itself-level?  Would that happen at a later date?  I'm just curious to understand the thoughts of the group on that.  It seems like a missed opportunity to not have a plan to incorporate that, so just a last question of substance.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  My question is where you were 45 minutes earlier, why didn't you ask this question earlier.  
 No, I'm joking.
 [ Laughter ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we will have time maybe informally to think and talk through and then certainly everything should be incorporated which is relevant to the topic, and if that comes out from IGF -- 
 I wouldn't be surprised that somebody, for instance, would do the work and would pick up everything that in previous nine IGFs has been said about policies to stimulate access and would present it as an input.  Why not?  One can dream that somebody will do that.  That's a joke.  Maybe NMI or GIPO, through their platforms, automated.
 So let us move to the next item, and that is --

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  May I make a comment?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That is Peter?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Just (no audio). 

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Peter, we lost you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Can you hear me now?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Now we can hear you.  Please go ahead.  

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you.  First of all, apologies for not being there in person, and good luck for the rest of the session.
 Just a technical comment, and Marilia raised reference to it earlier about the CSTD work on improving the IGF.
 It might be good tactics, if not good manners, to look for the link to this work to the recommendations on improving the IGF, and from memory -- and I've just posted a link to the document so people can check -- there is reference in there to outreach to other Internet governance organizations, which this proposal seems to fit into.  So this, perhaps, is part of the explanation that you talked about, because I, for one, have a little bit of difficulty, I think like Fiona and others, in understanding exactly what a policy menu is.  It's probably a term of art for people in policy development work, but not for everybody.  
 So as part of that explanation, reference back to the outreach parts and any others in the CSTD document might be helpful.  And perhaps take that as a slight theme for the rest of the meeting.  If we can look to anchor the work that we're doing in those recommendations, that might be, as I say, good politics and good manners.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Peter.  Actually, this is exactly -- this is a direct response to recommendations, linking the regional and national IGFs with this IGF, and thank you for your input.
 Let us move now to best practices, and we have six themes which we're working on, and I would like to invite Markus to present the state of preparation for two of them.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Chair.  And we actually noticed that at least one of them is also closely linked to connecting the next billion, as the threat scenario will also change as the next billion will come on line.
 Well, I'm happy to report that the work for both best practice forums on unsolicited communication and CSIRTs are well underway.  We were fortunate that we could build on the excellent work that was produced last year.  Now we have also a little bit more time to consolidate and deepen this work, and we agreed, together with the other best practice forums, that papers that should be the input into the Joao Pessoa meeting should be ready by end of September, and that should go then unaltered into the meeting, so we would give enough time to participants to familiarize themselves with the paper, to government people to circulate it within the various ministries that are involved in this work.
 It will be an iterative process.  We have, as I said, more time than last year, but if you look forward, it's not that much more now left.
 We have a good four and a half months to produce papers.
 Now, let me go a little bit into the substance of both of these best practice forums.
 There are linkages between the two, best practices on unsolicited communication and on CSIRTs.  
 You will recall that one of the decisions last year of the experts was actually to change the title.  The title given by the MAG was "SIRTs" but they felt that the acronym "SIRT" -- that is Security Incident Response Team -- was not any more accurately describing their work as the work is more related to security incidents and not emergencies.
 Last year, the experts came up with seven possible areas of work for future work, and so far we held a number of calls, the last one last week, and we have reduced these seven issue areas to four, and one of them is a horizontal one, which is basically that the experts found there are many misconceptions of the functions and tasks of CSIRTs.  So there are essentially only three issue areas left.  
 One of them will be what is the national point of contact or the CSIRT of last resort.  
 Then we discussed the development of case studies.  
 And lastly, also privacy and free speech, and it seems that this one is emerging as one of the favorites for a main focus for this best practice forum, and that is also a strong link to the best practice forum on unsolicited communication.
 It is sort of colloquially referred to as "spam," but we have found that "spam" is actually not necessarily a word that -- a terminology that attracts attention because many people, especially in developed economies, feel that spam is not a problem anymore, but here again, we would like to recall that this is unsolicited communication.  It's a vague call for infections and threats and also attacks that are far from no longer a problem.  They are an underlying problem that still exists.
 So we are working on these issues, and on both we feel that we lack enough of sufficient participation from the developing world.  This is, in particular, relevant for spam.  
 You may recall that spam was seen as a problem at WCIT in Dubai in the end of 2012.  It was sort of picked up then also by the IGF.  But we have not been able to identify what the real problems are in the developing world.  And we do know there are problems but this is an appeal for more participation from developing countries.  If MAG members can help and reach out in their countries, in their respective countries and regions, to experts, that would be most welcome.
 We would be happy to give a more detailed briefing to MAG -- interested MAG members.  Some of them are already involved.  Not that many.  And we would certainly welcome if more MAG members joined.  And with that, maybe I'll ask Wout, who is holding the pen, who is the expert driving the work, whether he would have any additions to add to this short overview presentation.  Please, Wout.

