You are here

IGF 2019 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting Day 2 Morning

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2019 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, from 9 to 11 April 2019. 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:  We're about to start the open consultations, the community section.  We had the first day of the MAG meeting yesterday.  We're going to have the second day tomorrow.  And today is the open consultations.
 I was about to call out names.
 Yes.
 [ Laughter ]
 Thank you very much.  Just before we start, as usual, if you weren't here yesterday, please, we are using the speaking queue.  And, also, when you start, can you please say your name clearly and slowly for the scribes so that the scribes can catch it.  Thank you very much.
 Of course, we are being Webcast and transcription which is going to be made available on our website later on today.  And, of course, a summary report is going to be produced which will be available next week.  
 With that, let me just give -- hand over the floor to our chair, Lynn.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, everyone.
 Today is the open community day.  And the MAG made a decision a little while back to move that around for two reasons.  We were actually hoping we could draw some additional participation from the WSIS participants.  Yesterday was the opening day, and we didn't want to compete with that.
 And then, also, this meeting was largely focused on trying to have some discussions around some more strategic topics.  And we wanted to spend some time within the MAG doing that, come into the open community day, hear from the community, and, if we had made any progress on day one, share some of that progress or kind of emerging thinking with the community.  And we will do that over the course of the day.
 The very first item, of course, is to approve the agenda.  So the agenda has been posted for some time.  We made one slight edit yesterday.  It was always intended but we just wanted to make it more clear, that certainly with the community discussion agenda item, that is the community discussion, it really is the opportunity to hear from the community.  The MAG is in a listening mode.  Later in the session -- if someone can scroll up or down on the agenda there -- we actually have some presentations from best practice forums and some of the dynamic coalition.  And we're asking everybody to keep those presentations to a minimum so that we save half of the time, 30 minutes in that one-hour slot, for community discussion.  That is the only substantive -- well, actually, there is one other change.  At 5:00, we will actually have a presentation from a representative from the U.N. Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation.  That will be here in this room as well.
 So let me see if there are any suggestions for changes to the agenda or any additional items under AOB.
 I'm looking in the queue to see if there are any online participants that want to comment as well as in the room here.  If not, I would like to call for approval of the agenda.
 [Audio echoing]
 Twice.
 [ Laughter ]
 Okay.  We will call the agenda approved then.
 The first order of business is a few welcoming comments.  I will save mine till the end and combine that with a short introduction to the morning session but first start by introducing Deniz Susar from UN DESA.  He is here for the entire meeting.  Of course, DESA is the institutional home within the United Nations for the IGF.  
 Deniz, you have the floor.
 >>DENIZ SUSAR:  Thank you, Chair.  I'll be very brief.  Good morning, everyone.  And especially thanks to the nonMAG members, if they are attending the open consultation session.  It's for you.  
 I can just say two things maybe.  As you know, DESA is the institutional home to the IGF.  We are the link between MAG, MAG chair, secretariat, and the SG's office.  We are here to listen about 2020 MAG.  We hope to start the MAG renewal process as early as possible to give you sufficient time.  And, also, for the 2020 host, we would like to also announce it as early as possible, hopefully during the third MAG meeting.
 Let me also just thank Germany again for hosting us.  And I wish you a good meeting.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Deniz.
 The next set of comments is from Dr. Daniela Bronstrup who, of course, is the honorary host co-chair of IGF 2019.  
 Daniela, you have the floor.
 >>DANIELA BRONSTRUP:  Thank you, Lynn.  Thank you also, Deniz.
 Good morning, everyone.  Yes, I will try to be brief as well because I have told you last time already how proud Germany is to be the host country 2019.  We are making good progress, I think, in organizing the event but is not yet the full agenda of day zero.  We are still working on that, of course.  
 But you will be aware that Chancellor Merkel, in particular, campaigned from the very first beginning for the IGF.  And she has decided to come for the opening in November.
 Germany's aim is, as the host country, to increase the relevance of the IGF by strengthening on the one hand the multistakeholder approach that is very important in our view.  That means also to getting really everybody and all stakeholder groups on board.
 And we are trying to give more awareness also to the IGF.  And our impression is in inviting high-level people and providing discussion room for them on day zero, this could be an opportunity to get also more media coverage.
 Another issue is how to get more tangible outcomes.  That will be helpful also for decision makers but, on the other hand, also for the broader public.  
 We will try to make -- to help the secretariat in marketing for the outcomes for the IGF and to bring them to the broader public.
 The IGF should be the place to discuss all Internet-related issues.  And our aim is to bring the world to Berlin because the world should have the understanding that this is the place to discuss those issues this year and, also, to be part of the discussion, how we would like to see the Internet for the next decade.
 But the community, and I think that is all of us, we have a responsibility as well.  We have the responsibility to submit fruitful, interesting, innovative session proposals.  And as a MAG, we have the responsibility to have and to choose and design an interesting, thought-provoking program.
 To make sure that the work we are doing is sustainable and meaningful, we should take responsibility also of the resources.  And that is a point I would like to raise today.  You probably know that the IGF has a mandate until 2025 but resources to really have a sustainable work are not yet fixed.  So we would like to also give more sustainable planning for the IGF work, and I call here for donors.  That could be a very good signal in Berlin if we could have a sustainable way in financing the IGF work until 2025.
 We have the vision of a really global, inclusive Internet.  So our motto for 2019 would be "One World, One Web, One Vision Shaping Together the Future of the Net."  
 I'm looking very much forward to the discussion today and I'm here to listen to the community, what they expect from Berlin on what input they can give.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Daniela.
 So I'm just going to say a few words to kick this discussion off.  And I actually just saw a tweet pop up on my phone from Samantha.  Apparently, I said "open community" day as opposed to "open consultation" day.  There is no intentional name changing or potential exercise or anything.  It's just day two slip of the tongue.
 So what we wanted to do with this particular session, we're fortunate this year in that with the timely appointment of the MAG and the MAG chair, we actually have had additional program time, additional time in all of our activities to develop the program, but also to take a look at some of the more strategic areas we're calling them.  
 Frankly, the genesis of a lot of those discussions were the various improvement exercises that have actually happened over the course of the last few years.  So they drew upon activities such as the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements, DESA retreat of a few years ago, all of the stock-taking exercises that happens through the IGF community and its processes.
 And the MAG had established a couple of working groups over the last few years.  One is the Working Group on IGF Improvements, which actually looked at those activities I mentioned and others as well -- certainly the WSIS+10 is another input -- and tried to assess how we were doing against -- both categorize those suggested improvements and evaluate both how we were doing against them and where they should be directed if, in fact, there was sort of insufficient activity against them.  
 And it's been a tremendous amount of work for that working group.  They've done a tremendous job and part of the discussions that have come into the MAG over the last two years is as a result of that working group work.
 A second working group was a working group on multi-year strategic work program.  And that specifically was focused on whether or not there was a small number of critical strategic activities that the MAG might take a longer term view of both so we could actually advance the work particularly in past years when, in fact, there's been a gap between one MAG and the next.  We were losing a lot of time and a lot of momentum.  So that was actually meant to kind of help bridge that gap.  It was actually meant to support a better transition between the two MAGs, not give us sort of loss of momentum in our activities, and having a longer horizon.  We thought that would actually allow us to identify other potential partners that we might outreach to, to engage in the work, certainly to enrich the work itself but also potentially to increase some funding and some support to the IGF.
 So that is a discussion the MAG had yesterday.  And one of the things we would be interested in hearing from the community on today, if that works -- if not, we'll be writing this up and getting it out to the community over the coming week or so -- is whether or not there's support for that program and then as the conversation advances, if there was support, what some of the topics might be.
 Well, let me just try and be a little bit more clear on this because we had some discussions yesterday.  This is not a full multi-year program for the work of the IGF.  This is basically taking some of the learnings from a couple of the best practice forums, notably, I think, the cybersecurity, and the major policy initiative we've had running for four years, which was the connecting and enabling the next billions activity.
 In fact, every one of the BPFs we have today, and I think have always had, have always seen their work in a multi-year fashion.  We're going to do this as a first phase, and we would consider this as a second and third phase.
 So what that allowed some of the BPFs to do, again, was to be really thoughtful about the work they were doing, pull in additional potential partners.  And we're actually wondering whether or not those activities could be strengthened or improved, perhaps stepped up -- maybe they fill the bill.  Maybe we take one or two strategic topics, identify them as strategic topics, set some sort of multi-year goals in terms of what we'd actually like to advance or accomplish within those topics which would then allow us to engage more broadly, engage more broadly across the existing IGF ecosystem with all of its intersessional activities and certainly with the NRIs, if and when they choose to, as well as outreach to additional partners as well.  So that's one -- one sort of concrete path the MAG would like to pursue.
 We had a very long discussion on outputs.  Are the outputs adequate?  Are they sufficient?  Are they reaching the audiences they need to reach?  Do we know what the audiences are we're trying to reach?  You know, that sort of thing.  So those were the two key points in the discussion yesterday.
 We can revert back to those if the community wants.  We can certainly debate that a little bit more or discuss -- or discuss it here or anything else that the community actually thinks is important for the IGF to take up.
 Again, we tried to leave this a little bit loose, partly because just the setup process was a really global set of players from all multistakeholders, really diverse, and not -- you know, we don't have the systems in place that really kind of support an ongoing dialogue that you can develop fully with the community, that we would leave it open and ask for the community in terms of what do they think some of the strategic priorities or strategic kind of development areas ought to be for the IGF community.
 So I will leave it there and go to the queue to see if there are any thoughts.  Again, at one point we can have a discussion on areas that the community thinks are important.  If people have experiences or activities they want to share that they think are sort of informative for the IGF, given our focus on trying to improve outputs, trying to build and pull in additional participants.  You know, we were very cognizant yesterday of the Secretary-General's comments about pulling in additional types of participants.  I think it was philosophers and social scientists, and, of course, we also have, you know, questions about the U.N. Secretary General's high-level panel on digital cooperation and what that is considering and what it might be addressing.  Clearly, I think there are some people that see that as implying -- these are not the best words, but I have to say I'm a little winded already and it's only day 2.  Implying that, you know, the IGF is not fulfilling the full set of needs that the community worldwide sees.  So if that's a true statement, are there things we need to step up on?  Are there things we need to address.  I don't want to keep talking until there's somebody in the queue, so I'm actually going to stop for a minute and give people a minute to think and see if they want to come in.
 The whole reason for the speaking queue, I can appreciate that it, you know, it seems like an extra step, is that it's meant to really level the playing field between those individuals that are participating online and those that are physically here in the room.  It really does give a level playing field, assuming the AV technology works well enough.
 Part of the problem might be, one, I haven't been able to get online into the chat room to see who's actually participating remotely.  
 That's my computer's problem, not an AV problem.  
 But when I look around the room here, what I see are an awful lot of MAG faces and not a lot of -- I don't like the word "nonMAG," but not a lot of faces of those individuals that are not from the MAG.  So I think it's a fairly small set at the moment we're trying to draw from here in the room.  
 Yves Mathieu.  
 >>YVES MATHIEU:  Yes, good morning.  I take this opportunity to -- for three minutes -- to make a presentation that would be one of the answers to your call for momentum and support to the ways the dialogue could happen inside the IGF.  
 So with the support of the German governments, ISOC, UNESCO, the European Commission and other organizations, we propose to organize by the end of September global dialogues with day-to-day citizens about the future of the Internet.  And this dialogue would happen in 60 to 100 countries.  People would meet face-to-face.  This would not happen on the Web.  It would happen in a room with ordinary people selected for representing the diversity of their country or the city where they live in and drink a full day.  
 They would have a discussion, a conversation about what is the value of Internet for them today, what are their fears about Internet, how do they see the future of the Internet in their life, in their community globally.  And this conversation would be organized under the same format everywhere on the planet.  
