You are here

Transcript Afternoon of September 16

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 
This text is being provided in a rough draft format.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.  In some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors.

>> NITIN DESAI:  Will we put the schedule up?
>> We will put it over there.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Can I just ask everybody to settle down?
First, we have captioning now.  And the captioning is being done remotely, which means for us that you must make sure that your microphone is on when you speak, otherwise you will not be heard.  
And, second, you have to please give your name and affiliation or country.  Because it's very difficult for them, who are sitting out there, away from us, to be able to follow.  
So please make sure, if you are part of the conversation, that each person who speaks indicates who they are.  They recognize my voice, they recognize Markus' voice.  The rest of you are not recognizable to them.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  If you want to use it from your own computer, you can go to the main page and there is now a link there to take you to captioning.  So you can also look on your computer as well, and for anybody else who is listening.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Now we have got two -- they are working out... and many thanks for making this captioning happening.  Let us get this organized.  Right now, two blank screens in front of us.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  Let's show the page so you can see the link and you can go on there.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Since practically everybody here has a computer which is online, why don't you look at the captions in your computer online.  And the schedule can stay up here.  Okay?  That is probably going to work better than trying to put the captions up there.  
Is that fine?
If you go to the Web Page, it's the last item. (applause)
Stand up and take a Bow.  He is not here.  
Okay.  Let's start.  Let's -- where do you want us to start, Markus?  Do we go back to the discussion on the structuring of the access or do you want us to continue?  
>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Why don't we finish it.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Let's finish the first reading.  So we are now on day 4, right?
>> NITIN DESAI:  Now, that is the last day.  The main session is taking stock and looking forward.  That is the long session.  Three hours.  
As we discussed last time, this is a session which is the main session for the consultation on the future of IGF.  Markus would you like to tell us how this is being structured?  
>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, it will be on the second general, Shah, who will be there during the entire duration of the meeting.  And we will all have consultations with all stakeholder groups in the margins of the meeting.  But as the mandate says, there is a formal request from the summit to hold formal consultation with forum participants.  It will be a more formal session.  It will not be kind of open microphone session, open debate.  So we will structure it much more like a classical UN session, but still in a multistakeholder format.  That is the nongovernmental stakeholders will not come at the end, but we will first ask groups of countries, groups representing stakeholders, be that business, civil society, academic and technical communities, and then individual countries, individual organisations, and right at the end if there is time for it, individual participants.  But it will be in that sense more formal.  And presumably we would open also a speaker's list to organize for the speakers.  
So it may not be an exciting session but I think it will be an important session.  
We have prepared a document that is now being translated into all six UN languages.  We have prepared a document, previous documents that we have synthesizing the comments that we have received.  We have received some 60 comments, also, from all sorts of stakeholders, including also governments.  That will be basically the basis for the discussion.  So participants will be invited to comment on that.  And under Secretary-General Shah will then give his reading of the summary, his general summary of the session, and he will take it to New York.  
But again, the session is a consultation.  It's not the decision-making session.  And the Secretary-General will be here to listen to all stakeholders.  And there may well be differences of opinion, differences of nuances and he will listen.  That is a fairly straightforward stock taking session.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Okay?  Name?  Say who you are.
>> George Pappadon.  Listening to Markus, I didn't understand whether there is going to be a summary by the Secretary-General at the end.  And you said he is going to submit some report to the Secretary-General?  Is there going to be a summary, is there going to be a written report that we can all benefit from that will be published?  I just wanted to clarify that.  
>> MARKUS KUMMER:  He presumably will give an oral summing up after the session, as is customary.  But again, this will be part of the Chairman's summary, the Chairman of the meeting, that is Minister Kamel, which will go to New York.  But it is not a negotiated outcome.  But it will be there in written form.  But it will not necessarily contain any recommendations.  It will just reflect the discussion, and based on that, the Secretary-General is then invited to make recommendations to the UN membership, which of course will take into account the result of these discussions.   The second general's recommendation is that this is an internal process that will follow out of this meeting, and they will be part of his annual report and his follow-up and the implementation that will go to the CSTD.  I think it's usually out in March or so, to be in time for the May meeting.  That is the process after the session.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  This is a session which is basically the responsibility of New York, because it's their responsibilities to consult with the membership.  And we have to essentially be guided by what they would like to do.  
So let's look at the rest of that morning.  Obviously, all the most -- all the major sessions are over, and there are a few workshops which are scheduled here.  Are there any particular issues for any of these?  Yes?  
>> My name is Katrina, and we are talking about the emerging -- 
>> NITIN DESAI:  We will come to that in a moment.  I'm just talking about the morning at the moment.  Okay?  And for the afternoon, you had something to say on emerging issues.
>> Katrina.  Thank you.  I want to say that the workshop related to privac/ openness on land advertising and the target advertising could feed the main panel on emerging issues on the session network, which is one of the main policy issues when we discuss about social networks.  
Thank you.  
>> I'm from the Commission on Internet Rights and Principles.  