>>WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you, Markus.  Wout De Natris, the consultant on these two groups.  The only comment I would like to make in addition is that what we previously discussed on the next billion coming on board is one of the topics that the unsolicited best practice forum -- I'm sorry, unsolicited communications best practices forum actually saw as a next major problem, because all coming on board are basically going to be on mobile and not on fixed.  What are the lessons learned 10 years ago in developed countries that actually could be translated straight into best practices.
 So that is something that we would like to -- to discuss further within our group, but that means that we could actually collaborate quite well, probably, with the work that's going to be done, so that's the invitation from our side.  
 And to reiterate, we really need the input from the developing countries to really know what their problems are.  Because I can write it from my study in the Netherlands but it's not going to be that convincing if there's no underlying data, and that's another main topic we're going to go for -- reliable, neutral data -- and for that we need probably a lot of participants who are in the room here to provide that sort of data, so that's what we're also going to be reaching out for, so thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Any questions or should we ask questions to coordinators after all presentations?  
 Maybe that would be the better approach.  
 Avri, please.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  So the one I've been working on and helping to coordinate with Brian Gutmann, the expert on it, is on the multistakeholder, and basically what we started with, since this is a continuation of one from before we started with last year's paper, which was very much a normative piece of work on what should be, and basically we put it in a Drive document for a couple weeks, got a certain number of edits on it, and then basically got stuck for a little bit.
 We had had a bunch of edits, we talked about it, and then we weren't making much forward movement.
 But a few interventions later and we got going.  
 We had a meeting.  What has happened now is that Brian took that paper and took some other inputs that had come in and basically produced a synthesis of it.
 We -- we had -- and that's being looked at at the moment by the group.
 We had a meeting and basically decided on the next steps.
 So the next step is, we're spending the next week or two going through the synthesis of what had been there before.  We have another meeting scheduled next week, at which point we're going to put out a call for basically people to offer the best practices that they have found.  What methods, what techniques, what have you.
 And we've talked about it being four weeks, but I'm thinking closer to six weeks, given that it's June, going into July, to sort of collect inputs from people.  We'll do another synthesis of those into a paper and then take that last piece of work and open it up again to -- to the live editing.  
 We've been using Google Drive because it was trivially easy to set it up, but basically been using that as our vehicle.  
 And then try to take that, stepwise refining it through to the meeting at the end of the year.
 So we basically have the normative, now working on collecting the practical, and hopefully produce something fairly coherent by the time we get to the IGF.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I see who is your sponsor and also the reason why -- why Brian is not present in this meeting, he told me he is looking for the car.  He wants to buy the car.  Not a simple car, but with the registration plates "Just Married."  So he's getting married this coming weekend.  All the best, Brian, if you are listening.  Good luck for the rest of your life.
 [ Laughter ]

>>AVRI DORIA:  If I can add, we did some of our timing based on his marriage and his moving plans, so that was part of our forcing function for picking dates.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Let me now call on Jac on the work stream on the practice to counter abuse against women on line.  I understand, Jac, that you are working on that.

