You are here

IGF 2018 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting Day 1 Afternoon

 

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2018 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, from 20 to 22 March 2018. 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. 

***

 

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Ladies and gentlemen, let's start the afternoon session.  If we can please take our seats.  Thank you.  Shall I start calling out names again?  Peter.
 Ladies and gentlemen, can we please take our seats.  Jennifer.  Jennifer, we're just waiting for you. 
 Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.  We are starting our afternoon session of the open consultations.  Before the lunch, we were on -- we had just finished Agenda Item 2c, that's comments on day zero, logistics of IGF 2017, lessons learned, and suggestions for improvement.  Am I correct there's nobody else who wants to make an intervention on that agenda item?  Okay.  Sorry, I have to count to six.
 Oh, you do?  Yes, please.  Xianhong. 
 >>UNESCO:  Thank you, everyone.  This is Xianhong Hu representing UNESCO.  Thank you so much for giving me the floor.  I would also like to congratulate everyone and also IGF secretariat for the successful IGF in Geneva last year.  I was there.  And we had maybe a very short outcome on the pre-event, day zero. 
 We had a very successful pre-event on the day zero to launch a new publication of UNESCO about the multistakeholderism approach.  It was really successful because the room was full and people were standing, so well attend, a very quantitative discussion.  So I do see a huge value added of the day zero as a warming-up session to the whole program.  And also it provides a sort of flexibility for the stakeholders to organize discussions and very recent new initiatives to prepare for the IGF discussion on the official days.  So I think it should really be recognized for the whole IGF program to facilitate more participation from the stakeholders.  That's one of my comments.
 And, also, I would like to thank the MAG to give UNESCO opportunity to share another recent outcome of the organization.  Since I will be leaving a little bit early, I would like to add up to my intervention now, if you allow. 
 After 12 years of supporting, engaging with IGF by UNESCO, we have been so much inspired by all the debate, discussion.  We do formulate some solid outcome from the ten-year process. 
 It was in 2015 UNESCO has had endorsed officially a new framework called Internet universality framework which we advocate the Internet to advance SDGs and inclusive (indiscernible) societies by enabling Internet with -- aligning with international standards in terms of the human rights space, in terms of openness, in terms of accessibility by all, and driven by the multistakeholder participation governance.
 And this new framework has (indiscernible) mandated area to existing the IGF debates and also the WSIS process. 
 Also, we would like to thank the generous support by the Swedish government and The Internet Society.  We are able to launch the new effort to give the teeth to these four major principles.  We summarize (indiscernible), I mean, right space to openness, access, and multistakeholderism.  We are developing indicators along these four dimensions. 
 So far, I think these past 18 months we have been consulting widely with the stakeholders during the IGF discussions, also regional and national IGFs as I work very well with Marilyn and (indiscernible).  I present to them.  And, also, I personally went to the Asia-Pacific IGF and Africa IGF.  I found this was a really useful network and platform for us to reach stakeholders.  We receive some massive inputs from actors.
 We have also launched an online platform available in six U.N. official languages where we received hundreds of online submissions for phase 1, phase 2.  Which for phase 1 from last year until the end of the year, we call for the comments on the general principles which means what you think the major dimensions we should measure in these indicators and their rights and openness and access and multistakeholderism. 
 And from end of last year, we have launched the draft indicator based on phase one consultation, which contain 200  indicators, options, to measure those dimensions. 
 And one dimension I would like to share which can be interesting for all of you is under the category of the multistakeholderism indicator, we have listed the IGF as one of the indicators to measure to what extent a national state is enabling the participation from different stakeholders to discuss the policy issues at a national level. 
 And, also, we have another indicators measure to what extent a national stakeholder (indiscernible) to the global debates of IGF, of ICANN, and other international discussions.
 So we do see the importance and the criticalness of the IGF and all its networks and ongoing debates to help foster evidence-based politic discussion at the national level.
 And so at this year's WSIS Forum, since we are here, I'm also pleased to announce we are having a high-level session tomorrow at 1:30, at lunchtime, and running to 3:00 p.m. in room 1 of CICG.  We have -- we will present these 200 indicators in a more detailed way.  And we have invited some high-level speakers to address how we implement and apply these indicators after we fund this by the end of this year. 
 I also count on again the IGF stakeholders and MAG members to help us to see -- to identify as a partnership, synergist, for the implementation stage, which we will unfold from beginning of '19.  Because eventually this outcome, this product of the Internet universality indicator will be an internationally authoritative tool to help all the states -- all the stakeholders, be it private sector, NGO, academic, technical community, to use them to apply them to assess -- to provide a comprehensive information, to measure the key performance of Internet development at a national level.  And based on this, we can formulate the policy improvements. 
 It's not aiming to rank or score the countries because Internet development is massive.  It's combining both quantitative and qualitative performance.  But we just want to provide a very constructive approach to advise the stakeholders to consider these four major dimensions, how they can best develop Internet in a way to strengthen democracy, human rights, and sustainable development by binding with international centers of those -- in the areas of the rights, openness of Internet, and universal access to the Internet, and also driven by multistakeholderism.
 I think I have finished now.  I will be around for a few days here.  And as UNESCO exhibition booth outside of this room, you can have a copy of our draft indicators and also have some leaflets about other events.  And you are also invited to -- during our event also go to our online platform.  We have extended the deadline to submit your contribution to the end of the week.  We have received so many tremendous inputs, including I just saw one from the U.N. special rapporteur on privacy.  He and his team have submitted an 11-page written submission.  So you can imagine the extent and scale and in-depth of the contribution we have received.  And it is open and transparent access and process is ongoing. 
 So your personal and professional engagement will be crucial for us.  I finish now.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Xianhong.  There was also a presentation that included what should come under Agenda Item Number 3.  But she has to leave now for another meeting, so that's why she gave the presentation now.
 I'll go now to 2d, comments on 2017 IGF intersessional activities, lessons learned, and suggestions for improvement.  Now, a summary from the synthesis paper.  Inputs regarding the IGF's intersessional activities -- that's the dynamic coalitions, best practice forums and policy options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion and the national and regional initiatives -- praise their work to date and made various suggestions for strengthening their continuation and support.  These focus on ensuring that they are open, consistent channels of communication across the groups and with the MAG. 
 So areas of collaboration were identified and their work was structured in a synchronized way, particularly where the publication of outputs was concerned.
 More comments.  More cross-fertilization between intersessional groups and the national and regional initiatives whose work and outreach potential is also seen as vital was further recommended.
 Regarding the individual sessions by the dynamic coalitions and best practice forums and for the first time in 2017 by the national and regional initiatives, these were highly appreciated by the stock-taking contributors.  And they would like to see these strengthened and supported.
 Whether referring to the best practice forums, dynamic coalitions or the CENB emerging youth initiatives or the national and regional initiatives' inputs concurred on the need for extended secretariat support and coordination of these activities, while noting that any expansion of the intersessional program should first consider the available resources.  That was the secretariat's summary.
 And I now open the floor to anybody who has anything else to add or any comments to make.  I see we have Marilyn Cade, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  My name is Marilyn Cade, and I'm going to address a couple of the points that were made.  My initial comment is going to be that over the number of years that I have been related to the national and regional and now the sub-regional and the youth initiatives, I've seen much, much progress.  However, I urge that we not use the word "intersessional" when we refer to the NRIs.  And I see their nods of heads, so I hope others will comment.  I'm going to explain why for those who may hold a different view.
 The national, subregional, and regional IGFs and the youth initiatives are bottom-up, organic, and consensus based.  They report to their own community.  They cannot report to the MAG.  It is just not possible.  So the inference of intersessional work of the MAG is that it is work that is directed by the MAG.  I am a very big supporter of the best practice forums, the engagement that is built in the dynamic coalitions and in particular connecting the next billion, which I see as intersessional work.  But I would like us to continue to be very sensitive to keeping the work and the identity of the NRIs.  We find, those of us who are engaging, particularly in developing countries and emerging economies, that that identity is a way to begin to build more engagement from the government agencies at that country level and also then to help us bring more senior level government officials to the IGF itself.  I will not name the countries, but I will note that over the years, particularly the last three or four, several government ministers or heads of regulatory authorities who were able to speak, particularly I will mention the SDG session that we did in Brazil where we had two senior ambassadors come from the United Nations and we had long queues of senior government officials standing in line willingly to speak for two minutes.  Some of them learned at that time that there was an emerging NRI in their country and they're now big champions. 
 If we tie the identity that is national too tightly, I think we burden the MAG with work that is not directly theirs.  At the same time I do agree that the MAG should, of course, always be a cheerleader for the reflection of the work of the NRIs into the IGF and the reflection of the IGF into the individual NRIs.  So that's my first comment.
 My second comment is that connecting the next billion has been a fantastic initiative.  And I personally, having also been heavily involved in global connect and also now supporting and engaging with the IEEE advancing solutions work, I hope we will continue connecting the next billions and make sure that "S" is emphasized.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Marilyn.  And yes, you are quite correct, the national and regionals are distinct and separate from the rest of the group.  Yes.  Next speaker is Markus.
 >>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, it is Markus Kummer speaking.  I'm speaking in my capacity as co-facilitator of the dynamic coalitions and also the best practice forum on cybersecurity.  Now the dynamic coalitions have equally strong feelings that they are independent from the MAG and they are autonomous entities, but up until now, I have not heard them complaining if they're put into the basket of intersessional activities, as long as it's understood that they're autonomous.  But the summary you read out at the beginning sums up quite well what was the general note-taking of the dynamic coalitions and also the best practice forum on cybersecurity. 
 We had sessions immediately during the IGF and we already looked at what went well and what went less well and had calls since then, and one point I made already this morning was that there was a interest in being involved in each other's activities.  Not in interfering but being brought in and allowed to contribute, as there is a lot of overlap between some of the activities and I think you also used the word in your summary, there is a potential for cross-fertilization, which has not used sufficiently.  And that also includes collaboration with the NRIs and clearly especially the best practice forum on cybersecurity sees a huge potential there as cybersecurity is an issue of concern to most countries.  And we have identified also a growing cybersecurity divide where some developing countries may be left behind in their cybersecurity efforts, and we thought that it would be of great interest also to NRIs from developing countries to be part of this work and these discussions.
 One last point, and I hope that this year the decisions will be taken earlier as which best practice forums go forward.  Last year there was very late and then also the hiring of staff to support a best practice forum was rather late in the year which was not conducive to a productive work and outcome.  Although we think we had a very good outcome, but I'm sure it would have been much better had we been able to get started earlier with secretariat support.  So our hope would be that at the end of these three days we already have a knowledge of what will go forward and the best practice forum on cybersecurity would have very concrete suggestions on how to go forward.  At the same time the dynamic coalitions also have a strong hope that they will be again given a main session, and they already have some proposals in terms of procedure where they feel they are ready to align themselves more with the procedures that apply to -- also to the workshop selection process.  But we can go back to that later.  Thank you for the attention.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Markus.  Do we have anybody else who wants to make a comment on intersessional activities and dynamic coalitions or national and regional initiatives?  Yes, please.
 >>WOUT de NATRIS:  Thank you, Chair.  I just wanted to weigh what Markus had said so as not to complicate.  I think two small comments, having been involved as a consultant in the past and very involved in the cybersecurity BPF last year.  The first one I think is addressed to the MAG, that once best practice fora or other forms of intersessional work are identified by the MAG, then perhaps it ought to come with some sort of a responsibility and some sort of oversight because in my personal experience I found it was extremely difficult to get certain stakeholder communities on board.  And my second year I even found extra sort of funding to go to and -- meeting to get these people on board but speaking to them directly.  Otherwise, we would have had no content at all that year.  So the MAG members are the gateways to their communities.  So when I address MAG members directly, can you help me with getting input, I got simply no response in 2015.  In other words, they decided that the CCERT and the spam BPF was important, but once I asked them to help me get input, there was nobody home.  So that was one.
 The other one, I made already in my previous comment, but I'll reiterate here.  When topics come up during this bottom-up process, it is sometimes necessary to get more input and a different form of input than a BPF can actually extract in a normal intersessional way, so there should be some sort of flexibility in the program for best practice fora, say we need to organize some sort of a workshop or whatever you'd like to call it, a working session, in order to be able to get that content and make the outcome so much better and so much more conclusive.  So thank you for this opportunity.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Wout.  Our next speaker is Ji, please.
