You are here

IGF 2017 - Day 4 - Room XXII - WS290 Synthesis Document a Collective Output Shaping the Future of the IGF & NRIs

 

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Geneva, Switzerland, from 17 to 21 December 2017. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 

***

 

>> JENNIFER CHUNG:  Good morning, everyone.  We will be starting presently.  Thank you so much for coming so early on the last day to our session since this document a collective output of NRI ‑‑ the future will experience for Asia Pacific original IGF.  My name is Jennifer Chung.  I am part ever the secretariat team and a quick introduction ‑‑ they're not really panelists.  They will be discussing the Round Table and hopefully everybody will be very willing and participate in this discussion.

To my right is Paul Wilson.  He's a head of APNC, the Asia Pacific Network Center.  Next to him we have Winston Roberts representing the international federation of library associations.  And next to Winston, we have Maureen Hilliard.  She is a representative the ALAC at ICANN.  Next to Maureen, we have Chat Garcia Ramilo.  And at the end there, we have Jianne.  She is the net mission Ambassador and youth IGF organizer.  So without further adieu, we can start.  You see on the screen really quickly, this is a pretty straight forward session.  We really have just a small introduction.  We really want to keep most of the time in interactive discussion Round Table with everyone here.  And I would like to pass to Paul to talk a little about the introduction.

>> Paul Wilson:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Paul from Paul Wilson from AP in NIP registration from Asia Pacific.  We have been involved with the process before it started.  Since it started, we just had the last, the last IBRA.  For the last 8 years, we've been gathering at different places in the region for a regional IGF initiative.  I spent some years as the ‑‑ as the chair of the multi‑stakeholder steering group, which is the equivalent of the IGF mag.  We felt back in the early days that we weren't exactly advising anyone in particular, the mag advises the UN in the case of our regional initiative, we chose AFG.  So that's a group as a feature of the APR.  The MSG is a very open steering group.  It has many participants some more active than others, but anyone who is interested to contribute or participate in steering and guarding and developing the APR IGF is welcome to join the multi‑stakeholder steering group.  The origins of the APR IGF, I have to acknowledge the continuous support of the Asia organization who have been with us for the entire time and has contributed hugely to the success, the ongoing success of the APR IGF both.  As participants in the process, but also supporting it as a secretariat.  And that AP Nick we've always seen it as an important process and so the regional IGF is a way for Asia Pacific voices which had been fairly much in the minority during the early days of the IGF.  We see it as a very important way for the Asia Pacific voices to come out and to be heard and to have people contributing in IGF the IGF process as was always intended.  I think we've been successful in that.  I think also we can take some pride in some of the innovations that have happened at the APR IGF.  This MSG process is very open and accessible to those who want to contribute.  I would also give credit to the net mission people for the fact we had a really vibe rapt successful youth IGF process for the entire eight years of the APR IGF.  So are net mission and dull Asia have been bringing a very wide range of youth participants into the regional IGF.  And the order innovation, the one we're here to talk about is our process for outcomes.  So we have been for the last few years producing what's referred to as a 70 sis document, which is a consensus document produced by the community in a very inclusive process which then becomes once it's been agreed, once it has kind of a rough consensus, it becomes an output of the APR IGF as a synthesis of what's happened.  That process started in Delhi in the original IGF.  We had some quite strong comments that came from Civil Society and I have to say that in the early days of APR IGF, we didn't have a great Civil Society participation.  The APR IGF was largely an initiative.  We talked a little to Civil Society.  But the initiative we heard in Delle was a request for this conference for this IGF forum to produce something more as an outcome.  That was something that was pretty well discussed in the session in spite of the fact that it's a bit of a controversial and a device much issue the question of whether or not these evens should produce outcomes.  We had quite an easy consensus that we should explore this and McCow in the sixth events, we actually did convene a process, which was pretty informal.  Again, very inclusive and sort of ad process and we have a more formalized process still very inclusive.  But one of the things we do thanks to the secretariat is an Ron line crab it document development process, which I think is a very effective platform for people to be heard and to do the detailed work of producing the document.  So I'd like to say thanks to the Civil Society participants particularly some from the ABC association progressive communication for sort of catalyzing the investigation of the output process.  And it's very good to see actually that in the last three succeeding events we heard really a much broader, more inclusive participation in IGF and I think all these things go together.  Anyway, I probably said enough about the background to the document.  I really hope it is an interesting input into the IGF this evening.  Back to you.  Jennifer?

>> Jennifer Chung:  Thank you for the background and introduction.  Now we turn to Maureen to talk about the drafting committee.  She is actually the chair of the drafting committee this year.  So thank you, Maureen.

