The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Open Consultations of the IGF, in Paris. 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.
Wednesday, 02 SEP 2015
Paris, France
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, let's settle down. Thank you. Especially Marilyn Cade.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you. Just before we start, I would just like to point out a few things that the interpreters asked me to say. If anybody has any prepared text, you know, short paragraphs or anything, the interpreters would appreciate if you could give them a copy or just give it to Brian and then Brian will give it to the interpreters.
When you make an intervention, they also request that you speak slowly. I know I'm at fault at that. I speak rather fast sometimes. But try and speak slowly, and say your name slowly. It's also for the transcription. And your organization.
So introduce yourself fully, you're speaking on behalf of your organization or it's a personal intervention. And can you please remember to switch your mics on when you speak and off when you've finished speaking. Thank you very much. And with that, I'll hand it over to Janis to start the meeting.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much, Chengetai. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is my pleasure to welcome all of you to the third MAG meeting and open consultations which are taking place this time at UNESCO and I would like to use this opportunity in presence of the Deputy Director of UNESCO, Mr. Getachew Engida, to express our gratitude for hospitality and hosting us, and I think that this is a very good tradition that once every year MAG is meeting at UNESCO. Not only for a change of scenery, but also to be able to reach out to delegations based here in Paris and talk about, IGF, preparations for IGF.
So before asking Deputy Director-General to say a few words, I would like to see if there are any proposals for agenda or we can follow the meeting agenda as was proposed, and virtually agreed during the previous MAG meeting.
So I see no objections. We will follow agenda as suggested, of course with all the flexibility that we can apply.
And now I would like to invite Getachew to say a few words. Getachew, please.
>>GETACHEW ENGIDA: Thank you, Janis. It's always a pleasure to see you in your own house. Welcome back.
Distinguished members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Director-General, it's my great pleasure to welcome you all to UNESCO for this Internet Governance Forum open consultations and this meeting of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group.
Let me start by saying how proud UNESCO is to have supported the Internet Governance Forum since its creation in Athens in 2006. The IGF has grown considerably since then, and I wish to thank each of you -- current MAG members, former MAG members, all observers who are present in this room -- for your contribution to this evolution.
Over the past nine IGFs, UNESCO has organized and co-organized more than 50 workshops and open fora across a wide range of issues, from promoting freedom of expression and privacy on the Internet, on multilingualism in cyberspace, on local content, on digital preservation, and many other dimensions of our Internet-related work.
In all of this, UNESCO focuses on the role that the Internet can and should play in empowerment of women and men in advancing human rights and dignity and building more inclusive societies and fostering more sustainable development.
Our position is very clear. We believe that access to Internet should be universal, accessible, inclusive, and global.
The acronym "ROAM" refers to the four principles that UNESCO highlights to guide the development and governance of Internet: Human rights, openness, accessibility, and multistakeholder participation. As you know, along with tremendous benefits, the digital revolution is also raising questions about new divides, about access to information and knowledge, about freedom of expression, about privacy, and about ethics. These issues are explored in a UNESCO study mandated by the last General Conference presented last March at the International Conference on Connecting the Dots, focusing on information and knowledge, freedom of expression, privacy, and the ethical dimensions of the Information Society.
UNESCO's final report on this topic -- on this topic (indiscernible) Keystones to Foster Inclusive Knowledge has now been published entitled "Access to Information and Knowledge, Freedom of Expression, Privacy and Ethics on a Global Internet."
I believe this is a highly informative resource and I certainly encourage you to take a copy with you and read it extensively.
The UNESCO executive board has decided to submit the outcome document to discussion at the forthcoming General Conference in November this year. In addition, the Director-General has forwarded it as a nonbinding input to the post-2015 development agenda.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the Multistakeholder Advisory Group for having approved our open forum to present the Keystones Internet study along with three workshops on on-line speech and user radicalization, on balancing privacy and transparency, and on showcasing the UNESCO Internet freedom series publication.
Ladies and gentlemen, UNESCO will be represented by a high-level representation at the second Internet Governance Forum which will take place in Brazil from November 10th to 13th, 2015, at the end of the year. They will be studying the development of Internet governance, and strengthening sustainable development is particularly important at a time when governments are working on the next development agenda.
The work that you have started is extremely promising, and I do think it will be extremely useful for the Internet Governance Forum.
In this spirit, I would like to reaffirm UNESCO's staunch support to reaching why you are objectives -- in reaching your objectives, and we hope that you will have very fruitful debate over the next few days. Thank you for your attention.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you very much, Mr. Engida, for your presentation.
This is a multilingual house, and French and English are the two working languages of UNESCO, and so thank you very much for expressing UNESCO's full support and for all the support UNESCO can give us in preparing the work of the IGF.
Mr. Engida will not be with us all the time. Are there any questions that MAG members or delegations would like to ask to the Deputy Director-General? That is maybe the only opportunity.
So please, Hossam.
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Just take the opportunity we need, if possible, a speaker on (indiscernible) and Internet economy, a main session during the IGF. So if possible, we would like to invite you or whoever you delegate to be on this main session.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah. Thank you. There is a slight calendar clash, actually. IGF is taking place at the same time when UNESCO holds its General Conference. And actually, the dates coincide also with the committee on communication information, which deals with Internet-related issues. So there is a -- this is kind of unfortunate circumstances, but we -- we are very, very convinced that the highest possible delegation from UNESCO will be with us in Joao Pessoa.
So any questions. Any further questions?
So if none, then thank you, Getachew. Please stay as long as you can.
So before going to next agenda item, I would like maybe to ask those representatives of different initiatives under Agenda Item 4, please let the secretariat know that you will speak on the topic.
We know that a few may not be present in the room, just to know how many will be speaking. Just please indicate either through email or otherwise.
Now I will turn to the host country and will ask to update us on the state of preparations, and I will start with you, Benedicto. Please.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you, Janis, and good morning to everyone. It's a pleasure to be here again with you in this meeting.
In regard to the state of preparations for IGF 10, I'd like to turn to two people that are representing the host country here besides me.
First of all, I'd like to offer the floor for the Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Steering Committee, Hartmut Glaser, who will brief on the preparations in general, logistical aspects, and the outcome of field missions that were made to Joao Pessoa together with the U.N. staff.
And secondly, I would turn to my colleague, Jandyr Santos, who also on behalf of Brazil, of the government, to inform on aspects relating to the host country agreement, visas, and other information that are responsibility of the government.
So if -- with your permission, Mr. Chair, I'll turn first to Hartmut Glaser and then to Jandyr.
>>HARTMUT GLASER: Good morning, everyone. 65 days to our IGF in Joao Pessoa.
[ Laughter ]
>>HARTMUT GLASER: We need to train again. Joao Pessoa. I see everyone learned the word.
Welcome in Brazil. We are working very, very hard. My understanding is that everything is running well. I like to advise everyone take care of your flight details, flight connections. The Web site shows clearly that we have a lot of options. You can come in the country through Sao Paulo and Rio, but other options are there. Shorter distances from U.S. and Europe to Brasilia, the capital, and through Salvador in the northeast, and then you need to have a local connection. Depends on the city. Can be a one-hour connection or two-hour connection, but everything is in place.
We are following all the reservations in the hotels. We have more than 20 hotels blocked, and I discover that many delegations are going directly to the hotel, so I don't know exactly how many members -- participants already have reservation. The number that I have is not the correct or the final number, but we have a thousand rooms already used for members from all over the world.
500, 600 use our official agency, and 3- or 400 others go directly to the hotels. But we have space for another thousand, so no problem.
We are working with the final, final, final decisions in relation with some local supplies, but everything is in place. I will be there in Joao Pessoa again next week. The final questions are more related to the security from United Nations, so we will receive the supervisor that United Nations appointed for this job. He is very happy with the facility and all the infrastructure, but we need to see some details related to some emergency problems. You'll know that we have a problem many years ago in -- I think it was in Baghdad, with the accident with our Brazilian ambassador, Sergio -- how is the name?
>> Vieira de Mello.
>>HARTMUT GLASER: Sergio Vieira de Mello. And since this date, United Nations is very, very, very strong with all the security details.
I am comparing 2007 in Rio and now 2010 in Joao Pessoa as completely different. 2015 in Joao Pessoa is completely different. So we need to fulfill some higher level expectations in security, but everything is in place, local agreements with the local police, military police and civil police and high authorities. So my understanding is that we are in good shape, going well, and I mentioned we have 60 days, so everything is in place.
Probably, Janis, we need to discuss some details related to rooms, but this depends on the appointment of how many workshops and we have plenty of space, so no problems.
We have some details in relation to parallel programs. I am receiving a lot of requests. But we have some space outside the United Nations space so that we don't have conflicts with security if, by any reason, that is not under the agenda of United Nations.
Probably I don't need to go in more details, but I am willing to respond to questions, and if I have an answer, it will be a pleasure to answer.
Everything is okay. We are doing well. The registration now is open. I don't know how many we already have, but we expect to have a very strong participation of the city of Joao Pessoa and locals.
We have a program running for young people, participation of a hundred lettings from our neighbor countries in South America and Latin America, so my expectation is that we will have a number between 2,000 and 2,500 participants.
I am not looking to have more than this because if we have a lot of people coming, the work will be growing and growing and growing, but everyone is welcome and I expect that we will have a wonderful IGF meeting in Joao Pessoa in Brazil.
Again, welcome in our city.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much. I think we will take all the presentations in a row and then we'll go for Q&A. That also -- I understand that there is a question already from remote participant.
Jandyr, please.
>>JANDYR SANTOS: Thank you, Chair. I would like to touch upon two different issues. The first one is visas for the IGF, and the second one is the status of the host country agreement.
As for the first issue, I'd like to confirm that all Brazilian embassies and consulates have been duly instructed to grant courtesy visas free of charge, valid for 30 days upon entering to Brazil, to all IGF participants.
In order to facilitate the processing of visas, we ask all participants that need visas to enter Brazil to present, together with the visa application form, a printed copy of the registration confirmation letter issued by the IGF secretariat. And I'd like to remind that the confirmation letter will be emailed to all participants once registration application has been approved by the IGF secretariat.
And as for the second issue, status of the host country agreement, let me confirm that all outstanding issues have been duly cleared between the United Nations and the Brazilian government. We are now going through some formal procedures, some final editing and formatting of the document, and it's our expectation that the formal signature ceremony could take place in the next few days. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you very much for this information update, and also for hospitality, offering entry visas to Brazil free of charge.
Now it will be time for questions to our hosts, and I see that there is one question from remote participant.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you, Chair. This is Subi Chaturvedi, and thank you so much for the update, Ambassador Fonseca, Hartmut, and Jandyr.
Good morning, everyone.
Just one request first. If all the speakers before making their intervention could please identify themselves for on-line participants. There are many members from the community, so that would be helpful.
Question for Hartmut.
Thank you for sharing the update on the youth session. I did want to ask you an additional question.
Is it only for Latin American countries or can young members from across the world also apply for fellowships, and if there is a contact person, can an email be shared with some more details of the day zero session? What is it that is being planned?
Second question: If an update can also be received on the open space as agreed upon by the MAG? Is that something that has been provided for?
Thanks again for the courtesy visas. This is going to be extremely helpful.
And is there WiFi at the venue?
Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Subi, for questions.
Any other questions from the MAG members or participants of the open consultations?
If not for the moment, Hartmut, would you like to answer?
>>HARTMUT GLASER: Yes. The first question in relation to the remote participation, there is an open invitation on the Web site on IGF Web site for candidates that are willing to be a remote hub. I received information this morning that already 22 candidates are there. So we are working together with the secretariat to put in place remote participation.
I remember that for NETmundial in Sao Paulo last year we had 34 remote participation, and it worked really well. I am working with the capacity of 50 remote hubs, but don't -- depends only on the Brazilian side. Depends on the other part or the other side.
So we are using our communication system or contacts with ISOC chapters and other facilities around the world. And we are ready to work with every interested party. In relation to the youth participation, I know that other programs are already in preparation. We are working more in relation to Latin America, in South America to facilitate because the conference will be in our part of the world. We have some limitation of funds. It is not related to CGI funds or special funds that we receive from third parties. And the idea is to support youth participation with this money for Latin America. But Asia and Europe in parallel are working about some programs. I don't have any information about Africa. But we cannot do everything. So we invite others to be part of this program.
I remember that last time in May in our IGF meeting or MAG meeting, we have the interest of some companies that are willing to support this program. So, if we have, let's say, more money -- when I say "we," I say the community internationally, we can bring more people to IGF in Brazil.
In relation to day zero, I think it depends on some information that we need from the secretariat. But we have a lot of space for activities on day zero.
For sure Wi-Fi will be there for everyone. We are working with connectivity already in place. And this is a must. So Wi-Fi will be there for everyone. And you can bring two or three equipments, no problem. We don't have any lack of IP addresses, so everything will be worked very well. I don't know if I answered all the questions.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, there's one more. Virat.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning fellow colleagues, distinguished colleagues from the MAG. And also thank you for the excellent update on the preparations to our Brazilian colleagues.
One question perhaps for the secretariat. Once a registration is made, how long does it take for a letter for confirmation to be received back? Is it instantaneous, or does it take time? It seems that the only way to apply for a visa for those who need a visa would be to have a letter in their hand. So, if you could just clarify if it takes time and in what form is that letter sent back? An email or letter confirmation? Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Virat. It seems you have not registered yet. It takes about two days.
[ Laughter ]
I did registration, and I got the confirmation in two days' time.
>> Me too.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And it also depends. If you're a regular participant, it's very quick. But, if it's something that we don't know and we may have to make additional checks, because the onus is on the secretariat to make sure that we only approve those that have a real interest in attending the meeting not going there for a holiday or for some other reasons. So -- yeah. We do take that seriously.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So, Virat, are you satisfied with the answer?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: ICC Basis, Elizabeth.
>>ICC BASIS: It's Elizabeth speaking from ICC Basis. Good morning, everyone. I am just asking a question about transportation. I'm wondering about what transportation will be made available for participants between hotels and the venue in what time slots? In some instances, for example, business we often have meetings ahead of the meetings in the mornings. Will there be transportation options available to people who wish to participate in those outside of the schedule? Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. And also, Hartmut, if you can say about this social gathering place, that also has planned to be organized.
>>HARTMUT GLASER: The problem is this. The transfer from the hotel to the conference center is not easy because probably we will go to bed very late. And probably everyone likes to have the last bus in the morning going to the conference center. So I am fighting with a decision that we will have only one time in the morning so that everyone needs to wake up early.
Look, the idea is to start at 9:30 in the morning. If this -- it will be confirmed in our program. I think it's 9:30. We need a half hour from the hotels to the conference center. The idea is to have busses -- enough busses for everyone but not, let's say, every half hour or every 15 minutes. Because I learned at other conferences that the first bus will be empty, the second will be only one third, the second probably will be half until the last we have not enough space for all the latecomers.
So my idea is to put four or five busses on the same time parting from the hotels. We can be flexible. Not the same time, probably 5 or 10 minutes difference. But we will join three or four hotels in walking distance together. And four or five busses will take 250 people at once to the conference center.
So you can have all the space, all the rooms in the morning in the conference center for parallel meetings. We have 20 rooms. No problem of space. I think the best is that we go as soon as possible between 8:00 and 8:30 to the conference center. We will arrive before 9:00. And then we have time to go to our facilities with our infrastructure, can have the coffee, can have something there. That is not already the final, final, final decision but we're working to have 40 or 50 busses. During the day there will not be a bus waiting for you every five minutes. It's impossible. We will have busses in 45 minutes or one hour interval so that you can go back to the city and go back to the conference. And then in the evening at 5:30, 6:00, all busses on the same time take you back to the hotel.
Very important, Janis asked me, we will have in the central hotel -- the name is tropical Tambau is the hotel in the middle of all the other hotels, probably two kilometers, three kilometers from some hotel. But it's, let's say, walking distance will be a networking place from 8:00 until midnight every day.
So we will offer a nice place. It's a tent. I hope it's not raining at this time. It will be a good place for some caipirinhas. If you don't know what is caipirinha, you need to come and see it. It's not lemonade, but it's a good drink in Brazil. We'll have from 8:00 to 12:00 networking place with some music, with some fun fest. How we say this in Brazil. If you see the World Cup in some places was no place to go to the stadium. They have screens. And before and after the game, they have music and some singers. So it will be a networking place starting on day zero until day 4. So five evenings we will offer some nice place.
The only question that we are discussing -- and I hope that you understand -- will be a bar but not an open bar. So everyone needs to have some currency to pay the caipirinha, wine, or the other drinks.
But it will be a nice place in the central hotel. If you stay in this hotel, it's only walking distance. If you say in neighboring hotels, you need to walk 10 or 15 minutes. So my understanding is there will be sufficient transport, sufficient busses. We cannot attend one by one. We need to work with groups, 10, 15, 20. But there will be service from the city to the conference center. The conference center is five, six kilometers from our hotels. So it's 15 minutes, 20 minutes by bus, no more. It's a very short distance. It's not walking distance, but it's a very near distance with busses. And we will have enough transport, transfer from the hotel to the conference center in both ways, in the morning, in the afternoon, every time.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you very much. The more we answer, the more questions we have. We have from remote participant. But before that Benedicto, please.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: I just have one for the commenting in that regard referring to the points that would be raised and she had already raised it in our lists referring to that concept of an open space. I think that's a good way she has described it. And I understand this has been also been made available in other IGFs. So I'm not sure exactly if that has been already been addressed. I understand there will be a need for the MAG to endorse this concept of having this open space within the conference facilities for people to meet, to have some more informal gatherings. So I heard Hartmut Glaser has indicated in the context of the hotel, inner city. But I'm not sure if, within the context of the conference itself, that has been addressed. And I turn to the secretariat because we have had discussion on this before. Can we have some update on this?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. We are going to have an open space speaker's corner. We had something similar in Hyderabad. And I talked to Hartmut, and we are going to have one space like that for --
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Now a question from remote participant.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Hi. On behalf of Segun, is there any hotel specifically arranged or reserved for MAG members?
