You are here

Transcript - 16 May 2012

IGF Open Consultations

Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Geneva, Switzerland

 

***

The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Open Consultations of the IGF, in Geneva. 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.

 

***

>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay.  Dear colleagues, dear members of MAG, ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to the first day of our two-day MAG meeting.
I welcome all our new members, and of course welcome back those who have been members in the past.
This is a really great group that now can work well together to achieve our common goals.
Today and tomorrow we will build on many good discussions of yesterday and our meeting in February, as well as the many good online comments and suggestions that have been made on our mailing list.
Yesterday, our delegation gave you all an update on logistical and physical preparations that are well underway in Baku.
I hope this eased any concerns you may have had.  We are putting all great effort to ensure that Baku delivers us the best IGF venue today, ensuring that all stakeholders feel welcome and fully accommodated throughout the forum.
And now, I want to address our new members of MAG and invite you, please, to introduce yourself.  We have some time for the -- your presentation, and therefore, I invite our new members, indicated so, and have very short presentation about yourself.  Please.  This is only voluntary basis.  Please.
>>COLLINS ATAHO: My name is Collins Ataho.  I work with Orange Telecom Uganda.  I'm a new MAG member.  Thanks for the good work there.
>> Good morning.  My name is Thomas (saying name).  I'm from the Walt Disney Company and I'm part of the ICC/BASIS initiative, and I'm originally from France.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please.  Introduce.
>> Yes.  Good morning.  My name is (saying name) from the organization (saying name) against cybercrime and I'm very happy to be here and to become a new MAG member and very enthusiastic about the discussions today and tomorrow.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Please.
>>MARK CARVELL: Thank you very much, chair, and good morning to everybody.  My name is Mark Carvell.  I'm from the U.K. ministry with responsibility for Internet governance policy.  I lead on that within the ministry, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, DCMS.  My experience at the IGF goes back to Hyderabad in 2008, which I attended and I've attended every IGF since then.  I work very closely in advising minister for the Internet, Ed Vaizey.  I'm also on the Governmental Advisory Committee for the U.K. at ICANN.  Thanks very much.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Izumi, please.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you very much.  My name is Izumi Aizu.  I was nominated by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus to the MAG.  I'm also the co-coordinator of this caucus.  It's a little bit tricky, which hat sometimes, and today I will speak on my own as a MAG member unless I specifically mention that I'm, you know, the co-coordinator of the caucus.
I'll be very noisy, but I would like to listen more than I talk.  Thank you very much.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Please, I invite you.  Yeah.
>>RICARDO PEDRAZA: Good morning.  My name is Ricardo Pedraza.  I'm from VeriSign Colombia and I'm part of the ICC/BASIS and originally from Colombia, and I'm delighted to be part of the MAG experience.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please.
>>ANA NEVES:  Thank you.  Good morning.  I'm Ana Neves.  I'm from Portugal.  I'm in the ministry responsible for the coordination of the Information Society in Portugal, and I'm the director of the Department of Information Society in the Foundation for Science and Technology, which is the entity that is responsible for this coordination.
I'm covering the Information Society policy since 1997, and so it's very interesting to see all these evolutions, and it's a pleasure to be here now.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Please.
>>SANJA KELLY: Good morning.  My name is Sanja Kelly and I work at Freedom House in New York.  I'm originally from Bosnia.  Freedom House is the oldest human rights organization in the United States, but the project that I work on examines Internet freedom in 50 countries around the world.  As such, I work with a large network of researchers and Internet activists, and I hope to bring some of their voices here.  I'm delighted to be part of the process and I look forward to the next two days.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please.
>>LUCINDA FELL: I'm Lucinda Fell and I'm from Childnet in the U.K. and Childnet is a charity and it's our mission statement to make the Internet a great and safe place for children.
I'm delighted to be on the MAG.  I've led Childnet's youth IGF project for the last four years and we bring a team of young people out to the IGF.  This year we're going to be bringing four young people out to Baku.  They'll be aged between 15 and 17.  They all came to the IGF last year so they'll be building on what they said then.  We're very excited that we're able to bring them out again and this year it's our aim to get them included in the main sessions as well as the workshops.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Please.
>>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN: Thank you.  Good morning.  I'm Jeff Brueggeman with AT&T.  I work in our public policy department on Internet and privacy policy issues.  I've been participating in the IGF for four years but I'm very excited to be working with my MAG colleagues over the next two days.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Jeff.  Please.
>>PAUL WILSON: Thank you, and good morning, everyone.  I'm Paul Wilson.  I'm the head of APNIC, the Asia-Pacific Network Information Center.  We're a nonprofit organization.  The registry organization responsible for distribution of IP addresses, v4 and v6 in the Asia-Pacific region.  So I'm here as a nominee of the technical community.  We have many in the technical community that have been involved with this process since the WSIS meetings and beforehand.  I'm very interested to see how the MAG works to understand what our common goals actually are and how they might develop in future.  We're committed to the IGF long term and really want to see the IGF continue to succeed to develop appropriately and become better and better in future.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please.
>>PAUL RENDEK: Good morning.  My name is Paul Rendek.  I'm from the RIPE NCC, which is the regional Internet registry responsible for the Internet number resources in Europe, central Asia, and the Middle East.  I'm originally from Canada.  I am the director of external relations for the organization.  Like my colleagues from the other RIRs, we are very much supportive of the IGF process.  I'm very happy to be here representing the technical community from the region that we represent.  I look forward to working with all of you.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you very much.  I'm Constance Bommelaer, also from the technical and academic community.  I'm director of public policy at the Internet Society and it's a pleasure to be part of this process.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Yeah.
>>BILL DRAKE: Good morning.  Thanks, Mr. Chair.  I'm Bill Drake from the University of Zurich, and I represent users, noncommercial users, in the GNSO Council in ICANN, and was a founding member of the Internet Governance Caucus back in February 2003 and have been involved in the IGF since before the beginning.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Two persons behind you.  Yeah.  Felix and --
>>JUDY OKITE: Thank you.  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Judy Okite.  I'm the Internet governance coordinator within the free and open source software in Africa, meaning I work with all the regional Internet governance really in the continent.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Next, please.
>>FELIX SAMAKANDE: Thank you, chair.  My name is Felix.  I'm based in New York with the mission of Zimbabwe to the United Nations.  More importantly, I'm a student of DiploFoundation, and my first exposure to Internet governance was in Lithuania which I attended in 2010.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.
>>IGOR OSTROWSKI: Good morning.  Igor Ostrowski.  I'm a member of the Polish government and here a new member.  Thank you very much.
We are representing a new ministry that was just recently formed, an administration on digital agenda, mostly working on projects relating to content and content availability, so open educational resources, open access, and reform of Polish copyright to conform to the digital age, and we're -- we're also currently involved in the new implementation of the new telecom laws that deal with privacy in -- in the Internet and Internet work.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please on the -- yeah.
>>VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Good morning, everyone.  My name is Vladimir Radunovic from DiploFoundation.  I am with the IL civil society coming from Serbia.  I've been involved with the World Summit and Information Society since its beginning, since 2003, been following all the IGFs.  It's the first time I take the active role in the process in the sense of MAG.  Within Diplo I've been involved with the Internet governance capacity building programs, e-diplomacy, and remote participation, so I'm in the topic, I have engineering and diplomacy background, quite a mixture, and I find this is going to be a unique experience knowing many of you and willing to meet all the others.  I think we're going to make a good -- good work together.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Vladimir.  
Anriette, please.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Anriette Esterhuysen.  I'm from international civil society network called Association for Progressive Communication.  We were established in 1990.  We have 48 members in 36 countries that all work on the use of ICTs for social justice and sustainable development.
I'm from South Africa.  I live in South Africa.  And I have been involved in the WSIS -- in the IGF process since the beginning.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.
>>CAROLINA AGUERRE: Thank you, chair.  My name is Carolina Aguerre.  I'm representing LACTLD.  LACTLD is the regional organization for domain names for the ccTLDs in Latin America and the Caribbean, so I'm presenting the technical and academic community.  I'm Uruguayan but I live in Argentina and I'm really, really happy to be here presenting one of the oldest stakeholders in the Internet community which are the ccTLDs.  Thank you very much.  I look forward to working with you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Carolina.
>>MERVI KULTAMAA: Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  Good morning to all.  My name is Mervi Kultamaa.  I'm from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland from Helsinki and I handle Information Society there.  I've been involved in the Tunis Summit in 2005, and in the IGF since Athens meeting, and as you know, Finland is a strong believer in the IGF and I look forward to working with you all.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.
>>TERO MUSTALA: Thank you.  Good morning.  My name is Tero Mustala.  I'm working in Nokia Siemens Networks in Finland, and I'm also the member of ICC/BASIS.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please.
>>PETER MAJOR: Thank you, chair.  I'm Peter Major.  I'm special advisor to the (indiscernible) Hungary here in the Geneva.  I live in Geneva.  I got involved in the IGF in 2008 and since then I have been to all IGF meetings and recently I have been chairing the CSTD working group (indiscernible) on IGF, so I -- (Speaker is off microphone.)
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Please.  Yeah.
>>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, chair.  My name is Baher Esmat.  I represent ICANN and I'm also part of the technical community and I come from Egypt.  I'm based in Cairo and I've been participating in the IGF since its inception and I look forward to working with the MAG members.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you to all new members and I wish you good work together and I think you demonstrate your capability, your interest in this work, and therefore, I hope we can achieve our good results for our activity.  
Okay.  Now we have started our work and discussions of our agenda items, and therefore, I ask secretariat to give some -- summary of our yesterday discussions and give some comment about discussions which we had at yesterday.  Please.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.  So today, the plan is that we discuss amongst the MAG members what was said in the open consultations.  
Around 12:00, 12:45, we will break into groups, thematic groups.  
Each thematic group is going to look at the workshops, select workshops that are feeder workshops, further evaluate the workshops, and if there are any comments that the MAG members would want to make on the -- on the workshops, please write them down and tomorrow morning we will meet again in a plenary session here and will go through -- each thematic group leader will tell the rest of the meeting what their group decided and also pass over to the secretariat comments on each workshop and we will communicate with the workshop organizers these comments in order so that they can improve them or update their workshops.
Now, yesterday afternoon we had a discussion on what -- how we should select the workshops and if we should hold all the workshops, et cetera, and yesterday I think the general consensus was that if the workshop meets the requirements, the workshop should be given debate to be held at the meeting in Baku.
We did say that the facilities that the host country has provided is big enough to fit all the workshops, and some of the comments on the selection of the workshop was that -- that the MAG should not overmanage the workshops and should not interfere in the substance of the workshops, but they should also make sure that there is multistakeholder representation, there is a plurality of youth represented, there is geographical balance and also gender balance.
We should also look at workshops that have an emphasis on capacity building and there was a comment also made that we should also look at specific areas that are not really well represented, like the Caribbean was specifically mentioned, and also the youth.
Also usage of the workshop or usability of the workshop should be looked at.
When we break up into the groups, each MAG -- the thematic groups will also be looking at the main sessions.
So in these -- the main sessions -- the groups should also design the main session and take care of the main session until the main session is held in Baku.
So the thematic group leader should be aware that there is some work to be done even after this meeting, and that's quite a lot of responsibility.  You can ask the group leader from last year.  Sometimes it was quite a lot.
For the groups, I did send out an e-mail last Friday, last -- sorry, on Monday, and we got back some volunteers of the group, so we had multiple volunteers for the groups from stakeholders.
So I sent an e-mail out suggesting that we have a representative of each stakeholder group in the -- in each main theme, and if you would talk amongst yourselves and select which stake- -- which person would represent each individual stakeholder group.  I mean, it doesn't have to be all stakeholder groups represented in each theme to be the coordinator or facilitator.