>> Maureen:  Thank you, Jen.  My role as the chair of the drafting committee is just coordinating the inputs and concentration worthy in the Asia Pacific community that is part of our organization.  It's really to the final result is, of course, the document that you have ‑‑ well, many of you ‑‑ have we got the link of this?  Okay.  That's great.  Thank you.  I think I just select and recount the process that we developed in the 2017 version.  A round about the APR IGF was held in July.  About this time last year, we were actually just as we are doing this year looking at the overarching theme and the sub‑themes which are decided on by the program committee.  So there's a coordination between the different committees that are actually part of the APR and IGF.  In concentration with the modern stakeholder committee, the over arching themes and sub‑themes were developed.  And using these themes and sub‑themes which will come up later and you will read them in the document, using these themes and sun‑themes a Skeleton of what was to be developed into the synthesis document went online.  And then at the end, they basically introduced the context of our ‑‑ of the upcoming IGF and in some potential for upcoming workshop proposals that people might want to build around and also in case they wanted to start making comments online on the online document.  When it came to the actual event itself, you know, eight months down the track, um, what we actually did was we held town hall sessions at end of the first two days.  And these town hall sessions were open mic sessions where people could come up and they could actually sort of discuss, raise any concerns, any issues that may have come out of the workshops that attended or called all discussions that they had.  Anything they wanted to raise within the context of the event itself.  Anyway, the town hall sessions were co‑chaired by myself and my colleague Chat.  And we were really thrilled with the interaction with the audience because it was their ‑‑ it was their session and it was their opportunity to have input into what has resulted in the synthesis document.  And at the same time, we were encouraging people to put comments online.  So if anyone gave a presentation, we sort of encouraged them to put and summarize those comments and put them online and they added to the content of what we were going to develop.  This is 2017 was the third since the sis document that has come out of the APR IGF.  And I think that the discussions that we had this year were demonstrated and important facet of the document and that it is the community that dictates its contents.  And during the town hall discussions that we had this year in Bangkok, it was raise and said supported by the community that was there that capacity building, which was not given any particular sort of like session of its own because it is sort of independent quite a few of our workshops and discussion topics.  But they felt capacity building should actually be a theme on its own.  And so because of the importance to our region, so subsequently by consensus, this new theme was added into the document.  After the event, the drafting committee reconvened, but what we did this time is that we assigned groups of volunteers to each of the themes and what they did was they synthesized the inputs that come from the workshops from the comments, community comments and from both like from the online comments that were made and constructed a statement.  This statement was sort of like discussed with the drafting committee itself, but also in consultation with the community through the online e‑mail communications that we had.  And once these statements had actually sort of been completed and had been endorsed by the MSG, then they were all bundled up and given to Jennifer who is principal.  She's our principal sort of like Words Smith and editor.  She, you know, does an amazing, amazing job with it and she has been producing the document that we ended up with.  Thank you.

>> Jennifer Chung:  Thank you so much, Maureen and also thank you for that.  It is really drafting team in community effort throughout.

So kind of building on what Maureen said, she did mention the sub‑themes which are based on the sub‑themes that are decided by the programming committee.  You can see very quickly here there's a little breakdown of where the comments are coming from.  The five ‑‑ actually the four‑sub‑themes we had cybersecurity access empowerment and diversity, human rights in the Internet and the general economy and enabling innovation.  They were the force themes that were previous thought to encompass the meeting, about as Maureen did highlight and pick out, a lot of participants and commenters felt capacity building should be given its own section so it does appear in the final document.  Here we have a little look at exactly the mechanics of how people were commenting.  It is an open and online commenting platform.  People were able to comment on each specific paragraph.  You see on the link there ‑‑ apologies for a small typo there ‑‑ you see on the links over there is the commenting platform which is comment on our IGF and the previous three stint sis documents and that's also available over there.  Another quick look at documents by the numbers, as Paul mentioned early are in the introduction, weaver had these synthesis documents now for three years.  We did start in Macaw in 2015.  Then in Taipei and then in Bangkok.  You can see people have been warming up to it.  We've received 74 comments back in the Macaw meeting throughout all three drafts and by the time we got to Bangkok, we already had received them 261 comments throughout the entire synthesis document process.  We've already also added two seminars of two webinars, excuse me, this year because we've had feedback from participants at the ‑‑ both online and also at the meeting that they would really want some information on how to participate, how to better participate in the process.  So the webinars were scheduled before each public comment, period.  So people commenting would understand what they're commenting on and how their comments will then be synthesized.  So apologies for the small slide.  Now I would like to open it up for the round table discussion.  We have three topics here.  The first is value and objectives.  Of such an output document, the second would be the process and logistical challenges and the third one is the applicant of the experience for both the global IGF and other national regional initiatives.  So perhaps I could call upon people up here who are not really panelists, but to really start off the discussion with the first one maybe Winston, you'd like to take a stab at the very first one.