 That means that during the IGF 2019, we could feed back the result with our partner about the result of this conversation.  And this conversation could be an help to define the agenda of IGF 2020 and following as it might give a vision to you as partner to the IGF stakeholder a view of what are the key points seen by the citizens as the points to be preserved because it's very important for them, solved.  
 And from the discussion that we would have in Berlin, we could also identify that angles in what they said that could be also be a way to set up the agenda.  
 And so in the coming months, you will hear more about this initiative.  We are finalizing the support of partners to make it possible.  And we are having discussions to see how this will be presented during the day zero in particular in Berlin.
 So if you have any suggestion for this citizens' dialogue, please come to me during the day.
 And to give you an example, we just did that for the French government.  You may have heard that the President Macron decided to have an open conversation with French citizens.  In the last two months, 1.5 million people in France took part in this conversation.  And Mission Publiques was in charge of the last batch of these conversations.  There has been 10,000 meetings in France in two months.  And we were in charge of the organization in the final week of the debate of 21 debates with ordinary citizens that happens everywhere in Norwegian or France.  It lasted one and a half days. 
 It was interesting to see that when we talk with the people about the future of France, they also addressed the question of future of the Internet.  And so I just want to add one comment about this.  In the result of this conversation with day-to-day citizens in France, including overseas, in fact, people paid a lot of attention to what the Internet allows, in particular to the increased efficiency of the states and how the public services are provided.  
 But there is a very strong demand to keep a human face in the Internet.  And in all the regions, there's been suggestion to the governments -- and I think this has been heard by prime minister -- we presented the result last Monday -- that people want to have a faster demultilateralization of the procedures.  They want it to -- they recognize it's a strong help for the citizens.  But they want it to happen without excluding the people who have difficulties with the Web.  And so they are not happy at all with the way it is done today, and they urgently ask the government to put a human face to that and to be in the position of not only demultilateralization of the state but also to be with the citizen in this aspect and to avoid that millions of people will now have difficulties to have access to Internet, are left behind this new form of public services.  And so it's very interesting.  I will share a summary of that with you.  And this is what we want to do at the global scale, focusing on the future of Internet.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Yves.  Appreciate you breaking the ice here and jumping in.  I mean, this is a discussion for the community.  So if anybody wants to come back in and, you know, explore that a little bit further with Yves in terms of where it might fit or not fit or suggest something else or questions for the MAG.  Jutta, are you in a non-MAG capacity?
 >>JUTTA CROLL: (Off microphone).  I have a question to Yves.  In the light of the fact that one third of Internet users worldwide is under the age of 18 and in my capacity as a child rights activist I would like to ask whether you have plans to have also participants in the debates that are under the age of 18.  Thank you.
 >>YVES MATHIEU: I take this as a suggestion.  So we -- it is something that is, of course, desirable, strongly desirable.  So I fully understand your point.  The fact is that it raises legal questions to have young people around tables being recruited.  To tell you with the procedure with the French government, we organize a group specifically focusing on youth and we put the limit of age at 18 because of the legal reasons, because they are aspect of authorization from patients and so on.  
 But this being said, the only way to do it is to partner with organizations which have already access to the youth and who act with the youth, and these organization can, of course, be part of the partners to the debate.  And that is the way that I would suggest to do.  So this is a call that I launch.  If you have such an organization that can give access in some countries or globally to groups of young people that would be part of the debate, because they will understand perfectly well the questions, they have, of course, right answers as well, and this is an excellent suggestion.  And I would really be happy to add this as an option to the organization of this global citizens debate.  So if we can have a further conversation.  If I understand well, this is a door you could open and make it easy to have access to young people, correct?  So thank you very much, and let's continue this.  If there are other people that can offer this possibility, we take it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Yves.  We have Marilyn Cade.  Marilyn, you have the floor.  Marilyn's participating remotely, so I'm not sure if we actually have AV in the room or people need to read the transcript or -- Marilyn, just a second.  If you can hear us, I think we're trying to get the process working in the room here.  There's a -- do we need to come back to Marilyn?
 >>LUIS BOBO: Yes, please.  Let's see if we can come back to her later.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay.  Marilyn, with apologies, and we have several processes going here.
 >> (Off microphone).
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Her comments in the chat?  Okay, so Marilyn, let me see if this asks what you're -- apologies, sincere apologies for the difficulties here with the AV in the room.  Marilyn is saying, "Can the present speaker please provide his name and contact information for remote participants as some are not in the room and cannot approach him in person."  That's a very good point.  So it was Yves Mathieu, and maybe the -- I don't know if you really want to give your email out in a public way like this but maybe through the secretariat or something.
 >>LUIS BOBO: Yes, we will share in the chat.  Yes.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That's a good way.  Thank you.  And Marilyn, if there is -- if you want to come in on something else, we'll continue to work the AV in the room.  In the meantime, I'll go to the next person in the queue which is Rajesh.  Rajesh, you have the floor. 
 >>RAJESH CHHARIA:  Thank you, Chair.  Very good point by Yves, and I really support that.  And just I want to put the children information to Yves, that in India we are doing especially the school childrens because majorly the online child abuse comes from the school side, due to their non-awareness or non-education.  They are doing this from the online thing.  And to stop this we want to block this completely from the user's side, that none of the school children indulge into this type of thing where the Internet gets abused.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Rajesh.  Next we have Raquel in the queue.  Raquel.
 >>RAQUEL GATTO: Thank you very much, Lynn.  Just for a full disclaimer, I'm a MAG member but I'm speaking in my capacity as a representative of Internet Society.  
 First of all, I'm not reacting -- we do support Global Citizens.  It's an amazing project.  I do encourage everyone to know more about it.  But my remarks now are more related to the open question that we have.  Where do we see the IGF feeding, right?  And we do appreciate the efforts that are being made.  You know that Internet Society has been pushing for the improvement of the IGF for certain change that needs to be made and needs to be made urgently, and we really appreciate the efforts that are being made by UN DESA, by the IGF secretariat, by the IGF chair and by the MAG, of course, that are taking up on some of those improvements.  For example, we now have the focused program into the three tracts, the multistakeholder we're going to discuss but the multi-year approach program and so on.  And those are really needed steps to make this a stronger IGF process.
 But one of our concerns is also that we still need to go beyond, and there is work to be done to make it much more simpler, much more focused, and to make sure that it can reach many of the developing countries.  
 One of the things that also the IGF has in terms of its format and the way it's organized, it's very expensive.  And if we can make sure that we can bring this to a more simpler format, to a more simpler requirement, it can also be hosted by more developing countries.  That's on the operational side part.
 On the substantive part, the other concern in terms of the agenda is that this is not the everything governance forum.  We need to go back to the roots of what is Internet and what is important.  If we recall, the Internet is this global networks of networks, right?  Those are communications networks that connects itself, and apart from being open and interconnected and there is also the other layer.  It's a multi-layer format.  And so the applications that we know today, for example, Google, Facebook, I don't want to pick on them but it's not -- it's the interface that we see, it's not the Internet per se.  Those are applications on top or connected to the Internet.  So sometimes we just see this confusion on the content, the web layer and the Internet layer.  And if we really want to be the Internet Governance Forum, we need to consider these nuances and we need to protect the Internet.  
 There are certain threats that can break it, break the Internet that we know today.  And this is a concern that I believe the Forum as itself needs to pick up.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Raquel.  Is Marilyn able to come in and looking for the floor again?
 >>MARILYN CADE: I hope so.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I'm just looking to the AV support here in the room to understand the situation.
 >>MARILYN CADE: I believe the mic is working now, Lynn.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Luis.
 >>LUIS BOBO: It seems what's in there the web (indiscernible) it is picking up but it is not arriving to here.  So we will check if it's only from her or if it's other participants.  Either way we'll fix this.  Okay?  Sorry for this.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Marilyn, again, again, I assume you heard that.  We're not able to hear you in the room here.  I don't know if you want to wait and try and come in later or if you want to send your comment in the chat and we'll get someone read it out.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Actually -- excuse me, Lynn.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  The transcription service can hear her.  And so she could at least talk to us by the transcription.  So, I mean, that might give -- so that's something.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No, that's good.  I wasn't actually looking up high enough to see the transcription.  Excellent.  So Marilyn, if that's okay for you, if you can speak, and we'll follow through the transcription.  Thank you.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Let me try one more time.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I do want to go ahead and speak now so that my comments are timely.  And then I may have comments later on different topics. 
 I have two comments.  One is a question for our German host, for Daniela.  Yesterday I heard you reference that you are already engaging with high-level -- with contacts to reach high-level stakeholders and you specifically referenced business, government, et cetera.  I just want to point out that there are different networks to reach the SMEs from developing countries, the small and mid size businesses from developing countries.  One from Africa called AFICTA that Paul Rowney who is a MAG member is familiar with.  There's also the WITSA, the World IT Services Alliance, which covers about 85 countries and reaches not just large corporates with global reach or regional reach but also national and sub-national businesses.  So I point that out to suggest that it would be helpful to know how to refer those key contacts to you.
 My second comment is about events for day zero and a question about how soon the number of rooms and the room design will be available to those who are submitting day zero requests.
 And then my final comment is to Yves, and thank you for describing that project.  I am very familiar with the challenges of trying to engage youth under the age of 18.  It does take parental agreement and country laws are very, very different.  Partnering with some of the existing groups I will refer someone named Parry Aftab to you who does have a network of cyber angels and does have parental authority -- releases for their engagement.  So that might be -- and then let me just also say, Anja is there in the room and can comment on this.  But many of the NRIs, the national level IGFs in particular, will be still holding their meetings September, October, and early November.  And I hope you will consider turning to the NRI network for possible partnering in identifying the cities and also trying to engage with everyday citizens around your study.  Thanks.
 [ laughter ]
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Marilyn, thank you.  
 [ echo ] 
 Just so you're clear, the sound just came in the room on your last like ten words or something, which is what the -- you know, the chuckle was in the room.  I want to thank you for your suggestions.  I think they're very good and very helpful.  And if I could ask Daniela and Yves, if there's something else you wanted to say, for the streaming, if you can just encapsulate the question you're responding to.  Otherwise, if people are actually watching the streaming later, they're going to see three minutes of silence with all of us just staring at the screen.  So if you can put the response in the context.  If you can just verbally include the question, that would be great.  Thank you.
 >>DANIELA BRONSTRUP: Thank you, Lynn, and also thank you, Marilyn, for asking the question about how making sure that we will have high-ranking people from really all stakeholder groups.  And especially from smaller and medium-sized companies from non-industrialized countries.  In fact, I'm really thankful for the question because we are trying to reach out for the relevant stakeholder groups by addressing those who we know.  But in fact, please contact me or Rudolf Gridl in suggesting who we should also address because we are really open and we try to be as representative as possible.  So in that sense, just contact us and we will then get in touch with those people.  Especially, you know, as a governmental representative, the civil society to be representative -- to make sure that they are represented in -- yeah, adequate way, is for us probably the most difficult task.
 Concerning small and medium-sized businesses, I mean, we have reached out to -- yeah, the business communities we know, but we are really thankful for all other input we get.  So please contact us.
 And then there was a question on when rooms will be available at day zero.  (Indiscernible) I would like to hand over to Chengetai because right now I do not have the answer.  Thanks.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, the question for the room design, it really depends on what kind of requests that we get.  If we get a request for a certain type of rooms, then we can get all these requests together and then we can find out that, yes, okay, we need three rooms with roundtable, four rooms theater style.  So that would be basically -- we may be able to tell you end of June, at the earliest.  Yeah.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Daniela, Chengetai.  And, again, Marilyn, thank you for the really helpful suggestions.
 Anyone else in the queue?
 New topics?  Anything you'd like to see some part of the IGF ecosystem doing?  Either something new, something different, improvements?
 I'll just do a minute to see if anybody else comes in.  And if not, I can see if there's support for going back to significant topics that the MAG actually addressed yesterday.  But, Yves, were you looking for the floor again?
