The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2017 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting from 12 to 14 June 2017 in Geneva, Switzerland. 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 event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 

***

 12 JUNE 2017 15:00

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to start.  As soon as people have sat down.  Thank you very much.
 Okay.  Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.  We're now on the afternoon session of our open consultation.  And I'll just hand over the floor to our chair, Lynn St. Amour, to start off the session.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chengetai.  And thank you, everybody, for coming back so promptly as well.  We do have a lot to cover this afternoon, too.
 The first item is an update on the dynamic coalitions and Avri Doria is going to provide that.  She is participating remotely online.  
 So, Avri, you have the floor.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Can I be heard?
 Can I be heard?
 Yes, I can be.  I see the scribe.
 Okay.  So there's two things.  The dynamic coalitions have organized themselves over the last two years, and there is a dynamic coalition coordinating group that is basically working together to try and get a certain amount of parity in the practices of the dynamic coalition.  We put out a briefing note, which I believe is available to everyone that's there, talking about -- and I'm not going to go into the details of it here unless there are questions.  
 But speaking about what are DCs, how did they get started, you know, how does one establish a dynamic coalition?  What rules are there that apply to dynamic coalitions?  And even though dynamic coalitions are bottom up and each one of them figures out its own practices in terms of how it's going to work, certain things have been mandated in discussion with the MAG and in agreement among the dynamic coalitions themselves in terms of openness of lists, of participation, et cetera.
 So these things are defined so those rules are defined.  And it's open membership, open mailing lists, and open archives.  And those apply to everyone.
 The outcomes of individual dynamic coalitions' work are discussed.  They're very varied, and so some of them publish documents.  Some of them have many meetings throughout the year.  They all do different things, but they're all required to do something.  You cannot be a dynamic coalition and do nothing.
 So -- and each of them -- and within the briefing, there's an outline of some of the things that have been achieved by the various dynamic coalitions.
 So then there's a session on how has it changed, how are they doing differently, and that sort of (indiscernible).  
 Now they're sharing -- for example, last year we had a shared session among -- in the main room, among the various dynamic coalitions who had put out a substantive paper during the year.  It was as far as I could tell, and from what I have heard from other people, a successful session which we're planning -- we've requested and put in a proposal to repeat again this year.
 Let me see.  And then there's a note on DC sessions at the IGF.  Historically, the dynamic coalitions have the opportunity to hold individual meetings as part of the IGF program.  The DC requests for individual sessions are sent to and approved by the secretariat.  So they don't go through the workshop -- though many DCs also organize with others workshops and that is a difference.
 The dynamic coalition coordination group continues.  Markus Kummer and I are the facilitators.  Markus is a facilitator for the dynamic coalitions, and I'm facilitating it in kind of a connector role to the MAG.  This is my last year in the MAG, so someone else will have to take that role next year.
 The dynamic coalitions are discussing mailing list guidelines and such as that.  So the work continues.  A dynamic coalition coordination group meets monthly on average.
 So now we are applying for a proposed session this time very much like the one last time, that each of the dynamic coalitions that wants to participate will, you know, have to submit some significant piece of work, either a paper or evidence of some other work.  And we're still working on the details of that.
 And then we'll have a similar 90-minute session, we're hoping -- we have not been approved on the schedule yet.  But we're hoping we'll have a 90-minute session moderated as it was last year by someone probably the same person, Tatiana Tropina has agreed to do it again and basically pull out the commonalities among the work that the various DCs are doing.
 I think I will stop at this point.  I don't know if there will be questions.  I will stop.  I'm sorry the audio is breaking, Mary.  I'm doing my best.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Avri.  Your audio, just in terms of quality, was fine here in the room.
 Avri did send a very useful document around about a week and a half ago that I think was quite thorough in terms of covering the dynamic coalitions' activities.  Both she and Markus have put a lot of time and effort over the last couple years in terms of trying to support that effort again in line with some recommendations coming out of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF.
 So let me see if there are any questions from the floor.  Checking the speaking queue here.  
 I guess, Ji, you're in the queue?  Maybe Luis can help you afterward using the online system so we have everybody in one place.  It would help.  
 But, Ji, you have the floor.
 >>JI HAOJUN:  I don't know why people physically in the room have to wait in the electronic queue.
 We overcome (indiscernible) have got to have some priority and privilege.
 The second thing is very technical.  I'm wondering if the conference room service can turn down the temperature a little bit because after entering the room ten minutes, I'm still sweating.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  That would actually be quite helpful if we could lower the temperature a bit somewhere in the room.
 I do feel we have to come back and just make sure we are all clear on the queue process we are using.  This is a multistakeholder forum, multistakeholder format.  We accept speakers in the order they requested the floor, which is pretty standard procedure in many meetings, many U.N. meetings included.  So that is a procedure that the IGF has followed in its 12 years.  It's the procedure that we will continue following here as well.
 If you really object to using the online system, that's fine, but then I will slot you in when I see your request, along with all the requests.  
 At which point, Lee, I can't tell you if you're in the queue or if that was from before lunch.  No?
 Are there are any other requests for the floor on this topic?  Then I think I'd just emphasize again what Avri said and what she says in her and Markus' report.  The dynamic coalitions have really gone to some, I think, great lengths over the last few years to, I think, pick their game up collectively and individually.  The work is really interesting.  The reports are interesting.  I think they're contributing an awful lot to the IGF space and the IGF program in total, so I would encourage people to pay attention to the work of the dynamic coalitions, and in particular, I know the MAG at the last meeting had actually determined that it was appropriate to look at the work of the dynamic coalitions and the best practice forums and see where we can continue to integrate them into all the components of what constitutes an IGF set of activities over the year.
 So if there are no more questions -- again, I'm trying to wait the 30 seconds for the online system to catch up, and it does seem much more (indiscernible) this afternoon than this morning, so if something could be done to adjust it, that would be excellent.  
 The next item is updates on the MAG working group.  There are five MAG working groups that were constituted.  The MAG working groups are primarily to help the MAG accomplish its set of tasks and agendas by putting working groups, a smaller set of groups, to help advance the work.  The work coming out of the MAG working groups goes back to the full MAG for approval, as necessary, or support, so it really is just a function to enable us to move forward more quickly with the work that's in front of us.
 To that end, we can ask for a short -- hopefully, again, short introduction from the facilitators or co-facilitators of those MAG working groups.  Again, this is a community consultation, so we want a very short introduction, and then really to leave room for the community to engage, respond, or ask questions.
 So I can choose you to come forward and talk about it, but -- or Segun, do you want to go first and just give a very brief update on the working group on communications and outreach?
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Well, thank you, Madam Chair.  I'm Segun, once again.  I'll be talking briefly on the working group on communication and outreach.  Sorry.  Okay.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Those of you online, we're just trying to fix some interference here in the background.  
 Actually, would you mind just actually shifting one foot over and seeing if it's just that mic?
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Okay.  I'm sorry for the little microphone audio problem or issue.  It's minor.  
 Now, moving forward, I just want to talk about the working group on communication and outreach.  And the objective of the working group on communication is basically to continue the streams of work for improving the IGF communication and outreach across the stakeholder community, and we have put together the terms of reference which has been submitted to the MAG and which has been approved, and we held our first meeting -- the first online meeting, we held a fortnight ago.
 But what we came to agree is that there's a need for us to enhance the role of the working group, and also we also emphasize that there's a need for us to work in synergy with all other working groups and the commital of various session or intersessional activities.  
 And another area that we are looking toward to improve is how we can work with the host country, especially in the areas of enhancing communication across the community, and for now, we still continue various discussions and we are having a meeting not just with (indiscernible) that time, an ongoing meeting that we have both on the MAG list and on Skype, and we have continued to bring in people across the community to be part of the working group.  But what I -- what I would really like to emphasize is that there's a need for the working group to work together with all other (indiscernible), and especially all the MAG members, because I want to say that the role or the job of communicating the values of IGF should not be left alone for the working group.  It should be an all-inclusive and all-encompassing engagement.
 Now, we are still looking at how we could also improve the outcomes of the IGF, the various outcomes of the IGF, especially the best practice forum outcomes and the outcomes of various intersessional activities.  
 That is, working on how we can provide them and how we can communicate this outcome to the appropriate stakeholders.  That is the level that we have now.  But what I probably would like to say is that we are still evolving and we are still engaging and we are still looking at various options where we can improve the regions where we are set up, and I think myself and also a member of this group, we've been talking to various stakeholders (indiscernible) on this platform, some of the stakeholders from the WSIS forum.  They've been asking questions and will be engaging.  But we're also looking at how we can improve working together with the secretariat, and we have emphasized that when we had our last meeting, and we are looking at some areas where we really need to improve that.  We are looking at the possibility of sharing messages before such messages go out to the community.  
 Then we are also looking at how we can support the MAG chair.  Especially in communicating and in helping to come up with various messages which the members of the group can work on and probably use it to support the effort of the MAG chair whenever she is engaged in various public speaking on IGF.
 Lastly, maybe I should use this forum, we have a minor concern of issues where we are looking at the need to bring in non-MAG members and we are asking a particular question, that is it possible for us to bring a MAG member to serve as co-coordinators?  And this is an area that we are looking to.  I think along the way, we have responses where some of these issues have been partially addressed.  So I will use this opportunity to invite every one of us, most especially the coordinator or the various group intersessional activities, there's a need for us to synergize our efforts and there's a need to communicate, share values, and our message needs to be coherent.  That's the level that we have now.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Segun.  That was very comprehensive report.  I won't respond to the question about the MAG co-facilitators because, frankly, I need to think about it for a minute.  I'm -- and just catch what is the current state across the MAG.  I know some MAG working groups have supported that.  I'm not sure if that's consistent or what the policy has been, so I think I just need to talk to the secretariat to get that clear and then we can revisit that at a later stage.
 Let me move now -- I think we'll just go through the updates really quickly and then turn it over to the floor for questions, unless there's anybody who really feels a need to comment specifically on that particular update.
