You are here

Transcript - 21 May 2014

IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings

 21 May 2014

 Paris, France

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

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  It is nice to have you back on the third day of our meeting, so you had received yesterday the list of 78 workshops and sessions that we have put on the list so far.  You see also the statistics.  

 So what we have, for the moment, is 60% proposals coming from developed world; 40 coming from developing and countries in transition; we have 16% of proposals from newcomers.  

 We have a reasonable, in my view, split between subthemes.  Of course that does not fully correspond to the number of themes -- number of proposals which were submitted, but as I see now, the developmental aspect is well-represented at the moment.  It's about 30% of sessions will be devoted to those two subthemes.

 The topical aspect of IGF and the future of Internet ecosystem, 17%; and a continuation from last year's special topic on surveillance through the enhanced digital trust, 14; human rights, 16; critical resources, 6; emerging issues, 9%.

 I think that we have a fairly balanced -- or fairly good representation in that respect as well.

 What I would like to suggest today, that we take one by one those 76 workshops and go through them, and everybody will have the possibility to say what they think needs to be taken into account by organizers in the runup to the meeting to improve the quality of the workshop.  

 And so the secretariat will convey those messages, including also those which were on the evaluation sheets, to the organizers, so that they can consider them and take them into account.

 After this exercise, we will continue looking at individual workshop proposals in order to get maybe to something between 80 and 90 workshop proposals on the list, and after that, we will discuss how to prepare the -- I mean, the next steps in preparation of the IGF meeting, and we would then allocate those agreed workshops to those MAG members who would be interested and willing to liaise with the organizers and to coach them, if that will be needed, in order to improve the quality of the workshop itself.

 So that is the program for today.  We have six working hours, and I hope that we will be able to end today as scheduled on time at 5:30, to enjoy a little bit also Paris.

 As I mentioned, during the day from 1:30 to 2:30, there will be a donors meeting --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So 1:20 to 2:20, there will be a donors meeting in Room 7?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  205 --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  2.005.  

 2.005 is on the second floor, and you need to look for -- you go on the main elevator on the second floor and you look to the directions of 005 room.

 So the meeting is open for those interested in the donors discussion.  

 And we will resume again at 2:30.

 So yesterday we ended with the task of interested GAC members to continue talking about improved outcomes of the IGF, and I asked Jivan to coordinate that discussion, and now I'm giving the floor to Jivan for a brief report.

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  Thank you, Janis.  

 We had a very lively discussion yesterday.  A torrent of good ideas came out of it, and one thing was certain, that we need to take this forward and to get more in-depth into it.

 Two things come out as very clear.  

 First, that we need to understand clearly what the challenges are, the shortcomings of IGF outcomes are, and how to better address them.

 I just shared right now a Google Doc from yesterday.  Unfortunately I couldn't do it -- sorry -- earlier.  And even right now, I'm sorry, I'm forwarding through my phone so it's without text in the email.

 But in there, there's a grouping of some of the ideas that we discussed there, and being a Google Doc as it is, I think it's a good way for us to collaborate further on its -- either in this document or another one, but I think that it is important that we open it up to the wider community, as well, for inputs.

 Several things came out.

 So one of them is that between now and Istanbul, we need to be careful and just work on small tweaks that can be improved in the existing infrastructure, but that we should be thinking beyond Istanbul in a strategic manner, and to think of how to improve the overall process and the outcomes that are coming out of IGF.

 And the thinking was much about -- I think Patrick used the term yesterday in another context and others have used it before as well of a router function, that there are issues, there are problems, so it's a matter of finding those issues and finding those who can address those issues.  It's not about necessarily recommendations, it's not about decision-making; it's a platform to join problems with solutions.

 So I wouldn't go too much into depth into it.  I think that we can use this, as I said, like to further perhaps put ideas around -- within this document and within the MAG list email communication, but I think that it is important to stress the next steps that are at the end, that we should come out at the end of this meeting with a working group, and for that working group to be able to work until Istanbul, to open it up to the wider community in that period.  

 And there was a recommendation as well that -- and there was consensus around it -- that there should be a session in Istanbul to discuss what has been developed over the period between now and Istanbul, and that that could be an open forum session organized there.

 And that there should be an on-line environment, whether created by -- and maintained by the secretariat or if the resources aren't available, to seek out from the community and find ways to maintain such an on-line platform for those ideas to be captured.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think we need to ask the secretariat if there is -- the Web site allows this on-line interaction, but that is one element.  

 And another element is on-line interaction is -- from my experience here at UNESCO is always good if there is an on-line interaction sort of coordinator or manager.  Otherwise, it doesn't really work.  And we need to identify who that manager can be, whether from secretariat or from the MAG.  But that is an enormous task.


 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Janis.  I have a comment and a question I'd like to offer.

 First of all, good morning to all colleagues.

 I was able to participate in the previous night's working session that Mark led and most of last night's, and I think that we're going in a very, very good direction.

 I had volunteered and I still think it's really essential that some of us who are very familiar with the CSTD improvements to the IGF take a good look at what we already are authorized to do within that approved improvements to the IGF against the direction we're going in, which I think is a very, very good direction.

 So I do want to continue to be very involved in this, and I know many others do as well.

 I made a comment last night in the small group that I want to reiterate this morning.

 In order to implement the -- I'm not even going to call them "tweaks" because in order to implement the improvements we're talking about for Istanbul, I think we're going to need either conscripted volunteers or appointed volunteers to help to implement some of these improvements we're talking about.

 And I hope that this -- this small group we're talking about would also take very seriously how we organize any additional financial support or labor support to achieve those improvements for Istanbul, so that we can really deliver on the improved -- I'm going to use the word "packaging," but the improved materials and tangibles.  I know we're going to talk later about the best practice forum, et cetera, but I'm very excited that if we as MAG members who are going to not be speaking in seven or eight workshops, that we're going to be able to rechannel some of our energy and time.

 I volunteered to sit down with anyone else who is interested in the CSTD improvements report and look against that at these recommendations, and I'm also thinking that maybe at -- as a part of the open forum or roundtable, whatever we do, that we should include really clear updates for the community of stakeholders on the progression of those improvements as well.

 So we're really showing, both to the UNGA that we're delivering on the improvements that they authorized, and also on the further improvements that the community is supporting.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Marilyn.

 In absence of further comments, we then can move to the main task of our meeting, going through the workshop proposals.

 That said, if you will recall, yesterday when we discussed Workshop Proposal 114 -- and that was linked to "Developing Countries Participation to ICANN Policies, GNSO" -- we did not take a very clear decision.

 There was a thought that the formulation of the workshop is too narrow.  And this is on Line 85, I believe, of the new table that was sent by the secretariat.

 And so we need to revisit this discussion.  

 And I understand that if we would propose to organizers to make a more generic approach to the discussion and to change the title, that that would be an acceptable proposal and we can put this workshop on the list as approved.

 Is that my understanding?


 So that is decided, then.

 Now, what I would like to propose, we go to the very top of the list and we would devote not more than 3 minutes to each workshop proposal and those MAG members who would like to make comments or suggestions how to improve proposals, please spell them out, we will capture them, we have a transcript, and we will convey those messages to the organizers.

 That does not necessarily mean that we need to spend 3 minutes on each workshop.  If there's more to say than is already written in the comments during evaluation, we can skip, so that we can proceed swiftly to the next one.

 So with that proposal in mind -- and I see no opposition -- we can start.

 And maybe I will ask Chengetai to conduct this business.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, no.  You just need the --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Please read the name.  I hope that the MAG members are familiar with all the proposals.  They went through in evaluating them.  So please proceed.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So the first workshop we're looking at is on Row 2, Proposal ID Number 23, "Accountability in Multistakeholder Governance Regime, ICANN."

 Do we have any comments on that?  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Can I just seek clarification, Janis?

 This is one of the ones that although it got a high rating, the questions -- the comments suggest it be a flash forum, it needs to -- it's not diverse, et cetera.

 Can I assume from what you said that those kinds of improvements are still going to be made in this?  It will either be shorter or it will be merged with someone who's more diverse or it will be improved, right?  And so we don't need to go through those comments?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, no.  Exactly.  

 So what I'm thinking is that we made the selection based on different criteria and that criteria is basically composite criteria.

 There certainly are things that may be improved, and MAG's guidance to the secretariat and to the organizers of the workshops would be very sort of appreciated.

 Yesterday discussing some of the workshops, specifically those from 52 down, we already did a little bit of this work and this is captured on the transcript and we will look through them again, but for the first 51, we didn't.

 So now it is time to go one by one and to say if there is something to say.

 Okay?  I -- please.

 >> Thank you, Chair, and good morning to all.

 I have a general comment which applies not only for this contribution, but for the others.  

 I have noticed that only a few workshops you have selected so far plan to involve government officials in their panels, so I would highly recommend that the organizers seek to include as much as possible government officials in their panels, because in our view, whether we like it or not, governments are involved in all aspects of IG issues.  So that's all for me.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  And you are talking about the first workshop, right?  Or in general -- a general comment about --

 Now thank you for that.  I mean, the -- from the statistics of the previous year in Bali, we had 17% of total number of participants who had a government affiliation.

 Of course this is -- this is a number that we need to strive to increase because at the end of the day we -- that is interaction between different stakeholder groups and all stakeholder groups need to be represented in a sort of balanced manner.  

 And I would add more to your comment, that once we engage with governments, we also need to think about those governments who are not yet fully embracing the multistakeholder model, that we can engage with them in a dialogue and explain and listen to their concerns and their arguments by intergovernmental model, in their view, should prevail over multistakeholder view.

 So -- because IGF at the end of the day is the place of the dialogue.  Better understanding each other.  So that is an additional comment.

 Michael, please.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Just to clarify, 17% of the participants in Bali or 17% of the panelists?  Because I was -- I was struck by the fact that a number of these proposals didn't have government people, although having been in government, I understand how hard it is to make a commitment that far in advance, and it's particularly hard for government officials in the U.S. to go to Bali.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  There was a relatively big U.S. governmental delegation in Bali.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Right.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  17% of all participants were in Bali --

 >>MIKE NELSON: Okay.  But what about panelists?  

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I do not have that statistic.  


 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you, Janis.  Good morning, everybody.  

 Very much welcome your objective there of reaching out to governments that have yet to understand the model, yet -- who do not appreciate the value of the IGF and so on.

 I just wondered if you had a particular initiative in mind for pursuing that that governments that are very much advocates for this model for the IGF and so on can support you on.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I do not have any specifics in mind for the moment, but certainly myself, I would try to reach out to a few governments I know who are relatively sort of skeptical about IGF model to invite them personally to come and engage in the dialogue.

 That is what I meant when I said that.

 Okay.  Any other comments?  No?

 Let's go then -- Veronica, please.

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Chair.  Veronica Cretu speaking.  

 I think another -- just to build up on the fact that there are some common elements that are relevant for the workshop proposals, there is one additional which I would like to highlight.

 As we look through the workshop proposals, most of them are panelist-centered, speaker-centered, and not participant-centered, from the perspective of the engagement of the tools that are being proposed by the proponents of the workshop proposals.  

 So one of the recommendations, of course, would be for the workshop proponents to look into the andragogy, you know, to look at the different interactive adult-learner-centered approaches and methodologies and I'm ready to volunteer to put an on-line resource for that, like a compilation of different links where, you know, the workshop proponents could inspire themselves in order to improve the methodological aspect.  So this would reduce -- we are not going to spend time to comment on each and every single workshop methodology, but rather, have a compilation of the recommendations and refer them to that on-line source.  So I'm ready to put that on-line.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for that initiative.  That may be useful for those who are still undecided which way to go and how to handle business.

 Okay.  So, please, Subi.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Janis.  Subi Chaturvedi.  And good morning, everyone.  Today is the last day of the deliberations.  And I really appreciate the opportunity of looking at the top 51 again.  I think it is an important exercise.  Because it's also an opportunity to reflect on the ratings and evaluation process.  I think we've taken a great initiative last year.  And I do hope that we'll continue with this.  I am okay and very happy with the parameters that we've decided.  But how it is that we actualize or translate them, maybe we need to go back to year 2013.  And the methodology that we have in terms of rating and expression of all the categories is something that we need to probably find a middle part between the two initiatives.  So, while we go through it, there will be suggestions and improvements even in those matters.  But there's only so much that we'll do as the MAG.  The ultimate responsibility will lie with the proposers of the workshop.  Thank you.  So certainly.  Chengetai, please proceed.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Are there any other comments on proposal ID 23?  Next one is proposal ID 153, "Institutionalizing the Clearinghouse Function."

 Any comments on that workshop for improvements, change.  On row 3 of the worksheets I sent out.  Just to clarify they will get all the comments that were submitted, right?  Yes, okay.  Andrew.

  >>ANDREW MAURER:  Variety to them.  I was wondering if the comments could be provided in the same set.  These are the comments that arose while the MAG was evaluating.  Can you please consider, rather than being "This is the direction that you must comply with" because we don't want them to lose the sense of their own workshop.  And then perhaps, if we come in this session, we come up with things that they must comply with, for instance, if we're talking about merging or talking about inviting a speaker from another session that didn't get asked, then that's sort of different in nature from the evaluation comments that we've been through.  Maybe that's clear to everyone else.  But I just want to be clear in my own mind that's what we're talking about.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It is absolutely -- it's just a recommendation that the workshop organizers should take into account or should consider while they're preparing that.  This is not compulsory.  That is -- they need to know what the MAG, who is ultimate responsible body for organizing of events, thought while they were evaluating and discussing the proposal.  Paul.

  >>PAUL WILSON:  Thank you, Janis.  Good morning, everyone.  Paul Wilson here.  

 I'm not sure if this has been covered earlier.  But I think in this general issue of communicating with successful proponents, it would be quite interesting to see what other guidance we're giving them in addition to the sort of customized comments, which I agree would be very helpful as for their information, not as a strict requirement.  Because, as Andrew said, they could be led on to a different path.  

 But there are other expectations which I think will be very useful to provide.  And I'm just not sure if we've discussed those or if we've seen the sort of standard form letter that is going back to the proponents to say how to prepare, what are the expectations, what we suggest they do.  There may be quite a number of guidelines that they could be given.  

 The proposals that don't have any background paper, maybe we could ask them to consider providing as much background information as possible for people who are coming and planning to attend their workshops, things like this.  It would be quite interesting at some stage to see that, maybe a draft on the MAG list of the letter that's sent out so that we could comment.  Thanks.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I think that things you're talking about are already known.  So the background paper, the one-pager with policy questions and the description of the workshop is a must.  All workshop proponents should provide that type of description.  That goes on the Web site.  And that is the one that people read and decide whether they want to attend or not.

 What also they have to is the report.  Two-pager.  Of course, we cannot enforce that, but this is a sort of a must requirement with not much leverage.  But, again, we can only appeal that, but we cannot impose that type of requirement.  

 All the rest is purely sort of volunteer.  And that is a process rather than sort of end result.  

 We spoke that some or most experienced MAG members may take a role of coaches and help workshop organizers in the planning process to advise them how to better proceed and how to better deal with things.  And, again, that is not something compulsory.  If workshop organizers want to be coached, that's one thing.  If they don't, then they will not ask for any help.

 So that is something we will come at the end of the meeting once we're through all these workshop proposals and once we have 80-90 workshops on the list.  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Janis.  I think this is a useful proposal.  I think, you know, the issue -- it links well to the theme of the evolution of the IG ecosystem and also of the future of the IGF.

 I think that the panel could be a little bit more diverse.  You know, I would suggest to them that the panel include maybe somebody who's worked in a clearinghouse capacity in another sector.  For example, in the environmental or natural resources sector, climate change or -- you know, just to create a little bit of a different perspective so that we don't just restate the same old conversation.  But I think the concept and talking about the concept of a clearinghouse function in a distributed Internet governance system is certainly an important one.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  So we're going on to the next one now, which is proposal ID 61.  "Policies and practices to enable the Internet of things."

 Any comments on this one?  

 Okay.  We're going to go to the next one, which is proposal ID 77, "Frameworks for Developing Countries' Cybercrime Cooperation."  That's row 5.  Any comments on that one?

 Yes, Marilyn, please.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  Sorry.  I know it's in the comments, but I really want to reinforce this.  I think, when I looked at this, I was trying to figure out whether there's a -- whether we're really looking at frameworks or we're looking at a particular framework.  And there's also a request for 120 minutes, which I think is quite unrealistic.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: No, they're only going to get the 90.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  Okay.  All right.  So, if we've taken care of that -- but I do still think this idea that -- I think it's focusing on a particular framework.  There are other frameworks that I think may be discussed in other workshops.  And, as long as that happens, then I think that creates the balance needed.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I'm sorry.  Yes.  

 >> Thank you.  That's also to invite the organizers to include in the panel the representative from ITU.  (Off microphone) ITU has any involvement in the issue with the agenda (indiscernible)  So it has many technical assistance programs with quite an important member of the public.  Thank you.


  >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  Good morning.  Yuliya Morenets.  

 Personally, I think the workshop proposal is relevant and very interesting, from my perspective.  Specifically, if we take into account the newly opened ICT building cybersecurity center within the Council of Europe and the -- (indiscernible) -- by the ITU.  So I think this will be very well for developing countries.  Maybe the idea is to have broader perspective or to include other organizations involved in (inaudible) -- as well.  Thank you.


  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Two comments.  Good morning, everybody.  

 One, I thought it would be helpful to have some linkages into it Netherlands conference that is scheduled for 2015 on cybersecurity.  There was not one this year, but one last year in Korea.  This might be a great linkage into that.  And that's how we create more value into the workshops, providing input into those meetings and then finding a session for themselves.  

 And also, I could offer from India, because we're working with the Dutch government to try to put together an event in India in August on cybersecurity.  And so, if we can either participate from the audience to sort of provide some input from the developing country perspective in addition to what we already have.  So that's an offer we could just place for the organizers.  Thank you.


 >> I think this is a very good idea to involve people and organizations.  It's quite -- I wonder if not -- it is not very specific to governmental jobs, these things.  Because like INTERPOL.  So don't you think that is not the -- these organizations are going to challenge it, because it's their job because it is very specific.  Take (indiscernible)  Is most of the time following.  (off microphone)  The subject.  Thank you.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you for your comments.  Okay.  We'll go to the next one. Oh, sorry.  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Actually, I'm asking a process question.  I'm not the only person here who is not quite clear.  How much time are we going to spend discussing workshops that have already been accepted? 