>> Winston Roberts:  Thanks, Jennifer.  Okay.  You have probably been wondering what rhyme doing here because I'm not ‑‑ what I'm doing here because I'm not one of the long‑standing authoritative leaders of this processed in this community.  I'm not close to being involved in the ‑‑ in the MSG.  I am sort of attached to it and I'm in the drafting committee, but my particular interest in this in the regional meeting is because going a long way back, I was actually ‑‑ I'm here as an NGO representative, but going back to 2003, I was a museum and government official at the world summit and I was close to being involved in negotiating the action lines in Geneva.  And then also I was at the second world summit in 2005 where from which the outcomes document arose, came out and that is in fact the document that gave legitimacy that established the Internet governance forum or the process.  So my interest is going back to those days 15 years ago.  I'm interested to see what has come out of it in the sense of understanding tracking actions, tracking the development of themes, tracking the example that some of these discussions and teams have had on our particular region.  I haven't had the ambition to follow it around the whole world, but I am interested in the effect that these themes have had on our region in Asia Pacific, which is in fact half the planet.  Although, I'm here, but I haven't been able to follow those in museum government terms.  So that roll finished, but I have since then maintained the role as Civil Society, but I'm a member of the international federation of the associations.  And we are a global peek body in the live information services sector and we have, you know, official recognized status within the UN system.  So I'm here really as a regional member of IFLA for following the processes in the region.  And wearing that NGO hat, I have been since the original meeting in 2013, I've been organizing convening workshops at each regional IGF except for Delhi when I couldn't go.  But every original meeting in Syria and then Macaw and then Taiwan and Bangkok and workshops.  Only the particular line of attack that we have taken in our workshop has been to discuss how we can use the Internet, how we can use a strong well governed, honest, reliable Internet service as a platform for providing community based information services for purposes of education and development of community, solidarity and information for all the other purposes that you can imagine information is for.  And the greatest of these is education because education is in fact the BASIS of everything.  So my particular interest in this document is as an activist that you might say for organizing the workshops as currently employed.  There's a policy person and a government in the region and from that point of view, we're trying to follow the impact of the IGF and these themes in information services throughout the region.  And I also feel that because ‑‑ well, I'm convinced that because we are all involved representing different organizations, we have to report back to the organizations who support our participation and we have to tell them what we're doing and why it's having a positive impact.  We have to be accountable and accountability is one reason for the synthesis document.  The second point, of course, as others have mentioned, there's a strong feeling in the region that we need to cascade upwards to send (?) up from the region to the global higher level body, which we believe can help the global body give out its work most successfully and (?) to the ITU.  That's enough for me at the moment.  I don't want to hold the microphone.  So Jennifer?

>> Jennifer Chung:  This is an open session.  If anybody has anything to ask, please do raise your hand and we will do ‑‑ we will definitely give you the floor to speak.  We're not really panelists up here.  I guess talking about maybe values and objectives.  Anybody else from up her ‑‑ I don't really want to call this the panel want to say a few words?

>> Yeah.  Hi.  Good morning.  I think what's useful really about just in terms of the value of the document is that when the process isn't in after the form itself, you provide a process where participants, stakeholders continue to talk about the issues.  I think that's one.  And from our part, there are parts of the document that we're interested in.  For example, human rights.  So our process just so it is sort of see how we input into the discussion is that we ourselves and we are a community as well.  We have members, et cetera, who participate in the forum is that we then discuss and say okay.  These are the issues that you're looking at and these are the kinds of conclusions that we want to be in the outcome document.  I think that's important because it does provide a process.  It provides a process that continues even after the forum.  A bit like an intersession or you're providing that forum.  I also think that it is about discussion.  It is about us within the region.  Sort of understanding each other.  And really coming together around quite high level values.  And you see if you look at the three different documents, the things are quite similar and then we're also adding on to things that are important.  So I think that's quite useful.  For anyone who has been in discussions, you know, negotiation of language, you know, it is a difficult thing.  It is not easy, but I think the process that we have with outcome document makes it easier and less contentious in a way and more consensus building.  So if you leave it at ‑‑ you have to leave it at a certain level.  Otherwise, you might end up not coming to any conclusion.  I think that's an important point I wanted to put in.

>> Winston Roberts:  It is so important to have something written, something that people can actually think about for a while, can consult with us about, can comment on it in a deliberative way without being under pressure to be standing in a microphone and contributing in realtime where if you don't have English, frankly, you are at a serious disadvantage.  I think in IGS content with brilliant interpretation and so forth.  It is a much more inch exclusive and representative process if there's a written component.

>> Can I ‑‑ short thing.  I am ‑‑ from what Paul and Chat have said, I think because Asia Pacific is such a large area, it covers so many different cultures and languages and also the diversity.  We were actually thrilled with how comfortable people were to ‑‑ to get up and I think that this is really important fit.  This comfort level has actually sort of added, you know, sort of like a more depth to what it is that we've been able to put into this as an output of our region.  Thank you.