 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Now on the IGF framework, every year during the annual retreat or intercession we have BPF, we have open forum, we have dynamic coalition, NRIs, workshops, main sessions, day zero activity, flash sessions, and, you know, although I'm -- this is my second year as MAG member, it still is such a difficult thing for me to understand whole -- the whole thing.  Can we, you know, in one way or another simplify the structure to have less, you know, categories to be -- make things easier when we organize the meetings and it will be much easier for the newcomers to understand what we're doing.  For -- to understand all those acronyms is already a -- you know, very painful and excruciating task.
 And the second thing I want to say that I already mentioned it this morning, this morning I was, you know -- takes me like half an hour to get into this place through (indiscernible) you know, the gate.  And this afternoon when I come, I wish to take a shortcut and I was directly very rudely denied access and they say that to the UNOG badge does not work here.  But the usual practice, UNOG and other international organizations, have mutually recognized each other's badge.  But they said during WSIS meeting this doesn't work anymore.  But as a matter of fact, IGF MAG meeting is not part of WSIS.  It's U.N. meeting.  Why should we apply with -- why should WSIS impose their requirement on us?  And before this meeting I talked to my colleagues in my mission, asked them once again that should I apply for the -- the WSIS badge, would I be denied access?  And they said no, they always come with the U.N. badge.  But now today I have been encountering on two occasions very difficult moments.  And I was wasted at least half hour in the morning and half hour in the evening -- in this afternoon.  And I wish to put on record that in the -- in the future can we arrange our MAG meeting in U.N. compound rather than ITU because in the U.N. compound we have enough meeting room there.  Why should we come to this place?  I do not understand.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Ji.  We'll consult on that.  The next speaker is Renata.
 >> Oh, fine, must have been seeing things.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Hello, can you hear me?
 >> I think I heard Renata.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Oh, okay.  So let's have Renata first because that's who I saw first, for some reason.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Yes, I was in the queue for a while.  Thank you.  Renata Aquino Ribeiro here.  Speaking as participant of LAC IGF and Brazil IGF and active participant also of intersessional activities at the global IGF.  Despite the NRIs and the intersessional having different nature, I think it would be very good to foster links between both and also intersessionals like LAC IGF have already manifested interest.  There's a group who wants to have their own best practice forum, so further guidance and further encouragement of linkages between intersessional activities and NRIs I think would be very interesting because NRIs are always looking for global experts to dialogue in their regional context.  So I think this is an area of improvement for 2018 that definitely should be a focus for us the whole year.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Renata.  Next speaker is Jutta.  Hope I'm saying that right.  Correct?
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  Yes, thank you.  Jutta Croll speaking from Germany.  I would like to go back to the topic of the dynamic coalitions and underline what Markus said before, that the dynamic coalitions have a really important part in the intersessional work, and I think that has improved so much from the beginning of the IGF when the dynamic coalitions were somehow what was requested this morning, that we would have a kind of format where upcoming issues were dealt with in these formats and the dynamic coalitions were exactly that, about 10, 12 years ago when the dynamic coalitions started.  And over the years they have become more established and we have found more ways of collaboration among the dynamic coalitions, and I'm speaking here as a member of the dynamic coalition on child online safety and also working with the dynamic coalition on access in libraries.  And I do see the overlapping in the topics and I do see also the efforts to collaborate among the dynamic coalitions, but I still think as a format, dynamic coalitions are meant to be addressing dynamically the new and emerging issues that come up to the agenda during the course of the year and so they are also part of the sessions of the IGF and of the intersessional work.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Jutta.  The next speaker is Raquel.
 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you, Chengetai.  I'm speaking in my capacity as co-coordinators in two of the intersessional works.  First, the best practice forum on local content and then the CENB, the connecting the -- and enabling the next billion or billions, as Marilyn said.  Thank you very much for your words on the work done.  And I want to emphasize some of the points that Markus raised regarding the need for an early engagement.  Leaving the meeting here in the next two days with a clear picture on where we are going with the BPFs in intersessional works is important.  We hope to go tomorrow and with the MAG under more substantive discussions on what has been done and what's going to be for this year.  But it's important that we take this early enough that we can engage the community.  We see that during the process of the -- the intersessional work when you launch the drafting papers, there is a momentum where the community is motivated as contributing.  But also after the IGF itself, you don't have a proper follow-up.  So that's another point we need to tackle. 
 And in terms also of the support from the consultants, this year it came in very, very late.  Regarding the CENB work, we were lucky with our partners or co-creators in there who helped a lot and we would -- I will emphasize tomorrow but just advancing here how they were very good and the consultants were good in picking up and doing record time and good outcomes.
 I also want to raise one of the experiences that we have with the local content BPF.  We discovered during the IGF schedule that we had a similar workshop proposal at the same time, and so we decided to merge.  And it was a really successful example also on how to integrate and fully integrate this intersessional work into the agenda of the IGF, into the schedule of the IGF, and reinforces the need that we don't repeat ourselves and work together when we have a common interest on that.
 And for the CENB, one of the take-aways that is also important is by focusing on the case studies on the people that were working on the ground, they were able to come to the IGF and bringing not only the color of the work they were doing but lending -- sometimes we were in the policy discussions, and we have the reality in front of us when they are sharing what they are doing for the Internet and for the Internet. 
 So those were my highlights from the intersessional experience.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Raquel. 
 Just speaking for the secretariat, for the consultants, yes, as soon as the groups are rechartered or renewed for this year, we will send -- we will start working on getting the consultants as soon as possible.  Last year it was -- I think it took quite some time for everything to happen but it's -- let's call it a unique case.
 [ Laughter ]
 Thanks.
 Wim, please.
 >> WIM DEGEZELLE:  Thank you.  Hi, all.  I'm Wim Degezelle.  Most of you know probably know me as one of the consultants supporting the BPFs last year and the two years before.  I think this is useful on my personal behalf.  And that is I -- it's a little bit following up on what Raquel said.  The moment a BPF goes and presents its draft output documents at the IGF meeting, that you see that more people are interested and more people all of a sudden discover the BPF. 
 Personally, this year but also the year before, I got questions from people to explain, okay, what is a BPF, how can we help.  And then you have to explain them, yeah, this BPF this year is closed.  Thank you for your offer to help on the input; but this is the final phase after the IGF meeting, after the IGF itself.  The document goes into its final version and then is published. 
 This year I also received directly a request from somebody from a government saying, Well, I'm really interested in the topic of the BPF.  How can I help?  Again, I had to say the same question. 
 And also received a request from an organization, a European IXP organization, that said, Look, we would like to publish something in our newsletter on the BPF.  Can you give some explanation?
 So all these are examples, I think.  And it's important for the MAG to see that there is -- there is on the one hand a discussion, a request from, okay, there has to be a larger input and outreach for the BPF.  But I notice that at the moment, there is really interest and people are looking at the BPF on how can we help. 
 Sometimes you have to disappoint them by saying, Look, you have to wait now two or three months.  And usually if you don't contact them again, IGF is a long -- or is much further down on their agenda.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Wim.
 There's nobody else on the list.  Does anybody have any comments on the MAG working groups?  This is the time to comment now so that we can take it into consideration during tomorrow and the day after.  We had the working group on IGF improvements, working group on the multiyear strategic work program, working group on new session formats, and working group on workshop review and evaluation process. 
 Any comments on that?  Ji, please.
 >>HAOJUN JI:  Thank you, Chengetai.  As I understand, we will go deeply into the screening standards in tomorrow's meeting, right?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  But this is a chance for nonMAG members to comment.
 >>HAOJUN JI:  I will save time for them.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, thanks.
 Yes, Markus.
 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  Markus Kummer speaking.  Thank you for giving me the floor.  I participated in some of the calls on the strategic work program, and I have to confess that I had a minority, dissenting view on the role of that group. 
 My understanding was when the group started, it would more look at framework on how to develop a framework for a multiyear work program without going into the details of what the issues should be.  But the group on the whole felt it should also define the substantive issues that would be part of the work program.  So this is a slightly different approach.
 I thought the substantive -- definition of the substantive issues should be part of the broader community in the MAG, whereas the group should set in place a structure, a framework for developing the multiyear -- the substantive multiyear work program.
 But this is an issue the MAG may wish to discuss, and the MAG may well ignore the minority opinion.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Markus.  Yes, I'm aware of it.  And I will talk to the chair as well when she comes back.  So she's aware, and we'll get into it when we do this discussion in the MAG.  Thanks.
 Renata, please. Renata.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Hi.  Renata.  I hope you can hear me well.  I am addressing the point on working groups, especially working group on new sessions format and the newcomers track, which wasn't really mentioned right now.  But I think it's a good opportunity to discuss.
 This year we had -- this last IGF, there was the art exhibition in the corridors and the working group new sessions format, one of the criteria of the lightning sessions. 
 But I think we could -- we could have a bit more ample transparent call for people who want to -- who are in the IGF and who want to prepare the sessions there.
 And on the newcomers track, we could also have people coming -- the newcomers in IGF, why do they come and who are they, what do they want to show.  That will also help us talk to them about what the IGF is and how can they find their place among intersessional activities, among workshops.  So I would really call for a more open space with integration between these two groups, the working group on new sessions format, and the newcomers track.  And I would really like to be involved in the newcomers track this year to coordinate between the different youth groups, how can we move this forward. 
 These are very important spaces to grow the IGF.  So please pay attention to them.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Renata. 
 And the speaking queue is empty.  And I'll give it the six count.  Anybody else have any other interventions to make?  Okay.  Thank you very much.
 So that closes Agenda Item 2d.  And now we come to Agenda 3.  That is updates from related Internet governance initiatives and processes.  After we have these updates from these organizations, we will have an open discussion on possible IGF 2018 -- not '17, sorry, 2018 activities and collaboration.
 So the first person on my list -- hopefully she's in -- is Valentina from the Council of Europe -- no, sorry, from the commission.  European Commission.  Thank you.
 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:  Yes, Thank you, Chair.  Valentina Scialpi from the European Commission.  Since this is my first intervention, I would first like to welcome all the new MAG members, thank the IGF secretariat for their tireless work to support the IGF during the last IGF but also throughout these years.  And, also, we thank the Swiss government for the organizational work turned out to be a very successful IGF.
 The European Commission has started a number of actions and initiatives that relate to Internet policy and topics discussed at the IGF.
 Among those almost two years ago now we started what we call the Next Generation internet Initiative with the ambition of shaping the digital policies of the next decade by building a human-centric Internet that focuses on building trust in technology, respect certain values that we in Europe consider fundamental.
 Aside from these initiatives, the Commission recently launched two high-level expert groups, one on fake news and the other one on artificial intelligence.  And both these groups' composition reflect a multistakeholder approach.
 This highlights how important a bottom-up multistakeholder process is for institution and the influence that the IGF has had in shaping the global debate over these policies in the last years.
 I would also like to mention all the work done by the European Commission in the field of digital for development that has become an important part of our activities and will remain so in the upcoming years as we are among the biggest donors to list developed countries. 
 Concerning feedback and how to improve the IGF for the next year, I would pretty much echo what my colleagues here said, that we should probably start to focus on fewer topics per year, those that are the more relevant and require urgent discussions.  For instance, this year -- this last year the relevance given to topics such as fake news, artificial intelligence, or blockchain attracted more government representatives to participate to the IGF, precisely because these are for governments the most pressing issues.
 We would also suggest to look for inspiration on national and regional initiatives that oftentimes offer very good ideas and best practices for the global IGF.  For instance, EuroDIG already started this year to have fewer and more focused session and discussion.  A starting point could be the decision of an overarching developing theme that can be more poignant and attractive.  And, yes, this is pretty much it.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Valentina.
 Next I have Raquel from ISOC.  Nope?  You're not -- ISOC is not going to say anything?  Is there -- is ISOC going to make an intervention?  Oh, okay.  Okay.  Despoina, please.
 Sorry, I was totally ignoring that queue and I had my own.
 [ Laughter ]
 >> DESPOINA SARIEDAKI:  Thank you very much.  My name is Despoina Sariedaki from the ITU.  Good afternoon to everyone, and thank you for the interesting discussion so far. 
 Like others before me, I would also like to thank the Swiss administration and the IGF secretariat for organizing last year's event here in Geneva.  It certainly gave me and other people here the opportunity to attend their first -- my first IGF and hopefully not the last.
