You are here

Open Consultations-February 2013- Meeting Transcript

Internet Governance Forum Open Consultations
28 February 2013

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

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  We're about to start.  Can we please sit down?
Ladies and gentlemen, can we sit down, please?
Order.  I'm going to start calling out names.
[ Laughter ]
Ladies and gentlemen, can we start the meeting?  We are a bit late as it is.  Can we please be seated?  Need a gavel.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the open consultations.
Thank you very much.  Before we open -- before we start the meeting, I would just like to remind you that we do have transcription and remote participation, so when you make an intervention, can you please make sure that your microphone is on and you say your name and the organization which you represent slowly and then you can go into your intervention.
So before we start, I would like to hand over the floor to Mr. Slav Cherkasov, from UNDESA, who would like to say a few words.
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV: Thank you very much.  Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for honoring Madam Chen (saying name), Director of Department of Economic and Social Affairs of DESA with your meaningful tribute.  The kind generosity of good friends like you has been a great help to all of us during this very difficult time.
Our DESA family, and I would like myself to offer our most sincere thanks for the messages and letters that you sent in the memory of Madam Chen.
Thank you very much for your loving support, and I would like to ask you a minute of silence in her memory.
[ Moment of silence ]
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV: Okay.  Let me continue. 
As you know, the Internet Governance Forum is a multistakeholder forum for policy dialogue related to the Internet governance issue, and it welcomes governments, international organizations, business representatives, the technical community, civil society organizations, and individuals to participate in this event.
On behalf of the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Wu, please allow me to start by welcoming you to all to the 2013 cycle of the open consultations and the MAG meetings on the Internet governance, and also thank you, UNESCO, for hosting this event.
Two thousand- --
As DESA is committed to preserving and improving the core ideas of the IGF and its open, inclusive, and multistakeholder platform.
2012 IGF theme in Baku was determined by MAG as "Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic, and Social Development."  It truly reflected the increased role of the Internet in the evolution of the various development components through the world.
The capacity development opportunities the IGF provides are truly remarkable. 
Let me take this time to thank the MAG and MAG members, which provide extensive leadership and guidance to past and future forums.
I would like to thank also our generous donor community.  Those contributions to the IGF trust fund have enabled us to engage in capacity-building programs such as the IGF fellowship program.
The fund also provides support for 11 MAG members from developing countries who are attending this event as well.
I invite everyone present here, either in person or remotely, to actively take part in the -- all discussions regarding the themes and substantive structure of the 2013 IGF that is going to be supported and hosted by the Government of Indonesia. 
It's up to all of us to contribute to the sustainable development of the world we are living in.  Let us also use this opportunity to discuss follow-up activities and recommendations in the implementation of the action plan of the World Summit on the Information Society, WSIS, and in the context of the consultative process of the post-2015 development framework. 
Thank you very much. 
Okay.  And now I would like to give the floor to the honorary chair of the MAG meeting, the representative of the Government of Indonesia.
>>INDONESIA:  Thank you.  Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
My name is Ashwin Sasoneko from Indonesia. 
First of all, I would like to express a most warm welcome to all of you in Paris for participating in this first Internet Governance Forum open consultations and MAG meeting, the preparation process of the eighth IGF meeting 2013. 
As mentioned before, it's planned to be held in Bali, Indonesia, this year.
Also on behalf of the entire community, I would like to express our gratitude to the success of the Republic of Azerbaijan for hosting the seventh IGF meeting in 2012 last year.
Let me also take this opportunity to thank the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and IGF Secretariat for the excellent arrangement and organization of this IGF open consultation and MAG meeting.
It is, of course, a great honor for me to chair this meeting, together with the interim chair, Mr. Markus Kummer.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have made some progress on promoting the Development Agenda in IGF, but we think more has to be done in order to make the Internet play a very important role in promoting the human, economic, and social development in a secure and safe global cyberspace. 
Therefore, given the fact that ICDS is developing so fast -- most of the time faster than the development of the legal aspects and the community readiness -- then we need to act fast as well to set up new strategies to ensure the positive development of cyberspace at a national, regional, and international level.
The agenda of this meeting today is very important.  It has to be our priority to shape a fair agenda for the next IGF that will be attractive to all stakeholders and continue to ensure that the IGF meeting is productive and meaningful by addressing the key challenges that face all interested stakeholders into this world.
The expected outcome of all our effort should lead to a more productive Internet world and at the same time minimizing all negative impacts.
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, both the positive and negative impacts of the Internet have been discussed on many occasions, including the last three days of our WSIS meeting.
Last December, during the World Conference of International Communication, WCIT, of ITU in Dubai, this has been discussed intensively and the result, of course, can be seen at the new International (indiscernible) Regulation of the ITU.  Even the ITU itself even set up a global security agenda, as well as promoting children online protection globally.
As we are discussing today, many aspects of the Internet during WSIS, our colleagues in U.N. OECD meeting in Vienna -- this is their first meeting -- have been discussing also the way to protect the people, the IP system.  Basically all aspects relating to the Internet safety, including international cooperation for cyber-legislations and so on.
Many aspects of the Internet will also be discussed in many other meetings. 
In the next meeting of ICANN in Beijing in April. 
Also the cross-border data privacy will also be one of the main issues in the next meeting of (indiscernible) group of APIC in Indonesia. 
At the end of this year, WTO will also discuss e-commerce aspects of the Internet and there are still many other discussions in many other meetings regarding the Internet development. 
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, realizing that there are so many aspects in the Internet, some of them are even very crucial, as well as very sensitive, I believe the next IGF meeting, where hopefully all of these aspects will be discussed comprehensively.  It is very important to the meeting that we can set up the agenda in shaping the global Internet in the near future.
For further discussion of the agenda, as well as the detailed program of the next IGF, I hereby hand the discussion process to the interim chairman, Mr. Kummer.  Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  It is a great honor for me to co-chair this meeting with Director General Sasoneko, and I think this comes at an important juncture.  As you rightly pointed out, we have seen at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai that there were a number of concerns voiced by developing countries, and the IGF could indeed be a forum to address these concerns.
The secretariat has prepared an agenda for this meeting, and I would like to recall the agenda and the identified purpose and desired main occupants.
First and foremost, I think we are called upon to discuss what could be the theme for the meeting, and in the discussions leading up to this meeting there were two different approaches.  Either we decide on the theme now or we wait a little bit and we do it in a more bottom-up fashion after workshop proposals have emerged so we can see what is actually of interest to the community.
So this is a decision we have to take:  How do we want to proceed with identifying the theme for the next IGF meeting.
Also, the selection of workshops is an issue that always comes up again, and the secretariat has said it would be nice to have clear and easily understood workshop selection criteria.
Also, in the contributions, there are a lot of talks about the number of main sessions, how long they should be and what format they should take. 
And then the overall number of workshops.  Again, their duration and connection to the themes and connection to the main sessions.
We have had contributions.  They're all posted on the Web site, and the secretariat has prepared a synthesis paper and I will ask Chengetai to sum up the contributions we have received.
Please, Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Markus.  I'll just give a brief summary of the synthesis paper.  As we go along during the day, I will give a more detailed summary according to the topics that are going to be discussed then so that we don't have everything now.
[ Audio interference.  Please mute ]
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: So the secretariat called for contributions taking stock of the Baku meeting and also looking forward to the 2013 IGF meeting.
We received a total of 15 written contributions and also we received some suggestions on the IGF Web site discussion board on the main themes and subthemes for IGF 2013.
All of these inputs can be found in their entirety on the IGF Web site.  Some contributions focus on evaluating the Baku meeting while others concentrated on their recommendations for the 2013 meeting.
Many expressed gratitude for the Government of Azerbaijan for their successful hosting of the seventh IGF meeting.  The seventh IGF meeting was praised for continuing the IGF's tradition of successfully bringing together an extensive range of leaders from the many communities interested in Internet governance and providing a truly unique opportunity to have an open discussion on a wide range of issues.
Contributions stress the need for improvements in 2013 in the following areas: 
Main sessions.  Participants should increase, focus should be narrowed, and panelists should be diversified.  These are just the general comments.
Workshops.  The amount of workshops should be reconsidered, workshop selection should be made more stringent, and workshop outcomes should be improved.
For the other sessions, the other sessions should receive increased attention and emphasis.
For participation, they need to improve participation from developing countries, women, youth, et cetera.
Requirements.  This requires an increase in outreach and participant funding options.
Capacity-building activities during the IGF meetings should be increased and social media use should be increased.
For local issues such as -- there were comments on the local issues such as Internet connectivity, venue location, the layout, food and drink, and also coffee.  It was stressed that it's important and should be made available.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We have taken all of that into consideration planning the 2013 meeting.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  As I said, these are just the -- a short briefing and I'll discuss in more finer detail the requirements under the specific headers that Markus will...
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Okay.  Thank you, Chengetai, for this.
Now, a question.
How do we proceed?  I wonder whether there are any sort of more general statements or do we dive right into the substance?  In the past, there were quite a few more general statements so I would leave that opportunity open.
At the outset, I would suggest not diving too much into the logistics.  The logistics is very much something between the U.N. and the host country.  The U.N. has very clear criteria, but the U.N. cannot impose the way how to do it to a host country as long as it is within reason.
We have taken note of some of the comments.  Clearly, I think there's a strong preference to have the venue of the meeting not too far away, but the U.N. cannot impose that to a host country because many, many U.N. conferences are held in that fashion, and that's -- as long as it is up to U.N. standards, that has to be accepted.
The same thing, Internet, yes, we do understand it is important, but it is not easy, and big organizations like the IGF, ICANN, have also found it not always that easy, but what they now usually do is they hire a specialized company.  This is not resource-neutral.  This costs quite a lot of money.  But the secretariat can rely on advice from highly qualified engineers who have gained experience in advising host countries.  You know, Patrik Faltstrom, many of you know him, he has a lot of experience in doing that, but things can happen.  It's not -- cannot -- you can never guarantee that it works perfectly, but we are fully aware that this is an important issue.
And, and, and, and I think the U.N. always asks the organizer to make sure that there's quick and cheap food available, including coffee, but again, it is the host country that has to organize this.  Free food is not a criteria.  It's not required for the host country.  Nobody will ask you to provide free food.  But sometimes host countries are generous and do provide it.
So to cut a long story short, I would suggest not diving into these logistics issues.  We have taken note of your preferences and I'm sure the host country has also listened.
Indonesia has a long experience in organizing international meetings, and I'm sure we're in safe hands.
So who would like to take the floor?  Yes, Parminder.
>>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  I'm Parminder from an NGO, IT for Change, and I thought I would take this initial opportunity, because it's probably a high-level issue which I wanted to make -- actually ask a question on.
I would like to know what is the status of the report of the working group on improvements to the IGF, because this report was presented quite a long time back and has now been confirmed by the U.N. General Assembly, and in my understanding, the chief actor or at least one of the chief actors to implement it is the MAG, and whether there is a program to do that, whether there is a timetable, or whether the consultation is going to be involved about how to go ahead about it.  So I just wanted clarifications on that.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  The United Nations General Assembly has taken note of the report and now collectively we are supposed to take that into account when planning the next meeting and it is also on the agenda. 
Chengetai, would you like to comment?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.  It has been approved the working group report is part of the input into this meeting.  If you will check on our Web site, it is written there.  And it also has been integrated into our agenda, and we are taking the point given there as if they were general inputs from people coming in.  So we are taking particular attention to the working group report.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Did you want to continue, Parminder?  I see the United States of America has asked for the floor.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much.  Good morning, everybody. 
The United States would like to reiterate its full support for the Internet Governance Forum, and we believe the IGF is the epitome of the multi-stakeholder processes that have made the Internet an engine of economic growth and innovation.  I don't need to tell that to this audience.  I felt it necessary. 
It provides the premiere opportunity for governments, industry, civil society, technical community to address Internet issues in a broad, creative, and collaborative manner. 
U.S. would also like to congratulate Azerbaijan, the IGF secretariat, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group and the stakeholder participants for a successful IGF in 2012 that continue to build the impressive record for discussion and dialogue in the information society. 
We thank Indonesia for taking on that important task and hosting all the stakeholders in Bali later this year.
Our observation is that the discussion matures each year and the dialogue deepens, taking advantage of the opportunity of the annual IGF as well as the national and regional IGFs for the discussion to be candid and timely.
We would also note with appreciation that contributions of governments, industry, technical communities, civil societies, alike to the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF.  We support effort to improve the IGF while preserving a multistakeholder format on which it depends and the absence of negotiated outputs. 
We particularly want to highlight the recommendations that can be implemented in the lead-up up to Bali including improving the visibility of the IGF and all stakeholder groups and around the globe.  Strengthening the secretariat, including its funding, acknowledging the contributions of the host countries for their effort in the significant undertaking it is to host the IGF as well as the stakeholders for their active participation and input and improving the participation in the IGF and its preparatory process especially from developing countries.
With everybody, we look forward to discussing themes and subthemes that will make for a dynamic and thought-provoking forum in 2013.  Cross-cutting issues are inevitable, and we encourage the accommodation of those cross-cutting issues and questions and workshops.
In her remarks with the UNESCO WSIS+10 review meeting earlier this week, the Assistant Secretary of State Esther Brimmer noted that WSIS is a social issue, a human rights issue and, quote, it is an economic issue as an open, reliable, and trusted Internet sparks greater ability to leverage its benefits and greater efforts in innovation.
So in that vein, and for your consideration, we suggest addressing science and technology for development, S&T4D, if you will, and its contribution to economic growth perhaps as a cross-cutting or subtheme.  But we look forward to the discussion today and ongoing preparation for IGF Bali.
Just on a personal note, of course, it is wonderful to be here again and to be here as a government representative this time.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  Brazil.