>> Jennifer:  Thank you, Maureen.  Just a quick remind are for everyone speaking to state their name first for the transcript and for remote participants.  I think we have Pablo in the back.

>> Pablo:  Yes.  Thanks.  I mean, I really thank God for not only this room, but for the transcript and video record of this discussion.  Important thing is what are the lessons from the APR IGF output document into sort of the IGF process.  I really think there is a lot that the Asia Pacific region in their efforts can teach even sort of the IGF process into these.  So I have a couple of questions that I would like to raise for the purpose of discussion.  And one has to do with the role of the ‑‑ in case of the APR IGF, the MSG, the multi‑stakeholder group that puts together the program, but also leads a lot of initiatives in the APR IGF.  And perhaps mostly thinking in terms of the similarities with the mag and how the mag can help sort of triggering or leaving sort of these kind of initiatives like in the Asia Pacific region.  So that is one.  I understand that in the APR IGF it is not the MSG that works directly in the summary output, but I also think it's a sub‑group of the MSG that ‑‑ that has commitment to develop these documents.  Yeah.  Probably we can start from there.

>> JENNIFER CHUNG:  This is Jennifer.  Thanks, Pablo, for throwing those questions out.  A really quick clarification.  The role of the drafting committee is actually open to the entire community for participation for the entire Asia Pacific regional IGF community.  You don't have to be a member of the MSG to participate.  You don't have to be a member ‑‑ you can even join the drafting committee during the discussions, which is actually an interesting thing.  I think Maureen did note in her introduction that the drafting committee really came as a very ad hoc kind of ban of volunteers who at the Macaw pilot meeting, they upon so interested in the whole process, they wanted to, hey, can we get a room during lunch and have a few people and discuss how we can better this process, make it more robust, make it more open and transparent.  So I think we've continued that tradition.  We don't have go restrictions or requirements to join or any barriers to join the drafting committee.  So I don't know if anybody else wanted to.  Winston first and then Satish.

>> Winston Roberts:  Thank you, Jennifer.  I absolutely agree that it's a good thing for the drafting committee to be open‑ended and inclusive in the broader sense.  In terms of say UN terminology, you can say the drafting committee is everyone in the regional process, the IGF process.  It is sort of a committee of the whole.  It's people taking off their hat as participants in the forum and putting on a hat as online participants in a drafting committee, which starts at the forum in fact.  So bee have two functions.  And there is great value obviously in meeting face to face because you can spark discussions and do networking there face to face, but it is also important to allow online input including by ourselves be after the event because then we have time to mull things over to think about them and develop maybe improved wording.  But also I would like to make a point that we're not forced to agree on everything all the time and the synthesis document does have a role in maybe identifying issues which are not resolved.  We can identify issues which are still subject to discussion.  We don't have enough information and we can state a provisional.  We're not bound forever to agree with something that was in the synthesis document.  We might change our mind next time around.  Another thing that occurred to me before listening to my colleagues on the podium.  The region is as we already said is vast and it's far flung and the distances are huge.  This may be an important role for this particular region, which doesn't apply quite so much to say Africa or Latin America.  Certainly doesn't apply in Europe for the European for EuroDIG.  At a we for more beam to participate who absolutely cannot geographical and financial reasons travel so far to the main meetings.  It's a way of coming time and space even if you can't get to the forum.  That's all.  Thank you.

>> Jennifer Chung:  Satish?

>> Satish for the transcript.  Apologies for (?) apologies if you have already discussed what I am about to say.  I see two distinct processes here.  One is the process of compiling and finalizing the synthesis document which to me has been exceedingly well done.  It has been very open and very inclusive and also consensus based even the diversity that we have in the region.  That part has been there in my opinion done pretty well.  The second processed that has to happen is the dissemination of this document, which is listing from the compilation process.  Now, currently for instance in ICANN, there is a discussion going on how to manage communications in diverse settings.  I think Asia Pacific is as diverse as it gets and we have to perhaps look the knee jerk response is translation, but we might have to look beyond translation into things like, you know, info graphics or sub‑title videos which can be dubbed into other languages, fliers may be an executive summary which can be circulated.  So I think we have to think out of the box as far as the second process of dissemination is concerned.  Thank you very much.

>> Jennifer Chung:  Thank you so much for those recommendations.  That is something the APA community and the drafting committee and MSG would be very, very willing to explore.  I think making this document accessible to all is something we really want to do.  Perhaps we can move on to the second topic here on process and logistical challenges.  One thing I'd like to point out about the Bangkok meetings earlier this year, we made an effort for accessibility and I am happy to see fellows in this room here Barbcar from Bangladesh, he came up during one of the town hall meetings and made a point to ask us have you checked that even the online commenting platform and the whole process of the synthesis document is access age to all and people with disabilities who may be visually impaired or otherwise to be able to continue to participate fully as well as people who aren't in person as Winston mentioned because Asia Pacific region is very, very, very big.  The logistical challenges of traveling in person to be able to participate in this process is actually quite high.  So with that, maybe I could call on Jianne talk about how the youth felt and their voices incorporated in this document.