>>HARTMUT GLASER: The answer to that is no. We never have this in the past. I ask the secretariat. And because everyone likes to stay with friends, it's impossible. We have 20 hotels reserved or blocked for you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Cheryl.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you also for the presentation. It's great that things seem to be organized and really appreciate all the effort that the host country team has put into it.
Just a quick question because I'm really not familiar with the space. What resources are actually available at the conference center? You know, in terms of convenience store, et cetera? I understand the hotels are somewhat spread out. So will there be a bus schedule? And for those who may be late, what other transportation options are there? Are there taxis that are readily available? And just an idea of what they might cost and any information you can provide on that would be really helpful.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Virat. Peter.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Thanks also to Brazil for the presentation and all the work.
Mr. Chair, just strikes me there might be a more formal response of thanks from the MAG to Brazil for the gesture in relation to making visas free. I know that Brazil has visa waiver arrangements with many countries but not all. I understand, for example, I think a U.S. visa costs $160. So there is actually something behind this gesture. And I think that might be nice for the MAG to respond formally to that. And, obviously, it can't always be done. And it sets a very nice precedent for future years. I'm not sure what the appropriate response is, but I think there should be some response from the MAG to that particular gesture by the Brazilians. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter, for suggesting that. Indonesia.
>>INDONESIA: Just to add the questions before. Could you give us a kind of maps from hotel -- from airport to hotel and -- the hotels. Thanks.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So transportation from airport to hotels and back. ICC Basis.
>>ICC BASIS: Yes, thank you. Just to follow up on a couple of the more practical logistical questions that have arisen in our discussion. You mentioned payments and some local currency. Wanted to get a sense for how accessible it is going to be for either cash points or people to have ways to access local currency on the ground if cards and other things are readily usable and what parameters those would be. I think some details around that would help people prepare.
And then the other question is, of course, a linguistic one, which is, to the extent that people will be able to communicate in English or will they need to arrange for assistance with a local speaker, if that could be addressed.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Hartmut, one thing is clear. Everyone in Brazil speaks Portuguese. That's for sure.
Hartmut, please.
>>HARTMUT GLASER: I don't remember the order, but let me go in details.
Will be a transfer from the local airport to all the hotels. So we will pick you up on the airport, and you will be delivered in your specific hotel.
If you miss the connection, the city is a city of 600,000 inhabitants. You have a lot of taxis. So no problem. There's regular bus services. No problem.
So this is not the question. It's not a small city. It's not the biggest city. In Brazil we have Sao Paulo and Rio with a million, and Joao Pessoa is 650,000. But all the services are there.
We will have our staff, one person in each lobby in each hotel with English to help you if you have any problem with language.
Probably the same we will try to do in some restaurants that we are recommending for your reception. But we will have staff that can be with you in some places, no problem.
In the city you can use your international credit card. Every credit card is accepted in restaurants and hotel. I learned that I don't need local currency when I travel. I use my credit card. So, if you like to do it, now 1 one dollar U.S. dollar is around 3.5 reals. The situation is -- the currency, the exchange is not fixed, can be changing. But 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 can increase. So that is -- you can do it in the airport when you arrive. You can do it in most of the hotels. Or you can have ATM machines in all the banking. It's no problem. My recommendation is have some currency. Probably $50 in your pocket. And the other expenses pay with your credit card is the best way.
The exchange rate, normally, the official rate is best with credit cards.
So the map will be ready when you receive the guidebook. We'll have all the information for busses, the timing, the hotels. Everything will be explained. Most of the information will be on our Web site earlier. So we have this already probably in 30 days or four, five, six weeks. But everyone will receive all the information. We don't have any reception in the international airports. When you arrive in Sao Paulo or when you arrive in Rio or when you arrive in Brazilia, you need to take care of your connection to Joao Pessoa. But in Joao Pessoa on the airport will be a bus. There will be a reception, and we'll guide you to the busses, so no problem.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Giacomo, please.
>>HARTMUT GLASER: Only to offer information in relation to the wireless, all the hotels will be -- will have -- will have, let's say, an extra connection that we are supplying. The hotels normally work with not the best connection. But we will have 100 megabits in the hotels so that you can use your Internet in the conference center and 24 hours in your hotel. So no one will miss connection with your home or with your office or with your country.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Giacomo.
>>GIACOMO MAZZONE: Yes. One practical question is, apparently, there are possibility to arrive to Joao Pessoa from Recife by car.
And second question, I understand that there will be no high-level event this year at all.
>>HARTMUT GLASER: The first question, Recife is 100 kilometers from Joao Pessoa. It's not an airline. It's only bus or car. I don't recommend Recife because of the 100 kilometers with bus. But, if you like to arrive in Recife, there are flights from Europe and from west, so no problem. But you need to take care of your local connection.
And, in relation to high level, will be an explanation later by our ambassador who will explain about day zero high-level ministry meeting.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Egypt.
>>EGYPT: Thank you, Chair. And thank you again to Brazil for the excellent preparations which we experienced before in Rio. I'm sure it's going to be a wonderful event.
And just one thing, if the hotels that will be selected as meeting points, it could be indicated maybe very soon that those are the meeting points for shuttling at the hotel, that would help people in making their selection in booking hotels. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you for the suggestion. Any further questions? I see none. Everything is clear.
So, in absence of further questions, I would like to thank Hartmut and Jandyr and the other host country delegation for updating us on state of preparations. I think we are very reassured that things are on the way. Everything will be organized in the best possible way, and looking forward to come to Joao Pessoa in November.
So let us move then to the next agenda item. And that is the state of substantive preparations. And here we have two subitems. It is a workshop program which was circulated a few days ago for the first time. And that is day zero. I would like to propose start with day zero. And then move to the workshop program.
So secretariat will provide the general update on state of preparations. And I think that is something that we will start with, please.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Janis.
I'd just like to confirm that, yes, I totally agree with Hartmut and Jandyr that the preparations are going very well.
I just wanted to add a few things about registration, online registration. We're going to close the registration on October 23rd. So I do encourage people to register as soon as possible.
And also, we're closing it on October 23rd. That doesn't mean that if you register and receive something on October 23rd, you will be necessarily in time to get a visa. You have to do it earlier if you need a visa for Brazil. This is mostly for the in-country and those people who don't need visas. There will be on-site registration which will open three days before the meeting, but if you register late, it will be very difficult to assist you in getting a fast-track visa. That's almost impossible.
Most of the deadlines have finished. We've -- people have finished updating the workshops, and as we mentioned, the first draft of the workshop schedule is out there and we also ask people to look and see if there's any clashes with their speakers.
We've tried our best, but there are so many speakers sometimes there may be some clashes with speak- -- the same speaker scheduled for the same time.
We will try and assist to change it, but as you know, if we change one, then it will have knock-on effects, it will change the rest, so we have to do rechecking. So we'll try and accommodate that, but it will be very difficult.
We have bilateral meeting slots. Anybody who wants to have a bilateral meeting during the IGF, we have rooms set and available. They just need to send an email to the IGF and also look at the information on the Web site how you can book a bilateral meeting room.
There's also shipping for materials for tote bags. Some organizations would like to put, you know, pamphlets on the organization's intergovernmental -- I mean, Internet governance initiative and efforts. We're going to put an address, which will be an address for I think a U.N. agency in Brasilia, and then the host country will ship it to the center. We'll put up that address shortly, once we've just finished the negotiations with our sister agency in Brazil.
But these have to be shipped before November, so that they can come into the center on time.
And -- yes. We've talked about the speakers corner.
And also, other questions that I've been asked is, will there be lunch provided on day zero, and our hosts have graciously agreed to provide lunch on day zero as well, so we don't need to bring your own lunch, and there will be -- will there be coffee as well? Yes, coffee will be available for day zero. We have 17 pre-events on day zero, and day zero is basically full up. We can't accept any more new day zero events.
Yes, those are the general updates I have. We can discuss the schedule now.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So as we heard, 17 events on day zero, and if I may ask Benedicto to speak about official events organized by the host country on day zero, including ministerial.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you, Janis.
Well, the most important events to be organized by Brazil as the host country will be the high-level events due to take place in the afternoon of day zero. That is November 9, Monday.
The theme for this high-level event, as you may recall, has already been informed, which is "Agenda for Internet Governance Post-2015." The idea is that this will allow participants, in their interventions, to tackle any aspect of Internet governance they wish, to provide a very broad umbrella for interventions.
We have, of course, indicated the main developments that are taking place this year that are WSIS+10 review, the decision on sustainable development goals. We have been suggesting that those major developments might serve as guides for interventions, but nonetheless, leaving flexibility for those interventions to take place.
We have approached all countries through our embassies, all governments. We have been informing -- inviting for IGF and informing about this high-level event on day zero and inviting also for the -- for full participation, but particularly for the high-level event and for the opening ceremony on the first day.
We have indicated a wish that countries would be represented at the ministerial level so they might be able to participate in day zero deliberations.
And of course in addition to governmental representatives, we expect that the high-level event will, according to what has been done in previous years, also include leaderships from the other stakeholder groups.
We -- as government, we have reached out to governments and to international organizations, to ITU, to UNESCO, and to the U.N. Secretary-General, UNDESA, but of course we are working with the secretariat and with CGI. We understand the other stakeholders have also been duly informed.
So basically there will be other events on day zero to be sponsored by individual institutions in Brazil, academic, government institutions, but I think the high-level event, the one I have been describing, is the one we are, as -- this will be -- let's say the host country official event.
But I'm not sure if Glaser would like to speak on other events that will also take place on day zero to be sponsored by individual Brazilian institutions, if it is the case.
Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. You see on the screen now the schedule of day zero and we're talking only about the day zero right now.
Hartmut, please.
>>HARTMUT GLASER: At our last meeting last Friday from CGI in Brazil, we approved we support a new request coming from our ministry of communication.
On Monday morning, day zero in the morning, they will use a space. We just are requesting how many participants they expect to have. It will be a discussion about democracy and communication sponsored by our ministry of communication. So this will be an official program on day zero. They are inviting special speakers and guests, and we don't see any problem to support CGI and Brazilian government this program on day zero from our ministry of communication. That will be in the morning from 9:00 to 12:30 in one of the spaces on day zero.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. We have a remote participant, question from remote participant concerning day zero.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: A question from Sandra to the secretariat.
When will the booth application be confirmed and when can we order booth equipment?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: The booth applications will be confirmed -- I'm looking at Hartmut here -- within two weeks and you'll be able to order booth equipment after that.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Okay. The second question is from Shita. Okay. Well, she --
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Hello.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Go ahead.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please, Shita, go ahead.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you, Ambassador and chair. I just would like to ask whether Indonesia was a part of the invitations for the high-level ministry meeting because the ministry of communications has shown his interest to come. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you for indication, and Benedicto is getting ready to answer.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Yeah, absolutely. As I have indicated, all countries have been invited and we look forward for Indonesian participation. We understand that in some cases -- and that might be the case of Indonesia -- the interested ministers will require a specific invitation letter. In that case, we would be also ready to provide this letter. In principle, we have just made the information available through the embassy, through a note, but in case there will be a need for that specific invitation letter, we'll be more than glad to provide, in order to assist in the requirements for participation.
And if it is the -- the case of Indonesia, we'll be more than glad to assist in that regard.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Hartmut?
>>HARTMUT GLASER: Only to go in some details.
I am receiving a lot of messages about invitation from legal government. Probably our ministry of foreign relations sent the invitation to the ministries of foreign relations but probably in some cases they are not the best contact for IGF and for IC technology, so I am responding that we cannot -- we don't know exactly in each country how are the relationship between the different ministries.
Every country already received invitation. That is clear. So you need to check in your country who is the contact person or the contact entity, the contact ministry.
The invitation goes to the ministry of foreign relation, so for sure every country already has invitation. So please don't send me one by one asking again for invitation because you already have the invitation. It's in your country for sure.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Just to add, it's very important, that, because in the case of Internet governance, it's not -- there is not a uniformity in governments. In some cases, it's the foreign affairs, in others it's communications, some countries have specific ministries dedicated to this. So traditionally what we do is we channel through the foreign office, foreign ministry, in the expectation that there will be some internal coordination that will allow the invitation to go to the right ministry.
But we'll be ready to assist, as Glaser has said, in case there are some additional requirements to make sure that the right person will be there. Will be more than glad to assist and even to send specific letter of invitation, if this is the case. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Mark? Mark Carvell?
>>MARK CARVELL: Thank you, Janis, and good morning, everybody. Mark Carvell, U.K. government.
And thank you, Brazil, for making all these arrangements. Very impressed by the progress of preparations and so on.
I have a question for Ambassador Benedicto with regard to the high-level event in respect of the structure of the discussion.
I note your point about encouraging kind of a broad thematic approach, and I think that's -- that is a good approach to take, but I'm just wondering about the structure and what kind of mechanism for drawing a conclusion from it you might have in mind.
Do you anticipate some kind of outcome document that could serve as a scene-setter or some other statement of setting the agenda, if you like, for future discussions post-2015?
So that's my question with regard to the high-level event.
And I can confirm, by the way, the invitation has duly been received and transmitted across our administration, and when our minister, Ed Vaizey, returns next week, we'll be briefing him on his potential program and so on, so we'll respond formally at the earliest opportunity.
My -- couple of questions for Hartmut.
With regard to the hotel, if there's a preferred hotel for ministers and VIPs, in view of perhaps additional security considerations.
Do you recommend a specific hotel for ministers?
And then secondly, you mentioned earlier the ministry of communications holding an event. I'd be grateful to receive information about that at the earliest opportunity, and also to know how invitations are going to be made and issued for the ministry of communications event in the morning.
So as I say, I'd be grateful for further advice on that at the earliest opportunity, and then we can feed that into, of course -- if appropriate, into the minister's prospective program.
The more the minister can do while he's there in Brazil and engage on a wide range of ICT issues, the better, and it helps the case for making a long-haul trip and the cost of that.
So those are my questions. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. I will take more questions before going to answer.
So Virat, please, then Cheryl, then Indonesia, then Peter, and then remote participant.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to request the secretariat to email this. It's not easy to read from here and there's too much light on the screen, so if you could just email day zero to the participants.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So the schedule is on the Web site, IGF Web site. Please, you can see it --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Already there? Okay. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- already on your screen. Cheryl, please.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was wondering, with respect to participation in the high-level session, if passes will be given out or if it's open to all or what type of structure would be required for that.
Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Indonesia?
>>INDONESIA: Yeah. I suggest that you put the procedure for the ministers in the Web site so we can -- the minister want to observe it, can do the procedure.
And then second thing is the car provide by the Brazilian or we have to do something?
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Remote participant?
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: A question from Segun. What is the level of support that will be given to expert speakers from developing countries?
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So that will be more for secretariat.
Let -- any further questions about day zero?
Sorry. ICANN. Nigel, please.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: I have a question as well, Chair.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Nigel, please, and then remote participant.
>>NIGEL HICKSON: Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, fellow colleagues. Nigel Hickson, ICANN.
Thank you very much to Brazil and the secretariat for the briefing. Found it most illuminating. I'm trying to learn the language and I've already looked up the bus schedules in some -- and it's very easy to get from the airport.
A question on day zero. In terms of the event itself -- and I think having a wide agenda on Internet governance is very appropriate -- I wondered if Brazil was thinking of inviting representatives from the U.N. or the co-facilitators with respect to the WSIS session. I understand there will be other WSIS+10 review sessions later in the week, but I just wondered, given that WSIS is bound to come up in the discussion at the high-level ministerial, whether they could be invited to that session.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Remote participant.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you, Chair. This is Subi Chaturvedi.
Just a question for Hartmut.
Who is the contact person for the ministry event on democracy and communication? This will go a long way in deepening democracy so it would be helpful if that information could be made publicly available.
And the second question: On the high-level ministerial, will it be open for all stakeholders, participants, and does it require any form of preregistration? Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Subi, for your questions.
Netherlands?
>>NETHERLANDS: Thank you, Chair. Arnold van Rhijn, Dutch delegation, Dutch government. I'm just wondering whether there will be a conference app available for all the participants where you provide all the information regarding the program from day zero to day four, logistical information, matchmaking. We used this app during our conference, the Global Cyberspace Conference at the Hague in April, and it was very helpful, so I'm just asking perhaps the secretariat could answer what the state of the art is regarding this conference app.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. I think that's more to secretariat.
So we have a number of questions now, and let me ask Benedicto, then Hartmut, then secretariat to answer.
Benedicto, please.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. I'll try to answer all those. In case there is something missing, we can certainly clarify.
Well, first, in regard to the question by Mark Carvell for the high-level event, I would say at this -- this event has a different characteristic from the ones we have been dealing with here because it's very difficult for us at this point to foresee exactly how the event will unfold, because we do not even have the exact number of participants. In case there is a very strong showing of ministers, we'll have to adjust the program to -- because we have indicated the intent that all ministers who come will have an opportunity to speak.
And of course we'll have participants from other stakeholders.
So at this moment, we can try to anticipate some scenarios, but the exact configuration will have to maybe be done closer to the event.
Anyway, as I indicated, we have in our invitations to foreign governments and international organizations have indicated that the intent is that countries will be represented at the ministerial level and they will be allowed to speak on this theme, Agenda for Internet Governance Post-2015.
We have provided some ideas on topics that could be addressed and we certainly want to stimulate a free flow of information but with some direction that will allow us at the end to make some summary, and as we have said, that this will also serve as kind of scene-setting forward.
But we know it's very difficult. We cannot be prescriptive for ministers. We can give some ideas but it's not appropriate to indicate exactly -- they'll have flexibility to speak.
We certainly will want ministers and other high-level participants to discuss those very broad topics and with a future-oriented approach. We would certainly try to avoid individual participants to digress on internal measures that are being taken because this is maybe not -- it's important, interesting, but not useful for the overall evolution of our topics.
Will a car be provided for ministers? In principle, what the government will offer will be in line with international obligations. In case there is -- the minister of foreign affairs will come, there will be provide -- we'll provide assistance, appropriate assistance.