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We're supposed to give them three minutes.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Yes, but at what point are we going to discuss the workshops that are not accepted or that scored a higher score but that somehow didn't make it into this list?  Will we have time to do that?  Because I do think we need to have some time to do that.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, we will.  Once we're getting through this exercise, we will move to the -- we'll resume the task that we did yesterday and we'll continue going through highest scored workshops to get something between 80-90 workshops on the list.  Remember I asked yesterday each MAG member to look to the list of those workshops which are not accepted and to identify if there is any of them who should be on the list absolutely and be prepared to tell the group about them.  That's not to miss more important workshops and more important themes to put them on the list.  So we will do it once this exercise is over.  Fiona.

 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Thank you, Janis.  Just a question.  We're going to take each one by one versus asking if anyone has a particular comment on them?  I feel like people feel compelled to make a comment on each one.  And we're getting into micromanaging a workshop that we've agreed is a good idea already.  No one has to speak unless they really feel the need to?  Is that the clarification here?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This is what I said.  We should not spend more than three minutes.  But we need not to use those three minutes. If we have nothing to say, we don't say.  And we just go very quickly.  We may get through in 10 minutes if nothing -- no one would speak.  But, since you want to speak, we -- and also, I mean, for the sake of the process, we discussed in details those 17 we put on the list yesterday.  And we never discussed those 51 at all.  So there might be possibility of doing this, and there might be need of doing this.  

 Mark, please.

  >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you.  Just a very quick question, or maybe it's just a suggestion if it's not a question already answered.  

 Will all the organizers of these workshops get a message that they have to articulate their sort of projected outputs from the workshop?  Will that be generic -- quite often in my comments I said this is great, but I'm not sure what their outcome is.  So, if there's a generic message to all of them, please reaffirm your objectives, that would be a fantastic improvement generically.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  There will be then.  Yes.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, taking from Paul's suggestion, I will share the email that's going to go out, the generic email that's going to go out to the workshop proponents.  

 And, as Janis has said, all these workshops have been accepted.  So we don't really need remarks that say this is a good workshop.  So, if we could only give remarks for transmission to the workshop proposer to improve the workshop, the recommendations.  And also, when I read down, I will read the proposal idea and the name, I'll wait two beeps.  If nobody lifts up their flag, I'll just go to the next one just to make it quick.  Okay.

 Thank you.

 So the next one is proposal ID 146, "Anonymity By Design, Protecting While Connecting."  Any comments on that one?  Okay.

 So the next one -- oh, Michael.

  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I actually gave this proposal a 6.  But I did think it would be helpful to add a law enforcement person or somebody who could come and -- to talk about cases where really heinous crimes were not prevented or not solved because anonymous communication was being used.  This is very much -- very strong proposal.  But just for the sake of debate, it would be good to have somebody saying "Wait a minute.  Bad guys use these tools, too."

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  

 The next one is proposal ID 63, "Preserving a Universal Internet, the Cost of Fragmentation."  Any thoughts on that?  None?  Okay.  

 Proposal ID 95, "Working Together Initiatives to Map and Frame Internet Governance.

 Row 8.

 Yes, Constance.

 >> CONSTANCE WEISE:  Thank you.  I would suggest that perhaps they reduce the list of speakers which is very long.  And there needs to be more participation from developing countries.  Thanks.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Proposal ID 185, "ICANN Globalization and Affirmation of Commitments."  

 Any comments on this one?

 Proposal ID 47, "Enhancing Digital Trust in the Post-Snowden Era."


 >> (off microphone.)


 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry.  You're going a little bit too quickly for my tired, sore head.

 It did occur to me that that -- that -- I mean, but I would like other people who are more familiar with ICANN than I am to comment on whether the two accountability-in-ICANN workshops should merge, because that one is looking particularly at the Affirmation of Commitment and ICANN globalization, the other one is looking at accountability mechanisms in ICANN.  

 And I'm wondering if one large room and maybe a longer time slot might not be a better way of dealing with that.

 But I'd like the ICANN people to reflect on that.


 >>PAUL WILSON:  Sorry.  You're going too fast for me as well, so if you don't mind taking -- if I can make a comment on Number 63.


 >>PAUL WILSON:  Number 63, I'd like to see someone from the technical community on the panel.  It has got a big technical dimension, that topic.  Thanks.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just to clarify, you're saying that 185 --

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  23 and 185.  I'm asking if we shouldn't ask them to merge.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  I just want it for the record so we can pick it up.  

 Subi, please.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I agree with Anriette.  I think it's an excellent suggestion and that has been also the conversation elsewhere that the two are interrelated, and if it is a possibility to have them in the same space together, that might be a suggestion worth considering.  Thank you.


 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  As the U.K. rep on ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee, my comments here were very much in that line, to merge or combine some of these ICANN-related proposals into a single session.  So I support that idea.


 >>MIKE NELSON:  I speak as somebody who is not in the ICANN community, hasn't been to an ICANN meeting for about five years, but I actually would advise against merging these and trying to put everything together.

 Quite often we're going to end up with a situation where we've got five great things going on at the same time.  If we put all of the interesting people talking about ICANN in one session, a lot of people won't be able to get to that one session and I think better to take a topic that's on so many people's mind and split it up and put it in various places.

 I just -- particularly if these are two of the highest-ranked proposals, why would you take two of them and put it into one?  It doesn't make sense to me.


 >>MARILYN CADE:  Marilyn Cade, opening my comments by announcing I am an ICANN expert as a stakeholder.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry?  I think they do need to be merged?  

 I think the real question here is that there are a number of topics that are proposed and a number of workshops, and we do have a very heavy representation in the -- in the MAG of stakeholders in the ICANN community, so it's really no surprise to me that they would get a high ranking, but that's not really the point.

 We're building a broad program.  I'd like to see -- 

 And the accountability issues that are being advanced are very much a topic of conversation within ICANN itself and within a number of settings, so I think it's important to have them represented but not have them overly dominant in our overall program, and we have a number of programs plus an open forum from ICANN.

 So one of the other topics that's getting a fair amount of attention in the workshops is the IANA transition, so I'd like to see us try to merge these.  That leaves space for another workshop that focuses on the transition.  There's also an open forum.


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.  We will ask them to look into the possibility of merging.

 Going on, we've done proposal ID 47.  

 Sorry.  Is it still on the same -- does it add --

 >> Yes.  I think so, because I'm working on this main session on the IANA transition and -- well, NTIA transition functions over the IANA, and we had also added and we circulated in the list two days ago that we would also be looking at ICANN's accountability review and process.  

 So in a way, we might need, I mean, some kind of feeder sessions or workshops for that main session.  That's one -- one issue.  

 I mean, and -- but I do think that whatever happens, even if it merges or not, what I'm saying is that we will really need to address accountability issues within ICANN so that we get to the main session on the 5th of September with a proper background amongst the audience.  That's my comment.  Thank you.


 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Thanks, Chengetai.  Fatima briefly.  

 I support my comments.  I think they are two different issues, accountability of ICANN and globalization, and also I think should be covered is the issue of IANA transition in the main session.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.

 So the next one is Proposal ID 96, "Accountability Challenges Facing Internet Governance Today."  

 That's on Row 11.  

 I take it there's no comments.

 >> I'm sorry.  Had we discussed 47, "Enhanced Digital Trust"?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  -- (off microphone) -- any comments.  I went by it twice.  Okay.

 >> About 47, another quick comment.  It's not on here are what's possible just because it was a law which is whistle-blowing law in the United States, so -- so I mean, (indiscernible) this organizer is very good.  It does work.  But I would -- this organizer should organize this work to enhance the digital trust.  Maybe they need something inside the organization because you don't enhance trust if you have not an environment to empower you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  On 47, correct.  Okay.  

 Any comments on Proposal ID 96, "Accountability Challenges Facing Internet Governance Today"?  Row 11.  Yes.  (saying name).

 >> Developing regional participants into this session, please.

 >> 96 has a few.  96 has three or four.

 >> I'm sorry, yes.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Virat, you want to say something?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I was just assisting with the point saying it already has.  We don't have to.  We already have 3 people there.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Very good.  

 Paul, is your flag up or -- no.  

 Okay.  So the next one, Row 12, 66.  "Content for Development:  Diversifying the Global Content and Apps Market."

 Any comments?


 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I thought this would be and could be included in the best practice forum on content creation but, Constance, the best practice forum, is that focusing on local content creation or content creation more generally?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Constance has left the room, unfortunately.



 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So yes.  I mean, let me talk to her about it.  I don't -- I'm just concerned that we're excluding a lot of workshops.  I think if there are workshops we can include in best practice forums, we should try to.  This one might not be suitable to it, but I'd like us to discuss it with Constance when she's back.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you.


 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks.  I'm not sure I would understand the logic on that, and we have so few workshops that are specifically about content and it's premature, I think, to take best practice to content.

 So maybe -- maybe --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Anriette and I are now aligned in support of the workshop, right?

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you.

 Row 13, Proposal ID 83, "Human Rights for the Internet:  From Principles to Action."

 Yes, Subi.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  It's one of the highest-ranking ones, excellent proposal, but too many speakers and they're saying they're still planning to invite them and they have confirmations from all 10.  I'm really wondering, 10 people speaking, I don't know how interactive it's going to be.


 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Any other comments?  

 Yes, Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I just want us to all think about if it is a roundtable, then actually 10 people are not a bad number for --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>MARILYN CADE: And I think it is a roundtable, so I want to be careful.  

 I think one of the things we did was innovate on approaches but we haven't always been able to look hard at what the proposed format is.  

 And just can I park this question for later of how -- later perhaps the secretariat can update us on the kinds of rooms, et cetera, and the formats because we will have to have some sense of if we say "yes" to a roundtable proposal with 10 speakers and then we don't have rooms that accommodate it, that will make a further negotiation for you, secretariat, dear, with the organizers.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  Half the rooms are hollow square, so they're conducive to workshops or whatever.  I mean, that's -- it's good.  Yes, Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I was just going to say we should encourage as many of the roundtables as possible because that really allows for interaction and they're 10, 12.  In the main session, we're planning for nearly 20 this time, which is most unusual, but because we can do roundtables, so we should push for that.


 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  And the fact is the Turkish government has very kindly made available facilities that allow for that is an excellent --


 >>MIKE NELSON:  to second that, I love roundtables and one great thing about it is if you have 10 people on your list, those people can then go and get funding from their organization.  Even though they're not a panelist, they're active.  But the other point, just for me, it would be very helpful for me if in the future, in 2015, the type of event was actually like the second thing on the evaluation.  Because sometimes you read the whole thing and then you see all these names and then at the very end, you see "roundtable."

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That's very easy to --

 >>MIKE NELSON:  I know it's obvious, but, you know, this isn't hard for the staff.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Right.  Thanks.  

 Is it for or against the proposal?  We fully understand roundtables are good.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  So I don't want to add to the merits of the format.  Just wondering that even in a roundtable, if we could decide the time allocated for each speaker, because the proposal reads well but it says it's a policy jam and it intends to engage with the audience, but if you have 10 great facilitators occupying maximum amount of time, then I'm actually wondering about the input that will come from the rest of the people, so just that short point.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you.  Yes, Yuliya.

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  Just a quick comment.  I would like to support Subi, and maybe for general comment for other workshops who intend to have a roundtable, it would be helpful to have a clarification how they would like to moderate and to involve, actually, the participants.  Because if they put just "roundtable" and afterwards we had a panel with 10 people, you know, this is one thing.

 If we have a very strong or interesting moderation and moderation format, this is another thing, and then you involve...

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry.  Row Number 14, Proposal ID 65, "The Role of IXPs in Growing the Local Digital Economy."

 Do we have any comments on that one, while I clear my throat?

 >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chengetai.  I think I commented this yesterday.  

 The panelists, their workshop is very interesting, very important for developing regions, but I would suggest that we could -- we could enhance the list of panelists with some participants from other regions.  From Latin America, for example, or Africa.  But I think it's very good.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Olga.  

 Anyone else?  

 Okay.  Row Number 15, Proposal ID 124, "Debate:  Future of Internet Governance architecture."  Any comments on that?

 Row Number 16, Proposal ID 169, "Technologies and Policies to Connect the Next 5 billion."

 Row 16.

 Yes, Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I have a bit of a concern about the proposer is a single company and the proposer is also a speaker.

 There's -- I think one of the speakers is not confirmed, so the topic is great, but I'm not sure -- and one of the speakers is from a fairly new and I think growing alliance that I really do think is important to have included, but it does really, you know, make me a little uncomfortable to see the proposer being a single company and the proposer being a speaker, so I'd like to ask the proposer to take another look at the composition.  

 Topic, fantastic.  Topic, important.  But I think maybe a little more diversity in the participants side.  Because it is lacking, as I think I recall -- and I'm not looking at it.  I don't believe I saw a developing country government representative included, so maybe they could take a look at that breadth or I may not be looking at the right -- because I don't have it open on my screen.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Are you talking about the panelists or the --

 >>MARILYN CADE:  The panelists.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The panelists.



 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm confused.  Marilyn, when you refer to the proposer, I don't see the names.  Names of proposers are not visible to me.

 >> It's in the background paper, I think you have some more information.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Oh, is it in the background paper?  Because I was assuming we're not -- we're not supposed to consider the names of proposers at this point.  I'm just asking for clarification.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yeah.  But I want to respond to that.  My point was when -- and I think -- of course we all read all the background papers, so of course I got that information from the background paper.

 My point was just it makes me a little nervous when I see a proposer is from a single company and the proposer's on the panel and the panel needs more diversity.  That was my point.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you, Mike.  And then we'll go to Mourad and then Izumi A.  You haven't spoken.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Yeah.  This -- I'm glad we captured this point because on some of these, the organizer's name has been removed and the co-organizers are included.

 Is -- this leads to some confusion.  And I do think this one is going to be a good proposal because you've got the alliance in there which is dozens of companies and governments and NGOs around the world.


 >>MIKE NELSON:  Yeah.  But where the name of the organizer has been removed, is there a way to let us know that that's happened.  

 I mean, on this one, is there another organizer whose name has not been listed?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  For all of them, the primary organizer has been removed.  It's just the co-organizers were not removed.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Right.  So there is another person who has submitted this proposal?


 >>MIKE NELSON:  Okay.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Which we are not supposed to take into consideration because we're supposed to be judging it on the merits of the proposal, not who proposed it.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Yeah.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So it's a little bit -- I mean, it's a try --

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Well, the worst thing is that it disadvantages those people who don't have co-organizers.


 >>MIKE NELSON:  Anyway, we'll work on it.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Mourad?

 >>MOURAD BOUKADOUM: Thank you very much.  In fact, the topic is very interesting and I would stress to -- as the first speaker already said, to enlarge the panel to include the panelists from developing countries and also from members of the global commission on broadband, which is co-chaired by ITU and they have done tremendous work on the issue.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you.  Izumi?

  >>IZUMI AIZU:  Mine is more a question than a comment.  Do we have strict rules on a proposal that a single company or single organization cannot organize it?  I don't recall that.  We used to have something like if there was a multistakeholder, to have different stakeholders to co-organize.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We have the co-organizers, but I have to check the list again.  But I don't think it was a strict rule as such.  Because -- this time around.  Yes, Virat.

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm a speaker here who is listed as not confirmed.  So, first, I want to inform everybody that I am confirmed.

 [ Laughter ]

 But I don't want to influence this.  I just want to say one thing that there is a co-organizer here which is the University of Colorado.  So it's not a single company.  It's -- the only point I think Marilyn was making, which we might have taken off, is that one of the co-organizers is also a speaker.  There are two organizers here.  We don't want to judge it based on that.  I just want to point it -- I just want to say the point of the fact there should be developing country or government, that's a very good point.  We should encourage them to bring in someone.  Speakers or others can even help them bringing people in.  And I'm happy to volunteer to help with that.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry.  I'm getting a bit afraid of the time here.  If you have any comments apart from increasing the diversity of the panels, we should move on or anything that affects us accepting this proposal, then we should move on, please.

 Yuliya, first.

  >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  Very quick.  I would actually suggest that there is a number of workshops proposals that were rejected with a similar subject.  It was suggested yesterday to include the leaders of these workshops.  Somehow we suggest to cooperate with them because they -- maybe they were -- you know, like, not a strong proposal or something.  There was a number of them dealing with disadvantaged people.  So I think --

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  Izumi.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Again, if there are any rules that prohibit these sponsor or organizer to be the speaker, I haven't seen that.  So I don't think it was fair comment.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.  Thank you very much.  So we've got the comments.  

 Row 17, Proposal ID 69,  "The payment, Privacy, Policing Paradox on Web Payment Systems."

 That's row 17.  Any comments?  

 The next one is row 18, Proposal ID 93, "One World Diverse Content and Flexible Access."

 No comment.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Again, I think the reason why, when I mentioned best practice forums -- Constance is back in the room.  Just I think when I suggest that a workshop should be considered for inclusion in a best practice forum, it's not to diminish the relevance of that workshop.  It's to consider whether that discussion is at a point where we can begin to extract some policy outcomes.  So, again, concerns, I just wanted you to perhaps refresh my memory of how you describe the content best practice forum.  And we don't even have to do it right now.  But, if you can give some consideration to whether some of these content-related workshops could be effectively included in the best practice forum.  

 And it's also not mutually exclusive.  We could have a content workshop and still include them in the best practice forum.  


 So the next one is row 19, Proposal ID 7, "From Ideas to Solutions, Funding Challenges for Internet Development."


  >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chengetai.  One comment and one question.  I think -- my comment relates to the number of proposed speakers for the given format.  Because they're proposing to have a roundtable and the list of speakers is quite long.

 And then, in addition to the speakers, they are writing that they are going to bring 15 award winners of a regional program.  

 So my worry is that all of those winners are going to be given like two or three minutes time to say -- to express their gratitude and stuff like that.  

 So my concern is what is the role of those winners that are going to just be there as participants or they're going to be the floor.  

 So I think one recommendation is to make sure that those winners are not going to be dominating the time from the participants' time.  

 And another concern, which is a general one, we are seeing again a roundtable meeting being proposed.  And I wonder about how many roundtable meetings we are going to be able to accommodate at all.  Is it that we are going to have two or three rooms in the meeting venue particularly arranged for the roundtable meetings?  And then we should know exactly how many of those we are going to be able to fit so that we know whether the roundtable format is an adequate one.  So kind of some calculations might be worth doing in order to not accept too many for the roundtable format.  Just a concern.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  At the moment we have half the rooms in the hollow square format.  After this meeting, when we do our calculations, we can also go back to the host country and see whether or not we can reconfigure some of the rooms.  Because none of the rooms are actually fixed.  So, yes, I mean, there might -- yes.  And they've been rather accommodating, so I think it wouldn't be that much of a problem.

  >>VERONICA CRETU:  My idea is that we don't want to over-abuse with a certain type of format.