 So leaving a bit of time, but the queue has been empty.  There's no one in.  So with that, I think I will go to Avri Doria again, who is leading a MAG working group on IGF improvements, and then just so we manage the queue, Miguel Ignacio will be in the queue second to talk about the new sessions format working group, so Avri, you have the floor.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Okay.  So thank you.  So the working group on improvements, I think our full name is -- oh, let me find that.  Our full name is working group to support evaluation and implementation of improvements to the IGF.  For short, working group IMP, I-M-P.
 We have a charter that's been improved by the MAG.  It's a new group starting this year.  We've been working on putting it together for a while.  We're going to review the set of documentations for IGF improvement that documents the direction of the community on these things.  We have the CSTD working group on IGF improvements.  We have a document that the MAG working group in 2013 did in response to it.  We have two sets of recommendations from the U.N. General Assembly, one when they approved the CSTD working group on IGF improvements work and one when they approved our mandate, and we have the gleanings from the DESA retreat.
 So our target is to go through this work, measure it against the improvements that have already been made.  Oftentimes you hear nothing's been done about the improvements but we see many changes and many of those changes are based on those recommendations, but we don't yet have a clear handle on exactly which ones have been done, the degree to which they've been done, and which ones still need to be worked on.
 So that's going to be our main task.  We'll develop targets and milestones.  We'll talk about how to measure improvements.  And then we'll propose next steps for doing this.
 So this is really to understand where we're at so that we can continue the improvement.  It's not that improvements will stop while we're doing this.  They'll go on naturally as they have.  But we need to understand where we are and be able to document it.  This group is open to both MAG members and non-MAG members.  We did clear having co-facilitators, one from the MAG and one non-MAG member.  We've also, while doing that, made sure that we have diversity of one male, one female, one from the north, one from the global south.
 So in picking two people, we need to -- to satisfy those two requirements.  We're underway now.  The secretariat has gotten us a working list.  We're scheduling our first meeting for next week.  And there's information on the Web site that the secretariat put up earlier on how to sign up.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Avri.  That was very clear.  I'd like to move next to the working group on new session formats and ask Miguel to speak.  This is the second year of that working group and last year we made some, I think, fairly important improvements which were really well received and we're continuing to build on that success and Miguel is again going to lead that working group.  
 Miguel, you have the floor.
 >>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA:  Hi, everyone.  Can you hear me?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yes.
 >>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA:  Can you hear me?  
 Okay.  So sorry I couldn't be there.  Some new members in my family I have to attend.  There's no -- there's not so much progress on the working group since we last year had a -- we went until the work -- the working -- I'm sorry, the workshops are selected and then we start with our work in order to complete those spaces that we required last time.  I don't know if you are taking into account those spaces.  I hope so.  We would need -- by now, we should have a meeting with the group maybe in the following two weeks to define what we need specifically, but right now I can tell you that we would need at least a room for a complete day and a space every lunch break in order to have the lightning session.  
 So there's not much progress on this.  I just wanted to check with the secretariat if you are taking into account those things.
 And invite everyone to join the working group after this selection process is over.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Miguel.  
 It's going to be tough to compete with last year's event, though, which took place outside, lovely weather, in a big, open pavilion.  But I'm sure we'll manage this year.
 Rasha?  Rasha is leading a working group on the workshop evaluation effort.
 >>RASHA ABDULLA:  Thank you, Lynn.  Just a few words.  My name is Rasha Abdulla.  I'm leading the working group on workshop evaluation.  Last year I think we got quite a bit of work done.  We've sort of revamped the system by which the workshops were being evaluated so now instead of every single MAG member reviewing every single workshop proposal, we've managed to divide the work and sort of make the evaluation process more detailed so that each MAG member can give more individual attention to each workshop proposal.  We're still going on with the work this year.  We realize the system is not perfect, of course, so we're aiming to fine-tune it for next round.  And in this regard, we particularly welcome all comments from the community.  So if you have any comments you would like to share with us on the proposal submission process or on your perceptions of the evaluation process, we are very open to receiving that because this is the pages from which we will be working this year.
 So please make sure you let us know if you have any feedback.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Rasha.
 And the last working group that the MAG actually approved is a working group on IGF multiyear strategic work program.  Based on comments that came through the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements, based on the WSIS+10, and the retreat that was held last year organized by DESA, it was clear that there's more we can do to move from one year to the next year and.  Certainly with a ten-year mandate, we have the opportunity now to take a much longer look about our program.
 So the MAG actually agreed to put working group in place to work on a strategic multiyear work program.  The charter was approved by the MAG approximately a week and a half ago, maybe two weeks.  It is posted on the Web site and is now shown here and in the Adobe Connect room as well.
 Specifically, the output from that effort is to be built with the IGF community, extending out at a minimum two to three years and would cover expected major areas of work for the IGF as well as all of its intersessional activities.
 So it is not redundant to or competing with the work on the IGF improvements.  It's specifically to look at the strategic multiyear work program of the MAG.  
 And I am chairing or co-facilitating that effort.  And obviously I'm on Avri's mailing list and effort as well.  We are very closely interrelated.  And as items come up through the Working Group on IGF Improvements, they will be fed into the strategic multiyear work program as well.
 Specifically the goal is that the working group will work with the full MAG and the IGF community to deliver this living program, is the words we are using at the moment to describe it.  And the goal is that would be approved no later than IGF 2017 in order to support the MAG's work next year.
 Membership, it's open to MAG members and very much other members of the IGF community and in particular we need members to come in and participate from all of the intersessional activities of the IGF as well.  We'll be looking for another co-chair, which I believe should be selected by the members of the working group.
 On the IGF Web site, you'll actually see the sign-up for the working group.  All of our lists again will be open to the public as well.  We will follow the same principles, protocols, if you will, as the other working group.
 That document actually talks to some of the relationships other IGF efforts and the modalities we'll follow as well.  But I think it's there.  I won't use up valuable face-to-face time to explain that.
 That is the last of the MAG working groups.  So we've just covered the five, maybe the secretariat could go back to the main list.  
 And I would like to open it up for questions from the floor now from the community.  Any comments, inputs, suggestions, concerns?
 I will give a minute here if the queue populates.
 Ji, you have the floor.
 >>JI HAOJUN: Thank you, Chair.  If I remember correctly, last time when we discussed it, we have an agreement that the co-chair who is no MAG member should be agreed upon by the other MAG members, right?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Actually, that discussion was specific to the Working Group on IGF Improvements who said they would -- because of concerns expressed by the MAG, that they would bring that second co-facilitator back to the MAG but that it was their full intent to make sure that it met all diversity requirements.  
 I'm certainly happy to do that for this one as well.  As I said, I think this is one aspect of a process that we still need to document a bit more, in a bit more detail.  But that specific agreement you are referring to, I believe, was only for the working group on IGF improvements.  But I don't know if Avri or Chengetai want to come in and correct me.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  (indiscernible).
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Ji.
 >>JI HAOJUN: Sorry to take the floor again, Chair.  As I understand, this is a principle the same principle should be applied to all the working groups.  Thank you.  
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I think -- I think that's a position.  I don't think that has been agreed by the full MAG yet.  I don't actually expect it will be a contentious issue, but it has not been fully agreed yet.
 So I have Ginger in the queue.  And if -- I see somebody who may have been trying to get in the queue here in the room.  If you are having difficulties with the system, raise your hand.  We'll allow you in, and Luis will also help you troubleshoot as well.  But at the moment, I have Ginger.  Ginger, you have the floor.
 >> Excuse me.  Ginger is not connected.  I need to connect.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  You said Ginger is not connected on the audio?
 >> It's connected on the Internet but connected to the audio.  Sorry, I'm asking her now to connect.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.
 In the meantime, is there anybody else who wants the floor?
 If you don't mind, I would like to wait for a moment to see if Ginger does get connected.  Ginger has been instrumental in helping us to advance a lot of our online participation activities.  So...
 >>GINGER PAQUE: Can you hear me?  This is Ginger.  I'm speaking from Wisconsin in the USA.  Yes, I can see the transcript shows me.  We know remote participation isn't perfect, but it is certainly getting better and better.  I have to take the time to thank the secretariat, and Luis in particular, for implementing the online queue which helps level the playing field and gives more equality for online participants so thank you very much.
 The reason I'm stepping in right now is actually not as a MAG member but as an update of the previous working group on remote participation which is no longer, but I would like to point out to everyone -- specifically everyone who is not on the MAG that we welcome your input.  We need your comments to improve.  The people that are in the room want to help us, want to support us but we also need to let them know what problems we're perceiving and how they can help us.  Thank you very much to everyone and we will continue to improve and to work with the secretariat.  So that means all of us.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Ginger.  I will take this opportunity to recognize that Ginger has been instrumental in helping us in a lot of improvements, and we always appreciate her guidance and input.
 I do not see anybody else in the queue.  For those of you who are just joining us in the afternoon, we are now implementing a new online queue system so it takes 25 to 30 seconds for a hand to show up here.  So that explains the pause periodically.
 If there's nobody else in the queue on that topic, we will move to Item 12 which is briefings from other related or relevant initiatives or organizations.  This is a time when we actually give an opportunity to those activities for which we partner with or have something that is particularly relevant to the activities of the IGF to come and inform the IGF on their activities.  Of course, that's meant to be a two-way street so that we can understand or evaluate where we might be able to interact or engage more deeply.
 I see a hand up from Abboud.
 >> We have Renata.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Can you hear --
 (Feedback).
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Renata, could you possibly mute your mic or turn your volume off from the Adobe Connect.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Hi.  Now it's better.  Renata.  
 I just want to brief about a new group formed at Organization of American States event which happened one week ago, the Gender and Cybersecurity Forum.  It's an initiative to bring together these themes mainly focused upon Latin American participants but also we spoke -- we had working groups, and we spoke about the dynamic coalition of gender in the IGF and the best practice forum on gender and access.
 So it is interesting to see that the work -- the work done in gender in the IGF is inspiring new groups.  So this was an event by (saying name), Institute of Cybersecurity, linked to the Organization of American States.  But the group is broader.  It's formed by a variety of Latin American and Caribbean researchers and practitioners and professionals in cybersecurity.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Renata.
 Carolyn.  Carolyn, you have the floor.