In case ministers from other portfolios, we -- we may seek ways to support but not exactly through -- through a car or security. I'm not sure we'll be able to provide. But we'll make an effort to the best of our capacity.
The high-level event, we intend and will be working with the secretariat in that regard that this will take place in a space that will allow participation of all those interested that are registered participants at IGF.
We intend that those discussions, although other participants may not intervene in the discussions but they will be able to assist in the meetings, and that might possibly wishfully serve also as some kind of guidance for the upcoming discussion, so we want to make sure we have a space that will allow everyone that is interested to come in and -- as far as they are registered as IGF participants, and they could witness the meeting.
The co-facilitators for WSIS+10 have already been invited. I understand both by us as host country and also by Janis as the chair -- the MAG chair. I'm not sure if we already have any positive reply but they have been invited. Especially because there will be a main session on WSIS+10 and we'd be very much interested if they could come and participate.
And we also intend, by the way, to also invite the president of the General Assembly himself. We have already informally indicated this wish, but we have to wait formally that the next president of GA will take office in a few weeks in order to send a formal invitation, but that's our intention.
And on top of that, as I have indicated before, the United Nations secretary-general has been invited. As well, we understand that this will coincide with the General Assembly so it might be very difficult for him to come, but we also would expect that some high-level representative from the U.N. or UNDESA will also be able to participate.
And I think those are the questions I had.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I have indication that co-facilitators have scheduled to be in Joao Pessoa. So at least that's the intention. PGA remains to be seen. But the director (saying name) of incoming president has been informed. And so so far indications are reasonably positive. Of course, that decision will be made as soon as new PGA is in the office.
Hartmut, do you have any further clarifications?
>>HARTMUT GLASER: To answer Mark's question in relation to security, all the hotels will be, let's say, under special security services. So we will have stronger police on all the places. I don't -- can't say 24 hours. But we cannot recommend a specific hotel, because most of the hotels already are blocked or reserved for participants. So this time will be difficult for me to recommend A, B, or C, because most of the hotels are already used by other participants. There's a lot of space in hotels. So, if I have the name of your minister and the hotel that he will stay, I can include this on my special services. No problem. But I need to know this in advance.
I will be in Joao Pessoa next week again for the final, final, final security arrangement with all the local police. And I can include this in my final negotiation. But I need to know if you will stay -- I don't know -- in the resort, 50 kilometers from the Convention Center, it will be possible for me. Because it's a nice place for beach to enjoy. Probably some people can be there one week earlier or will stay one week after. I don't know. So I need to know exactly and have this information. But Mark, for sure, I am willing to do the best to warranty that your minister will be in a good place.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you. Jandyr.
>>JANDYR SANTOS: Thank you, Janis. Just one clarification. We'd like to inform that the our ministry of communication has engaged the minister of foreign affairs with a view to providing us with further information on the aforementioned event on democracy and freedom of expression. And, once this information is available, it will be channeled and made -- forwarded to all the governments. And this event, as far as we understand, will be open to all IGF participants. I'd like to say that. Thank you.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you. Now secretariat on conference app.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. There were two questions. For the conference app, I was there for the meeting, and I was very impressed by that app. We have contacted the makers of the app, and we are just negotiating to see whether or not it's possible to have it for our meeting. We need three quotations from different -- it's a bit complicated, because we have to follow the conference rules. We are trying to get that app.
There was another question about funding for participants from developing countries. Yes, there is some funds available for funding of participants who are actively involved. There is criteria on the Web site. Unfortunately, it's a bit hidden. But we will make it more prominent. It's just under the funding for the MAG members. And it's, basically, the same thing from least developed to developing and transitional economies. And also that they have to show that they are actively involved in the meeting. I mean, be panelists or organizing workshops or, et cetera. I think we will be able to fund a few.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you.
Cheryl, please, question.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering if it would be possible to perhaps request of the organizers to provide just an informal description of what the session could be about. I think it would be helpful, particularly for new or first time participants in the IGF. Maybe just even 100, 150 word summary just kind of detailing what that session will be. Because some of them look quite long. It would be hard to understand, you know, what will be covered within there. Thanks.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you. It's noted that that is in the best interests of every event organizer to provide some information about the event.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry. Are you talking about workshops or day zero?
>>CHERYL MILLER: Day zero.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We'll put that up.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: I see we have exhausted all questions about day zero. And we have received satisfactory answers from host country, from secretariat. And now we can move to the next subitem. And that is workshop schedule.
The workshop, Chengetai, would you like to introduce that? This is already on the screen. It's on the Web site. I think we should hear this presentation and then see the proposal and discuss that from conceptual point of view. Please, Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you. We set up, mainly Carl, the workshop schedule the best we could making sure that panelists don't clash and also that there are some feeder workshops that feed into the main session. So we tried as much as possible to have those workshops before the main sessions. We currently have 105 workshops, 23 open forums, and 12 dynamic coalitions.
We tried to make them start and stop at the same time. But, as you can see, there's some overlaps during the lunch times. And that's also up to discussion how best we can do it. Because the main sessions are, basically, two hours long.
And so it was impossible to make them run and stop at the same time as the workshop schedules. But we're open to any comments, because this is the first draft of the workshop schedule.
But we will try not to move around the workshops that much. Because, if you move one, we have to check again whether or not it clashes with another workshop, et cetera. So that is quite an involved process. Thank you.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. Virat.
>>VIRAT BEHAR: We might have a case where one of the organizers has conflicting workshops in the same slot and then all the workshops on the same day under the special circumstances. Could they come to you with a request?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sure, yes. We'll try to accommodate that.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Mark Carvell.
>>MARK CARVELL: Yes. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Chengetai, and thank you for the secretariat's great efforts here. It's a very challenging project to set out a complex program like this. And I'm sure there was a lot of head scratching and agonizing of -- and process to ensure to avoid clashes and so on.
I just have one observation, really, which I think does have a practical consequence. And that is with respect to the workshops on rights which appear to be concentrated on days 1 and 2. And, if you look at day 2, for example, you've got a concentration of about 14 rights-related events.
Now, when I'm advising my colleagues on rights and democracy and the government on potential participation, it's going to be quite difficult for them to make choices as to how to engage if they attend in person or participate remotely.
I just wonder if -- I note what you say, Chengetai, about wanting to avoid moving pieces of a complex program like this around because it has knock-on effects and so on. But I wonder if maybe some adjustment could be made to spread the rights workshops over more than two days, you know, to create a kind of thread, if you like, on that issue throughout the four days. And maybe, if you look at day 3 and the concentration of workshops relating to multistakeholder corporation, there could be a couple of swaps that might be done to try and spread it out a bit and in that way ensure that you're going to get engagement on rights issues by experts who are going to be hard-pressed in having to take difficult decisions as to what to do in terms of planning for engagement on day 2. So I had that observation.
Just another suggestion, I don't see in the version I've got -- I hope it's going to be the same as on the screen -- the intersessional theme of next billion really highlighted. I know in the version I've got there's a lot of time allocated to intersessional activities. I think in presentational terms, the next billion should be up there sort of as a key program feature in the schedule. So I just have that observation. Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Thank you very much for those comments and suggestions. We'll try and see what we can do to move them around. Just to note that the main reason why they're mostly concentrated -- the rights workshops are mostly concentrated around day 1 and 2 is that on day 3 is the main session on human rights. So we wanted them to be before that and feed in to that main session. But we'll see what we can do. Because it's in the afternoon. So we'll see what we can do in the morning to accommodate that. And for the next billion, let's just take a look.
So that's in the afternoon of day 2.
We can make it bolder and make it more apparent for people to notice it.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much. Any further comments or questions?
If I may -- yes, Marilyn, please.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade. I want to express my appreciation for the progression of the work. I know it is not easy to have so many moving parts. I told someone that I woke up last night in the middle of the night thinking that perhaps we have about 14 different marching bands. And I want to compliment the secretariat for doing so much work on this to help us move everything forward. And also the host and organizing committee.
I just had one thought that I hadn't picked up on, although I had gone through the draft agenda. Right now I'm acting as the coordinator for the national and regional IGF initiative session. And I think we have eight or nine of the initiatives who are contributing to connecting the next billion. We may actually be overlapping in time, Chengetai. Let me take a look at that with you, please, offline and come back to you. And -- because we would not want to have that as a complete duplicate, I think. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much. Any further comments?
If I may express my concern and related to scheduling. And my concern is that we are starting main sessions and the workshops in different times. I think we're setting ourselves for big trouble and up front creating confusion. If we want to -- and unavoidable. We made a decision to have main meetings or main sessions two-hour long instead of 90 minutes long.
But -- and I'm not revisiting that question any more. But I think we need to start all events at the same time.
And we can allow ending to be a different time, but not the beginning.
And, in that respect, I seek support of the MAG for rescheduling or swapping and putting two-hour sessions as the last sessions of every day, which then would allow us to move -- first of all, have a lunch break for one hour and 30 minutes and then start all events at -- afternoon events at 2:00. And then put 90 minutes main session first in the afternoon and then two-hour session as a second in the afternoon, which then would run 30 minutes longer than other workshops.
And uneven ending of sessions is acceptable. But uneven beginning of sessions I think will create unnecessary confusion. Virat, please.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, I totally support the point that you make. I think there should be predictability. Delegates, several of them first timers, should really know when these sessions begin and end. And the effort that we put together in putting the main sessions together, as you know, the real challenge here is also the reason why we're going with two-hour, 90-minute sessions is unusual because we have more main sessions this year than ever before. That itself has presented a challenge on the planning side. One thing that we should try and ensure is that at least until the second tea break, all sessions are in predictable slots. And the last session of the day, which is after the last tea break -- so the first tea break, lunch, second tea break. And that is the only session where we should put in long and short sessions. It's not ideal. It doesn't make the schedule look pretty. But I think that's the only compromise we should make is to move these main sessions, which are uneven in terms of their hours, towards the end. We will have some -- we will have to give some on day one, which is the opening ceremony, since that's not predictable exactly to the point, depends on speakers, et cetera. But on other days, we should really have an exact same slot, to the extent possible, since this is laws of physics and nothing else, until at least the tea break in the second half. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you for supporting me. Constance.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you very much. We had talked last time about the interest of having the main session on best practices and then the one on connecting the next billion as the themes of the best practices often feed into the broader theme of connecting the next billion. If we wanted to do that, then by having -- maybe swapping the zero rating with the connecting the next billion, so we could start with best practices and then -- on day 2 and then connecting the next billion, if -- that would only work if we had all the best practices on day one. I'm not sure if this is the ideal scenario. But I'm just pointing to the fact that we wanted to have some sort of continuity between the best practices feeding into the main session on the best practice forums and that feeding into the broader main session on connecting the next billion. So, if we can maybe explore further the schedule, the overall schedule to see if we could have some kind of coherence here, that would be nice. Thanks.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Flavio.
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Hi. Thank you, Janis. As Virat already pointed out, there is a problem on day one in swapping that the two hours main session with the one and a half hour main session because of the opening. But there is also a problem in day 4. Because the closing ceremony is one and a half hour. This must be the latest session. So we cannot swap the sessions on day 4 in the afternoon. So there is a problem there.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah. No, there are challenges. I think on day 1 there isn't challenge because there is no concurring sessions in the afternoon of day one. So, as a result, we're absolutely free in scheduling the opening -- the setting the scene opening ceremony and opening session as we prefer.
When it comes to day zero, sorry, day 2, we have a problem with the possibilities of swapping intersessional work and best practice forum part 1 with a zero rating. And I see no major difficulty in that respect.
On day 3, seems -- it's not in order. Again, the dynamic coalition should be swapped with human rights because human rights is two hours and dynamic coalition is one hour and a half.
In day 4, of course, here is a major problem. Because, indeed, we cannot swap the closing session with NETmundial session. What we could do, potentially, is start everything at the same time and either take a smaller coffee break or skip break at all or just do technical break 15 minutes and start opening session as a scheduled 15 minutes later. Because, again, there is no concurring sessions in parallel with closing session.
If that is acceptable, secretariat will then work in that direction. And we'll replan the grid in general.
Any further questions? Virat? No.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I support that.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Any further questions on scheduling? So work is ongoing. And, please, if you have any specific questions or suggestions, contact secretariat directly. And secretariat will proceed as we discussed.
Question is when you think that updated schedule could be put online? Next week. Okay.
Maybe the changed grid could be put online or adjusted grid could be put online by end of this week. And then if there are swaps in the workshops or between workshops, then that may take slightly longer time and could be adjusted as we progress.
So, if that's acceptable, we can move to the next agenda item. And that is briefing on developments relevant to IGF. Do we have indications?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: No. Let's start with the WSIS+10 review.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Oh, sorry.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So we will start with the WSIS+10 and I would like to invite Wai Min Kwok from UNDESA to brief us on latest development in process leading to high-level meeting of U.N. General Assembly in December. So Wai Min, please, you have the floor.
>>WAI MIN KWOK: Yes. Thank you, Chair.
First, I would like to mention that on behalf of Elia Armstrong, that she extend her regrets for not being able to attend this MAG meeting. This is due to her recent promotion to another office within the U.N. secretariat and she has to stay in New York to take up issues in regard to her transition.
And I'm here on behalf of my director, (saying name), who would also like to come in person but was not able to in view of conflicts in his schedule.
I will just provide a brief update on the preparatory process to the GA high-level meeting scheduled to be held on 15th through 16th of December, 2015.
To recap, this was codified by the Tunis Agenda requesting the GA to undertake the overall review of the implementation of the outcome of the World Summit on Information Society. In response, the GA decided that this overall reviewed will be conducted by this two-day high-level meeting in December.
As you all know, the two co-facilitators are ambassador of Latvia to the U.N. and ambassador of UAE to the U.N. appointed on 1st of June. They have been leading the GA review process.
First, we had a stock-taking session in New York in middle of June, followed by the first preparatory meeting and informal stakeholder presentation convened by the president of the 69th session of the GA in July.
Following, there was a call for written submissions on the desired structure and content of the GA overall review outcome, and in response, a total of 74 submissions were received. 18 submissions from countries, 3 from country groups which include the Alliance of Small Island States, the European Union, and the (indiscernible) in China.
26 submissions were received from the civil society, 9 from the technical and academic community, 9 submissions from the private sector, and another 9 from intergovernmental organizations.
All these inputs are considered to prepare the non-paper which was due on 31st of August, so that was two days ago, and I understand that this will be released very soon.
Feedback will then be again sought from all stakeholders and a zero draft paper should be released by end of this month, September.
Another informal stakeholder consultation will be convened by the newly appointed president of the 70th session of the GA, and this will be followed by a second preparatory meeting.
A second draft should be ready by end of November in time for consideration at the high-level meeting in December.
This is with the view of adopting a resolution on the WSIS+10 itself.
For your information, all the documents as far as submissions from all stakeholder groups are available on the WSIS+10 GA review Web site.
I would just say lastly on behalf of the USG of DESA, Mr. Wu, and our ASG, Lenni Montiel, we would like to extend appreciation of DESA to the MAG for your important work in preparation for the 10th session of IGF.
Thanks.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Thank you very much.
What I can add to information that has been just provided is that yesterday co-facilitators sent the non-paper to the office of the president of General Assembly, and that is according to agreed schedule of preparations, and now president of General Assembly will disseminate this non-paper to member states as soon as feasible.
So that document then will undergo the sort of round of comments, consultations, and will serve as an input to the document which will be submitted to the open con- -- to the formal consultations that are scheduled 20-22 October in New York in U.N. -- at U.N. headquarters.
On 19th of October, PGA will conduct consultations with other stakeholders and that is in response to a call by other stakeholders to have those consultations before intergovernmental negotiation session.
So that is the latest development from yesterday on non-substantive issues.
The non-paper is six pages long, contains -- follows the structure of the UNGA resolution on modalities of review, and so I cannot say more prior to release of the document, formal release of the document by the UNPGA. Should be out today, tomorrow.
So any questions in relation to WSIS+10 review process to Wai Min?
It is time to ask questions now.
ICANN, please.
>>ICANN: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the explanation from UNDESA. Very interesting.
Can I just confirm what the deadline will be for the -- for sort of comments on this -- on this first draft -- on this first draft paper? Thank you.
>>WAI MIN KWOK: The comments for the zero draft, you mean?
The deadline has not been set in particular, but essentially it's actually expected that zero draft will be released by end of September.
So as soon as -- I believe it's on a rolling basis, which, in fact, I can share that although we set a deadline for 31st of September for the return submissions for the non-paper, we did consider submissions that were -- that were given late.
So because of that, and time-wise, I don't think a deadline -- a specific deadline would be practical, but as soon as paper is released, we will start looking, me and the secretariat supporting, the co-facilitators will start looking at all the feedback coming to us. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So any further questions?
I will try to -- I will try to find the roadmap which was adopted in July which suggests very clear deadlines for every step in preparation while Mark is asking a question or making comment.
Please, Mark.
>>MARK CARVELL: Yes. Thank you. Thanks very much to UNDESA for setting out the time line broadly.
And I think just on this point about the deadline for comments on the first zero draft, if that takes into account discussions that stakeholders at the IGF could undertake on that draft in the week of 9th November, I think that's important, isn't it? Before the second draft is prepared at the end of November, if I understood correctly?
So if there's -- I mean, the timing of the IGF I think is helpful in that respect in terms of collating views, inputs, comments, suggestions, on that first zero draft in Joao Pessoa, if I understand correctly. Thank you.
>>WAI MIN KWOK: For that, all the outcome documents of -- of the recent deliberations that not just include IGF but include UNESCO, ITU, as well as CSTD, they are all considered. But there have also been requests not to duplicate the outcomes of these separate sessions, and there have been a majority of support to endorse the recently agreed outcome documents.
So specifically for IGF, there's also a section in this non-paper on Internet governance, and I believe that inputs in this particular section has been -- has been given -- the outcomes document of the IGF last year has been given consideration in preparing this paragraph.