I did not get a response back from the stakeholder groups, but I suppose because of the time limits, so before we break up into groups, if we could have an indication on who would want to lead the -- each thematic group from each stakeholder and if we can have two coordinators -- a minimum of two coordinators for each group from different stakeholder groups, that would be very good.
So now I think the task is to open the floor to MAG members to reflect on what was said in the open consultation, and then we'll go forward from there.  Thanks.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you, Chengetai.  And now I invite members of MAG to discuss.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Chair.  I'm sorry.  This is perhaps a point going back to the opening session, and it just would be very helpful to have a sense of which MAG members are participating remotely and if they could be named and introduced, and I think it would also be useful for the record to record apologies from MAG members who are not here.  And if the secretariat is not able to do that right now, that's fine, but I think it would be useful before the end of this MAG meeting just to record for the record apologies from MAG members who were not able to attend.  Thanks.  
Sorry.  I don't mean to be over-procedural.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, no.  Thank you very much, Anriette.  During the introductions -- sorry -- we were supposed to have introductions from MAG members that are online.  We didn't get the flag raised but we'll just wait.
>> Hi.  Thank you.  Mr. Nimpuno is here with us as a remote participate from MAG as well.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Only one person, yeah?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If other MAG members do come online, can you just please raise it and then we will just introduce them as soon as they come online?
I would also like to state that sometimes there are problems with the remote participation.  As we know, the Internet is not always reliable.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So I would encourage those MAG members who are out there to also direct their comments through other MAG members who are here.  They can send e-mails, they can send Skype, if we do not catch it through the remote participation because sometimes things do happen.  Thank you.
And also, they can send it directly to me.  I've got my e-mail here and I think most MAG members know my Skype address as well, so you can send it via Skype.  I'll also see it.
Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you, Chengetai.  Ayesha, please.
>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you, Chair.  We are privileged to have a number of non-MAG members with us today as well, and I know many of them are planning to be here for today and tomorrow, so I thought it might be helpful for us to just all be clear and on the same page as to what the role of the non-MAG members will be today and tomorrow.
I had some thoughts to share, but I wanted to see if the chair and the secretariat had any clarification for all of us in that regard.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Chengetai?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  MAG members are here primarily as -- I mean, sorry, non-MAG members are here primarily as observers but as was said yesterday, that we had non-MAG members participate in the working groups last year and it proved to be very helpful, so if there's no objection to non-MAG members participating in the working groups -- sorry.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Please, Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN:  I have a suggestion to build on how it was done last year.
I fully agree.  The expertise of non-MAG members has been very helpful.  I think people have spent the time and energy and resources to be here for the next two days and we should welcome them in the in-person small groups.
I would suggest that the small groups have a Chatham House rule approach in order for there to be a free flow of exchange and honest exchange about certain of the workshops and certain of the -- for people to feel free to talk, so that those should not be streamed and that people should not be posting elsewhere what any individuals say.
But I think welcoming the non-MAG members in the in-person working group exercise is very good.
What I found last year to be more confusing was welcoming them in the e-mail exchange and work that went on afterwards.  I think as MAG members, that is supposed to be the MAG members' responsibilities, and I would suggest that the online group that gets formed to follow up on this work not include -- not include non-MAG members.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  I just want to underline that we should be clear that MAG members are the ones who are facilitating and leading these groups, so it is the prerogative of the -- or it's the main task of the MAG to organize the schedule of IGF recruits, so I mean that's the process that has been assigned to them by the Secretary-General.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Mervi, please.
>>MERVI KULTAMAA:  Yes.  Thank you.  Thank you for pronouncing my name very correctly.
In the agenda there doesn't seem to be any space to talk about the ministerial meeting, and I remember from yesterday that we spent some time discussing the issue, so if we can just revisit it very briefly, I would be grateful.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Other persons?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I would just like to say that the ministerial meeting is not an IGF event, as such, so, I mean, it's totally up to the chair, but we're here for IGF activities.  That happens before the IGF.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  I ask all MAG members concentrate on the -- (speaker is off microphone.)  Yeah, please.
>>BILL DRAKE:  Thank you.  Just two points.  One, on the planning groups, the working groups for the main sessions and so on, I have participated in the past as a non-MAG member in those, and I think it's very important, based on prior experience, that we continue that tradition.  I'm not entirely sure I agree with Ayesha about whether non-MAG members should be able to stay engaged in the online discussion afterwards, but -- on the implementation, but we don't have to prejudge that in advance.  I mean, we can sort that out, depending on what seems to work.  It's just very important from the standpoint of inclusion and getting a lot of different sorts of expertise engaged in these different groups to be open, I think, to the non-MAG members and I am certainly willing -- Chengetai was asking who is willing to do this.  I'm certainly willing to participate in the CIR group, in particular.
A different point I wanted to make, though.
Some of us were talking last night about the discussion about the workshops and how many workshops and so on, which is a discussion we've had every year for seven years, and I just wanted to flag one concern, which is that no matter how many workshops we end up doing, I certainly hope that we can try to figure out how to minimize the conflict with the main sessions, because I feel like we're at some risk of reducing the level of engagement with the main sessions.  I've participated in main sessions at some of the meetings that had basically about a hundred people in the room, which I think is very unfortunate, particularly when we invite government people to come and engage in the dialogue there.
I think a lot of people view the main sessions historically as being really central to what the overall message and orientation of the IGFs have been, and if we essentially cannibalize the participation by having too many other events going on, it's problematic.
So I hope we can try to keep that in mind, however we organize the schedule.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Mark, please.
>>MARK CARVELL:   Yes, thank you, Chair.  Peter Major mentioned his very important role as chairing the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF.  So I would be grateful if you could indicate at this point how that work of the working group and its outputs intersect with the work we're doing now in preparing for Baku.  Are there pointers that we should be bearing in mind in the work over the next two days arising from the work of the CSTD working group.  I would be grateful to comment on that.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Mark.  
Izumi, please.
>>IZUMI AIZU:   Thank you, Chair.  First I suppose what we suggest is about the working modality of small working groups with the non-MAG members.  To me what's more important is not the framework but substance.  If the working group is really enough only by the MAG members to do a good job, fine.  But if they feel like they would like to have some more expertise from non-MAG members who has been a MAG member or was a MAG member or has a specific expertise on certain areas, I think we can welcome them.  Depends on the small working group can decide.
Similarly, for the plenary, until last February, I was a non-MAG member.  I was trying to seek for more opportunity to get involved with attraction without really harming the sort of MAG's business.
My suggestion now as being a MAG member is in addition perhaps to the -- allowing the non-MAG members to make statements or comments in the beginning of certain sections as well as maybe the closure, I would suggest that during the discussions if seemed appropriate by MAG member or substantive points that we would like to hear some observations from non-MAG members on very specific expertise or points, then I think with the Chair's indulgence, I really would like to open that one for the non-MAG members to take the floor on certain condition, like the rule was just described.  I would like to hear your opinion.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.
Anriette, please.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you, Chair.  I wasn't expecting to be called so quickly.  A few questions.  I think the one -- the one thing that might be helpful for new MAG members would be -- I was just reading the program paper because the program paper does provide a basic outline of the different formats, the type of events:  Main sessions, workshops, roundtables, open dialogue session, good practice forum.
But I think it might be useful for us to just review them before we break out into groups because often a workshop proposal appears as it might actually be better or more effective in a different format.  So I would certainly appreciate a Secretariat view of how those different modalities can complement one another.  So that's one question.
I think the other issue I would also like to discuss a bit before we break up is the theme -- the overall theme and what the expectations are around the cross-cutting areas, how are they need to be pulled out and discussed.
And I'm also wondering if we don't need some discussion on main sessions before we break up or is the discussion on main sessions something you would like us to do in the groups?
I'm saying this because I think there is some unresolved issue around main sessions from the February meeting.  I actually -- yesterday the government of Sweden, the ministry of foreign affairs tried to make an intervention in the open consultation around human rights and the fact that there were so many workshop proposals on human rights and feeling very strongly that we need to find some modality, be it a roundtable or rapporteur or taking stock main session or some modality to pull that together.  That's really, I think, my primary questions.
I think it is important for us to get a big-picture understanding of how the IGF works before we go back -- break into working groups to just discuss workshop proposals.
I also endorse Mark's comments about the CSTD working group on IGF improvements, I think particularly around outcomes as well and the documenting of the outcomes of the IGF.  I think that's something that we need to consider as a MAG.
And then, finally, just so that it is done, I volunteer for taking stock and security, openness and privacy.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Chair.
I'll just talk to the random points.
For the Swedish intervention, I just found out about it this morning.  We're trying to locate it.  Once it is located, I will read it out.  For the CSTD working group report, we do have time allocated in the agenda tomorrow for Peter Major to give us a briefing on the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF and also tell us what the next steps are on that report.
For the reading of the type of workshops, yes, that's a good idea.  I think we can do that before we break up.  If there is need to go back to the -- to review the main sessions, we can because I envision that today, this afternoon, in the groups, you go through the main sessions as well as then tomorrow morning when you come back, we have a discussion of each item as we go.  So I think that's okay.
Yes, thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you please.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thank you and good morning, everybody.  I just wanted to pick up on what Bill was talking about.  I sat yesterday in the open session and listened to people -- some people saying we can put all the workshops in and we should; other people saying we should put in as many as we can but obviously we have to cull some.
I think Bill's point is a very important one.  I have no problem with workshops, but the more workshops there are, the more difficult it is to have workshops on topics that don't clash with the particular main sessions.  I think it is very important to make sure that we don't have workshops that clash.  I remember -- I forget which IGF, but one at which Jeanette Hoffman and I were running the critical Internet resources session and actually couldn't get people that we wanted in the room to speak because they were involved in workshops that were happening at the same time.
So there is a happy medium to be struck between being incredibly generous about allowing workshops in the door on the one hand and, on the other hand, maintaining a structure that enables us to ensure that our plenary sessions are well-attended and this -- and the IGF doesn't become just a series of workshops.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, please.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Very, Chris.  Thank you very much for that intervention.  We can have a maximum of 12 workshops running concurrently, including the main session of 13 which, of course, will bring up the problem that you indicated.  But we can have only four concurrent workshop sessions in a day.  That's two before lunch and two after lunch.
So when we look at the workshop, we should take this to mind.  And, also, the main session that's going to start off contact any feeder workshops coming into it because it will be on the first today.  So that's also something that we have to think about and also select which main session will that be.
We can take last year's schedule as a guide as well and discuss off that maybe.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Chengetai.  Paul Wilson.  
>> PAUL WILSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I am a newcomer here, and I'm learning a lot, I hope quickly enough at this time.  But I do find I don't fully understand the purpose of some of the discussions going on.  I'm sure it is largely my own ignorance.  
I'm not sure about the agenda for the detailed series of topics we're going to be addressing today but we seem to be talking about workshops mostly.  So I have a few comments on the process topic as I think it is necessarily the most critical or urgent but because it seems to be the agenda at the moment.
I went through a long process of reviewing and writing workshops and I did that on an assumption that I was doing something like many, many different selection processes I have been in for job applicants and funding applicants and fellowship applicants and all sorts of similar things which are a process of taking a long, long list of proposals and trimming it down to something that's manageable.  For two purposes, one because you don't want to accept something that's good quality even if you have got space for that but also to manage the space.  So that's the approach we took.  
I also heard the concern yesterday about the fact that we need to raise the quality of workshops.  So, again, that's the process -- the purpose of the review process, I think.  Like in any process like this, we actually can't guarantee the result, but there is a bunch of indicaters with the likely quality.  And it seems to me it is not rocket science to be applying those.  And after all, we've got a bunch of people on the MAG who have got serious experience and intelligence behind them.  And I think we can trust the collective judgment to actually make the hard decisions to eliminate proposals which regretfully don't make the grade.