 >> CAROLYN NGUYEN:  I wanted to make an offer to the community who is interested.  We understand a few months ago our president put forward a discussion on a digital Geneva convention.  And since then, there's been a lot of interest and questions on what do we mean by the proposal, et cetera.  Our director for cybersecurity will be attending the WSIS Forum on Wednesday and has agreed to make himself available to answer questions from the community on what do we mean by this and what are the elements of this proposal.  I want to make that available.
 Right now, we are tentatively planning for a meeting in the cafeteria.  I understand that the cafeteria closes at 1:30 or 2:00.  So if we can plan to meet around 2:00 or if you have interest, please let me know and we'll try to arrange a place to answer questions, you know, et cetera.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Sorry, Carolyn.  We were asking whether it was possible to use this room?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I was just thinking that if it's of interest to everybody, a big number of people, they can do it in the room that we're going to hold the MAG -- we're not going to be in this room but in the next room.  But if you can do it just before we start or just after we start, sometime like that just to make it easier.
 >> CAROLYN NGUYEN:  Just to be clear, you are offering just after we start at 10:00 on Wednesday?  I'm sorry.  I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Whatever time is suitable.  We can discuss it and we could see.
 >> CAROLYN NGUYEN:  That would be great.  Thank you very much for the accommodation.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I know there are normally many other organizations that give -- or intergovernmental organizations that give updates.  
 Is my queue not refreshing?
 Sorry, I now have -- I now have the queue.
 So I have Darija Medic, Lee Hibbard, and Flavio Wagner.  Darija, you have the floor.
 >> DARIJA MEDIC:  Hi.  I'm Darija Medic.  I'm a digital artist and researcher from DiploFoundation's Creative Lab.  And I'm here to share with you a project we are -- we started developing, which will hopefully have its first iteration during the IGF this year.
 And it is about bridging digital art and the digital policy.  So why bridge these two is kind of an open question, is because digital policy and digital art basically deal with the same issues but from different perspectives and using very different methodologies.  
 We think today in the time with growing complexity of the technological environment and also the social environment, we have a responsibility in bridging these different disciplines that could actually both complement each other and complement and bring closer this issues to the wider public.
 For instance, digital art is a field that can bring issues of digital policy and make them very tangible to wider public through experiences that are familiar to people.  And it can actually help during -- during any sort of simplification of very complex systems.  
 So we hope that during the IGF we will have a setup which will basically function as a network navigating through Internet governance issues in the form of a subway map.
 For example, you would enter a development line and you would follow this line which is, for example, in the color red and you would come to the issue of encryption.  This issue would be explained with a lot of different sources of information.  And you would also have a digital artwork there that would, for example, show the future implications of analog cryptography in the 21st century.  Then you could follow the development line, for example, or you could switch to another line like the security line.
 So in this sense, we have started collaborating with a lot of artists, an international network of artists and free traded work.  We have also collaborated with local art institutions which could be valuable for having a local community here in Geneva like the head and the FFML from Lausanne and international institutions like the Research Institute from the Netherlands and (saying name) from Germany.
 And in this sense, it is very valuable to have any input that you could have, any ideas that you could have on spreading wide on these issues on how digitization could be helped on funding opportunities, on logistical ideas.  So if you have any interest in this project, feel free to contact me.  I will be here until Friday.  And I hope that this is just the start of bridging these topics.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Lee Hibbard, you have the floor.
 >>LEE HIBBARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  For the record, Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe.  And just to give you, as one of these relevant organizations under this agenda item, you know, the Council of Europe remains very busy in doing lots of things which relate to Internet and Internet governance broken into three parts if you like:  Human rights, rule of law, and democracy of course on the Internet.  Digitalization, culture, these things.  
 One very important thing which happened last week under the heading of rule of law is that the Convention of Cybercrime, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the parties to that convention, which I think are 50 or more now, have agreed to start discussion on a new protocol to that convention, perhaps the leading convention in the world on fighting cybercrime, to help law enforcement secure access to data in the cloud on different servers across the world, multiple jurisdiction issues.  That's a huge step, something to think about, something which we can bring our experts to, if needed.
 On the front of human rights, we have work which is going to be completed soon on standards for -- or minimum principles for Internet intermediaries from a human rights perspective, on Internet freedom and Internet freedom indicators.  
 And on the front of democracy, there's a lot of work on digitalization, which I think links into the proposal for the main session on democracy and digitization, on literacy and new framework for Internet -- forty literacy, and for an Internet of citizens, and we also have a World Forum for Democracy event coming up in November 8th to 10th November in Strasbourg, which is talking about fears.  Is populism a problem.  So fears, fake news, these issues around democracy and human rights.  So I think that ties in very well again with that proposal.
 And so there's quite a number of different lines of expertise which are being developed.
 That said, beyond -- also beyond the organization, there are a number of issues which are -- which we're all about in the news which cannot be ignored, I think, in terms of thinking about what shapes this agenda.  Net neutrality hasn't been mentioned but it's on the agenda.  It's a hot topic.  Countries are talking about global digital rules or regulating Internet more and more.  Microsoft launched the idea of a digital Geneva convention.  
 On behalf of the U.N., we have the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights talking about human rights in a changing world now.
 So there are actors and issues out there which I think need to be addressed, and what's clear from the point of Internet users, at least, last week in EuroDIG was mentioned there was a survey, a barometer of opinion of Internet users about how they saw the Internet and particularly their fears regarding the Internet, and it was mentioned that one in two Internet users limits their activity on the Internet for fears of privacy or security or other issues.
 So I think that also needs to be taken into consideration in how we shape these things.  
 Thank you, Madam Chair.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Lee.  
 Is Flavio back there?  You have the floor.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  Thank you, Lynn.  So I'm not talking in my capacity as a MAG member but as one of the supporters of the Friends of the IGF project.  So this Friends of the IGF project aims at collecting, on an integrated database and Web site, all contents from IGF sessions since the first IGF edition in 2006, including all transcripts, audio, video, and reports, and the Web site offers various browsing facilities supporting search by content, people, edition, session, and so on.
 So it is, in fact, intended to complement the official IGF Web site.  It does not duplicate resources already available there. 
 It has been originally created and supported as a voluntary collaborative effort from civil society, and since last year, the project runs with technical and administrative support from CGI.br, the Brazilian steering committee.  
 It has a more multistakeholder international steering committee for guiding its further development.  Two of the members of this steering committee are myself and Susan Chalmers, also here present.
 So the Web site already contains the complete contents from the 2016 IGF edition in Guadalajara which has been uploaded to the Web site.
 We are currently working on a new version of the Web site with new resources and more advanced browsing facilities which we expect to launch before IGF 2017 in December here in Geneva.
 So please go to the Friends -- to FriendsoftheIGF.org.  Take a look and send us your feedback.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Flavio.  
 Susan Chalmers, you have the floor.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair, and greetings to all MAG colleagues and IGF community members.
 This will be a brief general intervention on behalf of the United States regarding the IGF program, which perhaps should have been offered during the discussion this morning, so -- around main session agenda items, so please accept my apologies if the intervention doesn't align with the current topic.
 In 2013, the MAG and the IGF introduced an open mic session to the program schedule.  The open mic session enables attendees to share their thoughts on the IGF event and program which could provide useful feedback for subsequent MAGs.  These interventions are normally time-limited.  Open mic sessions also have an inclusive and welcoming effect for people who are new to the IGF community, and so we would just like to express our support for the continuation of this relatively recent tradition.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Susan.  And I agree it is a very -- very useful, very important part of the IGF.
 Segun, you have the floor.
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Hello?  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I just want to bring to the awareness of the MAG members -- now I'm speaking not as a MAG member -- there is an initiative which is coming up from the Nigerian side, and it has to do with a new partnership which has been established between a center for cyberspace studies of the (saying name) University and the Global Network for Cyber-solutions, and that partnership is about -- is about implementing a cyberspace governance fellowship program which has been approved by the various authorities.
 Now, the objective of the partnership is to trigger the interest in Internet governance community fellowship and also to stimulate new research, because that will be the first time where we have a nongovernmental organization and the university community coming together to develop capacity of the local younger professional within Nigeria and ECOWAS space.
 I would like to call on the MAG members, because we are still, like, evolving and we are learning from various processes and various similar initiatives.  As we are moving forward, I would like the MAG members who are interested in sharing opinions with us if they can just please see me.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Segun.  
 Sala, you have the floor.
 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  Thank you, chair.  Sala -- Salanieta Tamaikaiwaimaro, for the record.
 I'd just like to offer brief comments.  
 One being yesterday there was a lunch organized by the pan-Pacific/pan-African Internet community which was attended by some of the ICT ministers along with civil society, and we were invited to the lunch, and one of the comments that were made was some of the countries faced challenges in terms of Internet penetration at 3% still, so I found that interesting.  These were comments from them.
 Notably, also, one of the -- one of the indicators that used to exist -- which is why I liked Lee's comments from the Council of Europe.  One of the indicators that used to exist globally which was heavily relied upon by the global community, regardless of which agency people were from or whatever sector, was the ITU IDI indicators and clearly within the last five years we've seen that that's degrading because of the level of statistics being sourced from the countries.  
 And in terms of meeting the SDGs, those continue to be a challenge because if you can't have accurate indicators, you can't have proper policies, and if you don't have proper policies, you can't shift and shape to stimulate growth, which is why I really liked what Lee brought out.  
 And one of the things we could do is to look at how we could potentially tie those things from a global framework, drawing from your -- drawing from Africa, drawing from Asia-Pacific, drawing from Latin America, Caribbean.  That's one.
 And again, I offer these comments in my individual capacity.
 The second thing is, within the first quarter of this year, we've trained 22 facilitators in the Pacific.  We've just had the Pacific regional Internet Governance Forum.  Within it, we had a youth track.  We'll send you video summaries to the community.
 And some of -- some of the challenges that exist need to be thoroughly robustly discussed within those countries, and it's one thing to talk capacity, but the financial capacity to actually roll out some of these things are actually some of the deterrents.  
 So it was very interesting to note that the -- early this morning, they had a capacity-building session in one of the rooms within the WSIS which was the -- in the C2 room which was chaired by Alice Munyua, along with various other stakeholders from the Internet governance community, and some of the things that they raised was that in -- there was a meeting held in Geneva last year where there was -- there were discussions about how to tie these things in together, and I see these discussions happening in pockets and in silos.