And I'd just to recap on the earlier question. I make a -- I overlook that there was a specific date as what Janis mentioned correctly. That is by the end of second week of September for the submissions to -- for this non-paper that's going to be released. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So the agreed time line for preparations is the following:
By end of August, the non-paper should have been released. It will be released literally today, tomorrow.
The deadline for written comments on non-paper is second week of September.
And then based on those comments, the zero draft paper will be released by end of September, and there will be comments on this zero draft by 15th of October.
And so with the knowledge of written comments, we will go into negotiation session, the consultations with other stakeholders, on 19th of October, and formal negotiation -- intergovernmental negotiation session 20-22 of October.
And then based -- based on that, the second draft will be released in the last week of November, and that will serve as a basis for negotiations which most likely will take place on Monday, 14th of December, last-minute negotiations, prior to the high-level meeting on 15th and 16th of December.
So in Joao Pessoa, we will be able to work on the basis of outcome from the intergovernmental negotiation session and provide our thoughts, input, as a multistakeholder IGF community to that document, and I think that that is added value and it is very good that the president of General Assembly, potentially, and co-facilitators will be in Joao Pessoa and will listen to those inputs and will sort of be able to feel the temperature in the room with the regard of the -- of the document.
I anticipate that negotiations will not be easy because there are a lot of political questions associated with the subject matter. Famous enhanced cooperation certainly will be on the table, and we know how difficult these discussions about enhanced cooperation has been so far, and I do not see how they may become easier at the high-level meeting. So we will have a lot of -- a lot of interesting conversations and sort of searching of middle ground that suits or equally do not suit delegations.
Marilyn, you wanted to comment?
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.
Marilyn Cade speaking.
I was just going to note that the coordinators of the WSIS+10 session do have a template description that's on the MAG list, but to just note that this afternoon when we break into small groups, I would just call to everyone's attention that we would welcome having additional participants in our -- in our discussion, and perhaps using the secretariat's assistance, we can allocate different hours, so that people don't get overwhelmed by trying to be in multiple places.
But I see a lot of interest in this topic.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.
Any further questions about the WSIS+10 review?
I see none.
Let us move, then, to the next issue, and that is GIPO, Global Internet Governance Observatory [sic]. Cristina from the European Commission.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Yes. Well, thank you, Chairman, and thank you very much for inviting me to provide a short update on the activities related to the creation of the Global Internet Policy Observatory.
During the last MAG meeting in Geneva, I already had the opportunity to briefly describe the main ideas and objectives behind this project.
GIPO is intended to make the multistakeholder process more accessible and transparent to all stakeholders, and in particular the most disadvantaged ones.
GIPO will be a tool to monitor and analyze Internet policy as well as technological and regulatory developments across the world. The application of innovative analytical and visualization tools to data and information on Internet policy and governance could, indeed, help overcoming the problems of information overlap, overload, fragmentation, and complexity.
GIPO is currently being developed by subcontractors as A European Commission project.
In April this year, we launched our Web site, giponet.org, to begin active engagement of different parties in the project, and we ensure periodic outreach to inform and consult different stakeholders on the advancement of the project through Webinars, social media campaigning, ad hoc events, and presentations.
For instance, we had a special session on GIPO during the EuroDIG in Bulgaria -- so the European IGF -- in June. It was titled "Codesigning GIPO," and it provided an interactive session where participants discussed, together with external participants, a number of issues, including possible synergies with other relevant initiatives or also how to gather, share, and interpret social media data on policy issues, but also text analytics techniques and semantic metadata extraction.
And then also we had a follow-up Webinar to discuss what was learned during that event and what could be applied in the development of GIPO.
The next Webinar will be on the 15th of September, and I take this opportunity to invite you to participate and to spread the information to interested participants.
In particular, this Webinar will address some of the most crucial issues in building a tool like GIPO. Like, for instance, which taxonomy should be used to categorize and organize content. And to also ensure interoperability with other platforms.
We all know that Internet governance is a complex topic that attaches on a broad range on issues and the development of a shared taxonomy is, therefore, a key challenge for GIPO.
Another important issue that we are going to discuss is what is the best approach to multilingualism.
On this subject, a lot is being done, both in the E.U., in the U.N., but also in the private sector, and we wish to connect to those expert communities and benefit from their knowledge.
Of course the IGF in Brazil will be for us an important appointment to showcase the work done so far and to keep getting the necessary input to make sure we are producing a tool that is valuable to the final users.
At the IGF, we will have an open forum and we will engage with other observatories and related initiatives in dedicated workshops and sessions.
It is crucial for us to involve different stakeholders in all stages of the development of the tool, to make sure that it's designed carefully, reflects the needs of its future users.
And before the project is completed, there will be an open discussion about the future governance of the platform.
And here I wish to recall once more that the European Commission does not intend to be the owner of GIPO. This is a tool for the global community, and a core alliance of countries and organizations is being invited to participate, both in the development and in the future management of the tool.
GIPO has also established an advisory group which works independently from the services of the European Commission, and this group has the task to provide guidance on all aspects of the creation of GIPO.
In total, this group will have 12 members. It currently has six members with different backgrounds and expertise, and they have just started to discuss technical, legal, cooperation, and community issues related to the development of the tool.
And in terms of where we actually are with the actual tool, a closed beta version with limited functionalities is already available and has been shown during the EuroDIG meeting, and interested people can contact the GIPO team and get the password to access and test this closed beta version.
We are aiming at making available an improved beta version at the IGF, and then there will be several additional versions that will follow with more functionalities in the course of 2016.
The project should be finalized in 2017.
I, therefore, kindly invite you all to stay tuned and take part in the activities for the creation of GIPO. I will be happy to put you in touch with the GIPO team, if you wish to discuss more concretely any specific aspects of this project, and I thank you very much for your kind attention and I look forward for your involvement. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you., Cristina.
Any questions for GIPO?
If none, so then I will call on Markus to speak about support association, IGF support association.
Markus, please.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes, I'm happy to report on our progress achieved so far.
We will hold our annual General Assembly at the IGF meeting in Joao Pessoa. It was tentatively scheduled on day zero, as shown up on the screen for day zero events, but we will confirm that and we will put up the information also on the Web site.
The main reason I asked for the floor was just to inform you on our fund-raising so far.
We have, to date, collected close to 330,000 U.S. dollars. Latest contributions were from ISOC, with $50,000, and CIRA, the Canadian ccTLD, with $25,000. We also have a pledge from ICANN for another contribution of $100,000.
And we had agreed earlier on that the bulk of the funds collected would go 60% to the U.N. IGF Trust Fund and 10% for activities through the IGF secretariat, 15% to regional and national IGF initiatives, and we have already supported some of them and we are -- now have requests also from national IGF initiatives.
So this is a status report of where we are, and of course you are all invited to join the association and we hope to see also many of you at the annual general meeting in Joao Pessoa. Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you very much. Questions to Markus about IGF support association?
If none, then I have indication from Flavio about NETmundial. No? It's not about session. Any other interventions on projects, processes related to IGF? I see none. So then we have exhausted this agenda item. So thank you for providing updates.
So let us move now to the preparations of the main sessions. And I asked to prepare updates and send them out before the meeting. I think that some updates we have received. I'm not sure that everything. But, nevertheless, let us take in the order as it is suggested now, it is suggested on our agenda. And we will start with WSIS+10, which also includes part of IGF+10 stream. Who will be presenting WSIS+10? Marilyn, please. The floor is yours.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. Marilyn Cade speaking.
I've had a chance to make a couple of comments about the WSIS+10 session already. I just want to provide a little more detail and again to repeat the invitation to all who are interested to come and join us this afternoon in the breakout session.
We started out working with the premise that there might be two separate sessions. One being WSIS+10 and the other being IGF@10. But as things evolved, we have really merged those two concepts, recognizing that there is other work going on later in the week that addresses the IGF post 2015. So, during the WSIS+10 session, the appropriate elements of the -- of IGF@15 will be incorporated. But I want to reinforce the idea that WSIS+10 is about far more than the IGF itself or just the extension as the IGF, as we have already heard from the comments that have been made.
Our program -- we started out by reaching an understanding of what we wanted to accomplish. And I want to share that with all of you and ask your feedback on that. We see this as information sharing on the WSIS+10 process for the attendees and participants at the IGF. This is a relatively high-level topic. And, while we may become quite expert on it and experts from New York, GA, our expert on it, really the general populous who will be attending the IGF in Brazil will find the WSIS+10, the acronyms, and the process somewhat confusing. So we want to be as clear -- succinct but as clear as possible to explain what the review process is, what it is reviewing, and why it is important.
We also want to expose the UNGA representatives themselves to the IGF and our processes. We are a unique forum. And I think for many of us who participate in various other settings, whether it's the ITU or UNESCO or CSTD or IEEE or the IETF or ICANN, we see the uniqueness of this forum. And we wish to expose the participants from New York to that. But also to document that to be able to go -- to have that reflected back to others from New York. Because the parties who come to participate from the general assembly will be able to also act as ambassadors, if you will, to reflect information about our process. And then finally, we do see this session as documenting certain messages. I want to be very careful that we're not presenting recommendations. We're not presenting outcomes. But, as we know, these sessions do have transcripts. And we will also have a report of the session. So we will have a prepared output, so to speak, of the session. We'll start out with a brief overview of what WSIS+10 is, what the review process is, its scope, et cetera. And then we'll undertake a realtime consultation. And it is our plan to use the document that is available, which we've already referenced. And that is the zero draft plus any succinct summaries from the stakeholder consultation that takes place on the 19th and also the governmental negotiations which take place on the 20th-22nd of October.
We've talked a little bit about using the similar format to the format that was used in NETMundial, which would have multiple microphones so that people can quickly move from microphone and make a short statement. And to break the zero draft into sections so that people can target their comments on a particular session. And to also invite -- we did not have verification that they will accept this. But we want to invite the two co-facilitators to be a part of the main panel rather than having additional panelists who are speaking.
Let me pause and note that Jandyr is with us. And I think Lea is also on the phone. Cheryl Miller is also collaborating with us as is Shita. So let me pause and ask if anyone wants to make additional statements. Just one quick -- you'll see in the document we posted, we're still examining three scenarios. Because we're, of course, waiting for confirmation that we will have the formal participation. And, once we get that, then we will be able to finalize the actual format. But the general structure is there.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Any further comments? Updates? Questions to Marilyn? So Cheryl is the only one for the moment? Cheryl, please.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to commend the work that's been done by this group. We were concerned about how we would fit in IGF@10. But I think they're doing a great job to make sure it has its appropriate place. And I just wanted to thank them for that.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I'm glad to hear everything goes well and smoothly. Any other questions in relation to this particular session?
So I see none.
There will be a working session breakout session this afternoon, specifically on working on this main session in the room number 7.
And so let me maybe suggest that, since we have 10 main sessions to work on, even 11 when we count all together, that we do not work in parallel on all 11 at the same time.
That today we would break in six groups working on sustainable development sessions, zero rating session, NETMundial session, human rights session, cyber security session, and WSIS+10.
And then tomorrow we would break in the afternoon to work on opening and setting the scene, dynamic coalitions, connecting billion, best practices, and taking stock.
It can be changed if you feel that some swaps should be made. But simply not to have a few people in the room, it's better to work in -- sort of split this work in two.
We have a remote participant. Please.
>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn, Lea, Jandyr, Cheryl, thank you for the update. Just a request. If we could look at an updated document of state of play in terms of what we'll be covering and the format and the policy questions that we hope to address, if any, on this session. And I'm very much looking forward to connecting during the breakout sessions. Our only challenge is, if the secretariat and co-facilitators could also respond, will we be able to support multiple rooms at the same time? Because we volunteer for several sessions, and there's a conflict between the scheduling of the timing.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Subi. Any further comments? Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn speaking. Yes, just to reconfirm what I said, we will be presenting a further update version of the document. We are treating the zero draft document as the basis for the policy questions, and we'll be working to break that into smaller parts. I hope that's responsive, Subi, to your question.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: I hope it is.
So thank you for update on this session. Let us take the next one, dynamic coalitions. Is it Markus.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, for remote participants, Markus Kummer speaking. I had circulated draft template earlier this morning. Obviously, the draft template for main session does not easily apply to the dynamic coalition main session as this is a non-legal session with content that varies greatly from dynamic coalition to dynamic coalition. We have been working towards this to have sort of a common approach. And we tried also to give the dynamic coalition a sense of basic discipline that they agree to some basic rules that apply to all of them in order to provide a level playing field. And we -- as one of the main rules, we asked them to include the secretariat as a silent moderator to their list. That would not be an active role but more a role of a referee, of an arbiter, or of an ombudsman in case there are any questions or also accusations should controversies arise. This has been met with some resistance by some who felt there was a top-down approach. Whereas, others recognized that, if we give them a main exposure of a main session, that there are also some responsibilities accompanying that kind of privilege.
If dynamic coalitions want to use the label of the IGF, they should also adhere to some basic standards. So I think we are getting there.
Now, the main thing in terms of the organization of the session is that we have agreed to split it into two. And the secretariat kindly obliged us with our request. We have -- on the afternoon of the day 3 we have the first 90 minutes. That will be for presentation of the findings. And on the last day in the morning we would have another 90-minute session that will be mainly for debate and discussion.
As an innovative new element, we will introduce a rating after the first round through rating sheets. That was a suggestion made by Jeremy Malcolm who is a long-time follower of the IGF who now works for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And he will moderate that part. Participants will be asked to give their feedback, and that will be used then as an introduction to the second part of the main session.
When we looked at the input provided, which is up on the IGF Web site, we initially thought we would divide them into three categories. One category would be more for presentation. The second category would be a more intermediate for dynamic coalitions who are not yet ready and some of them said so themselves such as the dynamic coalition of things. But they would have final output for consideration next year. And then there are those who think they have a final output they would present. But, as we then said, we would give different time slots to each of the three categories. But, as we moved along, now they all want to move up a slot to be given more time. And this is something we will have to consider. But their documents are up on the Web site.
Also the question we would like to pose to the MAG is should we be strict with those who have not complied with the basic rules and exclude them from the session? Or should we in dubio pro reo give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them in hoping that they will comply with their Web sites? But that is more in detail. And we look at the main session in more detail.
I think I can stop here. And I would be grateful also for reaction.
I do know we had used in previous sessions the term "validation" of the outcome. But there has been some concerns expressed. We have toned it down a bit. And, as you see in the paper shared on the desired result output, we suggest wording that says that outcome of the sessions will determine the level of support the various DCs enjoy from the broader IGF community. One of the session's objective is to determine whether there is acceptance of moving towards an IGF output. And, of course, this allows also those who don't agree to say so that they don't agree with the outcome of what the dynamic coalitions propose. Thank you for your attention.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Markus, for introduction and proposal.
Virat, you have a comment or question.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I had two clarifications, actually. The first was on this issue of rating. I'm not sure how this works and how it was introduced. So we'd like to have some more information on what this concept is.
And, secondly, on -- are we still in the realm of validation stroke endorsement stroke no output? How does that work? And are you seeking a word from the people in the room, online? How will that work? So if you could just explain a little more on the concept so we can start seeking detailed clarifications. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I'll take a few questions before asking Markus to respond. Cheryl and then Marilyn and then Constance.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Markus for the overview. And I think the idea of having a sort of an ombudsman type role is really important. I think, with respect to all the dynamic coalitions and everything we do here at the MAG and IGF having a high level of transparency is always important.
I understand that some people that have tried to join some of the different mailing lists have had trouble, and I don't know if it's a technical difficulty or what, but having someone in that role would be able to really easily solve that problem so that the lists remain open.
I'm also curious about the idea of a rating system and just how in -- you know, how in practice that would actually work during that session and kind of the outcome of that, what we're hoping to gain from that. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Marilyn?
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. Marilyn Cade speaking.
I guess I'm really also going to have to ask for more clarification of the purpose of rating.
To me, there's very little difference between the concept of polling participants in a room and rating, and I'm very familiar with how we established the dynamic coalitions, and although I don't work actively in a dynamic coalition, you know, I just will note that over the years I think we have seven or eight who have started, worked for a while, and then dissolved or evolved into something else and then we have some new dynamic coalitions that have emerged. The characteristics of the dynamic coalitions varies significantly and one of the things that I had hoped would happen in the session is to try to better illustrate what those different characteristics are.
Some, when you -- some post the list of everyone who signed up for a dynamic coalition. Others merely have a link to an email list.
So you -- if you're interested in a dynamic coalition, you can't necessarily go look at the Web site as it -- the Web page as it exists right now and fully understand the breadth of participation.
We've struggled, I think, to figure out the right approach, and I look forward to this session because I think it is a learning opportunity.
But now I'm going to raise a question about rating.
Our experience with main sessions, since they run parallel to workshops, is that we will have a nonrepresentative sample of IGF participants at any one time in a room, whether it's a workshop or it's a plenary session.
So rating, given that we can't guarantee we have diversity of position -- of viewpoints sitting in the room, we have geographic diversity, et cetera, raises some cautions for me. I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Constance?
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'd like to thank Markus and all the leaders of the various dynamic coalitions because obviously a lot of work went into this intersessional track. It also shows that around the IGF gravitates a lot of -- many different communities that are interested in very relevant policy issues.
I think the difficulty we're facing is that we didn't start with a discussion about the methodology leading to the outputs of the dynamic coalitions so now we're in the situation where we have documents, we have outputs, but we -- we don't have agreement on what to do with those outputs.
Obviously, there's some sensitivities about any kind of validation process, but again, with the amount of work and the number of stakeholders and participants that give life to those dynamic coalitions, perhaps we could have the IGF take note of the outputs.
In any case, the drafts are up on the IGF Web platform, and again, it's difficult to ignore this important track of work, but I think it's important that this group today has a solid agreement on what we do in terms of process. Do we take note, do we encourage the IGF in the -- the chair's report to acknowledge. It is important to have this discussion now. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Question of clarification.
Now or in the runup to the next IGF as -- to develop kind of guidelines for the work of dynamic coalitions? Because if we -- if we engage now, it may take maybe unreasonable amount of time.