I think the evidence of preparation and commitment to a given proposed workshop is a really critical indicater of the quality of the workshop that's going to come about.  And I do find the level of commitment and preparation for many of the workshop proposals really to me wasn't -- wasn't good enough to demonstrate -- to give competence that this was going to be a good use of time.  I mean, I think there was really not a serious approach that was taken that actually corresponds to the fact that a workshop is going to take up very precious resources of the IGF itself is going to attract expensive (indiscernible).  I think that clearly needs to be taken seriously.
I think I would like to be making judgments on relevance of the content of the workshops to the IGF.  I think the IGF has got a broad mandate but also one that's clear enough to allow us to say, for instance, that we -- that some workshop proposals are really not -- the content is not relevant to the IGF.  And I don't think it helps the IGF at all to have its content diluted by workshops which are not about Internet governance and directly related topics.
For instance, there were workshop proposals which really are about ICTs and applications without any Internet governance component at all.  And I think -- I don't think it's in our interest to accept those.  So I do think the workshop selection process is useful.  I think we should trim down the number of workshops which are selected to make sure that we have high quality and we don't have dilution.
I would like to go quite a bit further.  I'm not sure if it is the time to do that.  But in the application process, or the proposal process, I would personally like to insist that workshops do have evidence of advanced preparation in terms of background papers for every workshop.  A paragraph to me is not enough.  That's not just quality, but it is actually a question of ensuring that the IGF is accessible to people who come along and want to prepare seriously for the workshops that they want to attend by understanding what this workshop is about, where it's come from and particularly for workshops which appear to be repeated from one year to the next.
I would like to see some evidence of progress there because I don't think it's good enough to say that after three successful workshops in three previous IGFs we have another proposal for a workshop which is basically the same.  I don't think that does the IGF as an ongoing institution or an ongoing process much good in terms of demonstrating that we are actually collectively going somewhere.  And I do think broader workshops, the linkage from one IGF meeting to the next, is a process of something that we should be quite aware of.
So that's workshops.  I think workshops are only part of the IGF, and we've heard many times that main sessions are the main part of IGF.  And I hope that we do hear a little bit more about that before breaking up into the small groups later on, particularly for the benefit of newcomers here.
More broadly, I'm wondering about the MAG's role in the overall structure of the IGF, the outputs such as they are, whether it's synthesis or syntheses of the IGF, the structure in terms of opening sessions and the overall IGF purpose and to what extent it is fulfilling the purpose.
So I hope that the MAG will have something to say about -- or will be able to have something to say about this, and I still come back to where I started.  I'm not sort of sure what the detail sequence of discussions is that's going to happen over the remaining day and half.  Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes, Paul.  Thank you very much for your remarks.  First of all, yes, I do encourage the working groups, if they feel that a workshop does not make the grade, please just delete it and it will be deleted.
And, also, remember that the quality of the workshop is also a reflection on the selector as well.  I'm sure you will all do your best to ensure that (audio is choppy).
We had not -- the main purpose, as I said, for this meeting is really the selection of the workshops because workshop organizers do need a lot of lead time in order to prepare the workshops to make sure (indiscernible).  In my mind, that is the highest priority of this meeting.
Yes, we do have space for any other business which we have put aside for tomorrow afternoon.
As to respond to you quickly about the organization, et cetera, we've always had comments that the opening session should be smaller.  But the opening session is really the progress of the host country and the United Nations, the opening and closing session.  But, of course -- (audio is choppy) -- and they are the ones that schedule the opening and closing session.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Vladimir, please.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC:  Just summarizing what the tasks of us in the working groups would be and to suggest, I see first we should judge relevance, as Paul mentioned.  My experience with the proposals at least -- I have not gone through all of them, through three areas only, out of five.  
I didn't get the impressions that the workshops are not relevant.  Rather, I get the impression they are not complete.  There is much to be improved to get a good session.  Of course, the relevance is that the first factor should come first.  The second task would be for those that are relevant -- and I'm quite positive that 90% of us will judge as relevant "if," then we should suggest the improvements and the merging.
I have seen a number of sessions that can be easily merged because they are covering -- each one is covering the same topic from a different angle.  Some sessions are missing members who are not present because of geographical diversity or stakeholder diversity that are present in the other sessions on very similar topic.  Merging can be done easily.  I have noticed a number of sessions that I would encourage the merge.  Of course, I think we can encourage them, we can force them but I think that would be welcome for the session.  So improvement and the merging of the session is something that should be the second and probably the most important task.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Yes.  Jeff, please.
>> JEFF BRUEGGEMAN:  Thank you, Chair.  I also, as we look at the workshops, in reviewing the program paper and the list of workshops, I think there is some potential duplication of topics between categories.  There are certain issues that could be covered either in critical infrastructures or access and diversity.  And I think as we review the topics to cover which issues we want covered at part of which main session and that will also help us to sort the workshops into the feeder workshops that are most appropriate.  So I would ask that we all try to think about eliminating some of the duplication.
I agree a lot.  To some extent there isn't team to be that many workshops.  If you look at the workshops that were rated very low as not being relevant, it was a very small category.  So the focus may be on addressing the incompleteness and the merging as well as, I think, Chris Disspain's point of making sure when we think in terms of scheduling, that we are prioritizing, protecting the main session, discussions and the feeder workshops as being the priority for scheduling purposes, but I also agree with a lot of the comments that were made yesterday, that we should hesitate to just eliminate workshops because of concern of there being too many as an overall issue and, therefore, I think the focus at this point should be on trying to focus on the merging and the refining of the category.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Jeff.  Bill, please.
>>BILL DRAKE:   I want to support what Paul said.  On the question of quality, I read through all of them and to me there certainly were some that were not Internet governance.  They were more ICT applications.  There were also cases where one individual submitted eight proposals.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me that we would approve eight proposals, many of which were very schematic.
When I read an application to do a workshop and it says among the speakers are CEO of IBM and CEO of Apple, I think, "Really, they are going to come and be a speaker at a workshop?  Did you ask them?"  Probably not.  I think a lot of times people are putting down as many place markers as they can in the hope that they are going to be selected.
We want to respect the bottom-up process.  We want to be inclusive, but we should have some standards because if people are really to do ill-organized workshops -- and I have attended some -- frankly, it doesn't help the IGF.
When you go to a workshop and you sit there and you think, "What is this really about, there is no clear intellectual agenda "-- I have actually been a panelist on some where we sat around going, "Why are we here?  What is this about?"  
It doesn't help the IGF and it doesn't help all the way down the line.
I remember when I edited the book for Sharm and I had to figure out what to do with the workshop report, some of them were 10 pages long.  They followed no standard form.  They were all over the place.  A lot of people just do very.
-- highly variable things.  I think we have to impose clear standards and I think the call for proposals now does set some standards that people could have met and very often didn't.  Not that hard.
So I would hope that while we should tweak the call for proposals perhaps to be more clear, precisely what we're looking for and what's required in an application, I don't think it's impossible to follow the guidelines that were provided and many proposals really didn't.
So I think we should at least not be overly permissive in trying to be inclusive.  Thanks.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Felix, please.
>>FELIX SAMAKANDE:   Thank you, Chair.  I'm hoping my question will also benefit new members.  May I ask, the main theme of this year, may I ask how it was arrived at?  Considering the strong impact on the overarching direction of the debate.  Secondly, how does the designing of this main theme intersect with the fuller thought that the MAG or any other internal sectors should not influence the content of the base in the IGF?  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Please.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you, Felix, for your question.  The theme was derived by the MAG.  We had long discussions of theme, and it was derived by consensus.  
And, finally, in the February meeting, the MAG settled on the main theme being "sustainable economic and social development."
I think also the purpose of the theme is also to inform that we are also looking for workshops that may align -- (audio cutting out) -- that they should have some sort of reference to the theme in each workshop.  Of course, though also have the option of having open -- (audio cutting out) -- whatever they feel is relevant as long as it is Internet governance.  But the MAG decided each IGF will have a theme.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Chengetai.  Izumi, please.
>>IZUMI AIZU:   Thank you, Chair.  Yes.  I mostly agree with what Paul said and Bill and others supported, with some perhaps additional point.  Writing a good proposal is one thing but implementing what they wrote is another.  So my suggestion/question is that between now and November I think us together with the Secretariat -- I mean, MAG and maybe no MAG -- organize proposals to raise really the quality of what they pledged for, in addition to that, of course, where there's some yellow proposals which didn't get as high as the others but seemingly very good proposals.  As Vladimir said, there is some incompleteness.
So my question or suggestion is that we really should work together to raise these qualities and perhaps with the working groups of the MAG that each MAG member, if they want to volunteer to contact with organizers and stuff.  And I believe these have been done by the previous MAG, but I also heard that the Secretariat did a lot of work -- real work with contact with the people there.
I would like to ask Chengetai, would it be very helpful for new MAG members and the old ones to engage in these kind of activities together coordinated by the Secretariat?  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Please.  Please.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thank you very much.  I want to pick up on a couple of points, if I may.  First I want to pick up on Vladimir's point about merging.  I remind everybody that our experience of merging is quite problematic.  We have looked at workshops and said "it is obvious to us that those two workshops should be merged" and we have sent people off to merge and it just hasn't worked.
The problem is also exacerbated by the fact that you basically have to say you'll accept both of the workshops if they don't agree to merge because otherwise how long do you give them to merge and so on.  So there is not a massive encouragement to merge.
He also talked about improvements to workshops.  I have no problem with this, but I want to stress what I said yesterday, which is we have to be clear about what we mean.  We can provide input to people by saying they need more diversity or more confirmed speakers or whatever it may be.  But the concept we should be saying to them "you need to change the title of the workshop or the content," that's not our job.
Finally, I have a question for you, Chengetai.  If it has been covered, I'm sorry.  It seems to me we are about to break into small groups and go look at workshops under certain themes, right?  I'm not clear we are going to be able to do that without some guidelines of what it is you actually want us to do.
Do you want us -- what are our goals?  Are our goals to cut the numbers?  Is it to give tentative approval subject to changes?  Subject to confirmation of speakers.  It is very hard to do this unless we have some idea of the maximum number of workshops we're going to allow and so on.
So if we could get some kind of help on that, I, for one, would appreciate it.  Thanks.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Please.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.  Before we break up, I will reiterate some guidelines to you.  But generally speaking, taking from yesterday's conversation and also today's conversation is that we are not going to set a set number of workshops that are going to happen at the meeting but what we're going to do is we're going to look at each workshop critically and make comment to workshops which we think meet the criteria.  If the workshop meets the criteria, then it will probably be accepted.
If it doesn't meet the criteria and fails in certain aspects, we may comment.  And these comments will be communicated to the workshop organizers and give them a chance with a set date to fix whatever the thematic group thinks is wrong with the workshop, be it diversity of views, there isn't any gender balance or geographic diversity, et cetera.  But we're not going to actually change the substantive part of the workshop.  (indiscernible).
If it is Internet governance related, then that's good.  If it is not, then, no, we're not going to give them a comment "make this more Internet governance related."
And so then also, we're going to look and see, those workshops that we think are totally off the mark, they're not Internet governance related, there hasn't been enough thought put into the workshop, we can either say this workshop should not be considered anyway.
So that's with the workshops.
But again, I am also collecting your comments.  The list is changing and adapting as we are speaking here, because we are refining those requirements.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.
The MAG member, Nurani Nimpuno, joined us with remote participation.  I want to -- please.  Yes.  Please.  True.  I have a comment from Mrs. Nimpuno, who is a member of MAG.  I have to read her comments.  I hope it's okay with you.  So she's -- Mrs. Nimpuno said that Paul Wilson's comments we are very good, and in fact, he covered most of what she wanted to say about the workshop evaluations.  Achieving a manageable number of relevant high-quality workshops has been a challenge since they started organizing the IGF.  And then she says also that allowing too many parallel workshops only because they are hesitant to say no to a workshop is not very ideal.  She would like to add that the following -- the suggestion made by Paul that clear instructions to workshop organizers about what criteria to use, as well as the amount of information that is needed when speakers need to be approached and concerned.  