 So I will be very brief.  I just wanted to give a short update on ITU's Internet-related activities from last year. 
 As you may know, ITU's Council working group on Internet-related public policy issues have been organizing regular rounds of open consultations on a variety of topics. 
 In 2017, we had two consultation rounds, two very different but very interesting topics.  The first one was on the public policy consideration for ODTs.  An online consultation was carried out between June and September 2017, and it was followed by physical open consultation meeting in September here in Geneva.  In total, we received 71 online responses to this consultation which was a record number among all our open consultations so far.
 The second one was on bridging the digital gender divide.  Likewise, it was conducted between October 2017 and January 2018.  52 online responses were received.  And the follow-up physical meeting was held in January with different stakeholders present and very informative panel kick starting the meeting.
 ITU's Council Working Group on Internet already counts six open consultation rounds, and there's a growing repository of stakeholder views building up on our Web site on different topics.  The inputs and results of all consultations including the two latest ones that I mentioned are publicly available on the working group Web site and can be accessed and consulted by anyone who wishes to.
 As 2018 is a year also of ITU's plenipotentiary conference coming up next October, the next round of open consultations will likely be in 2019 and will be subject to any potential updates on the modalities of the working group that might come up during the conference.
 In the meantime, I invite all of you who might be interested to take a look at our consultation or archives.  The URL might be too complicated to spell out.  But if you Google "CWG Internet," it will take you to our landing page and you can navigate from there.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Despoina.
 Okay.  I don't have anybody on that list.  But on my list -- I will skip ISOC.  I have Diplo, Marilia.  Do you want to go?  Marilia, please.
 >>MARILIA MACIEL:  Thank you very much, Chengetai.  Thank you for the opportunity to look back on DiploFoundation's and the Geneva Internet Platform's main activities related to the IGF last year and some of the activities that we were planning for 2018. 
 As you can imagine, the last IGF was a very special one for us because it happened back home.  So Diplo was very much involved in the preparations for the last IGF which lasted throughout the year.  We participated in the Geneva digital track that was mentioned by Jorge this morning.  And that included promoting events in Geneva that involved international organizations, trying to raise awareness about the importance of the IGF and to get them more involved on the day-to-day of IGF activities. 
 We also have data talks.  There are several organizations that are not very known in the IG deliberations and discussions but that deal with large amount of big data such as CERN.  We got together these organizations to discuss the management and governance of big data.  It was a very interesting initiative.
 We also provided just-in-time reporting last IGF.  So we reported from all IGF sessions.  And it seemed like this was something that the community appreciated.  We know how long the schedule of the IGF could be, and that provided the opportunity for people to know the discussions and sessions that were -- they could not attend in person and also enhance the inclusiveness of the IGF for those that could not really be present in Geneva.
 These summaries were followed by an overall summary of the IGF that we published just after the meeting.  Maybe you did not see because that was almost in Christmas Day.  But perhaps you have the opportunity to look back on that summary, too. 
 And Diplo also supported with the IGF secretariat the organization of the art at IGF.  We would like to express our public recognition and thanks to the secretariat and in particular to Anja for all the work that she has put into that.
 We believe that many of the Internet governance discussions, they can made more public and more accessible to others outside the IG realm if we mix and think about innovative ways of conveying information.  And art is one of them.  Another one is videos, cartoons.  And you know that Diplo has been very active in trying to find other ways to convey knowledge and information.
 Coming back to our activities in 2018, one of the things that we would like you all to participate is our monthly briefings.  As you know, the last Tuesday of every month Diplo holds briefings on Internet governance.  We always look back to the main digital developments in (indiscernible) that range from cybersecurity to economic issues, digital inclusions, what's happened around the world, what is important to retain, what can we expect for the months to come.  That happens physically in Diplo's premises at WMO but also online.  So if you are not in Geneva at the moment, we invite you all to participate in the next briefing which will be the last Tuesday of March.
 And after that, we publish our newsletter which also summarizes the main developments of the month. 
 Something that we would be very much involved this year is discussions on digital policy aspects related to trade.  And this is something I mentioned this morning, and I cannot stress how important it is because we see a large number of topics being discussed in organizations such as WTO and UNCTAD.  And there are very interesting discussions and pertinent discussions being held there.  However, many of these topics are not discussed from a digital policy angle.  And it's very important to expose negotiators and actors involved in trade to many of the discussions that happen in the IGF.  We did that by providing a sort of trainings, online trainings, that were offered to negotiators, that are involved in WTO discussions.  Many of them attended WTO in Buenos Aires.  This project was put in place together with UNCTAD, ITC, the International Trade Center, and the CAST (phonetic) Geneva and was supported by the U.K STO.  And we had very good feedback from participants.
 Lastly, we just published a report that we would like to call your attention to.  We're looking more and more at the role of big data in diplomacy.  And this report was commissioned by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  And we tried to look how big data can affect diplomatic functions in the future.
 And we tried to look how big data can affect diplomatic functions in the future, how diplomats could make use of big data to develop more sound policy decisions on foreign policies.  This is published recently last month, and we invite you to take a look.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Marilia.  Now I have ICANN.  I think it's Nigel, if he's ready.
 >>NIGEL HICKSON: Chengetai, thank you.  Is it possible someone else could go first, I'll go later, or if there is anyone?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Let me see.  Is there anybody?  Oh, yes, Arnold, please.  And I can't see you, for some reason.
 >>ARNOLD VAN RHIJN:  Yes.  Thank you, Chengetai.  Arnold van Rhijn, Netherlands government.  And I'm speaking in my capacity as supporter of the Global Forum On Cyber Expertise.  A few words on this important global forum.  This Global Forum of Cyber Expertise, shortly GFCE, has been launched in 2015 during the global cyberspace conference which was held in The Hague. 
 Currently the CFCE is aiming for strengthening cyber capacity building throughout the world, particularly the developing countries.  And under the umbrella of the GFCE there are right now around 18 initiatives going on, multistakeholder approach bottom up.  Working together with governments, private sector, international organizations, and being advised by the technical community and the civil society.  It's working very well.  We had in last year in India during the global cyberspace conference a side event, and during that meeting the participants came forward consensusly with a global agenda on cybersecurity capacity building.  And this will be rolled out throughout the coming years.  I'm particularly happy that I had the opportunity to link the GFCE with the IGF.  Last year the GFCE had a booth and a workshop, and this was well attended.  This year they are present as well during the WSIS forum 2018, having a workshop and sharing relevant information on the current status of the 18 concrete initiatives.  And the initiatives which deals with several areas like CCERT, IPv6, and security Internet standards.  Very relevant and actual issues, and hopefully these initiatives -- initiatives will come forward with concrete reports which would be available for all the other stakeholders around the world, in particular the developing countries.
 So from our government point of view, we are trying to -- to bring this further and to connect the GFCE strongly, more strongly with the IGF in the near future.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Arnold.  Mark Carvell?
 >>MARK CARVELL: Thank you, Chengetai.  I'm not representing the organizers of the process I'm going to mention, which is the organizers are the Internet and Jurisdiction Project, but I think it's relevant to bring it to the attention of this meeting that there is this project which has just held its second conference in Ottawa on the 26th to 28th of February.  It's examining the potential for frameworks of cooperation to deal with jurisdictional conflicts relating in particular -- and specifically to firstly, law enforcement access to data across borders, to identify how that process in addressing cybercrime can be speeded up when -- when data is held in another jurisdiction which law enforcement in one jurisdiction is trying to access. 
 Secondly, how to address the problem of harmful and illegal content being posted in one jurisdiction or based in one jurisdiction which stakeholders, including governments, want to remove or have some facility to be taken down when it's in another jurisdiction. 
 And then thirdly, domain name suspensions relating to again the cross-border issue, how to deal with issues of particular criminality through domain name removals or suspensions.
 This is an initiative which is supported by several governments and organizations, including the U.S., Germany, and Canada, which hosted the Ottawa conference, France, and organizations such as ICANN also partners in this initiative.  There are many other partners.  There's a track now for establishing working groups now that the Ottawa conference has defined a set of strategic questions and objectives for the work.  So working groups will be established, again multistakeholder, in preparation for a third conference in Germany in June 2019.
 So it's a very important area of work.  I think it's a unique forum in dealing with this crucial issue of how to reconcile the single global interoperable Internet with national jurisdictional issues which frame -- jurisdictions which are not aligned or inconsistent, if you like.  And the frameworks for cooperation do not currently exist, or are very slow, such as the MLATs with regard to access to data for law enforcement. 
 So I expect the organizers, the Internet and Jurisdictional Policy Network run by Bertrand de la Chapelle and Paul Fehlinger, will be seeking opportunities through the IGF to be further support, widen the engagement, because in Ottawa it's notable that there were few stakeholders there from Asia, there were some from Africa, from Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa.  But again, the outreach needs, in our view of the U.K. government, to be improved. 
 So I bring this to the attention of the meeting.  I hope that's a useful piece of information about a very important initiative with a clearly defined program of work where I'm sure the IGF and the national and regional IGFs will be able to assist.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Mark.  Raquel.
 >>RAQUEL GATTO: Finally it's me.  It's not a glitch in the system.  But I'm going pass the word for my colleague who's going to speak about Internet Society, Constance Bommelaer.  Thank you.
 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much, and good afternoon, everyone.  So just to share a few words about the Internet Society's work in the field of Internet governance.  We've decided this year to initiate a series of activities in the field of Internet governance and trying to push what we call multistakeholder governance partnerships.  We have one specific initiative focusing on strengthening academic networks and also supporting at the domestic level multistakeholder working groups that handle very specific issues.  So I'll just give one example.  We have a working group underway in partnership with Canada, in partnership with the multistakeholder community of Canada civil society, business co-led by our regional (indiscernible) director for North America working on a series of best practices around IOT security.  And this kind of effort is something we're trying to replicate on the different continents.  We have another effort in France, another one actually in Switzerland, and so on and so forth.  So this is really the general direction that the society is taking for its work.  We know that in the past we've been able to secure the recognition of the value of the multistakeholder model including the IGF, but what we're trying to do this year is really move from the declarations to more concrete actions.  And, of course, our support to the IGF is part of that effort.  The global IGF but also the national and regional type of IGF initiatives.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Constance.  Anybody else from the floor before I call upon Nigel again?  Six count.  Nigel, are you ready?
 >>NIGEL HICKSON: Yes.  Thanks very much, Chengetai.  Sorry.  Good afternoon.  Nigel Hickson, ICANN.  I didn't mean to delay anything.  I won't be long so we can have a tea break or whatever you, you know -- whatever you want. 
 I just wanted to -- I mean, I think first of all I spoke briefly in the donor's meeting at lunchtime but, of course, not many people were there.  And the first thing I really wanted to mention is how important ICANN believes the IGF is.  Now, I mean, this is easy to say.  This is just, you know, anyone can declare that they think the IGF is important.  But we believe it's important fundamentally at this time, at this time in history, because of the prevailing problems we have in Internet policies.  Now, I mean, this is not, you know -- this is not rocket science.  This is not difficult to see.  One doesn't have to go too far to see the issues that are confronting the Internet.  And we might say well, you know, this is the Internet.  We're worried about Internet governance in the IGF.  This isn't our concern.  But I would argue it is all our concerns.  Internet governance, what is it?  Perhaps it's a phrase we should give up, which is very unusual for me so say this because I've been a great advocate of the words "Internet governance."  But Internet governance covers Internet issues, and it's the Internet issues which our ministers in  different governments which our stakeholders are confronting, which our international companies and businesses are confronting.  And there are significant problems in many countries.  There are significant problems in many corporations.  And so I think the ability of stakeholders to come together to discuss these issues is more important now than it ever was.  We are seeing multilateral initiatives bring up.  Perhaps they're not successful.  The U.N. tried to run this government group of experts on cybersecurity, which I think was a mistake to do it without other stakeholders, to involve technical issues and the issue of cybersecurity which needs the input of other stakeholders.  There are other multilateral initiatives involving perhaps e-commerce and perhaps other initiatives in other areas where I think the input of all stakeholders is important.  And I think the IGF is, in this context, if you like, allows this safety valve, allows this discussion to take place on the annual basis and then, of course, in the national and regional initiatives which we're seeing are so successful and so important for this dialogue.  And I think that's why the IGF is crucial to allow this discussion to continue to take place and allow all stakeholders to come to the table. 