>> JIANNE:  I have been organizing (?) and generally from the youth participants that we have, actually they appreciate that the draft (?) moderators are encouraging them to give their opinions.  But I think one of the main concerns they have is the document looks intimidating and they don't know how to approach it or they don't know how to give their comments or if their comments are valid because some of them want to have specific comments and specific sections.  If I can read some of the comments is someone wanted to comment something about their right to be forgotten, but he said that ‑‑ he said do we have to make this a serious modern statements or do we have to state that this is where we stand or this is not where we stand?  And he said if you can enlighten me how to approach this document.  So yeah.  There's the sense of them not knowing how to approach it.  So what they suggested for us when we introduce to document during our sessions is to give a guideline or maybe give like something specific for them to move on to.  And regarding another point is whether there should be a separate section for YGF and the document.  There is varying answers.  Some of them don't want to feel segregated to have a separate section, but some feel their comments are lost in the miss being from a youth perspective.  So that's also another challenge that we have.  And another thing is because we have sessions from morning to afternoon, so there's a sense of exhausting from them to also comment.  So what we were thinking of doing is to have a session before this synthesis document to just get them to give ideas and then maybe one of the YGF organizers can speak on their behalf if it's too much for them to comment.  So yeah.

>> Thank you so much for that, JIANNE.  Any comments you want to raise?  Yes in the back, please.

>> Hi.  I am from Thailand.  I didn't follow, I did not attend ad hoc from IGF.  Sorry.  Yeah.  But it is so interesting for the document.  I have two questions.  First, what's the purpose of document ‑‑ ultimate purpose of these documents to be a part of to apply or for what reason exactly at the (?)?  And I also want to know that during the discussion of the document, what topic that probably more controversial or have to be difficult to get some compromise or some consensus?  Thank you.

>> Wilson Robert:  I would like to answer from my experience having been a member of the multi‑stakeholder advisor group for a few years.  That is there was a general conception in our eyes the national regional as being an opportunity for the proceedings of an IGF to be considered in the following year.  For instance, at the national and regional level for people to be able to talk about what happened here in a regional context and then again for anything that comes from the proceedings of those national and regional meetings to then be able to be reported into the IGF.  So I think that's a process of establishing some kind of a memory and a record of the event.  I think it was in my mind at least, I think it was some what shared that the synthesis document from the original IGF would actually be on the record.  It would be available in the future, but in particular from that IGF point of view to actually have some greater richness of inputs to the IGF process.  I think just one other comment is that there's been reservations about the reality, the logistical and sort of political challenges of having an outcome document that in the case of disagreements and as you mentioned, there will be contentious issues.  In the case of disagreements, how do you negotiate the final wording and such?  It's not explicit.  I think in my mind the meaning of a 70 sis document is to represent what happened without necessarily resolving all of the issues.  I think in any serious case disagreement, a document would represent (inaudible).  Then be on the record and be available to be addressed again in future.  Thanks.

>> I wanted to raise too and especially in light of what Jen raised.  This here and particularly is another year that we do have a very strong focus on the youth.  But in hindsight now, we put a lot and there is ‑‑ they have special programs and special sessions and following this where they're not recognizing it.  So this is ‑‑ thank you.  We do need to acknowledge that and I think that this is part of it having a record of what it is we've done.  We're not actually recording, you know, all the things that we're focusing on.

>> Jennifer:  Thank you, Maureen.  We actually have a remote question.

>> This is Yannis from secretariat speaking on behalf of (?) from Taiwan.  So her question is how to make the suggests more effective to government or policy makers?  Thank you.

>> Winston Roberts:  Yes an excellent question, but it is wider than that, I think.  The question is:  What do we do later with the synthesis document?  And how do we raise awareness of the existence of the AP or IGF in the general public.  I think there's a large communication question:  How do we get our message out there and how do we raise awareness of people in different sectors, decision makers and general public and media and academia with the work of the IGF in process and the individual achievements of the regional processes.  One way ‑‑ one simple answer would be that to answer your specific question any advising governments, suppose people in the ITU should pass down.  The Euro crattic answer would be the ITU having been made aware of the results of the regional process and the results of the global IGF would then advice its member states of the results.  But then in that implies ‑‑ that really means there would be a very summarized formal way of easing machine states.  That response would go to capital cities to government explains who are in charge of the liaison with ITU.  I think we need to take a more grass roots approach as well.  And people in the IGS process who are looking such as myself who in the day job was looking for governments or looking for any other body and the process.  They should make reports and try to push the results gently into the decision making process.  There has to be a top down process for governments, but there needs to be a class roots bottom‑up as well.  And that's probably something that can be picked were later when we get to the third section of the third point.