Remote participant.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Yes. Thank you, Chair. This is Chip Sharp, and I just had a comment on the question of output. First, I'd like to thank Markus for his work on the dynamic coalition. I know that's been a lot of work and a lot of calls since the last MAG meeting.
And this comment is actually more general, not just dynamic coalitions but, you know, all the intersessional work itself.
I've been engaged in one of the best practice forums which is working on a document, for example, and after the last IGF, the MAG set up intersessional activities which have been progressing their work since then. Also, the MAG's been working to develop more tangible outputs as recommended by the CSTD working group on IGF improvements.
I've noticed in some of the intersessional work somehow the belief that their work will be endorsed, you know, by the IGF and then reported out for use by other bodies. I just hesitate -- and I don't think the IGF has been set up for negotiation of outgoing statements for endorsement.
I think output along the lines -- nor do I think that the IGF has the charter or mandate for that.
I think output along the lines of recommendations of the working group on IGF improvements would be more appropriate, as a suggestion in terms of, you know, moving forward with output.
And I do agree with others who have spoken previously. You know, it's important for the MAG to set expectations, you know, for our work over the next two months leading into the IGF and then at the IGF itself.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Chip, for your thoughts and comments.
Markus, maybe you want to respond to concerns that has been expressed and answer questions?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. Thank you very much. These are very helpful comments.
I think this has been a process, as some of the comments actually indicated, and I think it is a path where we are moving towards finding common rules that apply to all the dynamic coalitions.
As we said when we started -- in fact, said it on several occasions -- to the dynamic coalitions, we need to have a level playing field for all of them, and the point Marilyn made is something we have taken up with them, that not all of them are fully transparent on their Web site and I think this is a basic requirement we would like to have that all of these lists are open for public scrutiny, that all the processes are open and inclusive, that whoever wants to join a dynamic coalition can join a dynamic coalition.
That's why we suggested that the IGF secretariat has this role as ombudsman as well, obviously supported by the chair.
I think this is important.
Now, I'm fully aware of the sensitivities about the output and I think we have also adapted the language a bit to take care of these sensitivities, but the main sessions are as close as anything you have where the whole IGF community is presented, and that is definitely a step higher than the dynamic coalition meetings themselves where a group of like-minded people meets in the margin of the IGF.
As regards the rating in the paper we shared, there's a link indicated to the idea of rating sheets. It is -- goes beyond a binary process that you just say yes or no whether you agree or not. It is headlined with a simple tool to help large groups find agreement and it allows you to -- with a smiley face to say "I have strong agreement" or also say "strong disagreement," and the main idea behind using this innovative methodology is to facilitate the discussion/debate section of the following day.
Participants will have the time to reflect, they can give their comments if they wish to do so, and the comments received should facilitate the discussion on the following day.
And, yes, I expect that the discussions will be reflected in the chairman's summary, and if there are diverse views held in the discussion, the chairman's summary will reflect that, "There were divergent views held on this or on that issue" or "There was a general agreement in the room that the outcome of this dynamic coalition reflected a common understanding of how this should be dealt with."
This is an experiment. I think we are learning by doing. And I think -- I would also take the view that you can look at it from the opposite point of view. What we have had until now is that we have some of these dynamic coalitions that moved in the margins and came up with something among a like-minded group of people and presented it as a kind of IGF output which had never been presented to the broader community and here we provide a platform also for people not just to say yes but also to say "No, I strongly disagree with what you have come up with. We respect the fact that you have worked hard, but we think -- we hold a different view."
But I understand that Avri, who is my co-facilitator, would also like to add a few words on the nature of the dynamic coalitions.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please, Avri.
>>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Yes. I'm normally the -- it's Avri Doria speaking -- normally the silent co-facilitator on the dynamic coalitions.
A couple of the points I wanted to make.
First of all is, we need to distinguish between the notion that we've been working on on outputs as inputs to other discussions are not the same as outcomes and there is no negotiation. And the rating sheets are not that sort of thing. They are, as Markus said, something that helps people know -- and it will be done pretty much on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. You know, yay, no, problems, no problems. So that we have a really good indicator of what things we need to talk about when we hit the second session.
So that's the use of the rating. It's to -- it's to make conversation, make discussion a little bit more possible, a little bit more directed.
In terms of all the dynamic coalitions not being identical in terms of their approach, one of the notions is that the dynamic coalitions are, indeed, a bottom-up effort that we've got within the IGF for people to work on issues.
Now, in addition, this aggregation that we're building of the dynamic coalitions working together is also working in a bottom-up manner, and most of the discussions, whether a recommendation comes from the co-facilitators or from one of the dynamic coalition representatives, it gets discussed.
We're already noticing a certain amount of, "Oh, you guys do it that way. What an interesting idea. We can."
And so the mailing list has become sort of a common -- a common place where anyone should be able to go get more information.
Whether they should all have their wikis or Web sites or what have you in the same format is probably pushing down a little further than we want to go, but in this case we have said, "No matter how you created your documents, come this point, they're now all going into an IGF standard format so that everybody can approach everything similarly." So trying to find that balance between being bottom-up but being IGF organized.
So, you know, I just really wanted to make those comments. Thanks.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Avri. Let us take the second tour of questions, and Giacomo is first.
>>GIACOMO MAZZONE: Thank you. More than a question, I have some suggestions because I think that the work in progress about the dynamic coalition and the relation to the IGF is something for which the session that we have planned for the next IGF could be an important moment for evolution.
So I think that we have to ask in the aim, in the goals of this session, also to arrive to a certain number of common shared criteria for improving this relation between the IGF and the dynamic coalition. This is something that we can ask as one of the outputs of the session.
About the validation, I think it's a fake problem because there is a lot of possibility that exists in all international fora about making public documents that are not necessarily reflecting the view of the organizer or the whole organization.
The EC, the European Commission of the European Union published documents of the study groups in which it's very clearly marked at the beginning of the document that these are the views of the group, it doesn't reflect the view of all IGF. So I don't see a problem if we treat that way the document that's coming from the dynamic coalition.
For the future, I strictly recommend that we have some criteria of uniformity about the democratic principles that are applied within the dynamic coalitions, and the IGF is responsible for that, so we -- if there is a violation of criteria of multistakeholderism or criteria with respect to minorities, et cetera, et cetera, this is something that we as the IGF need to condemn, of course. And this is something that I expect that the same dynamic coalition could come with concrete proposal out of the session.
Last technical point is about the COP dynamic coalition, the child on-line protection dynamic coalition, of which we are member and is one of the oldest that has been created.
Apparently they didn't react in time because there has been a change in the coordinator of the session -- of the dynamic coalition, but I confirm that it's still alive and in good shape and making a lot of work, so I hope that we'll not be penalized by the fact that there is an interim period of responsibility of the dynamic coalition. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Virat, please?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I wanted to respond to your question of now or later, and the request would be to have the discussion now, if you're going to proceed in that. It will need some time but we need to do it now.
But I just want to make a couple of points.
I have been on calls that Markus has hosted with dynamic coalitions. I have to say that these were not easy calls. These are dynamic coalitions which are at very different levels of -- all well-intentioned, different levels of preparedness, preparation, and expectation. And Markus has had to work very hard to respond to some very detailed questions and ongoing discussions, even as of last week where I saw there were questions about why are we getting the lists on to the IGF secretariat, why can't we manage it ourselves.
So there has been a huge amount of effort to try and get people, but they're still not at the same level. I don't think they all want the same thing out of the main sessions. Some of them just want to present. Some of them want to get something more than just present.
So I think we should be careful in understanding that this is not a homogeneous sort of, you know, group with a broad brush.
But more importantly, even after the process has been set in place to the extent that it's been possible in the last two months or so, entirely because of the efforts that Markus has made, there is still a difficulty with regards to how this is being implemented on the ground and what people are thinking in terms of what happens. We should, you know, keep in mind that there are some dynamic coalitions which have issues that have sort of sharp differences of opinion between stakeholders. There are others where there isn't the same situation.
So the MAG is faced with the difficult task that given what they themselves want with the IGF, given the fact that there homogeneity of opinion on some and sharp differences on a very few, it's very difficult for us to give a single sort of part on how this can be presented and whether rating can occur. And example a technical question asked in a room of 50, 100, 200 people, of which vast majority is represented by one stakeholder and very few of the other could get an answer which is yes, we agree. And could be wrong because technically it's into the possible. So we just want to be careful that when you do a zero, one, kind of scoring sheet on technical issues with policy experts or other experts in the room, can we proceed with that as a reasonable rating of a technical question? And I think, therefore, we're in a difficult spot. We shouldn't sort of look at this as an easy solution. We need to discuss this to your point. Discuss it now, to the extent possible, and find a more reasonable way to accommodate their aspirations. And yet I think it's I have important that they're in the main sessions. I think it's a great development, and we should certainly support that part. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. There are a few more interventions. Joe, please, and then --
>>JOSEPH ALHADEFF: Thank you. Joseph Alhadeff. Yeah, I wanted to comment a little bit further on this topic. And especially, perhaps, I didn't understand the ratings concept as it was explained. So I apologize if I'm getting it wrong. But I had heard that the concept was that the documents would be rated at the paragraph level, which seems a little odd because I might like or dislike a paragraph because how it expresses something versus what it says. I might like or dislike it in the context of the other paragraphs it's operating in. It might be useful or not useful because of the way I'm thinking of using the document.
Ratings don't really seem at that level to be very helpful, because the rating would be more confusing than helpful in all honesty because it might give a false positive or a false negative to the concept of a question that could be useful or not depending on context.
So, one, I think if we're going to think about anything, we think about documents. And, if we're thinking about documents, there's an old-fashioned way in which documents are considered useful or not useful, and that's by how they are used. Whether or not someone gives it a rubber stamp does not determine on whether or not it's a useful document. So the question isn't to validate a document or not. That shouldn't be what our job is. The question should be to make sure they don't remain buried and people get exposed to them. So the main session is a very useful way of making sure that they reach the light. As Constance suggested, we could even take note of them to make sure there's a way to find them more easily.
But it would seem that that would be a much more appropriate path forward than validation. And I'm -- if I misunderstood the ratings, I'm sorry. It just seemed like a -- an unusual way of looking at a document.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Joe. As Markus said, there are different level of expectations. And some want documents to be validated as approval of the effort. And so -- but let me take further questions. Robert, if I'm not mistaken -- no.
>>GONZALO BARAJAS: Hello. This is Gonzalo Barajas representing Telefonica. I have been deeply involved in the drafting process of the drafting process of the dynamic coalition of net neutrality. In fact, I sent the IGF secretariat a complaint letter about the process, because I thought that comments from the private sector were not taken into account. In fact, I think that never changed. And, at the end of the process, unique participants from the private sector, which were Telefonica and Telecom Italia, we included a dissent letter that we hope that was forwarded to the IGF secretariat. Basically, the process overall providing comments to the document which were somehow put into a black box. And then the next draft would appear without, basically, any discussion. And on those places where we were somehow improving the text, those comments were accepted. But when our comments were having a different view from those that the moderator were having, those were never included without any reason.
So I think that the process was quite transparent. Even though we're not accepting the business sector because we have not been appointed. The fact is that the comments from two participants were not taken on board. And that's why we sent that dissent letter.
Afterwards also there was somehow provided a letter to the IGF on the process, a letter which we never got. So we don't know how the process was described. And we're not sure and there was -- that was the way it happened.
So, from my point of view, I think that this statement has no consensus at all. In fact, I think that it is just made by the unique representative that there was put in the comments that he thought that it would be appropriate to be included.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much. This is just an example of how complex things may get on certain issues. Not all issues are that complex as net neutrality. Look, I think it would be worth continuing this conversation during the 2-hour session allocated to discuss dynamic coalitions and issues related. I would like to encourage all those who are interested go to that session where it is scheduled. Is it today or tomorrow? Tomorrow.
In the meantime, I will take Cheryl and Hossam. And then we would move on to the next topic on intersessional work that we could exchange our views before lunchtime, which starts at 1:00. Cheryl, please. You go first.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I do think it is a good idea that we're having this conversation now because these different coalitions have put in a ton of work much of which is good work. And I think that they deserve to know for their own work to move forward how their work will move forward and what the process will be. And I do want to thank Markus, Anri, and Constance. Because they've really taken us much further than we have been in the past two years in terms of the different intersessional themes, the dynamic coalitions, and the best practice forum. So the fact that we're having this conversation, while difficult, it's actually a really good thing.
But I think also we have to remember that we face outwardly as well. So it is important that individuals that are outside of the MAG and outside of general IGF newcomers understand the way processes work. Because sometimes, when you don't understand the way a process works, it serves as a barrier to your participation. And that's not something that we want to do moving forward. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Fully agree with you, Cheryl. Hossam, please.
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: I just want to echo Cheryl said previously and what Markus said as well. More process needs to be implemented in order to be able to have more view of what is happening. And also because we have faced in several dynamic coalitions difficulty of participation. And we don't see all the work happening in front of us. So while it's great work forward and it's good to have the dynamic coalition and have outlook paper, validation is not something that is, for the time being, suitable to be implemented.
Rating -- the word "rating" itself is maybe a problem. It's a feedback forum that would give feedback for better enhancement so that the outcome would be then input for more progress ahead for dynamic coalition. Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. I think it was a very interesting conversation. And some of the ideas are worth exploring further, maybe not calling it rating but rather feedback and not on every paragraph but in general and so -- I think this was very useful to have this exchange.
That said, we will continue with this in the smaller group talking about main session on dynamic coalitions, if agreeable, tomorrow.
And now I would like to invite Constance to introduce the main session on intersessional activities. Constance, please.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Actually, this theme breaks down into two different items. Maybe I'll start with the best practices. And then we can move on with Ambassador Fonseca to connecting the next billion.
So there will be a 90-minute main session on the best practice forums. The draft description is with the secretariat. And then it will go to the coordinators for validation and discussion. The idea being to follow the methodology we had last year, which was to have the coordinators, the leaders of the different best practice forums -- and we have six this year -- report in to the main session on best practices.
At the same time, part of the discussion would be devoted to assessing what worked well in the process. Because we have an agreed methodology, agreed from last year. And we're trying to improve it year after year. And also discuss what could be improved for IGF 2016 best practices.
Allow me to say a few words about the substance of the best practice and the status of the six different tracks we have.
You will see on the IGF web platform -- and I think Carl will put it up in a minute -- that three draft outputs for the best practices are now available. I believe a fourth one will be put online later today, and two others will be available in September.
So we have IPv6, the IXPs one, multistakeholder mechanisms. The best practices for countering abuse against women online will be made available. The draft skeleton will be made available later today. And, finally, the two best practices the drafts for certs and spam will be made available on the web platform later in the month.
So following the methodology we used last year and following the guidance of various coordinators -- and some of them are here today. And I would invite them to jump in the discussion afterwards. The public will be invited to submit some comments directly on the IGF web platform.
And then the secretariat working with the coordinators will take on board those comments, publish a new version, and do this until there is consensus and completion of the document that would then be discussed during an IGF best practice forum 90-minute session in Joao Pessoa and then feeding into the main session on IGF best practices.
Before we move to connecting the next billion, if any of the coordinators, leaders would like to say a few words about their own processes, I would encourage them to do so now perhaps.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So, please.
Floor is open for those who want to comment, coordinators. Best practice forums.
None? We're not pulling your leg if you don't want. Virat, you have a question?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Just related question about -- can the breakout schedule out, because we just need to plan whenever. That's available.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we'll be sending out the schedule via email. And also we'll be putting it up on the screen before -- yeah.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Chengetai. Mark?
>>MARK CARVELL: Thank you, Chair. Just a quick comment to commend all the hard work by the coordinators for the six best practice fora.
And, for the benefit of people participating in this open consultation, you may not realize the significance here, that this is a turning point for the IGF in terms of preparing these best practice fora with the aim of concrete outputs that would be picked up by stakeholders including governments in the future. So this is -- I can't really underline how important this area of the IGF's work, the MAG's work, and the extent it relies on contributions from stakeholders, how important it is for the future. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Mark, for mentioning this. This is in direct response to the recommendations of the working group on improvements of IGF. So increased number of outputs for IGF. Would you like to speak now? Please, Constance, you can continue.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Maybe to add very briefly that the IGF secretariat has put a lot of work into enhancing the quality of the web sections devoted to each theme and trying to live up to the expectations of the Tunis agenda to have IGF become a resource center.
So, if you go to the best practices web section, you will see that for each theme you have background documents. You have contact points of leading institutions, individuals, policy makers, and, of course information on how to concretely get involved in the best practices, the schedule of meetings. You can find the last calls that were recorded and who -- that are shared with the community.
Maybe I'll move to the track on connecting the next billion, unless there are additional comments on the best practices.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: No, please go ahead.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Okay. With regards to the horizontal track on policy options for connecting the next billion, following the discussion we had with the MAG and the agreed methodology and schedule, we had put out a call for background contributions on the overall theme. To date we have around 35 background contributions coming from civil society, business community. We have IGOs as well. World Bank, ITU, and a few others.
The national regional IGFs, their contribution is coming in as they conclude their meetings. We are expecting one in the coming weeks from IGF Africa, IGF Africa taking place next week. The aim being to have at least 10 national regional IGFs contributing to the process. And I hope we'll get, actually, a few more.
We also held with Ambassador Fonseca a series of calls to discuss the methodology and how we wanted to organize the substance given the amount of contributions -- substantive contributions we were receiving.
On the IGF web platform has been published this morning the very rough draft skeleton of what the output document could look like, bearing in mind that it was agreed on the various calls we had that we would aim for a compilation. We do not want to negotiate an outcome here. We really want to gather the intelligence, the good substance, the good practices with regards to policy options for connecting the next billion.
At this stage, I think it would be useful for the MAG to have a discussion both on how we want to organize the substance. The secretariat has identified a series of bucket -- of issues. And we would need agreement on those before we add flesh to the skeleton. The different issues being issues with regards to infrastructure for access. The second one being governmental interventions, market strategies from the industry. The third one being digital literacy. And the fourth one being the bucket of issues around affordability and the cost of access.