>>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I would like to take this opportunity as well to thank the organizers of this meeting for convening this meeting.  I think it is very important to start good preparation for the Bali meeting. 
I would like to reaffirm Brazil's full support for the work of IGF.  We think IGF can present a unique contribution to this process.  We are engaged in the review of the WSIS implementation.  We think in that regard it is very important that we have already highlighted, Mr. Chair, in the reaction to a question that was put forward before, that in Bali, we are already looking at implementing the recommendations that were contained the working group on improvements report.  We think it is very important that we start implementing at a very early stage and I am very glad to see the invitation is to take place in Bali.
We concur with science and technology development should be one of the themes.  We would be very glad to look into and give more emphasis to this theme in the IGF work. 
And last, but not least, again I'd like to just in this forum to inform delegates that Brazil has put forward its ability to host IGF in 2015.  We are, of course, waiting for a final decision on this matter, but this is something that we would be very glad if we could again host the meeting in this very important year in which it would be a wrap-up of the second phase of IGF.  Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you for your intervention.  We look forward speaking for all participants to coming back to Brazil in 2015. 
ICC/BASIS, you asked for the floor?  No?
Okay.  Are there no more general statements?  Then we can dive straight into the agenda and basically issue Number 1 on the agenda, the secretariat has published to discuss the main themes and subthemes of the IGF 2013.  Science and technology for development has been mentioned as maybe a cross-cutting theme, and I think that has the merit of linking the IGF actually closer to the CSTD.
But before -- we have also in the synthesis paper various themes have been listed that have been proposed.  But I think there is a binary decision we have to take before we go into the substance.  Do we want to take a decision now, or do we want to take it in light of the workshop proposals when we see in May what are the themes that are proposed from the community in a bottom-up fashion?  There is a merit to both approaches.  If we decide on a theme now, it would guide people who are thinking of proposing a workshop, going in one direction.  If we wait, then we would, I think, act in a true democratic, bottom-up fashion and we would then decide on the theme in May in the light of all the workshop proposals.
Comments on which approach to choose?  Yes, Martin?
>> NOMINET:  Martin Boyle from Nominet.  I, like you, have got very little preference between whether we set a theme now or whether we do it in the light of proposals.  But I still think it would be particularly helpful to those who are developing proposals to have an idea of the direction traveled of what it is seen as being at least general themes in which we could or should be developing.
And, in particular, for me one of the things that has come out from in particular the WCIT discussions before Christmas is that we should be trying to put a bit more of a practical spin, a practical outcome, a practical thinking, conclusions that come out that can then contribute to help people make the decisions that they will then subsequently make.
So if we choose later, I would still like to get down on to the record that we should be trying to get some practical support and activity and help for people who have to then make decisions.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you for that.
ICC/BASIS, Ayesha.
>>ICC-BASIS: Thank you, Ayesha Hassan for ICC/BASIS.  I think it would be helpful for us to collect the ideas at this consultation and see what kinds of subthemes and main themes people are focused on for this year.
I share Nominet's input regarding a focus on practical outputs or take-aways, et cetera.  I think if we can collect some ideas here today, we may be in a position to shape an overarching theme which in some ways would be able to promote the IGF in Bali earlier, given in past years the host country has benefited from having an overarching theme to start promotional materials on the Web site, et cetera.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  And listening to both of you, I think -- oh, yes, Norbert.
>> INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS:  Norbert Bellow from the civil society Internet Governance Caucus.  Speaking about whether we should fix the theme now or later, this is not a question that we have had a chance to ponder really. 
One thing I would note, though, there is a great value in having integrity in the sense of the theme that is officially announced actually fitting what is going on at the IGF meeting.  I would -- trying to be not too politically incorrect -- still say that Internet governance for sustainable development in the various aspects that were mentioned at the last IGF theme is a wonderful theme.  But what was actually accomplished at the IGF did not actually match that wonderful theme.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  Anriette.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I was one of the MAG members who had proposed the idea of developing the main theme afterwards.  There are definitely different ways of doing it.  Possibly this year, it is too late. 
But the reason why that occurred to me as a more appropriate way of doing it was because we spent approximately 1 1/2 days at last year's MAG meeting arguing about what the main theme should be because the issue becomes very politicized. 
So, in fact, what the MAG then does is to spend time on trying to achieve consensus on what the main theme should be rather than really trying to understand and absorb and process what the IGF community expresses as its priority.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  Lee, please?
>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe.  Just one pragmatic point to jump on Ayesha said earlier about taking stock really.  There is a lot of things that are being discussed now.  I used the example of, for example, two weeks ago in Vienna, there was an ROC meeting on Internet 2013 on issues.  There was lots of events that happen throughout the year which have a foreign policy dimension to them. 
The European Dialogue on Internet Governance, the EuroDIG, for example, has already started its planning process.  We already have a draft outlined to be discussed.  It's open.
So I think it is very important that we try to take stock of what's already been discussed.  I would really appreciate some information collected together about what national IGFs are thinking about if they had meetings and these sorts of things. So taking stock points now would be very helpful. 
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Izumi and then Marilyn.
>> IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you very much.  Izumi Aizu, a member of (saying name) and from the civil society.  I would like to integrate the workshop proposals with main themes in a substantial manner.  However, given the time this year, it is slightly earlier than last year's one, we may need to conclude early. 
So what I would like to see is some kind of discussion today not spending too much time and taking some kind of temperature or the preferences of the defined stakeholders and maybe we try to come up with some tools online used to narrow down to choose from, say, some of the major candidate themes.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, my name is Marilyn Cade.  I would like to support some of the comments I'm hearing about the importance of sort of generally taking stock of the options and the -- maybe the driving concepts that are coming out. 
I serve as the chief catalyst for the IGF USA and certainly one of the things that has always been very helpful to us as an initiative has been being able to feed into and benefit from the IGF.  It would be extremely helpful, I think, to the national and regional IGF initiatives to have a general understanding of the direction of the theme and subthemes will go in.
Of course, they reflect both national and regional perspectives and won't be completely dedicated to that.  But I think it helps us to support the bottom-up input process as well.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  And I'm tempted to say the other way around would equally helpful, that those are here that organize national and regional meetings, what is issues of concern to them.
But I think listening to the various statements, it doesn't seem to be an either/or question.  It is rather a hybrid that seems to be an emerging consensus, that we don't need to agree right now on what is the main theme but that we listen a bit and see which direction it could take and then we finalize that at the next meeting.
Raul, please?
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  In Latin America, we usually organize regional preparatory IGF meetings at the end of August or more or less sometime in then.  Usually they are made with meetings here in the room.  There are a lot of people involved in the organizations involved in those meetings.
But I think that's -- organizing the meetings in that part of the year, it is good for the regional purposes, but it is not enough good in order to influence the agenda and the main topics of the local IGF.  Probably we could encourage the people who organize these kind of meetings around the world to do that early in the year in order to produce recommendations that could be taken in consideration by the MAG and the organizers and probably at the time of the May meeting every year.  That's an idea that came to my mind now.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you for that suggestion.  I think that's also in line what others have said, that we maybe ought to revisit the whole planning process maybe to make it more organic.
Adam, yes, please.
>> ADAM PEAKE:  Adam Peake, GLOCOM.  I was wondering if we could hear the proposals that have been coming in from the different stakeholders that have been staying on this issue.  And then perhaps just take it to the MAG tomorrow where they might give a very brief bit of thought to this, responding to those proposals as they have been submitted, and put it in the program paper as a general outline of this is what was generally suggested and take it for a comment to come back in May.  And then the program paper would give some general direction to people.  Yet, we wouldn't have to worry about wordsmithing, which is Anriette has noted.  It can go on for a very, very long time.  It is a hybrid approach listening to what people have said in consultation and then asking for more thought later.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Yes, I will ask Chengetai to read out the proposals that have been made.  I mean, what I heard today was also to have a more hands-on practical approach that was, I think, Martin and Ayesha.  And I myself was struck when in Dubai that all of a sudden spam became an enormous issue.  And in the IGF context, we dealt with spam back in Athens in 2006, and it fell off the table.  Obviously, the people that were in Athens were not the people in Dubai.  And it may well be worth revisiting an issue like spam which may not be the top concern of people assembled here in this room, that we have to take into account that there are people out there who consider this a major issue.
Chengetai, please read out the proposals we received.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Markus.
Proposals for the main themes received were Internet governance for openness, sharing and improving the lives of all humanity; human rights and the implications for Internet governance; public interest principles for the Internet; shaping global principles for the Internet; new service-oriented approach in the world based on the Internet of services and Internet of things. 
The most popular proposals or possible subthemes included issues pertaining to human rights and principles, human rights, enhanced cooperation and Internet for kids.  The report of the working group on improvements to the IGF recommended that a set of policy questions should guide the discussions and debates in the main sessions and throughout the annual IGF meetings with a goal to then report the outcomes of such debates by stating clearly the convergent and divergent views and opinions on the guiding questions.
Some contributors gave suggestions on possible policy questions that could be considered.  How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of the global Internet?  And what should be the mechanisms and institutions involved in this process?
What kind of general Internet principles or principles for Internet governance can frame relatively coordinated and harmonious policy responses to key global Internet-related issues that impact global public interest; how to maintain the principles referring to -- referred to by some as net neutrality; that the price which an ISP charges their customer for exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the content of the data packets nor shall it depend on the party with whom the packets are exchanged. 
How shall key architectural principles of best-effort service for all user traffic in the global Internet be preserved?  That's the end of the principles.
And then all proposals on main themes and subthemes are listed in the synthesis paper, so are the proposals for the main themes or subthemes -- oh, sorry.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you for that.  Some of it went already into the main session.  I think right now we are still at the higher level of main themes. 
What I heard this morning, I think in both the interventions of Brazil and the U.S. were science and technology also for development, which I think is interesting insofar it links the IGF maybe closer to the work of the commission of Science and Technology for Development and the economic growth, the Internet as an engine for growth and innovation.  This is also something that was mentioned. 
I think at least I sense there is a general agreement that it makes much sense to listen a bit which direction we could go without taking a final decision so that we have a sense of direction.
Indonesia, please.
>>INDONESIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'm Djoko from Indonesia, on behalf of Indonesia delegation.  It is also a multistakeholder of government sector and civil society. 
We proposed some keywords that maybe could -- would be formulated in IGF main theme such as development, Internet (indiscernible), multistakeholder, cyber society and (indiscernible) cyberspace.  We are also offering some of the main themes (indiscernible) that will be used in the next IGF as follows:  Internet governance multistakeholders, two words, information society through participation. 
The reason behind this, the multistakeholder participation in the process of Internet governance requires a brief review of the concept of governance itself.  Governance can be understood as the formation and operation of the joint rule of the game, which define actors and their responsibilities in the collaboration to work toward common goals and in resolving any disputes that arise.
Government arrangements are open translated into a partnership between (indiscernible) and (indiscernible) actors.
Secondly is Internet governance (indiscernible) to the achievement of the millennium of the development goals.  This issue of the MDG is to be the benchmark of all the countries involved in the Internet Governance Forum.  This issue is particularly refined because in the near future, there will be an evaluation to see the achievement of the MDGs throughout the world.
And the third theme is Internet governance to achieve sustainable development through people participation.
And the last -- the fourth theme is Internet governance for sustainable development through safe and secure cyberspace.  Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Yes, please.
>> MARY ANN FRANKLIN:  My name is Mary Ann Franklin.  I'm speaking on me behalf of Internet Rights and Principles Coalition.  While we are talking about substantive themes, I would like to read just a brief -- an abbreviated version of the statement we sent in because we believe strongly that this next IGF needs to be talking about substantive outcomes.  So if I may turn to my screen for a minute.
We think this would be a very worthwhile approach to be focusing on what needs to be done rather than on who will do it and which -- so that gets us out of constant discussions over a day a half as Anriette pointed out. 
We think it would be worthwhile to focus on developing a kind of Internet principles or principles for Internet governance as touchstones -- these are general terms we are proposing -- that can guide global Internet governance to help take away required public interest policies and other activities in this area.
It will also give us important leads on what kind of institutional framework best suit a global agreement on Internet governance.  And we think and we hear and we can see quite visibly this is the hot topic coming up to WSIS in 2015.
We also note in our statement that in Vilnius 2010, this was made clear by the Chair's report.  We also noted in the statement that Brazil has been leading the way with truly multistakeholder process by which principles can be moved forward into legal terms. 
And it is time for the IGF to have the courage of its conviction and have a theme that can include principles as a touchstone that can allow also subthemes for people to explore these particular priorities and interests.
So in that sense, I would just finish now to say that we propose, as I have just said, the overall theme of Bali be Internet principles.  Possible overall themes being put forward also public principles or shaping global principles for the Internet because we know that titles are important.  We would like to make that very clear now.  Principles for the Internet.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  You rightly pointed out there is a tradition in the IGF to have this discussion.  We have that in Vilnius, also last year in Baku.  A session of taking stock had a strong segment on principles.
I see APC and Norbert again, APC, please.
>> APC:  Good morning, my name is Chat Garcia Ramilo from APC.  We just want to make a few contributions to this topic. 
A general point on the IGF improvements, APC proposes that an implementation form is formed to facilitate and support implementation of the recommendations of the CSTD working group on IGF improvements. 
Such a group can be made up of a combination of MAG members and volunteers from the IGF community.  An ideal number would be around 10 people.
With regards to themes, we suggest there is flexibility in terms of main session themes.  Some of the traditional themes are necessary such as emerging issues and taking stock.  But other themes can change from year-to-year based on priorities that the IGF addresses. 