>> Okay.  Thank you.  I'm one of the API GF fellow and I was in Bangkok.  Very easing to see that this synthesis document are becoming morgue and more and inclusive than before and I would say without us not being about us, you are very closed considering that disability (inaudible) in this document, but my recommend is questions like, you know our reason.  You see that governments are becoming more and more eagle.  Now it's the high dive to make the ‑‑ to bring the ID issues and our reason to the common.  From our government, I'm really seeking collaboration on behalf of accessing primal.  That's how you would ‑‑ to make our E‑serves and the way of extra serving and included for all.  So even ITU can become for any other international (inaudible) who have the knowledge.  We need the knowledge and expertise to make this happen and we want to make it visible inclusive Bangladesh.  Thank you.

>> Thank you, Vashkar.  Did you want to add to that?

>> This is (?) for the transcript.  I wanted to strengthen that point from Vashgard.  I think from going upwards to global ITU et cetera, I think the synthesis document can be very useful for national, for our work in countries because then you have something you look on to sort of draw from.  As you're saying, you don't have to be inclusive.  Pick up those issues principals that are in the synthesis document.  So you could say this consensus we have here and there's something really important.  So I think it can be helpful for.

>> Thank you so much, Chad.  I think we were completing with them some rolling thunder up there.

>> Thank you.  As mentioned, the Deutsch nation of the information of this syntax document is really important.  Plans it can be explored that the national IGS could have a small sold wearing this incense document would be trust.  It's also a way to spread the sheet ‑‑ spread the neat.

>> Thank you.  I think that actually is a very, very good point.  That record with what platform said.  There is a document that's being discussed.  Bringing it back to the national level hits the cameras to listen to these processes but that also comes back to us as Latin mentioned.  It is the dissemination of this document and we need to be cognizant of who is the audience is going to be.  If we create info graphics and emotional media and other channel, who are we (?).  That is something we can definitely think about.  Paul, please.

>> PAUL:  I think that's a very good suggestion as well, but just one caution it's a process that can't be rushed.  It's a process that can't be waged to in the last of our minute.  For the sake, I think the risk of being seen to be trying for any members of the community being to force or result a result that isn't very, very benefit.  It was very important that we had the townel sessions each day of the events in the recording.  It showed that commitment would agree with the mobs who were prepared to be solved.  That was a delay the rate then, the online afterwards.  So again, if it's to be taken on, then it is something to be taken on very carefully and deliberately for the sake of legitimacy.  Thanks.

>> Yes.  Winston for the record there.  I would just like to comment on the question of flow out of a lot of information from the synthesis document.  I am useful to have this ‑‑ to use this document to cascade information upwards to the higher level bodies.  It's difficult to reverse the process and sort of take it down at the same time.  It's a little bit contradictory because it is national inputs into the regional meeting and then regional input up to the global meeting.  I think that the synthesis document of each regional meeting has to be to some extent regarded as a collection of IDS coming out of the wisdom of the national representatives who go to the meeting.  And if there's some debate about ideas that have been professional communities in individual countries, then probably those should be fixed up the following year and put into the mix.  I don't think you want sort of take the synthesis document as in article 2.  It's a statement, a position at a certain time in the year went over the regional meeting, but it's not necessarily a fix forever.  As we go over, it doesn't always have to present a completely resolved statement of some issues that can be issued which deliberately left unresolved.  Excuse me.  (coughing) and one of those ‑‑ has already been mentioned by G ran '.  She referred to a discussion of the right to be forgotten.  Now that was ‑‑ the question which came up and Dimitri in 2016 and the question was the right to be forgotten was something that came out of a judgment in a European court and it referred to the lawyers among the UN and correct me if I'm wrong, but it had referred to participant from people who do not want their name or identity been revealed through Google searches going back a southern point in time.  And the asked to decide and make a rule in deciding there would be a right to be forgotten beyond a certain point of view now, the problem with that is it appears to the sense of fairness, ICANN, but then there were other points of you shall we say national archives.  But any that perhaps which is going to go the lift off record is a reflection of the unit about what hatched or at least it may not be the truth, but at least the report of what is alleged to happened is part of a historical weapon.  Delete that.  And then other people in the community and at the meeting, original meeting in Taiwan said that lawyers have not decided whether this right to be forgotten or a good principal or not.  This is a selection which we Jake live an at the meeting in Taiwan, we had a privacy section help us understand say go to the dynamic coalition is public at 11:30 this afternoon and one of the people involved in that mine coalition is take us back from Korea.  It was one of the people at regional and specific meeting and he was one of the people who was deciding actively of the question for the right to issue forgiven.  There was an easy example of a live window which nobody resolved.  It's still evolving.  So in our sent sis document, we refer to it as an evolving issue.  Okay?  Thank you.