 So one of the challenges would be to how do we rope these things in together to consolidate it, noting that you have the Addis Ababa action agenda, noticing -- noting that the second committee within the U.N. system has set up an infrastructure committee which is made up of governments and banks like Asian Development -- Development Bank, World Bank, and the African equivalent, and so forth.
 And how can we consolidate these things pertaining to bridging development but using the Internet as a catalyst.
 So that's something for the community.  
 No easy answers, but that's why I'd like to pose the question to people within the room, particularly non-MAG members, people from within the community.  Like sitting beside me is Project Connect, Sarah.  Yeah.  And so we'd -- we'd really like to hear what they have to say and what they're doing so that we can potentially bring this thing in together and how we can capture it.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sala, and it looks, Sarah, as though you're in the queue.
 >>SARAH ROSEBRAUGH BROWN: Well, great.  Hi, everyone.  Nice to meet you.  
 So Project Connect is a new nonprofit that was started in January of this year.  Our main partners are One Web and UNICEF, and the goal of our nonprofit is to map every school in the world and measure Internet connectivity at schools in real time, so we are working on the mapping component and also working with existing tools and potentially building tools that will actually measure the speed and other attributes of the actual connectivity at schools, and we are hoping to work with all of you to collect that data and collate it and also figure out how to make the platform as useful as possible for everyone working in the space.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sarah.
 >> Thank you, Lynn.  This is (saying name) from UNESCO.  It's a pleasure to meet with all the MAG members and I also like to share some recent activities that UNESCO is conducting.  
 We are actually launching a global consultation to develop Internet universality indicators.  We have already done a very successful and useful consultation at EuroDIG, as Lee Hibbard just mentioned.  We found this a very useful network to connect to the original stakeholders for us to make sure all multistakeholders are consolidated on this important indicator.  So we're also seeking the possibilities to do these similar consultation activities in the regional IGF or in Asia-Pacific, in Africa, in Arab states, and also Latin America, so I wish those colleagues who are working on those regional IGFs can reach to me and we can discuss further collaboration.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I don't see anybody else in the queue at the moment and I don't think anybody was able to join us from the World Economic Forum today, but maybe just to mention that they have a project called Internet for All which is actually working pretty actively in the regions and has really close ties to our connecting and enabling the next billions project.  
 Raquel is sitting here nodding her head "yes" as well, but just to put that out there.
 I don't see anybody else in the queue.  This is last call if you want to have a comment on this subject.  
 Then we'll go to the last item, which is one we're really looking for a pretty sort of vigorous exchange and I think we should probably ask the MAG members to jump in here as well.  A lot of our MAG members actually come from governments and I'm sure have a lot of informative experiences with respect to how we can encourage greater participation.  The agenda item actually says, "Encourage governments and private sector participation."  I think those are two of the areas where we feel we've had kind of least representation, and both of them are different sectors with different needs and demands, so we'd actually like to understand what we could do to actually encourage more participation.  It's no good if we just have one or two of the stakeholders talking amongst themselves.  That's not the purpose of this forum.  And -- sorry.  And we've also had a request, as well, to have a short introduction on some newcomers track work which is actually occurring in the IGF.  Again, last year we put together a pretty extensive program to facilitate newcomers coming into the work of the IGF and I think there's some new ideas with respect to how we might address that as well.  
 I don't know, Slobodan, if you and Aida want to start with that just now and we'll give everybody else to kind of break ground with some of the other topics?  But again, this particularly is going to talk to the newcomers' efforts within the IGF.  
 Thank you, Slobodan.
 >>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC:  Okay.  Slobodan Markovic, for the record.  
 I'm going to be really short because we are -- we actually do have, I think, time to consider this track still.  
 Last year, I think that they had the first draft in September.  I don't think that we have to wait until September, of course.  Maybe it would be good idea to have this proposal considered by the MAG and probably adopted, hopefully, during the summer, say.
 The idea -- the general idea is to put together a proposal for this year's event structure which is going to be pretty much the same as the last one, with a couple of tweaks here and there that are the -- the consequence of the lessons learned from the past year.
 And it is the idea -- my idea to send this proposal in the form of a first draft or a zero draft in the coming -- in the coming days.
 We already prepared like an initial document in Google Docs.  I think that Renata and Anja also took part in this initial drafting.  So this was like just a -- just a heads-up for you regarding the newcomers track for 2017.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Slobodan.  I don't know if Aida wanted to add anything or Renata or Bianca or anybody else who participated in that effort?
 >> Thank you.  Very quickly I have an advertisement because I received several interest coordinator about the national and regional IGF to help with UNESCO consultation activities.  We have a high-level session here on the WSIS Forum on Wednesday from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.  That would be the opportunity to know more about the project we are developing.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  I was just checking the chat room quickly as well.  And I can't tell if some people were having problems or if that was before lunch accessing -- if people that are participating online are not able to get in the queue, if they can just signal it some way.  I know Abboud is watching the queue in the background.  We will make sure everyone is getting in.  Maybe that was an old message.  I just want to make sure we're doing everything we can to pull them in.
 If you would introduce yourself, too, please.
 >> Hello, everyone.  My name is (saying name).  And I'm a post-doc researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and currently work with Professor Christopher Yoo.  We have a project called 1 World connected.  I would like to briefly introduce our project which focuses on the innovative approaches on connecting the unconnected.  We gather ICTs' latest initiatives and projects carried out by various stakeholders and ICT studies that inform the challenges on the supply and demand side as well as the impact of these initiatives on the communities.  So we will be presenting the updates on our research during special SDG 9 session this week, and we hope to see you in our session.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Next in the queue is Cheryl Miller.
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I had a point to follow up on your point on increasing participation for a private sector standpoint.  Would this be an appropriate time to raise that?
 I just wanted to mention, I think we're at actually a very interesting time with respect to the IGF's future.
 (Feedback)
 Okay.  Maybe it's better if I just do it this way.
 Is that the problem?  Okay.
 And I think there are a lot of opportunities to reach out now that we have the sustainable development goals to those different areas of our sector -- or, excuse me, those other industries that intersect with our sector in terms of bringing them in and educating them on the importance of the Internet Governance Forum and encouraging them hopefully to also become supporters moving forward.
 And so I think if we can continue to think creatively from that standpoint, at least from my stakeholder group's perspective, we will truly be able to sort of grow ourselves.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Cheryl.  That's a key point.
 One of the critical factors for wanting to get to a strategic multiyear work program for the IGF -- and we have a long way to go because this has not been discussed in the MAG yet.  But if we both had the venues noted two and three years out and some idea of one or two main topics that are going to be of interest, we can obviously use that to reach out to stakeholders, all stakeholders, not just private sector but governments as well with enough notice so that the program can actually be built up locally, you know, with feeder events and obviously would support greater resources coming into the IGF, resources of all kinds.
 So that was one of the key components of that.
 I'll give you a follow-on.  And just so we are clear --
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Very quickly.  I thought the presentation on the NRIs was really excellent.  And it had me thinking for those new national and regional IGFs that are in developing countries, can we perhaps start to work with those governments to encourage them to host an IGF in the future?
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  We certainly can.  And Chengetai and I are actually working that very hard.  We have roughly ten countries that are interested in hosting an IGF.  A lot of interest in 2019, '20, '21.  In fact, that is overrepresented in terms of the number of countries and interest.  
 You'll notice I didn't say 2018.  So 2018 is our priority at the moment in terms of finding a country that would host there.  But the goal is again to get three, four years out.  I'm confident we will be able to get two, three, and four years settled quite quickly but need to continue focusing on 2018.  I'm sure the NRIs will note your point as well.
 So I have Yves Mathieu in the queue.
 >> YVES MATHIEU:  Yes, good afternoon.  I'm Yves Mathieu from Missions Publiques in Paris, France.  I heard there is a need in this forum to feed the agenda of this cooperation between private sector and government and their resource.  So we need to organize a bottom-up contribution to the governance of the Internet.  
 We have the experience of involving lay citizens in global governance issues.  Two years ago with the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we did organize a global citizens consultation forum.  We involved 10,000 lay citizens, day-to-day citizens in a full-day of citizens' deliberation.  And we have been invited to express their vision on what should be decided of the Paris Agreement of the (indiscernible) 21.  
 And the result of their day of deliberation, it was same day all over the planet, has been a lay citizen vision on what would citizens would have agreed to put in the Paris Agreement if they had been the decisioners.  And it's interesting to compare what has been agreed by the government and what would have been agreed by the citizens.
 And when we make the parallel between climate issues and Internet issues, there are many similarities.  It's the common good.  It's global.  Some parties attempted to close the borders and think that closing the border will bring new solutions while it is not the case.
 There is the issue of individual responsibility and also the need for global governance.  And my reflection here is to say that -- and it's also very complex.  And the Internet and the climate issues are very complex.  So my reflection here would be to say there might be room in the coming years to organize such a citizen deliberation and to say what people being the users of the Internet are thinking in areas with no use of Internet would bring as contribution to the Internet Governance Forum.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Yves.
 Raquel, you have the floor.
 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I had two comments regarding this engagement of government and private sector and overall stakeholder groups.  The first one is perhaps repetitive but to use the NRIs as a vehicle to increase this process.  And I just want to highlight Anja presented Paraguay is doing the pre-Webinars for the IGF itself, the event.  It's not only that.  I mean, Costa Rica and Guatemala are working on the same path.  They are organizing their first IGF this year.  They are organizing also Webinars where the government, the private sector, and civil society are engaged in making questions.  They do engage into a dialogue, really, understanding what is an IGF, what is the objective, and how they can have a role there.
 And I see this from experience.  It's not that difficult in terms of -- you know, it's a Webinar.  It doesn't have costs involved, and it really makes a difference.
 And the second one I was coordinating in Skype with Miguel Estrada, Nacho Estrada, to also showcase what we did in terms of the IGF LAC space.  And prior -- when the call for workshop proposals went out, we did also a couple of Webinars in the region in Spanish and Portuguese.  Many of the MAG members from the region were involved:  Flavio, Raphael, Renata, and myself.  That also helped not only to explain what the IGF was but how to write and participate in the IGF process, either the intersessional work and the workshop proposals itself.