 >>YVES MATHIEU:  Thank you, Lynn.  I just want to answer to Marilyn that, yes, we will connect with the regional IGFs for the autumn sessions from the North.  Yes, we will do that, of course.  It's very important to be connected with them with this global citizens debate.  
 And it will be also interesting in 2020 to have discussions inside the regional IGF with the lessons learned from the dialogue with the citizens as it will be possible to see if some regions have specific expression from citizens or if it is really transversal and if the messages are the same from Africa, Islands, Asia, Americas, and so on.  
 So it would be a matter that we will -- it's not really a study, it's more material that we will make available to all the stakeholders that we want to refer to the say of ordinary citizens about the vision of the future of the Internet.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Yves.  
 Paul, you have the floor.
 >>PAUL BLAKER:  Thank you and good morning.  It's Paul Blaker from the U.K. government.  I am not a member of the MAG, but I did attend yesterday.  And I would like, first, to thank the host and also to thank the MAG for holding this open meeting today.  And I'll give a few reflections, if I may, on the meeting yesterday and the discussions that we had.  
 I think this discussion is very timely.  And I was struck yesterday when Japan reminded us of the mandate, the very ambitious mandate that the IGF has.  And I think there is more for the IGF to do in order to fulfill that mandate.  I agree with what our co-chair said earlier today.  The IGF should be the place where people come to discuss Internet issues globally.
 And, perhaps, if the IGF was fulfilling its mandate perfectly, then we would not need to have a High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation and we would not see so many proliferations of other forums.  So this is a really critically important conversation.  I think we really welcome the work that the MAG is doing to address these issues.  
 I think we all understand the challenges that the IGF faces, especially in terms of funding and capacity.  The support staff do a really amazing job with very small resources, and we're really grateful to them for everything they do.
 The U.K. is able to donate a small amount of funding.  I wish it was more.  And we're very grateful to all of the donors, and particularly this year to Germany, of course.  But we do need to attract more donors.  We do need more capacity, and we need to keep making that call.
 But even within the capacity and the budget that we have, there is more that we can do to strengthen the IGF.  And there were three points yesterday that struck me, in particular.
 The first one is, yes, about doing more to identify and disseminate IGF outcomes.  I think in the U.K. government, we would absolutely agree that the IGF should not be negotiating recommendations or resolutions.  Its strength is its diversity.
 But we should be able to capture better the key conclusions of the IGF.  Sometimes there may be disagreements and that's okay.  We might identify an issue which needs more discussion.  But when I come home from the IGF and someone asks me, "Oh, what did the IGF say about connecting the unconnected?  What did it say about cybersecurity," I need to be able to answer that question.  And that means we do need to be thinking more about how we identify the key conclusions that the IGF comes to.
 And then, secondly, as people discussed yesterday, we need to think about how we tell that story.  The IGF is not the corporate body.  It doesn't have one view.  It's a forum with different views.  But we do need to use media, particularly social media, to communicate what the IGF is, what it's doing, what it's saying much more clearly.  
 And there was a really good idea yesterday I thought about including somehow in the criteria for workshops an element of how the workshop would contribute to dissemination or communication.  I think that's really important and should be looked at more carefully.
 And then a third area was the importance of shaping the program.  And, yes, the IGF is bottom-up and it should continue to be so.  But the MAG has got a really important role in facilitating a coherent program and a coherent story.  Again, there was a good idea yesterday, I thought, about having some main sessions at the beginning of the week to set out the agenda and the issues and the topics, then some workshops that would look in more detail at those, and then main sessions at the end to try to draw together the different strands, the different threads and weave them into a coherent conclusion, into a coherent message that can then be communicated to the outside world.  I think we would strongly support that. 
 One idea or area that was not discussed quite so much yesterday was the national and regional initiatives, I thought.  I think perhaps there is more potential here to give them a higher profile at the global IGF, to allow them better ways to report back, if you'd like, on the concerns and the issues from their regions at a global level.
 If we really want the IGF to be bottom-up, to be really connected to people's issues in different parts of the world, we need to think about how we can use those national and regional initiatives at the global IGF in order to keep that connection and that relevance.
 So, finally, as I say, I think we really appreciate how the GAC is dealing with these issues.  It's really good to see how Germany is planning to take some of these issues forward in Berlin.  And my question, if you like, is how can we step up the pace of this work and make sure that we are not just talking about it but actually taking action at the next IGF and beyond.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Paul.  That was a very useful set of comments and a partial summary of the discussions yesterday.  So appreciated.  Thank you.
 Marilyn, you have the floor. sorry, just one more minute.  Sorry, Luis is doing double business here.  The ITU AV support had stepped out of the room for just a minute, so he's now run over to try to work that angle as well.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Let me try again.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think we might hear you.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I believe you can.  I understand there's an echo, however.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Marilyn, can you try speaking?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I am able to hear you, and the scribes are able to hear me.  So let me go ahead.  I don't mine speaking and being scribed.
 I appreciate the comments that were made by ISOC about the continued interest of ISOC in -- hold on.  I think -- think -- is this working now?  (Echoing).
 Okay.  Let me go ahead.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No, it's really not, Marilyn.  If you can keep speaking, the scribes are doing a great job of capturing it.  Thank you.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Okay.  So as I said, I appreciate comments ISOC made about the continued evolution and improvements of the IGF.  And I think we do have to continue to focus on how we find better ways of packaging the work we're doing.  
 And, Deniz, I know you have had this conversation before.  You have been very thoughtful about the need for us to find ways to create better-looking publications.  Text-only is not the most effective way to convey messages to high-level or to everyday people.  So figuring out what the strategy is to have the funding to have a professional editorial service during the IGF itself is something we should try to evolve to.
 I will make a comment, however, toward something I think we overlook and do not use.  I heard Paul's comment about the NRIs and certainly strengthening the work that the NRIs do at a national level and then how they are able to find funding to be able to attend and participate in the IGF, to also -- one thing we have as an asset and do not use very effectively is the village.  I recall that the village when we were in Sharm El Sheikh was toured by the President's wife.  And media followed the wife providing a great opportunity for additional coverage of what was going on and opening great discussions about the IGF.
 I think we need to look back at how Brazil and Mexico as lead examples of the setup for the booth that really can work and look professional.  And it deserves time and attention and location for people to participate.
 I think one thing about the village is to ask the village participants what they can do help to disseminate information about how to participate in the IGF.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Marilyn.  We were actually able to hear you by voice in the room, and we were able to hear and the echo was resolved by the mics as well.  So if you use your headsets, that should facilitate participation from online participants, I hope.
 Any comments, anything from the secretariat on the village or, Deniz, with respect to communications or to Marilyn's points?
 >>DENIZ SUSAR:  Just to agree with Marilyn that those are very good points and we should do more.  As the message came yesterday as well in the marketing and outreach, it all comes to the same point in very brief but interesting ways.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I totally agree.  For the IGF village, we do have the village space.  Currently we have 47 applications for space there in the village.  As far as helping the NRIs participate into the IGF, I mean, we are working very hard on that.  Part of the German funds, I think, it's going to be announced today or tomorrow morning is that we're going to be accepting applications from the national and regional initiatives for travel support to come to the IGF in Berlin.
 So we are doing everything that we can to support that.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I've frequently mentioned as well that, of course, the IGF and the secretariat can take in-kind contributions.  Interns, and secondments are also part of the normal structure.  So if there are organizations or entities or universities or programs that are interested in participating or if anyone has suggestions of who might be interested, then please contact the secretariat.  We have the facilities for doing it.  What we need is the offer on the other end.
 Since the queue is empty, maybe we can come back to something Paul said.  This year for the workshops, the MAG did decide to look for a more cohesive agenda.  We have the three main themes, and narratives were developed around each one of those themes.  And that narrative was to support certainly hopefully a set of workshop submissions that would actually kind of fill out that narrative which would actually provide us with some concrete ways to actually advance those particular topics.  It does help with the story.  It does help with creating messages at the end.
 And I just spoke this morning on one of the panels around inclusion, and the way the WSIS Forum works is you submit a couple of questions that you want to answer.  The questions that I submitted were under the inclusion track, and specifically the questions I submitted enabled me to highlight each one of the three tracks that we actually have this year and respond.
 So the question was about digital inclusion is a term that encompasses a broad sector of key Internet governance issues.  What can the IGF and all the stakeholders do to help ensure that Internet governance processes are truly inclusive at all levels everywhere?  So I used that to talk through -- basically I borrowed very, very heavily from each of the narratives.  That one I borrowed from obviously the inclusion narrative and did comment on NRIs, both as key activities to advance Internet public policy issues but also as a very appropriate way to support development and inclusion opportunities because it's not just about access to the Internet; it is about many human issues in terms of participation, the right skills, the right opportunities to participate at all levels.
 And the second question was access to information and knowledge for all depends on more than just access.  It requires a safe and trusted Internet.  What else needs to be done?  And there I pulled heavily from the data governance and the safety and security narratives.
 I say that just to remind everybody that those narratives are there because I think if we actually focus on the narratives both as people are developing their workshop submissions and as the MAG works to build the program, I think we accomplish some of the things that Paul actually outlined in terms of allowing us to kind of capture some conclusions or some suggestions or recommendations or more kind of concrete outputs from these discussions because we've built a story.  We've actually tried specifically to advance a couple of more focused tracks.
 One of the things that leads to is what do we want to do around the main sessions, which we can come to, and it will be really interesting to hear what people think about that.
 It also has some implications for the MAG as they actually review the proposals.  Is an additional criteria ensuring that we're building a threaded discussion, if you will, throughout the meeting?  Or are we, you know, evaluating them each independently, individually on the quality of the individual proposal?  And that's a discussion one of the working groups is going to go away and have and bring that back to the MAG in the next week or so.  Again, any comments or reflections from, you know, the community on that item would be welcomed as well.
 The MAG hasn't yet come to any conclusions on the main sessions.  We've had several suggestions.  One was that maybe we split them up a little bit.  They don't need to be these three-hour blocks.  Maybe we aggregate them towards the end where we can report out a little more fully or fruitfully on the discussions that were actually held during the IGF.  That obviously has implications for how we kind of process the reporting and all the outputs and draw those messages together.  
 We have a good, I think, running set of experiences the last few years where we've really taken some pretty significant steps to capture the outputs from the individual workshops.  But we would need to strengthen that.
 There was, you know, discussion on do we want to kind of top and tail each one of those tracks by having, you know, one or a couple of sessions that actually introduced, for instance, the inclusion track and introduced the narrative and work through that.  And, then, again, maybe capture some of the learnings, discussions, experiences through the meeting.
 There were various other suggestions.  And, again, the MAG hasn't had that discussion yet.  We'll be having that over the coming days and weeks.  It would be really helpful to get any additional thoughts or comments from the community in terms of what works for you.
 With respect to -- as the speaking queue is still empty, with respect to outputs yesterday, in terms of trying to open up the conversation a lot and to figure out how we all felt about the outputs, I asked a series of questions, which is who actually takes the chair's summary and reads it.  Again, I wasn't looking for a show of hands.  And then who actually uses that chair's summary and sends it to people and says "This is really useful, you ought to look at this."  And if you do, great.  The more people you can send it to -- and if you don't, why not?  Is it because it's not useful enough?  Because you can't find it?  It's not concrete enough?  I mean, why?  
 The same thing with the individual workshops by topic.  Do you look at the workshop reports with the topics and share them?  Are they useful?  Are you encouraged to share them?  And, again, if not, what can we do so that that's your natural inclination as you say "Damn, this is a really good report.  This is going to be really useful to X and Y and I'm going to share it."
 So, I mean, I threw that out both in terms of sharing where the MAG discussions are at this point in time, as a point of information, but really trying to get some additional comments, reflections from the community.