 Now, I know this is easy to say.  I know that there are physical constraints.  I know there are Visa constraints.  There are cost constraints.  But surely the IGF, at least of all the vehicles we have, is perhaps the most open, is the most transparent, is the most welcoming to all types of stakeholders.  And that's why -- that's why we're committed to it.  And that's why we believe that in 2018 it's very important that we have an IGF.  It's very important that we have this continuation of this multistakeholder process.  Because the opposition, those that oppose the multistakeholder process, I think is only too easy to say that, you know, they perhaps weren't able to get their act together or whatever.  So that's why we're -- that's why we're committed to it.
 Just a couple of words about ICANN, what ICANN is doing.  We have a role in the Internet governance ecosystem.  Many of you, of course, experience ICANN at various levels.  Only last week we were at our ICANN61.  I'm not very good at these numbers.  We were at our ICANN61 meeting in Puerto Rico.  You might say so what, in many respects.  Well, so what in that we went to Puerto Rico, which was incredible to go to Puerto Rico.  We were determined to go to Puerto Rico.  Various people said Puerto Rico has been damaged by the -- by the hurricanes.  Of course, it's been damaged by the hurricanes.  A lot of countries in that region were damaged by the hurricanes, and that's even more of a reason to go and support these local economies.  The people were fantastic, the environment was fantastic, the support was fantastic, and we had an excellent meeting.  I mean, perhaps the subject matter might not have been excellent, but the meeting venue was excellent and it was an incredible place to go to.
 The uppermost topics on the ICANN agenda are GDPR data protection, which is something that when, you know, GDPR is mentioned in all good families, you know, you're told to go out of the room or something like this.  But the General Data Protection Regulation is affecting many global organizations, and not just ICANN at all.  We could be talking here in a global forum on health care or public transport or air or the airline industry or pharmaceuticals and we would be talking about GDPR because it has -- it has a global effect and it has a global effect on the registries and registrars that -- that are -- that ICANN is -- has a global effect on the registries and registrars that ICANN has contracts with.  So it is important from that respect.
 In addition to the GDPR discussions, we also discussed the ICANN budget, and the ICANN budget is something which you might say is nothing to be discussed here at an IGF meeting.  But I wanted to mention it because often ICANN is, if you like, portrayed as being a pot of money.  Clearly the income into ICANN during the -- during the expansion of global top-level domains was considerable.  ICANN has grown as an organization from some 100 people, 100 members of staff in 2012 to over 400 today.  And the budget is, if you like, or the income is flat-lined is a term that is often used.  I don't know if it's a very good English word really, but in other words, the income is stabilized but flat-lined seems a more dramatic word and potentially decreasing ever so slightly, so this effects the ICANN budget.  The only reason I mention it here is that it effects our -- it effects our commitment or it effects the financial commitment in various places.  But as I said, we're continuing our commitment to -- to the IGF.  We think this is -- we think this is absolutely -- absolutely fundamental. 
 That's really all I wanted to say.  I just thought I'd mention two other things very briefly.  The three ICANN meetings a year, our next meeting is in Panama, which we're also very much looking forward to going to, and then the last meeting of the year is in Barcelona, which is in Spain.  I don't know, so to speak. 
 That's what we call the high-level government meeting.  And the Governmental Advisory Committee, which is now made of 176 governments, are invited along with other countries as well to bring their ministers.  It's not like "bring your wife to work," "it's bring your minister to the ICANN meeting."  We think this is important in that high-level ministers are able to discuss, are able to tell ICANN what their thinking is on the various developments within ICANN in terms of generic top-level domains, in terms of the success or otherwise of the IANA transition and other issues.  And that high-level meeting takes place on 22 of October, the Monday of the ICANN meeting.  It's hosted by the Spanish government and all governments should be receiving invites through their foreign -- through their foreign ministries.
 Thank you, Chengetai, for the opportunity to speak.  I think I will stop there, and I won't say anything about day zero at all.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Nigel. 
 Marilia, please.
 >>MARILIA MACIEL:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Sorry for taking the floor again.  Just mention something that I think is relevant for the community who will be participating in MAG meetings.  The Geneva Internet Platform and Diplo are also providing just-in-time reporting from WSIS sessions.  So we will be trapped inside this room for the next days.  If you want to know what's going on out there and the sessions that are being organized by colleagues, please go to the Web site.  And this initiative is being kindly supported by ISOC and ICANN.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much. 
 Does anybody else have any contributions to tell us about on their Internet governance initiatives?  Six count.
 Okay.  So the next part of the agenda is an open discussion on possible ways that we can interact with these initiatives that have presented just now.  What's the IGF this year leading up -- so if anybody has got any ideas or would like to make a comment on how we can interact with these initiatives, please sign up.  Okay. 
 Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government.  Other than just to make a very obvious point that many of these initiatives provide opportunities for yourselves, on the secretariat, you personally, they're there for the chair of the MAG, Lynn, and maybe others to engage and to promote the importance of participating and contributing to the work of the IGF and also of the national and regional IGFs and also identify how these initiatives -- and I mentioned the Global Internet and Jurisdiction Initiative -- how these initiatives might actually be able to use this forum, the global forum, to advance their objectives, increase their outreach, and levels of productive participation amongst all the stakeholder constituencies in all types of economy. 
 I just underline that point.  The IGF can't work in isolation.  And it's very, very important to have this agenda item about other initiatives going on which are going to intersect productively as frameworks of cooperation among stakeholders, governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and the technical community in order to develop the solutions for the problem areas and the opportunities for cooperation in delivering the future, be it AI, blockchain, or whatever.  Thanks.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes -- thank you very much, Mark.  Yes, that is correct.  Since we do share some common stakeholders with many of these initiatives, we do take opportunity to do some outreach and also capacity-building when we do go there. 
 Before I hand it back to the chair, Wout.
 >>WOUT de NATRIS:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Wout de Natris.  I am going to cite from the report on strength and cooperation in the context of the IGF because it's the right place to do so.
 What happened basically is that the participants indicated that for the IGF to become more influential, it is necessary for the MAG to connect the dots and search for over-the-top topics in close cooperation with other more specialized stakeholder communities.  And it advises the setup of a formal liaison system with other Internet governance organizations so that you can actually actively look at topics that will influence or directly impact the work of another organization that may not now be familiar or familiar in time with the work going on in other organizations. 
 And this is all said from a point of view, if you look for more tangible outcomes out of the IGF.  So thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Wout. 
 We have one presentation from the World Economic Forum.  But they're going to come here at 4:30 because they're holding a workshop now.  So we might interrupt the discussion when they come in. 
 But let me take this opportunity to hand the control back to Lynn, the Chair.  She has no rest.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So I guess at this point there are no other speakers in the queue.  Peter Hellmonds is looking for the queue from the floor.  Peter.
 >> PETER HELLMONDS:  This one?  Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak.  I haven't been very active in recent years.  But I'm just curious, I've seen the presentation on the national and regional initiatives.  How much are we actually seeing sort of in a systematic fashion reporting from those national and regional initiatives to inform the global IGF?  Is there some standardized way of getting input from their meeting and outcomes and recommendations that can inform us here?  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  And I'll give it over to Anja to tell us exactly how that is done.  Speaking from IGF initiatives, how is that done?  Is there a standardized format?  And how many are reporting in and submitting reports?
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Sorry, I wasn't tested this mic before.  So my name is Anja Gengo.  I'm a focal point at the IGF secretariat, just for the record.  Thank you very much for the excellent question. 
 Yesterday, probably if you attended the orientation session for the new MAG members, Chengetai gave a presentation on the official record of the recognized national and regional, subregional youth IGFs, which is now 99 plus we have eight NRIs that are information.  And I think probably starting the next week, we will have El Salvador joining us, Morocco IGF joining us, and so on.
 When it comes about the reporting mechanisms that you mentioned, I think it's important to underline at the begin that there are no reporting mechanisms between the national IGFs, regional IGFs, global IGFs, youth IGFs.  They are all autonomous, and we all act on equal footing.
 However, we do feed into each other work, especially what you reference where we are informing each other.  There's a very good mechanism that's been established with the IGF secretariat in a very bottom-up manner starting from 2011, I believe.  That is that each IGF initiative has a dedicated focal point or a coordinator that communicates regularly with the IGF secretariat or maybe better I should say through the IGF secretariat with the wider community of informing what is happening within their respective communities.
 The IGF secretariat kind of followed that mechanism on our side.  And in 2015, the management decided that they will establish positions that's going to be a dedicated position to support the NRI work upon request and also serve just that position that you mentioned, informing the NRIs on what's happening on the side of the IGF regarding their own work, of course, but also wider.  So that's the communication that is happening. 
 We have regular monthly -- bimonthly calls on different subject agenda.  It depends again on the NRI because the agenda is always developed in a bottom-up manner.  But in that sense, there is a very good communication between the IGF, also between the MAG to the extent it's of MAG's interest, of course, and the NRI's interest. 
 And as you know, probably just very quick reference, the NRIs have been, I think, successfully integrated into the program of the IGF starting from last year.  They hold a main session.  They also were granted eight collaborative sessions, where a number of NRIs work together on a topic of mutual interest.
 During the annual IGF meeting, we organized a set of work meetings depending again on the subjects that are of interest for the NRIs and for the IGF.  And as I just said, not just at the annual IGF meeting, we tried to use every opportunity where we are physically present to meet with the number of NRIs.  The latest ICANN meeting was also with the help of the IGF Support Association, a place where we met with a number of NRIs.  That always results in defining additional subject items that are of our interest.  So this would be in short -- if you have any follow-up questions, I remain at your disposal.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Peter, I'm not sure if you have a follow-up question or not.  I always appreciate Anja's responses.  They are just so dense with information and so packed and the words are so carefully chosen because it is quite a nuanced relationship, if you will, between the NRIs and the secretariat and the MAG.  And she is also just very accurate and very thoughtful about it.
 >>PETER HELLMONDS:  First of all, thank you, Anja, for this very good report on the situation and the collaboration, which is quite extensive.  You know, coming from the private sector, I'm always trying to find a way of how can we condense the information because if there's lots of initiatives and lots of people involved and lots of talks and meetings and reports for someone who has limited time, it's very difficult to get what is the most important issue that we need to look at.  So my question goes in the direction of if we can sort of -- just an idea of what can we do in order to strengthen sort of the connection between national and regional initiatives and the global IGF and the messages coming out for people who have not much time to follow all the details, is there a way if we have like a theme for one international IGF to say -- we are asking, of course, voluntarily because they are all independent and eye to eye and same level.  But if we say, look, this year's theme is so and so, Could you please report on your initial -- on your initiatives in your country, in your region of, what are the main most salient points that come out of your IGFs so that we can feed them into our global theme for this year and do that in a more sort of structured way that could really help inform -- I don't know whether that's happening already.  Probably is to some extent.  But how can we also get that into some sort of global reporting format where someone who doesn't have much time say, Hey, what's the topic this year?  Where is the consensus between all the different regions and national IGFs of what are the things we need to talk about and look at?  Thank you.
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Just very quickly -- I'm pretty sure the MAG chair will also respond to this chair and the chair is very close to the NRI work. 
 I avoiding overusing the word "reporting."  But I do understand what you are saying, and thank you very much.  This is actually the message that I as the focal point to the secretariat are always convening to the NRIs, is that the interest of the stakeholders that are existing outside that are not directly involved in the organization of their own IGF processes, in their own countries, and regions is really high.  And they are really interested to learn more and to engage in those bottom-up processes and contribute. 
 But then again there is that challenge that we are always limited, time.  And with the NRIs now growing beyond us, to be honest, it's also a challenge on the secretariat side how to channel all those inputs.
 At this stage, what I can say only is that all your inputs are very much welcome to the secretariat to advise what would be the most effective way for you to have all the information in one place about the NRIs in terms of the process that exists but also in terms of the substantive issues that they are discussing, which I believe is of interest for so many.
 We are also trying -- we will probably -- our management will have after this meeting along with the MAG chair a meeting to discuss these particular topics.  And then, of course, everything will depend on the final review and approval of the NRIs.  As I said, the whole work that's happening with the NRIs is of a collaborative nature.  It's completely bottom-up.  And they have the final say. 
 But we will definitely feed in.  And I also told to the colleagues that every remarks that are reflecting the NRIs, especially this one which are very important long-term speaking, will be convened to them and will be subject for the discussion with them on the next call next week. 