Then she also adds that realistic and clear deadlines for workshops are needed because if a workshop organizer is asked to clarify certain things in their proposal or make changes to meet the criteria better, they need to understand that they will get disqualified if they don't.  So she would also take a step further and ask the secretariat to do an initial evaluation based on the objective criteria set up.
She realizes that this might be a sensitive issue, but some of the very objective criteria such as gender balance, geographical diversity, should not be a matter of personal judgment.
So she agreed that Paul Wilson's comments is relevant in terms of the role of MAG and should be looked at the relevance of each workshop proposal.  Thank you.  So that was a comment from Ms. Nimpuno from MAG.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry.  I just want to say that we also have another remote participant, a new MAG member, Mr. Jimson Olufuye, from Nigeria.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  (saying name), please.
>> Thank you.  I would like, actually, to go to the same direction and support (indiscernible) statement.  When I was reviewing, actually, the -- I had opportunity only to review two subgroups, which is security and access and diversity and I found that there is a number of workshops that propose the same actually -- well, that propose the same theme.
They suggest the same discussion.  So maybe it could be interesting to merge and to advise to merge.  
And it was pointed out yesterday actually maybe it will be helpful when we will have these groups and they work in the groups to have these subthemes, you know, to identify the subthemes in each chapter.  For example, access and diversity or security.
Because I clearly have seen a number of workshops, for example, in access and diversity or security going to the same direction.  
And as was just pointed out, it could be actually difficult to merge the workshops, it can be a problem, but can we just set a criteria for people to -- and for the proposals how to merge with the -- yes, with all criteria and how to do this?
And also, I would like to point something out.  When I was reading and reviewing the workshops, actually I didn't find that all workshops answered the global theme of this year.  Maybe it's relevant to Internet governance issues but it doesn't -- these workshops don't answer the global theme or the subtheme of each chapter, so what should we do with these workshops?
Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Chengetai?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just a comment on workshops that don't answer the global theme or the subtheme.
We have this category called "feeder workshops" which feed into the main sessions, and these feeder workshops, the requirement is that they answer one of the sub-questions of the subthemes.
So if a workshop is considered a feeder workshop, they have to answer that question.  One of the (indiscernible) questions.
That also does leave room for workshops that don't answer that question.  These can also be (indiscernible).  But feeder workshops do have an advantage over the other normal workshops.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Anriette, please.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, chair.  I support the comments as well about reviewing the -- the workshops.  I'm sorry.  That's my phone.  Just ignore it.
And -- but I think at the same time, there are issues -- thank you -- there are issues that emerge in every IGF, and that is that the workshops are also a mechanism for increasing participation, and I, along with other people in this room, served on the CSTD working group on IGF improvements and I think probably one of our greatest challenges in that working group was how to widen participation in the IGF.
So I would just -- Paul, I would agree with your comments, but I would suggest that we also implement them with caution, that we are rigorous but that we filter that rigor with the goal of making the IGF as inclusive as possible.
And in response to you, Bill, I think that part of that is in practice going to mean softening what we -- what we see or what we accept as being legitimate global Internet policy discussions.  
And I'm speaking now as someone from a developing country, you know, and if we -- if we're not allowed to talk about some ICT for development type Internet policy issues at the IGF, it's not really going to be that relevant to us and we're not going to want to come.
And I know that sometimes, you know, that can conflict with -- with a more narrow definition of what Internet governance is, so -- so that is just kind of a plea.
And then I just support the idea that when we break up into groups, we come up with questions, and I really support Nurani's comments, questions that we can address to the workshop organizers, and that we give them a deadline to respond to those.  Thanks.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Anriette.
Collins, please.
>>COLLINS ATAHO: Thank you, chair.  My major concern is on the number of -- the number of groups.  I'm of the view that we don't have a limited number.  That gives us the opportunity to get different ideas that emerge from different parts of the world.  I'll suggest that the secretariat can put in place a criteria assessment team that can be in position to assess all the presentations put forward by the different groups so that in case (indiscernible) assessment, they can be merged together and put forward.
This creates -- takes away the notion of maybe duplication and, you know, having kind of similar work put forward by different groups.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you Collins.  Paul, please.
>>PAUL WILSON: Thanks, everyone, for the -- (indiscernible) positive feedback there.
I think it's pretty clear I'm in favor of a reasonably ruthless selection process, a structured selection process, but I also absolutely take Anriette's point, but the point that we have to be concerned about, as well, is participation and accessibility of the -- the ability to put proposals into IGF in a way that will encourage and allow the best possible capture.
So I think we need to promote this process.  I think the support from one IGF to the next in terms of online information, FAQs, the ability to provide -- to ask questions of the secretariat is pretty important.  I think a workshop at IGF about the -- about the process could be useful.  The MAG itself could possibly conduct a workshop for those who are interested in participating.  Another model would be something that we use in our community, which has got a fair -- fairly heavy component of making policy proposals and that would be something like what we call a lightning talks session where people with ideas could come along and present them within a pretty short limit of 5 or 10 minutes and seek support and seek ideas and feedback.  
So from one IGF to the next you could have an incubator for ideas.  
I think fellowships to -- fundraising fellowships to allow remote and developing country participation in IGF is -- is pretty important as well, and all of those things, you know, can and many should be explored, I think, but that is not to say that we should turn the selection process into something that's too lax just for fear -- for fear of leaving someone out.
For the -- I'd be quite happy to see a two- or three-stage selection process.  I'd be happy to see the secretariat doing an initial evaluation on objective criteria, including completeness in accordance with clear -- clear instructions, minimum requirements for diversity and other objective requirements.  
A second process -- a second stage of the process I don't think needs to include the ability or the -- the requirement by the MAG, for instance, to develop proposals that really don't make the -- make the grade.  We don't do that when we have people applying for jobs, for instance.  You don't -- you don't go back to every job applicant and help them to do a better job in applying for the same -- the same position.  You rely on a clear application process and you -- you make difficult decisions or sometimes difficult decisions -- in fact, most often easy decisions -- to reject those who are clearly not -- not able to comply.
I think in a final stage, I think a provisional acceptance of a large group of proposals would be good, but again a consistent approach for all of them where we ask for confirmed speakers to be -- to be detailed and I think speakers could be registered, for instance, as resource persons on the -- on the IGF Web site or through a similar registration process so the speakers themselves are obliged to actually say who they are and what they're doing.  That would avoid sort of ghost speaker lists that we -- we clearly see in some applications.  I'd like to see that second -- that second sort of set of requirements including a detailed session structure and agenda and modality for the -- the workshop expectations, questions to be asked, outcomes, et cetera.
I think actually we could take a consistent approach to developing the -- the orange and green proposals by simply asking in a structured way for a whole lot more detail.
I'm fully comfortable with MAG members or anyone else kind of hand-holding and providing hints and assistance, but I think the MAG itself as a formal process can't really afford to go back individually to proponents and individually coach and mentor and ask specific questions and so forth.
I think that would be a little too hands-on in terms of kind of direction from this -- from this group.  I think that's all.  Thanks.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Paul.  Judy, please.
>>JUDY OKITE:  Thank you, chair.  I would just like to add on to what Anriette said about certain workshops, what do we do with them.  When you read through the workshops, you realize that there are workshops that have been sent to all the themes, so the question at the back of my mind is, is it a trial and error?  Like if it doesn't make it in access and diversity, then maybe it will make it on the IG4D, and or is it that this workshop actually falls under all the themes?  So what do we do with this kind of a workshop?  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Chengetai, please.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, chair.
Paul, thank you very much for your remarks.  My first question is that the initial assessment was done by the MAG.  Do you think we should have another assessment?  Because the assessment file that was sent to the MAG had the objective criteria, relevant multistakeholder support, et cetera.
Also, for the question on speakers, we did have clear instructions that the workshop proponents should indicate whether the speaker was confirmed, invited, or they just thought that person would be good to be here.  I'm -- it was, in my mind, clearly written there that they should state behind the speaker whether it was a confirmed speaker or invited speaker.
Some did, some didn't.  And I think we should just mark them accordingly.  If they didn't indicate, then I think we should get -- mark it as a wish, that they have not been invited and they have not been confirmed.
As for the agenda, yes, I think it's a good idea that I think the next stage should be they should give us an agenda, because it's also useful for the participants when we make the schedule and there is a clear agenda.  Thanks for that.
And for Judy, yes, there have been some workshops that are cross-them.  I think 14 or so workshops that are cross-theme.  That was unintentional, as such.  We were trying to address an issue that came out in the last meeting that some workshops did not -- that when the MAG assessed the workshops, they felt that they did not fall under that particular theme and there was a lot of horse trading that was going on -- "We don't feel this workshop falls under access and diversity.  I think it would fall under security, opens and privacy," or another theme, and then there was communication between the themes, whether we accept this workshop or not.  So -- and also some of the workshop proponents also came to the secretariat and said that, "Look, we have this workshop, it is cross-theme and it doesn't really -- we feel it doesn't really fall under one particular theme.  It can fall under (indiscernible)."  So the option that I have -- the solution that I have is that we have indicated the workshops that are under multiple themes and in the -- when you assess the workshop if you look at it and you feel that does not fall under your current theme, you can look at the alternative theme that it has -- that the workshop proponent has indicated and you can send it over to that group.
Next year, of course we won't do this because I think this does cause an additional complication.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  I welcome the -- our MAG members.  Zahid Jamil is joined to us as remote participant.  And Izumi, please.
>>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  I think I'd like to make one sort of note of caution about merging.
While it sounds pretty good to bring them together, the various similar proposals, but I -- from my experience, being asked to merge the one I propose or we propose with the others, as many of you may know, it's not that easy sometimes.  And also, when attending some of these merged workshops, you see too many speakers.  Seven or eight.  There's no room for the real interaction.  And that's sort of losing the quality.  Really how to make the balance between this is difficult.
I wish sometimes if we have two conflicted slots and, you know, put together in a way so that you can follow while you ask the first organizer to concentrate on some, you know, more background, introductory, whatever, and then followed by other discussion of thought, then it will become more sort of well related, the two workshops, which satisfy both original proposals.  Something like that might be worth exploring.
And that also applies to some of the workshops, even though they are not merged.  They have so many speakers and very little room for interaction.  It may relate to the -- the indication of the modality of the workshops.
For the lower graded workshops with the certain room for improvement, we are talking a little bit about the -- perhaps each workshop, how to raise the quality, but I was also wondering how to really raise the collective output or outcome of the workshops because with the CSTD working group, which I was a member, we were tasked to broaden the participation, especially from the developing countries.
Do we have the big picture of how well the current proposed workshops will meet this requirement?  How many workshops have the development -- developing countries component or, you know, proposals?
As I said yesterday, in my sketchy view, there are not too many from Africa, not too many from the Asia-Pacific.  How do we do that?  If we are just only to manage the micro proposal workshops for each, then we may lose the big picture.  So I don't have a real answer yet, and I'd like to hear from our MAG members how you address this, and is there any room for improvement.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Izumi.  Bill, please.
>>BILL DRAKE:  Thank you, chair.
I agree with Paul almost a hundred percent, and particularly the bit about the ruthless -- I forget the precise term.  
But I part ways with him at one point, which is the suggestion that the secretariat take on the work of doing some sort of objective analysis.
I think it would not be right for us to try to burden the secretariat with that workload.  It puts them in a position of having to make decisions about workshops that I don't think they should be in.
We're here as the MAG with this responsibility.  We have criteria that the workshops are supposed to meet.  We have the ability to assess whether they did so.  Let's not -- my view would be let's not add another layer of work, particularly when it puts the secretariat in an awkward position.
You know, in many of these cases, I -- even some of the workshop proposals that are kind of complete, you can see, for example, people have lined up five of their friends who are all from one stakeholder group.  That's a pretty clear call to say, "Wait a minute.  There's no multistakeholder representation."  If somebody submits a complete or almost complete proposal and everybody on the panel is from the U.S. or Europe, then it's pretty clear -- or there's no woman, that's pretty clear.  I mean, you know, we can look at those things.