 Are these not the right things in terms of the community that you would like to discuss?  I'm also fully cognizant that at this point, the makeup of both the people that are participating online and here are still largely MAG members.  But as MAG members, we have a lot of other hats that we all wear.  If there's something you can all share from your organization or another hat or another part of your life, then please jump in.  Let's actually make this a dialogue.
 Jim, thank you.  I was just going to say silence doesn't (indiscernible).
 Jim, you have the floor.
 >>JIM PRENDERGAST:  Great.  Thanks, Lynn.  Jim Prendergast with the Galway Strategy Group.  
 To respond to your comment about what people do with those reports, I had -- I have gone back and looked at them mostly if I have missed sessions.  I will point them to that as a resource.  
 I think one of the struggles is there's so much information out there that people are looking at to try and -- to try and find answers to questions.  Where does the IGF and the reports and all the outputs that we currently have, where does that rank for lack of a better term in those search results?
 You know, when people are looking for information on the various topics that are discussed, is the IGF the first place they think of or do they go to Google and plug in what they're looking for and whatever comes back via the search engines is what they wind up using.  
 I know there was a lot of discussion about marketing, but maybe that's one component of marketing effort, is making the requests or making the information that is available on the IGF website resonate better in search results as well.
 Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think those are good comments.  I think there was a comment yesterday that said it could be really useful for us to think about what are the audiences we are trying to reach with an individual workshop.  And maybe if we -- we also had quite a number of discussions on what we could actually do in terms of kind of advanced preparation for the workshop itself through the organizers and the moderators and the participants.  And then what might we want to capture, of course, coming out.  And I don't know, maybe there are some things we could still do for the IGF itself.  And we recognize that the workshop submission process is closing now, but I think this is more in the nature of kind of moderators and what they set in the room.  If people really think about who would benefit from this information.  Who are we trying to reach with this particular topic or discussion or what are we trying to advance, then maybe that would give a different context to the response.  And it would be more helpful.  But I think that's work that we need to do within the MAG, and I think that that's a really key point before we can actually really figure out what we need to do with both marketing and the actual outputs themselves.  You guys are making me work really hard here.
 [ Laughter ]
 I actually don't like talking this much and I'm trying to find the right balance of sort of sharing, you know, where the MAG was yesterday in our discussions but also, of course, where we are through various working groups and online activities.  But really to try and kind of generate my actions from the community and/or even preferable new ideas, better ideas.  
 We can also do something very different with this session, if there's sort of a burning need within the community to discuss something else and this just isn't -- you know, it's really top of mind.  Or is it the way I'm processing the meeting?  Are people better off with more succinct concrete questions or discussions, which I have to say is not my strength but we can all jump in and try.  Deniz, you have the floor.
 >>DENIZ SUSAR: Actually, I would like to go back to comments from ISOC which I found very interesting, and I'm curious what the MAG members are -- or other people in the room thinking about it.  I think Raquel said that one concern is to make it simpler, the IGF, if I understand correctly, simpler, maybe shorter with less workshop sessions.  And that could be an opportunity for developing countries to host it.  And I think that's something very interesting maybe.  Maybe this is the responsibility of MAG and maybe that MAG would consider in the future years, do we want a "light" IGF?  I mean, if I understand correctly.  
 And your -- your second point about technical network layer and application layer was not very -- very clear to me, and I don't know how -- what can this community to do it or maybe to better understand it.
 >>RAQUEL GATTO: Thank you very much.  And thank you very much, Deniz, for the opportunity to clarify my points.  The first one is related to making this a more cohesive program.  One part is avoiding some of the repetitive discussions and making sure that when we leave -- I think the U.K. representative make this point very well -- when we leave the IGF, we know what we talked about and can drive this forward.  
 The other point is, when you have to organize a meeting with ten parallel tracts at least, you require, for example, a venue, and I'm sure the IGF, the German hosts know that very well, it does require a certain type of venue to comply with these requirements.  And if you think about developing countries, there are just a few -- I come from Latin America -- there are just a few places and cities that could have this kind of venue to be hosted.  And if they are, they're very expensive.  So having less sessions is one accounting issue and making sure that we are more on target, but it's also an organizing issue, if I may put that way.  I hope that's -- that cleared the first question.
 On the second question, well, now I can take more time.  Let me go back.  What is the Internet per se?  Internet is really the Internet working of this communications networks.  If you think about them, I'm trying just on the fly to explain this, that the difference with the communications that the Internet brings is the package communications style.  And this is done by communicating the devices and the computers and by networks.  And those networks connect itself with the others.  And this makes with kind of the certain -- the same protocol, this interconnection kind of is  (indiscernible), right?  If you think about you have networks that one speak English, one speak French, one speak Portuguese, and then you have this Internet working protocol that makes sure that everybody spoke the same language.  And that comes with certain characteristics.  One, it needs to have the global reach.  It needs to be -- to have this what we call the permissionless innovation.  Which is basically that there is no central authority.  It needs to be distributed.  And you can, if you want to go to the Internet, this network, you don't need to ask permissions when you want.  Right?  It's something that -- that is key for the Internet to continue functioning.
 Now, when you have the applications layer that is on top of that, so you have the -- I'm going to simplify here, you have -- you can -- technically you can have like five or seven layers, you can discuss that, but I'm going to summarize into three layers.  You have the infrastructure layer which are the cables, which is the, let's say, the -- the way you get connected.  You have the Internet which is this mill where you get this communications going, this networks interconnection.  And then you have the upper layer, which is the applications layers.  And that's where those platforms are happening.  The content is happening, right?  So most of the concerns nowadays, and when you perceive the Internet or the digital society, if you may, most of these problems are happening in the upper layer, right?  In this content layer.  Not in the Internet per se.  But there are certain kinds of decisions that, especially in terms of regulations, that can bring some unintended consequences and can break this model of the Internet.
 So just to mention the recent decision within the G7 that, for example, asks for the lawful -- I hope I'm using the terms right -- but the lawful access for encryption, right?  Encryption is one of those technical tolls, if you may, that comes from this Internet layer.  They are important for everybody.  It's a protection for everybody.  And if you have even one vulnerability, even if that's unlawful access that you want, any vulnerability can break it.  And then you break the protection and the security for everybody in the Internet layer.  
 So, I mean, there are certain issues there that needs to be tackled.  And most of the time in the upper layer you are talking also -- there is a joke from the technical community that you might have the ninth layer which is the governance -- the layer -- the political lens layer which is -- I mean, some of the decisions are not with the political lens.  They need to be technical -- technically grounded.  And this is part of the reason why the IGF is important.  Because these decisions need to be made with everybody on board and to understand through this dialogue what is possible and making sure that we all want security.  So then let's see what we all can do in this table.  I hope I could clarify.  Did I?  Okay.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Deniz, is there any follow-up?
 >>DENIZ SUSAR: About the first point, at LACNIC, I was also thinking about what others are thinking about it.  And also second point, it's somewhat clear but also there are a lot of things happening like at the infrastructure level.  Like there is the tactical infrastructure, net neutrality, so while I (indiscernible), but there are also other concerns.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Raquel.  And thank you, Deniz.  Rajesh, you have the floor.
 >>RAJESH CHHARIA: Thank you, Chair.  IGF is a multistakeholder body and they're private sector, the telecom (audio difficulties) companies and the government together in this (indiscernible) makes a lot of (audio difficulties) that the government communicated about the changes into the Internet governance theme.  
 The basic problem is, given the government people are in the IGF, they understand (audio problems) and they tried to resolve the thing verbally over discussion in the (audio problems) in the private sector in the way the government is (audio problems).  Whether we can (audio problems) anything towards this stakeholder government (audio problems) Internet into their respective country should benefit (audio problems) discussing into the IGF.  Otherwise, coming to the IGF, having discussion and (audio problems).
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Rajesh.  Susan, you have the floor.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Chair.  I was just thinking (audio problems) for the rest of this morning session, and if we feel that well might need (audio problems) with the -- the main three themes that we have, digital inclusion, security, and -- I'm sorry, I'm blanking right now -- data governance.  It might be useful before the MAG sets to that work to develop those sessions to hear from the community if they have any ideas on particular sub-themes.  So I'm just saying if we come to a point during the day today where we might have time to (audio problems) purpose, then we could take advantage of having -- having comments from the community.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I'll go to Ananda and then come back (audio problems).
 >>ANANDA KHANAL: Ananda Raj Khanal, and I'm speaking having some experience with the ITU process.  I see that the way we are running this MAG meetings and Open Consultations sometimes we are out of, you know, the content in the agenda that is already put.  In ITU the study groups, what we do, depending on the agenda, we invite contributions from the member states and (indiscernible) members.  Similarly if we followed the method that the MAG members can put contributions or the community stakeholders put contributions in the agenda that we finalize, then we have something solid to present and discuss.  And then it will be easier for us to come to a speedy conclusion on the agenda.  
 And now sometimes -- there's no one talking and we're not able to really consolidate the issues that we are discussing and sometimes we are lost where what kind of things we are discussing.  We are discussing so many issues not in sequence and something like that.  
 So I think if we follow that kind of method that prior contributions on the given agenda by the MAG members, also the community stakeholders, then we follow that discussions on the agenda.  And then we -- it will be easier for us to come to a conclusion.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ananda.  That's actually a good segue because I just did a quick kind of look around the room and the chat room and most of the people that are in the online room are here in the room as well.  By some kind of rough count, there's probably 15 or 20 people that aren't MAG members that are participating.  So that's a relatively small -- small number.  And I think maybe we should -- we should try and figure out offline how we reach out to the broader community and ask what would make this -- this consultation day more helpful and, you know, possibly getting agendas out earlier, more specific detailed agendas or specific questions, but I think we need to think about what within the MAG and I think we need to obviously ask the community as well since that's who we'd expect to be participating in this.  So I think that's a good suggestion.
 One of the other things that Paul said, and, of course, a number of people actually said yesterday as well, is that, you know, NRIs are very important.  I think we all recognize that they're very, very important.  I think that's one of the most significant kind of developments within the greater IGF ecosystem.  We can -- and I don't want to put Anja on the spot here.  Later in the agenda we actually have a national, regional, youth IGF initiatives presentation.  We could ask Anja to do that, and if there are any specific questions that the NRIs might have of the MAG, get those out and start a discussion there.  And I'm not sure that's a great idea because, you know, we need to make sure we have appropriate participation from the NRIs in the discussion.  We have a lot of people in the room that are with NRIs, but, you know, it's certainly not precluded by the agenda but it wasn't specifically called out.  So that's one thing to think about.
 We also had a workshop process review segment which is where we wanted to share with the community what we had done within the workshop review process.  We talked about that a little bit this morning already with respect to the focusing down to three themes, the narratives, and the -- but we were looking for some comments and feedback on that as well as any comments or feedback on kind of the submission process itself.  We continue trying to improve that and make that more clear.  But is there anything you think the MAG should know.  
 We could pull those up to this morning.  I think we do need to carve out a bit more time for this afternoon.  Chengetai has just informed me that there are five or six other related initiatives or Internet organizations that want to take the floor under what normally is our last segment of the day, and we also have the HLPDC report.  And I think between those series of interventions and the HLPDC report, we probably need more like 90 minutes, not 60 minutes.  So we will try and move some parts of the agenda up.  And then the other suggestion is, of course, Susan had a suggestion as well where, you know, we might kind of advance some of the sub-themes under the narratives.  And then the narratives is also quite -- were quite specific.  I mean they describe as an intent framework in one of them.  I mean, are we serious about that?  If we're serious about a framework emanating out of a particular track and a set of discussions at the IGF, what does that imply in terms of how the MAG actually does their review?  You know, is there some additional activities the MAG needs to put in place, you know, a different main session which has some kind of introduction to the topic and what we want people to keep in mind and what they want to discuss and what we're hoping to advance at the end.  