In this light, we propose that the IGF in 2013 focuses on the following themes.  We leave it to the MAG to decide whether this should be dealt through main themes or roundtables but we do believe it would be useful to use the entire last day of the IGF as synthesizing the discussion that took place at workshops. 
The following themes for the IGF 2013, or topics, I should say, number one, enhanced cooperation, support the input from Brazil.  The IGF can complement the efforts of the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation.
Number two, human rights.  The APC proposes that human rights become one of the main themes of the IGF.  This seems to be a natural step forward considering the prominence of human rights at the IGF, so supporting the input just now. 
It will facilitate a substantive continuation of the debate, particularly around diverse ways in which the technical and policy decisions surrounding Internet governance contend with human rights. 
The MAG and workshop organizers should intend to include new human rights issues areas such as anonymity and less talked about rights such as LGBTIQ rights. 
Approaching issues such as network neutrality, affordable access, public access and accessibility are also part of the rights we support. 
Thirdly, Internet governance principles.  APC supports a decision put forward by the Internet rights and principles coalition that the IGF should provide a space for establishing whether there is consensus on what principles should underpin public interest Internet policy and policymaking processes.
Many institutions are framing their principles, such as the Council of Europe and the OECD.  At the national level, governments are establishing principles that can be used to frame national policymaking.
What the naming of these principles are, how they will be applied, and how they relate to existing global agreements and standards is still not clear.  We, therefore, support the proposal that IGF 2013 addresses these topics in more depth than previous IGFs have done and that public interest principles for the Internet or shaping global principles for Internet governance be considered as main themes.
Fourth, how to deal with spam and malware.
There's an area where capacity-building, best practice, and policy issues can be dealt with.
And finally, to outcome or to not.
[ Laughter ]
APC believes it is a discussion that should be put to bed.  When MAG members debate whether the IGF should produce outcomes or not, it isn't doing just that.  Outcomes are emerging in multiple ways, in the form of follow-up events, better understanding of stakeholder groups' concerns, informal negotiations of positions in upcoming policy processes, brainstorm solutions for difficult policy problems, suggestions for research and capacity-building programs, statements from presidents and so on.
These are not negotiated agreements but they might eventually lead to such agreements. 
The more interesting question is how these outcomes should be captured and communicated.
This is a task the MAG must take seriously.
These are not negotiated agreements but they might very well inform such agreements in the future.
Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  What is the order?  I think Norbert is next, and then we have Martin from Nominet, India, and Brazil.
Okay.  Quite a number of speakers.  Norbert, please.
>>NORBERT BOLLOW: Thank you. 
Again, Norbert Bollow for the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 
The intervention from the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition resonates very strongly with what we have in mind, as we have put forward not only a general theme as it was read, "Human Rights and Their Implications for Internet Governance," which we suggested at the main theme, but we also suggest some subthemes, which are "Effective Participation of All Stakeholders in Internet Governance" and "Internet Rights and Principles" and "Internet for Kids," which we suggest as overall subthemes.
And I would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at the IGF, especially in recent years, of emphasizing human rights, and it would be very valuable to take that forward in an even more outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented and moving it from the "talking about it" to "actually getting it done" stage, and I would very much appreciate if the program for the IGF specifically encourages this kind of practical side to it to move the IGF from being very much a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical policy impact.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  Before continuing the discussion, we were told by the interpreters to speak a little bit slower, especially when reading something, and also, after speaking, not to forget to turn the microphone off.
Now we have already moved in many ways forward from the subthemes into how to do it, but this is all relevant to the discussion.  We have still quite a number of speakers.
I think Martin is next, then India, Brazil, ICC/BASIS, Robert Guerra, Bertrand, and Andrea.  Okay. 
>>NOMINET:  Thank you, Chair, and we've heard a lot of issues being raised around the table, and I must admit I agree with the relevance and the importance of an awful lot of the subjects that have been raised.
I thought it might be useful to -- as somebody suggested, that we should take input from national and regional IGFs, to say something about some very preliminary thinking that we've done in the U.K. about -- about issues. 
And one of the things that interested me about that exercise was that we came up with quite a lot of consensus on just a few topics.
The topics included cybersecurity, but very firmly put in the framework of human rights, and this came up in a lot of our discussions:  Human rights not being seen stand-alone, bolt-on, extra, or sitting in its own little group talking about human rights issues, but to try and bring the understanding of human rights, of privacy, of freedom of expression into discussions on other topics.  And doing that on cybersecurity was a very, very big and important area for doing this.  And of course cybersecurity is a massively large subject.
We also identified doing -- trying to do some convergence, trying to understand better the principles in which we work, was again seen as something that was worth doing.  But again, I think that this is seen very much as providing a base, a starting point, for further deliberations on other issues, to give ourselves a better understanding of where we're going, and certainly if we look at practical outcomes, practical thinking, helping people make decisions, then starting off with principles is a very important thing to do.
And then of course we had youth engagement and things like identity management and building trust.
So I've run through those last ones very quickly.  I'm sure they'll come up again in more detail.
But where that then led me for thinking about where we should go as the -- an overarching theme, and I think somebody -- and I forget now who -- suggested that the overarching theme could well be "The Internet as an Engine for Growth," for me that seemed to be encapsulating an awful lot of discussion that we had had in the U.K. as being, "Well, you know, that's where we would like to get to so long as we understand these other issues, these other themes that feed into doing that."
I liked the idea that the U.S. came up with for "Science and Technology for Development" as a subtheme -- sorry, as the main theme, but I don't see that as being out of step with "The Internet as an Engine for Growth," and, so in fact, I wonder whether we could go for something like "The Internet as an Engine for Growth," and then a second line of "Science and Technology for Development," and whether that gives us a good framework in which to build in a lot of the rather more detailed work that contributes to achieving that.  Thank you, chair.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you for that.
India?  Tulika, please.
>>INDIA:  Thank you, chair.  This is Tulika Pandy from the Government of India.
First of all, having taken the chair -- the mic, yes, I just would like to extend our thanks and -- to the Government of Azerbaijan for hosting the seventh IGF, and to congratulate the Government of Indonesia for being our next host.
I would like to just touch upon a small point, and that is, I would like to express support for the idea from the Government of the U.S. and Brazil for "Science and Technology for Development," and then to slightly suggest a little change to say "Science and Technology in Internet," to make it a little more focused, because that may help many people to join in.
Secondly, the idea to bring in science and technology as the cross-cutting, overarching theme may be a little early, and my minister has proposed a theme in the IGF Baku.  There he has mentioned the theme of "Transforming the Internet to Econet," and I would like to repropose the same for consideration for this next IGF.
And then in the end, to suggest whether the -- two issues which are very important to India, too, the issue of science and technology in the Internet, the issue of Internet principles, and the issue of enhanced cooperation -- whether they could be considered as main themes for the eighth IGF.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you very much.  Brazil?
[ Audio interference, please mute ]
>>BRAZIL:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Regarding the themes that are being suggested, Brazil certainly agrees that the issue of international Internet governance principles would be an interesting discussion to take place in the IGF, as it has been one of the themes of the workshops that we have here in this -- in the meeting that ended yesterday and we think there is a great road that is open for the discussion of this issue and the IGF is certainly a place where it could be discussed.
We concur with the suggestion from our colleague from India, but I understand that her suggestion does not delete the word "the government" from the --
[ Audio interference, please mute ]
>>BRAZIL: -- science and technology Internet for development, which I think is a very important -- the word "development" is a very important qualification for the debate that we want to -- to have.
There's another point that I would like to raise, not exactly a theme, but I concur with the colleagues that spoke before me on the -- on the value that the -- the discussions that we are having here today and tomorrow on defining the issues and the themes for the global IGF, the value that these decisions will have for the national processes, the national IGFs and the local -- the regional IGFs that could benefit from this sort of delineation of issues that would be also a guide for the organization of these national and regional IGFs as deemed appropriate.
But we would like to raise the opposite point.  I mean, I think the -- it would benefit if we also took a look and thought on spaces in the global IGF where the regional and the maybe national IGFs, as considered appropriate, could sort of have a venue where to summarize and also to offer their perspectives that the process that they had regionally and nationally to the global IGF.
I think it's the case of many countries, and it certainly is the case in Brazil, that we would like to have all the processes in a more organic manner.  I mean, the national IGFs, the regional IGFs, and the global IGFs.  And then if we had this two-way approach, I mean, the local and regional benefitting from the delineation of things that are decided here, and on the other hand, having a space in the global IGF to express their views and their conclusions and so on.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  I think this is also an agenda item on how to create these better linkages for -- I mean, we have already touched on elements of overall organization, outcome, and so these are important elements but we definitely will revisit them, and I suggest maybe now closing the list of speakers on the main theme issue.  I still have a fairly long list on that, so -- but I mean the MAG can also revisit that, but I think there is an agreement that we don't need to decide on this now, and there are some strong statements coming out, principles I hear that -- by many speakers.  Also the economic aspect, science and technology for development, that don't necessarily make up -- it's not the overall theme, but they are here and I think they will guide the direction.
Human rights has also been mentioned, so -- and cybersecurity has been mentioned, and there is an overall, I think, also general thrust that we should think a little bit more about having hands-on sessions that provide practical guidance. 
Spam and malware, for instance, was mentioned as best practices.  And also document outcome. 
But this will take us further in the discussion and I would now go back to my list of speakers.
>> Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  I have ICC/BASIS, Robert Guerra, Bertrand de la Chapelle, Andrea Becalli from IFLA, European Commission, U.S., Mary, Finland, Council of Europe. 
Is there anybody else who would desperately like to add something?  Yes, I can see Canada. 
And with that, can we close the list on -- U.S.  Yes, yes.  Sorry.  I have you down.  I did not read you out.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  And yes, PayPal, Bill Smith, okay.  And -- yes.  Mathew Shears, yeah.  Okay.
All right.
>>ICC/BASIS:  Thank you very much.  We support the prior comments about perhaps framing the main theme in terms of the Internet for development and growth, and we feel like this can be used as an umbrella-type concept to wrap in a lot of the discussion this morning.
We really feel like the IGF has a unique ability to talk about the Internet as a fundamental catalyst and engine for transforming economies and for transforming societies, and that can be a nice linkage of all the different things that we've heard today.
One point that we wanted to emphasize is, sometimes the IGF is always looking around the corner at the next issue, but we think it's extremely important when we look around at the broader landscape that the IGF tackle the fundamental issues of investment, infrastructure, deployment, the practical issues of how countries and how societies are going to deploy the Internet and get access to the Internet in the first place.
Secondly, to take on some of the issues around security and the practical issues of operating the Internet and making it safe and secure.  And third, dealing with the transformational impact, as others have mentioned, that the Internet and other science and technology can make on society. 
We think that can be wrapped into both economic growth, responsible social development, as well as the human rights issues that we heard today.
The Internet has a transformational effect on all fronts, and what we are urging is that there be a balanced approach to this IGF that really incorporates the unique breadth that the IGF has to offer in assessing a global view on both these fundamental aspects of deploying the Internet, as well as dealing with the practical concerns with operating it, and then finally the -- the important social impacts that the Internet has on society.
And we look around at the landscape and think that the IGF has to both assert its own space and -- and not let other organizations or processes fill that space, but it also has to look around and figure out how can we, as others have said, provide valuable inputs into others, and the UNESCO meeting this week was a great example of how there can be a great interrelationship between the IGFs and other organizations.
So I think the positive thinking we've heard this morning on all of these things can be very helpful in thinking about the main themes as we do our work this week.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you very much.  Robert Guerra, please.
>>ROBERT GUERRA:  This is Robert Guerra from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.
Chair, thank you for giving me a few minutes.  I'd like to just comment on some earlier points that you made. 
First of all, in regards to the IGF being mentioned in other spaces such as the WCIT, I think if there are other spaces where the IGF has been mentioned as a space that key issues can be discussed, it would be interesting to make a list of those issues to make sure that everyone is aware of them and so they can be on the agenda, possibly, to be discussed.
I think in regards to whether setting the overall theme now or in May, I think as we're going forward now, identifying possible themes and then having a call I think would be good, but I think identifying some issues and getting feedback on that, I think, could be useful.
I'd also like to echo something that hasn't been mentioned by some of the other commentators, and that is the -- the delegation from Indonesia did make comments and they're the host country and the country from the region, and they have done a consultation and put forward ideas from consultation of different stakeholders, so I think we should give those considerable thought.
And from the perspective of the Citizen Lab, I think the idea of science and technology for development is definitely one that we would support, and it might be worthwhile also to talk about cybernorms and the rights approach to some of the issues as well.
Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  Bertrand de la Chapelle.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Project.
I've listened carefully to the different comments today.
I would like to suggest that we take a moving picture, rather than just a still picture.
The IGF is now entering its -- approaching its eighth annual meeting, and if I look at how things have evolved in the discussion, the IGF has produced a remarkable outcome that was very visible during this week here.  I.e., progress on sensitive topics.
If I look at how the issue of enhanced cooperation and principles were discussed six years ago, it's very simple.  Six or seven years ago, it was not even possible to put them on the agenda.
Yesterday and the day before yesterday, there were two workshops on principles and two workshops on enhanced cooperation.  Both of them have, in my view -- and I hope it's shared by other participants -- displayed a remarkable move forward in terms of the desire of the stakeholders to work together on those issues and to address those issues.
I think, therefore, we should recognize, irrespective of the other discussion on main sessions, workshops, and so on, that there are two key threads that have emerged as an outcome of the discussions in the -- in the IGF, and that those two threads are, at the higher level, the issue of principles -- and there were very strong messages both in Nairobi and in Baku, and I happened to have had the privilege of being either moderator or a panelist on both taking stock and way-forward sessions in Nairobi and in Baku, and the message already at that time was very strong towards this notion of a compendium and so on.