I wanted to put light on the emerging issue that will continue to be an emerging issue of keeping the dynamic coalitions dynamic.  And in this regard I would like to ask, and I know it's not 100 percent the right time, but I have to leave soon, so I'd like to do it now, that we organize a meeting for the dynamic coalitions to get together and see how we can better coordinate and strengthen our dynamic nature for the next year's phase.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  I'd like to second that motion and my name is Andrea Saks.  I'm very spoiled, because Pat knows me, who is the captioner that we have at the moment.  
And I'm representing the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability.  One of the things that occurred to me, it might be nice to get a joint charter written up of what the purpose is of the Dynamic Coalitions in relations to advising IGF and how we maybe make a statement in a joint partnership at some point, or at least explore that idea in a joint meeting.  Thank you.
>> MARILYN CADE:  I'd like to make a comment.  My comment relates to the proposal of the Dynamic Coalitions getting together.  One of the -- at least one of the Dynamic Coalitions, the one on child safety, I know, I don't think the representative is here, I'm aware, because a number of us are thinking about joining and talking with that Dynamic Coalition.  So I'd just like to put a placeholder down that we not making firm decisions about Dynamic Coalitions having a separate meeting until it's possible to have some online communication with perhaps representatives from Dynamic Coalitions that aren't here.  
Secondly, I guess I'd like to raise -- I know we talked about the role of Dynamic Coalitions in the past.  But I would -- I actually don't see Dynamic Coalitions as advising the IGF.  So I wouldn't want to move into assumptions about different roles for Dynamic Coalitions without a very thorough discussion and consideration.  The idea of meeting and sharing experiences is one thing.  The availability of time would need to be addressed, and awareness.  But expanding the role or changing the role may be a little premature.  
>> At the risk of belaboring the same point, I'd like to support the point about having some kind of space or a bit more conversation about the role of Dynamic Coalitions and how we can support them better.  I've tried to work with the Freedom of Expression Online Coalition and it is -- it's struggling, to say the least, because of -- of a lack of understanding, I think, within the coalition about the exact roles and responsibilities.  
So I think that is something for the IGF because I think these could be strong and multistakeholder spaces to discuss some of the issues in-depth.  Obviously we do have the meeting spaces in the agenda, which I think is much appreciated by all the coalitions.  But it would be great to be thinking about ways for ongoing working throughout the process and maybe we can do that at the IGF. 
Finally, all of the coalitions are related to some of the main session themes.  So could they be on the panel of organizers or at least be involved in those sessions in some way?  And also, just feeding maybe the outcomes from the meetings into the main session would be one practical thing to be doing as well.  So making sure they are called upon in those sessions to feed in.  
Thank you.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  The Dynamic Coalitions are self selecting.  And in that sense, they have to accept a certain responsibility for their own work.  I think it would be a little tricky to try to say that a self selected group is given a particular special role in the IGF process as such, because we are not -- we as a MAC are not playing any role in the way the Dynamic Coalition works, what the agenda is, what they do.  So I think it's not possible to let us demand or to work in a manner where, in a sense, they are saying that some part of our work we will so to speak delegate to a group which is essentially self selected.   It's good if it's a self selected group, because it ensures a certain commitment to action.  But I would rather keep it as it is now, which is it is there, it's on important part of the IGF process, but it's not in that sense something which can replace the function of the MAG
But surely, I'm sure in terms of finding families, they would take onboard the part of the work of the Dynamic Coalition such as to take that onboard.  But I don't think a formalization can be done without getting into difficulty as to what it is.  Yes.
>> Sorry I triggered that out of the schedule, but the point is that we are struggling to get government representatives and especially the private sector, because there is no clear rules.  And I think that is something that could be or could only come, actually, from the IGF's MAC and the official forums.  Because when we come up with it, it's also not binding.  So especially government representatives want to have a certain space where they can say okay, there is a Chatman House rule or things that make it easier for them to participate.  
>> BERTRAND de la CHAPELLE:  Bertrand de la Chapelle from France.  I think it's an important discussion and I participated personally in the meeting on the Dynamic Coalitions on Rights and Principles this weekend.  One element to get out of this conundrum to formalize and the difficulty to have a very organized structure is if the Dynamic Coalitions contribute to the main sessions that they are related to, by providing inputs and providing in particular balanced inputs, some elements in the Dynamic Coalitions is still ambiguous regarding whether or not there are more coalitions or more multistakeholder exercises.  And there is a  tension, because as Max mentioned, if there is a dominance by certain categories of actors within the Dynamic Coalitions, naturally it tends to go in one direction. 
For example, if there are more civil society actors, it will go more towards advocacy.  If there are more privacy actors, it will go towards more self regulation.  If there is more government participation, if it ever happens, it will go more towards the responsibilities of government.  
The coalitions need to strive to get a balanced multistakeholder participation and the best way to do it, and something that will show their usefulness, is probably to help the preparation of the main sessions in a very informal manner.  That is by providing summaries of elements, background papers, references to things that are happening in a neutral manner, as a part of support informally to the secretariat.   But I agree with you that a formalization of the relationship and the role is probably premature.  It my be a discussion on the evolution of the IGF to see whether there are some requirements for the Dynamic Coalitions.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  I think in principle I agree with the last speaker -- this is Andrea Saks -- because we have had a rather unique Dynamic Coalition because we deal with everybody's everything.  I mean, basically, accessibility and disability affects without discrimination.  