 So we will inform the community through the public mailing lists of the IGF, probably even through the IGF Web site about the outcomes of that discussion.  But thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Peter, for the question and Anja, again, for the excellent response.
 Maybe just one short addition is not only do the NRIs actually interface with the work of the annual program but, in fact, a number of other initiatives -- well, such as the Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion is a major policy initiative.  If they choose to and there's overlap and interest of the work of the BPFs and DCs -- In fact, Alex Wong just came in from the World Economic Forum.  And they have a project called Internet for All.  And some of the NRIs participate in that work as well given there's significant work going in.  So there's a number of -- and it's problem to understand sort of the entire spectrum of information and what's important to any one piece of this ecosystem. 
 And that changes over time.  You know, what it is in March it might not be in April, nevermind four or five months from now. 
 I think they were very good questions.  And as Anja said, she does a great job of taking all that back to the NRIs for their deliberation.
 We have Michael in the queue, Marilyn, and Markus.  But just for a moment first, Alex is here as well. 
 Alex, are you here for some time?  Okay.  So we'll -- we had this queue going, but I'll put you in the queue after Markus.
 So, Michael, you have the floor.
 >> MICHAEL ILISHEBO:  This is Michael for the record.  I'm trying to get back to Anja even though she's trying to avoid the term "reporting" in terms of the NRIs.  Because we have an expression whereby in terms of hierarchy, if the NRI is supposed to have an event first, it's supposed to go to the subregional, to the regional, and to the global.  Basically what I have seen (indiscernible) in terms of the reporting structures, I attended the African IGF last year in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, where I think only about two subregional initiatives, like subregional IGFs give reports.  The other three couldn't because they never held those events.  And especially whereby we had the African IGF, barely a week later we had the global IGF.  But in between, there were other countries who are holding their national IGFs.  So I'm looking at it in this way.
 Why should a nation hold a national IGF towards the end of the year?  And, yet, at some point there's need for that national IGF to feed into the global IGF.  What kind of reports is the national IGF going to give to, A, a regional IGF which in my case is the African IGF, when you hold your event after the regional IGF?  That's my question.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think there's probably a couple of answers to that.  And I know Marilyn is in the queue next.  I'm sure she can respond as well.
 I think the timing of when the IGF -- national, regional, or subregional IGF is held is not all that critical.  Holding one late in the year, even if you had held your national IGF -- let's say the IGF is in September, as it used to be some years ago, September, October.  They can still -- holding an IGF after that would still influence the process next year.  It's a rolling process.  It's a rolling process across NRIs and their own meetings.  And it's certainly a rolling process from one IGF to the next.  So I don't think it's a conversation that starts and stops with an annual IGF.  So I think that's one answer.
 And I'm not sure if at the beginning of your comments you were sort of inferring that there's kind of a hierarchical relationship between them and, therefore, there ought to be reports up.  I think it's been pretty clear in the NRI structure that, in fact, that's not the case.  It is not hierarchical.  It is, of course, to everybody's benefit to share information, to share knowledge, and to share outcomes or conclusions as we move forward so that we all continue building on an even greater base of shared knowledge.
 But I think it's maybe more -- "sharing" is possibly the term that's appropriate in some of those instances than "reporting." 
 With that, I feel like I might be coming into the middle of the conversation.  So I'm not sure I got that right.
 If there's some more questions, Michael, we can take that up over the course of the next couple of days.  Thank you.  All that helps for the clarification.
 We will go to Marilyn Cade now who is next in the queue.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  And I am going to just add a little bit of information but very quickly to what Anja said and ask a question.
 We have sometimes -- and I know that you did an overview yesterday for the new MAG members.  But we've often had an update from Anja at lunchtime or before the session started on the progress in the NRIs.
 Sorry.  If there's enough interest in spending time on that outside of the regular schedule, that might be interesting.  Another suggestion I might make is just to point out, there is written information that Anja as the focal point has put together and one piece of data that I would refer you to, and maybe although we have very few of our leftover reports, I think we could make them available in soft copy, and it's a very quick read.  30 of -- there were 71 NRIs that held face-to-face meetings.  Not everyone meets each year.  Everyone who holds a meeting prepares a written report, as Anja may have pointed out.  The only way you can be listed on the IGF Web sites an NRI is if you meet the basic requirements of being multistakeholder, bottom-up and submit your report.  Of the 71 that met last year, 30 had met by August.  So 41 met between September and December.  And to reinforce the Chair's comment, we have NRIs who purposely meet at the end of the year to take stock of everything that has happened and then to launch their work again.  So I'm happy to talk privately, but I just want to make one other comment.
 Every one of us has to do a bottom-up consultation with our stakeholders and most -- my observation would be, and Anja can check me on this, but my observation would be we all take information to our steering group, our executive committee, whatever it's called, to take into account the theme but the issues and the perspective on the issues is driven by the community that is local.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Marilyn.  Markus, you're in the queue.
 >>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.  This time I'm speaking in my capacity as chairman of the IGF Support Association and I can pick up to what Marilyn said on the reporting.  Having a report out is one of the conditions to be listed on the IGF Web site and for us that's a precondition of -- for considering funding national or regional IGF.
 Last year we funded ten regional and sub-regional IGFs that received three and a half thousand U.S. dollars, which may not sound much but for the organization can be quite big seed money to get started.  And 33 national IGFs and they received 2,000 U.S. dollars each.  So it's significant number of IGFs we were able to support.  And we focus on those from developing countries and economies in transition. 
 At the request of ***the IGF they would hold an informal session here in this room on Thursday at quarter past 2:00, so all MAG members are cordially invited to attend the session where we can inform about our activities.  Thank you for your attention.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Markus.  Do remind us all of that on Thursday again.  So next we have Alex Wong from the World Economic Forum.  Alex, have you the floor.
 >>ALEX WONG:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  So my name is Alex Wong with the World Economic Forum.  I think I've met several of you now over the last couple of years and I'm really pleased to first start off by appreciating the partnership that the World Economic Forum has been able to build with the IGF under the current chair.  But also under Janis Karklins when he was the chair between our activities.  And this has, of course, been expanded since the forum became an international institution focused on public/private collaboration.  I wanted to appreciate our similar approaches on the purpose of a multistakeholder platform and that we want to continue to build on that partnership.
 As a recap, a year ago when we were here to present to the MAG, as our portfolio of digital issues expanded, we already presented that there were already two potential areas of collaboration and very pleased to report that both have had some good progress.  The first is the Internet for All project that Lynn mentioned earlier, which I recognize was also the name of one of the IGF working groups back a few several years ago, in reading through the documentation.  But Internet for All is an initiative that the forum has created now running into its fourth year to catalyze the acceleration of Internet access and adoption to the 3.8 billion people not on the Internet.  And the structure of the project has a 50 organization global steering community of which the IGF secretariat is part of that.  So we're very privileged to have a direct interaction with the IGF secretariat and getting their input on that.  And as mentioned already, one example has been the introduction of the NRIs into our -- some of our country programs where we have Internet for All programs in Peru, Argentina, South Africa where we've had already some initial contact with the relevant NRI.  And we do want to expand on that and build on that and hopefully in a year's time we can show that.
 Related also to Internet for All is we're really pleased that the chair herself is invited to our global activities, primarily the Davos meeting, and in the past annual meeting 2018 in January Lynn was able to also present the status of IGF to the -- to our Internet for All broadband commission meeting that took place.  And, of course, we're also really pleased that Chengetai and Anja, the secretary, have participated in some of the global activities.  So on this area we want to continue that collaboration.  I think the NRIs, as we go more into countries, is a great opportunity to build on that, and hopefully in the coming year we can continue and expand that.
 The second area of collaboration ties to the fact that we have now created at the forum the Center For the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco.  So this is a new center that was created by the forum to recognize that the changing technologies are happening so fast that we need to have a rethink on how we establish policy and governance issues such as AI, IOT, et cetera.  And this is a really great success where through the intervention of the chair we were introduced to the dynamic coalition on IOT and Maarten Botterman who's the chair of that, and we were able to engage the DC into the development of our first draft protocols which was related to how can we put together principles that address the safety and security of industrial IOT devices.  And the grass-roots connection that IGF represents is a huge asset to the otherwise fairly top-level approach the forum does.  And there's a really great compliment there.  So we hope we can build on that as the forum and the center in San Francisco in particular explores how we can address some of these other emerging technologies.  And I think there has been some commitments made in previous meetings with the MAG chair and our relevant colleagues to sort of build on that as other issue areas get -- get focused on, and I think the dynamic coalitions could be a great model that can be expanded.
 At the IGF itself, we actually presented those protocols.  By the way, a few of you hopefully were in that session, the industrial IOT protocols, the first draft protocols.  And so we also used the IGF in December to present another set of practices that was created by a similar effort related to national digital policy.  So again, we recognize and appreciate IGF to being a platform to showcase and generate discussion on some of these areas.
 The two new areas in the coming year that we are inviting and would welcome IGF engagement is a focused area related to digital identity and this is recognizing that as we move into the digital world, there are many vulnerable populations such as refugees, for example, and others in general who just don't have any formal identity, and we need to be proactive to figure out how we can create identity and access systems so that it's inclusive and respects the rights of privacy, security, freedom of speech.  So this is an effort that's actually kicking off, and I think it's an area that we could further explore how we can engage the IGF.
 And the final area that I would add is another focus area that's emerging, driven out of our San Francisco center, but also in general at the forum which is around data.  Data sharing, what are the rules, how do you respect privacy.  This has now becoming a major topic that many of you, I'm sure, are working on.  This is another area that we would welcome IGF engagement and, of course, adopting the multistakeholder approach in looking at the challenges and opportunities.  And in fact, this week right now in San Francisco we are actually having a meeting of our community on digital economy and society looking at two of these issues.
 I think a final -- a final comment, just to show our partnership with IGF and the importance that we have, is that we've invited Lynn, our chair, to be not just be representing IGF in her capacity at many of our events but she also serves as the co-chair of our leadership group, we call it the stewards of our major system project related to the digital economy society.  So I think that collaboration and Lynn's personal support in representing the IGF as the MAG chair is appreciated, and we hope that therefore allows continued collaboration and communication as opportunities continue.
 A final thing I'll just say is the forum is, like many organizations, is complicated -- equally complicated.  So I would just commit that myself, who -- who makes it a point of trying to be at these events and my colleague Derek O'Halloran who presented to the MAG a year ago, we're both based in Geneva.  Chengetai, the secretariat, the MAG chair have our emails.  At any point, if some of you is trying to figure out how to get in touch with this forum or this project or this dialogue that you're hearing about, just, you know, through the chair or the secretariat contact us or contact us directly and our commitment is to sort of at least connect you to the right colleagues at the forum who are looking at that issue and so we can continue that collaboration.  So I would end by that offer for not just these four areas but other topics that you think that the forum is looking at and you'd like to provide some input, please reach out to us via directly or through the secretariat.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Alex.  That was a very thorough update.  I've actually been involved with the World Economic Forum going back, I don't know, probably 12 or 13 years in my previous position.  Partly because it was important to engage with the private sector and government participations that the World Economic Forum draws there at, you know, a very, very senior level.  And it certainly is a different community than what you traditionally find in a lot of the Internet governance meetings we go to.  I think that's why in the past (indiscernible) found it important to do that and the MAG in previous discussions at that time supported that engagement and why I continue to be engaged.
 Quite quickly, though, the opportunities that are put in front of us from the west outstrip our capacity to actually track them, never mind participate in them.  But I think one of the things we need to think about as we look through kind of the activities of the next year and probably this multi-year strategic work program is being really thoughtful about which of the activities where it makes sense for the IGF community to participate, so I'm not talking specifically about the chair or the secretariat or -- but where are the activities that it makes sense for us to participate, to what purpose, and then how do we actually do that?  And, you know, I think that's worthy of some pretty significant discussion and probably would require some more structure somewhere between the chair, the secretariat, and the community to actually bring that about.  But I think it's time.  Over the years I've seen World Economic Forum come much more into kind of the digital space or digitalization space or for the industrial revolution.  I can't tell you how many times I said multistakeholder and open and inclusive in those forums and there's been a real movement.  But I think we should think about -- nothing is a foregone conclusion here -- think about, you know, is this an appropriate place for the IGF to participate more fully, and if so, in what issues, how fully, and how?  And again, I think I put that under the kind of comments we've heard about increasing our collaboration, our outreach and activities with other organizations to, you know, further enrich and bring in broader participation in the IGF.  So if there are any questions, I'm happy to take them either here in the room or offline as well.  In the meantime we'll go back to the floor and we have Omar.  Omar, you have the floor.