  >>VERONICA CRETU:  There should be a balance in the format.  

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Yes.  Mark.

  >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, yeah.  I'll go to the award winners.  In my comment, which is I think captured here, I suggested that the award winners could be better showcased in a separate side event in the village somewhere or something else.  Come to address that very point.  You don't want to take up the workshop time with presentations on winners.  And so thank you.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  And also that's another good point.  If -- remember the secretariat is going to look at the comments that have been put in already.

 So the comments we are making here should be over and above that, additional comments to the comments that have been put in the worksheet.

 Row number 20, Proposal ID number 2, "Mobile Trust and Privacy."

 Yes, Lillian.

 >>LILLIAN NALWOGA:  Thanks, Chengetai.  I think this is a beautiful proposal.  But there is some sort of disclaimer that (indiscernible)  Conducted most of the panelists.  I see someone from Nigeria, which makes it good because you'll have representation from Africa.  But we need to know that from that list (indiscernible) has been confirmed.  Because (indiscernible) it's better to Africa.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We are going to give them a deadline for which all the panelists have to be confirmed.  Otherwise they risk losing the slot.  

 All right.  Row 21, Proposal ID 11,   "Languages on the Move Deploying Multilingualism in the Net."


 >>EUROLINC:  I'm to speak for EUROLINC. We're not in the MAG.  But we're proposing the workshop.  And we talked about this yesterday about the possibility to have 53 and 11 merged together instead of the 24, which is on the board here.  It's a better match.  That's all.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, sorry.  There should be no -- it's a form of lobbying for merger.  I think we shouldn't have that.  If it's your workshop, and you want -- there's no comment from proponents of workshops.  Thank you.  Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm not involved in the workshop, but I might be a proponent of the workshop.  Yeah.  

 My comment was actually pretty much the same thing.  I thought yesterday we did propose a merger.  And I just wanted to be sure that that was captured.  Thank you.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  It's written there possible merger with 24.  So that's what we're going to do.  Advise.  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Just to support the idea of the merger.  I think there's three -- yesterday we proposed a merger between 24 and something else.  Now there's a possibility of a merger with 11.  So let's just handle that with care.  But I support the idea of the merger.


 Row number 23, Proposal ID 158.  Sorry.  I missed one.  

 Row number 22, Proposal ID 80, "ccTLDs, Partners in Developing Local Internet Governance Literacy."


  >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chengetai.  If you look at the -- at what is proposed, there is a component which is best practice exchange local IG initiatives, which is going to take up to 55 minutes.  So I think there is another space for sharing about the local IG initiative.  And especially that it's formulated as best practice.  So I'm a bit confused about this element of the workshop proposal.  Maybe take it to the best practice track.  I don't know.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Are you proposing it's integrated with a best practice or we just shift it?

  >>VERONICA CRETU:  It's confusing.  For me it's not clear what are they aiming at?  So showcase the local IG initiatives or to really focus on the ways those ccTLDs -- just a second.  What's the topic -- The ccTLDs play a role in, you know, promoting IG literacy in the region.  So I think there is a mixture of -- in the scope --

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Understood, okay.


  >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Sorry.  I just want to go back to workshop 11 very quickly.  I raised the issue yesterday.  I wanted to just keep it on the record.  Workshop 11, again, addresses very specific report being produced by EURID and UNESCO on a yearly basis.  I don't think it could merge with other workshops that addresses the more broader issues of multilingualism or linguistic issues.  

 So my suggestion is to keep workshop 11 separate or at least we can suggest to the organizers to organize an open forum with them.  But not to merge with any other workshop.  Thank you.

 >> I second Baher.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Just a comment.  I think the number of workshops mentioned that change of information, sharing best practices.  And that's normal.  We're not limiting organizers and sharing best practices, in general.  

 But the best practice forum identified five sort of issues that will be taken will produce the compilation -- the document compilation of best practices.  And not all issues are ready for best practice forum for compilation of practices.  We need, really, to explore further what -- how things could be done, including how involved local ccTLD community in promoting Internet governance literacy.  So maybe in two or three years, this will be ready for compilation and documented presentation of existing practices in this field.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The next one is row 23, Proposal ID 158, "Promoting Platform Responsibility for Content Management."

 No comments.

 Row number 24, Proposal ID 171, "Connecting Small Island States with Access to Data."

 No comments.  

 Row number 25, Proposal ID 172, "Network Neutrality:  A Roadmap for Infrastructure Enhancement."

 No comment.

 Oh, Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I have a -- I do have a question about this workshop and maybe another one.   NETmundial discussions -- and I want to be reflective here that NETmundial was one event among many, but it happened recently.  

 And NETmundial roadmap document did identify net neutrality as a topic for further discussion and was actually even pointing -- there was a road sign pointing to the IGF.  I might have even helped nail that road sign down.

 But I guess my thought here is net neutrality is a very different topic when you are in a developing country that is building and investing versus the understanding of net neutrality or interpretation of net neutrality if you're in Europe or you're in the U.S. 

 so the one thought I had was this workshop proposal would have been written before the discussion in NETmundial.  And I'm sort of looking to other colleagues to comment on whether they think the workshop proposal is going to be able to reflect the discussions that took place that led to putting the net neutrality topic in to the "for further discussion."

 A little clumsy in how I said it, but I'm kind of looking to other colleagues here for their thoughts about do we need to let this workshop proposer maybe think a little bit more about the content because of the discussions that took place in NETmundial?


  >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  This is a Council of Europe proposal.  Is he still here?  He has been here.  He's not actually here now.  I will see him later on.  I'm traveling to Strasbourg to join a meeting with him.

 But they're cognizant, I'm sure, of the intersect between this proposal and what we are doing in terms of picking up the NETmundial direction.  I can discuss it with him later.  Thanks.


  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  And, after this meeting, workshop proposers will be able to reedit their workshops.  And they can add additional information, et cetera.  Virat.

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I was going to add additional information that the Africa themes that were circulated recently opened everybody's eyes on how it's being looked at so differently.  And there's a very high-quality debate on that email list for once, very high-quality debate.  

 I was going to say this one, for example, if it was -- it would benefit by including either or both a regulator from developing countries who were looking at this very differently and certainly an operator investor from the developing countries perspective.  Because we need to get their views in here to make it holistic for the discussion.  I -- the -- I -- the first line says net neutrality is the principle according to which, it's discussion, debate.  There are some assumptions which require all types of voices, especially the operating investing community to come in as well from the developing world.  

 And the regulators. because I just want to state that the network neutrality is a statutory responsibility of regulators across the world.  So, if you want to do work there, we should bring them in for discussion.  This is a good time to bring them in.  This falls under their, like, under the act legislation, they need to do this stuff.  So it would help to bring them in.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, Anriette.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I agree with Virat.  I don't know who the proposer is, by the way, so some people are doing their homework better than I am, but I think this is -- the list of speakers are a little bit too academic, and in fact, Virat, the person you're talking about that wrote that article that I posted that you were referring to will be at the IGF.  I've seen him as a confirmed speaker, Steve Song, so he's an option.  And then another option would be someone like (saying name), who is also going to be at the IGF and who works with regulators.

 So -- but I -- but I would also like to see a small-scale operator there and, you know, somebody who is dealing with market-entry issues, so a small ISP or some -- so I -- or maybe even in the content services.

 So maybe we can ask the business community to help us identify a small business new player on the market who is dealing with the impact of the absence or not, whatever, of net neutrality.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  And we can help there, so put our name up there.


 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And then I just want to comment in response to Marilyn's point.  

 We are tasked with giving -- doing a review of how NETmundial momentum can be picked up on in this IGF.

 So in fact, Marilyn, we should not just communicate with this particular workshop, but with many.  And we were hoping to have a meeting at lunchtime, even if it's only for part of lunchtime, for MAG members and others who are interested in following up on Janis' request that we develop a bit of an action plan on how to do that.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  But please also remember that there will be other opportunities and -- for NETmundial to be displayed during the IGF, so we're talking about setting the scene.  I mean, we're talking about a day zero event.  We're talking about a setting-the-scene event.  We're talking about a main session on Internet ecosystem development.  We're talking about workshops which if we -- if you agree we may sort of mark as NETmundial-relevant or coming out from NETmundial, just as indication to showing this link between NETmundial and IGF.  

 And please don't forget that what I proposed, the chair's summary, would contain also suggestions for a way forward, and in that way forward I cannot exclude that net neutrality could be sort of identified as an issue that IGF chair would suggest taken up by national -- national IGFs and regional IGFs for discussion and bringing -- looping it in in 2015 and then in 2015 we can do a big session on net neutrality with input from different regions, from different perspectives and so on.

 So we can construct that type of stream and specifically on NETmundial outcomes and specifically on net neutrality.  Constance.

 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yes, thank you very much.  I wasn't really sure where the discussion left us with regards to net neutrality and if we wanted to follow up on the proposal from NETmundial that the IGF focuses on this important theme.  And I heard resistance from the room to -- to dive into this complicated issue.  At the same time, I think it's an opportunity for the IGF to address this issue.  

 And specifically, if there's some workshop proposals on net neutrality, it will be odd to not look at that issue in the context of the main sessions, and more specifically in terms of possible outputs and further work for the IGF.  Thank you.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: So very, very important topic but I noticed that there is the name of remote moderator but the proposers do not mention any details or information about how they plan to include remote participation, and because this is an important topic and there's a lot of interest, there is no background paper also which has been provided, so if the secretariat could advise them and encourage them to provide a background paper as well as mention their plans for remote participation, that would be --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we will.  Thank you.

 So the next one is Row Number 26, "Intermediaries' Role and Good Practice in Protecting Freedom of Expression."

 >> (off microphone.)


 >> (off microphone.)


 The next one is Row Number 27, Proposal ID 112.  Im- -- I thought I read this one, but "Implication of Post-Snowden Internet Localization Proposals."  

 Okay.  Sorry.  Next one is Row 28, proposed --

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  On 112, they say that the government speaker still needs to be decided.  I think this one really needs interventions from the government, so we need to follow up with the proposer, that they must have someone there -- 

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Must have someone from government?

 >> (off microphone.)


 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Some people from the government, okay.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Row Number 28, Proposal ID 320, "Transnational Surveillance and Cross-Border Privacy Protections."


 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chengetai.  

 Just an observation.  It's a proposed roundtable with 60 minutes and with eight speakers, so I think they could either reduce the number of speakers or increase the timing for the session, if they want to still engage the audience in the discussions.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  I don't want to start something.  Yeah.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thanks.  Okay.  

 The next one is Row Number 29, Proposal ID 100, "Carrier-Grade NAT Implications on Users, Markets, and Cybercrime."

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, that's -- sorry -- (off microphone) -- no comments?  Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm sorry.  I did have a comment on 220.  Very short one.  

 If there's a discussion on surveillance, please invite the government.  I think we must tell them to please invite the government.  This whole discussion behind the governments is absolutely of no use.  We must have them in the room.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yeah.  And different agencies, but government should be there.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.  Right.  Row Number 30, Proposal 173, "Youth Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum, Mapping Outreach Cooperation."  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I have a general question.

 I'm looking for Constance to make sure -- yes.  

 Yesterday, we talked about the addition of the workshops on child on-line experiences, primarily focused on child safety but broader than that, the digital citizenship, child -- youth engagement, et cetera, as being a potential fifth topic for best practices.

 Constance was not in the room, so it was safe to throw that away, right?

 But does this fit into that or is this so -- is this so different that it justifies continuing to be still separate from being in the best practice track?


 >>MIKE NELSON:  I would argue that this would be separate and distinct from the top- -- the best practices session we were talking about, which really was focused on child protection, and particularly protection of kids on line.  This is much -- quite different.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Constance, then Izumi A.

 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Yeah, I would agree with Mike.  This is a different topic.  However -- and to respond to Anriette's question -- we'll go through all the list of accepted workshop proposals and identify those who need to feed into or participate in the prep process for the best practice forums.  

 We definitely need those experts to get involved, document, participate to the WebEx sessions we'll be organizing between now and the IGF to start documenting and having a discussion about common ground of best practices.  Thanks.


 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  I've been to some of these youth forums or youth discussions in the past IGFs and I really enjoy it.  It's very live discussion and not limited to the child protection stuff, but more of the very proactive involvement with IG.

 The only suggestion I may make, though, is to change it from IGF -- youth involvement in IGF to IG because that's what it's all about.  It's a little bit confusing.


 >>MARK CARVELL:  That was Proposal 175 which had that title.  I suggest that that could be merged.


 >>MARK CARVELL:  But I'm not sure -- I can't check now -- where 175 was in the rankings.


 >>MARK CARVELL:  But I'd make that suggestion.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Noted.  Row Number 31, Proposal ID 104, "Cyber-security for ccTLDs, Governance and Best Practices."  Okay.  Row Number 32.  Proposal ID 154, "Intelligent Risk Management in a Mobile On-Line Environment."

 Row Number 33, Proposal ID 191, "ICANN Globalization in an Evolving Internet Governance Ecosystem."


 >>MARILYN CADE:  Wasn't that -- when we were talking earlier about the possibility of trying to merge some of the ICANN sessions, isn't this one one of the candidates for the possibility of merging?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  We'll give them the same comments.


 >>IGOR MILASHEVSKY: Yeah, I just support this proposal since the topics should be more general and not related to these organizations, so thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.  The next one is Row Number 34, Proposal ID 188, "Transparency Reporting as a Tool for Internet Governance."  

 I take it there is no comments.

 Row Number 35, Proposal ID 30, "Internet and Jobs:  Creative Destruction or Destructive Creation?"  

 Any comments?

 Row Number 36, Proposal ID 107, "Internet Blocking:  When Will Intentioned Measures Go Too Far?" 

 No comments.

 Row Number 37, 159, "Global Public Interest of the Internet."

 Row Number 37.

 No comments.

 Row Number 38 --

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Chengetai, Chengetai, on this one -- you're going too fast.


 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  On this one, there is absolutely no information provided about remote moderation.  There is absolutely no information also on remote participation or engagement in discussion.  There's -- the ideas are really sketchy and there is no background paper.  I know it isn't necessary or absolutely mandatory, but it would help in this instance if the organizers outlined their ideas of engagement.  You know, that's about it.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Row Number 38, Proposal ID 68, "Small-Island Developing States Roundtable."  


 >>IGOR MILASHEVSKY:  Thank you.  It's an important topic, but we have the Proposal 171 which is close to this topic.  I propose to merge it.  I think the proponents would be surprised if we don't propose to merge 24 with 38.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So we are proposing to merge the small-island states workshop proposals.  


 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I have a question.

 This is a really high-scoring workshop.  It's -- and then there's another one.  So I'm -- I'm not sure.  They're both good fully developed proposals and even in terms of comments.  

 What happens when we send them an advisory?  What if both of them say "no"?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So what we've done in the past, if there's a high-scoring workshop that has made it in the initial cut and there's a proposal to merge it with a lower-scoring workshop below the cut, if the high-scoring workshop says "no," then the low-scoring workshop loses out.  

 And then we do have some that are conditional, they're both below the line and they are given a slot if they merge, and if they don't merge, then both of them are out.  That's how we work it.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If they're both high-scoring, then we have to give -- then what we usually do is give them a slot if they don't want to merge.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Sorry.  Mike?

 >>MIKE NELSON:  I don't see these being so similar.  They should be merged and they're both strong, so we have lots of proposals where we have several on the same topic.  This is -- and again, let me come back to the point I made earlier.


 >>MIKE NELSON:  No one can go to more than 10 or 20% of the sessions.  Having two things on a topic is not a crime --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If the MAG agrees, we can say it should on this one.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>MIKE NELSON:  I would disagree with even doing that.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I mean, there was -- Mike is saying that they should merge.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Should not merge.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, sorry.  Should not merge.  If they're both high-scoring and there's a -- I mean, the secretariat will send a comment out saying that there was a suggestion.  If they don't feel that they should merge, then they both get a slot.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So that was my original statement.

 Marilyn.  Quick.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  It is quick.  The title doesn't do justice to the purpose of the roundtable and I think that may be one of our problems.

 So yes, support it, but just ask them to make their title a little more illustrative of what they're addressing.  I think that would be very helpful for people to know why it's important and whether they want to attend it.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  So the next one is Row 39.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Very quick, I'll give it to Paul, since he hasn't spoken.

 >>PAUL WILSON:  I agree with Mike that they're both high scoring and if they're high scoring and they're distinct proposals, they should be allowed in.  I'd suggest that in accepting them, you point out to each of them what -- that there is another similar -- another proposal on this same topic and to be aware of the potential for clash and possibly coordinate to make sure that there's some -- that they are distinct and sort of harmonious workshops.  Thanks.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Any comments that have not been said before and will somehow reflect -- Izumi?

  >>IZUMI AIZU:  Yes.  Some nations are underserved in IGF, so asking them to merge is taking out opportunity.  So while there are three small islands --

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We've agreed they are -- we're not disputing anything.  We've agreed they'll both be given slots.  So, if there's any comments other than that, you can make them.  But we have a plan.  We've agreed upon it.  Andrew.

  >>ANDREW MAURER:  I was wondering if they could be scheduled in proximity to each other.  They're not clashing, but on the same day.  I very much support Paul's suggestion that they be told each session.  Let's identify to them the ability to build on each other.  That's all I would say. Thank you.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The next one is row 39, proposal ID 89, "Multistakeholder Engagement Imperative for Accessibility."

 Any comments?  

 Row number 40, Proposal ID 129, "Internet Text and Policy.  Privacy Data Flows and Trust."


 >>PAUL WILSON: With all due respect to anyone here who is involved, I felt this was a classic example of the usual suspects on a panel and for that reason looked a little uninteresting.  And, having to be frank here, I also thought, more substantially, there's a disconnect between the focus of technology and the lack of tech community representation on that proposed panel.  And I think there is plenty of tech in this.  So I think it's a good topic.  But there's both standards work on privacy, which is important.  But also, I think, in a session like this, let's not just look at the technology that exists today but let's look at the trends.  And I'm sure there would be other people from business or tech who could talk about this where technology could be going today, which I think is kind of the implication here.  But, as I say, it's hardly -- it seems to be missing that dimension.  Thanks.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: So it would be suggested to look at trends as well.

  >>PAUL WILSON:  The tech, community participation, and suggested policies, technical standards and future -- and trends of technologies in deployments.


  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  So they've invited five speakers.  And one of them is also the moderator.  I see space for engagement between the technical community, and also there is a government representation.  But we still have space.  So they can certainly be advised to get more speakers in.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  The next one is row number 42, Proposal ID 60.  Oh, sorry.  Row number 41, Proposal ID 94, "Creating, Protecting, and Providing Access to Digital Culture."