I think the idea of formalizing it has to be done correctly, if we do.  And we have to treat all the dynamic coalitions the same.  So I think for them to contribute in an advisory capacity is what we would like to do and continue to do in any way that we can do it, for the promotion of accessibility for People with Disabilities or equal rights or some of the other issues that are there.  
So, maybe having a discussion group about that, so we get the views of everyone, might be an idea.  Thank you.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Thank you.  Miguel.
>> MIGUEL PEREZ SUBIAS:  I second what Bertrand said.  I will say that, as you said, they are self organized groups, and any formalization or any relationship that needs to be described will need to go through the -- beyond the first five years of the IGF.  In that regard we have still some time.  But the discussions on the IGF will be held next year.  So, if people think that there is some sort of need for clarification or whatever regarding the Dynamic Coalitions, then it has to wait for the revision process that will take place next year.  
But other than that, I think that it's very to the point what we are trying to do, that they can anyhow try to put balance in the discussions and in the proceedings of the IGF.  And I see that is the part of advocacy that they can take.  Thank you.  
>> Thank you.  This is Katic S.  I want to make a comment about how we can work.  I want to share some of the dynamics on the civil society, how they can organize themselves.   For example, there is one coalition called TACD.  It's a forum of US and EU consumer organisations which agree on joint statements on Internet policy statements.  They are not here but they are a member.  We have an agreement on the Resolution of Social Network and we would like to have that program to fit the main session.  They don't have to be here, because everybody doesn't have money to travel to Egypt, but those are based on a consensus.  The things with other coalitions, for example, the public work coalition is working right now on total global privacy standards and they will be released before November.  
we want to fit with the main session and the results of the main coalition meeting.  We have to pass through the process of consensus first.  And that's all.
>> MARILIA MACIEL:  Marilia Maciel, from Brazil.  I'd like to make a a point about the main session of emerging issueS.  I think it's very important that we find a way to bring new perspectives to the session.  I would like to suggest to have young people as panelists, and not only that, but also to give space to youth hubs that are being organized.  There are people interested to organize and in Egypt and Finland and other countries, and to give two or three minutes for the remote youth hubs to make statements during the session, I think it would be really important.  Thank you.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  The session on emerging issues is focused on social networks.  And I thought this was something that we did think about last time, also, that we really make a special effort to give some space to people for remote participation and to young people in this year's session on the emerging issues.  And that was felt strongly last time and we certainly should do that.
>> Thank you.  Sort of forming up on the point made earlier about the coalition having difficulty getting people to participate, the whole purpose of a Dynamic Coalition is that it's dynamic in itself.  The relevance of what it's discussing sort of gravitates people towards it.  Rather than actually trying to say we -- the Dynamic Coalitions inherited or in some way be given the status they are looking for may not be the best approach.  I think concentrating on the relevance and making sure they gravitate in either government, business or other actors, that might be better.  I just wanted to make that point.
>> To make that clear, it's not about making it formal or formalizing it more than it needs to be.  It's about creating a space where government representatives feel comfortable participating.  They are interested, many times they listen, but they feel very uncomfortable speaking.  That's what I hear in my daily life, as trying to make it as dynamic as possible.  So it's not about making it more formal.  It's more about clarifying that they can speak there without being held as a position for their country, et cetera.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  There is one story of a diplomat in New York.  He did not obey what his country said.  Part of the great things with secret ballots is that you can have space from your own country.  
>> I just wanted to add that I see this request as an indication of the, let's say, growing maturity of the Dynamic Coalition.  Where many Dynamic Coalitions work for a long time dominated by civil society, and I think it's actually a good evolution that there is a real desire to reach out and have the Dynamic Coalitions themselves also being multistakeholders for us.  
So whether or not it is time to formalize is something I don't really want to comment on, but I would see it more in that light.  
Also, feeding into the things that Marilyn was raising, there are ways -- if there are Dynamic Coalitions that still struggle in terms of communicating, then these are the issues that can be addressed.  I would think of it as a positive evolution.
>>LISA HORNER:  This is Lisa from Global Partners.  I just wanted to echo that point that it's not about necessarily formalizing them in their relationship to the MAC, et cetera.  But one of the strengths of the IGF is this notion of multistakeholder working.  And if we really want to see this carry on, if we want to make this a reality, then those spaces for the Dynamic Coalitions are places where we can really do that.  
So it's just a case of suggesting -- maybe it's even a case of stressing that to IGF participants or creating those kinds of channels into the main sessions.  I just think that we as an IGF community, as such, need to do more to think about how we can really make those spaces work together.  Not necessarily calling on the MAC to do anything or the secretariat to do anything, but just to emphasize as a community that these small dynamic spaces focusing on specific issues I think are really important.  And if we want to make progress in this sphere, then we need to work together to make them work so we can keep the spirit of the IGF alive in that sense.  
Thank you.  
>> MARILYN CADE:  This is Marilyn Cade.  I think I'm actually seeing a lot of similarity to questions that we each need to ask ourselves about the -- and I do mean ask ourselves -- about the purpose of not only dynamic coalitions but also the purpose of the national IGF days or the regional IGF days.  These are both in their own way additional ways for people to participate.  In one case it may be with a national focus or a regional focus.  In another case, in the case of the Dynamic Coalition, because of the aspect of virtual participation, it's potentially a very distributed participation.  