 So just to share a couple of experiences we've been dealing with.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Raquel.
 Next in the queue is Marilyn Cade.  
 Marilyn, you have the floor.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm going to respond to both the issue of how to get more governments to attend and participate, not just at the global IGF but also at the national and subregional but also to speak for a minute about SMEs from developing countries.  I'm going to open my comments by noting that small businesses from developing countries often do not have any chance of being financially funded to attend international meetings because they are in the business sector.
 And this is a real challenge for SMEs.  There are as an example three SME business speakers from developing countries.  One from the CASA region -- sorry, two from the CASA region, and one from Africa, that are not able to be here even at the WSIS Forum, although they are high-level speakers and they are very strongly involved in the IGF activities at the national level and in getting their government ministries involved.
 The reason I mention that is that I think we have to look hard at how important informed, early invitations are, not only for governments, I find, who very often need an invitation to participate.  And just downloading a general letter from the Web site in many cases is not sufficient to reach new deputy ministers or ministers.
 So I'd like us to think about whether there are other ways for us to support the idea of different approach to invitations that may be able to be used to attract the government agencies.
 For the business side, very often invitations are needed as well because unless they have a speaking role -- and I'm speaking now only for SMEs from developing countries.  Unless they have a speaking role or they have an invitation that they can show to their board or to their community that may support them, it's almost impossible for them to find funding and to also be able to leave their workplace for the several days.  So invitations that we must (indiscernible) earlier in explaining the value equation.
 I also want to note that I think we need to do a much more rigorous look at how we refocus using the SDGs on different industry sectors than are presently attending and participate.
 We've talked about that for a number of years.  We talked about it when I was on the CSTD Working Group for Improvements.  But actually taking the step to reach the energy sector, the financial services sector, the consumer products sector is something that I think we need to think about and try to make sure that we are not only targeting those players from North America or large European countries but looking at how we might be able to attract participation from other industry sectors that have a presence in other parts of the world.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Marilyn.  Very, very good comments.
 Sala, you have the floor.
 >>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO:  Hi.  Thank you, Chair.
 Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro for the record.
 Before I make this comment, I thought I'd just shout out to anyone within the capacity-building panel who is in the room to make comments about the strategies that have been rolled out for government participation within the IGF processes in relation to ICANN and that sort of thing.  We are doing it in Africa and in the Pacific.  I think it would be good for it to be shared in this community.  That's the first point.
 So shout-out to Alice, if you're in the room, to make brief comments, if possible.  No pressure.  That's one.
 The second thing was just riding on what Cheryl had mentioned and also what Marilyn had also mentioned, within Oceania -- and Oceania has 37 countries and territories which assign ccTLDs -- we've started working closely with some of the ministers who have expressed interest in rolling out capacity building within their countries, for instance, the Tuvaluan ICT minister who is actually present here in the WSIS.  We have been working with him for the past four years.  But today he actually made a commitment to say that, hey, look, we want to have co-facilitators to own the initiative so that they can have this kind of dialogue.
 So in terms of political will, in terms of interest from the diverse stakeholders, there's a platform that's actually open and obviously we've been -- we will be reaching out to ICC-BASIS in terms of strengthening the bridge between the private sector within Oceania and ICC-BASIS.  That's the second thing.
 The other point I'd like to make is the comments offered by gentleman -- I apologize for not remembering your name because I'm severely jet lagged.  But you made comments in relation to the Paris Agreement.  And we know -- I'm speaking again in my individual capacity.  Oceania, like the rest of the world, has been severely affected by climate adaptation and climate change.  And most of all countries in Oceania were some of the very first countries to sign on to the Paris Agreement.
 Now on a practical level in terms of Internet governance, I've just spent the last -- before coming here, four weeks ago, I was in Vanuatu, which is a country in the Pacific.  One of the biggest challenges there is the geo-spacial data is not stored locally.  It's actually stored in Australia, believe it or not.  And that's one -- satellite images.  That has massive implications.
 The other thing also is their the national GIS data they recently lost and they are kind of plotting it all over again.  I know this for a fact because I asked for certain images to be pulled, and that's what I was told.  So these are practical issues.
 And so in terms of -- and I noticed that in the last IGF last year, there was a young man who was an ISOC -- do you call it your ambassador?  ISOC ambassador?  Yeah, he was part of the ISOC ambassador program and he's from Kiribati.  He was like a lone wolf in the wilderness.  He stood up during the open comment, open mic session.  And he raised that one of the things he wished was for there to be more discussions within the IGF processes linking climate change.  So I just thought I would mention it since he's not here.  I just thought I would echo that.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Sala.  I don't know why humans haven't evolved to have eyes on the side of their head or why my memory wasn't better.  I actually meant to turn to Thomas after Marilyn's comment and forgot.  
 So, Thomas, you have the floor.
 >>THOMAS SCHNEIDER:  Thank you very much, Marilyn.  Lynn.
 [ Laughter ]
 These American names, they're unbelievable.  You should have Swiss names.
 [ Laughter ]
 I just wanted to quickly support what Marilyn had said.  And, indeed, this is, of course, very important to use all the channels available to invite always to the extent possible always on a personalized level key players to come to the IGF.  And I can just tell you that we are -- in addition to our personal discussions that my president, or our president, is inviting all her -- the people that she meets to come to the IGF herself in person.  
 We're also preparing letters from her to others.  And we'll use all our channels that we have also as federal office that is at the same time part of a ministry as well as a regulator for different fields that we will reach out to colleagues in other countries and also to other stakeholders, not just government agencies, to invite everybody to come to the IGF.  We are trying to use everything that comes to our mind to actually spread the message.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Thomas.
 Carlos Fonseca, you have the floor.
 >> CARLOS FONSECA:  Thank you, Chair.  Just this word on engaging government thing, I'm not sure it's going to be discussed tomorrow or not.  Just talk about that.  
 I was looking at the proposals, workshop proposals, I was making some math, and turns out that I think when you consider private sector proposals, we have around 27 overall, and about eight or nine have been approved, so about a third.  IGOs, I think they present around 19 or 20, and about half of them were finally approved.
 Government proposals were eight, and none of them were approved.  So this is something that caught my attention.
 I don't know how to explain that.  Maybe it's just the way governments work or maybe they are not capacitated and don't know how to work this kind of thing.  And I know there are the open forums and then all sorts of opportunities for governments to just come and take part in that, but I think it would be important to engage government at this point.  
 I think it's unfortunate that they are not more engaged than they are right now.  
 And I particularly -- and I'm speaking as government here, and I know that in the case of Latin America, many countries, starting with Brazil but not only Brazil, Argentina and others, are currently engaged in building their own digital strategy, national digital strategy, which is a very important thing.  
 Brazil is doing that right now.  Argentina is going to start by the end of this year, and Argentina is presiding in the G20 and the Digital Economy Task Force.  
 I know that Chile just announced its digital security strategy.  Mexico has just revealed his -- its telecom policy and regulation, and so on and so forth.  
 So I think at this point in time it's very unfortunate that governments that are engaged in building a national strategy are not more engaged in this sort of exercise.
 So I wonder -- and this is an open debate.  I don't have an answer.  
 I have an example.  My own government has proposed a flash workshop, 30-minute workshop, and it hasn't passed the first screening, so I don't know if it's a matter of capacitation of governments knowing how to do this sort of exercise, this sort of proposal.  
 What could be done?  
 I'm just raising this question and maybe it could be debated tomorrow further, but I just wanted to point that out, the fact that no proposal by a government finally was accepted.  So this is unfortunate.  
 And of course this sort of thing is not something that will engage further in government, if no government is accepted in a workshop, so maybe next time no governments at all will propose anything.
 So it was just a -- just proposing this debate.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Carlos.  I mean, that's actually, you know, an important set of comments and that we will certainly get into tomorrow.  Maybe just one or two quick reactions.
 There's a difference between government-submitted and government participation, the point that was made earlier, and I think we need to find a way to track that a little bit better.
 I think the -- the reason we -- the reason there is a MAG that actually meets to deliberate on those workshop selections is that that preliminary screening is -- I'm trying to find the right words because I've used some words on an online MAG list that wasn't working with respect to "review" and "evaluation."  
 But the MAG owes looking at the results that came out of that screening from the MAG and saying, "Does this -- does this look appropriate?  Are there any imbalances or overrepresentation that we need to adjust for?  And if so how do we do that?"  
 So it's not a rerun.  It's not a re-review or reevaluation.  It really is what additional -- the MAG has a lot of tools available to us.  What additional tools can we put in to ensure that we have a program that is appropriately representative.
 So I think some of that will come out over the course of the day tomorrow and I think your other points were really helpful as well.  
 One of the things I was thinking -- I'm not quite sure how to process this, but if I think about the work of the working group on communications and outreach and I think about all the effort Switzerland has put into and have indicated they're willing to put into with respect to reaching out to governments but IGOs as well -- I mean, it's really senior policymakers -- whether or not there is some sort of really concerted effort we can do by country, taking advantage of things such as the various digital strategy plans that countries are doing.  So maybe there actually is a very targeted -- you know, and I've said to the working group on communications and outreach I think it's important that we choose a relatively small number of things we can act on because the remit is broad, but one or two really targeted things could have a tremendous impact.
 So maybe we can noodle that around a little bit more and see if there is a specific targeted set of outreach activities we can do to help that.  
 So the people I have in the queue, just so we're clear, I Renata, then I have Juan Fernandez, Arnold van Rhijn, and I think there's somebody else on line that's trying to come in if I understood a signal correctly, but they would be the fourth in the queue because the others were in the queue ahead of time.  So Renata, you have the floor.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO:  Thank you, Chair.  I want collaborative ideas in integrating government and private sector into the debates.  I would be speaking now with the hat of moderator of LACNIC, I.T. women community.  Until my last meeting, the experience we had, this was quite a quiet community.  Then a strategy pushed by a few members, like me, Jacqueline Morris from Trinidad-Tobago, Lillian Ngawoga from Colombia, we started a series of mostly Webinars with the goal of organizing collectively sessions during the organization meetings.  These thematic debates have invited members from government, private sector, and other stakeholder groups, made the community grow exponentially and made the participation in LACNIC increase notably.  LACNIC staff did a great job of coordinating the strategy with us.  Raquel Gatto is also a member of this community and also participate in these online and on-site debates at the meetings, and I'm sure at IGF intersessional activities can focus more on inviting or engaging speakers from different regions and stakeholder groups so they can also bring these points of view to the IGF.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Renata.  Juan?  Juan Fernandez?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Thank you.  For the record, this is Juan Fernandez as a MAG member, and well, good day to all because this is the first time I take the floor.  