>>JAC SM KEE:  Thanks, Janis.  I'm reporting on the best practices forum on the topic of countering abuse of women on line.  I co-facilitate this topic with Subi, with support from Anri from the secretariat.  And we've had good progress.  We started with the discussion on the mailing list and we have had two online meetings so far with fairly good participation.
 We've thus far discussed around the process.  We have agreed to have fortnightly online meetings to keep the -- I guess to keep the conversation momentum forward and to be consistent and building on the discussions.
 And we are also -- we will -- we've -- we are also using the mailing list very actively to share information and to also use that as a platform for conversation for some of us who cannot be on line or, you know, whose access -- because the platform doesn't always work for everyone.  And timing, as well, is a little bit tricky.
 And then we had a discussion around getting broader participation, especially in terms of languages and different regions, and we were -- we had a brief discussion around how we could link up to regional and national IGFs as potentially avenues for facilitating discussion and inputs into this topic and who might want to take it up amongst us and who are interested in this area.
 And also, needing broader stakeholder participation.  So we're doing an exercise of mapping key stakeholders and trying to do active outreach, but we would also like to use this opportunity to enlist the support of all MAG members, as well as broader community members, to really take part in this important conversation as well and to help us in some outreach.
 So thus far, we're really actively sending out invitations to the -- to the online meeting as well as to participate in the mailing list.
 And we've also set up Twitter and Facebook pages for further outreach, but understand that there may be some issues around representing it as a MAG activity or as an IGF activity, but in the interim, we're thinking of things like having hashtag conversations at least around, you know, trying to mobilize more discussions around this, especially amongst young people.
 So in terms of the discussions and the substance of the issue, we've mapped out -- so far, we've mapped out the issue in terms of we've outlined the parameters of the discussion.  We started with that.  We thought that it was actually imperative for us to understand, because it's a new thematic area, so we thought one of the first things we really needed to do was just to really see what is the parameters of it, what is this universe that we're talking about with this in an open -- in a (indiscernible) where everyone is invited to provide input into the (indiscernible), and then we had a meeting to talk about to further populate this -- I guess the content of this map, and we more or less agreed that these are the different sections that we will be discussing on.
 And there's been some input into what the different sections constitute.  I won't go into.  Otherwise, it will be too long.  We talked about the types of violence, abuse, what it is, what are some of the contributing factors, the impact of such violence or abuse, including the specific role that technology plays that is happening online or that the Internet is being used.
 Possible issues of conflict or contentious issues.  So, for example, jurisdictional issues, Internet intermediary responsibility, competing rights and interests, these were things that we thought would probably come up for further discussion.
 And then solutions, strategies or responses.  And this encompassed both legal, non-legal, technical community as well as individual and other approaches.  And we also talked about good practices, not necessarily best practices.  We recognize that this is an emerging area, and that there are still sort of exploratory measures that are being taken to address it.  So good practices for now will be good for us to identify.
 And, of course, stakeholder mapping.  So as I mentioned earlier, who may be a key part to the conversation.  
 So the discussions so far has been largely based on existing and new research and knowledge-building work in the area, which will then be further shared on the mailing list and hopefully be able to be consolidated and shared and published in one platform.
 We aim to produce a tangible output by the 9th of October to gain broader community input before the IGF.  It gives us about a month to get sort of comments and inputs.  
 And, again, I think at this point we would really -- we would really like to ask for the support by all MAG members here in order to help us in outreach, to participate in this important conversation, especially by governments and members of the technical community and the private sector.  We have quite good representation from intergovernmental organizations because of specific outreach that we've done.  So, for example, U.N. (indiscernible) and ITU and also CSOs and academics, but we are lacking in terms of our participation from the other stakeholders.  Thank you.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  I also would like to introduce the secretariat point person which is Anri van der Spuy from the Cape Province in South Africa.  She is the one who is dealing with the group.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Next is Izumi who is reporting.

>>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Yes.  I would like to give an update on the IPv6 best practices.  So on this group, myself, Susan, Hernan are leading this group as well as Wim will be helping us in compiling the document.  I think we have a really good team where Susan has the expertise from last year's best practices in coordinating and getting things to be organized.  
 And then Hernan and myself has the expertise in terms of the contents and have reached to the experts on this topic.
 And in terms of the overall time line, we're thinking of publishing documents in three steps:  First to publish a background paper around the end of June so that people have some ideas on the motivation behind promoting this best practices so that we all have a shared understanding of the issue.  And this would hopefully encourage people to share specific case studies and anecdotes on this topic.
 And then as a second step, we plan to publish a draft document on the best practices before the IGF meeting so that people have some time to take a look, then have face-to-face discussions finally.  
 Then after the IGF meeting, we'll fix a document on the best practices.  So that's in terms of the overall time line that we have in mind.
 And in terms of the contents, we actually feel that it is very important to draw clear lines that this is not the best practices on the technical issues on IPv6 networks but rather how the measures and activities that people have taken to encourage, creating an environment on IPv6 deployment.  This is a very important line to be clear about.
 And I think this issue that Markus has raised on encouraging the developing countries to provide input as well as the developed countries, this is an important point.  So we have actually been working on outreach on our group.  So we have reached out to the RIRs who have expertise on this subject as well as they have the regional coverage covering five regions.  This would ensure that we have input from different regions in the world.
 And I think we can also consider different ways on how people can contribute.  So maybe some people with experience can contribute in terms of sharing their actual experience.  Whereas, people who don't have the experience can provide input in terms of what would be the kind of information that would be good to be put into the document.  So these are the things that we're thinking of trying to outreach to the people.
 And the current status is that we've circulated the draft components of the contents as well as the scope and our goal of the document calling for comments, and we'll be actually having a call tomorrow with the group.  So that's where we are.
 So as the next steps, we would like to have more concrete discussions on what should go into the background document and also fix on the general time line and the scope of our group.
 So I'd like to see if Susan or Hernan would like to add anything.