 >>OMAR MANSOOR ANSARI: Thank you, Madam Chair.  Madam Chair, I'd like to intervene there were discussions in the earlier session, the informal and the finance raised some good points about how the MAG members can contribute to the engagement as well as possibly raising funds.  Some other colleagues commented on that.  Let me share an experience of IGF Afghanistan with you.  We had 32 organizations involved in our first IGF Afghanistan in 2017.  We do it in March because it's the beginning of the Afghan year.  It's springtime and so when we discussed with the IGF secretariat they also confirmed that this is not a very busy period for other international organizations.  And other regional -- the global IGF was the end of the year other IGFs are not happening around that time.  So it's easier for us to have some more international speakers at the IGF Afghanistan.  So that was a very good experience, especially through the WebEx and online participation from organizations such as commercial law department, development program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, ICANN business constituency, Facebook, ICANN, IGF support association, ISOC, minister of communications in IETF Afghanistan, tech mission, tech (indiscernible) Afghanistan and many other organizations like APNIC, the total news Afghanistan, they were able to connect with us.  Those who were present in Afghanistan, they participated.  Others provided, you know, talks using the WebEx and that was a very successful model.  We're happy and thankful to our international colleagues who were able to join us.
 Private sector in the IGF Afghanistan was one of the major contributors.  Not only in terms of sponsorships but also in terms of running workshops and sessions at the IGF Afghanistan in the participation.  Let me also share with you the amount of awareness we created in Afghanistan through engaging diversity holders in the country including youth and women.  One of the results we could measure through the amount of fellowship applications that ICANN received after IGF Afghanistan.  It was 19 applications from Afghanistan.  Previously it would be zero, maximum one application from Afghanistan for fellowship.  And that was the kind of interest IGF Afghanistan was able to build within Afghan community.  And also the awareness.  We had multiple sessions that were run by the ICANN colleagues, including a few on fellowships.  So Afghanistan was the second country that has the largest number of the fellowship applications.
 On the government engagement, we were able to engage actively with the government of Afghanistan, although it was a difficult period because the -- the teams at the ministry were changing and they were parliamentary foreign process going on.  But in the last IGF, we were able to bring four colleagues from Afghanistan, from the government.  Not only bring them to -- connect them with the IGF and other similar initiatives, but we actually help raise funds for the government participants to come to Geneva and participate at the -- at the global IGF.  We also helped the government to organize an open forum for the first time at the global IGF in Geneva last year.
 With the private sector engagement, we are -- I'm glad to let you know that we have just planned a meeting tomorrow in the morning with (indiscernible) initiative and we will be meeting the business members -- MAG members who are coming from the business community to not only know each other but also discuss ways the business community can contribute to the global IGF our work as MAG members and how we can support the NRIs throughout the globe.  So that would include the engaging new members, new communities, including start-ups at the IG issues and also looking into how we can contribute to the
 Many fund-raising efforts being carried out by the IGF secretariat and the fund-raising -- working group on fund-raising.  Thank you so much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Omar.  Very comprehensive comments.
 Adam Peake.  Adam, you have the floor.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Thank you very much.  Adam Peake.  I work with ICANN but this is very much a personal comment again.  Apologies on coming late into the conversation this afternoon.  And just quickly like to go back to NRIs, again, if that's okay, and some thoughts on that.
 So if there isn't a global IGF this year -- and, of course, we hope there is -- then perhaps there's a plan D or E or wherever we are in the alphabet on that.  How might we -- or could we enhance the work of the NRIs so that they become the vehicle for and towards 2019?  They could be connectors to the 2019 event and not accountable to the MAG but to their own communities.  But that doesn't mean that they couldn't be the means -- a vehicle to conduct work from now until 2019 working on a set of common issues, perhaps more concrete topics that would then perhaps become the agenda that we discuss in Germany in 2019.
 I'm trying to avoid words like "intersessional work," but this would be independent.  It would be NRIs discussing issues of their own choice but perhaps collaborating so that they -- we get a more informed discussion, informed in the sense that the regions and national IGFs have already discussed and debated and are coming to Germany with those 12 months, 14 months of discussion perhaps by next year.  It would be unfortunate to miss an IGF this year; but we can use the NRIs to populate and make a better, higher-quality 2019 event perhaps. 
 Anyway, that was all.  Apologies if this has already been said.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  There's a saying what has been said many times but not by everyone or something -- I think I just totally got it wrong. 
 There have been similar comments as well.  We're still working very, very hard to have a physical meeting.  We have a series of possibilities in plan A and then we have a plan B and, again, hope to make that definitive call no later than sort of early April.
 If, in fact, we're moved to doing something virtually, then certainly the NRIs are the key piece of the system, would be a piece of that discussion, and we would look to see what we could do all of us together.  I have to say, frankly, I hope that plan A and plan B come to fruition.
 Next in the queue we have Mamadou.
 >>MAMADOU LO:  Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor.  I'm Mamadou Lo from Senegal, private sector.  Yeah, I just would like to emphasize the information and communication issues the IGF face, both inside of MAG, the community, and also IGF output and recommendation to which communities and stakeholders. 
 On inside issues, I would like to stress the problem of translation to say we need to translate all recommendations in all U.N. languages to communicate better.
 As for example, I noted last year some BPFs had some issues to communicate on their agenda and to collect input despite many, many reminders.  I think we need to find a way to help coordinate these activities and reach out to the public. 
 In this regard, I would like to second Marilia for Diplo and Geneva Internet Platform initiatives on collecting and freedom of information by the newsletter and the (indiscernible) policy on the (indiscernible) governance which is very useful to speed information.
 Also, just to emphasize also (indiscernible) are now available in more languages like French and Spanish.  I think information should be available for us to build a team going into the next IGF.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Mamadou.  And, I mean, it's, of course, extremely important and essential to broader and better communication.  It's not resource neutral, so we need to find some creative ways to do that or to be very selective and prioritize those pieces that would really sort of support broader engagement.
 Any and all ideas are welcome in terms of how best to do that.
 I also think there's an opportunity through some of the work that's actually done through the NRIs, which can be done in the local language, to both support the development of some of those activities and some of those topics and then bring those outputs translated -- unfortunately it's probably into English, maybe into the six languages -- so that the broader community can actually access it as well. 
 But I don't think we need to go to the English-speaking set of activities and look to translate those back.  I think we really should do more with a lot of national discussions which, of course, are taking place in the local languages.
 We have Ji in the queue.  I don't think we have anybody else online. 
 Ji, you have the floor.
 >>HAOJUN JI:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  Just want to briefly touch on what had been said by Mamadou.  As a member from countries where, you know, English is not an official language, we do feel that interpretation and the translation of documents is very important.  But this is such a -- you know -- it costs lots of money.  And when we are having the annual meeting, so many parallel meetings are going on.  The whole U.N. system cannot afford so many qualified interpreters. 
 At this stage with all the financial constraints and the human resources, I think we -- we have to, you know, live with this reality.  And maybe in the future when AI technology have significant progress, everyone can carry a small, you know -- a small machine which is smart enough to translate any language into our mother language.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ji.
 If there are no other requests for the floor, at this point, we'll recall to everybody that we are in the final section of the agenda, which is 3, which was updates related to Internet governance initiatives and processes followed by open discussion and possible areas of collaboration -- IGF 2018 areas of collaboration.
 I missed a significant piece of this particular session.  But I think there were a number of interventions from, I understand, ITU, UNESCO, ISOC, ICANN, et cetera, obviously World Economic Forum. 
 Are there any general reflections on where we might spend some efforts in terms of either thinking about the collaboration, how that happens perhaps, maybe on some of the topics areas which you think are really ripe. 
 Again, I don't want to close the conversation down prematurely.  This is the time for the MAG to hear from the community what their thoughts are broadly in some of these areas.
 So I appreciate Wout jumping in and would also encourage any of the other participants here to jump in with any reflections.  Thank you. 
 Wout, you have the floor.
 >>WOUT de NATRIS:  Thank you, Lynn.  As I promised, I will come back to the report that was produced.  Again, I have to stress that I am speaking here on account of ten different organizations in the Netherlands more or less representing all stakeholder communities and all IGF veterans.  So this is not just my consultancy speaking, just to make clear.
 As a reminder to the old MAG members but also as an introduction to the new MAG members, I think it is important to stress that this all started as a best practice forum proposal in the winter of 2017.  And as more or less it decided which best practice forum would continue, it was asked, Could you present more information on the idea of then enhanced cooperation within the context of the IGF so that we could make a decision on this in 2018?  That's where the parties stepped in and made it possible to do this research.  And the answers you find in the report that was sent to the MAG in February of this year comes from IGF members itself and all stakeholder communities from all sort of international -- other organizations involved in Internet governance.  So it's basically you that have come up with these answers.
 It comes up with four major recommendations which I would like to share with you.  The first is -- and it's all, again, I stress, with the output -- the outlook of having more tangible outcomes coming out of the IGF.  So that is the outlook coming from that.
 So the recommendation, one is to have a chance at full participation in these sort of -- in the processes, influences, success for intersessional work, and tangible outcomes are concerned, prioritization, and focus including a time frame have to be provided at the start.  If that is not there, you will find that several stakeholder communities would just drift away from the discussion.  So usually governments, technical, and the other international organizations will just drift away because there's no focus on the topic.
 Recommendation 2 is if focus on tangible outputs through multistakeholder cooperation becomes a standard, it is critical to determine and facilitate the session and work formats that offer the circumstances that can lead to success.  So, in other words, it could be a session format that we do not have at this point in time which could actually be needed to make the tangible outcome possible.
 Recommendation 3 I already read, but I will read again just to make it complete.  For the IGF to become more influential, it is necessary for the MAG to connect the dots and search for over-the-top topics in close cooperation with other more specialized stakeholder communities.  And it was advised to set up a liaison system between those communities and the MAG to make sure that it is possible to find these dots and to find these over-the-top topics.
 Recommendation 4, once decided the MAG needs to actively stand by and fully commit to the work following its choices by assisting the volunteers at work in all necessary ways because often it's found that that is not always the case.  You make the decision, then make the work possible by supporting it in the way it's needed.
 The report advises the MAG to start a working group on the proposals and to do a few pilots in 2018.  So a working group on these proposals and just a few pilots to test them so you can find what works and what does not work when you make a decision in 2019.
 If anything, the people responding here ask the MAG for leadership and decisions to make sure the IGF remains relevant for the members to become true representatives of communities and not just individual members.
 Looking at this report, I think it's a gift from the IGF Internet community to the international community.  And we respectfully request for it to be taken into consideration by the MAG so that in 2019, meaningful chances can be set to provide the IGF more options to become more influential and meaningful through tangible outcomes that matter and change the course of things.
 During the work, one potential pilot came up and I would like to put that to your consideration in the next two days.  If the IGF is willing to pilot around its current work -- sorry, IETF is willing to pilot around its current work around a new Internet protocol, the IETF is willing to inform other stakeholders, identify the input it needs from these stakeholders, while they have the opportunity to identify and discuss the impact of the change of the Internet protocol will have on their respective organizations. 
 This works -- this work is intended to go towards a session at the IGF at which conclusions can be drawn for all.
 For example, to continue work or to work together within or beyond the IGF; and this lesson of the pilots are shared with the MAG for future consideration.  The MAG is asked to further discuss this option as well as the report. 
 But, frankly, what I'm asking here personally is to get some sort of commitment from the MAG to make it possible to start this pilot without a final decision but by making it possible to really present on it by the time you meet for the second time and see if it's relevant.  That would make sure the beginning of the process starts.  You can make a decision on it whether it's relevant without losing the time because then it will probably be beyond the summer before this work actually starts and probably too late to get all these stakeholders on board that you need here.  So that is my first hat. 
 I have a small second hat, if you allow me.  The Cybersecurity Council of the Netherlands held an open forum on duties of care in ICTs in Geneva in December, and they have asked me as moderator of that session to give the messages of that work because actually they may involve a future topic for the IGF to consider.