However, I guess I'm going to repeat what I thought I was trying to say earlier.  I actually think it's very early days to understand whether we are able to achieve balance and sustain it within those initiatives.  Sometimes an initiative can go on, a coalition can go on and on for a year or two and do something particularly interesting, and then it finds that it doesn't have long-term staying power because it wants to change the topic it wants to address.  
So I'd kind of like to, first of all, I personally do not support mainstreaming the Dynamic Coalitions into the main sessions.  I think that trying to find a way for the Dynamic Coalitions to have a meeting room at the IGF is a really good thing to do. It may be the only time people can meet face-to-face.  But I would think that Nitin's suggestions that speakers can be nominated or come forward from Dynamic Coalitions is a good way to look at the input.  But that we need to find a time to talk more about not just Dynamic Coalitions but about the purpose of the -- the principles for national and regional IGFs as well.  
These are new topics to many of us.  And I think I probably said the same thing twice now.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  I think we can certainly provide space where people can meet.
>> NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Thank you, I'm Nermine El Saadany from Egypt.  I'd Like to go back to the youth issue that was raised earlier.    And I would like to second the importance of the inclusion of youth and I would like to draw your kind attention that we have previously announced that the youth came before the IGF for a whole week to train them about the IGF issues.  And they will be -- the youth will be utilized in the sessions and participants.  If you want them as panelists for one of the sessions, they will be available, 100 youth will be available from different ages.  
As well, there is one workshop that I would like to draw your attention to as well.  It's number 277.  Activating and listening to the voice of Tweens.  And this will be a panel discussion between experts in the field of Internet Governance as well as actual kids from nine years old to fifteen years old.  I think this specific workshop will be very interesting for us to encourage and hopefully it will be a successful one, too. 
Thank you.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  The workshops, I think the last day workshops are different.  Yes?
>> LEE HIBBARD:  Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe.  Workshop 265, is it possible to move that to another slot on an earlier day?  That would be good.  We have problems in bringing the experts on the final day.  So I'd like to propose that we move that if possible.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  It's like one person trying to sell one particular medicine.  
Good.  So I think we are more or less done at first cut.  Can I work back to the access and iversity session.  
And asI mentioned, I'm a little concerned about how do we structure this?  Now, one suggestion which came at lunch was don't break it up completely.  But I think we probably need to do it in such a way that even if we don't break it up in a formal sense, we do have some sequencing.  Because it's going to be very difficult to cover the, let's say, issues about international access, which came up in several submissions.  You know, multilingualism and disability, all in one sort of panel, where everybody speaks and then there is an open discussion.  And we will jump from issue to issue.  
So I think at least one can try and make an effort to say let's talk about this so that when we are discussing the disability issue, let the contributions from the floor be on that issue.  You can't just suddenly say it's all open.  So one person speaks on disability, the next one speaks on access, and the third one speaks on multilingualism.  So this will be a way of preserving a thread.  And how to do that is some suggestions that I invite from you.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  Well, I thought it was already structured in the idea that I had, I'll share it with everyone.  This is Andrea Saks on the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability.  We were told we had 45 minutes.  Within that 45 minutes we needed to have 15 minutes at least for questions and answers.  So, if they were broken up into the section to which they apply, then you have, for instance, in our example, the demonstration, the message and then questions and answers.  And it's clear that this particular session is about accessibility for Persons with Disabilities.  The same could apply to accessibility in the technical sense or multilingualism or whatever.  So that the sessions are defined and there is a question after each particular defined session.  
Thank you.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  The problem is, do we actually say that we are going to have three sessions or do we say it's one session with a strong moderator who says okay, let's say your question is on something to do with disability, this is the right time.  If it has to do with another topic, hold that.  We will come to that in a half hour's time.  That's the way I see it running.  We don't actually bring in a new panel, because that will waste a lot of time.  And it leads -- what I've seen, it leads to certain disorganisation.  But whereas if we keep the continuous flow but then we charge the moderator with a much tighter -- maintain a tighter discipline, first on the time for each of the issues and second on preserving a certain thread in the conversation, so that when we're talking about accessibility in the technical sense, the focus is on that.  And I think we should be fairly open about the order in which we do this.  And that I think we should do.  It really doesn't matter too much which order we do it, and I'm open to any ideas that you have.  
Are there any other suggestions on how we structure this session, where you have to really cover three teams and make sure that you're giving fair chance to all of the people who are involved in these meetings.  Yes?  
>> Thank you.  I agree with the approach that you're suggesting.  Think it's important not to have three sessions separated.  I think we are -- this issue area has been built upon in the past IGFs and this is a new opportunity to focus more on two areas that maybe had less focus last time.  So, I think a good guiding moderator would also be able to bring out the links between all three of these areas and angles of access.  
I think, too, it's important that part of the exchange before different experts and participants in the room to hear how we look at these issues from those three different angles, and the challenges that the interplay might pose.  So I think that is headed in the right direction.  