>> Jennifer:  Yes, please, in the front there.

>> Thank you.  This is (inaudible) from Pakistan.  Just two points, one comment and a question.  First my comment is we're talking about the dissemination of the information in the synthesis document.  Such has been said about it.  My suggest will be to expand on a suggestion that's been explained by the (inaudible).  That in international level.  Asca is eye very strong learn, but because we did the commute.  Fir a person with disabilities.  We are the information about the IGF and the process can be disseminated and this kind of (?) can be used for the parliament for the information of the community, the original 3 radios as well.  I remember that in 2015 and ISOC issue a specific organized workshop on accessibility, it was a really hit.  Some find of hot pots were more active.  My question with Diane (?) of the year, I'm sorry if I am taking the discussion a bit back, but I am really cure news from the panelists mention there were about 262 comments I am wondering what was the methodology group used to report it to synthesize the comments.

>> Thank you so much for your question.  Maureen, would you like to expand on that or would you like me too.  Okay.  On the referal process of synthesizing the comments.  So the 200 and ‑‑ let me see.  I think we had said.  2481 comments is over the course of the 32 drafts that were out for public comments.  It came during the open period when we had a draft framework document before the meeting.  Those comments were taken into account and also the workshops, the titles of the workshops, the themes of the workshops were taken into account.  This was synthesized into the first draft zero which was available right before the APRs meetings for participants to look at and as they go through the meeting each day, as nation method, there is a tall town session at the end of each day where people are able to comment on the tech off the track.  People commented on the issues and the items that were discussed throughout the day and all of these were also online which was the online commenting platform which was only throughout the entire period for everyone and anyone in person and also remotely to input these documents and inputs and maybe I'll pass it over to Maureen to explain how the drafting synthesized ease. 

Maureen, as Jennifer mentioned, the comments online and it is coordination according to the thing scheme.  People commented on a particular theme gap we came to the synthesizing, the comments related to a particular theme were actually attuned to the people that's going to be looking at how are we going to make a moment around the comments that were made.  I think too that was sort of now and again, Jen would incorporate comments that were being paid to every so often, so that in the event where you had quite a large sort of like statement which had to be convinced because we didn't have a long document.  All the comments were merged into the document. 

>> Can I just say I think there are two words of health doing and transparency and even because you're okay, we have a remote question.  This is Janice.  So we actually have a comment.  I will read.  They need air.  I would like to thank the opportunity for their comments during the draft processed.  I would report to comment under streets since the main driving around are verse in this document.  Thank you much.

>> If you there are that comment and, of course, we always become more and more about publicity participating because without these comments cannot rake that is representative of them and that happened at the GFR IW meeting.  I think the last section you would of session.  So the ethically we've talked about this before in the previous two sessions, but I would like to talk about what APC is doing and why the ooh ease will it before that, I knowledge just in maybe just two points coming out of discussion and the one that document that we had.  I wanted to open to a lot focus on will server.  It's working it really is working for a radio sets much help how it can be used, it's not necessarily for the APR we can use it.  So I would say that are will that is working for you.  So I think that might be a good thing either to sort of like really hone the process much more for our purposes that can keep out.  For example, in the 5,000 there has to be transparency and commit and that respect process more and add on bills and lists.  That's the online comment.  I guess for that point around AP, I also share that one of the things we did is to ‑‑ hasn't and the team is national and regional IGF we have a report for each.  I am pretty sure that in the other regions there are no documents that was recorded a different processees.  So just to mention that in a few interested in the publication.  But there are some lenders there too be relating to the synthesis document that rates to processes and I think we do quite a long time.  That would be something that we can continue.  Thank you very much.  This is the quarter and you have three quarters that we really want everybody in the room to take a look at.  I do think that we have what we (?) at a view finish APR serve nation document will help drill at your NRA.  I think that the processees developed and provides a guide framework for financial who process so, um, perhaps if there's any, that's from people.

>> Who is the discussed part if you have any thoughts on those guesses, please feel free.  If not, I think maybe I would like to just make a quote not lay.  There's always parallel tracks and paralegal workshops happening in the same time.  This week has been experiencing the greatest thing.  Having a chanced people with an outperforms or consequences document.  There need to be a balance to make sure we don't await a time and obvious as for the processees developed at ABI ID it is open and fluid we will do any kind of set and informal process just idea.  Overall both from the way they like to participate.  We heard a lot of very good different documents and we heard some regarding muscles on my legs where we don't want to when something like a competing or a different opinion are a valid and during the discussions.  We need to make sure that the document will not go too far into other issues that were not discussed by the participants at each meeting.  So maybe I would like to hear some concluding thoughts and comments from around the room.  Edmon, please?