So I -- I don't think that that's problematic, personally.
I just wanted to ask one other question for a little guidance from the secretariat.
When we go into evaluating these, are we looking at the numerical rankings that the MAG did or just the colors?  I mean, in the -- in yellow, do we -- do we want to be concerned with whether somebody got an 11.9 or an 8 or are we just saying it's yellow or whatever?  Just so I understand it.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Chengetai, please.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Generally, I would suggest that we are more concerned that it's yellow, instead of their ranking, because it may have an 11.9 for some reason, but a workshop that is ranked 10 is maybe -- tends to be much better than the 11.9.
So I think we should just take into con- -- we can take into consideration the color, but it's more if this workshop would make the IGF better, the IGF in Baku a better IGF, and its content and the subject matter, et cetera, if you think that it would make the meeting better (indiscernible).
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you.  The MAG member of Jimson Olufuye joined us as remote participant.  I give floor to him of the please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I will read on behalf of Mr.  Olufuye who is a MAG member.  This is what he's writing.  
The chair -- dear chair, colleagues, and ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jimson Olufuye, a member of International Chamber of Commerce business action Support of the Information Technology, ICC/BASIS.  I'm a new MAG member and I am pleased to be part of the process, having been listening in since yesterday.  Let me first say that I disagree with Mr. Chengetai -- Chengetai, sorry, saying that the Internet is not reliable.  It is quite reliable if the right expertise is engaged to drive and handle it and I believe we're gathered to apply the right expertise to ensure its governance is sustainable.
On the workshop selection, I believe we need to bear in mind that the IGF is a living organism that should grow in attendance in workshops.  As such, we should encourage as many policy workshops as possible.  In that regard, as said by Nurani and some members, (indiscernible) should be given to workshop organizers (indiscernible) workshop quality to bridge the gap.  A workshop cap should not be made.  Let us allow as many quality workshops as possible.  However, merger of similar workshops should be encouraged as indicated by some earlier speakers.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you for this comment.  Okay.  Thank you.  Mark, please.
>>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  And it's been a very useful discussion, I think.  It's hit on some key issues that will help us to ensure that the IGF in Baku is a quality event, a fully inclusive event, and a highly relevant event.
I agree with most of what Paul Wilson, in particular, has said, with regard to achieving that aim, and I -- I mean, my approach as I tried to indicate yesterday was not actually to pursue a ruthless first stage of -- which is this meeting here of the MAG, but one which is empathetic to a lot of genuine commitments through the proposers of workshops here.
So I -- I think our initial approach should home in on -- first of all, on relevance to the IGF to the themes of the IGF, that when we go into the groups under the themes we look at how the proposals meet that essential criteria.
Is this -- is the IGF in Baku the right opportunity?  Is it the right place?  
We've talked about the overtly ICT-related proposals, and that may indicate for us that in a consensus approach, that it's not really the right opportunity.  There may be other opportunities for ICT issues to be developed in a multistakeholder approach, but not the IGF.  Is it more regional, the proposal that we might be looking at?  Again, is it not ready for a global dialogue?
So relevance.
Secondly, I think we should endeavor to identify severe cases of overlap, if not duplication, and then work out a way of signaling to the proposers that it would help us and help the whole community if they would accept the desire to explore how you -- they can avoid that overlap through a merging, through -- and so on.  I mean, that's -- they should hopefully appreciate that that's going to help a lot of people turning up in Baku to say, "Oh, look, there's three or four workshops on this proposal.  You know, we'd like to cover other things too but, you know, how" -- you know, it's not going to help people if they have a range of options on one issue.  And so the proposers hopefully will appreciate the desire of avoiding that situation.
I mean, thirdly, we should look to see if a proposal is under the right theme, and if they tabled it under all themes, we've got a task to sort out where does it fit.
If it is a relevant proposal, which theme should it come under.
So we can do that.
Where I sort of diverge a bit on Paul's approach is this issue of completeness.
I think there's a real risk if we start to eliminate proposals because they're incomplete or don't satisfy us on geographical diversity of participation or gender balance.  You know, I don't think this is the time to -- to rule those out, because I think there's a risk that we may be throwing out highly relevant opportunities for discussing issues.  Perhaps emerging issues.
So I hesitate very much to -- in this process of sifting to, you know, put those incomplete proposals which may lack a background paper -- I did pick out, in my assessment of the ones I submitted, well, there's no background paper.  It would be highly desirable to have a background paper.  So that's a sign of incompleteness.  But I hesitate to rule it out on that score at this time.
So I think if we go through this sift based on relevance and avoiding overlap, duplication, getting some allocation sorted out, and then at this stage -- after this stage, we inform those proposals -- those proposers, rather, that they've got through this first sift but they've got work to do, that doesn't mean necessarily contacting each proposer or cosponsor or whatever it is -- whoever it may be individually, but what could issue are the criteria for all proposers to bear in mind about delivering a successful, high-quality workshop in Baku, and that they should all revisit their proposal with these criteria in mind.  And these criteria will include, "You need to get a background paper sorted out," because that's going to help those who will turn up in Baku to understand, as was pointed out by Bill, I think it was, to understand exactly what this workshop's going to achieve.  And if your objective is not clear enough, that should be very much in the front end of that background paper.  You know, what you're going to try to achieve through the workshop.
And then also address the other criteria:  Gender balance, diversity, and the multistakeholder criteria and so on.  
And then the proposers have to resubmit by a certain date a fuller, complete proposal.  Everybody has to do that.
And then the proposers have to resubmit by a certain date a fuller, complete proposal.  Everybody has to do that.  And then it is incumbent on them to ensure that their proposal for the workshop is going to be a success.  And the general paper that I have just described setting out the criteria for successful workshop is what they should work to.
And then when we see their resubmitted, more detailed proposal with all participants all confirmed and so on, we can be assured that's going to help the issue, help the dialogue, help the understanding for people who want to engage with that dialogue in the workshop in Baku.
I think the essential criterion is that the workshop provides opportunity for dialogue.  The criterion should simply say don't populate with a large number of speakers and panelists.  You have got to allow interaction between those speaking at the workshop and those attending.  I think that's a vital objective for a success workshop.  So people go away feeling they've engaged effectively and they've picked up a lot of useful information, but have had the opportunity to comment on that.
That's my approach.  I hope these comments are helpful.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Mark.
(saying name), please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Really many points that I wanted to say has been said from my colleague from the United Kingdom.  I think yesterday from the venue, we have noticed that there is plenty of rooms that will be available for the workshops.  I recall it was about 19 rooms available.  So actually as for the venue itself, that is the place for all the workshops.  There are 120 proposals.  That will be over four days.
So I would support that we would not eliminate the proposal -- some of the proposals but actually we also offer guidance and recommendations toward improvement of the proposal, to make them more relevant and more concrete outcomes related to the IGF process.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.
We have remote.  Please.
>> ZAHID JAMIL (remotely):  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I have a comment from Mr. Zahid Jamil, a MAG member.  He says that he would like to support U.K. Mark Carvell's comments and he would also avoid a ruthless approach and focus on relevance and avoid extreme overlap.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.
Mervi, please.
>>MERVI KULTAMAA:   Thank you, Chair.  I would like to come back to the idea of how we would strengthen the capacity-building element of the IGF in general, especially for the newcomers and those not so familiar to the IGF.  And perhaps in this way, we could also make it more relevant to developing countries.  And we are grateful that the host country has provided lots of space in Baku to accommodate various activities.  Therefore, perhaps we could ask some of the organizations which are specialized in capacity-building, Diplo and perhaps others, if they would like to join in creating this kind of stream of activity which is targeted to providing basic information on Internet governance issues.
And we could also screen the workshop proposals with the capacity-building perspective in mind and see if some of those proposals would already fit in this category and ask those who propose them if they would like to join this stream of activity targeted to enhancing people's understanding and knowledge on Internet governance issues.
The second thing that I wanted to say, I'm also in favor of adopting a soft approach to selection of workshops this year.  It is clear that we need a more consistent and systematic approach when we select the workshops in the future.
But since we have enough space, we could maybe -- I think it is a good idea what Chengetai suggested, to come back to those who proposed and ask if they would like to improve or merge in some cases are a maybe we could explain we have a large amount of proposals and especially those who have submitted various proposals, perhaps we could ask them if they would like to just concentrate in one or two of their proposals.  And in that way, we would perhaps have a natural selection of reducing the workshops.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Mervi.
Izumi, please.
>>IZUMI AIZU:   As I mentioned in the very beginning I would like to hear, especially now that we're hearing many of the views on the selection subject by MAG members, I would like to ask the Chair at some point we'd like to listen to the non-MAG members on these issues before we really conclude.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.
Lucinda, please.
>>LUCINDA FELL:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I would like to ask a point of clarification on mergers.  Chris mentioned that the experience of merging is problematic, and that's something I've experienced firsthand.  If two workshops are asked to merge, are they given the option to decline the merge?  And that was never obvious to me when I was asked to merge.  Are they, therefore, allowed to go on separately, if they wish?  Or are they then rejected if they don't merge?
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Please, Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Previously we did have room restrictions.  If two workshops were asked to merge and they did not want to merge, then they weren't given the space because they only had one space.  But since now we don't have any room restrictions, we might revisit that because I know that it is very, very difficult to get workshops to agree.  They could have the same title, they could be basically about the same thing but they will always say that they approach the thing from a totally different perspective and they are totally dissimilar from each other.  Very, very few cases I have seen workshops actually agreeing to merge.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay.  I give floor to the remote participant.
>> NURANI NIMPUNO (remotely):  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I have comments on behalf of the Swedish delegation.  From Mrs. Nimpuno, a MAG member.  This is what she's saying.  Stakeholders representing the Swedish government, Maria Hall, Johan Hallenborg, and Netnod's Patrik Faltstrom, Nurani Nimpuno would like to emphasize the importance of maintaining a strong focus on openness on human rights during the IGF discussions.  We welcome the proposal put forward by Bertrand de La Chapelle during the IGF open consultation on May 15 to have a roundtable discussion with the aim to collate and summarize specific human rights aspects raised during the IGF, and further reference the statement by the Swedish government read by Johan Hallenborg at the session on security, openness and privacy at IGF in Nairobi, 2012.  We are also open to additional solutions such as the appointment of a rapporteur for human rights issues raised during the IGF.  We look forward to hearing more about how MAG will address these concerns.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.
(saying name), please.
>> Thank you.  Supporting Izumi's initiative to also hear at some point before the break the non-MAG observers' opinions. And definitely supporting Mervi's initiative on capacity-building track as we have seen appear to be very, very useful in the previous rounds having outreach, having the inclusiveness, having the participation doesn't mean much without meaningful participation and having all these people that are joining the IGF.  So we should discuss more also on the capacity-building track and the ideas.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you.  Ana, please.
>>ANA NEVES:   Thank you very much.  I want to talk about the background paper that was raised by Mark from the U.K.  I'm not sure whether I understood it quite well.
One thing is to enhance that all stakeholders understand what the IGF issues are.  The capacity-building component, as Mervi was mentioning, is one of the pillars.  And IGF itself is a capacity-building event for everybody and not only for some of the participants.  So regarding the background paper, with what we want to achieve in each workshop, I have mixed feelings because I wonder whether we want to streamline the process or if we want to streamline the debate and the openness of the workshop because once we have a background paper, maybe we are limiting somehow the debate and openness of what we want to discuss.  And if it is a bottom-up approach and process, well, I have mixed feelings about these background paper even if I understand the need to make this process simple and in order to work.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Ana.
Anriette, please.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you.  I strongly support the suggestion that we build a capacity-building dimension or capacity-building track into the IGF.  I think it can facilitate increasing participation, and I think it will also help the process of getting financial support for IGF participation, which is an ongoing challenge.  So I strongly support that and I echo Vladimir's comments.