I also think that it's useful if there is going to be a compact panel for people not to step off and on the stage and for there to be a moderator that is well prepared to keep the thread going.  Because there may be questions, for instance, that come up in terms of the audience whose language issues need to be addressed, that also have a connection to the technical aspects that would be interesting to bring out and in turn the policy challenges that there may be.   Thanks.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  So then we work in these terms.  And I personally would not be absolutely -- we can look at the content and roughly it's to be in three parts.  And what is the sense here in terms of the three sets of issues?  Multilingualism, access to People with Disabilities, and the, if you like, access from the other issues related to access, including cost issues.  Where do you think we will be in terms of the portioning of time, in terms of the interests of the people attending there?  How do you think it will be?  Roughly equal or which way should we work it out?  
>> So people will come there because there is interest in some ways on the Internet policy issue, and this is the issue that is probably the widest public interest, access costs, how can I get -- use the Internet in my own language.  So this is why I'm very concerned that it should be something which would allow adequate participation.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  One thing that always amazed me, and this is Andrea Saks again, regarding the fact that people don't see the link.  I see the link very clearly.  Access does mean money.  And people, for instance, who are disabled don't have a lot of money to do that.  It means developing nations and people whose first languages are not written down.  It's becoming a broader issue.  So I see the whole thing as totally linked, with each section having a different flavor, if you like.   I agree with the other speaker who just said a good moderator.  Do we have a moderator for that particular issue?
And that would be the person that we would need to focus on and make sure that they understood the issues.  And I think that idea is excellent, that you propose.  Because access means access for everyone in all capacities.  And you can have a temporary disability that doesn't allow you to access it for a variety of reasons, which can be overcome as well as a permanent, for instance, medical disability.  
So the only concern about the time is that we have, in our case, we do have a demonstration and we agree to 45 minutes and we can do it just in that period of time.  
So I'm hoping that we will be still allowed the 45 minutes.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Yes.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  Whatever.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  There is no problem getting the 45 minutes.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  I would love to see somebody who would be able to link it all up who does understand.  I have someone in the back of my mind, and Markus just nodded his head.  I think it's a good idea and I'll let Markus suggest it.  
>> MARKUS KUMMER:  She is talking about Jonathan Charles.  She has been in touch.  He will be happy to monitor that session.  He will be also involved in the other workshops and best of practices forum.  We had him in Hyderabad.  I think he was a good moderator and an easy way of communicating with people in a relaxed manner and brought out their discussions.  He may not be an expert on this or on that, but he certainly is an expert at moderating sessions.  And I would certainly think he would be a good person for this session to bring things together.  
>> What about calling -- 
>> NITIN DESAI:  Name.
>> (Off microphone) APC.  What about calling the session access for all and then I agree with the proposal so far.  Rather than access and diversity, to really send the message that this is about access.  And that -- and then I think the moderator is very important.  
But again, I think the framing of the issue is very important and I think we can agree that we have reached certain consensus on access issues with regard to access to infrastructure and affordability in the previous IGF.  So we could even report on that.  And then frame the issue and then open it for discussion and -- well, for input from panelists.  And then just insure that there is -- that the spread of access challenges in different parts of the world and for different types of users are all represented. 
And I think it's also a good way of bringing developing countries and developed country issues to the same table, because access challenges I think are often not taken seriously enough, because they are discussed just as developing country issues.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  As a general proposition, we are not changing the title.  But we can certainly -- in the write-up we have, we will take care of that.  
Certainly I think we could probably reverse the order and start first with these other two issues of multilingualism and access and disability, and go onto the issues about affordability and technical access later.  That may be -- so that we don't end up eating up time.  Because look, let's be realistic, these things have a habit of overspilling and so on.  So we could do that.  
And so I think -- let's do it this way, and maybe I went on more than I should have about three teams.  But there is a certain unifying feature here which we can exploit.  
I think it may not be a bad idea to start with disability, then multilingualism and then affordability and access.  In some ways the disability issue is -- particularly because it's a demonstration plan, am I right?  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  Yes.  Yes, there is.  It's not a very complicated one and I'll tell everybody what it is.  We have a gentleman who is an expert.  He is blind.  He relies on the screen reader.  He is a demonstrative character and he will show how it works.  That is Gerard Ellis.  And then we have Shadi Abou-Zahar.  He will show how it works.  This is the first thing that you'll be hit with.  I think it's a wonderful way to open, if everybody agrees with that.   And then the message, how you structure the question and answer will be determined by the moderator.  As we said, you wanted to make sure that we allotted 15 minutes for that.  Whether it's at the end or after our particular session, we will leave it for your Decision.  
Thank you. 
>> ANA NEVES:  Ana Neves.  In many ways I like the way the session is being framed now.  The only thing I regret is that we will miss out on an opportunity to speak about gender, which I think is quite important.  And there is research that has shown that even if living standards increase and access in a physical infrastructure sense increases, that does not necessarily narrow the gap in access between men and women.  And at the same time, I'm referring back to what was said, it's not just an issue for developing countries, necessarily, access.  There are developing countries in which access is little but there is not a gender gap.  I appreciate it if we could find a way out in which this could be included in the agenda as well.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  The intention is not to bring out -- to leave out any issue.  The three broad topics, it's not like we will say oh, you want to say something about gender, then you cannot say that.  Well, that is certainly not the intention.  And particularly the last catchall category is something which allows you.  And if I put in a word from my tribe, what about old people?  You guys never mention us old people at all.  But I suppose that it's covered under the disabled title.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  One quick point.  I would recommend, you will probably attend that particular session, open your mouth and speak, because I'm clued in being female.  And secondly, yes, that is what we call another disability is old age.  Degeneration causes more disabilities than any other condition.  And there are lots of us out there that are -- we have glasses, we have other problems.  So consequently I would agree totally with what you said.  