And then the second issue maybe to be discussed today with the MAG, apart from how we organize the substance, is next steps with regards to the process. We had talked about maybe inviting volunteers to join an editorial group. Many non-MAG members, institutions, universities have approached us with an interest to getting actively involved in developing the policy options for connecting the next billion. So we need to decide when and how to organize this editorial group.
And then, finally, perhaps the schedule. I don't know, Carl, if you can put the schedule up. But, if we manage to put together the editorial group following the MAG meeting, then we still have time to develop 1, 2, maybe perhaps even 3, if necessary, iterations, versions of the policy options in order to have the best quality possible when we reach IGF Brazil. And perhaps if Ambassador Fonseca would like to add a few words. So thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Constance, for introduction and then the coordination of this workstream. Ambassador Fonseca, please.
>>AMBASSADOR FONSECA: Thank you, Janis. And thank you, Constance. First of all. I'd like to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that Constance, Brian, and the other co-facilitators have been investing in this. I was approached by you, Mr. Chair, as the coordinator. But, unfortunately, I have not been able to do it to the extent desirable. But this has been totally supplemented and -- by Constance and the collective group. So I'd like, first of all, to thank all those who have been involved for that.
I think Constance has summarized what are the main issues to be addressed in regard to these policy options documents. First of all, I would say we want to make sure we provide the secretariat and Brian, specifically, who is holding the pen, with the necessary support for preparing the background documents that will be further examined by the editorial group.
So I think there are two separate issues here. First of all, is the support the secretariat to make sure we have the ideal conditions for the secretariat to prepare this first, let's say, zero draft for the group.
And this is very important according to the experience that we have in working with NETmundial. The editorial group will have an extensive workload and we'll have extensive discussions on the substance, but it is -- but the editorial group cannot start from scratch. The editorial group will not be able -- not have the time to go through all the contributions that have been received. Some of those are very lengthy, very complex. The editorial group will have to work on the basis of a document, a coherent document, a document organized and structured in a way that will provide some coherence, and for this it is very crucial that we ensure Brian will get the necessary support.
I recall that on our side as host country, and because we are, as you are, particularly interested in the success of this experiment, the Brazilian steering committee has agreed to explore ways through which it can support this work in a neutral way. It will not be necessarily people from the Brazilian steering committee working in it, but rather assisting this compilation first attempt. So we'd like to -- and Professor Glaser will be also available to discuss ways in which this could be done.
And then there is another issue which is a separate issue that is the editorial group.
The members of the editorial group -- I would say maybe the original members -- are those co-facilitators. I would think they would be participating in these efforts, but we recall this group will be open to other participants, so I think it would also be interesting if we could get out of this meeting with an idea of the configuration of the group and establishing already some working relations among its members. That would be very helpful.
Another thing related to the editorial group would be how the work that is being done -- will be done by this group will relate to efforts that are being done by Stanford and New York University, and in this context, I would confirm what Constance has already indicated. We do not intend to depart from what we have established from the beginning that we want this document to be, first of all, a compilation document, a document that will bring together experiences, policies, ideas for connecting the next billion, coming from governments or from civil society or from any institution, any stakeholder. So we think it's very appropriate that Stanford and New York University will contribute for work in -- within that approach. However, personally I would strongly advise against inserting in this document any kind, let's say, of conceptual framework or anything that would reflect, let's say, a more academic approach, because I think that would deviate us from the -- our intent, and certainly it would inject into our exercise some complexities and maybe some contentious issues that we want to avoid.
So I think it is appropriate to involve any stakeholder that is involved, but as far as we keep the approach we have been established -- we have established -- we have set for ourselves from the start. And I think these have to do with the editorial group. I think any support we can get for -- as inputs, and if -- if it is the case that they will also participate in the editorial group, but with that kind of approach.
So I think those two issues related to the support for the secretariat in preparation for this initial document, also the configuration of the editorial group and how other stakeholders who participate, are issues to be discussed by IGF and also the very important point that was raised by Constance, how the document will be structured.
We have, in our calls, discussed --
First of all, we thought about replicating the document. The questions. We have addressed the community in order to elicit comments and contributions, but we've found that might not be appropriate because if we focus on the questions, maybe it will not give us the -- the headlines or the key words that are relevant for people who will go into the document and try to get some very concrete information.
So this idea of having some categories as infrastructure, and others, this is something that reflected some discussion among us but it is also submitted for the MAG for consideration of the categories that are being proposed. Whether there are some categories should be added or -- or deleted, I think this is also a very important matter for discussion. Because at the end of this meeting, we want to make sure we have set in place a process where we have a clear idea of what we want, what is the outlook of the document we want, what are the means we have to achieve this, what will be the participants for that effort. I think this is basically what we want to discuss with you.
Certainly we'll need to adjust a little bit the schedule because the work is on track, is on good track. However, we certainly will need somewhat more time than what was initially envisioned, and I just -- in that regard, just to conclude, to confirm that we are also expecting a very robust contribution from Latin America. We had, two weeks ago in Mexico, the regional IGF and there was a call for all countries in the region, all participant -- stakeholders to work towards a compilation document that will be forwarded to us, to the larger IGF effort, and this will not be able to make -- maybe to make it for the first draft but certainly it will be expected in the course of September in time for a second revision of the document. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Benedicto, for these thoughts. We will have ample opportunity of discussing it further in the afternoon. We have exhausted the time of the morning session, so we will break now for lunch and I thank interpreters for being patient with us and working 10 minutes beyond the schedule.
So thank you very much. This meeting stands adjourned. Please come back at 3:00 sharp and we will continue intersessional discussion then. Thank you.
[ Lunch break ]
[ Scribes have no audio ]
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- I was mistaken. The scribes are not on. Now they are.
ICC/BASIS, please.
>>ICC/BASIS: Thank you. I just wanted to pick up on the proposal for people to volunteer for the editorial group. ICC/BASIS will be willing to provide a person or people as necessary.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Cristina?
>>CRISTINA MONTI: Yes. Just a very brief remark. I just wanted to highlight a particular aspect of the ongoing work under the theme of policy menus for connecting the next billion. This work does not only strive to produce a final document as a response to the call to produce tangible outcomes. It also responds to the need to develop stronger connections to national and regional IGFs, and I think this is something that we should really highlight and welcome.
In this context, the European Commission, together with the Council of Europe and other partners, co-facilitated a workshop in the context of EuroDIG, and this was a direct contribution to these efforts, so I think we should just further promote this process and encourage other national and regional IGFs to join the effort. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you very much. Marilyn?
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I remembered now the point I wanted to make.
Marilyn Cade speaking.
I wanted to support the comments that Ambassador Fonseca made about the -- what I was translating, perhaps, or interpreting to be the use of neutral resources from the secretariat to do the primary part of the work and analysis. I think we really benefitted from that going into NETmundial. I will also say that I'm very familiar with the use of that in other settings, both here at UNESCO, also at CSTD, and the two working groups that I was a part of and still am a part of, and at the ITU itself and the joint effort made by the four U.N. agencies on the high-level expert group on WSIS outcomes.
Having said that, I do see that there is still a role for volunteers from the MAG to be, you know, perhaps sort of a -- I don't know if the right word is "editorial group," but to play an advisory function. But I think the important thing that I see -- and it will take resources -- in order to really demonstrate the neutrality and the independence of the analysis -- and frankly, I think it's going to be a lot of work for very busy people who have day jobs and jobs as MAG members.
So I'd like to support the idea -- and I am, of course, looking to the secretariat, also to you, Chair, but also to DESA -- to understand that we do have the money in the trust fund but we will have to move quickly to be able to provide additional resources to support the excellent work of the secretariat.
And then that still leaves a role, I think, for the volunteer MAG members.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I think we should not venture in the discussion of how the trust fund is used at this session. It is a slightly different topic. I would like still to concentrate on intersessional activities, and so your point is well taken and actually the secretariat is holding the pen. That's Brian, who is lead sort of writer on the next billion document.
We heard there are 35 contributions, and Brian will be doing an intelligent summary of those contributions and then the open-ended editorial group will basically look at the text that will be produced by the secretariat and maybe fine-tune some parts of it, but in principle, the role of the editorial group is not to negotiate but just to look whether every aspect of contributions that are received have been reflected in the document which will be prepared by the secretariat.
And I see a smile on Brian's face because he has advanced a lot already in this job, in this activity, successfully.
Cheryl, please.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think Marilyn does raise a good point with respect to having a neutral and balanced panel and I appreciate all the work that's gone into this so far. I just wanted to put out there as food for thought there may also be a possibility, should we need funding, to have a conversation at IGF SA to see, you know, if there are additional funds, if it could come from there to support Brian's efforts.
Also, I just wanted to ask: Once we do set up -- you know, once we do make a few decisions with respect to the intersessional work, will we have a plan to post something on the Web site so that those folks who have made contributions can kind of keep up with what we're doing in terms of process moving forward?
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you for the question.
Constance, if you could remind us: What is the sort of time line of activities related to this preparation of the document?
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Right. So as the IGF secretariat mentioned this morning, the time line was amended a little bit because we needed more time, actually, to get to the point we are today, but on the IGF Web platform where there is now the draft skeleton of the output of connecting the next billion, there's a proposed time line. I don't know if, Carl, you can put it up. And the idea being to continue to accept background contributions because there was a concern that regional and national IGFs who would take place in the future could not participate.
So we've said that we would stay agile in the process and integrate background contributions as they come.
Once, coming out of this meeting, we have agreement on the structure of the skeleton, and specifically basically the four buckets of issues that were identified in the background contributions -- so we had issues around infrastructure, we had issues around governmental interventions and market strategies, the third bucket being digital literacy, and the fourth one being affordability and digital divide.
Once we have agreement on the structure of the report, the secretariat would continue working by adding flesh on the skeleton, and then with the goal of showing -- presenting to the editorial group and to MAG members who are interested an improved version of the output, and that would be around, I would say, the 10th of September.
And we would go through this iterative process that we follow for the best practices. We continue improving the documents and updating what we put on the Web platform until people are comfortable and feel that we have a good level of quality.
Again, the Web platform allows anyone to post comments, so that really is a way to encourage participation from non-MAG members and people who don't physically attend our meetings.
So in a nutshell, we agree this week on the draft skeleton and we have, I think, a breakout session tomorrow, and then we would have a new draft open for comments around 10th of September and we would continue the discussion.
I think the point Marilyn said is very important. We need -- we need a strong secretariat to lead the drafting exercise in a neutral and independent fashion, so that the editorial group only does, you know, review and commenting because all of you -- all of us have other -- other jobs.
Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much, though I would like to clarify one thing.
So tomorrow we will be discussing about -- in the afternoon about the main session, how to present the next billion document, but we still need to look at the time when open-ended editorial group would meet, and -- in order to provide guidance to Brian and the secretariat based on inputs.
And in this respect, I would like to suggest that open-ended editorial group would meet tomorrow from 12:00 to 1:00. We have a time allocated for sort of breakout -- breakout groups. And then we would then look at those buckets or clusters of issues that -- and the structure of the document.
Whether there will be need for others to meet at the same time in parallel, please let us know. When we were thinking about this meeting, we put aside a number of hours for these breakout groups to meet.
For the moment, I do not have any information about requests, but if you -- if you have, please let me know or secretariat know, so that we can do necessary planning.
And then on Friday morning, open-ended editorial group could meet again in the morning from 10:00 to 1:00 and go through already substantive contributions and provide further guidance to the secretariat.
So that's the proposal. It's not a decision.
Please reflect on it and provide your feedback.
So any further questions/comments related to intersessional activities?
So thank you. Then let us move to the next item, setting the scene.
Do we have a volunteer or coordinator of setting the scene session?
Chengetai?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. I sent out an email last week asking for a volunteer to step forward. We have a couple of names on the -- on the Google Doc, but we don't have somebody who is volunteering to be the lead coordinator or facilitator.
Can we get one in this room?
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Is it Subi?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Subi said she was interested in it but she didn't say she would be coordinator.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Is that Subi?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yeah. Okay.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yes. Subi, please go ahead.
>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: (indiscernible) I'd like to volunteer to be facilitator for (indiscernible) session.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Subi, for volunteering. I know you're involved also in other sessions, so with that, I take it that you will be lead coordinator for setting the scene, together with another MAG member whom we will try to identify, and that's Michael Nelson.
So we have Subi and then Michael on setting the scene.
Any initial thoughts? I understand that there hasn't been work done until now on this.
Michael?
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Well, I've done a number of classes on this topic, so I think a nice overview of what's going on and why we're here is something I could do pretty easily. I haven't -- I'll get with Subi and we'll do some work on framing what we need to really make this happen.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think this -- this is an important session because it will take place right before the opening ceremony. Most probably in a full house. And the important thing would be to really provide a good quality overview on the developments on Internet governance areas since last meeting. Also a little bit philosophy behind the preparations of IGF 2015. So good luck with that.
Taking stock and looking forward. Most probably that is the chair who needs to do that, because that's not rocket science. This will be getting feedback from participants. But any volunteer who would like to join me in thinking through this session? So, Subi, please.
>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Chair. I thank you for your inputs and suggestions again. Extremely valuable in helping us frame as well. I have actually worked quite closely with (indiscernible) last year to coordinate setting the scene. We would also like to give an overview of the Internet ecosystem and the developments, the rationale and philosophy as well as all the main session coordinators along with Nelson request their time and inputs.
Setting the scene is an extremely crucial session, as you mentioned. We're doing it ahead of the opening ceremony. And perhaps all the first timers, participants who are going to be there for the first time. And for them, the experience can be overwhelming and intimidating.
So what is it that they should expect from the main sessions and the IGF? How is it that they can negotiate it better? Walking them through the app and also some highlights about what is special about this IETF. Giving them a sense of comfort and helping them negotiate the IGF program is what we would hope to also achieve in setting the scene. And I'm looking forward to working with Nelson for productive and meaningful substantive session.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Subi. I think that Virat wants to react.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I was just wondering if that's part of the orientation session? Are we trying to combine the two? Because what was just described is very useful, but it's usually part of the orientation session. But, if you want to change, we can do that.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: No, you're right. Some things that Subi mentioned indeed are part of the orientation session explaining what IGF is, how to negotiate, how to participate, how to benefit the most from spending a week and engaging with all participants. That is more subject to orientation session.
The setting the scene is more to address the substantive issues that highlight the IGF 2015.
Please --
>> Fatima.
>>FATIMA CAMBRONERO: Thank you, Fatima, for the record. I would for my collaboration to lead the orientation session because we don't have no one in the document that (indiscernible).
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you, Fatima, for volunteering to think about orientation session. Very useful. Please. Secretariat take note on that.
Anyone would like to join me in thinking about stock taking and looking forward session?
Cheryl, would you like?
>>CHERYL MILLER: I had just a really quick comment on the orientation session. I don't know if this has already been thought of. But I know last IGF, there were new participants that felt they could have been better included just throughout the course of the week.
I know during ICANN meetings one of the things they do, they have separate badges for newcomers. And, since we'll have a really good level of youth participation, I don't know if it's possible to maybe have separate badges for them so that MAG members and other folks can reach out to them, include them, and talk to them in the hallways and actually know who the new people are.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you for suggestion. Secretariat will think about it.
Okay. Please think about taking stock and looking forward. Who would like to join me in thinking and planning that part of the concluding session? Remote participant?
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Ginger mentioned that she is willing to work on the stock taking and looking forward.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Ginger. Good. Let us move then to the next sustainable development and Internet economy.
Who will be reporting? Hossam? No.
>>ANKHI DAS: I'll be doing the reporting, Chair.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Who will be reporting? Ankhi or Hossam?
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Thank you, Chair. For the main session sustainable development and Internet economy, we have drafted two weeks ago the document. It is always subject to inputs. We announced that it is not just for MAG but it's open for anyone to comment or add to it.
We also ask for speakers from the MAG list and from outside. We have already members on the working group. We had our first call last Friday. There were seven from the MAG members and one not a MAG member participating. And we agreed on working on a few main points to conclude.
First is to try to refine the draft document and then leave it for another week for input from everyone before we have a solid document provided. We concluded on agreeing together during the meeting on the criteria to choose other speakers and that we have to move fast on inviting speakers in order to have high-level speakers on that session. Well-diversified set of criteria will be decided all together.
We agreed that the policy questions should not be more than five or six so we can have time for every speaker to express himself or herself in addition to the participation of the audience.
We are going as well to market to the session ahead of time. We'll agree how to do so and during the IGF itself. So, after the meeting that we'll have today, we'll have another week or 10 days to refine everything, and then we'll have things ready. We invite everyone to help us with potential speakers for this session so we can have a very good outcome. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Any comments, questions to Hossam or Ankhi? Virat, please.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Just want to make general points, if this is the right time, for main sessions or just toward the end. But four or five points. Just some recommendations. One, I've seen some preparatory sessions listing between 10 and 20 policy questions. It would help if we sort of kicked that down to four or five.
We must limit in the note circulated to 5 or 6 at best and no more. It's unfair on moderators and certainly on everybody, because you feel you have not completed the session.
Second question is speakers because we decided in the past we don't want to repeat speakers. It would help those who are referring speakers not to refer more than one speaker to more than one facilitators. And the second is if they would emails facilitators. You couldn't get new speakers. It would help if those who are referring speakers would provide an email introduction. And the speaker had no idea, takes up to three weeks just to get a confirmation, and that's why the duplication is accurate because people tend to send out very many invites.
And last year we had three speakers on three or four main sessions which had to be taken off. And including Constance and I were in discussions where ISOC was in two sessions at the last minute the ISOC chair.
So we just want to make sure that we don't send out more than one speaker reference and making introductions. Same for moderators. But also, suppose at some stage soon, the speakers must be sought in a transparent manner either on the MAG list or on the list so that everybody knows who is recommending whom where.