 In 2017 the Council of Cybersecurity in the Netherlands published a guideline to businesses on duties of care in ICTs.  One of the conclusions in that guideline is that there's a need for global harmonization of duties of care.  In the open forum on this topic, participants were asked to share their views on global harmonization and whether the IGF could play an active, supportive role to achieve harmonization. 
 They had received these questions up front and what this session showed is that with only one hour, you can actually determine the direction of where a topic should be going and use the IGF to the maximum of its ability.  So it's actually an example of what the IGF can do with a session without just discussing around the topic.
 This led to the following recommendations for the MAG to consider assigning duties of care as one of the topics of priority in 2018. 
 First, there's a need for an inventory of where states are on this topic and to identify current best practices others can learn from.  It was suggested in the session that the NRIs could be used to be asked to make this inventory.  And, on the other hand, the guideline of the Cybersecurity Council could be used as a good practice and reference in return as it gives a concise overview of current best practices already in use.
 Secondly, duties of care were identified as a potential topic for the IGF to take on in 2018.  If it were to do so, it is advised to do so only in a prioritized and focused part and not as a whole.  Part of this work could be taken on, for example, within the best practice forum of cybersecurity which identified the topic as a potential topic for 2018.
 Other topics more or less directly related to cybersecurity could be taken on especially assigned intersessional advisory or working groups.
 And, thirdly, it was pointed out that consumer organizations are not aware enough of these issues and were not, except for one person, present at the IGF.  It was advised to reach out to them at the start of this work so that consumer organizations is also part of this.  So thank you for your time.
 And if I may suggest option D for the IGF, this is a multistakeholder organization.  So if it is impossible to find a hosting country, perhaps we can find a few hosting organizations that will finance the IGF and let it be held here in Geneva or another IGF compound -- sorry, U.N. compound or facility where it is hosted by the commercial side of our equation.  And why not do that for once, if the other ones are impossible.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I'll react to your last point because frankly it's far simpler, and I need to process the other ones for a minute or two.
 In fact, that is Plan B, if you will, again, for those maybe that have come into the meeting here.  The current state of affairs on finding a host country venue for IGF's 2018 -- again '19 is secure, '20 and '21 as well look very, very good and we hope to complete those in the next month.  The 2018 we're looking at a traditional IGF host country supported on a venue of their choosing.  There's a possibility it may be in a U.N. facility as well.  There is a good candidate in Asia, one with some level of interest, a little less, in Africa, two countries of interest in Latin America, and those discussions are occurring as we speak, and one possible country still in Western Europe.  Those will all be traditional IGF host country supported.
 Plan B is, in fact, that there is a IGF that is held in a U.N. facility, because that does significantly reduce the cost in that the bulk of the costs that a host country bears is for venue costs, security as it is a full U.N. event, some IT infrastructure costs, and interpretation.  So those costs come down very significantly if it's in a U.N. venue.  In that case, if there is no host country found, that would actually require funding from the community.  And the leading candidate there is in Asia.  And, you know, we're in discussions with some entities as well to provide some funding and support for that.  So that is in essence what your Plan B was.  And then again, I just really want to make sure that we kind of be really thoughtful and careful about the messages as we walk out here with respect to IGF 2018 and where we are.  It certainly is serious.  I don't think it's a crisis, per se.  And I don't think it's a lack of support for the IGF.  I think there's just been a couple of funky things that have happened in this process where we had some really strong leading candidates early on that fell out for various reasons and other candidates that have come forward have basically found themselves a little short on time.  Interestingly enough that's actually giving us a longer time on the other end, so some good news there.
 With respect to your other, you know, very comprehensive comments, it's -- Wout's report is actually one of the stock taking reports.  And, you know, he just walked through as described pretty thoroughly in that set of reports.  I think there's some really interesting ideas there.  I think it merges well with a lot of the comments we've had over the course of the day here with respect to prioritization and focus.  I think a lot of different components of the talk to the MAG will not only in determining what the IGF annual meeting program should look like but also to some extent the role of the MAG going forward, how much responsibility we take for really ensuring we have high quality sessions and programs.  Mike Nelson's comment earlier about coming in sideways as well as supporting the bottom-up, I think all of that talks to -- is requesting a different approach for the MAG as we develop the program.  And I think that's a conversation we need to have with the MAG obviously over the coming days.  So I -- I myself take really careful note of that.  I've read through every one of the stock taking.
 And one kind of minor question for, and you then we'll come to Ji, but that's you participated in the working group on Multiyear Strategic Work Programme.  And you're calling for another working group.  Do you see that, the working group you're calling for, as really focused on sort of nurturing this particular pilot you're proposing or is -- are you sort of referencing backwards to that working group.
 >>WOUT de NATRIS: This is Wout de Natris.  I see two different entities basically.  The first one is that there are many different recommendations here that one looks at the strategic working group or the sort of working group on the strategy, the other one looks a little bit more new formats to work in and perhaps there are topics that are even beyond those.  Whether there should be a new working group or it merges with the existing ones is something -- a decision that the MAG has to make.  It all leads to, tells me -- tells me new sort of ways of working with the IGF.  Perhaps in parallel to the existing working shop.  Of course, that is something that can continue.
 What my suggestion for a pilot is that to identify maybe two or three topics in which the new kind of working is actually tested and one topic presented itself sort of bottom-up by saying this is something we really need to do in 2018 because it's going to impact a lot of people and everybody in the -- at least in the room was surprised by what was mentioned as the current work focus for -- within the IETF.  But it doesn't say nobody knows about it, but there was no recognition within the room for over 40 people representing a lot of international and national organizations.  So that's the suggestion to do that as a pilot.  Perhaps do two or three others which you identify yourself, because that will give you the example and the experience to see what works and what does not work because you can actually test what is coming out of it.  And the good thing is that it looks like the people that need to be involved want to be involved.  There seems to be funding for the -- for the whole project beyond just simply the secretariat having to fund it.  So a lot of things are in place.  And that's why I asked for permission to start -- start working on the right proposal for the next MAG meeting to make a decision to do that pilot.  And that's basically what we're -- what we tried to convey here at this point in time.  Does that answer your question?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Some of them.  At the risk of drawing this out beyond a point which is probably of interest to the room here and useful, one more quick question.  The IETF project you're actually talking about you referred to as Internet protocol.  I think your paper actually said it was in the security space.  Again, if it's not appropriate, I don't want to draw that out here, but if you're asking us to -- to consider something specifically, it would be helpful to really know a little bit more about what that particular one was.  I see a lot of kind of faces around the room looking a little perplexed as well.  So again, maybe offline or maybe even tonight if you can pull some information out and send a note to me, I can make sure that (saying name) gets it or something.  If you have an answer right now quickly, that would be fine.  Otherwise --
 >>WOUT de NATRIS: I've been trying to get into real contact with the IETF beyond email, and that has not been -- I haven't been able to put that -- put that off because they're, at this point in time, in London themselves.  They will be very hard to reach.  As has been explained to me is that they're building a new Internet protocol, so HTTP 2, and that's what the topic -- at least my best ability is what it would be, and that would actually involve a lot of other stakeholders who have to implement it, perhaps change laws around it, who knows, whatever.  That's the best I can give you now.  And I don't think I can get you an answer here.  But that's why I'm asking to make sure that there's a good proposal when you meet the second time and it gives a fiat to start work on that.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That was good.  Thank you.  Thank you for your patience.  You have the floor.
 >>JI HAOJUN:  Regarding the host country issue, I'm wondering if it is possible that the future candidates, I mean for '19 or '20, could we ask them to move forward?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: We have asked '19 to move forward and we've been told quite clearly that's not possible.
 >>JI HAOJUN:  How about '20 and '21?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And I think that would be too big of a stretch as well.
 >>JI HAOJUNl:  Not ready?  But this is a really fun issue.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I appreciate your pushing forward and looking for some creative solutions.
 >>JI HAOJUN:  Yeah, but, you know, we have to take into consideration and the -- the infrastructure, if they are ready, and the -- even the climate, is it good for all the participants and the -- you know, whether they have a good security environment and better, you know, the -- the meeting be convened in different continents every year.  So it is really difficult.  But at this stage when we didn't have a candidate, obviously we have to lower down our threshold a little bit maybe.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So a couple of comments on that.  I mean, obviously in any choice of venue there are certain criteria that absolutely need to be met, and that is security, that's certainly the ability for U.N. security to secure the premises appropriately.  It clearly needs to have the right level of IT support and capacity and those sorts of things.  Those are all part of the criteria that are made very clear up front with all of these discussions.  So, I mean, I don't think we should assume that because we are later in finding a host that we are moving to a more kind of inferior solution.
 I also want to make the point, because I have had this question specifically, while we are late in finding a venue, frankly the schedule working towards right now with respect to the MAG is the one we've been working to the last two years.  It's tighter than we would all like, we really would like the MAG to be appointed during the previous year's IGF so that we don't lose the last three months, but that has not been the way the IGF has operated.  We have typically had the first meeting in March for, I don't know how many of the last IGFs, so I think from that perspective, we have the same kind of planning timetable we've always had.  Again, it's not the one we would like, but it is the one we have always had.  So I don't want people to kind of conflate the fact that we don't actually have a venue to thinking that we are late and behind on all the other component pieces of supporting an IGF because that wouldn't be quite true.  And again, Ji, fully appreciate your creativity here and as Ji knows, he had actually gone back to a country sometime ago to see if there was support for holding an IGF there as well and it wasn't the right year there either. 
 We have Jeremy Malcolm in the queue.  Jeremy's participating online.  Jeremy, you have the floor.  However that magic happens.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: Hello.  I think I've just been unmuted.  So I am a MAG member, and so I should (indiscernible) taking the floor to the exclusion of others, but there was no one else in the queue so I hope that's okay.  Also, I've only (indiscernible) MAG.  I was (indiscernible) joining part of the multi-year strategic work (indiscernible) working group.  And I think it does mention some of the ideas in the (indiscernible) group has been working didn't mesh quite well with the idea that (indiscernible).  Of course, he was also a contributor to that document. 
 I think the opportunity with having a bit of breathing room between --
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Jeremy, I'm sorry to interrupt you but could you just speak a little bit slower?  The transcription isn't quite keeping up and there's also some static or something on the line and just a little slower would help.  Thank you.  Sorry for interrupting.
 >>JEREMY MALCOLM: Okay.  I think in some way it's good that we have some breathing room between now and the 2019 IGF (indiscernible) even if we can't put on a full-fledged IGF in 2018, we can still use that time to work on some of these ideas of pilot (indiscernible) multiyear strategic (indiscernible) working group is also talking about.  Actually because the -- in 2019 there will be more support, more funding available, and so the 2018, therefore, gives a bit of time for trying things out and seeing what works and what doesn't work.
 The HTTP 2 topic that we mentioned is one (indiscernible) for a pilot on a certain concrete issue but (indiscernible) would be discussed and the multiyear strategic work program will be proposed given some to that in its draft document.  But (indiscernible) express support for the idea of using this extra time to prepare the groundwork for something that could be done on a larger basis in 2019, even if we have a smaller scale meeting this year.  It can be treated something like a dress rehearsal (indiscernible) activities piloted and then we have a menu of options that we could use going into the 2019 meeting in Germany.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jeremy.  And you know irrespective of whether or not we have a physical meeting in 2018, which I personally am still really hopeful and working hard towards, I think some of the ideas that are being kicked around with respect to some of these new pilots or new ways of perhaps getting some work advanced are things we could do in parallel in any case and still, you know -- these efforts should take the time they need, and I think a lot of these efforts really should have broad community consultation beyond the MAG.  And, of course, those processes take time as well.  So I think we have no problem in identifying that if some of the things that are being considered we think are better off targeted for a 2019 deliverable, then we should work towards that and put a plan in place to do that.  But I don't think at this stage that is, you know -- you know, what's the word I'm looking for?  That it's necessary to understand the 2018 situation before moving forward on those kind of longer term more strategic efforts.  Is there any other comments, either online or -- we have 25 minutes left.  We can always return that time, if people want to lose -- we have a few announcements we should do in terms of setting up the next few days and that sort of thing, which would take a few minutes.  But again, this is the kind of open mic equivalent, if you want.  It's the time when we actually hear from the community.  Is there any reflections on any of the topics we've actually discussed over the course of the day today or any new topics someone would like to bring up?  Peter, you have the floor.