>> (Off microphone.) 
>> ANDREA SAKS:  Yes.  Yes.  And, you know, we're all going to get to the end of the road and leave this experience intact.  
But I perfectly agree with the young lady and I would hope, it is a very important concern, gender, and there are many, many ladies throughout the world who cannot get on the Internet who need to be able to have access.  So if it is called access, as -- I didn't get the young lady's name here.
>> I'm not that young.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  To me, dear, you are.
Could you say your name so everybody knows who I'm referring to?
>> ANA NEVES:  Ana Neves.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  I think the idea of having it access, and we're blending access to what it really means in all of its facets would be an excellent idea.  Thank you.  
>> I have a point about multilingualism.  I'm Christine from Egypt.  I would like to see that we don't tackle multilingualism as we usually do, because we have exhausted the way that we looked at multilingualism and I think there is a lot more to discuss.  I hope we can tackle multilingualism from a content perspective.  Since we are putting that in the frame of access and diversity, then maybe we should look at the absence of enough multilingual content and look at that as a value to access.  So I hope we can frame it that way.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Where do we go now?  We have gone through the first cut.  And now do we want to look at the reshuffling now or tomorrow?  
>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, we have started with the reshuffling and we keep receiving requests, I think it may be a bit complex in the plenary setting to go through it.  But I would encourage you to give us either a piece of paper with your request, or send us an e-mail as you have been doing.  And maybe we can finish a little bit early this afternoon and then for those interested, sit together.  Because it always involves reshuffling, if you ask for another slot, that means somebody else has to be -- to find a slot is not that easy.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  I suggest that we spend a little time on the discussion of remote participation as we are required to do now.  And then we wait.  It's 4 o'clock.  I don't know how long we will need for this discussion on remote participation.  And then those of you who are directly involved in the reshuffling of the -- of the workshop stay behind and then you just sit with Markus, as the secretariat, and see how this can be reshuffled.  And then tomorrow morning we can look at the revised program, take care of whatever outstanding issues are left, and try to finish by lunchtime.  Okay?
Shall we do that?
So let's start.  We do have time, well, it's 4 o'clock.  So if you want, or shall we leave the discussion for more participation tomorrow and then leave the rest of the time for the -- 
>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Let's do it now.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Let's starts the process.  Maybe you can tell us a little about where we are on remote participation for this.
>> MARKUS KUMMER:  I'll ask Chengetai to fill it.  We have been in touch with the hosts, the technical team, and we have been in touch with colleagues, people who are active in remote participation.  And I think the technical side will not offer that much of a problem.  But I think what we have found also, at Hyderabad, we had technical issues, but it's not just that, it's how to integrate it from the management side of the meeting, how do we integrate the remote hubs, which again will be the focus I think of our efforts.  So I think -- for the moderator it is rather difficulty.  
However good the moderator is, the moderator is thrown into the room where the people are and tends to lose the notion that there are people out there remotely.  So I think we have to make sure, maybe a co-moderator for the remote participation. 
Maybe setting a slot in the middle of the meeting, five or ten minutes, where we can have some direct physical interaction.  
We will also need to start training and testing, but maybe Chengetai can talk about that.  
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  For the remote participation, basically in the main room we're going to have audio and video webcasting, and in the workshop rooms it's going to be audio only, except for one workshop room, where there will be audio and video webcasting.  
For the interaction, we are going to be using WebEx.  The Egyptians are offering WebEx, which is very similar to Dim Dim software.  And this is mainly going to be used by remote panelists.  You're free to use Skype if you want to use it, but there is WebEx licenses available.  
This is going to come online on the 20th of October.  So, we do plan to do some testing, because it's very important that people know how to use it beforehand.  And so from the 20th of October, we're going to arrange some testing together with the remote participation working group and anyone else who is interested.  
We do encourage the remote hubs to register with us, so that we can also do some testing and work out any technical issues beforehand instead of on the day.  
There is going to be the usual e-mailing and as Markus has said, it's not adequate to have the facility, there has to be some integration with the moderator, which we found out in the previous ones, when a remote participants wants to make an intervention, by the time the question or the intervention is noticed by the moderator, the conversation has passed that point.  So, we have to work out those modalities and we will be doing that.  
I think that is mostly it.  Yes.  Okay.  
Those people with -- panelists who do want some sort of specific remote participation in their workshops, can you please just notify us in advance so we can do the testing, et cetera.  And any questions?  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  Is there captioning?  WebEx is not accessible.  
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  There is captioning in the main room.  If you want it in the workshops -- 
>> ANDREA SAKS:  You're talking about WebEx is going to be available to everybody in the remote area?  But when you establish remote, we're going to have to find out how -- because WebEx can be put together with captioning, so people can on the Web get it.  I know you'll do it in the main sessions.  But, for instance, I don't know if the Chinese workshop is -- on accessibility is captioned.  Do we have information on that?  