 Next one is row number 42, Proposal ID 60, "Global Access Connecting the Next Billion Global Citizens."

 The next one is row 43 -- Anriette.  Sorry.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  I'm not sure about that workshop, "Global Access Connecting the Next Billion Citizens."  It has a big panel.  I'm not sure what the policy question is and what's new.  I'm wondering if they shouldn't participate in the access and if this is not a best practice candidate.  So, you know, I'm not -- I would like them -- if we keep them, I would like them to articulate more clear policy questions that they will address and to look at the number of speakers that they've got.

 >> I didn't give this my highest ranking, but this does stand by itself.  You have a number of speakers who are going to cover a number of policy topics.  This would qualify -- we talked last night about the desirability of perhaps rating the different panels as intro, expert, super expert.  This is intro.


  >>MARILYN CADE:  I actually do think we need to keep it.  And I think it is very well-articulated.  It is -- the proposer is someone who has had great reports of -- and very well-attended workshops in the past.  And I think the writeup is very good.  

 I think there's two questions to me.  One is the titles between the two workshops need to be different enough that people can identify.  And then they need to be scheduled on different days.  But I think it's -- it goes into a different area than the other one is going into.  So I think they're complementary, and I would propose keeping both of them and just asking the two organizers to differentiate the titles and then ask the secretariat to make sure they're not on the same day.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you.  The next one is row number 43, Proposal ID 70, "Open Data and Data Publishing Governance in Big Data Age."

 Any comments?  No.  

 Row number 44, Proposal ID 163, "Building Alliances to Enhance Internet Affordability."  No comment on that one.  Row 45.  Proposal ID 206, "An Evidence-Based Intermediary Liability Policy Framework."

 No comment on that one.  

 Row number 46, Proposal ID 201, "Building Local Content, Creation Capacity.  Lessons Learned."

 Yes, Paul.

 >>PAUL WILSON:  Frankly, this sounded quite oriented towards the end of town.  And I would have thought that the entrepreneurial grassroots content providers would have been an important aspect to this topic.  Thanks.


  >>MARILYN CADE:  I think yesterday we said that was a requirement that we wanted to ask them to do that.  But some of us may need to help them find those entrepreneurial -- I can volunteer through AflCTA from Africa to ask them to identify a couple of Africans, Paul.  So maybe --

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  I see in the comments that someone proposed that they merge with other workshops.  Did we not pick up on that?

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The -- we had the merger discussion yesterday.  Did we -- I think we didn't --

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

 Oh, I see, I see.

 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Chengetai is right.  We had the merger discussion about the other ones that were suggested, and I think we determined that this did not make sense.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  The next one is row number 47, Proposal ID 3, "Cloud Computing and" -- Mission to Mission -- "Machine to Machine, Impacts for Emerging Economies."  No comments on that one.  

 Row number 48, Proposal ID 17, "Privacy as Innovation II."  No comments.

 Row number 49, Proposal ID 51, "Connecting the Continent Through Fiberoptic."



 [ Speaker off microphone ]


  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  The comment here was the regional -- the lack of regional diversity.  So this is at the moment kind of one region proposal.  So is that okay?  I'm just -- just raising what's in the comments.


  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  We had this discussion a little bit yesterday because we had a couple other proposals that were regional.  I see nothing wrong with looking at the Middle East.  I would see something wrong with just looking at Persia.  So perhaps getting -- we do have Kuwait.  We have Afghanistan.  So I don't see that this is -- no need to go global when the topic is was going on in the Middle East.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Row number 51, Proposal ID 19, "Empowering Global Use Through Digital Citizenship."


  >>MARILYN CADE:  I actually collaborated with some of the young folks from the U.K. four years ago in one of the first workshops on digital citizenship.  And that engagement has really evolved.  

 I'm not making a suggestion the workshop not take place, but I am making a suggestion that the organizers be invited to make sure that some youth are also aware of and advising on the best practice area so that it's not just all practitioners and academics, et cetera, but there's also the voice of youth coming in to the development of the best practice forum.  

 We've done three youth forums in a row at IGF U.S.A.  The engagement of youth on their own behalf is absolutely fantastic.  So I'm just asking to call for the organizers of this group to have some advisory input so there's really the voice of youth coming in to the best practice forum.


  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This speaks to the scheduling concerns.  It would be good, I think, to have some of these workshops before the best practices session and try not to scatter things over all four days.  Because, in some cases, if people have a particular interest in a theme, they may only come for two or three days.  

 It's also not just about participants.  It's about the press, the camera crews, the documentary people.  If they saw that in one day there were four different workshops on a topic, they might make a special trip to Istanbul.  If they saw that the same topic was being covered four times over four days, they didn't have the time to invest.  So clumping, tracking, that can make a huge difference in how well-attended some of these sessions will be.

 >> Thank you.  Sorry to go back to the list.  We haven't examined the 150 Internet governance issues and roles.  Thank you.  We moved directly from 51 to 19.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Row number 50, just to go back.  Proposal ID 152, "Internet Governance, Challenges, Issues and Roles."

 >> Again, I would like to go again to my position, panelists on government are very relevant.  Would like to have panelists on government especially developing countries.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Next one is -- sorry, Izumi.

  >>IZUMI AIZU:  Sorry.  I was reading the comments.  It's too broad or at least with the current formulation.  So I would like just the organizer to say -- show certain topics inside of this basket and also invite government people who might add value.  Thank you.


  >>MARILYN CADE:  There was another workshop that was a proposed roundtable that was declined yesterday that I was invited to be a co-moderator.  So I'm not acting as a proponent, but I'm pointing out there are government speakers on that other list, a number of government speakers, including the trade minister for Costa Rica, who is confirmed.  There's two other government speakers from developing country regions. Maybe we could ask this group to go -- and I'm happy to put them in touch with the other organizer.  Maybe they could pull, if they're interested, some of the government speakers.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  We're going to go to row 52, Proposal ID 139, "Evaluating MS Mechanisms to Address Governance Issues."

 Marilyn then Mark.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm actually looking at Subi who had to step out.  There are a number of workshops that are about evaluating multistakeholder mechanisms or addressing the evolution.  The only thing -- I'm not going to comment on this workshop.  I'm only going to flag that the topical workshops that are related to the evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem or to multistakeholder evolution, I think on the main panel that Subi and several others and I are working on, we're going to want to be able to draw from those workshops.  So the scheduling is going to be important for us in terms of when these are all scheduled.  But I'm not making a comment on the workshop.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Mark.

  >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I have to beg your indulgence and go back to 152.  I'm having trouble keeping up actually.  'Tis a bit of a race.

 Did I understand one of the comments from -- the comment from Izumi was that this was too broad?  I would disagree with it -- that comment.  Because I think the purpose, as I understood it, of this workshop is we're to look at the kind of challenge that we, actually, as the MAG and the IGF constructors are addressing in how to ensure that all the discussions that are going on about various policy issues, policy developments, technology, emerging issues, are made easier to understand by stakeholders, in particular, those stakeholders that are resource deprived.  Unless I misunderstood 152, I thought that was the purpose, not to look at individual issues but look at the challenge of how to deal with the problems that the complexities of Internet governance create for stakeholders.  That was my understanding of 152.  But I don't want that message to go to the organizers saying, you know, reduce the scope.  I don't think I agree with it.  Thank you.

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  Mike.

  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just to concur, that's exactly how I read it.  It's about process, not specific policy issues.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.  The next one is Row Number 53, Proposal ID 97, "Will Cyber-Space Fragment Along National Jurisdictions?"


 >>ANDREW MAURER:  Thank you.  We had an earlier workshop, "The Cost of Fragmentation."  It's not a comment I would provide to them but in terms of scheduling or tracking, having them in relative proximity so one can build on the other could be very useful.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Row Number 54, Proposal ID 62, "Internet Infrastructure:  Technology and Terminology."

 Okay.  No comments.  I'll now pass it back to Janis.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Yuliya, please.

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Okay.  I was just wondering, is this the capacity-building session or it's a workshop?  Because for me, it's more like for capacity-building best practices.  So I was not clear adequately about the format where it should fit.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  But it was to be given a slot so that distinction doesn't really matter for this discussion.  Yeah.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  It took slightly longer than I thought, this exercise, and we -- maybe we can skip the discussion of those 17 workshops that we put on the list yesterday because we had discussion and secretariat will look through our debate about those and would provide recommendations for the organizers on those 17, and I would now like to suggest to go on with those workshops that have been scored the highest and maybe take three of them, starting with one on Line 73, as I understand, in your new spreadsheet, "Local Content Creation and Dissemination."

 Please, Mike.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  You're proposing, then, to just go step by step through the remaining ones?

 The homework that was given was to go and see if there were ones that various people had identified as being problematic because they were not accepted.  Is there a way to very quickly maybe just go through the next 20, just name the number and people can put a hand up if they thought there was a need to look at it?

 Because I worry that we're going to miss some of the ones that -- you know, there might be seven people who feel passionately about one that's further down the list that we'll never get to, whereas some of these we might go, "Okay, it won't really add very much," but that really important new topic won't get covered.

 So just as a way of doing a vote, you know, maybe we can put our hands up and people can specify that they found one really exciting even though it didn't get a very high ranking.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  We still have at least a dozen workshops to identify, okay?

 If you -- if you insist, maybe we could now make one round and -- please put all flags down now -- and those who have made homework and would like to indicate the workshops who should be absolutely on the list, please now put your flags up.

 Okay.  So that's it, right?

 Now we will just take the number and title of those workshops and we will -- we will list them and the secretariat will be prepared to put them on the screen, let's say, in 5, 10 minutes from now, okay?

 Let's start with Igor.  You just say number -- ID Number -- if you know the line, ID number, and the title.  

 Igor, please.

 >>IGOR MILASHEVSKY:  Thank you.  Number 102, "Workshop on internet and Social Council Information."

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Anriette?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Oh, okay.  Andrew?

 >>ANDREW MAURER:  Number 99, "Digital Inclusion Policies for the Forgotten Billion."  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Paul Wilson?

 >>PAUL WILSON:  I'm sorry.  I'm with Anriette as well.  I haven't done my homework.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Michael?

 >>MIKE NELSON:  The issue that I think we need to get on the agenda -- and I -- and this is the most sensitive topic -- is about censorship and what's going on in Turkey.  We had a whole bunch of proposals on that.  It's going to be interesting how we deal with this.

 A number of the proposals were not very good, but I would hope that we will have some opportunity to look at censorship in the Middle East, you know, not just focusing on Turkey but this is going -- it's -- 

 It will be very odd if we have this four-day meeting in Turkey and one of the hottest issues on the mind of everyone is not addressed.

 So it's -- as I say, this is sensitive.  I understand.  We don't want to just focus on Turkey.  And that's why I think a number of these ones that did just focus on Turkey were not good, not well ranked, but we're looking at censorship in Iran, we're seeing more censorship in Saudi Arabia, there's -- this is -- this is an important issue and it would be just bizarre to have a meeting and not have a panel on this topic.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  If you -- if you recall, Mike, yesterday I tried to promote several times the principle of not naming people, naming companies, naming devices, naming countries, and so on.  

 So every issue should be on the agenda, including censorship, including freedom of expression, including blocking, but in U.N. sort of circles, there is an agreed principle not to finger-point and -- address the issue rather than finger-point on a specific country.

 So therefore, issues related to censorship will be discussed in IGF and there will be specific examples mentioned, but we will not put on the agenda any workshop which specifically points out a country, whatever country it is, being host country or being United States or being U.K.  No.  It will be specifically we will talk about issues and these -- this is the way how it always has been and will be the standard rule.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  And I fully agree with that approach.  I'm just saying that there were some excellent proposals with some excellent people from different aspects of this issue and I don't think we've put enough time and attention into those panels.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  

 Paul Wilson, you are ready now?

 >>PAUL WILSON:  I had -- yes.  I had flagged a couple of -- a number of proposals which I'm afraid were poorly written and incomplete but which had important topics, and I think one that relates exactly to what Mike just mentioned is 130, which is "Impact of Internet Freedom on Economic Growth," and I think it -- I think the short description does explain very well the -- an interesting topic that's very much related to what Mike was mentioning.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That was 130?

 >>PAUL WILSON:  130, yeah.


 >>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you.  114, "Developing Countries Participation in ICANN Policies, GNSO."

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Didn't we agree on that?  No.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  It says "Unresolved."

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  It is resolved.  We just resolved this morning.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Okay.  Well, you mean --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We resolved there will be a change of title and the recommendation is to make the discussion broader --

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Okay.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- and we retained that workshop on the agenda.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.


 >>UNECA:  Yes.  Proposal Number 7, "From Ideas to Solutions:  Funding Challenges for Internet Development."  This is a proposal from three continents and I think they held the same workshop last year in Bali and it was well-attended and they have -- they're bringing also stakeholders from the three continents to discuss issues and give them prices.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Ricardo?

 >>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS:  Thank you, Chair.  

 I have a couple of suggestions.  One is the Workshop 43, "Multistakeholder Culture of Cyber-Security."  I think this is something that attracts a lot of government representatives and should be added to the ones that have been already accepted.

 And the second one is not a workshop but it's the idea of having a session or space for the interregional and national IGF, just to bring this conversation back.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You refer to the meeting of the organizers of regional and national IGFs.  Okay.  But we do not need to have a specific room for that.  We're talking about allocation of rooms during the -- I mean, meeting rooms, workshop rooms.  That meeting can take place in any other room, not necessarily in those meeting rooms, and that's a different -- bit of a different story.

 Marilyn, we'll come back to you.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  I think there's a topic -- and I had looked at all of the workshops that address the topic, but I'm not sure that we've fully addressed the topic.  So I'm not focusing on a particular workshop, I'm focusing on the topic.

 The inclusion of trade and investment and the relationship to Internet governance and the access issues, et cetera, I don't -- I'm not sure we have enough focus on that with enough diversity.

 I know we have a couple of workshops, but I just want to flag it for us to look at.

 And my other -- some of the other workshops I wanted to mention have already been mentioned but I just want to raise a possibility to fellow MAG members to think that we reserve five slots that the secretariat may come back to as we see how the merging/non-merging goes and as we assess the kaleidoscope thoroughly to see what the balance looks like and to have a little discretion on the part of the secretariat.  

 We may also find that the best practice -- that all of the folks we're sending to the best practice approach may not embrace that approach, and that would allow a little bit of flexibility for the discretion of the secretariat.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Yuliya.  Do we have another Yuliya in the room?

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  No.  Sorry.  Thank you.  I would suggest taking into account the Workshop 198, which is "Social and Economic Justice Issues," first of all, because it's a newcomer.  Second, it's a very -- you don't have a lot of workshop proposals on this topic, and once again, it will consider the most disadvantaged people and this particular target group, which is, I believe, very important to include in the Internet governance discussion.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.


 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  Subi Chaturvedi.  

 Well, I do think we've mostly covered the suggestions, but I would strongly recommend and second the idea of reserving some slots.  One of our best and most attended sessions was the issue on emerging issues on surveillance but that becomes a big main.

 Yesterday we mentioned the right to be forgotten.  Closer to the event, there might be other issues and we might wish to keep some slots to reserve them.

 Second, the meeting that we mentioned about national and regional IGFs, I hope it will be on the calendar, and if it's done as a workshop, it just gets more people in.

 Otherwise, the message that we send out is, it is only a meeting between the coordinators of the national and regional initiatives.  So that's just my concern, because last time we had absolutely no one attending on Day 3 the meeting that was held.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Michael?

 >>MIKE NELSON:  I wanted to come back to this point about convening the organizers of the national and regional IGFs.

 You indicated that there wasn't a need to talk about that now, but I would argue that we need to have that on the program, it needs to be an allocated workshop.  That's the only way we're going to get the organizers and the people who care about the IGFs to come together.

 So I would strongly support the proposal that's been floating around the room.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Understood.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  The second point is a panel I was quite excited about that got terrible rankings, about 3.0, was Proposal Number 207, which is "Digital Activist Meet-up," and I -- from the comments, it's very clear that people -- this probably had one of the highest standard deviations.  From the comments, it's very clear that people looked at that and said, "Oh, that's not a workshop, so" -- but it's a birds of a feather session.  Some really interesting groups were going to come together and have their own informal roundtable and they got completely nailed for not having confirmed speakers and not having announced topics because they were going to get together and figure out what to do.  

 And so I think we need to make room for some of these birds of a feather sessions and next year, perhaps, explicitly realize that you can apply that.  So it's "Digital Activist Meet-up."

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Anriette?  Anriette, please?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you.  I'm being torn between agreeing with one business person and not with another.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And thanks, Janis.

 I have quite a few.  

 I agree with Mike Nelson on the digital activist on 207.  I mean, it isn't -- it isn't structured as a workshop but I think maybe, you know, we need to think of a way of accommodating it.

 So there are two that I felt should be open forums.  91 and 50.

 91 is -- one of them is this African -- launch of the African declaration on Internet freedom.  I thought it's not a workshop but it should be given an open forum.  It's a new initiative.  Lillian here can say more about it.  So I think a sharing session for them is good.

 And then the other one -- sorry, this is such a long spreadsheet -- 50 -- which one -- can you just help me, Chengetai, by going to the ones that I'm referring to?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Oh, thanks a lot, Nick.  

 So the Global Commission on Internet Governance as well.  That's the Carl Bildt Commission.  Again, they put in an application for a workshop.  It didn't score that high but it's a two-year initiative on the future of the IG ecosystem.  I think we need to consider giving them an open forum space, even if it's a shorter sharing space.

 And then Workshop 195, "The Internet Age Adapting to a New Copyright Agenda."

 I think it was quite a strong workshop proposal and it's such an important issue and we don't have very many workshops on that, as Marilyn pointed out earlier.

 So I think that's an important one.

 Then 74, "Enabling Affordable Access, the Changing Role of the Regulator."  I thought, again, that was actually quite a strong proposal and regulators are an important constituency for us.  We don't want them to only go to ITU meetings.  So I do think accommodating that should be considered.

 Then 147.  And here I agree with Mike.  I think we do need to accommodate the large number of workshop proposals, and I think, Janis, maybe the way that we can do it is to have a roundtable but quite a big roundtable or even a main session on blocking and censorship, and then we give people from multiple countries an opportunity to talk about the issue, and that means we don't exclude one particular country and we don't exclude host country issues, but we also don't focus only on host country issues.

 And it is a global problem.  It's not just one country that is -- is dealing with this.  It's a common problem.

 So I -- I agree with you, Janis, and I agree with Mike.  I don't think we can ignore it but I think we can find a way of broadening it without ignoring it.