Final point: When you put out a new list of speakers, it's always good to mention where the reference came from so that you're able to follow and others are able to follow. At least that's what we tried to practice last year. And that makes it clear on where the process is headed right when you start finalizing your speakers so that there's no confusion. I suspect, given the very few days left and very few speakers, if any, confirmed, there will be a lot of overlap and duplications and hard work in the last minute. So we should try to avoid that. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you for these comments. Very valuable and certainly based on your own experience of the previous years. Cheryl, please.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also had some observations to share just generally for the main sessions from last year. I know there are a lot of small things that can be forgotten such as making sure there's an adequate time clock and tent cards, et cetera.
I want to suggest that we consider maybe having just a really quick one-page check sheet for main session organizers so that we can make sure that we can kind of keep them all on the same level of uniformity, et cetera, with respect to the logistical issues involved. I also want to remind people or make sure that each main session will have a substantive rapporteur assigned that that role is not forgotten and just remind people how important the role of moderator is not just in terms of being an expert that's so deep on the issue that it's going to speak from the policy perspective, but also moderators have a special role in terms of making sure the sessions run on time.
And time is always an issue. Especially on the main sessions. We ran into a lot of timing issues last year just because there were so many participants generally and the effort to make sure that the remote participants had ample activity to take part and then the other participants in the room. So thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you very much for pointing out those observations.
Any questions specifically related to topic of the conversation sustainable development and Internet economy that we can provide also some guidance prior to breakout group meeting? You mentioned, Hossam, the policy areas. Have you identified already what those could be, those five or six policy areas that this session will try to address?
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: We had some points, but we will discuss it during the session in the afternoon. So -- because there are different opinion how to focus the session. So we'll have a little bit more. And then we'll sort them out so to focus only on the five more -- so, by the end of today, hopefully, we'll have something. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions to Hossam or Ankhi? In absence, let us move to the next one. And that is zero rating. Susan was one on zero rating. Who was the other one? Yes, please, Hossam.
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Just one comment to say that a very valuable document has been drafted or written, authored by Constance for sustainable development and Internet economy. We put a hyperlink in our draft document. It's a very valuable one. Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Remote participant.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: There are two who will be speaking. One is Ginger, and another is Subi.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So can we have any update from Subi or Ginger.
>>GINGER PAQUE: If I may go ahead, Chair, this is Ginger.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please go ahead.
>>GINGER PAQUE: I have several things I want to say, but I am co-coordinating the zero rating and net neutrality session with Susan. And Ephraim is also on the call, who is working with us as well as others, who have contributed to our document. The basic information about the session is available. The document that Chengetai sent out shortly, sent out just recently, sorry. But one of the points I would particularly like to make to this open group, response also to Virat's recent point about too many questions.
At this point I'd like to emphasize that we do have a document -- I believe the link is in the document from Chengetai -- where we are asking that the public give us the questions they would like to see addressed in the session. This does not mean we will take all of the questions. This does not mean we will have them on the agenda of the session. I do understand Virat's very important point about having too many questions. But these are things we will use as guidelines for the speakers. And there are things we want to ensure included in the content of the session. We have several documents open where we are requesting information because this is a very vibrant dynamic topic, and we realize that we need to have many viewpoints. So we would like to make sure everyone gives us their points, gives us their questions. We will refine these and separate them into groups for discussion in the main session. And we will use them as we request that the speakers address areas that are of interest to the audience.
I would also like to reiterate Cheryl made some excellent points about a checklist and points that we need as first time MAG. I would really appreciate a checklist on what kind of things we need to make sure we address during a main session. That will be a very valuable document.
Because I think people have already reviewed our documents, and I see there are people online right now on our Google Docs on the zero rating, I won't go into more detail. But I would like to invite anyone who wants to join us at the breakout session.
Are there any input from anyone? We really need everyone's ideas. So I'd like to hear any input right now. Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So my question, Ginger, is will you be able to facilitate discussion in the breakout session on the question this afternoon?
>>GINGER PAQUE: I will be present in the remote participation, and I see no reason we cannot handle it that way. I think we can have a perfectly well remote and in-person session. And I invite everyone to join us.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Just checking. So Ankhi, please.
>>ANKHI DAS: One question which I had, and maybe you can throw some light on this. What is the time frame which is open for the open comments process in terms of the main sessions both in substance as well as speaker suggestions? Could we just get clarity on that aspect across all the sessions?
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think sooner better. That is my answer. I think as sooner we have full clarity and list of confirmed speakers for main sessions, and better quality of the main sessions we'll have. Of course, there's always last minute changes. Someone cannot come for family reasons. Someone may miss the flight and not be able to join for the session which is scheduled at the time when he is not yet present and so on. These things happen, and we need to look for substitutes.
But these are rather exceptions. The rule should be we need to be prepared to the meeting as early as possible.
Virat, please. And then European Commission.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Perhaps the secretariat could clarify if they have a date in mind when they wish the main session facilitators to return the ready documents for printing and media use. Because they're usually seeking about a month in advance. So, like, the first week of October, end of first week of October? Would that work? That gives you a month. Then we have over 35 days to make this work.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. October 10th.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: October 10th. Okay. October 10th we revert our documents back to the secretariat. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. European Commission.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Yes, I'd like to share a piece of information that might be relevant for this main session on network neutrality. After intense negotiations on the 13th of June, an agreement was found between the European institutions with the view to establish pragmatic rules on net neutrality. This agreement turns for the first time principle of net neutrality into EU law. So you will have a very comprehensive open Internet rules complete with strong end user rights to ensure that subscribers get what they pay for. So these rules will be a reality across all EU member states as soon as the text will become law. And we expect this to happen next year after it will go through the necessary procedures.
But I thought this was important also to share this information with you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you.
A remote participant?
>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Chair, this is Subi Chaturvedi.
I've been in the queue for a while so there might be a little bit of a time lag on the issues we are discussing right at this moment.
I have a question for Hossam and also main session facilitators who already have the names of the speakers.
Are these speakers up there on the list already been contacted and has confirmation been achieved?
Our understanding is also for all the main sessions that all the speakers are going to be suggested by the MAG and also inputs will be sought on diversity, all forms of diversity and balance, we will make attempts to strive in speakers. So just that one question there.
And another question for the chair.
I understand the distance between the orientation session and setting the scene. While the orientation session would relate to orienting or giving an informed manual, a hands-on guide to what is on the menu of the IGF program, my understanding of setting the scene would be that we will walk all the participants through key debates in all the main themes.
Is that something that we are correct in terms of our understanding facilitation? Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Answering your last question on the setting the scene, I mean, literally setting the scene, creating an atmosphere, guiding or bringing the most topical issues of 2015 to the attention of the audience. I think that this -- this is the main reason of the setting the scene session.
So at the time when we had four, let's say, topics on the agenda, so then every topic was addressed by one individual speaker. Now of course when we have eight subthemes, it is difficult to bring eight speakers on each subtheme, so therefore I would see either that is one or two kind of visionary-level interventions which really creates a proper atmosphere and highlights what -- what are the most important issues for 2015 IGF in terms of substance, and then what we would try to achieve at the -- as a result of the meeting.
Virat?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, I would put to you and the MAG: Should we, at this late stage, since no planning has occurred on setting the scene, go with the expanded definition and actually transform that into the orientation session, which might be more useful for the first timers and take them through a very elaborate set of eight themes that we have set up and the workshops, et cetera?
We only have 60 minutes so it's not like they're going to be into discussion and ask many questions. If you had to cover those eight points, then you'll need, you know, eight -- eight speakers or 10 speakers. I -- it just doesn't seem feasible. So then we are back to keeping setting the scene at a very high level with maybe two, three speakers at most.
But I just wanted to put it out there in case that is an option, but it's impossible to combine the two, given 60 minutes. That's the challenge.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: That's exactly what I was trying to say. It is not feasible to have eight speakers covering eight subthemes that we have agreed on. I would rather see two or three speakers giving the high-level overview and projections, what are the most important things for 2015 IGF, why we -- why we do what we do, what we're trying to achieve.
So one of the speakers could speak on substantive issues or two could speak on substantive issues, one could speak on procedural issues explaining all the intersessional activities and why they were suggested and then conducted and so on.
But again, it's subject to further conversation by facilitators.
Michael?
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Yeah. I think it makes sense to have two separate sessions because you do have two separate audiences with two separate sets of needs.
The orientation session really is for the people who are coming for the first time, whereas I think a lot of people who will come to the setting the scene session may be experts in one or two topics and just want to learn at a high level what's happening in an area they don't know much about.
But those people, particularly if they've been to two or three IGFs in the past, aren't going to want to sit through even a half hour of "And this is how we're organized and this is who you can talk to."
I mean, that's -- I think there are two different audiences and two different needs and I think mixing it doesn't make too much sense.
But I do agree with you we don't want to have two or three people talking on each of the different main themes for three minutes each because that's not going to be productive.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Hossam, would you like to answer the question that Subi raised?
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Excuse me. When we have a list of speakers, the objective is to have potential speakers. Then we sit and discuss together the criteria of prioritization of the speakers, and then once decided, we start communicating with the speakers accordingly and have their feedback and then we go to the next. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you. Marilyn?
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade speaking.
I'm just going to take us back and ask a question of the secretariat. This will be quick.
I understand the suggestion that Virat made of consolidation. I also understand Mike's response. But what I don't understand is the practicality of an orientation session in the morning of day zero.
I'm just wondering if the orientation session, if it is a separate session, might need to be moved to the afternoon in order to accommodate the fact that there will be people arriving on day zero and getting registered, and I'm not sure I --
Well, a lot of people will come for day zero and I certainly will be there, so I -- but I also would not be someone who would plan to attend an orientation session.
I'm bringing a number of newcomers, women who have never been there before. I would like to put them in the orientation session. It's unlikely they would make a morning session.
I don't know how -- if others have a view, and maybe the host organizer, maybe Hartmut might help us understand the practicality of the time slot as well.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So let me ask: Do we have any further questions to Hossam about the -- no. Sorry. It was -- no. We closed this.
Yeah. On zero rating, we don't have any further questions, right?
So then let's continue this conversation about setting the scene and the orientation session.
Secretariat, can you answer the question of Marilyn about feasibility of moving orientation session either to afternoon of day zero or -- or in other times?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I think we can move it to the afternoon on day zero.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: There's a high-level meeting, but I don't think we have the same audience.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So please consider what Marilyn has suggested.
Michael, please.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: I actually think that they would have some of the same audience and some of the people who are coming for the first time will be particularly interested in knowing how to distinguish between all the things that go on in day zero, because there's everything from GigaNet to the high-level meeting to the specialized meetings, and I think doing it, you know, middle of the morning day zero would make the most sense, because that way they have this information, they can apply it all five days of the meeting. You will miss a few people who are going to show up on the -- or are going to show up on day one, but I think most of the people we're trying to reach will be there the first day. And they'll have less competition on day zero in the morning than they will later. I mean for competing sessions, I mean.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Virat?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I just wanted to clarify, Mr. Chairman, that I wasn't talking about combining the two sessions. I was talking about replacing the session. We could have either this or that. And if it made sense, you could have -- if orientation session is considered more important and this is the right slot just before the --
Because it's my personal view that more people will gain from the orientation session because of lots of newcomers. Brazil, I think, CGI.br is bringing a lot of people who will probably attend their first-ever IGF, and so my suggestion was to replace, not to combine. It's impossible to conduct even one of them in 60 minutes. Two would be a -- you know, a miracle.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So remote participant?
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Ginger, please go ahead.
>>VIRGINIA PAQUE: Thank you. I would like to strongly agree with Marilyn on the point of timing of the orientation session.
If we're going to hold an orientation session, which is so important for newcomers, on day zero, then I think we have to call it day one and extend the meeting.
I don't see how we can have the orientation session outside of the official meeting. I disagree respectfully with Michael Nelson. I think that this is an integral part of the IGF and that we need to reach out to new people. We're always talking about not having the same usual suspects, but how are we going to integrate new people if we don't reach out and help them get involved?
I strongly believe this has to be part of the meeting itself; it's not part of the day zero presentations. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Ginger. I think we already agreed that we will have this orientation session outside, on day zero.
Michael, please.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: I don't know if this data would be useful, but it would be helpful to know in Istanbul how many people had registered by the first -- by day zero.
Because I mean, clearly, if only a third of the people are showing up on day zero, then I fully agree with Marilyn, but if, on the other hand, most people are already there and were already there in Istanbul, that would -- that would be, I think, justification for doing it early.
Again, I think one of the reasons to do the orientation is to help people navigate through the sessions on day zero because there's not going to be as much information about those sessions and some of them are new and unique, so telling them on day one all the great things they could have gone to on day zero or even doing the orientation session in the afternoon and telling them about the things they've missed isn't going to be very helpful.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Joe and then ICANN.
Sorry. Fatima, please.
>>FATIMA CAMBRONERO: Thank you. Fatima speaking.
Last year we had the orientation sessions on the first day and we had a lot of participants, and I don't know why this year we change it for the day zero. What is the reason for that change?
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Because there were too many main sessions proposed by MAG members, so that was the only reason.
Joe, you would like to say something? Please.
>>JOSEPH ALHADEFF: Yes. Thank you. Joseph Alhadeff.
I was hoping that perhaps there might be a happy compromise between the two, because actually day zero is a little bit of a different animal than the IGF anyway.
It's perhaps a little more of an informal atmosphere that is a little less structured.
And as Cheryl has pointed out, it would be useful to know a little more about the panel sessions.
So there might be a way to almost do a self-guided tour by having -- asking the panel sessions to do a short video description that then can be put together at the front and people can either look at it on site, look at it before they get there. They can then understand what day zero is all about, what opportunities are there, whether it makes sense, and in all honesty, if we can do that for them before they get there, then they might understand their travel plans to include day zero or not, depending on the attractiveness, and then we could move the orientation to a time when -- even if it's on day zero, when perhaps more people have already arrived.
But that might be one of the ways to address Michael's concern that people won't know enough about day zero to attend and enjoy while also taking into account that the newcomers to the IGF as a whole need orientation to the IGF, and I would be concerned that if the orientation package was place as a whole, people would not differentiate between day zero and the IGF, and they are not, in fact, the same thing.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Nigel? ICANN?
>>ICANN: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, I think, you know, there's a number of issues here and none of us are complete experts. It's just some of us have been around too long and have been to too many conferences, perhaps.
But I think there is a -- there is a problem here. We have the same problem at ICANN, to an extent, although to a greater extent sometimes.
And that is, you have a conference and it has an opening and people ask, "When is the opening of the conference?" "Well, the opening of the conference is Monday. It says it in the program."
"So why are you turning up three days early?"
"Well, because we start the conference early."
"So why do you have an opening?"
"Because we have the opening on Monday?"
"So why are you setting up on Thursday?"
"Well, you know, for a beer and to see people, to have a coffee and to have a chat."
And, you know, there is a certain level of confusion goes on at ICANN meetings.
Now, I'm not suggesting the same confusion at the IGF, but I think if you're going to have an orientation session -- and I do agree that there's a difference between orientation and setting the scene. An orientation is essentially useful, and I would have thought it's absolutely useful for people that attend an IGF for the first time because they -- you know, it is complex, an IGF, in terms of being able to navigate.
And so having an orientation I think is very useful for newcomers. It has to be flagged in advance, as Joe said. It can, of course, take place on day zero, but if it takes place on day zero, then it has to be specifically flagged that it's going to take place then. Otherwise, people will understandably turn up for the opening, and they're booking, of course, their travel now.
Setting the scene is different because setting the scene is, I would have thought, a session where the likes of people that are leading workshops or leading the opening sessions stand up on the stage and say, "Come to my session on encryption because we're going to discuss how to ban it" or "Come to my session on surveillance because we want to do it better in the future." And, you know, that would sort of get a few people to turn up. So I think that's -- you know, I think that's slightly different.
But I think we just need clarity on this, so that people know when they're supposed to turn up to the various things.
Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Nigel. Actually, it's not confusion; it's called constructive ambiguity. Indonesia, please.
>>INDONESIA: Yes. Thank you, Chair. But I'm still thinking that I suggest that orientation session will be in the day one before 12:00. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Is it Jac?
Please.
>>JAC SM KEE: I want to support the suggestions earlier that said that there should be some sort of publishing of what happens on day zero, so that it is also clear for participants in terms of if I come for day zero, these are the activities. But the other thing I was wondering about is that there was a suggestion in, I think, the previous MAG meeting about having a booth just for orientation. So orientation doesn't end in the orientation session itself, but then it sort of carries on throughout the IGF. And if any plans or discussions has been carried through about that particular idea.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you.
Actually, I would like to see you continuing with the next item on human rights, if you -- if you wish, because I think this orientation session and modalities of that need to be maybe thought through further.
We agreed to review a little bit the schedule based on our discussions in the morning. I think it is said already enough about it.
Chengetai whispered that we may also think about WebEx orientation session prior to the meeting and explain those who are interested and so on, based on the registration, to make a special invitation to those who are first-time -- first-time comers and so on.
So we will -- we hear you and the secretariat will reflect on that.
And now, Jac, please go ahead with your proposed activities on human rights on the Internet session.
>>JAC SM KEE: Okay. Sure. Thank you very much.
First of all, apologies for sending the draft template a little late. I've just sent it through to the MAG list maybe an hour ago.
Essentially, because it's quite a short main session and it's a two-hour session, so we're thinking of organizing the human rights main session as a roundtable. This has been a format that has proven to be quite successful in the previous two IGFs in relation to discussing some of the key issues that's come up around human rights, so we would like to build on this, as well as to look at --
So the roundtable -- sorry.
So it would sort of do three things.
One is the roundtable will present an opportunity for the workshop organizers who have -- who have proposed sessions around human rights to bring some of the key issues and highlights that they've discussed at the workshops into the roundtable itself. That's one.
So it will hopefully be able to surface some of the emerging current human rights and Internet policy issues that's been discussed at the IGF.