 Do we allow a lot more time at the end of the MAG so we can have a discussion on what we have heard through these various things and try and build the framework?  Each one of the narratives I think actually had something specific that they were trying to concretely kind of deliver out of the set of discussions.  That's another opportunity.  So I will let that sit for a moment.  
 Chenai has asked for the floor.  I will give Chenai the floor, and then see if we can come back and see what we want to do with the rest of the time.  
 Chenai, you have the floor.  
 >>CHENAI CHAIR:  I moved just to try to get a better mic.
 Good morning, everyone.  My name is Chenai Chair for the record.  Two questions and a point just to add on what you have been talking about with the NRIs and open-day consultations.  
 I wanted to find out if we -- there are some interlinkages between the communication that's been done.  And I know we already have a working group on the communications outreach with the NRIs as well.  So when we do have the open-day consultations to actually also ask of them to share widely with their communities as well as other groups such as the youth collaboration on Internet governance because I think that would also be useful in terms of we've done the communication or we've done the outreach.  But if people don't show up on open consultations day, at least the MAG team has done its work.  So that's one point.
 And then the second point, which I might not have understood quite correctly, the idea on subthemes that were raised under the three thematic areas, I thought from my understanding we seemed to have developed the subthemes from the call that was put out for the issues from the community.  
 And I think we actually started by also putting them into buckets into what came up from the community and then trying to have a broader umbrella.  
 I think perhaps that also could be integrated if we're still going to go for the subthemes given that the descriptions around the main themes are actually quite clear.  But I think we can also feed back on what already has come out from the call of the community.  So it kind of seems as if we're not, like, leaving what already has been done by the community by the call of the issues that they've put up.  So maybe also focusing on that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chenai.  Those are very helpful comments.  If we look for what we did in the narratives and combining both Chenai's comments and Susan's comments on subthemes, I think we need to really try and stay with the intent at the last meeting which is about the narratives and telling a story and advancing concretely these small number of -- so I want to make sure we pay attention to subthemes but we don't revert over to the subthemes and let's just make sure we have got an appropriate set of workshops in the subthemes.  Because you read the narratives, they're quite clear.
 I mean, under the data governance narrative, for instance, it says -- now, of course, I've lost it -- but that talks about a framework, the security and stability -- the digital inclusion says the track aims to provide a framework for assessing and considering various elements in policies that can improve access to equitable opportunities.  
 All three of them actually have a fairly concrete description.  Two of them specifically are calling for advancing a framework.  And the safety, security, and stability and resilience title, which was pretty slick, actually, for that group to kind of keep those four in there as a whole, actually talks about identifying what some of the strategies are for advancing those areas in a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder fashion.  
 So if we're really staying with the intent of what the MAG said they wanted to do last time, are there some specific discussions we need to have within the MAG and things we should be discussing with the community now?  And I'm really glad to see Helani come in because Helani was really helpful in progressing one of the tracks.
 >>HELANI GALPAYA:  Thanks, chair.  Can you hear me?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes.
 >>HELANI GALPAYA:  Thank you.  I -- (echoing)
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Helani, it's been a little bit difficult to hear you, but I heard your first point.  Maybe you can come back in a moment.  Your first point was I think support for sort of staying with the direction at the last MAG meeting and the narrative and specifically you wouldn't like to see us reverting to 20 or 30 subthemes as the focus.  That's what I --
 >>HELANI GALPAYA:  Yeah, that's right.  Yeah, that's right.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And then your second point?  You were cutting out quite badly when you started speaking there.
 >>HELANI GALPAYA:  The second point was that -- (echoing) -- the subtheme of data governance -- (echoing).
 However, strong support for given the multistakeholder nature for -- (echoing).
 I think that's okay but we should not go back to the drawing board.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  This could be really wrong.  I think your second point was that in the data governance track, which is the one that you were instrumental in drawing with that it was actually updated with input from the community and that's where the framework language came from?  Is that what your point was?
 >>HELANI GALPAYA:  Yes.  It was based on the community consultation in the language.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Helani.  Sincere apologies for the difficulty in coming in here.  I hope we captured your points in the transcription.  If not, please submit some edits and we will make sure they actually get reflected.
 Susan, you have the floor.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thanks, Chair.  So I should clarify, my earlier suggestion was a pretty simple one, is that while it's the open consultation day and before the MAG starts planning the main sessions, it might be an opportunity to hear from the community what they would like to address in the main sessions.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Is everybody clear on the question then?  I think not only what people would like to hear in the main sessions; but if you have suggestions on how to structure them, front-end, back-end, shorter, longer, all those things would be welcome.  Those things are all on the table, and we have certainly tried different models over the years.  That was Susan before.
 Zeina, you have the floor.
 >>ZEINA BOU HARB:   Yes, good morning, everybody.  I am Zeina Bou Harb, head of international corporation at OGERO Telecom from Lebanon.  OGERO Telecom is the incumbent operator in Lebanon.  I'm also an outgoing MAG member and the coordinator of the Lebanese IGF.  
 My intervention here is to reconfirm that the IGF should give stakeholders from developing countries the opportunity to engage in the Internet governance debate and to facilitate that participation in the IG processes and arrangements.  This should be clear to all because as it's among the main core principles of the IGF.
 Following the discussions by email and yesterday and the last part of your meeting, I'm afraid this won't be really applied because I had a feeling that some of the regions might be excluded.  I'm talking mainly about the Arab region.
 We had this problem -- I know we are repeating the same every year, but I hope this issue would be taken into consideration when working on the approved workshop for this year as we used to do in the previous events, just to ensure inclusion and geographic diversity.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Zeina, because you know we do actually work really hard to ensure we have got appropriate diversity, certainly regional, but all the other categories as well.  And I'm sure the MAG will continue to focus on that, too.
 I'm not sure if one of your earlier questions had to do with support for getting to the meeting or not.  But if not, I think we'll be hearing some of that probably tomorrow, if you are actually referring to some of the sort of funding the German government has made available and are working on the capacity-building program with the secretariat.
 Ben, you have the floor.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Thanks, Lynn.  It was just a short point.  And it was just a short point to support Susan's suggestion that we seek views specifically on the main sessions.  And then I was going to broaden it up, but you already did this, to say not just on what policy issues we might discuss at the main sessions but what kind of main sessions we should have, what should be the structure, the length, the format.  And we already had a few comments from the community, and Paul from the U.K. government talked about different kind of formats.  
 But I just want to support that idea as putting a concrete question to the community to kind of help stimulate discussion.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think that was very good.  Thank you.  The concrete question that has come up between Susan and Ben, of course, is are there specific suggestions from the community with respect to main sessions, either topics or policy questions.  
 And then as a second variation of that, I suppose are there any other suggestions just in general with respect to timing, location, et cetera.  So we'll give you a two-shot.
 One thing I was just thinking as a tangent, with respect to outreach to the community, engagement to the community and particularly with both -- I know the community's intent to be more inclusive and to pull in all those voices -- (audio difficulty) -- opportunities we're going to have in the next few months is when the HLPDC puts out its report -- again, the HLPDC will deliver a report.  They'll deliver it to the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General will determine what to do with that report.  Make it public, could make it visible in its current state.  Could take a separate set of recommendations from it.  Clearly needs to go within the U.N. system to some level.  I guess it depends on what the recommendations are.  And the Secretary-General's office has said very clearly already that they want to hear from the Internet community.
 If we expect -- given this was Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation and the U.N. is extremely concerned about frontier issues and frontier technologies, if we expect that exercise is intending to drive the future of Internet governance and Internet development and inclusion and participation across the world, this is a great opportunity for us to build some processes online, across the community, utilizing certainly the annual meeting but also working with the NRIs where there's interest and support, perhaps the DCs, maybe even some of the best practice forums, to really help hear broadly from the community about what they think of the future of Internet governance.  
 I think that's something that maybe in the background we can continue to think because I think it's a great opportunity to get those voices that don't feel that they've had the chance and, you know, frankly haven't participated fully in this process to date to help define a process that would actually support the participation.
 (Audio difficulty)
 And the community is going to have to think about, you know, in the next coming months assuming the report is out sometime in June-ish, depending on the U.N. process.  I'm actually quite excited because if we can really can drive a robust consultation across the community, across the global community, with some efforts to try and get to those folks that haven't participated in these sessions -- (audio difficulty) -- for some time now and get their views reflected.  Interesting opportunity.
 I guess we are entering our teen years, and now we get to figure out what we want to do going forward.
 >>PAUL BLAKER:  Thank you.  (Audio difficulty)
 Paul Blaker from the U.K. government.  I've got two completely separate points to make, if I can.
 (Audio difficulty) -- I'm going to take advantage of that.  (Audio difficulty)
 It's a great document with a lot of -- (audio difficulty) -- and finds it difficult to work in a multistakeholder way. and that this means that the U.N. has -- (audio difficulty).  We would be looking to the MAG to be seizing some of those opportunities.  And this is my first MAG meeting, and I hope we can have more of a dialogue during the course of today with the people who are appointed to the MAG to give their advice.  So I'm really hoping to hear more contributions from those people.  And I think that's a really fruitful area where there's a kind of open door where we can push against and come up with some valuable ways forward.  So that was just to respond to what you just said.
 But I wanted to take the opportunity to talk about the themes in particular from the U.K. government point of view.  I think we really welcome the fact that the theme on security includes this concept of safety, which is topic of major concern in the U.K. at the moment.  I will use my place in the speaking queue to give a very short advertisement, if you will allow me, and let colleagues know that on Monday, the U.K. published a white paper on online harms.  
 Online harms includes a range of online behavior, online content, which is sometimes illegal but also behavior and content which may be legal but harmful -- that might include things like cyber bullying, online harassment or abuse, harmful content around suicide, for example, or eating disorders -- and how can we address those kinds of issues in a way which fully respects human rights in an open Internet.
 And the white paper sets out a range of measures.  It proposes a new regulator in the U.K. a duty of care towards users in an enforcement framework.  It's built on a number of principles.  The principle of what is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online, the principle that users should be empowered to manage online risks and stay safe, and the principle that technology companies have a responsibility to their users.
 It proposes an approach which we hope will be agile and risk-based and proportionate and which, as I said, will be supportive of human rights online and supportive of innovation.
 And I should emphasize as well it doesn't change in any way the U.K.'s support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and for a free, open, and secure Internet.  And we've taken the multistakeholder approach in developing the proposals in our white paper because we believe that all stakeholders have responsibilities to tackle online harms, and we need to work together and collaborate in order to be effective.
 So these are the steps that we've been taking in the U.K.  We know there are many other countries and stakeholders around the world who are grappling with very similar issues who are sometimes taking similar approaches to us, sometimes different approaches.  And we think the theme of security, safety, stability and resilience will be a really good opportunity to bring people together from different parts of the world and discuss some of these issues, discuss the different approaches.  I think we're all in a sense feeling our way together through some of these really tricky issues.
 But we all recognize that there are legitimate public policy concerns that wish to be addressed, and the IGF as an open and multistakeholder forum is an outstanding platform in which we can come together and collaborate and address those issues together.  So I just wanted to emphasize that so (audio problems) that we're particularly interested in that theme for Berlin.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Very, very good comments.  And to come back  just briefly to your first one for a moment, the report you mentioned is a very -- very kind of impressive, sort of insightful report.  And I asked (audio problems) mailing list as well.  Not everybody is in the chat room.  
 Again, I do think, you know, the HLPDC activity and its report and, you know, clearly there's been an increased focus on the IGF as a result of some of those activities.  It's really our opportunity to step up and I think understand where some people see some necessary areas of improvement or some shortcomings and really I think get our voice into that process, which will allow us to actually build an Internet governance set of processes or ecosystem that really does address so many of the areas we continue to talk about which is inclusion and access of those that haven't participated in this problem, marginalized communities of -- developing countries of the South, et cetera.  So I think there's a -- you know, a lot we can do.  We should be reinvigorated by that.  And I said before, I think the excellent news is that the Secretary-General's office made it very clear that they saw the IGF as a very important venue and set of processes to actually consult broadly on the report.  And I think it's up to us to define that.  I suggested in that meeting that it wasn't just during the IGF annual meeting itself but that we find a way to drive a really aggressive set of online activities which would reach out much more broadly for some of the reasons that I've just stated now.