 Then 196.  And I'm nearly done, I promise.

 196.  "IGF and Enhanced Cooperation, Parallel Tracks or Connected Agendas," whatever it was.

 I -- I think that one, if I remember correctly, looks at the CSTD working group, and I think that is such an important issue and that -- and I think what happened last week is so contentious that if we don't reflect on that in quite a focused way at the IGF, we'll be missing a very important political opportunity.

 And then the last one I had was 71.

 71 -- I mean, some of this could be merged, so 71, "Privacy Surveillance in the Cloud, One Year On," that scored highly and I'm not sure, is it accepted or not?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I just thought that that is such an important issue and it was such a key topic in the IGF.  

 I'm not even sure who proposed it now, but I -- because I don't really know who proposed it, but I -- I just thought it scored highly, it's almost made it, big topic, hot topic.  We should try and include it.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  You see we have already almost like a Christmas tree growing.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Sorry, Janis.  I forgot that I agreed with Yuliya, 198, the one on social justice.  I think it's the only workshop on that topic.  And I really agree with Yuliya.  We should include that.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Why I'm collecting these proposals now it is to put them on a separate spreadsheet that we can go through them one by one and then discuss them and decide.  Okay?

 And, again, I'm taking the proposals from MAG members only.  

 Fiona, please.

  >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you, Janis. Just a voice of support on how to deal with the censorship issue and do it in a broader discussion form, if that's what you propose.  I did a quick skim of the workshops we already accepted.  There's one on blocking, but I didn't see anything on existing workshops on free expression.  Maybe I'm missing something, and you can help me figure that out.  But just a way to accommodate this in whatever way you're willing to propose, I'm willing to take into account.  But I think we have to do something.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Hossam.

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  I'm just pointing to workshop number 10.  We don't have enough on development.  It's quite good.  Some speakers, maybe we can diversify adding one or two from developing countries.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  What is the topic?

 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  The topic is "New Global Visions for Internet Governance, ICTs and Trade." 

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Izumi.

  >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  I don't disagree with the UN rule of not to finger point any entity.  But, looking at the guideline, I haven't seen that explicitly mentioned.  So maybe for the next round it might be much more helpful to somehow accommodate these languages so that there will be no misunderstanding.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we will fine tune the recommendations and principles for 2015.  Carolina.

  >>CAROLINA AGUERRE:  Thank you.  I support Anriette's proposal for having an open forum for the workshop.  I think this is an important round of experts that have interesting comments to bring in and fruitful work for the following 24 months on Internet governance.  

 The other one that I would like to support is workshop 31.  I think it is providing a different perspective combining multistakeholder arguments and multilateralism in a very interesting concept to variable geometry.  And I think there's a lot of scope there.  I would like to see more developing countries representatives in that session.  

 I really think session 208 on zero rating has a very important concept on net neutrality and how to approach it from a developing country perspective.  

 And I also find it very interesting session 106, the "Ranking ICT companies on Freedom of Expression and Privacy" perspective.  Thank you very much.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I hope secretariat is tracking all the proposals.  I'm trying but not always possible.

 We're already far too many.


  >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.  Just lending my support to two workshops that were mentioned by other colleagues.  Workshop 196.  It comes from a developing country, and I think we can work with organizers and encourage them to finalize a list of panelists and add more diversity to the panel.  

 The other one is workshop 10.  It addresses a very important issue of how national policies and governance at national level impacts the economic growth and the -- what we call today the digital economy.  It's a very relevant topic.  Even though the proposal comes from the United States, but the issue is very relevant to developing economies as well.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  We'll have a chance to go through them and support as well.

 So Veronica.

  >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  Very briefly, I would love to see number 208, which focuses on net neutrality, and the data.  Not just to say it is important.  It's valuable.  There is a valuable discussion taking place there, especially if they manage to bring the representatives of the developing countries.  So I'd love to see it on the list.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Olga.

  >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chair.  Supporting Carolina's comments about having -- adding 31 to the list.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Mark.

  >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Just a suggestion with regard to this question about how the IGF can handle censorship and blocking and so on.  The workshop proposal 193 about press freedom, looking at the description, it encompasses how Internet governance choices impact on press freedom.  It's a roundtable about the rules of technology, academia, journalists, and protecting source confidentiality and otherwise ensuring the free flow of information from the press to the global public.  We U.K. and others define the press as, you know, encompassing media actors, bloggers, whatever.  So maybe that's the potential avenue for bringing this important issue to the IGF forum.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Please, those who have spoken already, please put your flags down.  And those who want to speak still, please keep flags up so that I see.  Virat.

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chair, I'm going to support 71.  It's a really good proposal.  But, as I said, if you want to do surveillance, we should get the government in that.

 Also support 208 on net neutrality.  Again, if you want to discuss net neutrality, get investors and operators, including small new entrants in the developing countries, into these two proposals.  But they're really good.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  My comment is in response to something Anriette said.  Workshop 215, which was not accepted for a number of reasons, is actually about the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation and increasing developing country participation.

 So I want to make two points.  One, it's my understanding that the secretariat may have been in touch with -- that the CSTD secretariat or the UNCTAD may be in touch with the secretariat about CSTD and UNCTAD, which may be where the CSTD working group and outcomes of CSTD on both aspects could be reported.

 But I do think it is important someplace to be able -- and I had assumed that we would address it in the public -- in the main session at a minimum.  So I do think that we will address the CSTD topic and a readout at least that way and maybe in an open forum.  

 But my second point is I really want us to adhere to the criteria on open forums.  And, if there is a reason to give a different group a workshop, I don't want to change the criteria for open forum.  I think it has too many implications.  

 I hope that answered two points.  Yes, there ought to be a way to get the CSTD report at least into the main session.  If they ask for an open forum, they're an IGO.  They, of course, would be given one, I think.  And, secondly, I don't support changing the overall criteria for open forum allocation.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Lillian.

 >>LILLIAN NALWOGA:  Thank you, I'm in support of three workshops.  One is workshop 91, "The Launch of an African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms."  I do agree with Anriette.  Maybe if it can be given -- can be considered as an open forum.  There are quite underlying issues that would need some kind of global attention.

 The other workshops is workshop 26 and workshop 155.  I think these two need to be considered, but they need to be merged.  And they both are talking about data trust and human rights.  Whereas, workshop 155 does not have panelists.  I think the idea is same as workshop 26, which has, I think, contacted panelists.  So I think these two should be considered but with a possible merge.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Sorry.  You're trying to hide from us.

 >>Unfortunately, I'm a little bit behind today.  I'd like to include two of them, the first one -- Proposal ID 130, "Impact of Internet Freedom on Economic Growth."  But I think I would change it around to say "Internet Growth on Internet Freedom."  I think that's a really important topic and something that countries who would be looking to do some sort of censorship may want to be interested in.  And the next one, cybersecurity and public policy.  I think that is extremely important for developing countries and particularly for small island states.  And I'd like to see something like that included in all of the workshops.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Subi.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Subi Chaturvedi.  I just want -- to the point that Marilyn made.  There's -- we have about 12 slots for open forums.  And there's a reason why we give large organizations open forums because they've done a lot of work and they're mature and ready.  While I thought it's an important proposal, the CGI proposal and 24 months of work ahead, they just made the announcement.  I think they would be more ready when they've done some work along the process.  So I don't sort of support that idea.  

 And, second, I very strongly want to support Mike Nelson's proposal for 207.  The IGF is a safe space.  And, if digital activists find this as a safe space to meet up and discuss issues, some of the most interesting organic discussions happen in those spaces. So I think they should be given that space.  Second is a process question.  I do agree this is looking like a Christmas tree.  So how is it that we're going to take calls?  It will then be numerically listed and how they've been ranked, mathematically?  How do we decide which of these now go into the basket?

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  When you run ahead of train, you always run the risk the train will run over you.  I will tell you how we'll proceed.  

 Remote participant.

  >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  We have a question of clarification from William Drake.  

 I had not heard of the U.N. rule of discussing situations in particular countries.  At the IGF Bali, there was a main session focused largely on U.S. surveillance practices.  Was that discussion a relation of U.N. rules, or is the rule that one cannot refer to the situation in a host country?  Either way it is a bit difficult to discuss censorship without referring to concrete examples, and I would be concerned if the IGF was perceived as unable to serve as a platform for open discussions in such pressing matters.  There were multiple relevant proposals from local organizers, several of them high ranked.  So, hopefully, a workable solution can be found.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Bill, for your comment.  And I can only reiterate what I said already.  There are no taboos on subjects that we're discussing.  An example you mentioned -- it was a subject on surveillance, and it was formulated in that way.  Therefore, we will discuss human rights issues and everything relevant to censorship and blocking and filtering and so on.  Certainly, speakers during those sessions will use examples referring to specific cases, referring to specific countries.  And all that will happen.  But, if the workshop proposal is formulated in a way which points to a specific country, that is not according to principles IGF has followed from the very beginning.  Therefore, please rest assured all issues will be discussed in a free and open manner.  What we'll do now is secretariat will put together the list of those workshops which have been mentioned now in a list of order of ranking.  And we will -- this list will be sent out to the MAG list as soon as ready during the lunchtime.  And, coming back at 2:30 sharp, we will go through that list.  Fiona.

  >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you, Janis.  Following up on Bill's intervention, when the secretariat sends a proposal, workshop proposal, could you also forward a proposal specifically how to deal with the censorship blocking issue?  Is there a certain workshop we should look to merge?  I'm just not familiar with all of them at my fingers. Maybe if you could propose a way to apply that, that would be helpful.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  We will do that.  Thank you.  We have another 10 minutes for this session, but we are not prepared to go further in the discussion.  

 Therefore, open question:  Is there anything outside the workshop discussions members of the MAG would like to raise at this moment?

 Anriette.  Oops.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Just I'd like us to come back to format and just consolidate the different types of formats that we can incorporate.  And one that came up briefly yesterday is the idea of poster sessions, actually building more sharing into the booths.  Because the booths play a fairly limited role.  So maybe looking at some of the workshop proposals, similar to subsessions, but maybe also people who are doing research who have data they want to share, to create a space at the IGF room where they can put up preprepared poster sessions.  So that's another modality.  

 And then, just to come back to open forums, best practice, roundtables which, we haven't discussed.  And then the missing main session.

 So we haven't concluded that discussion.  I think that covers it, Janis.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Would you like to --

  >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Yes.  We've heard that.  That's been understood.  And we're going to coordinate with the host country to see whether or not they can be -- just be a space for poster sessions and also just for people to give small group presentations on their work.


 >>GUO LIANG:  Thank you, Chair.  Chengetai just mentioned deadline to proposals to confirm the speakers.  We don't use that.  Every speaker will be confirmed, right?  Do you have a number how many speakers haven't confirmed in the proposed -- then the proposal will be denied or -- that is one question.  

 Other question is do we really need proposer's nationality and residence of country?  That is really confused.  I can see the proposer nationality country and resident is another and organization is a third.  And also, like, UNESCO, it's not a nation.  So is it the choice of international organization or something like that?  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The objective of that exercise was because we were trying to encourage developing country participation, and then how do you say that this proposal comes from -- should be classified as coming from developing countries, because we have exactly those situations where you have somebody who's born in a developing country but is residing in a developed country but may be working for an organization somewhere else.

 For instance, we had one proposal where the person is -- was born in Italy but is working in a developing country for a developing country organization, so in my mind, that's a developing country proposal.  

 But it was just to give the information so that we could make an informed decision whether or not it was developing or developed.

 For the IGO, yes, I mean, that was one of the drawbacks of it, and we're going to try and improve it next year.  I mean, it's a rolling improvement.  It was a trial.  We found out what was the pros and cons of it.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Desiree?

 >>DESIREE ZACHARIAH:  I'm sorry.  It could be a case study which actually looks at excellent proposals and why they're excellent, with an identification of the background paper.  

 And I see the benefits to those would include improving development -- developing country participation because they'd be able to go on-line to be able to see excellent proposals.  

 Also, one of the things we could also do is have a list or link to individuals who have the expertise in various countries.

 So I would have a list of persons in Antigua or Barbuda or in the rest of the Caribbean, for that matter, to speak with them about possible IG issues.

 In addition to which I'd be willing to work along with any group that is developed to do that.  Of course you'd have to have persons much more experienced than myself.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  That is maybe an interesting proposal, to ask organizers maybe to identify the resource persons who can be contacted after and then help out those who need some help.

 Paul Wilson.

 >>PAUL WILSON:  Thank you, Janis.

 On the question of format which Anriette raised, I wonder if another thing that we could do, assuming as I do, I think, that we have some spare room capacity, the number of workshops that we're selecting is lower than the total capacity I think the venue has, I wonder can we make those available for ad hoc or spontaneous meetings, such as the meet-up that Mike Nelson was talking about before?  Whether those go onto the official agenda or whether they are announced officially by the IGF secretariat is a question, I guess.  They could be left entirely in the hands of whoever is being given access to the room but I would suggest that we make use of whatever spare capacity that the venue has to allow people to request that kind of request for that kind of meet-up for people who have the need to do so during the event.  Thanks.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we can.  We do have the bilateral meetings and also we will allow people to ask for meeting rooms which -- which aren't guaranteed the full set of, you know, remote participation, et cetera.  But yes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Remote participant.

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  We have a comment from Nnenna Nwakanma about the previous discussion.

 I think I support the secretariat listing full details.  I, Nnenna, I work for Web Foundation.  It is based in Washington.  I am Nigerian and I live in Cote d'Ivoire.  Thank you.


 >>ANDREW MAURER:  Thank you, Chair.  There's some spooky or strange psych thing going on because I was going to talk about the unallocated rooms as well.  

 I don't think we need to fill in every session in every room.  In my view, in terms of scheduling, if there's an empty room that's consistently kept free so people know that if they want to spill over from a session where they want to keep on talking, they can, or, as Paul said, you know, an impromptu session can somehow be set up.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Please put down flags those who have spoken already.

 Mark?  U.K.?

 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Yes.  Thanks.  I'd just be grateful for a quick recap where we are on child protection.

 Are all the workshop proposers going to be invited to contribute to the best practice forum and we have no separate sort of workshop left?  Is that -- my understanding correct, or is there anything -- have I missed something?  Sorry.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for the question.  We will answer it in -- after the lunch break.


 >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you, Chair.  I may pose a stupid question, but with that risk, is there any question about the number of times a person appears as a speaker and/or moderator, et cetera?  I have some mixed feel about that.

 On the one hand, as we agreed this year that MAG members are discouraged from proposing the workshop proposals, that the spirit is to enlarge or encourage the full wider diverse participation, and yet if you see, many names, same names, appear on many, many workshops.  I have the feeling that it may not be really in line with the spirit.  

 So my take is that maybe it's a good idea to have some kind of (indiscernible) rethinking or restriction to these speakers, if you're asked five times during the week, something like that.

 But I'm not too sure, because there's some real good speakers I'd like to hear three times or five times a day, so I don't want to restrict that.  Thank you.  I'm a stupid guy.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  It is easier to formulate than to ensure.

 Jivan, please.

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  A couple of things.  First, on format as well, during yesterday's meeting after -- in the evening, a few good ideas came up, actually, that could be implemented even this year.

 One of them, for instance, was to have experts that can be -- they register themselves and allow themselves to be asked by people who don't know about a given idea.  

 So that somebody who doesn't know, for instance, about spam can go to a given room, or wherever it is, and ask an expert on spam anything they need to know, and for 10 minutes they can pick their brain.

 So we've had good ideas like that that were discussed yesterday and I think that it's good that we implement them.  How do we decide on those kinds of things?

 And as a follow-up as well, how do we -- like what did we decide on the issues that were raised on this working group on improving IGF outcomes?  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I will respond to that in the afternoon.


 >>MIKE NELSON:  Just to build on that, another proposal that came up yesterday night was for a new format which fortunately will not require any effort on the staff -- on the part of IGF staff, but the new format would be a pre-conference Webinar, and this would be a way to build excitement about the IGF.  I've seen this done incredibly successfully by Tim O'Reilly and the Strata Conference on big data.  They do these conferences and for two months in advance of the conference, they preview some of the most exciting speakers and panels.

 I could help do a few of these.  I'm sure other people could do the same.  

 But taking two or three proposers, giving them an hour to brief the issues -- you know, five minutes, six minutes -- and then have a discussion with a Webinar audience, would give people a sense of what's coming, highlight the reporters who might care about that issue.  It would be almost free because, you know, the technology is there, and as I say, it would not require a lot of effort on IGF staff.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for that proposal.  ESCWA?

 >>UNESCWA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 Actually, to add to what Jivan has mentioned, some of the ideas that popped up last evening, there was the idea of certain, like, visual guide or kind of categorization of the level of depth of each of the workshops or sessions in a way to help people to choose.  

 For example, if I'm a newcomer, I will go to this place because I would -- I've seen that the content is like introductory.  If I'm a very well-versed expert, this workshop or this session has a dot or a color that says that it is an advanced topic so there is no introductory and things like that.  

 So by like three colors, green, red -- something like that -- by the secretariat put aside each of the events, the 120 events, it could help people to really improve their choices, and it can be like a slight improvement that can be done very smoothly without complications.

 The same also to categorize if this topic -- the issue itself is emerging or mature, that it is ready for policy propositions.

 So by this kind of like dot categorization, you can help people make choices.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This will be done.  This is an idea that we would pursue.


 >>MARILYN CADE: So some of my questions, I think, have already been asked so I'm going to go to only the ones that haven't been asked.

 We've talked about the role of mentors and coaches.  In the past we have had a list of potential speakers but I think maybe we also ought to be developing the list of -- and it shouldn't -- I don't think it has to be restricted to MAG members.  There are many experienced workshop organizers and participants who could act as mentors and coaches and assistants, but we ought to think a little bit about what that means so people don't -- the organizer doesn't feel like they're being interfered with.  It's really someone who is there to help.  That's Point Number 1.

 The second point I would make is, it would be very helpful -- I'm potentially interested in still working on a day zero session which would be appropriate to take place in parallel to the high-level segment because it would not be targeted toward high-level attendees, so I'd like to know from the secretariat at some point if there's still the possibility of proposing a day zero session.

 My third question is, we have a number of dynamic coalitions proposed to have space.  There are criteria for dynamic coalitions.  And I'd like to hear from the MAG perspective, from the secretariat, at some point if all of the dynamic coalitions meet the criteria.

 The fourth point is, in the past some of the regional IGFs, in particular, have used a room just to meet face-to-face.  Not to do a -- an event, but they needed to meet because they rarely get to meet.  And that's something that I'm aware that the Persian IGF, for instance, may be interested in that.  I think some of the others.  So it's a room question that I just want to park.