Secondly, we would also like to use the opportunity to look at potential linkages between IGF and other policy spaces and events. So we've seen IGF as playing a very key role in terms of being able to advance human rights as a -- as a grounding framework to look at Internet policy, and this especially has been quite successful, for example, at the Human Rights Council space and this is also something that the roundtable on human rights managed to do last year, which was produce a submission -- produce a statement that was formally submitted to the HRC.
So we would like to have this roundtable to look at that specifically, which is potential for collaboration between IGF and other policy events. And as such, we'd like to invite -- one of the things that we would like to do is to invite key international as well as regional intergovernmental organizations to participate in the roundtable and to provide inputs in terms of what they're doing around human rights and what are some of the opportunities for collaboration and how we might be able to take that forward.
And thirdly is to then look at the interlinkages between human rights and access and what could this be.
So it's sort of like broadly trying to push through these three things.
We are looking at the mailing list as one of the primary spaces to plan for this, and because it's a roundtable, we're really not looking so much in terms of identifying four to five speakers to go in-depth into particular things but to create a space where conversation is able to happen instead.
But with that, it requires quite a lot of planning and strong moderation.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you. Any questions to Jac on the concept?
Virat, please.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I just want to thank Jac for the briefing and I'm looking at the document that circulated sometime back. I'm sorry, I didn't have a chance to read this before. You know, one thing that would help sort of flesh this out just a little bit more would be policy questions because right now, it seems to kind of list human rights work that's happened in the past and doesn't go into much detail. So I'm sure this is draft one. And it can be a lot more would come out of it with that one.
And second, also with regard to participants, I'm just wondering if there's a heavy list of intergovernmental bodies participating here and some national governments plus technical communities. But I wonder if other stakeholders would be involved, especially developing countries where this continues to be a big challenge. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Mark.
>>MARK CARVELL: Yes. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Jac, for the proposal for this session, which I'm looking at. I think the roundtable concept is a good one for this. I just have one question on content. And that relates to safety of online media actors, bloggers, and so on in the context of safety of journalists.
If you look at the IGF program, there's one readily obvious session on that workshop session, I mean.
And, you know, we believe that this is very important, highly relevant issue, an escalating problem. Safety of media activists. And, ideally, the roundtable on rights could be an opportunity to cover this issue at the main session level.
So I make that suggestion. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Mark, for the suggestion. Kossi?
>>KOSSI AMESSINOU: Thank you very much, Chairman. This is an important topic. This would be good -- I'm sorry for speaking French. I'm giving everyone an opportunity to put on their headphones and find the English channel. If you hear English, then you're on the right channel.
Thank you. Mr. Kossi from Benin. I think it's a very important topic. And I think that, during the session, it would be helpful to address the legal space as it relates to the Internet. In our countries we have that issue. When there's an Internet crime, what is the legal space where this can be processed where this infraction or crime can be dealt with, referred to. It would be good to have some thinking on that to see if we can actually advance this topic. Thank you, Chairman.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Kossi, for this suggestion. Any other questions?
Jac, would you like to answer to questions which were raised, please?
>>JAC SM KEE: Yes, thank you very much for all of the very helpful suggestions. Maybe I can help clarify a little bit in terms of the process that we're thinking of. First of all, because there are so many workshop suggestions under the thematic area of human rights, it is impossible to have one speaker from each workshop session to come and represent the discussion at the session itself. So what we were hoping to do is to figure out a way in which we can cluster some of the human rights areas. So, for example, freedom of expression and assembly seems to be one. Another seems to be around access issues. Another one seems to be around privacy. And I'm also hearing now maybe jurisdictional issues around implementation, upholding of human rights in relation to the Internet. How will this work?
So I think what we will try to do is figure out particular cluster areas in relation to the theme. And then, hopefully, we will be able to encourage workshop organizers to also have -- to self-identify which theme they feel more affinity towards. And then to also self-organize and to have conversations within themselves to figure out what they would like to surface and who may be the best person to surface this at the roundtable itself.
That's one way of looking at it. And we are relying very much on discussions prior to the IGF in order to make this work.
So far I've asked for help to invite all of the human rights workshop organizers to participate in the mailing list. And, hopefully, they have agreed to do that. So that work will I think intensify in the following weeks.
In terms of the -- quite a lot of, I guess, intergovernmental organizations being named, these are really just suggestions and recommendations. We haven't really finalized any of this yet. We just looked at this as possibilities. It would be ideal to also be able to identify more regional bodies, for example, and to definitely prioritize representation from developing contexts.
And for the policy questions, yes, this is actually something that we haven't really fleshed out too much yet. It will be following through from the clustering. And what we'd also like to do is make one thing -- because human rights can be so broad. So one of the things we thought is useful to find of hold it together is to also draw links between that particular area and the thematic focus of this year's IGF itself which is really around accessing development. So how do we do this in a way that is meaningful?
We'll probably follow the same process as zero rating session which is open up as an open document and have that as a way to flesh this out and outline some of the key issues that will come up.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay. Thank you. In absence of further questions or comments, I would like to move to the last topic, last session. And that is on cyber security. Dominique, will you introduce that?
>>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Thank you. Subi and I have been working together in the last few weeks to put together the document that's been submitted and I think has been shared with the MAG list. We also have a number of supporters from various stakeholder groups that will be coming together and offering -- starting to offer speakers for this session including -- from a variety of different areas including the best practice forums and various other things.
But what we'd like to do in our meeting coming up shortly is start discussing speakers more thoroughly. So I would like to maybe an open call for all speakers now. All suggestions are welcome, and we look forward to working with all of you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Questions about proposed document, concept? So I see none.
So there has been a rather dynamic exchange online about this session. Good.
So, if we do not have further questions, please, Flavio.
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: We still have one main session, yeah.
>>CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Sorry, I skipped that.
But no reason. Please, Flavio, go ahead with the presentation of --
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you. It's the main session on NETMundial. Just a brief report. You have already received the document following the template given by the secretariat. So this main session wishes to address three main policy questions.
First one: Are organizations and fora that formed the Internet governance ecosystem following the principles of Internet governance that has been laid down in the NETMundial statement? Are there efforts to correct possible questions in this regard? So the second question is how well is each item in the NETMundial roadmap covered by the current Internet governance ecosystem? Are those items being covered according to the NETmundial principles or what else should be done or initiated by the community in this regard?
The third question which is specific to IGF is how well is the Internet governance committee advancing toward the NETMundial proposal of turning the IGF into a focal point for the discussion of those issues that are not being adequately addressed by the current Internet governance ecosystem
So the idea is to -- inspired by the NETMundial event itself to have first phase of preparation for the main session using a Web site inspired by the one which was created for the NETMundial meeting, which will collect contributions from the community and from panelists regarding the objectives and policy questions that have been defined. This Web site would be open at least, let's say, six weeks, eight weeks -- it depends on how fast we move -- before the IGF.
And submissions may comprise examples of positive experiences at national, regional, or international levels. They advance the Internet governance ecosystem according to NETMundial principles and roadmap and critical analysis of the ecosystem as it is today and projects on how it should evolve in the future.
And CGI.br is willing to give the necessary support for this Web site and for this process. The idea then during IGF, during the main session itself, is to have a limited number of panelists -- let's say eight people -- covering the different stakeholder groups, regional, geographic regions, gender, and so on. That would be aware of the contributions previously submitted through the web platform and would try to consider those contributions as appropriate during their interventions in the panel.
And then we have 120 minutes, two hours for the main session. The idea is to limit these contributions from this limited number of panelists to at most one hour so that we have still one hour to have a lively interaction with the audience. And the idea in NETMundial is to have the four microphones for the four main stakeholder groups, four main communities. And do the same for queues for remote participation so that remote participants also queue in the same virtual microphones, let's say, so that we have kind of round robin among those four queues.
The on-site moderators will be Demi Getschko from NIC.br and Raul Echeberria from ISOC who were the cochairs of the executive multistakeholder committee of NETMundial. So they are very well aware of the document and principles and roadmap.
We still have to think of one remote moderator so the three work together to allow for adequate interaction with on-site and remote participants.
And the idea is to try to deliver, to the extent possible, an outcome document with a critical assessment from the contributions, the previous contributions to the web platform and from the contributions from the debate, audience and panelists, to have this outcome document with critical assessment of the evolution of Internet governance ecosystem at regional, national, and international levels both with regard to principles as well to the roadmap of NETMundial.
Then, of course, we will have at least two rapporteurs that would help us in preparing this document and maybe interacting with the facilitators and the MAG members and the volunteers and the panelists after the event to have the final version of this outcome document. So that's all.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you very much. I see there are two questions. Three. One from Virat, Constance, and then Joe. In that order. Virat, please.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Flavio, for your update.
I -- you know, when you first discussed this session, there was a question about, you know, what was the purpose of discussing a specific IGF event. But I think we all understood there was a need to sort of take stock on how the set of principles are doing currently.
But this rather expanded set of fears of having a Web site and creating inputs, which is all very well, but it's kind of almost a parallel exercise to the IGF Web site now to collect the set of outputs which will then be an outcome document rather than an exercise to create what other working groups are doing as a document for sort of a basic document based on the discussions. I'm not sure if this is sort of that well-understood by MAG or was understood. Maybe I'm in the minority here.
But I think it kind of sets up a parallel process to the IGF Web site to create another full document of an event that is sort of, by the time this is held, 19 months old or more.
I wonder if this is what we had expected. And would creating a set of outputs in this form almost parallel to intersessional work that's going on or the best practice session that's going on starting now is something that we already sort of expected this to be. I would be very candid in saying my expectation was a discussion on the roadmap is being followed up, not a fresh outcome document. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Constance.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you. I just wanted to mention that ISOC has received documentation, but it has not been confirmed at this stage.
The other comments, thoughts I wanted to share and, you know, reflecting also on our experience with dynamic coalitions is that, if you don't agree early at an early stage on the process when you're launching an exercise that will lead to new outputs, then it can become confusing for participants. I had initially understood that this NETMundial session was a reflection and that we were not launching additional intersessional work towards outcomes. So this would really change, I think, the nature of this main session and would probably deserve an in-depth discussion from the MAG.
The other comment I want to make is that if -- we're hearing a new Web site separate from the IGF Web site while we're already trying to consolidate the IGF Web site. So it sounds a little bit like creating a conference within a conference. And, you know, again, this may generate some confusion. So any clarification on these points would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Joe.
>>JOSEPH ALHADEFF: Thank you, Chair. Joseph Alhadeff. My question was a clarification which the questions may have partially answered. But it was the concept that it seemed rather odd to someone to be talking about a previous contribution through a web portal that was something other than IGF.
Because it's a question of how is this then a consultation of IGF related to this topic? And so I guess the concern is, again, to some of the parallelism of the process. But it also yields confusion. Because, if we're now talking about another web portal and another process, we were just worried about having an orientation video for the people who have never attended. We may need to develop an orientation for the people who have attended a lot of them.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Carlos Afonso.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Thank you, Chairman. My comment is in the same line of Virat and Constance. I think we're having a hard time in the IGF to have an outcome document and now to work for two outcome documents? I think that the idea -- I thought the idea behind this -- remember when we were planning the main sessions, I proposed this to be near the end because I thought this could collaborate to the outcome document of the IGF itself. Not to be a different or separate document. I think these are principles are interesting, but should be any -- I don't know, any thoughts around this should be included in the output document of the IGF. I think we should concentrate efforts, not divide efforts, and the same could be said about whatever other efforts, like Web site or intersessional activity. I think we need to concentrate. My personal opinion -- by the way, I will give it now about the -- I think that the whole IGF has been spread too thin by having too many subthemes, by having too many main sessions. I think it's already spread too thin.
So I think that we should try to concentrate.
As somebody said -- as Virat himself before said, or somebody else, I think, in the main session I think we should have as few policy questions as possible. I think we need to concentrate. Otherwise, this will dissolve in the nice weather of Joao Pessoa.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. It's good that we have this conversation. I think that gives you also, Flavio, some guidance.
Indeed, I recall when we discussed your proposal to have this session, that that would be more like looking at implementation of the decisions that were taken and taking stock and then looking what has happened since NETmundial, how many governments or companies apply those principles, and here where we are with the roadmap and so.
But please, if you want to address some of the concerns in next few minutes before we break for the working groups.
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Yeah. Thank you, Janis.
So thank you, Virat and Constance and Joe and Juan, for the comments.
Really, it was -- it is not an idea to have a different outcome document than the document that IGF will produce, of course. This will be a contribution to the document and will come together with all other outputs from IGF.
So this may be should be rephrased, so that it does not give this impression that we are willing to launch another process and have a different document than IGF itself will produce.
So this is definitely a contribution to IGF.
And if you think really that this may confuse people if we get contributions through a different Web platform than the platform from IGF, this is -- of course this is just a first draft of a proposal. There's no problem in using the IGF Web site. But, look, this is not the idea of launching a different intersessional work. It's just to get contributions to this particular panel and then to produce a document from this particular panel only considering the policy questions that will be defined, working together with the MAG members here. So we are proposing three policy questions that are related to the roadmap and principles from the NETmundial statement.
If we agree on those questions, contributions will be sought on these questions, and the outcome document will produce a report on how the audience and the panelists have addressed and the contributions to the Web site have addressed those three questions. This is a very limited scope. It's not launching another intersessional work.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah. Thank you. We have one remote participant and then Marilyn and then we will close this conversation.
Remote participant, please.
>>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Chair. This is Subi Chaturvedi.
Flavio, thank you for the update. When we decided to discuss the main session, the suggestion clearly was this would be different from a workshop or an open forum, the purpose of the main session being it has to have larger value for a substantive number of participants.
I do have the feeling that this is turning towards -- this is more inwards and this is becoming more like a workshop or an open forum instead of an IGF main theme session, so we will need to discuss this from the two.
Also, I'm glad that we've been able to, for the best practice forums, use the space on the IGF Web site to do any work that we'd like to, to solicit comments. So that is one ideal space which can be used.
And one of the most important parts in NETmundial, unresolved issues or issues which require future action, were how is it that we can strengthen the IGF, and there were other outstanding issues like permissionless innovation as well as the issue of net neutrality.
So it would be interesting also to know how is it that there is linkage between NETmundial, the existing efforts, and how has the work that has taken place at NETmundial been able to feed into the IGF.
I just think the linkage is missing, so if you could speak to those points, and thank you for taking our feedback in the work that you do.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Subi, for your suggestions.
And the last is Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade speaking.
Well, my comments are going to be pretty reflective, I think, of the other MAG comments that have been made.
I think that I see the IGF as developing a brand recognition that we all -- and I use that term very broadly, but an identity that we all understand and embrace and want to perhaps I'll say "proselytize" rather than "advertise" to gain recognition and participation.
And I think that an adoption, if you will, of the practices that we are developing here.
I think for that reason and a couple of others, I really would like to ask for the organizers of this session to utilize the resources of the secretariat to stay within the identity of the IGF on this.
I, too, understood when this was discussed something that reflected more, I think, what the MAG chair has described as a reflection and an examination of progress since NETmundial in April of 2014, but I'm also now going to note that I think there's also some -- I don't mean to use the word "overlap," but perhaps heavy congruency between the topic of evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem and the review that we'll be doing on WSIS+10, which will also be looking at the role of the Internet governance ecosystem, not just the Internet Governance Forum itself.
So right now we're scheduled to have competing discussions. The NETmundial multistakeholder declaration is scheduled for this afternoon. So is the WSIS+10 session. I wonder if it's at all possible to think about switching one of those till tomorrow so that we could have duplicate -- so we could have the opportunity to participate in both.
And I'm not looking at my fellow coordinators, Jandyr and Lea, but I think we could probably be flexible in the WSIS+10 session, if that was the one that needed to be switched.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: We're totally in your hands, so simply the suggestion was to -- not to do all 11 at the same time. That would be really spreading too thin. But we can move WSIS+10 session on tomorrow afternoon. Easy.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Sorry?
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: No. If that is what is suggested, to take WSIS+10 main discussion not today afternoon as one of the parallel workstreams but tomorrow when we have opening the scene, dynamic coalitions, connecting next billion, best practice forums, stock-taking, so -- and use -- and add there WSIS+10, that's feasible.
Or we can do --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: It's okay.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Sorry?
>> Or the other way around. To move NETmundial.
>>MARILYN CADE: I -- since I made the proposal, I volunteered to move WSIS+10 for one other reason.
Lea and Jandyr and I can actually update our template by tomorrow.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Entirely, everything is feasible, so let's then stick to the first proposal, which was to organize WSIS+10 consultations then tomorrow afternoon and maintain, as suggested now, sustainable development, zero rating, NETmundial, human rights, cybersecurity, as suggested, this afternoon starting from now.
And then tomorrow -- tomorrow we would meet at 10:00 in this room? In this room tomorrow?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Tomorrow we're meeting at 10:00 in this room. We will go through best practice forums, we will hear updates on the state of preparations and documents, we will be able to ask questions to coordinators.
Then we will talk about dynamic coalitions and actually during that discussion we can address issues that were outlined today about the -- the outputs that dynamic coalitions expect and then maybe provide some guidance.
So then at 12:00, we would start a meeting of the open-ended editorial group, we would look at the structure of the next billion output document, and in the afternoon we would continue working on that output document on next billion before moving into parallel sessions on main sessions.
So if that is acceptable, then today the MAG meeting and open consultations in this format are adjourned and we are convening parallel work -- working group meetings on main sessions in five minutes time from now, respectively in Room 1002 for sustainable development and Internet economy, which is on the first floor; on zero rating in Room 5002, which is on the fifth floor; on NETmundial declaration, it's 5042, it's on the fifth floor; human rights and Internet on floor 4, Room 4002; cybersecurity on floor 4, 4131.
In all rooms will be remote participation facilities available, and the expected outcome is fine-tune proposals on main sessions, maybe even with suggested speakers; that after this sort of conversation we can start reaching out with the full understanding on the aims, concepts, and expected outcomes.
So in absence of questions -- and I'm looking in the room -- thank you very much. This session stands adjourned. Good luck with the parallel workshops and we're meeting tomorrow at 10:00 in this very room. Thank you. And thank you, interpreters and transcription. Thank you.