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  There hasn't been any questions for captioning for the Chinese workshop.  If they want to, I'm sure we can make some arrangements.  But they have to pay for it themselves.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  Well, I'd be happy to work with you on that, because we are now in the process of of course captioning our workshops.  So I just wanted to point that out to the group that even though all of this exists in your webcast, if you are at all interested in having your session captioned, it's done -- the way this is being done right now is not terribly expensive.  The captioner is in another part of the world, or maybe a ridiculous hour to us, but that's how they work, and they are taking this through a phone link or through the Web.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  And they will be able to caption your session.  And I can put you in touch with these people, who will probably be doing our captioning -- will be doing our captioning for sure.  And it's a very inexpensive way of dealing with captioning.  And I would encourage all of you to consider that.  Please contact me and I'll help you get in touch with Caption First.  
So I think it's an important thing to mention to everybody here, that if you would like to be accessible remotely, but include the deaf community as well.  Thank you.  
>> NURANI NIMPUNO:.  I just have a few little things regarding remote participation, having been involved in organizing remote participation of the meetings, but also having participated remotely.  
I think it's very important to -- well, to have, but also not only to provide it but to have little things to make it easy for people to participate.  So, for example, having a very clear agenda on the Web site is very important, so that people can prepare themselves.  
When there are presentations, if possible, get them up on the Web site before so people can read them or at least a clear description of what will be discussed.  
Little things like having a downloadable calendar that people can download into their own calendars so you know exactly when the different time slots start.  Having time information on the Web, so you know that okay, it's 2 o'clock now in Sharm El Sheikh so this is when I want to listen in to that session.  
And the other thing is, actually, having someone monitoring the remote participation and conveying that information.  Like you said, it often, when you participate remotely, you realize that your comment is only passed on when it's too late and the discussion moved on.  So what has proven useful in meetings that I've been involved with is having one person assigned to monitor whether it's chat rooms or WebEx, and actually have them given fixed time, so that before you move onto the next discussion, that person can convey whatever has been mentioned in the chat rooms, or whatever remote channels.
Another useful thing is captioning through chat rooms.  A lot of times when you get the realtime updates on the Web sites, sometimes things go wrong there and it crashes.  But by allowing people to participate through chat rooms, for example, Jabber or something like that, you can stream the captioning through there and that way people can keep in contact with what is happening with very low bandwidth.  
So little things like that, that are not complicated to organize, but it really makes it easy to participate I think are important to consider.  
>> ANNE-RACHEL INNE:  Participation has become an issue in the agenda of IGF and I want to publicly thank the IGF secretariat that has raised this issue throughout all of the regional meetings, in Latin America, so that they raised this issue.  And it has helped a lot to make remote participation major on their agenda.  
I think the IGF is a two pronged meeting.  We have a meeting with physical people participating in the meeting and we have another meeting taking place online.  We have wonderful numbers of remote participation last year and we think we will beat these numbers this year.  We have had interest for organizing remote hubs for people all around the world.  We have worked in guidelines for remote participation during the last two months and we are putting it online on the Web site.  We have handed it to the IGF secretariate and we will discuss it in a meeting.   And, briefly, these guidelines have three main goals.  First, give a sense of continuity to remote participation.  Because we had a feeling that the efforts that were done, they were lost from one year to the other.  So we tried to build up from last year and to bring new issues and to make it a better experience. 
The second thing is that an objectivity of the guidelines is to help remote moderators to find the right timing to bring the questions in, so it will help not only the remote moderators, but also the moderators that are on the panels to know when to get the questions from remote participants.  This is also another issue that we raised in these guidelines.  
And the training procedure, which we think is really important for a Hub organizer and also for the moderators that will be getting the questions.  We suggested in the guidelines that the moderators could be people from the host country.  That it would save us a lot of travel expenses and we are available to keep up with these people and to give trainings and to go through WebEx features with them.  
We have analyzed the IGF seissions.  It's interesting, because this year, as we have different methodologies in each sessions, we have to plan remote participation for each session.  In the Internet resource, we will have resource people waiting in the audience to be called to participate.  So remote participants should be treated equally to people inside.  We say that we will about ten people in the audience called, and they will not be counted as people who are physically doing questions.  Because we have to take two questions from the floor and one question from remote participants.  We have to find a balance to give the opportunity for them to participate.  
The access and diversity, as we have now three main themes, we will have to have three moments for taking questions, otherwise it will get complicated to get everything in the end.  
So, we would like to ask everybody who is interested to access these guidelines.  We can give you the address and the list and we will make it publicly available.  And also ask the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility to work with us, because we would like to see how we could improve remote participation for People with Disabilities, too.  
Thank you.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  I think I'm not sure how much we can do while we are sitting here on remote participation, because some of the issues are technical.  I think in terms of process, the main thing is to be able to structure the discussions in the meeting hall in such a way that there is a meaningful form of remote participation, not just some sort of token.  We try, and I think there was a suggestion earlier to pay particular attention to do this for the emerging issue session.  And we should certainly try and do that.  
Because that is a session where we're not under that much time pressure.  Because it's not as if we have a huge agenda to cover, where it's a very focused agenda on social networks.  So it's not as if you have a huge agenda -- it's a focused agenda.  And I think there may well be scope, where we focus participation by the hubs in the process, and in that session particularly.  