 I'm going to make here a concrete recommendation because I think this is a very serious problem that deserves to be studied in-depth and I think that the two working groups that is already -- already on, the one on the improvement of the IGF and the newly created or the multiyear strategic work program, should have this as one of its main concerns.
 Because I think this is a serious problem.  Or at least it's a serious symptom.  It's a symptom of a serious problem.
 And the problem is that one way or another, the IGF has not been interesting to two of the stakeholders that's supposed to be here, and as I said, I don't want to -- here now to do all the analysis.  I think it's an analysis that has to be done in-depth.  But I only want to share some thoughts around this, and it's very simple.
 I think that we have to go back to the roots of why the IGF was created.  And it was created to have policy dialogue.  Policy dialogue that helps whoever.  It's not to discuss who is going to elaborate or make the policy, but helps those who will make policy to make good policy and take into consideration everybody's concerns regarding those policies.
 In this sense, governments mainly comes in a hearing mode to listen to some of the other stakeholders that it normally doesn't have interaction with and to really take into consideration their concerns to the policy that they enact later on.
 Private sector, what's the role of the private sector?  To come and to participate in this policy dialogue by putting forward their own concepts and ideas because normally they're also not taken into consideration in the policymaking process that is being done elsewhere.
 So I think we have to take back -- to take this into consideration and put it back into the core of the IGF.  This is a task for the MAG and for the secretariat and I think that the MAG and the secretariat is working on it with less -- or -- more or less success.
 I can say, for instance, that in this year's workshop, I think that we're getting back into that thing of making interesting policy dialogue because there's a lot of discussion on new emerging issues that needs to be discussed in order to get policy like the artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things and shutdowns and hacking and there's a lot of things.  And having said that, I think that we have done some mistakes because we have -- part of -- of us have taken the IGF, as we say, I don't know this saying, to blow our own horn in a way to -- I don't know, to delight ourselves with things that we already like.  
 We heard this morning, for instance -- I'm not going to mention any of the tags, but I think that we have done -- we have done some excesses by underlining some of the issues that add to the (indiscernible) that we already, by doing it again and again and again it loses interest so people won't come here.  And maybe of those issues are discussed elsewhere, even here in Geneva, so governments will go to those fora and not here to listen to this.  So we have to go back to Internet.  We have to go back to the Internet policy issues that are not discussed elsewhere and to focus on that.
 If -- if we keep doing here the same things that have been discussed in some other places, people won't come here and those -- those two stakeholders will definitely not come here.  We could invite them to be here.  It's nice.  We could give, I don't know, some other thing to invite, but the really good thing is to make this interesting for them.  That's the only way to guarantee that they will come -- they will come on their own.  We have to go back to make this Internet Governance Forum.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Juan.  Juan and I had a long conversation yesterday.  I invited him to be a member of the multiyear strategic work program effort.
 In the queue now, I have Arnold van Rhijn and then I think an online participant and Nigel.  
 Arnold, you have the floor.
 >>ARNOLD VAN RHIJN:  First time to press the button.  Good afternoon, everybody.
 Arnold van Rhijn, for the record.  I am a MAG member but now speaking in my capacity as a representative of the Dutch government.
 This is a very interesting issue we are discussing, how can we attract more companies and governments to this wonderful forum.
 I have four suggestions which came right out of my mind.  There are many more but I'll just name four of them.
 The first one is, governments should open their windows more, get in contact with their stakeholders, reach out and discuss things about new policymaking.  At least this is the experience which we are now undergoing in the Netherlands.  From scratch, we are cooperating with our partners, with our stakeholders, part private sector, the civil society, technical community, you name it.  They are sitting around the table to find a new policy which the government at the end should -- should agree upon.
 This works very well because at least in the Netherlands, the government is getting smaller and smaller.  We have to do the same work.  We are faced with budget cuts, so we have to seek cooperation.  And I must tell you it works very good.
 We applied this new way of working in several fields, from human rights to cybersecurity.  Our government has sent out a letter with our human rights policy.  The last document, the document the government sent out to parliament, is dealing with our international cyber strategy.  It has been formed and based upon multistakeholder cooperation with our stakeholders.
 So a plea to other governments to do the same.  Because at least this is the way we are working here in the Internet Governance Forum.  Cooperating between ourselves.  Between the stakeholders involved.
 Second suggestion:  Translate the concept of Internet governance.  I've had many talks with companies and you could see their faces when you say, "Well, I'm dealing with Internet governance."  They didn't understand the concept.  It was quite vague.  But if you're explaining It's all about cybersecurity, Internet of Things, blockchain, human rights -- you can go on -- then you see their eyes are going to stir up and say, "Hey, this is something we should be discussing too."  So that is, I think, a task for the MAG members and the rest of the community to explain more to the private companies what does Internet governance mean.
 Third suggestion:  We are going to discuss as MAG tomorrow the workshop proposals.  There are many, many good proposals, but I noticed that the titles are sometimes quiet long and vague, so my suggestion would be perhaps for the future, for next year, make titles more results-oriented, focused, and catchy, and perhaps end up with a question mark, because that triggers the people who are going to attend the meeting to find their solutions themselves, to say, "Hey, what is going -- coming up?  Can we contribute to that discussion?"
 My fourth and last suggestion is:  Get in contact with others than the traditional sectors we are dealing with.  That is, the telecom sector and the Internet companies.  Let's get in contact with the companies who are working in the health sector, transport sector, banking sector, because when we have our meetings, they are missing.  I mean, we should do additional work to get them around the table.  This is -- these are four suggestions I would like to share with you, but again, there are many more and we can discuss this further in the future.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Arnold.  That's very helpful.  Let me just cover where we are in the queue because right now I have more people not using the electronic queue than -- so Chrystiane Roy should come out.  She had to leave, so she apologized.
 Which means I have an online participant, if there is someone still there.  Then I have Nigel.  Then Jac, who is in the queue, then China, Lori, and Lee Hibbard.
 So I apologize and really would encourage people again to use the online queue as much as possible.  It really does become somewhat difficult, although everybody is being recognized in the order the requests came in.
 So with that, if there's somebody on line?
 >> Mary, you have the floor.  She's not answering.  Sorry.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I'm sorry.  When she comes back on line, let me know.  We'll put her back in the queue.  In the meantime, we'll go on to Nigel.  
 Nigel, you have the floor.
 >>NIGEL HICKSON:  Yes.  And good afternoon, as he's breaking his glasses.  Okay.  Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and -- yes.  There's only one arm that's broken so it's okay.
 I apologize, first of all.  I tried to use the -- I tried to use the online route but working for ICANN, it's difficult to understand some of these online methodologies and I couldn't do it.
 But I'm delighted, again, to be at the open consultation and I realize I should have probably said a few words in the previous session but I -- I came into it late and apologies for that.
 So if I may just say two or three things.
 First of all, on -- on this particular issue, I -- I think some of the comments we've heard have been exceptionally important.  For those of us that are absolutely committed to the IGF and see it as the prime vehicle, if you like, to have these Internet governance discussions of whatever nature -- and I take the comments of Juan into consideration here -- I think it's -- it's very important that we do concentrate on some of the key issues that society is grappling with.  In particular, governments are grappling with.
 Because if we are going to -- if we are going to sort of realize this vision whereby governments are sitting at the table and participating or listening or whatever -- and I realize there's a balance there as well.  I mean, you don't have to have workshops to take part in the IGF, which is, I'm sure, a comment that's been made before.  Some of the beauty of the IGF is being able to -- to listen to the dialogue and get new ideas and get inspiration from the dialogue, and then to go away as governments, as some of us have done in the past, and go to IGOs and go back into your national and regional governments and say, "Hang on a minute.  Have we got these policies right?  Are we doing what's really -- what's right in this area?"  So I think that's one of the key areas.
 And for that to happen, of course we have to have the relevant subjects.  But then this is the IGF and we are conditioned and constrained, of course, by the proposals we have in, and I -- I don't know what the proposals were in the -- for the workshops, but I'm sure that there's enough interest in topics and relevant topics, and some have been mentioned.  I mean, governments are grappling with blockchain.  Governments are grappling with the Internet of Things and the cyber-related security aspects related to it.  Governments are grappling with data, data protection, okay?  We've all debated data privacy, and we've all debated cybersecurity at length, but some of the practical issues of how governments are going to tackle the European GDPR, how we are going to respond to that as a society is, I think -- is very important.  Indeed.
 So I'm very pleased we're having this debate.
 ICANN, again, tries to work at its best.  We're faced with similar, if you like, similar issues in that we -- we can only be legitimate as a global multistakeholder body if we have all people at the table.  If we have civil society, if we have academia, if we have governments and business, and we strive to get that balance.  We're very fortunate in the Government Advisory Committee in that we do -- have had an excellent run, if you like.  We had a quite a good chairman.  You know, some Swiss guy who chaired the Government Advisory Committee reasonably well.
 But, I mean, being serious, we recognize -- we recognize that within ICANN that we need to do more to bring governments to the table.  And Anne-Rachel and Alice hosted a session this morning that I think has been referred to, and I unfortunately didn't get to it but obviously know quite a bit about it.  And there, Anne-Rachel and others explained some of the incredible work that ICANN has been doing in terms of the underserved regions and I say that because I haven't been doing it at all, but others have that are far better qualified than I am.
 And I think the effective it is having is very beneficial.
 And at the end of the day, perhaps of some of these governments won't be able to come to ICANN and they won't be able to come to the IGF.  But as long as they can understand what's happening if they participate in regional and national events, if they take part online, then they are making this -- this contribution.  And I think that's important.  
 And I'm going to stop there.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Nigel.   
 We have Jac in the queue next.  
 And, Luis, I don't know if you can take Chrystiane out of the queue because she had to leave the meeting.  Thank you.