 Yves Mathieu.  Yves, you have the floor.
 >>YVES MATHIEU: Thank you, Lynn.  I would like to apologize for not having respected earlier the etiquette of this session.  I found a way to ask online.  This is precisely what was said by the U.K. representative, precisely what we intend to do in the global citizens conversation.  I mean, this topic of having a safe space, having a space where what happens online should respect the same rules than what happens offline is typically a great topic for the one part of the day that we will spend with ordinary citizens.  And so if you have other angles that you would like to share and to put on the forefront of this dialogue with ordinary citizens, please share them because you see the connection that can be made between what will be the (indiscernible) of ordinary citizen and the agenda, the agenda of the IGF.  I mean, there will be a direct connection, and it will be having the (indiscernible) citizens.  There will also be a tool to make sure that the working (audio problems) site IGF is solution-oriented and not (audio problems) problems-oriented, and it will be a strong support for that, I think.  Thank you for your position and your (indiscernible).
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: (Audio problems) And we have Raul Echeberria in the queue, an online participant.  I hope we can hear you okay.  If not, we've had some success with the headphones and the transcription.  Raul.  Raul (indiscernible) a moment, I think.  Are we going to be successful, Luis?
 >>LUIS BOBO: He seems to be connected.  (Indiscernible) to speak.  (indiscernible) maybe we can check.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Raul, can you try speaking?
 [ Echoing ]
 >>LUIS BOBO: Yeah, it's very faint.
 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: One, two, three.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So Raul, can you -- that was better.  We heard one, two, three.
 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: [ echoing ].
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: (Indiscernible) to go ahead though?
 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: I will be very short.  Thank you very much for all the work you are doing. [ echoing ] 
 (Indiscernible) some of the (indiscernible) you have in the IGF organization are very good.  I appreciate (indiscernible) the  decisions will be more focused, or the IGF will be more focused.  (indiscernible) are very good idea.  Will be very helpful to organize effective discussion.  In fact, it's important as somebody mentioned minutes ago that the (indiscernible) decisions are based on policy (indiscernible).  
 One of the challenges, however, in solving (indiscernible) is how we use (indiscernible) this there is a lot of discussion of the outcomes (indiscernible) by the IGF.  If we look at all the (indiscernible) workshops the (indiscernible) and work of the IGF (indiscernible) so the challenge is how to use it later.  (indiscernible).
 [ echoing ]
 Of course, we have to do the same with the decisions and requires (indiscernible).  But we have to work on that.  How we get a solution (indiscernible) push the outcomes of the discussions to different forums.  This is a way that people that is not on board with IGF but (indiscernible).  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Raul.  The scribes managed to catch probably about half of what you said.  Evidently there was a really significant echo.  So perhaps you can take a look at that and then just supplement it with your own comments.  The one point that I think they weren't able to catch was your comment on the outcomes, which I think suggested that in addition to organizers as they actually prepare for the workshops and participants as they engage in the workshops may be an additional responsibility, if you will, ought to be for people to really consider actively how they actually disseminate that so that it's part of the input to the workshop, the workshop and the responsibility on participants is a way to really focus on what is it we take away, how do we disseminate it, and to who.  If that was -- if I didn't hear that correctly, if you could correct it and if you could take a look at the transcript I think that would be helpful because I think the points were important.  
 Jutta, you have the floor.  Thank you, Raul.
 >>JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Lynn, for giving me the floor.  I just wanted to thank Paul from the U.K. for his comments and for referring our attention to not only to the report, the white paper from the U.K. government, but also to the interlinkage between security and safety.  I do think when we as a MAG created the theme of security, safety, stability, and resilience based on the input that came from the community, we were aware that this is a huge bucket.  That we have a lot of things to address within this bucket, that safety and resiliency of users are of very high importance.  And we tried to address this in the short narrative that we gave for our workshop proposals on safely, security, stability, and resilience, but I'm really thankful for Paul for highlighting this again and I would also like to refer to the white paper which I think gives a lot of guidance for us also when we come to build the program and to assess the workshop proposals.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta.  Are there any further comments or reflections?  I think Raul also pointed us to the need to think carefully through the main sessions as well.  We had a couple of runs at that.  Then maybe -- yes, you have the floor.
 >>SEYED MOKABBERI: Hello.  First of all, I should thank IGF MAG for holding this session.  And I'm Mokaberri from Iran NCC.  I'm an (indiscernible).  I'm not the member of the MAG.  I would like to thanks MAG for holding this open meeting today.  
 I would like to rise up three policy issues that can be put in the agenda in IGF Berlin 2019.  The first issue is social responsibility of the company, and we can work together more on making your package about the company social responsibility as a critical agenda for the future.
 The second -- second issue is issue of IGF branding.  I think many people, even expert in some country, don't know IGF and its mission very well.  And I think the IGF secretariat should work more on branding, IGF branding.  I think some platforms, some company like Google, YouTube, social media can help IGF in the branding project.  For example, they can establish an integrated global solutions system in their platform with the especial icon of IGF in their platform and allow the users, global users, to put their suggestion, their idea, and send it to the -- to Google and YouTube and send it for the IGF.  This global solutions system in the platform like Google and YouTube for IGF can help to collect the wills of all the stakeholders and especially global users, (indiscernible) users.
 And the third issue is unilateral course of users Internet.  I think it's the biggest and critical challenges in digital development in some countries.  And we should address such issues in IGF agendas.  I think there is a good question we should answer in IGF Berlin 2019 and it's -- and the question is, that how can we combine the multistakeholder approach with the multilateral approach in the global level within the framework of U.N.  I'm talking about the digital United Nation and a more transparent and more democratic Internet governance model.  By this way I think we can give the usual users have a voice in the Internet government process.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you very much, and welcome as well.  We managed to speak last night about interest in NRIs.  That's great.  Hana.  Hana, you have the floor.
 >>HANA ALHASHIMI: Good morning, Chair and colleagues.  Hana Al Hashimi, MAG member.  I'd like to return to this discussion on outcomes because I think a couple of the comments made today have been pretty clear on the need to prioritize those.  Also, as a voice from the developing South, particularly small states, I know that's an absolute priority.  
 So there's two ways of looking really at outcomes, and it might help structure this discussion.  One is in terms of the volume, and the other is in terms of the usefulness of outcomes.
 So there have been a couple of comments earlier on the reports of workshops and, you know, the number of reports of workshops and whether it's helpful to have several or whether, you know, aggregate reports and key messages are helpful.  But a lot of our discussions so far have focused on summaries and -- but not necessarily other kinds of outcomes.
 So I think it's worth it to take a look at the Tunis Agenda in light of this.  And the mandate of the IGF itself.  
 In the first point, the mandate does request a discussion on public policy issues, which I think is done, you know, very well.  But there are other parts that I think could probably be built on further, or at least be presented in a more useful way.  And that includes facilitating the exchange of information and best practices and includes the advisory role for stakeholders in proposing ways to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet.  And on that point, I think that this needs -- it has to be a priority for this year's IGF, given that the target in the sustainable development agenda on universal access in least developed countries matures in nine months.  So I think it's -- it's absolutely essential that's a -- that is a huge focus of this year's IGF.
 But continuing on the mandate, there's also a call for enhanced engagement of stakeholders in existing future Internet governance mechanisms and identifying emerging issues.  I think it's worth mentioning here that the point on identifying emerging issues is something that was (indiscernible).  I'm not sure if others see a different person, please do let me know.  I'm not sure that that was responded to by the system until there was really a resolution through the General Assembly calling on the U.N. to look into rapid technological change.  And I think it was in 2017.  And since then you see a multitude of reports and a multitude of -- or more consideration of emerging issues.  So I wonder whether there would be a way to get recommendations out of the IGF as well.
 And the other point I wanted to highlight is contributing to capacity building.  So this isn't cherry picking the mandate, but it's just looking at some points that perhaps ask for a different kind of outcome rather than just report.  It might ask for sessions that encourage accelerated action, that encourage more partnership.  And there are different parts of different fora that also do this, but there's -- there's no reason why the IGF couldn't as well.
 I think one concrete proposal -- and thank you to Paul for bringing this back from yesterday -- was in looking for common threads through the program, so this is in support of the idea of having a main session and then connecting that with breakout sessions and then bringing them back in a way that is outcome focused and that helps. 
 I think I would also like to recall a point that was made earlier on what happens in the IGF stays in the IGF.  I think that was an interesting point.  But it does speak to a bigger question of how to continue the discussion and working towards solutions after the main session.  So I'll stop there.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Hana.  Those are very -- very good comments.  Very insightful comments.
 Carlos, Carlos, you have the floor.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Thank you.  I don't know if the -- there is a proposal for theme for Berlin already defined, et cetera.  I recall reading the transcript yesterday saying that it could be "One World, One Vision, One Web, Shaping the Future of the Net."  
 I have some issues with it.  The Internet more and more is going far beyond just the Web.  And there is a scientist, Bruce Schneier who calls it the Internet+ due to the diversity of billions of interconnected devices and their functionalities.
 I would suggest if this is the proposal for overarching theme that the "Web" is replaced by "Internet" itself.  Maybe "One World, One Vision, One Internet, a Dialogue on the Future of Interconnected Societies."
 I have issue also with the "shaping the future" because can I say that shaping the future is not really what the IGF does as it cannot make recommendations.  So these are my concerns about the overarching theme of Berlin.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Give Daniela a moment to think before she comes in.  
 I do want to make a quick comment on the IGF can't make recommendations.  It's not exactly a true statement.  We don't expect to make binding policy recommendations, right?  But, in fact, Tunis Agenda specifically says "make recommendations."  It would be useful if X organization looked at Y could be a recommendation.  BPF is a recommendation.  So it's just that this is such a loaded discussion in our context, I wanted to make sure that didn't sort of stand alone there.
 I wanted to give Daniela a little bit of time.  
 Daniela, you have the floor.
 >>DANIELA BRONSTRUP:  Thank you.  Maybe I can explain a little bit what was behind this idea of sort of a theme or motto.
 We expected, in fact, that someone would raise the issue of "Web" or "Internet."  Basically we have chosen "Web" due to the fact that we have 30 years of Web and then basically this is a nice sort of alliteration, "World, Web," the W at the beginning.  And then the idea was to take up the issue of "Internet" instead of "Web," that was "shaping the future of the net."  That was basically the idea we had behind the idea of the motto.
 Plus, like Lynn said, yes, I mean, recommendations are part of the mandate and our idea was to raise the attention and the impact of the IGF and then -- I mean, it doesn't have to be "shaping" but it should be something that gives the impression that if you want to talk about the future of the Internet, if you want to influence the debate on the Internet, you should be in Berlin at the IGF.  That's basically what was behind the idea.
 Rudolf is one of the fathers --
 [ Laughter ]
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  We had -- I think you had another order.  I think our proposal was "One World, One Web, One Vision."  I think you had another order of the three.  That's all.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes, yes, maybe, Rudolf, you're right.  Yes.  I agree that on the difference between binding and nonbinding recommendations, of course.  
 But Daniela mentioned that it would -- it could be not "shaping" but "influencing" the future of the Internet.  Maybe it would be better.  I don't know.
 >>DANIELA BRONSTRUP:  In that case, I'm immediately thinking about the "influencer" on the Internet.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  (off microphone).
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  My objection, I think if I had one -- and I'm not sure I have a strong one -- is on "shaping the Internet," what we're all trying to do is influence society in various ways to do things.  And every time we say it's the Internet, I think it drives a different mind-set in people's minds.