It may be more difficult in some sessions, like access and diversity, where there will be a lot of people in the room itself who want to participate.  But certainly in the emerging issues, as suggested, it would be very -- this time, it's a systematic effort.  Warn people, saying around this time we are going to come across to you.  So they are also prepared.  Is that feasible?  
>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, also in the open discussion sessions, where you have three hours to discuss open Internet resources, we should find the time.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  How many hubs are we going to have?  
>> Until now we have three used hubs that people said that they were going to organize.  We have a Hub in Brazil, Columbia and in Argentina until now that spoke to us.  
Just one comment.  I think it's important that we find a ratio, two to one.  Two questions from the floor, one question from remote participants.  If we don't find the ratio, I'm afraid that in some panels that are more energized, the debates, the moderator can just forget to take questions from remote participants.  So I think we have to establish a ratio prior to the meeting.  
>> I want to make a suggestion.  Maybe it's good that everybody who is in the room, the way to engage more remote perhaps in their own countries, because they are doing a volunteer job and they are leader people, but I think that we can make it worldwide.  So we should start thinking about that, everybody.  
>> I just want to say one more thing about using the Twitter channel as well.  I think we can work together so that we can inform people together through Twitter through the channels.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Okay.
>> Just one last comment I remembered.  There are people who are following the open consultations now and we are getting -- the webcast was freezing a lot, and they are saying it makes a huge difference to have the captioning on the screen.  So we will definitely strive to make it as available in as many sessions as possible.
>> (Off microphone.) 
>> NITIN DESAI:  Go ahead.
>> This the (inaudible) from the United States.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  You're breaking up.  You're breaking up.  Can you say again what you are asking us.  
>> Can you hear better now, perhaps?  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Yes, we can hear better now.
>> Good.  I will kill my own audio in the attempt to prevent feedback.  
I want to note that as the participation expands dramatically from remote locations, because it's very attractive, we have a truly grand experiment in participating in democracy.  And it's a special bonus for the remote hubs to segregate either consensus in the individual locations or to accurately represent in a central way the propriety of what will be presented.  This will be a graphic experiment for a large group participating.  But it's about time.  A lot of people look forward to it.  Thank you.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Sorry.  It wasn't very clear, because --
What I got was that you were talking in terms of the hubs aggregating view, am I right?
>> Yes, that is correct.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  And that -- how would we do that?  And certainly I think that is the intention behind the hubs, so that in some ways we aggregate in use in presenting them to somebody.  Am I right?  Would you like to respond to that?  Would the hubs be aggregating?  
>> I believe that the hubs have a huge -- it's a normal syntax.  When you watch the webcast at home, you're alone.  You don't build the networking.  When you get together in the hubs, you not only watch the webcast but you are able to discuss.  The webcast is just a starting point to discuss the things from the IGF from a local perspective.  So it has its own dynamics locally.  So it has much to do with the process of regionalization of the IGFs that we have been discussing up to now.  So I think it's very in tune.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  I think this is something that we will try and do and we will certainly get it in open sessions and so on, take care of some of what you're getting at.
My impression is to use the hubs for this type of aggregation, so you are getting participation not just from a room, but...
>> We just had a problem right now with the conversation.  Sometimes in difficult regions where Internet connectivity is slow, it can be difficult with Skype and others.  What about live text?  Because in my participation from remote and the last time I was trying to do that, there was text where we could actually speak to each other over text and then if you wanted to sort of speak over using telephony, we could do that as well.  But, the text wasn't visible to the people in the room.  So just like we're having this live right now on the screen, maybe it's possible to have a little segment where people are allowed to chat and people can say what they're saying.  Thank you.  Or at least the person on the phone.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  That we always had, I remember.  But somebody at this end has to keep track.
>> My understanding is that the person -- say someone -- let's say -- 
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  You just want like a chat function, like a normal chat.
>> For people who are remote, but it's available on the Web so people can see it, they can see the live chatting that is taking place for remote participation.  
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I think we -- we will work on something.
>> Thank you.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  I didn't get your name, but thank you.   So can I say we can call it a day for this discussion and leave the time, an hour and a half, for the reshuffling exercise which has to be done?  Okay.  So we will meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow.  And may I request all of the people who have requests for shifting of workshops, to stay behind so that we can work through this.  Because obviously some adjustments have -- yes?  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  Do you need the captioning?  
>> NITIN DESAI:  No.  I think we can close the meeting now.  We don't need captioning, no.  
There is coffee outside.  
I think we should be able to finish, but certainly finish by lunchtime tomorrow.  Because we really now have to look at the reshuffled... 
>> ANDREA SAKS:  What time, so I can let the caption people now, either 1 or 12 -- either 1 p.m, 13:00 or 12:00.  
>> NITIN DESAI:  I think --
>> Make it 10 to 1.  
>> ANDREA SAKS:  So we will start at 10 o'clock, 10 to 1, for the captioner.  And thank you captioner.  Thank you, Pat.
>> NITIN DESAI:  We will break for coffee before we get down to work.  
(End of open session)
This text is being provided in a rough draft format.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.  

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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