So principles and how to deal with the proliferation -- positive proliferation -- of principles is one track.
The other one being the evolution towards understanding enhanced cooperation or enhanced cooperations as a desire to identify concrete issues and make the different actors collaborate together to solve them.
It is, therefore, an interesting second track.
Operationally, I would suggest to use those two tracks to encourage the articulation with different workshops that are necessarily going to be proposed, and to have something that makes an introductory session at the beginning of the week and have a closing session at the end of the week for each of those two tracks, so that the discussion can evolve during the week instead of having the usual problem that we encounter in terms of articulation between workshops and main sessions.
So for instance, without getting into too much detail, the goal would be to have at the beginning of the week two maybe 1 1/2-hour sessions on each of those two threads and to allow people to organize their workshops during the week to feed into those two threads, so that at the end of the week, we can come back to two other sessions and see how progress has been made.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  And if you allow me to pick up on what you have said on the impact and outcome of the IGF, I fully agree with you, the IGF has not been very good at documenting the outcome and the impact.  Particularly (indiscernible) impact.  And I would add the use of the term "multistakeholder."
There's no organization that respects itself that does not use the term "multistakeholder."  That was clearly, I think, a notion that was pioneered by the IGF.
Next speaker, United States of America.
>>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, chair. 
I just wanted to make a point of clarification in the discussion of the main theme.
First of all, I'm glad if the notion of CS -- S&T for D is resonating with folks.  I'm glad for that.
But I had put it forward as a cross-cutting theme or a subtheme, and in recognition that really the main theme needs to be as overarching -- more overarching, as possible, and possibly -- and so I just want to make that clarification and take that sort of maybe off the table for a main theme, but to incorporate it as people like.
And with regard to a main theme, I think overarching is very key and not weighting one element of the discussion necessarily over others in the discussion of main themes.  Something that can encompass all the ideas that people have been putting forward.
Thank you, chair.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  Point well taken, but it is on the table as a direction to go, but I also agree.  I think when we formulate the main theme, it should be a little bit snappier.  "Science and technology for development" sounds very U.N.-ish.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  But we need to have a theme that sounds attractive, I think, also to people who maybe don't normally go to U.N. meetings.
I think "economic growth" sounds maybe more attractive to policymakers, but it may be a little bit one-sided as it is not as overarching as the full societal and transformational, I think Jeff mentioned -- I like that word -- the transformational impact of the Internet.  I'm not sure whether that's snappy enough, but I think we also have to think a little bit on how to attract people who might not necessarily have been to an IGF before.
Andrea, speaking on behalf of IFLA, correct?
>>IFLA: Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  And first, let me say it's really nice to congratulate you for your appointment.  It's really nice to see you there.  Actually, it makes me feel younger to see you back there.
[ Laughter ]
>>IFLA: I think when I was -- four years ago, and it's a familiar feeling and so it must give you -- make you feel also younger. 
[ Laughter ]
>>IFLA: To the point of the main theme and then just to add a few points after.
As a main theme from IFLA, we propose to evolve the main themes that have been suggested so far, particularly in the access and diversity, we are proposing to have a main theme focusing on public access.  We have seen that it has been coming through different sessions and workshops in the past IGFs and we think it deserves its own space.  It's important how you access the Internet.  It's important, the role that public access to Internet can lead to that.  And IFLA, of course, is willing to work more into that.  And there is also a dynamic coalition on public access.  So that's one of our points we want to make for this MAG. 
Just a few things briefly. 
On regional events, we're really pleased to see that regional events are mushrooming across countries and regions, and we are -- as IFLA, we are libraries from 160 countries.  We actually are doing a great job -- work involving them into participating in the regional event, and we like to see it more coherent.  I've heard that coming from other speakers already.  Some easier access to the IGF website to figure out where these events are happening.  I know it is not always so easy.  And ways to involve local stakeholders into that.
We are happy to give our support into that, to tackle into the IFLA libraries network.
On the dynamic coalitions, as part of the dynamic coalition on public access and I think the dynamic coalition, it's one of the outcomes of the IGF.  I think there should be also thinking on how to make them more active and how to reword them.  Probably the wording is a function of the "how to make them more active."
One idea could be to get them on the MAG, and if they are active enough, we are proposing actually implementing stuff that have been discussed during the IGF.  That could be a good way to get them back into the whole IGF process.
And one last thing is about what I call those in my (indiscernible) in the IFLA contribution to the -- to the discussion, the convergence.  We -- before, we were speaking about the outcomes (indiscernible) the IGF.  I think what just ended yesterday can be seen as an outcome of the IGF.  I mean --
[ Audio interference - please mute ]
-- experience, UNESCO actually engaged in a multistakeholder dialogue.  Recommendations were made to a broad multistakeholder support yesterday was a final statement made from multistakeholder recommendations, and that's an outcome which I think the IGF has to claim more of the influence it has even in the WSIS forum.
I mean, for those of us who remembers, even the name WSIS forum came after the IGF.  At the beginning it was a long U.N.-ish "Consultation and Action, Implementation and Follow-up" that nobody would understand, and now even the ITU it "WSIS Forum."  I mean, that's a good outcome. 
So in light of that, I think we should give more thoughts on the convergence, also, of the review processes.  We're all going toward 2015.  The WSIS mushroomed in several different, let's say, (indiscernible) and it's interesting to pull all of that back and see what we can learn from each other, and I think that the IGF in this moment can teach a lot of -- of lessons learned to the other organizations.
And last point, I was following the Davos meeting in Switzerland, and I heard the "multistakeholder" word coming up in several events on that occasion.  I was like, "Wow, that's interesting to use."  You would never expect that.  Thank you so much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Well, thank you so much.
IFLA, for those not familiar with the acronym, stands for International Federation of Library Associations.  But I think it came across that you speak on behalf of libraries.  I think the point is also well-taken that we have to project a little bit in view of 2015 what will happen after that and bear that in mind work towards that trajectory.  I think that is an important mark.  2014 will not be the end.  It will be an important meeting, but there will be a 2015 meeting, and we have to think what will happen after it.  Will the IGF continue?  And if so, it will be a decision taken by the U.N. member-states.  The decision will not be taken in a multistakeholder mode.
But we have to work -- if we want to, we have to work towards that decision.
European Commission.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you, Chair.  And good morning to all.  I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that were already made this morning.  On the outcomes of the IGF, yeah, we don't have negotiated agreement and we're not looking for them.  But having no result, no conclusions means that we're going to lose a lot of what has been discussed.
So as the Chair said, the IGF hasn't been exemplary in documenting its outcome.  Let's make it exemplary because then we can use what we do to feed into the discussions of those who do take decisions.
A short point on logistics, I think -- there were a lot of comments on logistics.  And there are comments on logistics in the report by the group on improving the IGF. 
I think it is not just about comfort of the participants; it has to do with issues of connectivity which means remote participation.  It has to do with facilitating travel also for those who are on a smaller budget to the IGF.  So I think it's important to take at least some recommendations on logistics very seriously.
On the themes, again, I would like to echo the Chair.  I think one of the main words is to take it forward.  Whatever we choose as themes, we need to make sure there is an evolution from the previous IGFs.  Already in the last IGF, many workshops tended to repeat themes, repeat discussions.  We need to make sure that in the final selection we have some kind of intellectual evolution from what was discussed before.  And the fact that something has been discussed before like spam doesn't mean we should cut it out.  Just one word on spam, it's not obviously a major issue for some countries.  It is definitely not a major issue for countries of the European Union.  But it is very big for some developing countries.  It made its way into an international treaty.  That means there are a lot of concerns around it.  Let's not ignore something like that.
One last thing, I'd like to echo Brazil on the point about regional IGFs.  I know we're going to discuss this later, but, indeed, we think it would be great if we could have a venue at the IGF where regional IGFs could give something to the general IGFs and maybe discuss amongst each other.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  Just a brief comment.  I don't think we should not take the logistics seriously.  All I suggest is that we know they are problems and challenges.  And I think collectively, we are taking this very seriously.
Mary, next on my list, please.
>> FINLAND:  Thank you.  This is Mervi Kultamaa from Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.  I listened carefully to the discussion here, and some of the keywords that have risen from man interventions are "development" and "human rights."  Human rights as a cross-cutting issue has also risen from our national multistakeholder process and will be one of the themes of our Finnish Internet Forum next time.
And many have reminded us on the very interesting discussions that we have had here in Paris on enhanced cooperation and of the working group on enhanced cooperation, which will be in the middle of its deliberations as we meet in Bali.
And, therefore, I would like to make one suggestion for a theme which would be enhancing multistakeholder cooperation for growth development and human rights through the Internet.
I think growth is also important as we meet in the times of economic crisis.  And it's also intertwined in the questions of spam and all the challenges we have.  How do we combat those for more growth also through the Internet?
So this is my suggestion.  Maybe we could play with words to make it more catchy.  But these are definitely the keywords that came up of this discussion.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you very much for this.  And I point out, "growth" can also be social growth.  It does not necessarily need to be economic.  So this is something on the table we're considering.
Do we have a remote participant?  Why don't we give remote participant precedent as we always say how important it is to bring them in.  Luka, please.
>> REMOTE INTERVENTION:  So, okay, Luka (saying name) and remote moderator.  We have two suggestions from remote participants. 
First one is a theme suggestion from Veronica Cretu.  And she is suggesting Internet as an enabler of social accountability and citizen engagement for improved results. 
And then there is a comment from Deirdre Williams.  And she is saying there is a need for much improved publicity and dissemination of the IGF ideas to people outside of the "IGF insiders."
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.
Next, Council of Europe?
>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe, an organization which is based in human rights.  I'm the Internet governance coordinator in the Council of Europe.  So part of my job is to take stock of what goes into the IGF and what comes out of the IGF and to brief my colleagues and to keep them abreast, also member-states for that matter. 
And for taking stock is quite important -- (audio interference).  If we look at Baku, for example, I did some counting.  I counted the events which concerned us, and I think I counted more human rights-related events in Baku than ever before which I think is quite revealing.  That's the point I want to make.  It is very revealing to see what is happening.  Why is that?  And also previous IGFs, there has been a growth in those questions.  Why is that? 
Why are more people calling for more discussions on human rights?  And are they concerned that the Internet is moving away from their concerns about the Internet being a people-centered environment?  Is it trying to take stock of the why?  Are we asking that question enough? 
Why increasingly do they have a human rights dimension to these meetings?  Are there underlying questions of traditions, values, cultures, even national sovereignty for that matter?
That brought me to thinking about the "why" of the EuroDIG which is taking place in Lisbon on 20-21 June, and the overarching theme is -- and this is just a thought, Internet for society, how to serve the public interest, for example. 
Just to add to that, more food for thought regarding what the Council of Europe does and is doing for the next few years, thinking about questions such as what is Internet freedom, is it more of freedom of information and access to information as we know it?  What does it mean to say "do no harm to the Internet"?  What measure should states and (inaudible) factors commit to, to ensure that there is no harm?  And what frameworks of commitments and understanding do stakeholders need to commit and engage and exchange?
And one final point goes back to the question of Internet rights and principles and the work we're doing on a compendium of rights for Internet users.  Do users know how to effectively exercise their human rights online?  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  Canada?
>> CANADA:  Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair.  There have been a number of interesting ideas raised this morning and certainly found the discussion very interesting.  I just wanted to support the number of interventions that have raised the importance of addressing practical issues such as cybersecurity, spam and malware.  I'm thinking in particular of the comments from Nominet but also their written submission and some of the ideas they have formulated.  I think this is very appropriate for the IGF to do. 
I take on board the comment that not all IGF members and not all governments in particular put issues like spam at the top of their agenda but as our colleague from the European Commission was just pointing out, for some governments, it is a very serious issue and has a lot of effects, even economic effects.  And I think there is vast experience in this -- in this forum, the IGF.
When we were at WCIT and some of these issues were raised, a number of us made the observation that a forum like WCIT is not the right place to be discussing them, which raises the entirely legitimate question:  If not a place like WCIT, then where?  And I think IGF is an answer to that question.  Thank you.
(Audio buffering.)
>> -- suggested by Nominet for a subtheme on cybersecurity and human rights.  You can't consider one without consideration of the other. 
I would like to talk about a couple of things.  I think the IGF is incredibly modest.  A number of people today have referred to the importance of understanding the accomplishments of the IGF.  And I think this is something we need to take seriously. 
When you think about the regional IGFs that have sprouted up, the national IGFs, the variety and diversity of programs that are now in place around the globe because of the IGF and we have no idea really what the national impact has been of the IGF because we are not doing an accounting of that impact.
So I would like to see the IGF actually put in place a process, maybe it is a session, maybe it is an activity, to account for the accomplishments of the IGF and the kind of impact it has had around the globe.
I'd also like to suggest that we really think about the term "multistakeholder."  I would like to see the IGF have a session or an opportunity for us to talk about multistakeholder best practices, including something very practical.
How do you implement effective multistakeholder processes?  And as the IGF is a flag waver for multistakeholderism, it is a perfect place to hold it.
The last thing I would like to say is in terms of outcomes or outputs, I think that it's important that the IGF look at how its outcomes or outputs are structured.  At the moment -- and coming back to this after a couple of years being away, they are not hugely helpful.  They are not hugely valuable in terms of what can you actually do with them. 
And now we are not talking about recommendations or agreements or this or that.  We're just talking about outputs and making them significantly more valuable and usable to policymakers or stakeholders or whoever when they go back to their countries and they say:  Okay, we have a solution, a proposed solution, or a variety of solutions for a particular problem.  I would like to see us getting back to a real review of best practices and a real look at how we can make what we do far more practical and usable.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  I think there is a broad sense of agreement on that, that the outcomes can and should be better documented.  The question is basically how.  And this is also not resource neutral.  Either you hire an excellent consultant and there are people who can do it, or you do it collectively, the MAG works harder on that.