 And most of the things that are magical that are happening on the Internet and things that are bad that are happening on the Internet, they come from us.  They come from society.  They don't come from technology or bits or bites.  I'm not sure we've done a world of sort of service here by  continuing to use "Internet" because I think it drives people to look to places that aren't as helpful as they could be and not as robust or complete as they could be with respect to understanding the problem statement and, therefore, what the solution is.
 I don't know if there's a way to even think about it and do something which is more sort of society or that brings it back to kind of the individual or the human.  
 I'm not wanting to overcomplicate what you're doing either/or what's there in the discussion.  Maybe we can let that percolate a little bit and come back.
 Carlos.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Just a final note is at least we are trying to discuss this which is interesting.  I remember that all the IGFs had an overarching theme.  And I was wondering if this one would have one, which is significant relating to the actual situation of the Internet today.  I think we are almost there.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Carlos.
 Anja, we would like to pull up one of the items from the afternoon.  But we have a number we could pull up, Anja.  I know you have an informal gathering of the NRIs.  We can keep the NRIs after the lunch break.  That's perfectly fine.  If you want to start it now and we come back later for some additional discussion, that's fine as well because, as I said, we have opportunities.  We could actually move to start the quick introduction on the best practice forums and dynamic coalitions.  And, again, the intent there was that we kind of introduce them here to the community -- obviously they've been on the site for some months -- and ask if there's any kind of inputs, thoughts, ways to improve other organizations to work with, that sort of thing.  We can pull that forward.  
 So it's really what do you think suits you and the NRIs' best in terms of timing?
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Thank you very much.  I'm fine with whatever you would advise, but I like when the discussion has continuity.  So maybe if we could start with the NRIs' discussion after the lunch break and then just finish it in one block, that would also help us to keep the momentum.  
 I did take relatively a lot of notes from the stakeholders that shared their views on the NRIs, also some questions that were not responded.  Maybe I will just take the floor briefly after the lunch to respond to those.
 As you mentioned, we do have very informal -- basically a friendly gathering of the NRIs on some internal matters for the group.  Everyone are invited to stay in this room.  It will be from half past 1:00 to half past 2:00.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Then we have sort of 40 minutes or so left.  Why don't we -- there's an empty queue.  We've put out the discussion on main topics and formats and things.  There's been a little bit of discussion but not robust because either we aren't there at the moment or have exhausted that.
 Let's go to the best practice forums.  If we could just walk through each one of the best practice forums, we had asked the leaders to do literally no more than five minutes and hopefully sort of two or three minutes on what the best practice forum is, the current status.  And then we will ask for suggestions at this point I would say either from the community or other MAG members.  
 The BPFs specifically are driven by the MAG, and I actually think MAG members could be more deeply engaged, more broadly engaged in the BPFs as well.  So this would be an opportunity to start that.  
 Who wants to go first, or shall we go with the order up there?  Ben put his hand and cybersecurity is there first.  So, Ben, you have the floor.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Thank you, Lynn.  So I'm the MAG member who's the co-convener on the BPF on cybersecurity.  We also have another co-convener, Markus Kummer, who is here today.  And we have a lead expert, Martin Van Hornbeck.  He works first at the International Confederation of Computer Instant Response Teams.
 So to give a little bit of background, at our last face-to-face meeting in January, I brought forward a proposal for the BPF to focus this year on exploring best practices which would support the implementation of the Paris call on trust and security in cyberspace.
 The Paris call was actually developed under the auspices of Paris Peace Forum but ended up being launched at the IGF meeting in Paris last year.  It currently has almost 550 signatories.  That comprises 65 governments, over 100 civil society organizations, and over 300 companies.
 The feedback from the MAG when we met in January was that the BPF should cast its net wider and not focus exclusively on the Paris call this year but, of course, lead to relevant international agreements and initiatives.  So we adjusted the proposal accordingly, and it was approved by the MAG at its following virtual meeting in mid February.
 So we've begun work with the first meeting held last month.  The approach we've taken is one that worked well for the BPF last year.  So after discussing a general approach with the BPF, we formed a volunteer group to create a background paper which will help scope out the work and inform the call for inputs that we put out to the community.
 So the background paper is going to identify which agreements, initiatives, and legal frameworks should be the focus of this year's work, looking generally for agreements with multiple signatories and from different stakeholder groups.
 In May, next month, we will put out a public call for contributions and that should remain open until mid July.  Obviously we'll work with the secretariat and our consultant to make sure there's wide engagement and dissemination of this call to try and maximize the input we receive.
 I think we're going to try something which we did last year which was alongside a specific -- an open call to the community in general.  We tried a more specific call to NRIs, and we also -- our lead expert spoke to the NRIs on one of their coordination calls.
 We're hopeful that this year that might help gather some input from NRIs.  We didn't get any last year.  At the very least, it's another way of just raising awareness of what we're doing this year.
 The summer break will then be given over to the drafting of the report by the consultants as well as any further engagement as needed to broaden the input that we have to report.
 And then in September, the best practice forum would be consulted on the draft report as well as discussing what to do with the BPF session that will be held at the annual meeting in Berlin.
 And then we will publish the draft report -- we are aiming to publish a draft report from the 8th of October.  That's six weeks before the Berlin meeting.  The BPF report gets finalized based on any further input received at the annual IGF meeting.
 So the thinking of publishing the draft report six weeks in advance is that it provides time for stakeholders to reflect on the report and to consult colleagues before coming to Berlin.  Particularly, we were thinking of governments where they often, of course, need to consult across departments and get sign-off before being able to provide public input.
 So that's the state of play with the cybersecurity BPF at the moment.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ben, Markus, and Martin.
 Are there any comments, reflections on that BPF in particular?
 While people are thinking, I would like to make just kind of a reflection on the NRIs.  Lots of people look to the NRIs to support their projects or programs or initiatives and they're oversubscribed in volunteer efforts just as all of us are.
 But I think maybe we could think about the NRIs are important both in terms of what they do nationally, locally, and regionally.  But in terms of supporting outreach and engagement, if there are experts or organizations or entities you know of in your country or your region that you think would be interested in the work of a BPF, it could be as simple as making that connection between the two which still is bringing of something a value, a benefit and interest to the NRI while it's obviously supporting a more global effort, which obviously enriches that effort as well.
 So I don't know if there's some work we can do to think about different ways we can expand out from an NRI connection, which is a benefit to the NRIs and a benefit to the global process as well.  
 I don't think -- I think sometimes a formal NRI position or another project within the NRI to pull together things -- (audio difficulty).  And I think there's a lot of value as well in just making the connections in the networking effort.
 (Audio difficulty).
 I really mean I think it's a value of the NRIs -- (audio difficulty).
 >> CONCETTINA CASSA:  Thank you for giving me the floor.
 (indiscernible) Maarten Botterman, dynamic coalition coordinator.  And also Mike (saying name) and me and Alex Caminos (phonetic)
 Last year -- I mean, the BPF actually focused on most of finding best practice to better use their free technologies.  And this year the BPF is still -- (audio difficulty) --  I use together in an Internet context but is trying to focus more on trust and how the technologies can be used to address societal challenges.
 So starting from the charter that has been approved from the MAG, there was a new -- a kind of narrative of an actual theme that has been defined from BPF that is entitled "Announcing Justified Trust in IoT, Big Data, and Other Artificial Intelligence."
 So actually the BPF is in the process of identifying key policy questions to help structure its work.  But we had quite a fruitful discussion during the last virtual meeting.  We focused a lot on trust, trying to identify what are the key factors that impact upon trust like liability, security.  We also discussed a lot about policy and regulation and then dataset quality.
 And more we tried to identify use cases that -- (audio difficulty)
 Another comment is on the NRIs.  Having attended many NRIs around the world one thing that I find useful is to see the different models that are used in -- in different regional meetings to produce outcomes.  In fact, EuroDIG has a very interesting model but also the Asian-Pacific regional IGF does very good work in producing outcomes.  I think that we should learn about it, we should learn from those experiences, and I'm sure that we can take some very good ideas to implement also the global IGF.  It is very important also that there is cross pollination between the regional IGF.  They know about what other are doing in other part of the world.  Thank you.  
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Those things are all on the table, and we have certainly tried different models over the years here too.  So (audio difficulty).
 One final, gender and access.  BPF.  Anybody here who's prepared to speak to that?  Is she here or on the line or -- apparently the individuals that are actually leading or co-leading this are actually out of the room at the moment, so we'll come back to them.  
 What I would like to say again is that the BPFs are chartered by the MAG.  They are a work output of the MAG through the community and with the community, so please, all MAG members should be paying attention to those BPFs and do what you can to support them, to participate in them, or to ensure that you're providing other kind of networks and linkages to their work.  We have been told many, many times that the BPFs are some of the more kind of consequential outputs of the IGF, and I think it's important that we all do what we can to support them.  Maybe then I'll move to the dynamic coalitions.  I'm not sure if that's Jutta or Markus or someone who can speak to?  Both excellent voices.  Jutta.
 >>JUTTA CROLL: Markus, I've spoken a lot today.  Would you like to take over or shall I?
 >> ( Speaker off microphone. )
 >>JUTTA CROLL: Okay.  Thank you for being so kind.  Okay.  So there's not so much new to report about the dynamic coalitions.  We have had, I do think, two calls for dynamic coalitions in the last few weeks.  And we have now, if I'm right, Eleonora, 18 dynamic coalitions since one new has been accepted directly this week.  Would you --
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Hi, Jutta. Thanks.  That is correct, and the new DC is on the sustainability of journalism and the news media with a lot of interesting ideas that I think they're going to bring to the DC discussions.  And we'll be publishing information on that new DC online very shortly so everyone can read about them.
 >>JUTTA CROLL: Thank you for complementing.  So in the call the dynamic coalitions once again stressed that they would like to have the 90-minute slots back on the agenda for the dynamic coalitions and -- the individual dynamic coalitions, and there was also interest in having again a joint session organized by dynamic coalitions.  It's not yet decided what could be the focus of such a main session organized by dynamic coalitions, but there was interest in having it somehow related to the three main themes that we have on the agenda.  And my personal view is that with now 18 dynamic coalitions, this will be a challenging task to bring all of this together under the themes, but this shall be discussed in further calls.  And what we also would like to -- to stress is that it -- dynamic coalitions are really a good -- a good opportunity for people who are coming first time to the IGF community to get engaged with the -- the issues that are dealt with within the dynamic coalitions.  It's -- there is no threshold for any organization or individual to join the dynamic coalition.  It's just once you have joined, of course, you need to support the work of the dynamic coalition.  But it's a very good way to engage in Internet governance, especially for people who start with Internet governance, to make them acquainted with the work of the dynamic coalitions and also anything that's going on in the IGF community.  
 So I would like to encourage people to invite their own networks to have a look at the list of dynamic coalitions and consider which one of the dynamic coalitions is related to the work they are doing and then start to engage with dynamic coalitions.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta.  Markus, I will see if there's anything you want to add because you've been engaged in them for years.  Markus is saying no, he's fine and thanking Jutta for jumping in.  
 I do think one of the things we're going to have to think through a little bit more is, as Jutta said, with 18 dynamic coalitions, we have 114 national, regional, and youth IGF initiatives -- don't be worried, they're not all looking for their own slots -- and Paul's comments earlier about the need to increase the support to the NRIs and their visibility and presence within the IGF ecosystem which, of course, includes the meeting as well.  I think we, need to just think about, are there several different categories of workshop slots and maybe think about what is the usefulness of any output, whether it's an NRI session, a DC session, or workshop session, to what the MAG has said they want to accomplish with any year's particular IGF agenda.  What I don't want to do is have a territorial conversation, X number of slots to this one and X number of slots to that one.  To me that's not appropriate and it's not helpful.  So maybe we need to think about a different way to say what are they contributing to the theme and the agenda we want to accomplish here and use that as an appropriate focus.  I haven't thought that through a lot, but I just -- you know, Jutta's comment triggered it and a few reactions I saw in the room, I have to say, triggered it as well.  So I think we need to think about what's the right kind of set of metrics or filters you want to put on these discussions as we determine who gets what types of slots.  And now I've got Markus to speak.  It wasn't my goal, but I'm always happy to hear him.  Markus, you have the floor.