>>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thanks, Izumi.  I have very little to add.  You covered everything quite well.  Just two points.I guess, one a very practical one.  We are asking for people to submit their publications on IPv6 adoption from all over because we would like to collect all these documents and have them be contributed to the repository which can further inform the substance of the document that we will eventually publish.
 And second point I'd just -- I wanted to express, I guess, my eagerness or excitement because we will be reaching out through the RIRs to the general technical community and to the people who actually work with IPv6 adoption.  And I think this is a great opportunity to involve people who otherwise wouldn't be participating within the IGF to contribute to this exercise.  So, yeah, thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Thank you, Izumi.  Thank you, Susan.  Actually we have past the point of eventuality.  We will produce a document.  We are condemned to do that.  I understand that Wim will help with that.  Wim.

>> WIM DeGEZELLE:  Yes, indeed, I will help with the IPv6 best practice forum.  But I'm also involved from the secretariat with helping the IXP forum.  So I will give the update.  So far not much activity has happened on the mailing list.  But that is because we are still busy to select some coordinators.  
 At this point, there are three coordinators.  It is Desiree Zachariah, MAG member from Caribbean, Bijal Sanghani from Euro-IX and also Gael Hernandez from PCH.
 They had -- the coordinators had one first call, their first call to exchange -- first of all, to meet each other online and to explore the topic.  There are some notes that will be distributed to the list.  
 But I think the most important is that a planning conference call with -- well, an invitation for a conference call that will go to the list for next week, the 27th, Wednesday the 27th, at lunchtime.  The doodle poll for that was closed today.  So I expect the link will be available in the coming days.
 From that first meeting, there is, I think, one idea that came a little bit forward.  It's not really a fixed band yet.  But it is to focus on establishing -- establishing IXPs and looking to different examples, different best practices but also what kind of environmental factors, positive or negative, could help or could hinder establishing a successful IXP.
 That's all for this moment.  I mean, the three coordinators are also looking at this moment within their network to get more experts and especially people from outside the IGF world because one of the topics that came up in the discussion that was shared, well, we should give some introduction on IGF and Internet governance because we really want to have people that are not yet involved, to get them on board.  And we will need to explain to them why it is necessary.
 That's it.  So the most important is the invitation for the open Webex call.  It is next week Wednesday at lunchtime, 2:00 in the afternoon Geneva time.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Now, if there are any comments, questions.  I see Netherlands, Arnold?

>>ARNOLD van RHIJN:  Thank you, Chair, Janis.  We're happy to provide input for the best practices document on IPv6 as during the Dutch cyber week this year, the Web site was launched by the internet standards platform, a collaboration of organizations from the Internet community and the Dutch government.  
 On this Web site, businesses can check whether their Internet is up to date.  For example, this issue of is the Internet connection safe?  What about your email and Web sites?  Are they actually using modern secure Internet standards?  And if not, what can you do about it?
 The Internet belongs to all of us, as we all know.  But most people are not aware of how the technical fundament of the Internet is working.  It is invisible and unknown to most of its users.  As a consequence of that, modern, secure Internet standards are often implemented too late or not at all.  
 And that's the context in which the Internet standards platform was founded and the Web site was launched.
 It is applicable for all organizations and institutions across the globe.  So you can try it yourself.  Through, businesses can easily and automatically check whether their Internet connections, email, Web sites support modern, secure Internet standards.  
 If one or more standards are not up to date, the user gets guidance on how to improve this.  And currently the portal covers the following standards:  IPv6, DNSSEC, TLS, DKIM, SPF, and DMARC.
 The Web site is the first public release.  The platform will continue to improve and extend the Web site.  And feedback is appreciated.
 And, as I said, we are happy to provide further inputs into this important document best practices on IPv6.  Thank you very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.