But, again, the MAG, these are -- it is all voluntary work and it can be hard work.  But this is definitely something we have to think about.  And I still have speakers, and right at the end of the room, Bill, you asked for the floor.  Please, you have the floor.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.  Actually quite a pleasure for me to be here today and to see Markus up there with Chengetai.  Brings back excellent memories.
I guess I would like to suggest a major theme for the event and listening to everything, and that would be an engine for growth and advancement, the Internet:  An engine for growth and advancement.
Markus, you mentioned that growth is not only economic.  It can be societal.  And I think by recognizing that, we can -- it encompasses quite a breadth of topics that we could -- that we could include, for example, science and technology, human rights and freedom of expression.  We could include business models, business models that have come up as a result of the Internet that may not be well-known all around the world.  Access and diversity, where I would throw in things potentially like exchange points, local content, local hosting.
And I also suggest that we need -- and I've heard calls here for this -- to have higher-level sessions.  I think in my mind, that would be perhaps a smaller number of them, especially the lengthy plenary sessions that we've been subjected to in recent years.
Practical sessions I've heard a call for, where this might be sort of the traditional workshop, 90 minutes. 
And I think we could have some very good working sessions as well where they would be during the week, perhaps a half day of intense discussion on topics, for example, spam.  It is definitely an issue.  However, there are methods to approach it, to mitigate it.  They exist.  And they are evolving.
And having been at the WCIT and listened to the issues that I recognize are real, I have to respectfully disagree with those who believe that a treaty-level instrument is going to have a practical, positive impact on spam.  The way we deal with spam and things like that is at the lowest possible levels on the ground and taking very strong measures and working cooperatively.
So it is good that we are talking about these things, but just writing it in a treaty is not going to solve the problem that countries have.  Talking about it in a practical working session at the IGF would be helpful.
Finally, with respect to comments made by Matthew Shears, I would be happy to co-submit a proposal on multistakeholder principles and practices and to run such a group at the IGF.  I think that's a fabulous idea because all, too, often we hear the term bandied about but in reality when we get into perhaps what is declared as a multistakeholder meeting, we find out, in fact, it is something quite different.
So I think that would be a very good thing a very appropriate thing for the IGF to do.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  And I think it would tie up with the comments that the IGF has not been particularly good at documenting its success, and that would be basically claiming ownership of the term "multistakeholder" and defining it and setting a yardstick.  I think that would definitely, to me at least, make sense.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  This week on Monday (indiscernible) say that the information society should be seen from the perspective of human rights, and I very much agree with this approach.  So I would like to show my voice to those that are proposing human rights as one of the most prominent overarching issues, topics for IGF.
And I think it shouldn't be only for this year's meeting because this is an issue that should remain for every IGF meeting for the next few years because human rights will remain unfortunately an issue around the world for many years.
I like very much the way the Finnish representative combined the development, enhanced cooperation, and human rights.  It could be nice if we could combine those ideas, those values, in the main theme of the IGF in Indonesia.
Regarding other topics to be discussed, I think cybersecurity, cybercrime are definitely important topics and I differentiated two topics because many times we speak about cybercrime and cybersecurity as if they are the same thing.  And they are different things.  Both of them are very important, but we have to deal with them in a different manner.  So I think those issues should be prioritized because those are areas in which I think we have the challenge to demonstrate that the multistakeholder model is able to provide some progress and some solutions for dealing with those really big problems that we have today.
We have, of course, identified some specific points because I echo those that have said that we have to focus in practical issues and concrete things and not to discuss just those themes in a very general way.
So I think my last comment is regarding the outcomes.  I think that we have a broad agreement that we are ready to move one step forward and try to produce better outcomes from IGF. 
And as you say, Mr. Chair, the challenge now is to deal with the implementation of that.  But I think we agree this is where we have to focus how to implement that so the works are written down.
This week we had a very good experience here at UNESCO as a way of dealing with this issue probably.  It could be a basis for discussion in the MAG meeting.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you for that, both for the substantive comments and the procedural aspect indeed.  This was also a question in our minds.  Can we learn from the UNESCO's way of proceeding?  The more focused -- also asked workshop organizers to be more focused on outcomes.  And on security, security has been with us right from the beginning but maybe we also have to rethink a little bit how to deal with it because it is also an issue of major concern for governments.  And I think as Martin said, the multistakeholder framework can -- and others, can maybe provide better answers.  But we may have to rethink on how to frame it.
Ana, you also asked for the floor.
>> ANA NEVES:  Thank you very much.  And going back to the "multistakeholder" term, well, we are talking about --
>>CHAIR KUMMER: For the scribes, it is not Anriette Esterhuysen.  Ana Neves.
>> ANA NEVES:  Ana Neves from Portugal.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: I was not speaking clearly enough.  So my fault.
>> ANA NEVES:  Now it is clear.  Good. 
My point is about the term multistakeholder and multistakeholder principles because we are discussing sometimes the more Internet governance.  The principles are not so much multistakeholder principles.  It was already said today here what multistakeholder means and its importance and organization that doesn't respect itself -- well, nowadays it has to say it is multistakeholder.
But what is "multistakeholder"?  What does that mean?  And so my main point is that besides the Internet governance principles, we have to see and discuss what are the principles of the multistakeholders.  And I think that when we discuss these principles of the multistakeholders, we start to see that we have multi-governments, multi-civil societies, multi-private sector and multi-academic and technical communities.  And it is very interesting, and it is rich to now we are at the level to better understand where we are.
And so if we understand where we are, it's better to understand why it's so difficult then to implement any action because it is not governments that are going to implement anything because we have multi-governments.  Governments, they are all different.
Besides that, I must say I like a lot the title that Mervi from Finland put forward for the IGF to play with, with the words "enhance" and "enhance multistakeholderism."
I think it would enrich the title to include something related to empowerment, capacity enhancement or building.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  I basically have closed the list.  But in the spirit of inclusiveness, let's also listen to remote participants.  And I think our colleague from Russia whose name I can't remember also asked for the floor.  Remote participant first.  And there is one more.  Russia also, okay.
>> Thank you, Markus.  We have two comments from remote participants.  The first is a suggestion from the theme of the next IGF from Salanieta from the Internet Governance Caucus.  And she is suggesting:  The Internet : transforming the individuals, communities, economies and nations - threats, challenges, and opportunities.
And then we have a suggestion from Victor from Cameroon that is suggesting to have a small guide on multistakeholder IGF best practices.  And he is saying that having national and regional IGFs is a way to implement multistakeholder IGF process and to share multistakeholder IG best practices.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  Please recall your name.  My apologies that I can't remember it.
>> RUSSIA:  Andrey Scherbachiov.  Higher School of Economics at the University.  First, I would like to thank the government of Azerbaijan for the successful 7th annual meeting of the IGF which was very successful for our delegation as well. 
And then I would like to say that I totally agree with absolute majority of delegations which propose human rights on the Internet as one of the major topics of discussion.
One note which I could simply make on this that the human rights is a complex issue which needs a complex approach to it.  And so that's why I agree that we need the specific combined topic which allows common approaches for Internet governance with the convergence of institutions and convergence of approaches.
For example, we understood through the legal, sociological, technological approaches, all of these issues, I think, are important to serve the IGF annual meeting.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  And please, can you introduce yourself?
>> Thank you very much, chair.  My name is Michael (saying name).  I'm also from the Moscow Higher School of Economics.
I would like, first of all, to say that it's a pleasure for me being here, and on behalf of HSE, I would like to focus on business aspects.
It was already raised by -- by the EU, I think, that today (indiscernible) the service sector has become the biggest and fast growing business sector in the world, which also influences on quality of life of people all around the world, and our economy is service-oriented, and actually we have Internet which makes businesses going globally -- right?
And which makes services being global.
That's why we also proposed send a contribution on service-oriented approach based on Internet of services and Internet of things, because when we are talking about service-oriented approach of the global economy and global services change relationships between the people and companies with the use of Internet, and when we're talking about Internet governance, we should also consider that it influences on business which is based on the Internet.
That's why there are several possible subtopics, probably, about new business models of the Internet, new models of the Internet, possibilities for personalization of services including people with disabilities, and also security issues.
So among such important topics like human rights, the Internet, technological issues, I think probably it is necessary also to include business issues when we're talking about Internet governance.  Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  I see there are more flags coming up.  I wanted to close the list, but can we really close the list now?
I see Constance and is that you, Patrick?  Okay.  Constance and then Patrick.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you, chair.  I would like to offer a suggestion of theme with a view of trying to -- to covering the different subissues we've discussed this morning, which could be "Cooperation for Growth, Development, and Human Rights, Best Practices for Sustainable Knowledge Societies." 
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  Patrick?
>>PATRICK RYAN: Thank you.  Good morning.  My name is Patrick Ryan.  I'm with Google.  And although the topics and themes of the IGF are extremely important, my intervention now is focused on the funding of the IGF.  It's a topic that's rarely, if ever, addressed at the open consultations and I realize we're talking about other things, but I hope you'll permit me to make my intervention now, so that we can talk about this maybe a little bit over lunch and at break.
Let's face it, money is really hard to talk about, and so it's completely avoided in many cases, or taboo.
It's a crucial, if not existential, topic here and so I want to be sure to bring it up and to put some light on it today.
The IGF operates on a shoestring budget.  It's astonishing the amount of work that Chengetai accomplishes with part-time colleagues and several volunteers. 
In order for it to do many of the things that the participants want, such as increasing outreach and collaboration with the developing world, providing a revamped Web site, tracking information and reporting on successes, the IGF needs our financial support. 
The funding for the IGF is itself a multistakeholder endeavor.  Contributions are voluntary and they come from member states, the private sector, and civil society.
Although we don't yet have an overall view of the total budgetary needs for the IGF, our colleagues at UNDESA and at the IGF secretariat on are working on that and have promised to share that information with us shortly. 
This will be very important as we set fundraising objectives for 2013.  Last year the IGF raised almost $900,000 from a total of 15 contributors.  About nine contributors are from the private sector and NGOs and six are from governmental entities.
In this regard, I want to call out special recognition for the government of Finland, which has contributed nearly 25% of the annual budget on its own.
Just a few more numbers.
In a typical year, the IGF is attended by around 2,000 people from more than 130 countries.  Most all of the governments around the world praise the value of the IGF.  We talk about it in other contexts at ITU as the alternative, but with only six governments contributing to the IGF, there is lots of opportunity.
There is no reason why half of the countries of the 130 countries that attend it, shouldn't contribute in some way.  Those numbers don't need to be high on an individual basis, but some contribution is important.
I realize that government budgets are tight, but I respectfully call on governments to find a way to contribute to this effort.  There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to turn the number of government contributions from 9 to 90 this year.
Similarly, the private sector needs to step up.
Businesses like Google believe in the values of the IGF, but our business models also depend on the success of the Internet.  It can sometimes be a challenge to have private sector contributions from any single company or any single government to be too large because of the perceptions that can flow from that.  We don't want the IGF to be perceived to have been bought by any single company or government.
At the same time, the number of private sector contributors should greatly increase, and I see no reason why the overall number of private sector contributors should not move from move to 90 as well. 
Ladies and gentlemen, if we can accomplish this simple fundraising task, the opportunities for the IGF will be far greater than we are now.  As we enter the eighth year, it's time to put our money where our mouth is, to walk the talk, and to show that we support the multistakeholder environment and that we mean it.
I want to draw your attention to the funding tab on the IGF Web site, which thanks to Chengetai and the work of UNDESA provides a lot more information on how to fund.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you, Patrick.  While this was completely off topic, I think it was nevertheless very helpful.
[ Applause ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  This is also, I think -- a lot of the recommendations of the working group on IGF improvements are extremely helpful, but they're not always resource-neutral.  Yes, of course it would be nice to do this and to do that, but the secretariat, which is comprised by one single person, there are limits to what this guy can do, and this is something we need to bear in mind.
So I would also suggest when approaching the report that we make maybe proposals that are resource-neutral but there are others that need more resources; that we make the distinction and look at those that can be implemented without additional resources as a kind of low-hanging fruit.
I mean, "Okay, that can be done."  But some others cannot be done unless we have more resources.  But resources can also be given through in-kind contributions.  There may also be volunteers that come up to take on the task.
There is another call for the floor. 
Nurani, yes.
>>NURANI NIMPUNO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is in Nurani Nimpuno.  I work for Netnod, an internet infrastructure organization in Sweden.
It's great to be here today and it's great to see you up there again, Markus, and I think there have been some very good discussions today.
I'm going to -- I'm going to keep it very brief, since I know that we are -- we want to move forward.
I think there have been a few very good ideas being tossed around today, and I think I'd like to associate myself with the speaker previously, who pointed out that it's important that the Internet -- that the IGF continues to evolve, and I think we need to show that in the program and we need to show that through the main themes that we have.
The themes might just seem like a banner or a tag line, but it really sets the agenda for the whole IGF, so we shouldn't underestimate the -- the importance of that.
By showing also that the IGF continues to evolve, I think we show that by taking on new themes that maybe the IGF wasn't mature enough for before.  So I think a few people have mentioned the human rights aspects and I think the Internet is an enabler for human rights.  It's a very important and current topic that I think the IGF should pick up on.
I also really like Mervi's thoughts from the Finnish delegation about playing with the words of "enhanced" and "enhanced multistakeholderism."
I think that's something that would be good to pick up on.