>> Edmon, I had a conflicting session and I think I probably could have done this already, but I think part of the process is to have the input process before the actual meeting as people are preparing for the workshops as they're preparing for the work would be.  That's a good place and also we have the finalization says of the document after the actual meeting.  I guess borrowing is a little bit from what the ITEF does.  It never really makes it.  He is then quieted through the main lists and work.  So to address the life limitations and live discussions are very important and a lot of the most dynamic and most important discussions ask be held in life's sessions and that's kind of idea for the process itself.  Thank you.

>> Well, thank you.  First is my apology about the team making this synthesize document, I couldn't stay away.  We had to blank this meeting.  Maybe as what Jennifer said and (?) is originally a?  (?).  This does not include some other (?) that's fine on the one hand.  On the other hand, maybe between the ban cock and the IGS, there are other uses of our mutual input you for example, some or many of you may have found there are a lot of discussions about the AAI.  Of course my son had some question about how much internet governance he sees us do this.  AI really brings in, but certainly today's AI is very much the use of the intermit or probable education also.  That is also for the broken that and these areas are not traditional IC views.  We were pretty good in focusing on the very profession and very much is our region station going back.  There's another issue.  It was very interesting and the ideas of others.  So I would characterize that it is have much a we don't see that much technical areas either.  So I would like sort of strongly bend too much energy on these areas in the fine documents.  Still it might be interesting to take to despair, but can't or we are discussing income round.  It is more of a telephone time.  These days to the whole IGF is we will have in our organizations fishing for example, we do have the returns to do this as much this shape we may need to do some kind of outreach or dialogue with the regions which I really bon the upon they were very much referred and the country they are status of the internet fair knows.  So with that, thank you very much for in all looking forward to next year.  Maybe we could do a quick final thoughts.

>> Just quickly in response to zoomy.  The synthesis document actually is the BASIS of all our contributions to the NRI sessions that are, you know, spreadsheet this time.  The different main sessions and (inaudible) sessions.  So this forms our input there.  But all which is also part of the headaches and co operational the NROI.  This wage is built like the HRI sessions.

>> Okay.  Any more remote questions or comments?  Comments from the floor.  If not, maybe I can call upon ‑‑ oh, there is a comment.  So this is just ‑‑ there is a promise from (?).  That's when you should reach the synthesis document.  She feels there is too much.  That's just ‑‑ I think we are moving to concluding comments in the last five minutes.  We got I'd like to say my clue is the co‑operation, production of this synthesis document that everyone of IC depends and as Edmon mentioned of the old add consensus and running tread that happens is in the transit volunteered to whole in the process of own free.  And in doing that, hope the extent there is disagreed.  And it doesn't involve formal representative required unanimous of the what is the way it is transported on it enters to conclusions and it's very genuine.  Until that's by the disagreements can be reprogrammed and excessive running code is all about.  That's an interesting contrast with the IGM which being such a much larger environment is probably APR and IGM are able to be much more revolutionary and veer there was no way, but the overall global event would be taking there are and then probably make the ‑‑ make the global event let's ‑‑ I wanted to make a comment.  I forget who it was.  Maybe Zoomy made a comment about the effect on other language events.  It's my intension to report back both to the international library associations that I'm finally representing here, but I'm also officially representing internet New Zealand who have supported my attendance at the IGF meeting and I'm going to feedback reports and discussions and internet museum and at their face from time to time.  So, there is a great idea by other people.  When I get to ‑‑ they were also be taking part in discussions.  So they will be a process of cascading information down whether it's actually pulling ideas since the sense sis document is the point.  There is a process up and a processed down.

>> More input for the record.  I want to encourage all of you to participate in our next APA with my region, part of the serious, bring them the contributions that are made by moment who are actually at the event or all remote participants.  So you're all invited.

>> Jennifer:  Just two things.  I think it would be useful to document the pros is and the principals around it.  We do say it is more than that and I gets if you want to share that experience, I do think it is very important and that terms of how the process is in our eyes.  The second thing is I have books for you, please.  Come and pick them up and we still have some that is Ezoomy plugged in for APC.  So please come up.

>> So I want to mention about how representative the synthesis document comes to you sections.  After we have sessions, some of the participants come and say oh, we, the things that we say here, things like that.  Of course, APR sectioning also want to see that somewhere.  So I think listen to us document this.  Build this bridge between and with that, thank you so much.  I think they were very good suggests being made.  The office is constantly learning and reflective of the fall community.  Hopefully we'll be able to learn from other HRI as well and we were keeping something very simple.  So thank you very much for your time and attention and maybe get a round of applause for everyone in the room.

>> Can I just ask?  Is there anyone in the room who is not from Asia Pacific region?  Can you raise your hand to see if we have an audience beyond our region.  There you go.  Anyone?  Anyone from south America?  Anyone from North America?

>> Anyone from Latin ‑‑ I'm sorry.  Africa?

>> Yes.

>> Winston:  So we are slightly reaching a wider audience.  Good.

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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