 >>PETER HELLMONDS:  Thank you, Chair.  I'm just wondering whether it might be of interest to the others in the room who were not participating in the donor's meeting if you could give like a short summary of what was discussed there and the main issues?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I can.  I can do the one I did in the MAG orientation meeting yesterday, if that's helpful.  I'm looking at Armen over your shoulder, Peter, in terms of -- or if we have the slides easily at hand, quickly.
 >>PETER HELLMONDS:  Maybe easier is to ask a show of hands whether that's of interest to a larger number in the room.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That's a good question, too.  Is that of  interest to -- I mean, a lot of people were here, but Marilyn -- I'm seeing some nos.
 >>MARILYN CADE: And I'd like -- it's Marilyn.  I'd like to explain why no.  I took the time away from other meetings to come here for the presentation.  And it's trans -- there's some rough notes and the presentation will be posted.  I think there's still other work for us to do.  And I think that should take the priority.  And I'm trying to get in the queue, so I can raise another topic.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay.  So let me -- I think that's -- I think that's a fair point.  I also think at the same time the meeting was announced quite late.  I had a few people say to me they would have been here at 2:00 if they hadn't had previously-scheduled meetings.  So I don't think it's a matter of choice and time that some people weren't able to come to the session, just for kind of fairness here.  But Marilyn's right.  The slides are posted, the webcast will be posted or is posted already, and certainly Armen's here tomorrow, I'm here, Chengetai.  If there are specific questions, we're happy to cover them elsewhere.  So right now I have Renata in the queue, Marilyn is trying to get in the queue, and then Ji.  So Renata, you have the floor.  Renata is also participating remotely, so you'll either need to listen or watch the transcript.  Renata, I think we can hear you.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Hello?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Yes, we can hear you.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Hi.  Renata here.  I would like to address about the IGF village.  An organization I am affiliated with, we had a booth at the IGF village at the NCUC and we did some activities there like a (indiscernible)-a-thon with ICANNWiki.  And I would encourage for 2018 to have this inside to other organizations to interact with the IGF and to do activities along with the IGF.  Another organization I am working with is Mozilla.
 Another organization I'm working with is Mozilla (saying name) and Mozilla Open Leaders Training.  Two of my teams at Mozilla Open Leaders Training, Digital Grassroots and viva las VENUS, which are projects for training in cybersecurity and Internet governance, they are getting to know the activities of the IGF.  It's a whole new world that opened up to them. 
 So I understand there is a plan to revitalize the working group in outreach.  Please have in mind these new organizations and these new groups that would really take advantage in participating in IGF activities in an informal way, whether it is in the intersessionals or in the small conversation in IGF village.  This would be my point.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Renata. 
 Marilyn, you have the floor.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I'm going to address two topics, and the village is one of them.  As hard as the secretariat team worked, really that location was very, very poor.  In addition to that, the structure provided by the host was extremely insufficient.  Information was not provided to those who were in the village that they needed to bring a tablecloth, that the tables would be frail, that there was no place to secure materials.  They had to carry them back and forth.
 Another issue was the fact that -- and I think it's the innovative formats -- they were located in a place where the microphone that they used -- and most of them didn't know how to use the microphone down.  Because there was an opening over the Serpentine Bar, they were broadcasting into the Serpentine Bar.  Parties who were not part of the IGF but who knew me were complaining to me a lot about what is that noise.  The noise also -- and the content was excellent, but the presentations were also feeding back into several of the booths where people were trying to have dialogue, et cetera.
 So as important as the village is -- and I support Renata's comment about it can be a way to bring in new parties.  I think we need to ask for a SurveyMonkey to write to those who had booths so we can provide better feedback for the future.
 The second comment I wanted to make is to follow up on a very different topic but a comment that Mark Carvell made. 
 I'm participating over the next three days in the WSIS Forum.  There's an online listing of all of the high-level speakers.  There are 35 ministers and deputy ministers.  There are also some other high-level people. 
 If you don't know -- and it could be that you don't know -- that someone from your country is speaking in a high-level slot, I will be happy to spend a couple of seconds with you to go through and point out to you where this is. 
 I think it would be really great for you to take -- for all of us to take advantage of the opportunity to greet the high-level participant.  They are very often not from the IG community.  In fact, they are much more likely to be from a ministry that is focused on communications at ICT.  There are also some heads of regulatory agencies there that have mixed assignments.  There are several deputies there.  There are a number of other government officials.  And it can be a really good way, if somebody from your country is there and you don't yet -- haven't yet had a chance to greet them, it could be a really good way for you to find a few minutes with them.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I think that's a good point. 
 I will send out possibly later tonight kind of the two questions I was posed, which are questions I asked them to pose is the way the process worked.  It's funny, nobody wants to sit through 40 speeches of five minutes and, yet, everyone wants to give one. 
 So they end up putting together these processes where you were asked to, rather than doing your five-minute high-level speech, submit two questions.  They were meant to pose those two questions back to you and not stray from them and that's the way you actually made your high-level policy speak.
 I was in a very big room.  I thought it was a reasonable panel.  There were about 100 people in the room, though, which I think is probably testament that even in different formats, people are not really interested in things which aren't interactive and are just a series of high-level policy statements.
 At the very end though, we were asked a question, so they deviated from the process a little bit, which is:  What is the one thing you would want?  And I answered.  And there is a transcript somewhere.  And this is off the top of my head because I wasn't expecting the question.  But I will capture the comment, What would you like?  I said, What we would like in the IGF is more participation, specifically from governments, private sector, and senior policymakers. 
 And, you know, throughout all these forums we go to we hear the words "multistakeholder" and "open" and "inclusive" and "transparent" and "participatory" and, yet, it's not shown in the participation we have in the IGF.
 I also made the point, of course, the WSIS Forum and the IGF were both born or created out WSIS1 and WSIS2 and, yet, had very different resources and support from a lot of countries.  So I made that point. 
 I mean, I was probably coming fresh off of the earlier conversation on the donors meeting and the funds. 
 So, you know, I say that only in terms of the last point that was raised but just in the nature of I will send out the nature of the two questions that were posed and kind of roughly my comments.  There was some ad libbing and particularly that last comment as well, just in case it's useful, but more in the interest of kind of transparency and inclusion.
 Ji, you had your flag up but took it down.  Do you want the floor?  You have the floor, Ji.
 >>HAOJUN JI:  Very briefly.  I just want to say that it would be lovely if Chengetai and his team can give us one page or two page-sheet informing us where our money is coming from, who is making the donations, and how much money we're spending every year and on what we're spending.  It's already on the Web.  Okay.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  There's two pages that will pretty much answer your questions basically.  Cost about $1.1 million last year to run the IGF.  We brought in just under 800,000 on an annual recurring running rate.  Another 300,000 or so that was overdue. 
 All the organizations are listed with the amounts they have contributed both in 2016/'17.  In fact, on the Web site you can go back and look from 2005 or 2006, donors and the contributions that they have made.  And there's also a fairly thorough breakdown of expenses as well.  So once you have had a look at that, if you have any questions, Chengetai or I would be happy to ask.  Ji.
 >>HAOJUN JI:  One more thing regarding this.  Is the secretariat sending letters to the U.N. member states soliciting financial support?  Because in (indiscernible) they always do that, the director of the (indiscernible) always sends such letters to investors asking for their grace for support.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I am going to turn to Armin to ask.  I'm not familiar of those processes within the U.N. system.
 >>ARMIN PLUM:  Armin Plum from UN DESA.  Quick answer, no.  We don't send solicitation or such letters out.  Although as I mentioned in the donors meeting, we are looking into this fund-raising module that the U.N. has planned to implement, and that might actually allow us to do these kind of things. 
 We also have -- DESA has since last August a new Undersecretary-General who is very much interested and very keen on bringing more governments, A, to the IGF but, B, also to the donor community.  So we are hoping that will reside in increases on both fronts.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Armin.  Mark, we have, and we'll probably close the queue, the floor, after that and make a few administrative announcements and then wrap up the meeting.
 Mark, you have the floor.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, Thank you, Chair.  Mark Carvell, U.K. government.  I just take the opportunity to recount very briefly a few points that came out of our feedback from Geneva IGF, which I hadn't mentioned before, points I hadn't mentioned before.
 There needs to be more government speakers.  I think, as well as participation generally, panels could have more government speakers.  And maybe the MAG when it gets proposals could look to identify, ah, this session would really benefit from a government speaker, particularly if there is awareness of individual governments are very active on that particular issue, like, AI.  There are lots of governments -- U.K. has an AI strategy team.  Looking at data ethics issues, for example.  In the U.K. we are setting up a data ethics center.  So that might be one mechanism to get more government speakers, by getting the proposers to send invitations, targeted invitations out to individual policymakers. 
 A second point, some workshops might adopt the NETmundial practice of a different microphone for each stakeholder group.  I wasn't in Sao Paulo myself at NETmundial.  But maybe that's another device for maximizing interaction and participation by the full roster of stakeholder constituencies.
 Thirdly, panelists should only be allowed to appear on maximum two panels throughout the IGF event, so you don't keep seeing the same faces leading off on topics in sessions.  And that might stimulate more participation, of course.
 Shorten the main sessions.  Three hours, too long.  That was one comment. 
 And another point came up about participation of youth.  I know there's been talk about a youth forum and a separate sort of place for young people.  But I've always argued actually the IGF would be enriched by young people being invited to participate in as many main sessions and workshops as possible so that they are integrated, if you like, in the IGF discussions.  And they bring their fresh perspectives, their awareness of what's happening at the front end of technology, and the use of that and the kind of issues that arise for them in terms of, I don't know, privacy and so on.
 So that was another aspect I thought it would be useful to raise as the MAG examines how to involve young people in the IGF.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, mark.  I think those are all good comments.  Some have been tried before.  I think they're all good comments and important to keep them in front of us.  There's a couple of administrative announcements, but then I think we will close the open community consultation.  I think the -- first thing I would like to do is say I am going to huddle with the secretariat with respect to reviewing the agenda for the next two days for the MAG meeting.  There may be some slight kind of changes or reorganizing. 
 On the other hand, if you have actually followed discussion over the course of the day, I think you'd probably recognize that there are some sort of substantive discussions we need to have with respect to what sort of program do we want to build and where do we see some of those component pieces of the program evolving to.
 I think we need to have some time for that series of questions first and not -- I think historically quite early we would have moved into kind of a themes and main theme. 
 Picking up on one of the comments earlier about not spending three hours discussing a main theme, I think that's extremely useful advice and I think it's probably not appropriate that we kick off the meeting with that tomorrow.
 So I don't suspect there will be any major changes.  And, again, having followed the discussion today, I suspect people have a pretty good idea of the areas we're going to be focusing on in some of our earlier discussions.  But just to watch for that. 
 We are back here in this room tomorrow.  Again, the hours are 10:00 to 1:00 and 3:00 to 6:00.  We want to remind everybody of the Swiss hospitality again at 6:30 in the CICG cafeteria across the way.  There is a reception from the Swiss government, canton de Geneve, and village de Geneve.  There is a shortcut, by the way, if you don't know it.  You go out the door here, you look to the right.  There's a little escalator.  You take the escalator up.  There's a red door.  You walk out right in front of the CICG.  You don't need to do the long trek all the way back around.
 Any other comments?  Any other administrative?  Anja, Eleonora, Chengetai?
 >> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Hi, everyone.  Sorry.  I just wanted to say very quickly that over the course of the meeting, we keep on referring to certain documents.  And I think people are having a hard time finding them.  They're just on the front page of the Web site where all the meeting information is.  There's a tab marked "reference documents."  And I think a lot of the people here will find the documents, and they are very helpful.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  That is very helpful. 
 Well, then with that -- and somebody said I can give everybody back the gift of four minutes.
 [ Laughter ]
 It's a little but, you know, it's something.  And thank everybody very much for all the participation.  Thank you to all of the online participants as well.  It's a long day when you're here physically.  It's an even longer day when you're sitting in front of a computer by yourself.  So very much appreciate the support and the effort. 
 And, of course, thank you to the transcribers -- or scribes, transcriptionists as well.
 Thank you.  And -- yes, and for the online participation person for all your support, ITU for your support, for the room, et cetera.  Thank you very much.  We will hopefully see you at the reception, and we'll see you tomorrow morning back here at 10:00.  Thank you.

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) 229 173 678