And then just a final comment, not necessarily on the main themes, but I was listening in to the -- the workshop yesterday on enhanced cooperation, and the point there was made about how the IGF is very inclusive and -- but -- but we also need to be aware of that different stakeholder groups that have different ways of interacting with the IGF.
So if we want it to be more inclusive, we need to take that into consideration. 
So for example, by -- by -- if we want more participation from certain governments, we might need to do more to reach out to them.  We might need to -- to do -- to specifically invite them and even to organize pre-events, for example, at the IGF that motivates them to come and participate.  Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.
And really last speaker on this segment, Qusai Al-Shatti, please.
>>QUSAI AL-SHATTI:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the Internet governance home again.
First of all, I would like to start by thanking the Azerbaijani government for their hospitality in organizing this event, IGF meeting, and giving us the opportunity to visit their beautiful country of Azerbaijan.  I would like to thank them for that.
I would like to echo the comments that the IGF needs to evolve and the evolvement of the IGF should be in revising the topics and the themes that -- to be discussed.
I would like -- we'd like to have more focus on having a more open, inclusive Internet, which we feel that it is still a current and important issue, as well as promoting a multistakeholder model for Internet governance on what -- on global and regional levels.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you for that. 
Okay.  Now looking at the timetable, I realize that we're well behind what Chengetai has proposed.  He said he should move on, I think, some time ago.  But I think it was a very good discussion and we touched on many not just aspects of the main themes, but we also touched on organizational aspects and on how to improve on the functioning.
So basically the next half hour, we can start discussions on the organizational aspects and on the main sessions.
I think we have already touched on that, and I think the strong notion here in the room is that the IGF is evolving, so maybe also that we need to revisit a little bit the concept of the main sessions.
There are certain parameters that are a given.  The three-hour main session is given -- is dictated by the contracts with the interpreters.  That does not mean that we cannot break it in two segments, but we cannot have, for instance, two 2-hour sessions because that's not how the interpreters work.  They work in 3-hour segments.  So that we have to accept.
But I think there was a strong notion in the written contributions that three hours is too long to have one subject, one panel; that at least we should think about breaking it up in two.  And also, I think what I heard from the discussions, that maybe we need new subject matters, like a lot of cross through the written contribution maybe more focused sessions.
We discussed that years ago, but I think in the end the MAG was always moved back into the comfort zone of having the same titles.  They have evolved slightly. 
You know, what we had first was "security," but -- and dealt with security and openness separately, and that moved into "security, openness and privacy," so there was an evolution.  But my feeling was at least the past two sessions -- past two IGF meetings, where I had more the opportunity to walk around, that the energy was much more in the workshops than in the main sessions.
Some contributions said we should not have workshops in parallel with the main sessions, which is, I think, almost impossible to organize unless we want to have workshops very early or very late or during the lunch break, but we earlier said there should not be sessions during the lunch break either because participants wanted the lunch breaks to connect and to socialize, and that -- I think that's also an important aspect.
So what do we do with the main sessions?  Can we agree on --
And a lot of ideas came up during the very first discussion.  "We could do this -- have this, have that." 
Also, the format is not written -- is not cast in stone or cast in iron, but what is, we have to make use of interpreters in the main room, because we said we want to provide at least one track which is in all U.N. languages.  But that can be also something else.
It has been mentioned maybe some more hands-on technical sessions explaining on how to deal with spam.  That was repeated by various speakers could be one of the options.
There was also the talk about having a discussion on multistakeholder principles, as multistakeholder cooperation is so central to the IGF, why not giving that center stage.
Young people and the IGF -- or some proposed kids, Internet for kids or Internet and kids -- that has been something that has been on the agenda, has been mentioned many a times, that we should do more or we should give center stage to young people.  And last year I was in a workshop with some of -- kids, I think high school age, 16, 17, from the U.K., who were absolutely remarkable and, you know, we can also think about giving them center stage.
I was pleased to see that we have a very young participant in the back of the room, I think estimated age less than two, or what --
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  So that's good to know there is --
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  -- young people also present here in the planning phase.  Maybe we should listen --
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Yes.  And I'm sure there's --
[ Applause ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  And I'm sure he or she knows how to use an iPad and find their favorite videos.
So the floor is open.  What are the -- Martin, yes, please.
>>NOMINET: Thank you, chair.  Martin Boyle from Nominet.
For a long time I've found it very difficult to identify what I expect to get out of the main and plenary sessions, and there have been various attempts at various stages to use the main sessions to give feedback from workshops, but for example last year I went to the security, openness, privacy open session and the feedback from the workshops was very much a bolt-on right at the end -- right at the end of the session.  And I think that might be that we end up losing an opportunity because when people do workshops, they go into their little silo in a small room and by the time they've produced the report, well, that particular Internet Governance Forum has been and gone.
So I wondered whether there was perhaps some way of reserving the plenary sessions towards the end of the meeting, on the last couple of days of the meeting, against the particular themes and using that to get feedback from all the relevant workshops, so that there is some central point of documenting and understanding what were the key issues that came up, and then that, of course, leaves you with the first two days worth of plenary sessions where I think it would be very useful to bring younger people center stage, to use some of the more general discussions which we want to try and get wider orientation for, perhaps on enhanced cooperation, perhaps on human rights implications of certain things, but, you know, that would be my suggestion that we try to make sure that the plenaries are well integrated into the work, and that there is a reason for people to turn up to those particular plenary sessions.  Thank you, chair.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you, and on that note, there was also a strong sense that we need to work on integrating bringing in the national regional IGFs' initiatives, and I think that is also something we can work on.  We had some more, in essence, interregional roundtables but they were not given center stage, and I think this is also something worth considering.
Chris Disspain?
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a couple of things.  First of all, I agree with what you've just said and what Martin's just said about the main sessions.
My observations are -- having been involved in these from the very beginning, are that the current way we do them is probably reaching the end of its life cycle.  The concept of an hour and a half or three hours on a particular topic, you know, using the same headings we've used since the beginning and trying to find subjects underneath is -- isn't proving very effective. 
I don't think that the main sessions were particularly well attended in Baku, and in fact I think we had this conversation last year when we said the main sessions weren't particularly well attended in wherever we were the year before.
And I wonder whether the --
The feedback that we tend to get on the main sessions tends to come from the panelists who are there who -- who come back and say "Yes, that all seemed to go very well," and that may well be so for them but there's a lack of convincing feedback from the audience members who attend these main sessions as to their -- as to their worth, whereas there is a significant, in my view, amount of feedback on workshops that indicates that they have worth.
So I'm very keen to hear what everyone else has to say about the main sessions so that we can move them on in a way that is helpful to the greater picture of the IGF, and I certainly think tying them to regional and national IGFs and the workshop reports is -- is something worth considering, and not being -- also not being fixed, in that we have to have X number of them.
We have to have some, but we may not have to have as many as we currently do.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  Carolina is next, and we have many speakers.  Yes, Carolina.  Yes.
>>CAROLINA AGUERRE: Thank you.  Carolina Aguerre, LACTLD.  I completely agree with the proposal of rethinking the IGF's main sessions, whether we should have six as we had before, whether we should maintain the same topics for them, the subthemes reflected in the -- in the main sessions' programs are then not taken up by the audience or the questions or the panelists are talking about something and then there are questions coming from the floor divorced from the presentations. 
Maybe some further documentation about what has been the evolution of that main session in the past seven IGFs for the newcomers and participants attending main sessions would be a possible solution. 
But in all, I agree with Martin Boyle's suggestions and Chris Disspain's comments that we really need to rethink whether we need six, when and where should we put them, and the extension of these main sessions as well as part of the whole IGF program.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you very much.  I have lots and lots of speakers.
Next was Bertrand.  Then I have United States, Olga, Anriette, Wendy, Vlad, Bill Smith, China, and let's see how many we can take before lunch.  And ICC/BASIS, Council of Europe.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Bertrand de la Chapelle, Internet and Jurisdiction Project.
Each year we have a session called "Emerging Issues."  The concept of this session has evolved.  It was initially intended to be a sort of takeup of issues that had emerged during the IGF.  It rapidly evolved into trying to make a specific focus on emerging trends and some of those sessions were pretty good, actually.  I remember one in Vilnius in particular on cloud computing that was quite illustrative.
However, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to use such a session -- maybe shorter or longer, like one hour and a half instead three -- to deal with what has happened since the previous IGF, like emerging issues in terms of what are the trends in governance issues.  We deal, in the Internet and Jurisdiction Project, with challenges related to jurisdiction and the impact on the cross-border Internet, and we see trends evolving and there are issues on security and others that would be documented, which is a way to bring the participants up to speed on a certain number of developments.
The second thing is, sessions of three hours are clearly too long, and I would like to encourage, as I proposed earlier, to have threads, and to make sessions -- instead of putting the main sessions at the end, as was proposed, which is not possible given the time with three hours, having different threads -- maybe two, three, or four -- where initial sessions at the beginning of the week would launch the thread, the workshops dealing with that thread would be dealing with the different facets of the issue during the week, and then at the end of the -- of the week, having one, two, or three wrap-up sessions of one hour and a half to sort of launch the issue, broaden it, re-narrow it, so that the work is done in the course of the -- of the week.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  United States.
>>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, chair.  Liesyl Franz from the U.S.
I completely agree with the notion, as other people have said, of rethinking how to deal with the main sessions and utilize the plenary nature of them, as well as the integration of things that happen at the IGF, but -- and maybe this is stating the obvious, based on what other comments that have been made, but I do think that one thing that was not helpful in the main sessions was report-outs from the workshops in a way that kind of hampered the conversation.
And I can say that as one who did a report-out once, so I -- I realized there's some value for getting on the record from the workshops in a way in the main session, but unfortunately I think the reports and the way that they've been done just hampered the discussion and the dynamism that we really want to get, so I'm all for rethinking how to do that.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  I notice an emerging consensus that we are ready to rethink, which is, I think, a very positive move.
Olga is next.
>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, chair, and welcome back, Markus.  It's so nice to have you here again as our chair.
Some comments about main sessions.
There may be value in three-hour sessions if we can go deeper into the discussion.
One hour and a half sometimes is too few to go into deeper dialogue.  I think we should revisit -- revise the main themes.  We should focus on things that have happened from the past year, the past IGF, into the new one, as Bertrand said, so we have to rethink the themes.  And I also agree -- and I have said this many times -- this reporting from the workshops doesn't work at all.  I mean, I think it's -- it doesn't show the content of the workshops and it's not helpful for the main session.
I wanted to say something more but I cannot find my note, so I'll stop for the moment.  Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  A brief comment, if you will allow.
I'm not sure -- I think the three-hour session is -- taxes the attention span of the same speakers, and I think also if you're on a panel for three hours, it's -- also for the panelists it can be actually quite tedious.  But you can -- to pick up on your idea, you could also have two panels dealing with similar aspects or slightly different aspects of an overarching theme.  UNESCO did that in some of the workshops.  Okay, the next panel comes in.  There were actually in one workshop, I think, of 90 minutes they had three sets of panelists, which may be a little bit too much but, you know, you can also play with that, with the format.
>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Chair, if you allow me one more comment that I was forgetting.
I think in Sharm El Sheikh, we tried a different model of a main session.  It was very much interactive, and I think that was nice.
Very few -- few panelists and very few speeches.  Short speeches and a lot of intersection with -- with the public, with the people there.
That were -- once they were -- I don't know why we came back again to the model of the panel, but that's something that I would like to remember from what we did before.  Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you, but let's just pick up on what Chris Disspain said, that the current model, I think, outlived its usefulness or "sell by" date.  However you worded it.  But I think it was also a little bit my impression we've done it and it's more of the same thing.  It's not that they're necessarily bad, but they -- to begin with, people were all excited, it was new, but it sort of sank into routine and there was more of the same thing, and if you can make it more interactive or better -- but a lot of energy was spent on the selection of panelists and making sure there's balance there, and then adding one more to be sure and that sort of led to a ritual that I think really has outlasted, I think, its usefulness.
But Anriette.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Markus.  Yes, I would really support what Chris Disspain has said and other speakers and I think the comments from the U.S. as well.  I think using the main session as a way of synthesizing outcomes of workshops as a work, I think it has outlived its value. 
I think what Chris said, we don't necessarily have to have multiple main sessions.  I do think that maybe one or two with good speakers can be interesting.  And I want to really thank Patrick Ryan for his comments earlier because I think resources are extremely important, and I think one area where we see this is in the lack of funding available to invite new, interesting, relevant speakers to the IGF.  And I think maybe one or two main sessions with good speakers would be very valuable.
Just to share an experience from Baku, some -- APC as well as some other governments and organizations involved in the IGF organized a roundtable in Baku.  We organized a human rights roundtable.  And its goal was for workshops that had dealt with human rights to come together and share the outcomes of their workshops.  Due to time constraints, we weren't able to -- or scheduling clashes -- to have all the rights-related workshops.  We had probably at least seven.
And it worked extremely well.  And we gave the workshops time to present their input.  We were able to discuss where there were overlaps and where there were gaps. 
So as a mechanism for achieving what we have tried to achieve unsuccessfully with main sessions which is to synthesize outcomes of workshops, I can really propose and recommend that format of the roundtable, of the magic roundtable.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  I think this picks up on also what Martin suggested more or less, yes, to have the workshops coming together and having an interactive discussion, not just reading records.  I think we agree on that.
>>WENDY SELTZER: Thank you very much, Chair, and to our hosts.  I want to echo what was heard.  And I think we should -- about rethinking our working mode because I think what we are really trying to do is to engineer serendipity.  We are trying to figure out how to help people to meet the people they need to meet, to learn the things they need to learn, and we may not know what those are coming in.