 And my final point is really to the host.  In the past, in some of the hotels there has not been free Internet access, and for many conference participants this has presented an economic burden for them and so they've wanted to stay at the venue for an hour or two after the conference ends so that they can do work.  So I just want to park that as a -- a thing to be thought about by the secretariat because it was a big burden to -- in certain other countries, particularly when attendees had to go by bus for a far distance.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Marilyn, for the questions.  UNECA?

 >>UNECA:  I wanted to know if one workshop proposer, a person or an institution, has been requested for two or three of his workshops to be merged, is he forced to do so or he can say, "No, I'm going to run them separately because I have a high mark"?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That, the secretariat will engage with the workshop organizers on a case-by-case basis.

 Fatima, the last one before breaking for lunch.

 >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Thanks, Janis.  A brief comment in relation with Mike's comments.  In the capacity-building group, we are planning an IGF multilingual Webinar for the newcomers, but not only for them.  In collaboration with other organizations like DiploFoundation and ISOC.  Mike, you and others interested can join us to organize this Webinar.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Thank you very much.  That brings us to the end of this session.  We're meeting at 2:30 sharp, going through the list of identified workshops items, and we'll -- 

 Please be punctual and be here at 2:30.  

 And a reminder that the donors group is meeting at 1:20 in Room 2.005.  Thank you.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Which meeting?


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So that -- you may gather here, if you wish, in this room.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yeah.  So if -- can people -- let's gather here now and then we can decide when to meet, because some people need to be at both meetings.  

 So that's the group who will talk when how to follow up on NETmundial momentum in the IGF.

 1:20 -- okay.  Let's make it 1:20 here, and those that have to be in the donor meeting will just have to find a to split up.

 So 1:20 in this room, NETmundial, IGF, 2014.

 [ Break ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Apologies for the late start.  Let us move on and --

 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Before getting to the discussion of proposed workshops, let me ask Anriette, maybe, to inform us about the results or outcomes of the discussion about day zero, NETmundial.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Janis, and thanks to everyone who gave up their lunchtime.

 We talked about two broad areas:  The NETmundial in the context of IGF 2014; and we also tried to make sure that we complemented the meeting yesterday that Ljupco organized on strengthening IGF outcomes.  So we've come up with the following proposals, and we would like the secretariat to include in this year's program a session during the main IGF -- so not a pre-event -- on IGF strengthening, and we would leave it up to your wisdom to assess whether this is a workshop or a roundtable or a forum, but we'd like this to be open and to focus on particularly the four dimensions of strengthening that were identified in the NETmundial roadmap document.

 So that would be strengthening outcomes of the IGF; the second one was extending the IGF mandate beyond five years; the third one is a stable, predictable financial base for the IGF; and the fourth one was intersessional activity, so continuity -- thank you, Andrew -- and taking the IGF process and consolidating it from session to session.

 So we also would like this session to make use of the on-line environment to submit prior inputs, and we would encourage that session not just to be an open discussion but to start with some preparatory work that had been done on strengthening outcomes, for example, because that's a process that's being led, and there are some people that are working on strengthening the financial base.  

 And I think, Janis, you yourself have started some work on extending the mandate and demonstrating the impacts.  So that this is not just a discussion; it can actually come up with some recommendations which could then be included in the chairman's report.

 Secondly, we talked about NETmundial in the program of the 2014 IGF, and here we would like to ask the secretariat to tag all the workshops, forums, and other events or sessions during the IGF that touch on a topic that's related to NETmundial.

 So that would be either to some of the substantive issues identified as unresolved in the NETmundial document, topics such as surveillance or net neutrality, but also process.  Process issues.

 And once we know which event organizers we should talk to, we have a small group of volunteers -- and we'll send their names to the list -- who will then contact the organizers of these events and have a conversation with them about how, if possible, they can give consideration to the NETmundial statement in their proceedings.

 Thirdly, we would like to organize a pre-event on day zero.  Presumably it will just be a half day so as not to conflict with the ministerial.  And we'd like this pre-event to do things.

 Firstly, spend some time on process and reflecting on what the NETmundial means as a multistakeholder decision-making process.  We'll analyze it, we'll look at lessons that have been learned and how it can be improved and what the implications are for going forward with this process.  Operationalizing the principles, for example, but also using this modality in other forums, including the IGF.

 And secondly, we want to dedicate at least half of this day, this pre-event half-day session, on discussing one particular issue.

 We have identified the issue of net neutrality as one which is most mature and ready for discussion, and while there wasn't full agreement on how to label net neutrality as a principle in the NETmundial statement, there's a lot of consensus on what is meant by openness, and then there's a lot of difference in how different regulatory environments approach it.  And we feel that even by just capturing these differences, we can take the discussion forward and we can come up with proposals for how the IGF system at the national and regional level can take this forward.

 So we would co-organize this with the dynamic coalition on net neutrality and we'll make sure that net-neutrality-related session organizers during the IGF participate in this, and our goal will be by the end of not just the pre-event but the main IGF to come up with some -- some suggestions on how to take this forward which could be included in the chairman's report.

 It could also be packaged and documented in some other way.

 And then in terms of -- the first point here is just with both these events, the IGF event during the main program and the NETmundial process, slash, net neutrality event beforehand, we'd like to gather on-line input.

 So we'll announce these events and invite contributions from the Internet community broadly and the IGF community and we'll work on the modalities in more detail in due course but we'll ask for a mailing list, for example, to be set up for each of these two event organizers.

 And then finally, we didn't spend too much time on it, but I think we -- we believe that this process should be reviewed at some point and we'd like to use the 2015 IGF to take stock and reflect on whether this process started in the 2014 IGF has delivered results, in what way and in what way not.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Anriette, for this report, and I think that this is an interesting proposal which outlines -- or builds on the spirit of the NETmundial.

 My only question is related to the first -- first proposal, and that is, organize a special session on IGF strengthening.

 We have a main session on IGF and evolution of Internet governance ecosystem.  That is the place which was designed -- by design meant to discuss IGF strengthening as well, and I -- honestly, I do not think that we would need to have another special session on IGF strengthening, per se, but we could address those four items that you outlined -- outputs, quality of outputs, financial sustainability, the intersessional work, as well as extension of mandate of IGF -- during the main session and we could structure this main session along the lines, taking into account that all those four issues would be addressed.

 I think that that would be the -- otherwise, we're -- I think it's a very good proposal that you just outlined.

 >> (off microphone.)


 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN: Anriette, from the secretariat point of view, could you perhaps work with the group to send a little more detail, when you said to flag the NETmundial issues on the program, because I -- I understand what you mean but I think --

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  We'll make -- Subi took notes for us and once she's had time to compile them, we'll share them with all of you.

 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN: Thank you.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And Brian, just in short, "tag" not "flag."

 >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Tag, yeah.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So tag ones that have -- that relate to either one of the issues, such as surveillance or net neutrality or multistakeholder participation or specific IGF strengthening-related --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  I think we would need to use sort of dots on the program, clearly saying, for instance, "Yellow dot is capacity-building workshop, red dot linked to NETmundial sort of way-forward proposals, blue dot" something else, and so on, so that people, knowing those -- the color -- coloring, they immediately identify what is -- what is what.

 So I really do not want to go in further discussions about that.  We need to go through the program.  I can give maybe 15 seconds each, starting with -- with Subi.  But 15 seconds.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  15 seconds only.

 The way the main session is structured, that was precisely the idea, that we respond to these four questions.  Therefore, we didn't want it to be just process- or event-oriented, and we do intend going and opening it up to the community.  So fantastic suggestions and we'd like to incorporate them in the main.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael, your 15 seconds.

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Yes.  I hoped to be part of this discussion but wasn't able to be there.  A lot of us were not.

 I really am glad to talk about strengthening the IGF, but doing that on day zero I think is problematic because a lot of the experts will be at GigaNet.  I'm very concerned about picking one topic to devote hours to, when there are four -- or several other topics that came out of NETmundial, and I think we could do well to have breakout sessions on surveillance, net neutrality, probably some of the cloud issues and the new issues that are coming, and privacy of course is -- and those issues.


  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chairman, I just want to say, on behalf of ICC basis, I think this is a very important discussion.  Most of us in the business world were in the donor's meeting, so we haven't had any input in to the specific very good recommendation on having a session on something very important.  So we'd like to have some time to have that discussion before the day ends.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jivan.

  >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  I think it is important to have a separate session on IGF.  There are those who say that IGF is going towards decision making and has plans on the Internet governance concept.  So I think it is important to separate that from the Internet governance ecosystem and make sure that there's a specific discussion on it, and especially since so much a part of the NETmundial has been talking about it.  I think this is important that we speak about it separately.  And -- a separate session that would lead into the session on Internet governance ecosystem perhaps.  But 90 minutes -- and we have the slots available.  I think we have those slots available, so we should use them.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You shouldn't be so sure about availability of slots.  We reaching saturation very quickly.  Fiona.

  >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Thank you.  I just wanted to respond to Virat's very good point.  I think Subi is going to type it up. And Anriette, we can send it around to flesh it out a little bit more.  

 But the idea is day zero, it's a half day -- and hour and a half would be on process, and an hour and a half would be just discussing an issue and how it's dealt with in different countries, how it's different in different countries, very much along the line of what folks have been saying, with the idea by the end of the week, if you package things together, things are occurring in different countries, we encourage national IGFs to talk about it and come back next year.  So there's no negotiation.  There's no binding concept.  And I think it gets us to show some forward progress but in a more deliberate way without rushing, which I think were some of the concerns before.  But I think we need a chance to type it up and give folks a chance to look at it and respond to the written version.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  We still have time to prepare this pre- event.  And let us move now to the list of proposed workshops.

 You know that it's -- yes, Marilyn, please.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Janis, my comment is just about the past report.  I was able to hear part of it.  I think it's interesting.  Many of us were in a separate meeting.  So I think we would all look forward to the opportunity to get thoroughly up to date and then be able to provide our feedback.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Certainly you will be available since the mailing list will be open to everybody.

 Can we get on the screen the table?  So what secretariat did was this -- we -- we collected proposals from the MAG members concerning the issues and workshops that had to absolutely be on the agenda, otherwise it wouldn't be properly balanced and would be missing important things.

 So it turned out that 3 out of 21 workshops mentioned in this listing exercise were already approved.

 And that is workshop with ID number 7, with ID number 10, and with ID number 193?

 193.  So, therefore, we need not to return to those, since they're already on the list.

 Further, I asked to put proposed workshops in the order of highest scoring.  And we will take 1 by 1.  And I will ask secretariat to introduce proposal 31

  >>BRIAN GUTTERMAN:  Back to 31.  Internet governance case for variable geometry.  Sorry.  I don't -- go back to whoever proposed it, right?  From the MAG.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  I took secretariat by surprise.  Now we can try now to take MAG members by surprise.  Who put 31 on this list?  You can speak in favor of the motion.

 >> Sure.  It was me, and I think it was Carolina.  I think it's an interesting perspective of a multistakeholder discussion.  Also includes vision from business community.  This is why I think it's important.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Any comments?  And most probably, due to the time, we need to shorten this discussion.  And I would like maybe to listen first if there are any opposition or any concern about putting workshop 31 on the agenda.  Can we get the title?  Internet governance, a case of variable geometry.  Marilyn?

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I guess my recollection was that we spoke positively about it and maybe wanted a couple changes.  I'm looking for Carolina.  I thought there were positive comments about this workshop.  Yeah, okay.

 >> This one is very close to being at our cutoff.  And it's one of the few economics ones.  It's got all the nice criteria. multistakeholder.  Confirmed.  I like this a lot.  I think the problem is the title, quite frankly.  The title is too obscure.

 >> But it's also needed.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Recommendation would be to consider a change in title which would better reflect the thrust of the session.  And we can put it on the list.  U.K., Mark.

  >>MARK CARVELL:  Yeah, I can support this.  I just noted lack of geographical diversity in the participation.  If that can be enhanced, too, in the comments back.  Thanks.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  Need to pay attention to geographical diversity.  Virat.

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  That was my comment.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I see that there is no opposition, and we can add this to the list of workshops.  Move to the next one.  Launch of African declaration of Internet rights and freedoms.  So let me maybe suggest there are a number of events of similar nature.  And maybe we spoke about different type of formats.  And, certainly, that is a very important issue and important initiative of African Union.  So -- and I would say we need to provide platform for that.  But we would not put it in 90-minute session as a workshop.  But we would see the swathe of maybe 60 minutes or 30 minutes.  And we would try to organize kind of a stream of that similar type of announcements of initiatives in the -- throughout the IGF.  And that would be part of it.  Would that be acceptable?

 Okay.  Thank you.  We can then move on to the next one.

 71.  Privacy, surveillance, and the cloud.  One year later.

 So who was talking?  Who was proposing that?  This?  Anriette.

 >> What number are we up now?


  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Do you want me to motivate again why I think we should --

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yes.  Please introduce it.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Can you just open the proposal, please.  I don't know who proposed this.  But this was one of the most relevant topics at the Bali IGF.  And the main session on surveillance, I think has been generally considered as one of the most successful main sessions we've ever had at the IGF.  So I thought that having a discussion on this topic in this IGF is absolutely essential, whether we do that as a workshop or as a roundtable where we bring together all the other workshop proposers including those who have not been accepted to raise this issue or not.  So, actually, I think having not just a workshop is possibly even better.  But -- so, Janis, I haven't come up with a perfect solution for this.  I think the option is either to let this workshop in or to ask these workshop organizers to collaborate with some of the other surveillance links workshop organizers in a roundtable format, possibly a little bit in a larger room.  And that really allows us to reflect on the issue.  And that could also then integrate some of the controversy that emerged during NETmundial.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We certainly have a number, at least three to my recollection, sessions linked with surveillance.  And two of them with a post modern in the title.  So, certainly, we will not lack discussion about surveillance.  And that's -- that is an argument which I would look forward for the consideration.  And, Kossi, please.

 >>KOSSI AMESSINOU:  Can I speak in French?  Okay. 

 [ Speaking in non-English language ] 

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Merci.  [ Speaking in non-English language ]


 >>ANA NEVES.  Thank you very much.  Well, I think that, bearing in mind the context on which this kind of proposal are putting ahead this year, I think this will work very well on this theme.  

 And one thing that is missing in all the proposals, I think, is government.  So, as we already said this morning, we cannot discuss this theme without government.  Besides there are several comments on the other workshops that we already approved that don't have comments and other stakeholders.  So it's -- for this to be seen -- thank you. (Inaudible.)

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE: I'd like to reinforce or agree with what Kossi said, I believe.  And that is that the importance of discussing the cloud, in particular, for businesses from developing countries as well as governments from developing countries is a priority.  But this workshop actually does not, to me, reflect the kind of participation or balance that would actually talk about the cloud both as a change, if I might, and then talk about the privacy and other issues.  

 There is a significant interest in this issue that I hear about at CSTD, I hear about at the ITU, around the question.  So, if it were a workshop that were about the evolution of the cloud, the application of the cloud, and then the challenges of using the cloud and adopting the cloud, which in some African countries includes access -- but that's not what this is.  So I would like what I'm describing.  

 This, to me -- the other thing is the speakers -- and they're all -- I have huge respect for them.  But we're -- I don't see the diversity that would get us to the questions that are being raised.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So you are not in favor to put it in?

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I am not.


  >>MARILYN CADE:  But I am in favor of how we figure out how to talk about the cloud.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Michael.

  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I'm with Marilyn on this.  This is a topic I care a lot about, and I want more discussion at IGF.  Several of the people on here would be very good additions.  But several of the people are already on four or five other sessions.  And if we can get them to agree to a little self-control and take their names off of this session so they can speak on another panel and somebody else can come in, I would accept this.  But we've got to get people on the MAG to have a little bit more self-control so that they're not on the program, literally, four or five times.  So, if we accept this and just run it as it is, I think we're really going to get a lot of acquisitions about being a club that just talks to itself.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Well, my proposal in that case would be that we don't accept this workshop but that we have a MAG organized roundtable or other discussion on surveillance one year on and that we broaden it from just looking at state surveillance, as we did in 2013, to include broader issues.  I'm not sure if it will address all of Kossi's and Marilyn's points about the cloud.  But I think it's a good message are to the IGF to send as well that we cover an issue and then we come back to it in a different way, but in an assessing type of way.

 >> Hear, hear.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  What about those three or four workshops that we have accepted which will be on surveillance?  Why don't we ask organizers to construct those workshops with a sort of perspective to the discussion that took place last year and also analyze what has been done?  And I think that some of them will be concentrating on that issue.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Janis, I think that's a good idea.  But I would still use the roundtable format.  We did that in 2012 very effectively where we asked workshop organizers to come in to a roundtable and to share the outcomes of their workshop discussions and then generate a report that was read at the taking stock session.

 So I think we can do both.  But I do think it's useful to not just leave it to the workshop.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Subi and then Jivan.

  >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Janis, I think it's an important issue, but my only worry is when we take it away from the workshop and we say that it should be a MAG organized initiative, we're taking too much space for ourselves.  I don't want this agenda to start looking at the issue from a IGF organized by IGF MAG members only.  So, if we have an opportunity where we can help the workshop and make it better, I think that is where we need to go.  And it's a good idea that -- (no audio)

 >> -- this year for me.  I do not appear on any other workshop nor I haven't sent any proposals just to make it clear.  And I love the roundtable idea.  And MAG organization might be problematic.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jivan.

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  Thank you.  I don't know why we need to shy away every time from facilitating or organizing a theme if there are workshops around it.  You know, there could be a MAG facilitated event near the end of the IGF where if there is a group of events on similar issues, like surveillance in this case, the final event would bring in some of the people from each of those events to share the ideas that have been brought up in those specific sessions and then there can be a discussion among them.

 So I think that this is something that we can do for other topics as well.  Perhaps net neutrality, perhaps other ones.  But we don't need to shy away from us facilitating a session which can then bring in people that have organized similar sessions before that near the end of the IGF, perhaps on the last day or near the last day.


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?

 >>MIKE NELSON:  Just real quickly, I don't think we should lump this one in with the other surveillance topics.  This is really a cloud session looking at the issues related to cloud adoption, and I did not hear Anriette say -- Anriette say the MAG should organize this.  I think we'd turn back to the proposers and say, "You guys are great talent.  Organize a roundtable.  Don't have five people give 10-minute talks.  Have a roundtable.  I think this would be a great roundtable with, you know, 25 people talking."