And I can also -- I know my organization also volunteers to support this.
I also want to support the comment made by Nurani Nimpuno, and the proposal that there be a roundtable that focuses on human rights aspects.  So that's something -- perhaps we'll come back to that tomorrow after we've discussed workshops.  But I don't think we should lose that suggestion.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Okay.  Thank you, Anriette.  Paul, please.  Paul, yeah.
>>PAUL WILSON:   Thank you.  Just briefly on the subject of mergers, I had understood that mergers were undertaken for reason of space and time management rather than wanting to avoid overlap as such.  So if there is a space and time problem -- and I'm not sure that there is -- I would certainly prefer to see two high-quality workshops on similar topics than to see a poorly merged pair of workshops or a poor merger of two workshops which is done in order to accommodate something which was -- which had clearly less value.
I would like to see mergers being a matter of an invitation to merger rather than a requirement to merger.  I think requiring people who are unwilling to do that is not good -- is not going to produce good results.  And I have seen that before.  That's it for now.  Thanks.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thanks, Paul.
Mark.  Please, Mark.
>>MARK CARVELL:   Thank you, Chair.  First of all, perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough about the background paper.  This is for the proposers of the workshops to prepare.  I mean, some have but we noted some of us who commented that there was a lack of a background paper.  It doesn't empower us in the sifting process, but more importantly, it doesn't empower the prospective attendee or remote participant in Baku if they don't have more explanation of the aims of the workshop and if they have to rely on a reduced summary, I think that's unhelpful for the process.
So what I'm saying is it should be incumbent on the proposers of workshops which we agree here over the next two days should be included in the program.  It is incumbent on them to submit a paper for not only us in the MAG but also for the prospective participants in the Baku negotiations.
Secondly, on merging and cases where there is severe overlap, I tried to make the point of actually it is for the benefit of participants that they do not see what are apparently duplicative workshops when people are attending.  They have to prioritize and navigate the program, and it doesn't help if there is a multiplicity of workshops pretty much on the same themes.  So I'm talking about severe overlap, as I'd say, which I think we should avoid.
And I wouldn't be happy if the responses to merger requests are negative and arguing that they're coming at an issue from a different perspective and so on.  I think actually maybe it is better they merge, because then it makes for a more holistic and fuller discussion in the round from a diversity of perspectives on that particular issue.  So, I mean, I would argue that it is better actually that they all get around the table in one workshop and argue from their different perspectives or contribute to the discussion from their different perspectives because that makes then for a more inclusive and comprehensive discussion.  And it doesn't -- it is less likely to leave gaps.
Just a third point, while I'm on the mic, I think a criterion to go into the paper that I suggest issues to the successful proposers following this MAG meeting about the criteria for -- that they should have regard for in achieving a successful workshop.  An in addition criterion is do consider including a panelist or contributor who is doing so remotely so that we do keep this outreach to particularly developing and least-developed country stakeholders, that they actually have the opportunity to be invited to participate, even though they won't physically be in Baku.
I think this was a point that came up yesterday, and I thought it was a very important one, that the presenters or the panelists should not necessarily be physically present in Baku, that each workshop should bear in mind and seek out opportunities to involve people who could contribute formally in the workshop as a panelist or contribute in some other way remotely.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Mark.
(saying name), please.
>> Thank you.  This is useful and it is also useful to discuss various ways to approach this.  There is no question that we need to encourage improvement in some of the workshops and additional information and I think we justed yesterday and today going back to the organizers with a request for that and the reminder of the criteria.  Also, I would really strongly suggest that we leave some flexibility because one of the beauties of the IGF and the workshops that we have seen off the course of the years is that some of them have been successful and others have not for different reasons.
But it is on the organizers themselves who have the responsibility to make it a success.  So we should see that as an important bucket.  In that regard, I agree with Ana who had mentioned the issue about flexibility.  I think there is some value in providing good substantive information, whether it is in a strong description, introduction potentially to the panel and the dialogue by one of the participants of what the issues are or a background paper, whatever the organizers feel is appropriate.
And this also goes to some discussions that have occurred over the years on enhancing all stakeholders' understanding and knowledge of the Internet governance-related issues that are being discussed so the dialogue is on a level playing field.
I would also encourage people to think about the new ways in addressing issues and bringing different views together.  So let's minimize the requirement, if I could put that.
Yesterday there was a suggestion during the open consultation about making names available of participants who may be attending the meeting or have resources in order to attend.  I think the example was given from the Pacific island region and some possible names.  I think if there is the ability to compile that list, that would be most valuable.  We could also identify on how to include them into the different workshops.
But, again, I'm reminded that different styles work for different issue areas.  I'm also reminded that last year in Nairobi there was the cancellation of the room and that was considered to be one the most successful conversations that occurred in a different kind of style.  So as we're trying to put forward the criteria and the process, let's leave enough room for flexibility and allow creative approaches to discussing these important issues.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Theresa.
Constance, please.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:   Thank you, Chair.  Coming back to the issue of capacity-building because it is very important to maximize engagement and participation opportunities.  ISOC is definitely renewing its ambassadors program this year.  We also have a knee (phonetic) learning program that covers the institutional framework, different notions such as Internet governance, et cetera.  This program is tailored for individuals from 20 to 40 years old.  And, of course, we try to emphasize the participation of individuals from developing countries.
Now, I would like to echo what Vlad said from DiploFoundation and offer to the Secretariat and any interested organizations or participants to maybe explore this opportunity to newcomers to the IGF, whether MAG members or not.  So perhaps this is a discussion we can take -- we can continue afterwards.  But this is certainly something we would like to offer to the IGF process.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Constance.
Bill, please.
>>BILL DRAKE:   On the question of the background papers, I understand the rationale for these.  But I tend to think that it wasn't really absolutely crystal clear perhaps to a lot of people that this was required at the front end.  I mean, if you look at the description of the list of selection criteria that we have on here, there is a number of items that somebody particularly who is new to the process might not understand what actually is expected or might not be able to differentiate between what's being encouraged and what's absolutely mandatory.
And, you know, if you look at this, for example, youth participation, well, somebody might not know any youth who can speak to a particular workshop theme.  So should they not apply at all?
Or proven experience in organizing workshops, that would imply to people who haven't done workshops before or something similar, you know, shouldn't apply either.
So we can't be completely rigid in saying, well, these things all had to be at the front end.  I think the five criteria that the Secretariat listed as the basis for our evaluation in the ranking are sufficient for this purpose.  And for me, the background paper is something that can be provided later.  After something guess a workshop proposal approved, then they are really going to start to focus their mind on this and maybe drill down and maybe write a few paragraphs.  At the front end, they don't even know whether it is going to fly.  It is kind of hard to encourage them or expect them to have done that.
So I wouldn't hold that up as a strong requirement.  Again, with all these things, it is a matter of balance, right?  I mean, I don't think, Paul, in talking about being ruthless was saying let's go in there with a machete and knock out workshops.  We're going to -- we're trying to view all the different criteria against each other and make a global decision over whether this person made a reasonable effort to make a submission.  That's all.
And in the cases where they really, clearly didn't make the serious effort or submitted eight proposals that half of them are half-baked and so on, then it is a pretty clear idea.  But if it is more of a margin call, they need a little bit of this, a little bit of that, of course, we shouldn't be just knocking them out in order to reduce number.  I don't think anybody is suggesting that.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Bill.
Ayesha, please.
>>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you, Chair.  First of all, I just wanted to express my support to the idea which I think was put forward by Nurani to explore tomorrow the idea of a roundtable or some kind of an opportunity to discuss the human rights aspect.  So my support is on the record for that idea.
Secondly, I just wanted to make an observation.  I have purposely been listening carefully to what I here from a lot of new MAG members, which is great.  I've been privileged to be here for a long time as a MAG member, so I wanted to hear what people are thinking.  Many of these issues have been discussed every year.  But I think it's important that we never take for granted just because last year the group had a particular bent on a subject or decided in a certain way.  This is part of the continual IGF opportunity to improve itself.
So just a positive message to colleagues that I think it's good we're discussing things again.  And one thing I would say is this is very productive.  What I have found in the past is that it all comes down to what we do in the small groups, and so keeping in mind what the range of colleagues have expressed today when we go into the small groups is very helpful because at the end, we're not going to have a black and while template that we go into the small groups with, but it is really about the collegial interaction in those small groups to figure out what's really going to work best on the range of issues which I won't articulate.  We all know what we're talking about.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Ayesha.
Sanja, please.
>>SANJA KELLY:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I would like to thank the organizers for allowing us to have this great number of workshops and for actually putting us in this opportunity to discuss this problem.  For me, the main issue is that we make these decisions consistently and systematically.
I personally think that at this stage of the selection process, our focus should be on relevance and quality, considering that a great number of workshops and organizers still have not had an opportunity to really tease out a name.  I think it might be slightly unfair to eliminate them if they're putting forth a proposal that is very relevant and that would further our understanding of some of the key debates in Internet governance.
So let me focus on the relevance and quality.  When it comes to relevance, as part of our initial guidelines for grading of the workshops, we have already considered it.  So could we, for example, find out what the average score for the relevance category was for each of the workshops?  And perhaps at that point, we should focus only on the workshops that, let's say, the average score of 2 out of 3.  
When I talk about the quality then, I think in individual groups we should then really consider whether each of the proposals has identified clear goals and what are our objectives set forth, and then we should make those decisions that way.
I think then when we make a clear-cut list on which workshops ranked well, I think we could send out an e-mail list to all of those who qualified that should contain very strict and objective criteria.  So, for example, we could tell them while your workshop was conditionally accepted, provided, let's say, you have 50% gender diversion and at least three participants from three different regions or something like that, so in that case, we actually provide them with the guidelines but we make our decision based on relevance and quality of the proposed workshop.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Sanja.
Peter, please.
>>PETER MAJOR:   Thank you, Chairman.  It seems to me that we have already started to implement some of the recommendations of the working group, especially concerning the functioning and the working method of the MAG.  If I'm not mistaken, we are writing down the rules for the functioning.  And I'm very happy to hear that.
As for the workshops, I could hear also that the relevance has been mentioned many times and probably this is one of the most important points because it is not only the relevance of the workshop but the relevance of the IGF itself which is at stake.  In case we don't come up with a relevant workshop and relevant theme, then probably the perception of the IGF will be much decreased.
Reflecting on the background paper, I'm of the opinion that it is necessary to have a background paper.  On one hand, it shares a kind of soundness of the workshop proposal.  On the other hand, it gives some guidance.  I don't think it will deter the attendance or will in any way influence the good outcome of the workshop.
I fully support Mervi's proposal for capacity-building track which is extremely important and probably this is also meant to be more inclusive and enlarge the debate as Anriette mentioned which is extremely important and it comes back to increase the relevance of the theme.
As for eliminating workshops, I sympathize with the approach which is a very academic approach to eliminate ruthlessly workshops, which didn't meet some criteria.  However, I should remind you that this is not a job selection process.  It is not a university ranking process either.  It is a forum.  And probably we should have other variables to look at.
As for merge, we had the experience how delegates merge workshops.  They were not conclusive.  This is the least to say.  It was very cumbersome to merge workshops, and it wasn't very effective.  
Probably with some workshops that do overlap, probably we should merge.  
Thank you, Chair.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Peter.
Carolina.
>> CAROLINA AGUERRE:  Thank you, Chairman.  I would like to adhere to this capacity-building track in the IGF, and I would also like to make a point about the relevance of workshops attached to the policy orientations and to the issues at stake that are being debated in each workshop.  I think that is a very critical point in order to sort of understand this sort of dimension of relevance which I think is critical particularly for the workshops that they have not been fully accepted now.
Regarding the background paper, I think it would be highly recommendable to have one in the near future once the workshops are conditionally accepted.  And I also think that it would be interesting to have a role for commentators in workshops and maybe not streamlining and making them sort of equal but sort of making the role of the commentator and enhancing this debate in each workshop being a very sort of critical function for them.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Carolina.