 >>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, thank you.  Just a quick comment on that to the specific nature of dynamic coalitions.  Their meeting at the IGF is more actually like an annual general meeting.  It's the only opportunity for them to meet physically on a one-on-one basis.  And over the years I think the secretariat has been fairly strict in asserting that they fulfill a certain criteria that their slot is not used just to bypass workshop selection criteria.  Okay, we can't have a workshop so let's form a dynamic coalition, have a jolly good meeting, and we're given a slot automatically.  So that is clear that should not be a way to bypass the very stringent workshop criteria by the MAG.  But the point they also make, they need some time just to do their work, and it's the only opportunity they have to meet.  So there is a value in them having a meeting that allows them to contribute to the broader output of the IGF as a whole.  It's slightly different than all the other meetings.  It's not -- should not be compared to a workshop.  It's more a meeting that facilitates and furthers their own process.  But, of course, the MAG can be -- and if there are more and more dynamic coalition, the MAG may wish to be even more stringent in setting the criteria that allows the dynamic coalitions to qualify for a slot at the meeting itself.  Hence, what you just said, they do say we do need some time just to do our work.  Just to conclude our work.  And that's a point I was trying to make.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Markus.  I'm glad I actually got you to come in on that a little bit because I do think there's some fundamental principles there of us wanting to support the community in their activities.  We also support distributed networks and that sort of thing.  And if we look around various academic studies or activities within the World Economic Forum, by example, everybody's talking about network networks and community processes and things that are spun up from the ground up.  And I think there's a lot of learnings in what makes for a successful set of those activities and what are some of the support requirements they have around them that we could take out of looking at the DCs and identify which ones have been successful, which ones could use something additional.  I don't know what that is.  I mean, I'm sure it's not just time with the IGF.  But I think there could be some useful learnings in that as well.  But thank you for bringing a little bit more context to the discussion.  
 And we have Ben.  Ben Wallis, you have the floor.
 >>BEN WALLIS: Thank you, Lynn.  Just as Jutta's idea of a main session with 18 DCs triggered your thoughts, it also triggered mine.  I have a couple of thoughts.  Markus' comment there about the annual meeting being an opportunity for a kind of AGM of DCs, we have -- I know it's not an unlimited number of rooms but we have a bit more of a luxury of space this year.  I wonder if there might be a room which could be set aside for the DCs to have a meeting together and/or for people to come and talk to DCs and find out what they do.  So that might be something new that we could do with the luxury of the space that we have in the venue.  And give the DCs an opportunity to network, get together, or disseminate their work in a different way.
 In terms of a main session, the main sessions are a finite resource.  I think -- and this goes, I think, also for the NRIs.  Rather than carving off a session, we need to find a way to integrate them in the main sessions, in the discussions we have.  So the themes we have touch on many of the work of the DCs.  There's lots of relevant work in the DCs in the policy issues that we've identified in our themes.  So it shouldn't be difficult to say, when we're looking at inclusion, for example, okay, when we're thinking of speakers, there are one of two DCs that want to come along and talk about what they're doing and how that's relevant to the discussion.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I don't think there's any argument with getting, whether it's DCs or NRIs or, you know, involved in main sessions.  Everybody wants that type of integration.  I think we also need to be thoughtful with respect to what helps them advance their work.  Because their work is critically important, and I think that's another -- another element of discussion we need to have.  I don't see it as an either/or.  I think some people see it as an either/or, but I don't think it needs to be an either/or.  But that's why I think we do need to think carefully about what is it we're trying to do with the overall program, and maybe there are some other ways to think about how we, you know, pull all those pieces together.  We have Nikolis Smith in the cue.
 >>NIKOLIS SMITH: Thank you, Chair.  My name is Nikolis Smith.  I'm actually also one of the organizing members of the newly formed dynamic coalition on DNS issues.  I just wanted to also put in some extra thoughts.  
 I first want to thank Eleonora, Jutta, and Markus for all of their work and their ability to gather us all together on our monthly DC coordination calls.  I find those to be extremely helpful.  It gives us an opportunity to engage with the other DCs and to hear also some of the activities that they have planned for this year and for outputs.
 You know, we have the luxury, I guess, for our DC that I'm here to be present, also Susan Chalmers, being a MAG member as well.  But we have the opportunity to actually give a session about what the DC is trying to accomplish this year as it relates to universal acceptance and UA readiness for IDNs.  We gave a pretty good presentation back in January at the first face-to-face meeting.  
 Some of the other engagements that we have going on throughout the year, and this is something, too, that I also encourage all DCs to do, if they can't come in person to a face-to-face meeting, is also to participate in other engagements throughout the year within the IG space.  For example, the DC, what we're going to be doing is we're working right now with the organizers of SEEDIG and EuroDIG.  We have sessions planned for both of those locations coming up this year.  And we're also in the process of going to be submitting our DC session that we hope to have some very substantive outputs out in Berlin this year in the fall.  So thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Nikolis.  That's a really interesting new, relatively new DC, as well.  As I was saying your name, Nigel Hickson was putting his hand up over there in the corner, so I'm not sure if he thought I was going to say Nigel or if you were looking for the floor, Nigel.
 >>NIGEL HICKSON: No, I wasn't.  Well, I mean, if it's possible.  Thank you.  Nigel Hickson, ICANN.  I just wanted to -- and I'm not really speaking on behalf of a specific dynamic coalition although I'm involved in Maarten Botterman's IoT dynamic coalition.  But I just really wanted to support what Ben said in terms of the possibility of having some sort of way in Berlin but -- and I realize this isn't rocket science or anything like that -- but having some way that you could have representatives of the dynamic coalitions in a room with nameplates, if you like, so people that can't necessarily make the individual sessions that the dynamic coalitions can have can come along and talk to representatives and perhaps sign up or try and understand better what the dynamic coalitions do.  
 So just a sort -- I'm sure other people have better ideas, but it's just a way of -- this doesn't obviously replace the dynamic coalition having a meeting.  It's just a way of being able to reach out to people beyond that particular session.  Thank you very much.
 Just a thought, I'm sure.  A lot of people had better ideas.  It's just a way of -- and this doesn't obviously replace the dynamic coalition having a meeting.  It's just a way of being able to reach out to people beyond that particular session.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Thank you, Nigel.  I think those were all good comments, both as they kind of relate to sort of DC activities, integrating into the program, and a little bit with respect to some of the main sessions.
 I think what we need to do is to ask the DCs -- there's two requests from the DCs and similar requests from the NRIs as well, and that's for some individual sessions and then for a main session.  The difference between a main session and any other workshop session is it's translated or interpreted -- sorry.  It's interpreted.
 That's the main different.  And it's in potentially a larger room, and I'm not even sure that's even true in Berlin at this venue.  And I say that every time because I think we overload the main session a little bit.  
 And if we could have a conversation with the DCs, frankly the same conversation we come to, we think we need a main session on X, I think we need to understand what is X going to accomplish.  What is that main session going to accomplish?  What's the purpose?  And I think there could be several purposes.  It could certainly be advancing the work.  In some purposes, it might be advancing the issue within the community.  In some issues it might be supporting the activity themselves, better supporting the DC activities so they can go do X.  And I think that's potentially a different sort of meeting.
 But I think we need to really ask:  What are you looking for?  What do you need and why?  And not just it's got a label on it so we ought to put it in some other stream.
 We are trying to build a more cohesive, focused program and we want the program to really drive towards more concrete outputs.  It's clear that a lot of the DCs and the NRIs can very much be a part of that particular exercise and at the same time they do have another needs as well.  And I think we need to try to find a way that we can support them so that they can accomplish everything they are looking to.
 But, again, I think maybe the take-away there is that we all be open as we go through this conversation and we continue to focus on the fact that we're looking for a more cohesive, focused agenda that actually drives to more concrete outputs and that we're at the same time respectful of all the work the community does and is looking to do in the background and that we're doing everything we can to support that work happening.
 We have six minutes left.
 Jutta, Jutta, you have the floor.
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  Yes, thank you, Lynn.  I just wanted to pick up on something that we had discussed yesterday in regard of the main sessions, and that was the idea that having the main sessions probably more to the end of the IGF week and then having main sessions based on the three main themes.  So the idea behind that was that the workshops could then feed into these main sessions.  And, of course, dynamic coalition sessions could do so as well:  So I do think that what Ben Wallis said before, that the dynamic coalitions are already related with their work to the main themes, so I do think it will easily turn out that dynamic coalitions have to bring something forward to main sessions if we decide to have main sessions grouped around the three main themes.  That's my two cents to that.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jutta.  Nikolis.
 >>NIKOLIS SMITH:  I would be completely remiss if I did not mention tomorrow we will actually be in this room.  We'll be having our working meeting for the DC -- DC DNSI.  So for those who would like to join, please do so.  Thank you very much.  It's going to be from 1:30 to 2:30.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.
 We have just five minutes left.  When we come back after lunch, we'll start with the national and regional, youth IGF initiatives discussion.  And we have gained a little bit of time but we actually need that for the HLPDC and the other relevant initiatives and organizations' set of discussions towards the end of the day.
 The one item we haven't hit so far this morning was the workshop process review, which was a desire on the part of the MAG to hear from the community with respect to how the workshop submission works and is.  I'm always game for trying to get that conversation started and seeing if we want to do something with it in the next five minutes.  If not, we can try and come back later.  Or we could poll the community separately as well.  
 Again, I'm conscious that there aren't all that many nonMAG members in this particular session.  And, of course, MAG members should not have been submitting workshop proposals.  So your particular perspective would be -- are there any comments from the community or any of the participants either online or in the room with respect to the process?
 We have other opportunities to do the stock-taking as well.  That's always part of the stock-taking later in the process.  It's not just the submission process, it's the entire process and it's the kind of selection of the workshops and organization of the workshops and how that's supported as well that forms part of the stock-taking.
 Maybe we could separately for the working group that worked on the workshop review and evaluation process, I wonder if it would be possible to send a survey or a poll or set something up online while it's fresh in individual's minds just to those people that submitted the proposals.  We'll probably have 300 or 400 I'm guessing from past years.  If there was a way to make it known that there was actually a poll or a survey in terms of what was your impression of the workshop submission process, what could have been more clear, what should be changed, while it's still fresh, that could be frankly a more fruitful way to get some feedback on the process.  Is that something the working group could consider and say it's a good idea or it's a terrible idea?
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  I don't see -- I don't see any volunteers from the working group to answer that question.  To be honest, I'm not sure how much people have just filled in the whole form and waiting for the decision to be made from their proposal, whether they are ready to fill in another survey.  So I'm a little bit reluctant about that.  
 I do see it could be a good idea, but I don't know how many people would really feel they have the time.  And if they feel they need to do that, to get an acceptance of that proposal, that would be a  another survey.  I'm a little bit reluctant about that.  I do see it could be a good idea.  But I don't know how many people would really feel they have the time.  And if they feel they need to do that to get acceptance of that proposal, that would be a complete misleading message.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  That's fair.  I would ask the working group to ask how would you like to get feedback from the community on the workshop process and at what point is a sensible time and a sensible mechanism.  I think there should be a concrete outreach to them.
 With that, we're right on time for lunch.  We'll break here and come back at 3:00.  We do have -- we had another busy session.  So we will come back.  We'll start with the NRIs.  And, in fact, we should have an hour for that discussion which would be a nice point of time and then we'll move to the strategic contributions.  
 So we had requests for about six organizations to make some interventions and then the HLPDC is at 5:00.  So thank you, everybody.  Have a good lunch.
 

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