>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yes, thank you.  Just to add to that that we did -- because some of the groups preexisted from last year and some of the groups are new in 2015, we did a coordination call with the different coordinators, facilitators of these various groups just to exchange insights, share some tips on how to lead the discussions.
 And as a result, I mean, we also acknowledged that each group should develop its discussion and its output document in its own specific fashion.
 Also to mention that work is currently being done on the IGF Web site.  I've heard from many people outside of the MAG group that it's difficult to find the mailing list.  It's difficult to find the framework document for each of those themes.
 So the IGF secretariat is working on compiling the information and making it easily accessible for newcomers.  So hopefully we will be able to do more outreach and get more people engaged in those best practice tracks in the coming weeks.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Remote participant?

>>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  He said nevermind.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Bless you.

>> Bless you.
 [ Laughter ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think that has exhausted the request for the floor.  We are about 30 minutes late in relation to schedule but, nevertheless, it's better 30 minutes than nothing.  And this time was requested specifically for MAG members to cluster in the room depending on interest and participation of best practice work.  So now it is time.  
 If our NMI representatives would specify the modalities of reception that you cordially invited us and time.  Or that would be secretariat who would do that?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I can do that.  It's down the hall.  The restaurant you see when you came in, if you came in through the lower floor, that's where the reception is.  It's at 6:30.  Hopefully they can start sooner.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  In any case, Chengetai will check whether that is at 6:00 or 6:30.  In the meantime, we suspend open consultations session for today and allowing time for informal gathering and then discussions that MAG members may wish to have.  We're meeting tomorrow at 10:00, and we will start as we agreed with the selection of workshops leaving consideration of -- leaving consideration of open forums, dynamic coalitions, interregional dialogue for after decisions would be made on workshops.
 So tomorrow at 10:00 in this very room.
 Is there remote participant?

>> There was a general comment from Haskell.  So please go ahead.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.

>> This is Haskell Sharp from Cisco.  I did not really hear in my intervention from this morning addressed directly.  So I would just like to ask that it be taken into account in the MAG meeting and hopefully provide a reply -- a solution at the end of the meeting, which is:  There is a request, it seems like, for validation of work.  This time it happens to be, I think, the dynamic coalition on net neutrality.  But it could be any dynamic coalition or best practice forum rather.  
 And I do not know what "validation" means in the context of IGF.  I don't think there has been a case where the IGF has validated the work of a group.  So I just wanted to understand what the process would be and what it would actually mean.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much for this question.  Actually, indeed, there hasn't been validation.  And we do not know what that would mean.  We certainly discussed that there should be interaction and some kind of feedback between dynamic coalitions and IGF or any other groups that are created as an IGF initiative.  Simply, that is exchange of information from one side.
 From other side, as you probably know, that the working -- CSTD working group on IGF improvements is asking for more structured outputs from IGF.  And one of the probability is that if there is something which is mature enough and accepted by all that could be presented as an IGF output on any topic, so then it could be somehow endorsed, validated, or whatever by IGF and presented as such.
 All this is hypothetical where we know what outputs so far has been -- or have been.  These are compilations of reports from every workshop which is provided by organizers, not necessarily 100% but we have them.
 This is a narrative report on IGF, and that is Chairman's summary of IGF.  We are now working on other new type of outputs.
 Last year we experienced -- or experimented with best practice forums.  That seemed to be where -- were accepted and seen as a potential way forward.  We're repeating this year.
 We're experimenting now with intersessional work with the theme policy menu for next billion.  Now we're increasingly looking at interaction with the dynamic coalitions, and we -- in that respect, I believe Marilia were suggesting that some kind of validation might be done for the document which is mature enough.  Whether that is the case on net neutrality, I don't know.  I'm not an expert on net neutrality.  Pretend to be but I'm not.
 And this is the ongoing process that we are consulting and discussing, and we'll see how far we can get.
 I hope I answered your question, and now we could break for informal consultations on best practices and this meeting stands adjourned.  It remains to thank interpreters, who helped us today, as well as scribes for their work during today.  Thank you.  Meeting stands adjourned.  
 (Meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m.)

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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