Mervi, please.
>>MERVI KULTAMAA:   Thank you, Chair.  First of all, I would like to support the idea of having a roundtable discussion on human rights.  In general, it might have a good idea to have some kind of summarizing discussion on each of the themes that we select as cross-cutting issues in each IGF meeting.
And then I wanted to support the idea coming from Mark on the background paper.  At least in the Finnish multistakeholder group we have heard hope that there would be more information available on the content of the workshops already beforehand.  And this would help the audience to prepare themselves for a more interactive dialogue.
I noted that some of the proposals already include some kind of a background paper and it would not really hurt to encourage all those who propose a workshop provide a background paper.  Perhaps they could be asked to do that when they hear that a proposal has been accepted so that there is no obligation but there is an encouragement.
And, finally, I'm happy that there seems to be support on creating the capacity-building track.  And it was interesting to hear that some of the organizations already have existing efforts which could be perhaps -- which we could profit from.
And perhaps we could -- just make sure that this happens, I would suggest that we would select one organization or two to coordinate this effort.  And we would like to join in for this objective from Finland's part as well.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Mervi.
Liang, please.
>>  LIANG GUO:  Thank you, Chairman.  My name is Liang Guo.  I'm from China, a new MAG member.  I fully agree we need more participants and proposals from developing countries.  On the other hand, we have the same center to charge these proposals and the paper.  
(indiscernible).  I read those proposals.  I found few proposals are from China.  But think it over.  And, also, I guess the quality of this may not be as good as majority proposals but think over there are more than 500 million Internet users in China.  How could we have this voice occur?
(indiscernible).
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:   Thank you, Liang.
Mark, please.
>> MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  And thank you, Liang, for making that point.  As I think I mentioned yesterday, I thought it was disappointing to see so few proposals coming from developing countries that we had to look at.  So I hope we can find a way looking beyond Baku of addressing this deficiency of input into the initial IGF planning as regards some stakeholder proposals from developing countries, in particular Asia.  I'm very conscious of that.
I think I suggested that national and regional IGFs could have a role in helping the gestation of proposals that could then be submitted into this MAG overseeing process in future occasions looking beyond Baku.
I recall that the idea for the U.K. IGF when we first contemplated that in the ministry and working with Nominet was that what does the global IGF present as an opportunity for us?  What should we start to do in preparing for that and reaching out to our stakeholders accordingly?  That was the gestation for the U.K. IGF.  It is very much at that time and still is partly and crucially still a matter of preparing for the global IGF at the national level.  I'm sure there are also aims similar to that with the regional IGF.  For us in Europe, the EuroDIG.
Actually, I was remiss in not mentioning in my opening remarks that the U.K. is very involved with the Commonwealth IGF.  And I have been doing my part in developing the Commonwealth IGF in this global forum.  And, again, it is with that aim of reaching out to Commonwealth Member States and their stakeholders to alert them to -- to alert them to the opportunity that the global IGF does present them.
The reason I actually raised my flag was my understanding was that the only opportunity to undertake a sift with a view to eliminating proposals was this MAG meeting, but I have heard a couple of interventions refer to conditionality of approval here which suggests that we're -- in a view they are participating a further sift process beyond this MAG meeting, which I hadn't really anticipated.
If that means we now call out to the proposers to enhance their workshop proposals to complete them and then -- which includes identifying the participants and addressing gender and diversity issues and so on, and geographical issues, perhaps reducing scope, I thought some of the proposals were just too ambitious, you know, and that is something that the proposers might wish to take into consideration as they finalize their proposal.  Maybe they're trying to do too much.  
And some of the proposals that I looked at details, you know, seven, eight issues that the workshop would look at.  I mean, that's, in my view, a bit unrealistic in the time available.
So -- but to come back to my point, are we anticipating conditional success at this round, subject to a further decision on whether the proposals that we are saying are okay here but need further work and then we take a final decision on whether we accept them for Baku?  Are we anticipating that?  It wasn't my impression.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Mark.  Please, Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  My understanding as we are going on is that when you come back, you're going to get the secretariat list of workshops with, "Okay, this workshop is going to be accepted to the Baku if they have more gender balance or geographic diversity, "not going into the content part of it.  So that is very easy for the secretariat to check.  If they update their workshop and they have members of -- you know, they used to have only people from one stakeholder group and then we say, "Well, they have to have three or more," and they put in the three, then we'll automatically accept them and not go back to another review round.  There's an automatic acceptance, if they tick that.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Chengetai.  You had comment?  Please, Mark.  Please.
>>MARK CARVELL:  Yeah.  Sorry to come back.
If the secretariat feels that they haven't done their utmost to address that issue, does that call the question -- call the proposal into question again?  I wasn't quite sure whether you were saying that.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Well, it doesn't move.  It will only be accepted if the condition is met.  So it's basically mathematical.
If you improve the multistakeholder representation, then it will be accepted.  If not -- I mean, the workshop proposer can come back to us and say, "Well, these are the reasons why we feel that we cannot, because this and this and this and this," and then we can go back to the thematic working group because the thematic working group is going to be active until their main session is done in Baku.
So we can always go back if they have a reason why they cannot fulfill that.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you, Chengetai.
Anriette, please.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Chair, I was going to ask for a coffee break, if that's possible, and if you are trying to push us to break up into workshops, I personally feel ready to break up into groups now and start the next phase of our work.  Thanks.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I do apologize.  We just -- just one more minute, sorry.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Yes, one minute.
Okay.  Yeah.  We have some time for -- before our coffee break and we indicated (indiscernible) person for their remark, and if you want, we have about five minutes for the discussion of which issue, and if you want, we can continue our discussions after the coffee break.  Yeah?  Okay.  Now I invite Izumi.  Izumi, please.
>>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  I just want to really ask the chair to guarantee that no MAG members will be given the floor before we break to lunch, perhaps, not the coffee break.
I'm afraid I have some prior engagement that I have to leave a little bit earlier.  Never mind if -- because we're having with chat some pretty good observation comments from non-MAG members about the topics we are discussing and if we are to lose that, I really am afraid that I lose some real wisdom.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Izumi.  Felix.  Please.
>>FELIX SAMAKANDE:  Thank you, chair.  Just a brief one.  I've been following closely the question of whether the small groups are going to reduce the number of workshops or not, and I also hear the host country has been generous (indiscernible) workshop but I also observe that the date for the IGF are only 6 to 9 November.  Does this mean that the workshops are going to go outside these dates or it brings back the question of whether we are reducing the workshops or not.  Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The only criteria for reducing the workshops, as I see it, is if they do not meet the requirements that have been stated, and also (indiscernible) comments made for workshops to merge but these will not be made mandatory.  It will be just a suggestion from the MAG, and the workshop proponents can merge or not, but I will be giving a brief summary of what I have written down here when I -- when -- just before we break out into groups.  And that will answer all your questions, I hope.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Okay.  Thank you, Chengetai.  Indonesia, please.
>>INDONESIA:  Thank you, chair.  My name is Moedjiono, a MAG member from Indonesia.
I think we all agree that we already have very useful discussions, opinions, and discussions concerning the workshop topics today that have to be good quality, relevant to Internet governance, not ICT (indiscernible) in general, and I think also interesting to the participants.
And we have been waiting the workshop proposals for self months and have been created voluntarily and then the IGF secretariat make a list of workshop topics based on our creating our recommendations.
I think as we discussed the topics in parallel later, we can decide and have the answer if the topics is in good quality, relevant to Internet governance or not, interesting to the participants or not, enough space or not, I think.  So the topics are going to be conditionally accepted or not.
The questions -- I have two questions.
First is if we feel still have enough space, is it possible that we are still -- have rooms to suggestion or propose some more additional workshop topics?  And the second question is, maybe propose (indiscernible) or topics that are already proposed in the list.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Indonesia.
Please, Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  As for workshop topics, I would hesitate against that, but for other type of sessions -- because we do have space in the program paper for other type of sessions that you may feel we can suggest.  There is space for that.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you, Chengetai.
Heather, please.  Ms. Dryden, please.  Microphone, please.
[ Laughter ]
>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Good morning.  Sorry about that.  I realized I was nowhere near a microphone at the last second.
Could I make a suggestion?  I'm still not entirely clear about what we're attempting to tackle, what our objectives are, and in what manner.
So let's take a coffee break and if we could reconvene and at that point if you could recommend a way to proceed and what our objectives are for this afternoon, then I think that would help us to address things one at a time.  We're tending to talk about workshops as well as roundtables and -- and various aspects, and I'm finding it difficult to intervene and to see how the work is going to move ahead.
So I think our chair and the secretariat can really help us in that way.  Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  And before our coffee break, I ask Chengetai to add some remarks.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, chair.
Heather, just to answer your question, for the groups it's strictly just workshops and the main session.
Tomorrow we can discuss any other type of events that we want to.
I would ask you if you could use the coffee break if we could -- because we still have not resolved who the facilitators/coordinators are.  If you could use the coffee break, if you could, to talk amongst your stakeholder group and we can have one volunteer for each of the thematic things to be co-coordinator and facilitators, and then we can -- when we reconvene and then we break up just before lunch, then they can come -- I mean, we can have more than one co-facilitator and coordinator for each of the thematic sessions.
I would -- if there are a number of people who want to be co-facilitator and coordinator of thematic group in the same stakeholder group, I would like to suggest that we give preference to those who have not done it before, and also, I would also like to underline that it is a lot of work, it is not just for the two days but also that they have to shepherd the main session until it's actually done and finished in Baku.
Thank you.
>>ELMIR VALIZADA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Chengetai.
And before the coffee break, I want to announce at the -- please excuse me, after coffee break, Mr. Cherkasov will chair our meeting and after I return back, I will act as chairman in here, and now I want to invite you to coffee break and after, Mr. Cherkasov will be together with you, and after lunch, we will continue our discussions.  Thank you.
[ Break ]
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.  We're about to start.
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV: Okay.  Distinguished members of MAG, ladies and gentlemen, so that we would like to resume the session, and please take your seats and I appreciate if you respect your colleagues.
I suggest so that we can follow the following procedure till the end of this session, so that as I understand, this is a consensus so that the non-MAG members will have the total time of 10 minutes, so that for their remarks.  
Not individual.  I said a total time of 10 minutes.  Please, you know, take this into consideration and also so that respect your colleagues as well, so that give the appropriate time for all MAG -- non-MAG members who would like to make comments, so that then I would like to offer the floor to the secretariat, IGF, Chengetai, who will brief you on the further steps to be undertaken and so that this session is going to be concluded by 1:00.
So I believe there is no objections?  No objections.  Thank you very much.  And so that I would like to open the floor for the non-MAG members for their short remarks.  Thank you very much.  I also suggest that you can raise the hand so that at least we just keep who is going to make any type of remarks.
Okay.  So that -- yeah.  Okay.  Robert, please.  You have the floor.
>>ROBERT GUERRA:  Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak and to listen to the conversation this morning.  My name is Robert Guerra.  I'm with the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto in Canada.
I have a couple of quick comments.  First of all, it's great to see that the MAG is slowly working its way through the workshops and I really look forward to a very productive session this afternoon.  Personally I'm very interested in the security, openness and privacy, and wish to give the Citizen Lab's expertise in this area help to the MAG and others that are working on this.
I believe the proposal that Chatham House Rules apply to the working groups is a good one and endorse it.  
As well, the Swedish proposal for a roundtable discussion on human rights is much needed, given the developments in human rights in the Internet over the last year.
In regard to merging of proposals, I think one of the proposals I think that was mentioned by Paul Wilson and by others in regards to that workshop proposals, there should be a communication if there's an overlap or if the panelists that have been suggested do not necessarily fit the multistakeholder approach or regional balance which was proposed by others, then they should be given the opportunity perhaps to readjust their workshop to see whether it can be merged or not.