 Jac, you have the floor.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Hi.  Thanks, Lynn.  
 So I'm speaking not as a MAG member but as APC.  So this is Jac SM Kee from Association for Progressive Communications.  
 I just wanted to comment on two things.  One is the whole conversation around capacity, the need to build capacity for governments, for example, in order to develop better proposals, and so on and so forth.  And I think that's actually a really, really critical thing.  So I would like to share APC's initiative in this effort, which is the African school of Internet governance.  This is something that we actually collaborate and work jointly with an intergovernmental organization, the African Union Commission.  It's the fifth year running.  It's basically a capacity-building initiative and effort to bring together not just governments but also other stakeholder groups into the process to think about what it does it mean to engage and participate in Internet governance in the multistakeholder platform.  And it can't be stressed enough that such initiatives -- it's by no means the only one.  I think there are more and more Internet governance schools that are being developed; that it does take quite a critical role in terms of increasing participation by different stakeholder groups into this process.  Every policy process, even if this one is primarily around dialogue, has its own principles, sets of values, priorities, and it does require some level of familiarization to know what's the best way to build into this. 
 And as part of this as well, we also do this gender and Internet governance exchange that then looks into integrating gender and also increasing women's participation in the process.  So that's one.
 And the second is around sort of the value of IGF in terms of influencing policy development in that it can really greatly contribute to this, as Juan is saying.  And the value is also about linking between what happens at the IGF with other intergovernmental policy processes.  So for example, as -- this is probably already pretty familiar, but when La Rue was participating, Frank La Rue, when he was the special rapporteur on freedom of expression and opinion, when he was participating at the IGF, one of the outcomes of that was the very infamous resolution around all rights that apply offline also apply online.  So it is that kind of a -- it is a very, very robust space to understand the different dimensions of a particular policy issue and emerging policies that shift very quickly as well, which is what Nigel is also alluding to.
 And so I think Anriette already spoke earlier about how the best practice forum -- the conversations from best practice forum on gender and access also helped inform the OECSR report on gender, human rights and access.  
 So I would like to end by sharing APC's proposal to the working group on enhanced cooperation, which is that to explore the establishment of an IGF-linked platform for dialogue amongst governments on Internet-related policy -- public-policy issues.  So this can possibly help address the IGF improvement -- the IGF goal to increase government participation, to create a space for nonbinding dialogue amongst governments on Internet public policy.  
 If you would like to know more, I can send this also to the MAG list.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jac.  
 Ji, you have the floor.
 >>JI HAOJUN:  Thank you, chair. 
 First of all, I would like to echo what had been said by Juan very correctly that to make IGF, the MAG's work more relevant, we really do need to go back to business, to go back to Internet governance per se rather than extending further and further, deviating further and further from our -- what we should do.  For example, human rights.  Whatever we do, everyone trying to make their life better.  So what does human rights mean in the context of Internet governance?
 Internet itself should be human rights neutral.  So if we -- if -- but my experience of screening the workshop proposals is that everything is about human, about human rights.  That's a disastrous (indiscernible).  And we should, you know, have some (indiscernible) and bear in mind that we should do some new business on Internet governance.
 Second thing about gender issue.  I really don't understand what gender issue means in this context.  I look at this room, our chair is female, and I count head in this room, there are more females than males.  And if it's about Internet governance discussion.  And then gender is not a problem.
 In China, we tend to buy better mobile phones, smartphone, for boy -- for girlfriends and the wives.  I myself was using Huawei and my wife is using the latest iPhone, and they tend to spend more time on Internet doing shopping.  This is a big worry for me, of course, and this is a big problem.  
 But for some countries, some societies, they tend to discriminate -- males tend to bully females.  That's not Internet governance issue.  That's their societal, cultural, religious issue.
 So I hope that we can go back to more cybersecurity, latest technology, et cetera, those things.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.  The richness of a multistakeholder model is of course that we have -- and the richness of a global model is we have a really broad set of perspectives.
 I think I can leave most of your comments alone, but I would say one thing, which is simply that this room isn't necessarily representative of the world at all.  And I'm also very honored to be the first female chair, but I was the first female chair after ten years.
 [ Applause ]
 I was also the first chair after ten years that did not come from a government.  I came from the technical community.
 So there are still lots of things we need to continue addressing as we go forward.  And I say that with the greatest respect for all the opinions in this room.  That's why we're here.  That's why the Internet Governance Forum matters.  That's why multistakeholder matters.  And that's why allowing all voices in the room on these discussions is so critically important.  And I do have to say I think we still have a significant way to go in most forums that I participate in and, frankly, in most activities in my day.
 I will go back to the queue.  I had Lori in the queue, then Lee, and then we'll go back to the online queue.
 So, Lori, you had the floor.
 >>LORI SCHULMAN:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  Mr. Secretariat, Chengetai.  It's nice to see everybody.
 I want to echo some thoughts that have been expressed, and I have a few ideas and suggestions.  
 First of all, I think the idea of what does Internet governance mean absolutely should be related in terms that private sector actors can relate to and I don't think that happens now, particularly when speaking the language of SDGs.  SDGs we understand as NGOs and inside the U.N. system, but outside of it I can say with complete authority not understood in the private sector.  
 By way of example, I'm pleased to say that my organization, the International Trademark Association, hosted its first workshop ever on the value proposition of trademarks to small and emerging businesses in ICT4D today.  And the questions that emerged were, I believe, very interesting and valuable to launch new discussions.  But part of -- It took three years to get the workshop here, and one of the reasons it did is because I had to serve as the translator between what the U.N. expectation was and what my members, who are mostly private sector actors, many Fortune 500 companies, some small and emerging businesses, where is the value proposition?  What is our return on investment?  How does this affect our market?  Well, these are terms that are not necessarily spoken often in these circles.  These are the terms that are in order to relate why it's important, it's important to come up with that case statement.
 So would I offer that as part of the communications working group that we think about how do we speak to the private sector specifically.
 I would also say in terms of using words, "submit" versus "participate."  I understand the distinction you were making you about I would say that in the private sector, submitting is equivalent to participating.  I've seen the use of that wording in my own association where we would submit a proposal and then the report we would get is we participated in IGF.
 So again, I think distinguishing what participation means in the private sector would be extremely important.
 I would also offer if not already done, and I don't believe it is, that it might be very, very beneficial to have a workshop on workshop proposals.  Have those who have successfully submitted proposals work with either -- I would suggest online, a Webinar, for those who are interested.  And enough time in advance to really, particularly for the private sector to prepare.  Because although the private sector may be perceived as having more resources for travel, we don't.  Most corporate budgets are put in at least a year in advance.  We don't operate on grants.  We operate on very hard-coronet revenue returns.
 And I know even in my own association we were asked to do a lightning session two weeks prior to IGF in Mexico.  We were lucky in that we had members on the ground in Mexico.  We were able to recruit an SME blogger, a female blogger from Guadalajara, and then we brought in a very active member from Mexico City and we put together what I thought was quite an engaging lightning session in Spanish and English.
 We have that flexibility.  But I will say that most private sector organizations do not.  And so my final recommendation would be to start working with trade associations.  Because most private sector actors are going to be involved in some kind of association that advance their immediate business needs, as in my case it's trademark protection and associated intellectual property.  And there's been a lot of back and forth about what that means because intellectual property in this space is very loaded and is perceived as something that Inc. fringes upon free speech when fact there can be dialogue about balance.  And if we're talking about ICT4D and development and sustainability, if we don't figure out how to help businesses protect themselves, those businesses go away.
 So thank you.
 >>THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you, lawyer.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Lori.  I appreciate the comments.
 Next in the queue I have Lee, Lee Hibbard.
 >>LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.  Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe.  
 Just one real point of context.  We're in Europe for this next IGF, and there's quite a lot of low-hanging fruits regarding cooperation between governments and private sector, and I'm thinking about the different initiatives which have been happening over the last, say, couple of years.
 The European Commission has a Code of Conduct which concerns looking at, you know, hate speech online amongst other things.  So that's something that's ongoing that perhaps the Commission could contribute to.
 The German Ministry of Justice has also been involved in discussions with Facebook on the same matter.  And I think other governments, too, have been discussing it.
 So there are -- there is cooperation, there is discussion.  You just need to know maybe who to address.
 There's also the U.N. forum on business and human rights, which meets every year in Geneva.  I think maybe it's November time.  So that's another low-hanging fruit.  Maybe they could be addressed in terms of seeing how governments and private sector could participate.
 And even for the Council of Europe, there's been a realization recently, last year in 2016 as part of an Internet governance strategy, which is there's a need to work more with companies, Internet companies.  So for the last 12 months we've been talking to companies, Internet companies, telcos, including European telcos and their associations of companies about how to work more closely in dialogue between the governments, the 47 governments in Strasbourg and these companies.  So it looks like there's going to be -- I mean I can't say for sure, but it looks like there will be an agreement and a launch of an agreement and more dialogue, a partnership, this autumn.  
 So there are initiatives.  There are low-hanging fruit.  It means just bringing them together, maybe, you know, pinging them and saying, "Can we have a discussion."
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Lee.  Did you want to come in now, Thomas, or later?
 Thomas.
 >>THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
 Actually, some -- some quick reaction to some of the things that have been said.
 One is as Nigel from ICANN has mentioned the Swiss chairmanship of the GAC, what I learned during this, and that has got to do with what Lori mentioned about languages, that one of the key challenges that this multistakeholder model, as it is cultivated in ICANN, one of the key challenges is the language problems, and I'm not only talking about English versus Spanish versus Arabic, and so on.  I'm talking about the different codes and the different meanings of words and the different ways that people think and express themselves among stakeholders.  And this is something that even after almost ten years at ICANN and after some people from other stakeholders that have been at ICANN since the beginning, we are still having problems in understanding what we mean when we use some words, when we say something as government, you come from a government logic and then a sentence or an advice that is very clear for us is completely misunderstood by business people or by civil society people just because they do not participate in the same environment and do not read and write and talk to each other in the same environment as we do.  And that has led to a number of misunderstandings and difficult situations that first we had to realize that it's actually not so clear for them as we thought that what we said or what we expect is.  And it is only through intense discussions and engaging with each other that you sometimes realize that you actually think that you talk of the same thing but actually you are on completely different planets and it takes, first of all, time to get used to each other and the way you're thinking.