And so I would suggest fewer sessions that get a larger audience together in the same place that gives participants a shared base of knowledge and a shared meeting point where they can find that perhaps that technical issue they didn't think was really interesting is critical to their work six months down the road and now they know whom to contact because they've seen interesting panelists. 
Or equally important, they have seen interesting fellow participants in the audience.  We say that a lot of what we do is bring together audience members, and everyone is a participant.  I think that getting the participants into the same room more frequently rather than spread out among 10 or 11 different rooms could help that.
I also often find that the most important part of a conference is its hallway track, the unscheduled moments, the breaks and the moments of mingling.  It is important to have the key sessions to get the right people to come, and it is equally important to leave them time to discuss what they've learned afterwards in unstructured modes.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you.  I like "organizing serendipity."  That sounds good.
[ Laughter ]
I think there was agreement a long time ago that the mingling factor was important, and we should not fill every available slot with meetings.  And so the -- I think to have a two-hour free slot or lunchtime slot for people to be able to interact, I think that's considered key.
But then how many sessions, less sessions -- let me basically come to the discussion of workshops.  I still have quite a number of speakers.  China.
Tong (phonetic), are you speaking?
>> CHINA:  Thank you, Chair.  (saying name) from minister (saying organization) information technology of China.  This is the first name for our intervention, our first experience. 
Our condolence to Mrs. Qian.  It is very sad news for us.  She had put a lot of energy and efforts to the IGF meetings and also made great contributions for the IGF process.
And, second, I think we should welcome you, Mr. Markus, to come back to the IGF meeting as an interim Chairman.  Under your leadership, we have a very efficient and effective discussion.
For the main session, the workshop, I agree with you that it is time and it is a very good opportunity to rethink the relationship between the and the main session and the workshop. 
Under the current mechanism, I think the big issue or the big problem between the workshop and the main session, there is no direct connection between them because in this current arrangement, the main session is held in parallel with the plenary. 
And, first off, the workshop has no time or has no opportunity to report back to the plenary sessions.  And the plenary don't even have enough time to digest the outcomes from the workshop.  So it is my suggestion that we should -- maybe we can give more ample time for the discussion of the workshop.
It is my suggestion that because we have two preparatory process -- time, one -- the first preparatory in February and the second in May, but traditionally, we use this preparatory process to just identify the main themes of the meeting.
I think maybe we could use just one preparatory meeting to identify the main sessions because it is not very difficult.  I think the object of this change is that after this meeting, the Under-Secretary-General of the U.N. will publish the (indiscernible) of the meeting.  And it will leave more time for the organizer of the workshop to prepare for their workshops. 
And with the second preparatory meeting, I think we can leave for the workshop to organize the events.  We can leave all the time and all the venues for the workshop organizers to have very fruitful discussions during the second preparatory process.
And after the second preparatory meeting, the workshop organizers, they have still have two months' time and they can prepare the written reports to the plenary meeting. 
And during the plenary meeting, maybe the plenary meeting can choose the workshop organizers as the panelists and have ample time and also the participants can have more time to read and digest or read their reports from the workshop.  And I think, you know, it's very important for the participants to know what is happening or what is the outcomes or what is the discussions from the workshops. 
Actually, they are not -- the traditional way of publishing the six main themes and the participants, you need to note what will be discussed during the annual meeting.  So we give more time, more opportunity, more chance for the workshop to have a fruitful discussion and give more opportunity for them to present the outcomes to the planning meetings.  And I think this would be more beneficial for the efficiency of the annual meetings.
And I think for the overall themes and the meetings, I think the host country of Indonesia has made a very good proposal.  On the basis of Indonesia's proposal, we can in tomorrow's MAG meeting determine the overall themes in this meeting.
And the six main themes, I think, in practice saying the past meetings, we have followed the six main themes.  These six main themes is the pillar of the IGF.
We can remain to use it also as this year's main themes.  It will give more ample time, more fruitful discussion for the workshop to discuss at the preparatory meetings.
And I think with this kind of arrangement, adjustment when you give more involvement of the multistakeholders.  So previous -- because also -- (audio dropped out) -- but we should give more time, more chance for the multistakeholders to discuss, to reflect their views.  So I think we can make this IGF meeting more fruitful with more outcomes.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you very much.  Before breaking for lunch, there are still many, many speakers who put up their flag, but they can speak after lunch.  I would like to give the floor to a remote participant.  I think it is MAG member Paul Wilson.
>> Yes, we have Paul Wilson who is trying to participate remotely.
>> PAUL WILSON:  Good morning.  Can you hear me?  Good morning.  Can you hear me?  Hello.  I am trying to speak.  Hello?
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Paul.  We have some audio.  We cannot hear you, but we can read you.  Just carry on.
>>PAUL WILSON: I can see and hear you very well.  Okay.  Now I can see myself on the transcript so I guess I can be heard.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Now we can hear you.
>>PAUL WILSON: Okay.  Thank you very much.  And hello to everyone.  My name is Paul Wilson.  I'm a member of the MAG.
(Audio interference).
I'm really sorry not to be in Paris, but I had a clash here with meetings in Singapore.  Very happy to have had the opportunity to join the UNESCO meetings yesterday -- (audio interference) -- workshop on enhanced cooperation and am very happy for this opportunity as well.  So thanks to the U.N. staff for making it possible. 
Briefly, congratulations, to you, too, Markus, on your appointment.  It is great news.
I have been hearing some of the first session of the consultation about main themes and I have heard some but not all of the suggestions.  It seemed there are a lot of good ideas.  I may not have heard them all but some of them at least seem to be linked to the WSIS+10 meetings which is great.  We heard from Bertrand about the importance of multistakeholderism principles and about enhanced cooperation.
There have been a few other good -- a few good proposals that seem to be getting a little complicated.
And I wanted to suggest considering something short and simple which is actually linked to the WSIS+10 discussions as well in a pretty obvious way.  And that would be to consider an encompassing main theme for the IGF as simply this one:  Internet cooperation. 
I think now really is the time to talk about cooperation.  I think Internet cooperation is what we're all doing as a term which, I think, invokes Internet governance but with the concept of cooperation obviously there as well.
And I think the timing for that -- for adopting Internet cooperation as a theme might be quite good in terms of leading up to the WSIS+10.  If that's not something that flies in the case of this meeting, then I would like to suggest that -- or I would plan to maybe develop that idea in a workshop proposal and I might come back to it next year if it seems to be a possibility then.
That's all I will say at the moment.  I realize you are about to go for a break.  It is dinner time for me, too.  I will try to rejoin after that in a couple of hours' time.  Thanks again for the opportunity.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Thank you, Paul.  And, indeed, I would suggest we break.  I will quickly read out who I have on my speakers list, and if I miss out on something please shout.  I have Council of Europe, UNESCO, European Commission, ICC/BASIS, (indiscernible), Bill Drake, Paul Rendek, and Baher and Matthew Shears. 
(saying name), India. 
Adam?  Mexico, is it?
Hang on.  We can always add.  That is just basically reading out those that had up their hands.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>>CHAIR KUMMER: Okay, okay.  May I also suggest if you have it up, keep it up.  If it is like that, that means you are -- I have read out Paul.  Yes.  Andrea.  Okay.  We have a rich program waiting for us this afternoon.  Enjoy your lunch.  We resume at 2:30 in this room, again, 11 and not 2.  Thank you very much.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Ladies and gentlemen, we will have an informal meeting of the regional and national IGFs in this room now.  So if you want to stay for the meeting, please stay.  If you are not, could you please exit the room.  Thank you.
(Lunch break.)
>>CHAIR KUMMER:   Can we get started?  Please be seated.  We are trying to catch up from a little bit of time in the morning due to confusion of the rooms.  That would be great if you could take your seats.
Please, ladies and gentlemen, please, may I ask you to take your seats so we can start on time to catch up a bit.  Before we start, I would like to give the floor to Yrjo Lansipuro who is the Chair of the ICANN NomCom.  He has a commercial.  You have the floor.
>>YRJO LANSIPURO:   Thank you, Markus.  Just to say that the Nominating Committee of ICANN will have an outreach reception on the 7th floor in (saying name) at 6:00 and that I have sent an invitation to those whose e-mail addresses I knew but just to say that this is for all.  Thanks.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:   Thank you.  Yrjo, so reception at 6:00 on the 7th floor to meet with the ICANN NomCom.
Now, before we resume, I requested the floor from Assistant Director General Janis Karklins who has another meeting at quarter to 3:00.  So I'm sure you don't mind if we anticipate him and give him the floor right now before we resume the regular order.
Please, Janis.
>>JANIS KARKLINS:   Thank you.  We were Number 2 on the regular order list.  So thank you for flipping us and putting UNESCO first.  First of all, welcome to UNESCO.  We are really glad this meeting is taking place in this house the day after the WSIS+10 review conference where many of you participated and contributed well.
As you know, UNESCO has been a big supporter and contributor to Internet Governance Forum.  Every year, we are organizing a series of seminars/workshops in the framework of the IGF in the areas which falls within the mandate of our organization.  Our focus, of course, is on freedom of expression on the Internet, issues of privacy, multilingualism and promotion of local content production.
Therefore, we have already seven years of experience in participating and have drawn some conclusions.  And I would like to maybe offer you three points from our observations. 
First of all, I think we need to refer to the outcome document of the working group on improvements of IGF and ensure that recommendations which have been developed are implemented or at least we make all efforts to implement them.
First of them, as I see here, is sharpening outcomes or develop more tangible outputs.  And what I hear as a bit of criticism of IGF is this is a talk show and there is no really outcome.
And I would like to reiterate my suggestion which I made last year during the IGF consultations in the framework of the WSIS forum.  We need to think about voluntary reporting mechanisms of those organizations who participate in IGF where they inform all others on the practical steps or actions they have taken as a result of discussions during the IGFs or lessons learned or information learned during the meetings and introduce that report at the beginning of the next IGF and that will show whether the IGF is really just a talk show or there are outcomes or there are actions taken after IGF as a result of the discussions of IGF. 
And certainly I can commit myself that UNESCO will submit to the Secretariat this type of voluntary report -- it will not be long, maybe one page -- describing actions what UNESCO took after Baku IGF.
Secondly, we clearly witnessed in Baku that the plenaries are running out of steam and we need to put our heads together to find a way how to revitalize debates in the plenary meetings.
The final point on workshops, it is always very difficult to assess how many workshops we need to organize versus the quality of workshops and the themes which we organize -- which we address.  I think last year, my feeling was maybe there were a little bit too many in terms of workshops.
But, again, I'm not well-placed because during our meeting, we had ten parallel events at the same time.  So I feel a little bit guilty talking about this.
Nevertheless, we need to find the right balance between quality and quantity.  And, certainly, we need to learn from our experiences and ensure that the workshop rooms are well sound isolated because sound isolation is an issue.
In Baku, we were saved with the headphones.  But it is not obvious and it is not a very conducive atmosphere for discussions when you hear all noises in the world in your meeting room and do not hear what panelists or the public is saying.  These are the points which I would offer for your consideration as a contribution.
And, as I said, I commit UNESCO submitting voluntary reports on steps taken after Baku meeting as a result of our engagement in Baku with our partners and with the public.
And I invite other organizations or individuals to do the same.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:   Thank you very much, A, for your hospitality; B, for your continued commitment to the IGF; and, C, for your constructive suggestions.  And you finished in time for you to go to the other meeting. 
You are right, you would have been Number 2 on the list, maybe even have made it as Number 2.  Anyway, thank you very much, indeed.
Number one on the list was the Council of Europe.  Please, Lee.
>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I'm thinking about European Dialogue on Internet Governance and what we try to do every year is to make a new start and to be creative and innovative and try to give the thing a new feel.  Perhaps that's something you are thinking about in the IGF, to make it fresh, to feel excited about going to the IGF. 
I think we also have to think about the whole experience, the whole experience of going there from day one to the last day.  I'm thinking about conversations I've had with games developers in different countries and when they design a game, they design a game with regard to the experience you are having when you are playing that game.  Or when you are on a social media site, it is about the experience you have when you are on a social media sites and where it takes you.  It is quite an awe-struck comment but to say what is the IGF experience and what do people want?  I think a feeling of togetherness is important. 
So plenaries, wherever you take them, if they are shorter, are quite important, at least several, some in order to feel together.
The size of the rooms, these are very practical points, but if a room is too big, then people spread.  It feels very empty so you don't feel together.
In terms of the titles of events, we are spending a little bit of time in Europe trying to make the title short and catchy and very, very attractive.  When we prepare for the IGF in the Council of Europe, we look at all the events and it is the title of the event which takes you into clicking on it and looking at the details.  It is very easily to miss good events if the title is not correct.  So attention to that is always useful.
In EuroDIG also, we're trying very hard to change the format.  We've -- we're playing around with things like smaller, shorter sessions so there's room for plenary sessions, there's room for workshops where there's a sort of more targeted focus. 
We also introduced flashes which is like a maximum 30-minute session in a smaller space which is open to people who want to talk about something very specific which may not have the audience of a larger room, a larger plenary, or a larger workshop.
We're also talking about testimonials, storytelling, brown bag lunches approaches to having very small, much more intimate discussions, much more informal discussions, because it's the informality of a discussion which is quite interesting, because you're not speaking in a big room like this and people listening to you and that can be quite intimidating for some people.  So the smaller sometimes the space, perhaps the more informal sometimes. 
Just having a circle of chairs rather than, you know, tables all lined in a row and with a platform in front of you, that can be quite intimidating. 
So I think most things -- if you want to change style and be especially more innovative, then that's something to think about too.
And something which I've come across over the last few years is people doing un-meetings and un-conferences, which means that they're trying to do something completely different.  They're trying to take away the protocol of a meeting.  They're having an un-meeting or an un-conference.  They just assemble like a flash mob and they set the agenda on the spot and they talk about things in a quite informal manner.