 >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  Thank you, Chair.  Sorry to interrupt.  I got a message from one of the remote participants that remote participation is down, so could the secretariat look into this issue?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah, yeah.  We'll be looking at that.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry.  We have a new remote participation link.  We've put it on the Web site.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I've heard more positive than negative sort of opinions about proposal, but it is clear that it should not be a workshop but a roundtable discussion, and that it should loop -- loop in also the sort of outcomes or -- the outcomes from other sessions related to surveillance, and maybe we could put that on the list with that understanding.


 >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm looking back at Kossi, but look, a conversation -- one more conversation about privacy and surveillance, if the will of the MAG is to do that, is fine, but I don't see the cloud being discussed.  

 I'm looking for the speakers who are in the workshop proposal that are cloud experts.  Not that people on the list aren't privacy experts or perhaps security experts, but where's the -- and, you know, maybe it doesn't fit in this, but I thought that what Kossi and I were saying is cloud and the adoption of the cloud and the implications of the cloud, in particular in developing countries, is a very real and present interest.

 I'm not sure how those speakers get to that.

 So if the workshop is just -- the agreement is one more for privacy and surveillance, okay.  Or I think there still has to be some additions to the -- to the speakers for this to make it actually about cloud.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  If we -- we can say that this should be -- the focus should be on the cloud and through the cloud we can talk about privacy issues and surveillance issues.  Also looking -- looking at what kind of consequences those -- that aspect may have to the developing countries, for instance, in Africa where there may not be enough, let's say, datacenters where these clouds are hosted, and so if we could construct or suggest organizers to look to this issue from this angle, so -- I see nodding.  All that is on record.  We will convey this message to the organizers and we may proceed to the next item.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Janis, I'm not sure I understand what we've decided.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We decided -- I am suggesting to put this on the agenda and convey to the organizers that this session, this work -- roundtable --

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Should focus on the cloud.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- roundtable session should be focusing on the cloud, and through discussion about the cloud, address issues of privacy and surveillance, specifically what might affect the developing countries --


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- where they do not have sufficient number of datacenters and as a result --


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- they need to export their data elsewhere.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Janis.  So I think that's a good response to Kossi and Marilyn's concerns and to one of the components of that workshop.  So I'm quite happy with that issue being addressed.

 I still think that we should at IGF '14 have a surveillance one year on session of some kind.  A roundtable.  It could be co-organized by those workshops that are dealing with the issue, but I do think it is important to give that some relevance.  But we could also cover it in the setting-the-scene session.

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I mean, we have a subtheme on increased digital trust.  By presenting that -- that subtheme, we -- we will talk.  We have about -- at least three, if not four, workshops related to surveillance and the privacy issues, so I don't think we do not have this.  I may even pull percentage in comparison with the proposed percentage of the workshops under this subtheme and what we retain.  I think we retain more than -- in terms of percentage that was proposed initially.

 So -- and then in a wrap-up session, nothing prevents us to -- also to speak about what then really has happened.

 So this theme -- if something is present, this theme is present in the overall program.

 So with that understanding, we include this workshop -- this roundtable and move on to the next one, which is 99, "Digital Inclusion Policies for the Forgotten Billion."  

 I think there are at least 3 billion forgotten.

 Please, Andrew, that was your proposal?

 >>ANDREW MAURER:  Thank you, Chair.

 I put this forward not because it's an Australian proposal but because in my observation -- and I may be wrong -- this seemed to be the one proposal that focused on improving access for people with disabilities, and particularly on enabling their participation in the digital economy and enabling their participation in the multistakeholder model.

 I think the proposal itself has some unfortunately confusing references to IANA functions, but it's really talking about breaking through barriers of connectivity and participation for people with a disability.

 If there is a clear focus in another workshop, I would definitely not insist, but I think it would be a loss if we did not have at least one session which focused on this important issue.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Comments?  Objection?

 There was another session on people with special needs, I recall.  At least one.  


 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you.  Well, I found this proposal very, very good.  The only point would be, again, the lack of multistakeholderism on the panel, but besides that, I found it very, very good and I think that we should have this theme on board.  I think that it is -- (off microphone) -- reach the IGF a lot.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any other comments?  

 Izumi, please.

 >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  I agree with the previous two speakers on the points, and I think the issue of multistakeholder speakers can be addressed by making recommendations, so I think we should add this on the -- as a work- -- as a session.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  We then -- we can then include that in the -- on the list.

 Yuliya, are you in agreement?

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Yes, definitely.  I just wanted to follow what was said, that we had another people with disabilities on the participation in Internet governance issues so I'm just wondering maybe they could give a more broader focus for this particular workshop.  I definitely agree that the topic is -- has -- should be included, but maybe with a broader, you know, perspective in order to have a difference with another one.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?

 >>MIKE NELSON:  I'd just pile on.  Very important topic.  Microsoft spends a lot of money in this area.  I think it's very odd that we don't see any corporate representatives, because there's a lot going on.  The U.N. Broadband Commission is another example of where corporations are coming together to work on this issue.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Andrew, please, and then --

 >>ANDREW MAURER:  Yeah.  Just to clarify, my understanding of the proposal that related to people with special needs, it was people who were stateless or dispossessed or had specific linguistic needs, so it wasn't people with disability.  It was, you know, other, you know, factors of a vulnerable society.  So it is a little bit different, but thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Anriette, please.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I also agree this is a very important topic.  I just think we should encourage these people to also interact with the best practice forum, so that the best practice forum outputs ideally could include some recommendations on access for these excluded communities.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We retain this proposal, with the comments of increased diversity of speakers and move on to the next one, which is 196, "IGF and Enhanced Cooperation, Parallel Tracks or Connected."

 Any comments?  U.K.?

 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Yeah.  I noted this as obviously very timely, in view of the work led by the CSTD.  I noted that the panel needs to be firmed up, but I had scored it very highly, so support.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  So this is -- (off microphone) -- the proponents but I want to provide information.

 I think it is very timely and very important.  I do think that the panel needs a bit of expansion in order to be inclusive of all views, but there is a -- the output of this panel is going to be really important for the main session on the Internet governance landscape, so I think it can be perhaps enhanced with some other views added to it, but I think it is a particularly important topic that we must ensure we are addressing.

 Just as everyone, I think, knows, that the Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation have had parallel tracks, in some people's views, and in others are synergistic, and I -- we have an updated report on enhanced cooperation and a resolution that is going to the U.N. General Assembly via ECOSOC, or going to ECOSOC for consideration to go to the U.N. General Assembly, and I think it's something that the stakeholders of IGF need to be informed about.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I hear no further opposition.  We include with the recommendation what Marilyn just made and we move on to the next one, which is "Net Neutrality Zero Rating and Development, What's the Data."

 Who was proposing this?  208.  Veronica, please.

 >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  I was proposing it.  From my perspective, I think that this workshop proposal brings an element of novelty, because I don't -- I don't think very many of us are aware of zero -- zero rating development and how it relates to the net neutrality issue.  So I find -- I find the issue that is going to be discussed interesting, relevant.  I think they have a confirmed list of speakers and I have to tell that there is an interesting balance of speakers coming from both developed and developing countries, both private sector, civil society, and at the same time they are still looking for a confirmation for -- from a governmental representative from a developing country, because this issue is definitely -- from what they are saying is definitely affecting the access issue in the developing countries, so these are my arguments.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Further comments?

 I see none.  Oh, sorry.  Olga.  Of course you are too close.  You're in front of me.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  No problem, Chair.  Just a brief comment.  It would be convenient to have more diversity in the panelists, but I think that Veronica already addressed that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.

 >> Yes.  I'm also echoing Veronica's words and Olga's comments.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Opposition?  None?  We put that on the agenda, and with the comments made, and we move on to the next one, 74, "Enabling Affordable Access, Changing Role of the Regulator."

 I think that's the -- the only, to my recollection, workshop addressing regulators and hoping that we will have attention of regulators on this subject.

 Who was proposing this?  74?  Anriette.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Again, I'm not involved in this, but I thought that it is -- 

 Just can you go down to the speakers list?

 My motivation for it is that we want to have relevant discussions at the IGF for regulators.  I think it's useful.  The diversity of the panel I think needs some work, and the stakeholder diversity.  I don't think there's any civil society participation, and I think we might have, you know, a bit more regional -- there's no African participation either.  So I would recommend that we say to them that we think this is an important topic and we want to attract as many regulators from as many parts of the world as possible, and so could you diversify your panel.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  U.K.?

 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  I say yes, I agree with that.  Stronger regional diversity would certainly enhance this, which we feel has very strong potential in developmental outcomes.  I thought there was potential synergy or overlap with 65 on IXPs.  I just have that note.  But definitely support.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any opposition?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I would also like to see maybe more regulators among speakers.  Regulators from different countries with -- representing different regulatory systems.  That would be also useful.

 Otherwise, we retain that on the agenda and we move to the next one, "Social and Economic Justice Issues in Global Internet Governance," a proposal from developing countries and it was -- who was suggesting that we need to talk about it?  Yuliya?

 >>YULIYA MORENETS:  Thank you.  I'm not actually involved in this workshop, but I think that the topic is very relevant.  It's in line with what was suggested in the recommendation of NETmundial as well, access to all and the participation of all.  Here we'll -- as I see the description there, they would like to speak about participation of disadvantaged people in the Internet governance process.  It's only one workshop mainly on this topic, and from new proposer, so I'm -- this is a short description, actually, to support it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Other comments?  Observations?  Opposition?

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Support.  Good.  Registered.  Thumbs-up from Michael Nelson registered.  


 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  I think so, but, you know, a description comprising four sentences is pretty poor.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So maybe then we need to ask organizers to maybe better formulate or expand the formulation and also formulate those policy questions they want to address during the forum.

 >> (off microphone.)


 >>YULIYA MORENETS: Sorry.  Even maybe to collaborate with -- well, and we have a couple of others -- similar topics and, you know, to involve other leaders as well, so they have broader discussion.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So with that in mind, we would retain that on the agenda and move to the next one, which is Number 43, "Post-Snowden Multistakeholder Cultures and Cyber-Security."  

 Who proposed that one?  Ricardo?

 >>RICARDO PEDRAZA BARRIOS:  Thank you, Chair.

 Even if we have already some workshops on cyber-security, what I've found important in this proposal was the fact that they are presenting some concrete examples of private and public partnerships in cyber-security.  That's the case for India, Sri Lanka, Canada.  So with that perspective, I think it would be really important to -- to -- besides reviewing policy questions and different frameworks, to see this example from that partnership and maybe the big questions for the workshop as they did present.  And is still the government to be trusted before civil society, the rest of the different actors in a multistakeholder perspective for bringing solutions to cybersecurity issues?  So I think that's the main -- the main points I want to raise around this workshop.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  Any further comments, opinions?  Izumi.

  >>IZUMI OKUTANI:  I'm in general agreement to have these topics covered.  But I think a few -- our speakers are not confirmed.  And I think it's quite important to have definitely somebody from the technical community speakers to be confirmed, which is unconfirmed as this date.  So please confirm this before this is finalized.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you for those recommendations.  Any further comments?  Does, in your opinion, the title reflect the thrust of the workshop?  I found -- I mean, I really do not understand the title.  I understand post modern, but that's all that I understand.  Maybe, if we retain it, we need to suggest to clarify title.  Yuliya.

  >>YULIYA MORENETS:  The list of speakers, there's too many speakers.  And not enough broad, actually, approach from my point of view.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn supports you.  Michael?

  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I was just going to agree with your suggestion to fix the title.  But I was actually impressed with the fact that they were bringing in technical people from Asia.  And, if they don't get one there, they'll get one somewhere else.  I think it's a very useful proposal, particularly if we take out "post modern."

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  With those recommendations, maybe we can retain that on the agenda and move to the next one.

 The Internet age:  Adopting -- adapting to a new copyright agenda.

 Number 195.  The proponent was Anriette.

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Sorry.  I'm having a spreadsheet problem.  If you could open this, I think this came from the library community.  Just have a look.  I just -- there were very few workshops, in fact, there's no other workshops on this topic.  There's workshop on content creation.  The IGF was criticized last year for excluding copyright as an issue.  And previously had very good workshops on copyright.  So it's a topical issue.  I actually think it's quite a strong proposal as well.  So I would think it's important to keep it.  What was the score?

 [ Speaker off microphone ]


 >> UNECA:  Yeah.  We support this proposal.  I think it has big multistakeholder also.  

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ana.

 >>ANA NEVES:  Okay.  Thank you very much. Only to support the proposal.  And I do hope that UNESCO under the European Commission can be speakers in this session.  I think it will be very important.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Giacomo.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Last year I attended the workshop organized by IFLA on similar topics and was very good.  So I can only recommend it to accept it.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Is there anybody who opposes?  There is a remote participant.

  >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  Susan Chalmers supporting the proposal.  Thanks.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Anybody against?  Carolina.

  >>CAROLINA AGUERRE:  It's a very brief comment.  It would be great if they would include remote participation in the moderators to be involved in that.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  U.K.

  >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Yeah.  I'm in support.  I just have a comment.  If they ease up on the history.  They talk about recounting the last 50 years of copyright law.  Tell them not to do that.

 [ Laughter ]

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I remember -- I remember myself -- I remember myself at --

 >> It's all downhill.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I remember myself at UNESCO one of the sort of slogans talking about preservation of digital heritage was you cannot build a future if you do not remember the history.  Fatima.

  >>FATIMA CAMBRONERO:  Yes, comment.  I support the workshop but to improve on the lack of diversity of stakeholder representatives and also lack of information from multi participation.  Maybe they can improve the two topics.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Veronica?

  >>VERONICA CRETU:  Thank you, Chair.  Veronica Cretu speaking.  The one element that definitely needs to be improved is the description of the proposed methodology.  Because it's missing.  It's proposed taking 90 minutes, so it's important.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn.

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I agree with everything said, and I support keeping it.  I want to reinforce the point that I think Anriette made.  I've been concerned about making sure we capture the uncaptured subjects.  And I think this is one of them.  So I really think it's important for us to provide any help needed and keep the topic.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So we retain this on the list with the comments.  And we move to the next one, global commission on Internet governance.  We had a previous exchange on this very briefly.  And the commission is just starting.  And maybe we could -- instead of giving a special slot, we could invite the commission to the session on IGF and Internet ecosystem evolution and give them opportunity to speak and then present the commission and their intentions.  Because certainly no work has been done so far.  Anriette, you're in agreement?

  >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  I have to declare conflict of interest here because I'm a Commissioner.  So I just want to make that clear.

 I think that's fine.  But I actually think what the commission needs is also some discussion.  So, you know, you mentioned earlier, Janis, you proposed for the declaration, African declaration on Internet rights, that they be given some space to share their initiative and give feedback.  I actually think this would be good for this as well.  Even if it's in one roundtable format or a shorter format.  I'm not opposed to that idea, but I think feedback is also important.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Okay.  Marilyn.  You have a conflict of interest as well?

  >>MARILYN CADE:  I do not.  But, of course, an opinion.

 I do think that they're on the list of groups that Subi and I and others have been talking about that we do need to cover this.  They're not alone, of course.  But they are -- if they need to do -- I'm not saying -- I'm not making a point on this.  If they want to use the space at the IGF as an opportunity to promote an outreach, that is certainly something that I think we all want to encourage.  But I would encourage them to do it on day zero and not to compete with the purpose of the workshops.  Because, if people flock to the commissioned event, then they may be moving away.  Or, in the past, we've sometimes had events like this at lunchtime.  And so I just park the thought that for groups like this, let's -- we're being so careful not to create too many competitors to our sessions.  So perhaps they could do it at lunchtime.  We certainly did that before with the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael.

  >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I think that's a wonderful suggestion.  Some of the best conversations I had in Bali were over lunch.  If there were a banner saying CIGI or whatever it is, I think you'd have a lot of people coming.  But I don't think we want to set a precedent where we pick one out of 20 different organizations and give them a chance to have their own session when they haven't, as you said, really gotten up and going.  Because, if we accept it today, next year they'll come back and say, well, you did it last year.  Let's do it again.  So --


  >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  And I have a conflict of interest, actually.  I'm one of the 25 expert members of this advisory network of this commission.  But I'm quite in line with what Marilyn said that, just to promote the activities of one organization, doesn't seem like a good workshop, unless they bring really seasoned debate.  And, by reading this proposal, it's not there.  And their work is not really fully mature yet.  So I think it's better to put it either to lunchtime or reception or something like that.  Thank you very much.

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

 >> Or a poster session as well.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So we do not retain this on the agenda as a workshop.  We will advise maybe to organize to think about events on day zero or a poster session.  But we will include a speaker from the panel in the session on ecosystems allowing to do a five-minute presentation on the main issue or the main stage.  

 Okay, next.  130, impact of Internet freedom on economic growth.

 Who was proposing that?

 >> I think that's me.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Anriette, please.

 >>DESIREE ZACHARIAH:  This proposal was created by somebody from Iraq who lives in Lebanon and for whom I think the economic impact from the Arab Springs might have been very real.  I think it's very important for countries which are thinking of some form of censorship or who are thinking of using censorship to change behavior.  I'd like to see persons from countries affected by the Arab Spring given their actual experiences along with persons from countries who have used other methods other than censorship to influence behavior.  I'd also like to see persons from civil society who are very much against censorship to give their inputs.  So in all, what I'd like to see is maybe expansion of the number of persons who are on the panel or who are not as (indiscernible) qualifications of these persons.  Just by looking at their recommendation, I -- I think it could probably be augmented.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Any further comments?

 >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  I agree with all of that.  And I'm wondering if we can't ask this workshop merge with some of the workshops that proposed discussion of censorship in other countries so that we have a workshop that looks at this issue in a wider range of region.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So what would be opinion.  Marilyn?

  >>MARILYN CADE:  If I look just at the writeup, then Desiree and I, I think, are aligned.  When I look at the speakers -- and I know many of the speakers -- I don't think the speakers bring the diversity of experience across the board that we would be looking at to go with this writeup.  So one way to do it would be to merge and to -- because some of the speakers do bring experience, but some do not bring direct experience.  But the writeup, I think -- and that's Desiree's point.  The concept is important, and there's a need to reflect it.  Merging, to me, would be a really good strategy, if -- and that allows us to keep the concept and build the concept.  But put it into a better format and utilize the speakers, perhaps, that come in from the other workshops.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So any other thoughts?  Proposal is not to retain as a separate but to look for possibility of merger and advise other workshops to merge, to take into account this aspect, aspect of -- it's an impact of freedom of expression to economic development.  UNECA?

 >> UNECA:  Yes, I support.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So it's so decided.  Actually, we are now reaching the limit of what we ourselves sort of agreed.  And that is 90 workshops.  And I wonder whether we could maybe stop here and see.  So to look at that -- at the current balance and give maybe some leeway to secretariat to construct the program and then make -- maybe formulate a proposal if there would be any further room for additional workshops.  