As well, there is a lot of non-MAG members that have very sensitive networks and working with MAG members, no doubt some of those deficiencies can be corrected.
In regards to capacity building efforts, definitely background papers, relevant resources, particularly important, but they should be not just for the IGF themselves.  I believe one way to engage on IGF issues is not just for Baku but a capacity building effort that starts before, during, and after the Baku session using remote participation is key, and I would say using remote participation to prepare some of the workshops, if possible, should really be encouraged.
I would like to thank Theresa for her comments on the famous councilled workshop 95 that took place in Nairobi and really suggest that the workshop that took place which was really an ad hoc session that did not have formal panelists, per se, but that had experts in the room that were prepared to discuss an issue called by the moderator to have a rich conversation is something that perhaps should be encouraged for Baku as well.  And I would say the way to do this format, or a proposal is to have workshop proposals that have an innovative format that allow really for an interactive conversation and dialogue.
And to finish up, I agree also with the Chinese MAG member that there are a lot of developing countries, particularly from countries that have a large number of Internet users, and ways that they should be included both at a national IGF, regional IGF, and for remote participation.  And for that, I think translation into some of these languages is key, and I hope that between now and Baku, we find ways to address this.
And in closing, I look forward to a very productive afternoon and tomorrow, and look forward to other discussions that will be taking place.
Thank you so very much.
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  Okay, Robert, thank you very much for your comment, and now I would like to give the floor to Tijani.  I'm sorry if I just wrongly misstated --
>>TIJANI BEN JEMAA: No problem.  My name is Tijani Ben Jemaa.  I'm from the World Federation of Engineering organization coming from Tunisia.  I would like to speak about the merging of the proposals and I would like to give you my experience, my successful experience in merging a workshop with another.  It was in Sharm El Sheikh with IDRC and it worked perfectly.  But I know that it is not always successful so that I'd like to ask you not to go for merging as much as you can, and if you are obliged to do so, please try to see if the organizers agree on merging.  It is very important.  It is a purpose of persons.  If the persons don't like to work together, it will not be successful, and there was a lot of non-successful experience.  Thank you.
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  Thank you very much, Mr. Tijani.  So I wanted to give the floor to Andrey.  
>>ANDREY SHCHERBOVICH: Thank you.  Thank you, chair.  I'd like to have a brief comment on the human rights initiative that I think that you're right, issues to be discussed within the scope of the Internet Governance Forum are very important, so we could see a lot of proposals here which are related to human rights issues.  And so that's why I think we should pay special attention to this issue, not only for Baku but maybe for the next session.  We could see a lot of developments there in realization of human rights on the Internet.  And so I'd like to thank Sweden for this initiative and would like to discuss it much more.  Thank you very much.
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Andrey.  Any more?  We have four minutes, 30 seconds.
[ Laughter ]
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  Okay.  Please.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: I will not fill the 4 minutes, I hope.  I'm Wim Degezlle from CENTR, the European ccTLD organization.
I wanted to make one comment, partially based on the experience of the previous IGF meetings.
It's about the merging and the discussion on whether or not to allow different workshops discussing the same topic.
I think there is a task for the MAG but also for the secretariat to look at the schedule and schedule workshops in an intelligent and wise matter -- way, because if you have two or three almost similar workshops at the same moment, automatically it's neutral that they will cannibalize the audience.
On the other hand, if you provide a wider choice, so that people interested in a particular topic can choose between several moments, I think if you schedule topics and -- topics and workshops in a wise way, you might reach a wider audience and people, for example, interested in a technical topic but in the meantime also interested in human rights topic, they will be able to fill up their program during the week picking something from every -- everything they're interested in.  Thanks.
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  Thank you very much.
Okay.  So that then we just conclude this session in terms of it's an open opportunity for the non-MAG members for their comments and interventions, so that I would like to give the floor to the IGF secretariat, with information that he would like to share with you.  Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, chair.
So the next step is for us to break out into thematic working groups.
Now, before we do that, I'll just read out what the secretariat that is written down and has derived from the discussions of yesterday and today.
Now, the top task, the first of four, look at the workshops that have been cross-listed and each they are clearly indicated in the Excel sheet that you received, that all MAG members received, and decide whether or not they should be in your group or they should go into another group.
We do have some information on the preference of which group the workshop organizer thinks that their workshop should be in, and each of the thematic group's coordinator will be given this information, so that will make the job much, much easier.
Then I would suggest that the next step that each thematic group does is to go through their relevant sections one by one, evaluate and give comments to the proposer, if need be, and compile these comments for the secretariat so the secretariat can take on the role of communicating with the workshop organizers.
And then we can come up with a deadline.  We can come up with it now or I think maybe it's best to come up with it tomorrow.  We can set the deadline for when these changes should be done and also when an agenda should be made.
I mean, these are further steps.  The main task today is just to get through the workshop selection process.
So in addition to the requirements stated in the program papers, there have been some additional points that have been made and that we should keep in mind as we go through these workshops, that we are in agreement that we must strike a balance between establishing a certain quality control while maintaining a level of inclusiveness that is vital to the IGF process.  When we make our comments, we should not interfere with the substantive elements of the workshop, and we should also pay particular attention that each workshop proposer maintains the diversity of views.  If it doesn't include capacity building, it doesn't focus on IG issues, this is -- and there was an emphasis placed that we should differentiate between IT issues or ICT issues and Internet governance issues.  They are similar and they could overlap, but we should make sure that each workshop does tackle an Internet governance issue.
Also consider the usability of the workshop and participation of developing countries and least developing countries.
Also gender balance and youth participation.
There was also the suggestion that we should look and see -- and take note of severe cases of overlap, and with these workshops we can suggest a merger, but a merger is not really mandatory, but a suggestion can be made as well.
We should also take note not to punish innovative formats because we do have a set of criteria that is in the program paper and also listed on the secretariat's Web site, on the workshop link.  There's a set of criteria which was used.
But we shouldn't punish workshops that do not fulfill these criteria, if they are of an innovative nature.
Finally when we've gone through these, my suggested next step is to pick the most relevant feeder workshops.  
Now, feeder workshops, for those who don't know, are workshops that seek to answer one of the questions stated in the main sessions.
If you look at the program paper, each of the main sessions have got a set of questions and some of the workshops, when you go through them, will seek to answer one of these questions, and these feeder workshops will be given priority in the sense that they will not overlap and they will feed into the main session.
Now, if we can, then we can also, I would suggest, tackle the next steps in organizing the main sessions' speakers, et cetera.  I mean this can be done mostly online leading up to Baku, but I would think that it's very important to -- at least to have as an initial discussion of how each of the thematic groups will deal with this.
Now, this is what the secretariat has noted.  If I have missed anything that you think that is important while going through the workshops or if you think that the steps I outlined could do with some adjustment, let me know.
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  (Speaker is off microphone.)
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Sorry, Chengetai.  I don't think you have missed anything.  Are you expecting people just to turn up at a particular room at 2:00 or how is it going to work?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If everybody's in agreement, the list is going to be printed out and given -- I've assigned somebody from the secretariat as a thematic group, if somebody can hold up their -- one of their tags.
So, you know, IG4D is over here so those people who are willing to join that group, just go to that particular person and they will direct you to the group -- to the meeting area.
Now, we do have a slight problem in that we only have the breakout rooms for two hours and then we have to find another place to meet.
The WSIS summit organizers have said that we could -- we can cordon off areas in the tea area and downstairs area as well, so that we can sit around and talk.  We did this last year and I think everybody was quite happy about it as well.
So that's the way we are going to do it.  Just gather around.
And I do -- then I also have another question.  Were people successful in choosing coordinators, volunteers, facilitators?  Okay.  Thank you.  If you could just identify yourselves, I can go down and then I can just write it down, but then you'll know who to talk to, who is going to be the coordinator and facilitator of each group.
I think -- well, I can start.
Who would be in the IG4D?  Internet governance for development.  Okay.  Qusai.  Paul.  And who else?  Yeah.  Sorry.  I'm --
Okay.  CIR?  Okay.  Bill.  Chris.
And SOP?  (indiscernible) Anriette.  Anybody else have I missed?  So we only have two for SOP.  Ah, okay.  Theresa.  Ah, okay.  Sorry.
>> (Speaker is off microphone.)
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Just for a point of clarity, are -- are the breakout sessions just for the MAG members, then, to be participating in or if there's observers and they want to observe -- I just raise the question.
My understanding was anybody could join if they wanted to but I just raise the question.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The first -- the most important point is that the thematic working groups are led by the MAG.  Observers can come in and observe.  I will leave it up to each thematic group to the level of involvement for the observers.  I mean, people may have different expertise and I'm sure -- I mean, we can all learn from the observers, but it's most important to understand that the driving force is the MAG members because that's their primary responsibility.
Constance.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yeah.  I don't see her here but I think Wendy Seltzer from W3C volunteered for SOP as well.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That's no problem.  We will -- each of the members of the secretariat will write down each of the groups and I think they will be apparent.  And when we come back tomorrow morning, we will also set up ways for you to communicate and work online, especially for the main group -- I mean, for the main session.
Is -- just for people to know, I can go through the other groups if you'll just raise your hand and we can identify you.
Emerging issues?  Okay.  Okay.  All the new MAG members.  Now I have to learn your names.
[ Laughter ]
Okay.  All right.  Yeah, Valerie.
>> And Thomas Pillar from Walt Disney, yeah.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Taking stock and the way forward, just raise your hand so that people can -- okay.  Okay.  This is just so that people can see you.  Yeah.
Okay.  Thank you.  And I do apologize for not knowing some of you by name but I will get there.
Okay.  The -- I think that's it.  And also just like to underline that MAG members can join different groups.  I mean you cannot be a coordinator for two groups because I think that would be a bit too much, but you can join different groups, and I would also like to emphasize that if you're a coordinator/facilitator of a group, your primary responsibility is just to coordinate and make sure that it's -- that things are followed up.
I -- the secretariat will be contacting the coordinators of the groups and talking with them and they coordinate the group.  Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Just briefly, I don't know if you did access and diversity but I had volunteered to facilitate that one.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Access and diversity (indiscernible) -- now these are for coordinators.  I'm correct, right?  Not just for members.  This is coordinators, the ones that are going to be running things?  Okay.  Because I noticed Valerie.  Yeah.
So now, if there isn't any questions --
>>  Chengetai, there has been a proposal that Chatham House Rules apply to the working groups and I just -- I didn't hear what the resolution of that was.  That certainly seems reasonable.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  It is my understanding that Chatham House Rules will apply to the working groups.  Anriette?
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry, Chengetai.  Just a clarification.  I think we discussed other matters during the coffee break -- certainly I have to confess I did -- and did not agree who would coordinate the group.  So I put my name forward to participate and I'm not sure what the case is for other people but perhaps we can settle the matter of who would be the coordinators once the groups are together.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.  Thank you, Anriette.  If there aren't any other questions, the members will now stand and show their tags.  Sorry.  I see a question.  Yes.
>>  Just a practical question.  The timing.  When do we start, when do we end, what happens after the groups?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  You can start now, but we have the rooms from 2:00 onwards, and we will meet again tomorrow in this room at 9:00 and when we meet, each group will give a report of what they have decided and then we'll have a general discussion after each report.  Thank you.
Ayesha?
>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Just one question.  To do the work that we're going to do, it is going to be important that we have Internet access and hopefully electricity, so I'm just trying to figure out if, after the -- after the two-hour slot in the rooms, do all of those rooms have what we need, and then afterwards, if we could think about those two factors, I think it will help facilitate the work, because most people don't have paper copies of the workshop proposals with them.  Thanks.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  I will make sure that there is some access to electricity in the designated speaking areas.
Okay.  Any more questions?  No.  Okay.  All right.  Thank you very much.
>>VYATCHESLAV CHERKASOV:  Okay.  Thank you very much for the fruitful and useful discussions during this morning's session.  Meeting is adjourned.  Bon appetit.  

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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