And one last point is that in terms of the topics which are affixed for the plenaries and perhaps for the workshops, again in EuroDIG, there is an idea that we try to go to the hot topics, we try to really focus on the tension of the topic, and we also try to limit the topics because I think the thing which is -- this is my personal opinion now.  I think there's far -- I mean, the Internet issues are so spread and there are so many things to talk about that, you know, it's scatter guns across, and it's very hard to catch up and then it becomes quite a general discussion.
I mean, there might be some merit in thinking about, you know, limiting or focusing on certain very, very hot topics and giving them space, and then, you know, if you limit it in certain ways, then you leave space for other things, and if other hot topics come out, you have space in which you can welcome them a bit later on.
So in order to be flexible in terms of the approach to programming and events.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you very much.  ICC/BASIS.
>>ICC/BASIS:  Thank you, chair.  This is Ayesha Hassan on behalf of ICC/BASIS.
So ICC/BASIS submitted a very comprehensive written contribution very early on, and since then we were really pleased to have the opportunity to read other stakeholders' contributions, have informal conversations with many people across stakeholder groups, and have, therefore, built beyond our initial written contribution to focus on many of the good ideas that we found others had put forward and to refine some of the issues that we had identified for main sessions or key sessions at this year's IGF.
So we would agree and are open to the ideas that others have put forward about how many named sessions we need and how long each one needs to be.  For certain topics, they could be split into 90 minutes, et cetera.
So I'm going to put forward a series of topic areas that we feel deserve a main or key session attention, but again, if we work into -- if we work on creative formats, some of these issues could be put into some other kind of session as well.  We just think it's important this year to have certain of these main sessions take place.
So for instance, we agree with many people who have put forward the idea that there should be a main session on Internet multistakeholder principles.  We think this would be very timely and a good opportunity to build forward on those discussions.
We would also propose that an ad hoc open group be set up to prepare that session, with perhaps MAG members playing the role they do for main sessions to help coordinate the logistics of it, et cetera, but that would be a session that we would fully support.
We also feel that an enhanced cooperation session with a similar open group to prepare the session well in advance would be a positive contribution to this year's agenda.
I think we should look at the main session categories that we've been using in the past and not look at changing the session titles as being an elimination of them at all.  It's not that they're being deleted.
We would propose, as the Council of Europe has talked about, focusing on issues. 
And so really the proposal would be that in the space where we are really all focused on ensuring a good emphasis on development policy issues and governance issues, instead of having a general Internet governance development session, we should choose a couple of critical topics this year and really dig into them.
So two of our ideas in that regard would be IXPs and spam, and have those sessions be very substantive, a really in-depth discussion, but also sharing of best practices, identifying solutions and options for addressing these issues.  And the goal should be that people leave the session with something in their hands and in their minds that is either new or just really helpful for them in trying to really address those issues.
Another issue area that we think deserves a key session would be local content development.  This has interest across stakeholder groups, and it's also a development issue, and again, that would be a very helpful session.
Others have brought up spam, as the E.U. commission has mentioned.  An in-depth session focused on spam, we believe, with governance options and best practices and statistics and a real dialogue about how you address spam and what are the options, that would be another area we'd like to see in the agenda.
So again, this is to say that we support those who have said that the security, openness, privacy, access and diversity, and perhaps IG4D don't need to remain as titles.  We are proposing that main sessions focus on critical topics that fall within those categories.
We also believe that an emerging issues and taking stock session should remain part of the agenda and are open to developing what the specific issues would be in that session, if they're combined or in the two separate sessions.
We support the concrete ideas put forward by many on keeping the capacity-building and development issues, both in the main sessions and in the workshops.
In the critical Internet resource area, we feel that it's important to move that discussion forward, and again, instead of looking at CIR broadly, look at some of the governance issues around power and cooling and things that affect the ability to have servers.
I know some of my members have more experience with those issues and can jump in to elaborate further.
So moving beyond the broad buckets that we have, we think that creatively working together to find new interactive and useful formats is welcomed.  I would support Anriette's reference to a human rights roundtable.  Many people who participated in that roundtable in Baku were very impressed with the kind of substantive discussion that took place and the experience they had.  We would support looking at how to use that format for some of the topics that we've mentioned.
We'd also support UNESCO's idea of the voluntary reporting.  This year should be about moving the IGF forward with the IGF improvements recommendations in mind, and also just making sure that this is an experience that people come away with -- again, with they feel like they should be there, they need to be there, and they were glad they were there.
Also, generally -- and we can provide further input when we talk further about workshops, but the discussion about balance between quality and quantity is an important one. 
In past years, ICC/BASIS has also suggested that we might limit the number of proposals per entity so that there is an opportunity for many to have workshop proposals considered and selected.
But we should be brave this year in terms of both the main sessions and the workshops, to ensure that the program is full and rich and interesting and that people come away from the overall schedule feeling like they really learned something and have good things to take home with them.
Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you very much.  That was a rich menu and I take from it:  Let's be brave.
I would have one question, which to me at least is not quite clear.
Do we keep the old main themes?  Up to now, I have not necessarily heard that people want to move away from them, but rather, refocus the sessions but the themes could be there in the background and they have, in the past, I think served us well as an overall concept.
But what I do hear is that the way the sessions are organized in the past under the broad heading of, let's say, "access" are not focused enough, and you mentioned, let's say, local content could be under Internet governance for development, but it could also be under diversity, but then we would drill down to have more of a subject.
My feeling is that to get rid of all the major themes we have had in the past since 2006 as they were evolving -- in essence, we only had four but then they evolved a bit -- might be too radical a break with the past, but that we can keep them as an overall heading and tweak, then, the sessions and drill down a bit deeper.
I see people waving hands.  Would they react to my -- okay.  Let me interrupt quickly the order of speakers and give the floor to Chris and to Bill.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you.  Fine.  Okay.  My only -- the only point I would make is that I don't think we should abandon them, but I think that what's come to be is that they all have to have their own main session, and I think that's something that we need to look at.
So they should still be there.  They guide us.  They guide the workshops as -- for the main headings that they're under and so on, but I think we need to be very careful that we don't just put ourselves straight back into the position where we suddenly have to have a main session for every single one of those.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Okay.  I was told I should actually give the full name and also the affiliation to help the scribes, so Bill Smith from PayPal.
>>PAYPAL:  Yes.  Bill Smith, PayPal. 
I would be either more heretical or bold and suggest that we get rid of the things that date back to 2006, and that the major themes that we heard in the session from this morning, I think, would be more interesting to people attending. 
And I have seen us struggle in past years trying to fit workshops into one of the four or six major themes, and I think a better classification system would, in fact, help us.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  May -- I see now that quite a number of people would like to react to that and that would disturb the flow of the people who have been waiting in the queue.
So sorry I started all this, but I think it's a discussion worth having but can we take it up at a later stage and continue with the order of speakers we have on the list?
And maybe even speakers who have put their name down may also wish to react to this question.
So I go back to the old order, but you all will have an opportunity to comment.
Okay.  There was Vladimir Radunovic from DiploFoundation was the next speaker.
>>DIPLOFOUNDATION: Thank you, thank you very much Markus.  Vladimir Radunovic from DiploFoundation. 
A short burst of ideas on a couple of issues, some as a reflection to discussions on brainstorming on the MAG list and some of my own.
The first one is the flow. 
As I see the flow of the sessions, last year we had a good -- and year before we had a good exercise of the first session for newcomers.  Last year it was a little bit last-minute organized, but I think this should remain as the beginning of the IGF involving also the new governments and others who are new at the IGF to map the field.
Then we should go into discussions of mapping the discussions and I suppose a main session -- main sessions in the beginning might serve for mapping the field.
Then we might go into workshops where we exactly go into details.  I don't think the main sessions should be going too much into details.
And then at the end, we might use the main sessions to wrap up and make summaries and close with taking stock.
There were some common themes on the MAG list.  We might think about avoiding overlapping main sessions and workshops.  I think it's worth discussing.  I'm not sure, I don't even have a position on that, but it's worth thinking about it.
When it comes to the main sessions, I do agree that three-hour sessions are too long, and I do think we should think about how to split it into less, if we cannot change the interpreters' working time.
One of the very important things for the main sessions is interactivity, and I take from the EuroDIG experience.  One of the best sessions I've ever seen was, in fact, in Geneva in EuroDIG 2009 when there were only two moderators without any panelists.  It was amazing.  And I think this is something we should go -- of course you have a lot of people, keynote speakers, in the audience, but have very short inputs, not sitting on the panel and so on.
So this -- we should consider this.
Workshops should feed into main sessions, but also main sessions should feed into workshops.
So if the main session is mapping the field, it can set up the ground and help the workshops fit into the workshops, and then workshops can feed back.
As for the format of different sessions, we can consider -- and I think we did in the past as well -- different formats of also workshops.  If it is a new topic, then probably it can be a panel with more speakers that tend to map the technical, economic, legal aspects, and so on.
If it is not a new topic, it should be an open discussion with as few panelists as possible.
If it is a ripe topic, it can be a final roundtable where one can try to reach some of the agreements.
Speakers for the workshops, again, should be as few as possible.  Definitely we should avoid having same names appearing in a number of sessions.  Probably we should even limit the number of appearances per person on different sessions.  Otherwise we have so-called usual suspects in all the sessions.
Then there are different formats that we can also introduce, and we'll be talking in response to the CSTD report about a capacity-building track, and capacity-building, for instance, doesn't have to be only in the format of sessions.
We discuss and we brainstormed a number of other formats like the session for newcomers, which can be with a group work, like the training.  If someone wants to provide training sessions, that's okay.  Like the fair.  Like even the questions and answers spaces, whether within the IGF village we could have a place where anyone can come and say "Hey, I don't know anything about IPv6, can someone help me?"  And then we have people that can help him or her about certain things they don't understand.
So we should think also about other different formats of activities, not only the sessions.
And to conclude, a short reflection on the reporting.
I agree with some points that I've heard that the reports we've been doing thus far, I think, were quite useless.  I'm not sure if we have statistics of how many people have been reading the reports on the Web site after the IGF.  I'm afraid it wouldn't be too many.
The reports were long.  They were not structured.  It was not easy to find the way for certain topics.
There is quite a simple technical solution, and also conceptual, which is bringing in the tags or the key words, not only per session area but also that the organizers are encouraged to, for instance, introduce the tag of "net neutrality" or "intellectual property rights" or "child safety" and so on.  We can think of a number of tags and I'm happy to move it through the MAG if this is an interesting point.
But this could help us follow the reports more clearly on specific topics and even key words after the IGF and even prepare some functional summaries based on that.
And finally, I think we should capitalize more on social media and social networks.
The majority of people at the IGF, and even those remote, use social media.  Twitter, Facebook, blogs and so on, reports.  There is a great potential crowdsourcing of these feeds, and feeding that into the reports of the IGF as well as during the process as we did in Baku.  And again, I'm happy to help with that, but probably more on that when we are talking about remote participation in the next stage.  Thank you.
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  Thank you.  I think the different formats is something there is fairly broad agreement on.  We heard that already.  And there are certain sessions, as you pointed out, that everybody would agree on, like the session for newcomers, I think, and also the taking stock session.  Everybody seems to agree that these are useful sessions.
Different formats, we had in the past -- actually, I think it was Hyderabad -- experimented with poster sessions and I seem to remember that worked quite well but that depends a little bit on the locality, but that's definitely something we should revisit.
We had also at one point tried -- or discussed the possibility of having speed dialogue, but then shied away from doing it.
There are obviously different things that we can explore.
I have my long list so Robert, you are on my list of speakers.  You can put down your hand and -- sorry.  Your name is?
>> (Speaker is off microphone.)
>>CHAIR KUMMER:  I won't give you the floor now, but just to make sure that I have your name.
And then next speaker is Bill Drake.  Yes.  Bill.
>>BILL DRAKE:  Thank you, Markus.
I -- I'm feeling a little confused now because in the morning I thought that we were moving towards a consensus about getting rid of the old rubrics for the main sessions and now I feel like the movement is back in the other direction again.
I'll only state my own preference, which I've stated repeatedly for several years, which is that I -- I agree with Bill Smith.  I wouldn't necessarily call it dumping them.  Maybe that sounds too unceremonious.  But I think it is time for some innovation.
We have so many circumstances where there are hot issues being debated out there in the wider Internet governance landscape, and we can't sort of organize main sessions around them as yet because they don't fit the boxes, and I think that's just been a real straitjacket.
It's not clear to me that it really serves that much purpose anymore to continue to stick with those old rubrics when we've got so many options for interesting other topics.
So I would certainly be amongst those who think it's time to retire them.
We could maybe incorporate them -- for the purpose of having rubrics to organize workshops under, we could retain some of those and maybe have the MAG think of some other ones as well, but I wouldn't -- I would really like to see us go beyond being limited by those.
More generally, though, a few other points I would like to make.
I agree with those who suggest that -- having co-moderated a couple of the CIR main sessions, I definitely think three hours is way too long.  Doesn't work.  Let's break it in half.
However, I think there may be some topics where it really does make sense to have two separate panels perhaps rotated or two different formats rotated on a particular topic when it's something that really requires a more in-depth treatment, et cetera.
I think we have to also think about not just in terms of the kinds of things Lee Hibbard was suggesting of mixing formats.  I'd love to go back to the idea of having debates.  I mean, we've talked about it in the past but we've never done it.  Why not -- and it doesn't have to be two people.  You could have debate teams.  I mean, look at what they do at the Oxford debates. 
You know, there are a lot of fun things we could try to do to juice things up, where you have a few people on one side and a few people on the other side and a motion or something. 
I ju