 Why I'm saying this.  So, as I mentioned, we have 120 slots in total.  We have open forums.  And the -- at least 10, if not 11 or 12.

 Then we have now five open sessions for best practices, best practice forum.  And then we have at least seven dynamic coalition events.

 So, which brings us to 22.  Sorry.  22 separate things.  And then we have now 90 workshops on the agenda, which brings us to 112.  And then we need some questions because there's always something unexpected.  Believe me, that is usually.  And to leave for secretariat at secretariat discretion, of course in consultation with MAG, through different type of interaction being through continuous conference calls that we will keep organizing or email exchange so we would inform how it shapes up.

 And so I'm proposing to draw the line here.  I see nodding.

 So --

 >>DESIREE ZACHARIAH:  Excuse me, Chairman.  I agree I would draw the line.  But I have one I'd like to sneak in, if you don't mind.  It's proposal number 73, which is protecting vulnerable states IG cybersecurity and public policy.  It could be a capacity-building best practices forum.  And I think it would provide for an inexpensive workshop for policy makers who are faced with providing cybersecurity policy but just don't quite know what to do about it.  I'd like to see some technical presence in addition to persons who are on the panel.  Maybe we could get persons who have done this well before.  And I don't normally like to single out countries.  But one Korea, another one United States, and Singapore, Singapore because it's a smaller country.  

 And we can probably get some best practices from representation, so in addition to the panelists who are currently there, we could augment that panel.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So what is the -- what's the opinion?  The last one?  Kossi?  (Speaking in a non-English language.)

 >>KOSSI AMESSINOU:  (Speaking in a non-English language.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mark, please.

 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Yes, I agree.  The original proposal was for 60 minutes, and I noticed that this is potentially good in narrowing down a digest of concrete measures in practice, so I think that's a good proposal.  Thank you.


 >>IGOR MILASHEVSKY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 Maybe in this case we could create kind of a reserved list of workshops, just to help the secretariat in case of substitution or absence or not...

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Carolina?

 >>CAROLINA AGUERRE:  I see many of those names that have been repeated in previous panel sessions, so I mean, they're very knowledgeable but I would encourage a greater diversity of panelists.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Anriette?  Okay.  Not --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So then maybe we can do the following.

 We retain this as the last one on the list and with the understanding that now secretariat will start sort of packaging everything together and then we would look how the program shapes up, we would consult you -- all of you -- along the way, and if there will be further opportunities, then we would draw from the list we are using now, as well as from the sort of top of the -- top-scored workshops that are not on the agenda yet but maybe could be.

 So -- and as I mentioned, we would consult -- or secretariat would consult all of us and we would go through this further fine-tuning on line.


 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I just wanted to get confirmation.  Workshop Number 80, "ccTLDs and Their Role in IG Literacy," was that accepted?  

 It scored a high -- it scored 4 but I can't remember whether it has been accepted or not.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Could we scroll and see?  That was 80, you mentioned?




 >> -- (off microphone) -- 

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So it's in.  Okay.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So it is in.  Yeah.  Carolina?


 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thanks.  Just to go back to my request before the lunch break about child protection and whether you could summarize very briefly what the situation is on that.  I'd be very grateful.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I think that that is on the list that we -- we are waiting to answer questions.

 So I think that the workshop we talked about, one workshop on child protection, should be on the list of workshops and we agreed that there would be a best practice session on child protection.  Okay?

 So that is the answer.  

 It wouldn't be most probably appropriate to put child protection exclusively to a best practice session.  We need kind of a lead-up to that.

 >>UNITED KINGDOM:  So which workshop is it?  Could you remind me?  We're going to keep one workshop?


 >>EUROPEAN UNION:  Do you know which one yet?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The highest scored, most probably.

 Okay.  Further questions.  

 On human rights issues and freedom of expression issues, there was a question.

 Here, I think we would need a bit more time, and if -- if I would ask your permission, indulgence, to let me handle this issue that we could find the most appropriate way to address issues of censorship and freedom of expression and blocking and things and could have a respective discussion of those issues, if that would be acceptable.  

 We could -- of course I would keep you informed on the evolution of this question.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So can you -- so Janis, you'll make a proposal to the MAG which we can then comment on?  


 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Is that the plan?


 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And how much time do you need?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  And then of course my proposal will be based on existing sort of workshop proposals on the subject but I would need a little bit more time because that is a sensitive issue and I would not like to make a faux pas on this issue, if you would allow me and trust me to deal with that question.  Thank you.


 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So further questions which were raised at the end of last session was about the MAG working group on improved -- improved outcomes.

 So here, I would like to -- maybe to spend another 10, 15 minutes to talk it through.

 So seems to me that technically -- and that is Chengetai who confirmed -- that technically we could organize on-line discussion through the IGF Web site.  Right?



 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  -- (off microphone).

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we could invite community proposals, but then we need to identify how we will treat those proposals and how we will handle and how we'll bring the -- the outcome of that engagement to the IGF in Istanbul.  That would be interesting to listen to your opinion.

 Subi, please.

 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  

 I believe when we met during the lunch, there were two parts to the conversation and one of them centered around this.  Some of us also stayed back and met last evening.  The minutes were circulated earlier this morning.

 Today, four of us volunteered -- and I think some people are not in the room from the MAG, because remote participation wasn't working during that time, so we can post this on the MAG list.  

 At least four of us have volunteered to moderate and take this discussion forward.  That includes Jivan, myself, Veronica and Lorenzo.  Once we have people volunteering from the MAG to moderate the discussion and also assimilate the inputs, I think it is possible -- and thank you, Chengetai for facilitating this process and discussion, for creating the space and opening it up -- to assimilate and characterize certain threads.  

 And Andrew was kind enough to point out four specific recommendations that came out during NETmundial process that are reflections on the mandate:  Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders; continuity; the -- also the value that the IGF creates for the community.

 So if we can divide this in threads and also open this up to the community with some MAG members taking a more active role in moderating those discussions and assimilating the conversation, I think it is possible to take this over.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Any further comments?  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I was part of the meeting night before last and last night, but had a competing meeting.  It's obviously an issue of great interest of mine, as I've said before, and I will be happy to participate, but I think also we want to begin to think about how we're going to take the benefit of the dialogue that happens on line, and then think about the interim strengthening.

 We have good concepts that you laid out, Chair, and that also came up night before last and last night about interim improvements, and then I think we would want to capture from the discussion any improvements or changes that are so significant they actually can't be adopted by Istanbul and would need further discussion.

 So I'd like the group to also consider how we're going to be sure we capture those additional concepts, and I'm going to say park them during Istanbul and then come back to them post-Istanbul to perhaps consider further.  

 And I've already made my comments about the linkage between this and the improvements called for in the CSTD report, but congratulations to those who were able to meet during lunch and continue to build on the work that was done in the two previous meetings.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Myself, I have one concern about the proposed four moderators.

 All of them are nongovernmental and we certainly need at least -- at least some --

 >> (off microphone.)

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So -- Jivan.  Sorry.  Okay.  Is that -- is that enough?

 >> (off microphone.)


 >> (off microphone.)

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry, Janis.  Can you -- can you clarify?  Are we talking now about the NETmundial follow-up or the IGF outcomes?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  We're talk- -- we're talking about MAG working group on improved outcomes.

 >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  I hope we're not just trying to find ways to, you know -- 

 During the lunch today, we agreed that we would have an event on improved IGF -- on improvements of IGF in general, and even for that, I think that at one moment, they -- there wasn't a decision made.

 So I would be interested also to find out, being a new MAG member, how decisions are made on this because we kind of just went beyond this issue and without closure earlier.

 As for the working group, we have several issues that were identified yesterday.  They -- they're grouped within the document, the Google document that has been circulated, so that is one way to go forward between now and September, to kind of cluster around those issues and facilitate discussion around those issues.

 You will have -- the one is communication and another one is outreach, et cetera, et cetera.  So it's easy to drive around those clusters and then during the summer to see what bubbles up in each of them, and then by the time of September to present around those issues what are the good ideas that are coming up.

 So the co-organizers for the events that have been cited -- and perhaps I volunteered as well to kind of moderate the process -- I think that we're all ready to go toward that and hopefully we will also decide on an event on improvements of IGF in general, as well as net neutrality.

 I think that was the other topic that was mentioned.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  As I said, I -- on the IGF improvement event during Istanbul, we have -- we have a session, and myself as the chair, I am not comfortable to organize a special session on IGF processes and things.

 We have a main session where IGF will be prominently discussed, and I would like to allow more talk about substantive issues rather than IGF itself.

 IGF is not a master of its own destiny.  IGF is at the mercy of General Assembly.  And of course we -- we would love to entertain ourselves and to sort of do patting, how good we are, but ultimately we need to provide more platform to others that others draw benefit from being in IGF and go to General Assembly saying, "We need that -- that space to come return next year."

 So that is why I'm really hesitant to organize a session in the official time specifically geared to IGF itself.

 So that's -- that is argumentation that I put forward.

 That does not exclude to talk about IGF during the lunchtimes or wherever, but as a formal -- formal meeting, I would be very, very hesitant.


 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Janis, I completely understand your point, but I think I would actually use your argument -- argument to confirm or affirm the idea of having a separate session because I think if the main session on the ecosystem and IGF and the ecosystem becomes taken over by a discussion of the weaknesses of the IGF, it could actually destroy that session.

 I think it would be very useful for that session to be able to reference a separate smaller more focused discussion on IGF strengthening, so that that session can really focus on big-picture issues rather than on the specific modalities of IGF's strengthening, such as funding and intersessional work and so on.

 So I don't think it has to be a main session.  It could be a lunchtime session.  But I think a formal session sends a message of accountability and transparency, so I don't think it sends a message of self-referentiality.  I think it's a message of you, as the IGF community, are being given an opportunity to talk about how the IGF can become a stronger entity.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant?

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  Susan Chalmers would want to intervene remotely via audio, please.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Susan, please go ahead.  Good morning to you.

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  -- (off microphone) --

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We don't hear you.  We don't hear you, Susan.  We'll see if we can increase volume.

 No, there is a technical -- technical difficulty.  Maybe you can -- maybe you can briefly write what you would like to say and we will read this out here in the room.


 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you very much.  

 I tend to agree with those who think the IGF discussion should really take place in the main session.  It seems much more consistent because we'll be looking at the various elements that need to be strengthened for the future ecosystem.

 This said, within the NETmundial discussion on day zero, if -- if the purpose is to look at substance, we've identified net neutrality as a possible issue.  Maybe there's room to accommodate another issue that is important.  Perhaps the principles or perhaps how to strengthen multistakeholder participation mechanisms.

 But in any case, I do think the IGF discussion should really take place in the main session, and if we -- if we tear apart various issues and if the discussion happens in too many different areas, I'm afraid we'll lose track.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.


 >>UNESCWA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I totally see your point regarding the idea of already there is a session on the main theme called the IGF and the future of the Internet ecosystem.  It is encompassing.  I think what we are inspiring to do with the colleagues and Jivan and others the last two days is providing ideas later on for consideration post 2015.  Something like that.  So maybe it's not a session or just like one of the workshops that fall under the same -- hold the future -- hold the IGF under the future of Internet ecosystem.  And being a U.N. official or diplomate, I would even volunteer to, like, contribute from the U.N. perspective, UNCTAD, CSTD, blah, blah, since we're anyways going to be asked for the future of the IGF post 2015 maybe in a year's time.  So that will be later on a need for an official working group, not a (indiscernible) one, not a MAG one, but an official outbound working group after the similar one that took place two or three years ago.

 So I think if we do it like a workshop and I can also volunteer to co-moderate with Jivan as an IGO, maybe it can be good and one shape, not big, not at all.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Izumi.  Izumi A.

  >>IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you very much.  I also fully understand the chair's concern about having a session on IGF, a (indiscernible) program.  At the same time, as already the other previous speaker mentioned, that we're ending our second round of mandate next year.  If I'm not wrong, there were review process already starting or -- at the full IGF in Hyderabad or right after.  We have full meeting after that as well.  So I think there is a good need to improvement and also review of the IGF itself is tasked by IGF, in my view.  Of course, it's better to have third party as well.  But it's our common task, so I like to see some kind of middle ground to do both or to achieve that.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Is Susan's comment ready?  

 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:   Yes, thank you.  I share the opinions of Janis and Constance on the placement of IGF initial discussion, as it were.  Also, I'd like to remind colleagues that the open mic session can be used to solicit opinions from the community on improvement of the IGF.  So thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you.  Igor.

  >>IGOR MILASHEVSKIY: Thank you, Chair.  I -- I support the idea to educate special meeting, be it workshop or focusing discussion about improvement of IGF.  And it -- it is not in contradiction with the -- your idea of strengthening the main session.  IGF is not organization.  And it's not equal to MAG.  And it's a good idea to provide the space, the opportunity for participants to make the work and participation more effective.  Thank you.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jivan.

  >>L.P. GJORGJINSKI:  I don't think that there's anything contradictory about an organization or an entity looking at itself and seeing how it has done in the past.  And, especially considering that the CSTD report came out two years ago and NETmundial again came with the same conclusions that the outcomes need to be improved.  So nothing has been done.  And I don't see any other place where this could be discussed.  Not decided, necessarily.  But even discussed in order for there to be the next steps in this issue.  

 So what better place than during the IGF itself to discuss on a grand forum and to present that we have taken into consideration NETmundial.  We have taken into consideration what the community has said.  And this is what we're doing about it.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Virat.

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Chairman, couple of points.  One, I think, since the last IGF, Internet governance principles were the flavor of the month.  This year it's going to be a different one because NETmundial has been held.  So we kind of psychologically move towards trying to resolve what has immediately become a big issue.  I understand that psychologically.  But I think IGF has a much longer life history work rather than one or two issues.  So, firstly, we must establish that there is a big distinction between what has been suggested and what is already there in the main session.  It's unclear right now that there is a massive difference or that this can be incorporated into that.  Especially since we are a few months away.  And from the last people that I have noticed, comments are still being invited to shift the main session.  Names have been floated, and comments are being provided.  So I think there is substantial flexibility in that main session to see what we can do.  One point.  

 The second point I wanted to mention is there is a lot of work by the subgroup and it's very important work.  But large number of people are in a parallel meeting.  Sort of the communication was that these decisions have been taken.  And this is the structure, and this is the day when the meetings are being held.  

 My request would be that we should seek the opinion of the entire MAG on where this goes, whether it's true or not or -- I don't think we should present this as a decision.  I think it should be presented as a view that the subgroup reached and then let the entire MAG comment on it or have a discussion on paper.  That's all.  I respect -- sorry.

 [ Speaker off microphone ]

  >>VIRAT BHATIA:  No.  Then this requires a lot of time.  We can go on with this then.  That's the point I'm trying to make.  And let's try to direct our comments to the chair.  My question is that, if we can try and keep -- either we open this up as a full discussion for the full MAG, and then we go on and invite comments from everybody.  Because we haven't been part of the substantive discussion that took place today, and several of us aren't.  In fact, most of the business community wasn't there.  And that is an important concern I want to present to the chair and to the MAG.  So we should find a way.  Either we find substantive time for the discussion, or we note and let everybody comment on it.  But I would request that we don't take it as a decision at this stage.  That's my only information.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  May I suggest that, instead of occurring in the workshop slots, we think about organizing pre-event on IGF on day zero and address those issues before the IGF starts.  And then that will inform the discussion on the main session, which will be structured along four identified and NETmundial issues related to IGF -- output, financial sustainability, expansion of mandate.  And what was the fourth one?  So that would be -- Fiona.

 >> Janis, just to clarify.  So you're proposing that there is a main session to talk about those four dimensions of IGF strengthening during the IGF and that is informed by previous -- I'm sorry.  I just wasn't quite sure what your proposal was.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We have a main session entitled IGF and evolution of ecosystem.  So this IGF part of that main session we would structure along four areas identified in NETmundial.  And that main session would be formed to prepare whatever you call it event in day zero.  That would be 90 minutes on IGF outcome improvements where we would analyze whatever community input we would get through this online engagement prior to IGF in Istanbul.  Fiona.

  >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you.  So we had two working groups specifically on IGF improvements, one that Mark read and one that Jivan read.  The discussion today was about the day zero NETmundial discussion.  And this, again, crossed out.  So, obviously, there's a lot of energy and desire to talk about IGF improvement.  So I think the proposal you put forward is a sound one.  My only question is the practicality of putting so much stuff on day zero.  I don't have the schedule on the top of my head.  But what day is the main session on IGF and the Internet ecosystem?  So is there a possibility, if the schedule doesn't permit day zero, overlapping all this stuff could be problematic to have it on day one but not a workshop, a lunch thing or something as Anriette suggested.  I don't think putting everything on day zero -- I think your proposal is a strong one.  As a work method, folks needs to write up a proposal and put them on the list so people can actually understand the facts of what they're reacting to.  I think in this room this afternoon everyone is talking past each other for a variety of reasons.  I'm not sure it's the most productive way.  Just a suggestion, once they have a proposal, put it on list.  People can react to the words there in front of them.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Remote participant.

  >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Thank you.  A comment by Bill Drake.  I would have real concerns about us organizing an official day zero event in competition with all the community-drive events.  Thanks.

  >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So here we are.  And I have concerns organizing an event on IGF per se by the MAG at the IGF itself carving out time from the workshops.  Please.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN:  You know, Janis, I think the chair's report this year will be scrutinized by the general assembly, even if they don't quote it directly, but when the decision on IGF mandate is made.  So I think by us packaging a discussion specifically on that, we can actually facilitate a very clear input going into that chairperson's report and going to the general assembly.  I think that my concern about the day zero, as Fiona was saying, and also the day zero event is to talk about NETmundial, not IGF.  Just to reiterate my concern, we have a pattern of when the IGF is proposed.  We saw that at NETmundial as well.  Would anyone propose that the IGF as a forum that can be strengthened to play a really significant role in the Internet governance ecosystem?  You have actors who support it, and you have actors who don't.  What they have in common is that they feel that the IGF at the moment lacks the capacity.  So I think if you -- if the discussion about the IGF in the context of the broader IG ecosystem becomes a discussion about not the potential of the IGF to play a significant role, but the limitations of the IGF as it is at the moment, I think we could unintentionally end up undermining our case as an IGF community when the mandate renewal is being discussed.  So I really don't care how we package it; but I think having a discussion at the IGF on IGF strengthening, a lunchtime discussion, a lunchtime roundtable or friends of the IGF roundtable or that's also perhaps contentious, I think sends a very powerful message.  It could be the MAG even inviting members of the IGF constituency to this event.

 But I think we really do hav