 So this is just one of the elements that I think we should not forget when we talk about multistakeholder approaches and cooperation and that we are mindful of these differences or barriers that are normally not intentional but we often -- but they are there and we often forget them.  I just wanted to raise that because that is one of my key learnings in the ICANN world, that I have -- and not just me, I guess -- quite underestimated.
 Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Thomas.
 Next in the queue is Segun and then Mamadou and Mark.
 Segun, you have the floor.
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Thank you, Chair.  I just want to add my voice to -- on how we can improve participation, especially the government and the private sector.
 Now, I want to share just a little experience I have in my country.  I have the privilege of being the one that designed the current Nigerian Internet governance program.  As usual, the stakeholders they were like -- wanted to use the usual styles, approach and all that, but we identified that there's a problem somewhere.  The governments are not always being part of it.  What we have mostly there are civil society and general members of the public and citizens and maybe a few of the government institutions.  But the lawmakers and the security and all the (indiscernible) area, they have not been part of it.  
 But I identified something.  We identified that why can't we align our program with the policy, with the national economic policy of the governments, which talk about prioritizing six areas:  (indiscernible), agricultural, healthcare, (indiscernible) delivery, et cetera.  Now, let me share this with us just probably to learn on how we can probably attract the government to be part of it.  
 Another track session of access, inclusiveness, and diversity, applying the approach we've always been using but this time we change the concept.  We talk to them and say, "Why can't we talk about empowerment rural agricultural community under that track sections because agricultural is part of the prioritized area of the government economic agenda, which at the same time fall under the framework SDGs.  Then let me use an example here on Internet economy, where we are talking about connecting the next billion under the Nigerian economic plan, they are talking about how can we enable trade, commerce, how can we increase our GDP.
 Now, I provided an intervention one year.  I said, "Why can't we talk about empowering trade investment and industry for inclusive growth?"  That should fall under Internet economy.  Now, what I'm saying is that not until when we begin to intercept the Internet governance with the national policy or with the policy that governments have always been, you know, trying to address -- because I'm a little bit surprised that when I look at the top 10 -- the top 10 (indiscernible) workshops that we had, I discover that out of the top 10, we have issues bordering on human rights.  
 I was wondering:  What happened to the sustainable development issues like hunger, poverty, energy issues?  Why can't we diversify it?  
 So I think (indiscernible) solve.  There's a need for us to really look at what can bring government back to the Internet governance, especially using the Internet Governance Forum to address certain things that has to do with the government.  That way you address the government.  I think to me it comes to me the private sector will naturally respond to it because the policy of the government has a bearing on the directions of the private sector.
 For now, I -- that is just the little interventions I would like to make.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Segun.  Very interesting.  
 We have Mamadou Lo in the queue, then Mark Carvell and Raphael Dunant.  So I just saw Jac and Wisdom.  Oh, maybe I just haven't refreshed.  It indicates Mamadou is next in the queue and then Mark Carvell.
 >>MAMADOU LO: Hello.  Thank you, Chair.  I'm Mamadou Lo, for the record.
 Regarding communication issues, communication issues (indiscernible) community involve both government and private sector.  I see three ways working group have to give separate enhanced communication and outreach within IGF.
 First, if Internet communications is managed already by secretariat and how MAG members (indiscernible) working group can give support.
 Second, communication between MAG and whole community on IGF, managed also by secretariat, and how working group (indiscernible) can give support and help to develop new version on the six U.N. languages of the IGF Web site.
 Third, IGF and (indiscernible) information support.  In this field, working group (indiscernible) has developed tool on (indiscernible) separate like weekly review we are already doing.  Thanks, Chair.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Mamadou.  
 Mark Carvell, you have the floor.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Lynn.  Mark Carvell, United Kingdom government.  
 I just wanted to offer a few thoughts on government participation and actively contributing to IGF sessions.
 As we noted in our feedback on the last IGF, we felt that a lot of the sessions were deficient in the volume or lack of volume of contributions from government policy experts and we highlighted this as a problem in our written feedback.
 There is always a challenge for administrations to resource participation by experts, policy experts, in a nondecisional forum such as the IGF.  It's -- administrations are hard-pressed, and when you fight for budgets and so on, the question is, "Well, what are you going to get out of traveling sometimes quite a long distance and spending four or five days at a venue and you're not negotiating something?"
 So it's always a challenge within administrations to get resourced to participate actively in the IGF.  And it's a problem I encounter elsewhere.  
 I mean, I went to a G20 digitizing manufacturing conference in Berlin and it was -- the level of participation there was surprisingly low, given the conference was about what's going to happen to transform the engines of the economy.
 But it's a conference.  It's a coming together of experts.  And, you know, it's not easy to get the money to travel to these events and take you out of the loop of policy work at the national level at the same time, so there's an opportunity cost and so on that all has to be taken into account.
 I -- I don't have any easy solutions to that.  
 We did note in our feedback that the Geneva IGF represents perhaps an unprecedented opportunity this year to connect with governments through the -- the intergovernmental agencies present in Geneva, and also to reach out to governments on the sustainable development agenda.  And maybe this is one of the key things in terms of outreach to developing countries that the IGF is where you're going to learn how digital technologies, the evolution of the Internet, is actually going to realize opportunities for economic growth and enhanced social well-being in developing countries and small island developing states.
 So that's a communication issue to get that across to governments through the Geneva network, in particular.
 For developed economies, I think it's -- well, it's what I kind of hinted at in my earlier intervention this morning.  In trying to articulate, "Well, what is -- what is the IGF achieving in the future look, in the -- on the emerging issues front?  What's coming down the track?"  Governments' policy experts are going to be, I think, quite keen to engage in discussions on future Internet issues, on blockchain.  We're all looking at blockchain and trying to work out what its impact is going to be, for example.  Internet of Things.  AI.  These are all very big issues crossing government policy experts' desks.  The communication from the IGF should be "Come along to this unique global forum and you're going to have the opportunity to engage and interact and meet policy experts, technical experts, rights experts from across the world as the unique opportunity to help you ground -- get a grounding into these transformative issues."
 So there is opportunity for that communication, I guess, to get around that -- the budget holders' sort of negative -- likely negative reaction, "If you're not going anywhere to negotiate, what is it -- somewhat is it -- what's in it for us?"
 The only other thought is remote participation, and workshop panelists session -- main session organizers should think, "Well, we need government policy people here."  If we can't get them to actually come, let's factor in the remote participation so they engage in that way.
 So a few thoughts there on this, I agree, fundamental issue.
 There are quite a few governments here today.  That's very good.  About 25, including those participating remotely.  That's encouraging.  But you really need to get engaged with the key policy people in administrations who are hard-pressed on national work and try to convince them that if you come to the IGF, it will help you in your national work.  And some of these issues are cross-border.  You know, they're not going to be the -- the -- solely for resolving at the national level.  The solutions and the opportunities are cross-border.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Mark. I think we have an online participant?
 >> Yeah.  We have Mary and Fouad.  
 Mary, could you take the floor, please?  So Fouad.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I can see Fouad.  Excellent, yes.  Welcome, Fouad.
 >>FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you so much.  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I just wanted to give a small input.  I'm thinking suggesting on the digital economy and I am suggesting linking up open data and open government data as the sorts of vehicles to promote human development.  I've been a longtime supporter of Internet governance for development, or simply IG4D, as some of you may know, and while we had the opportunity to host the main sessions during IGF in Vilnius and IGF in Nairobi, I believe that we once again have the opportunity to link to IG4D, Internet governance for development.  This would also encourage governments that support open data initiatives to share the improvements and innovation that have come about using the Internet and data as tools for development in society economies and governments.  More of this interest is driven by my own country's participation to the government partnership and to the OECD groups who are working on anticorruption and accountability.
 So there -- I think there's a great deal of interest by governments in promoting open data and we need to bring this discussion into more focus or a more enlightened way to main sessions or grouping up in workshops and deciding more on open data and open government.  I think that would increase a great deal of participation from governments because you know that there are a great deal of governments doing that.  So it would help guide them, it would help drive in stakeholders and as part of the SDGs when data matters so much, to the attainment of sustainable development goals, I believe that this is one area that we can come back, even if it's just once, to Internet governance for development, that we could still build on this.  So this is my suggestion.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Fouad, thank you for your comments and thank you for hanging in there with respect to trying to get into the queue.  I just see just from a quick scan in the queue that Mary Uduma was having difficulty getting in as well.  
 Maybe I could just ask Luis, after the meeting, to get just a few minutes with Abboud and understand what's happening there in the background and why some people are coming in that way versus the queue.  It appears as though some of them are having -- which may actually be remote connection issues on their part, but if we can just do a quick troubleshoot, that would help.  I mean, it's very frustrating for them and it's difficult enough participating on line as well.
 So I think that was the last one in the queue remotely there, so we'll -- we'll go to Raphael, and then Wisdom and Jac were in the queue as well and then I'll go back to the online.  So Raphael, you have the floor.  
 >>RAPHAEL DUNANT: Thank you.  I'm Raphael Dunant from the EPFL, one of the major universities in computer science.  
 First, I would like to thank the previous speeches.  They bring really interesting solutions and ideas.  
 I've got a point on encouraging private industry participation.  
 At EPFL, which is one of the major computer science universities, we've never heard about the IGF, and I think the partnership with technical universities is one of the solutions because students are the ones that join industries, are the ones that have energies, and that are interested.
 So that's one point to consider.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Raphael.  Maybe another set of contact points for the upcoming IGF in Switzerland as well.
 Wisdom, you have the queue.  Or the floor.
 >>WISDOM DONKOR:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  And for the record, my name is Wisdom from Ghana.  
 I just want to add to the contributions.  Looking at Africa, we have serious problems in Africa, but then to solve this problem, we need to do simple things right.  
 What are simple things?  
 I'll take outreach as one.  
 We are looking at reducing hunger and poverty in Africa.  This is a situation where in Africa, our rural folk, they produce the largest amount of food in Africa and the city just sit down and they enjoy this food.  
 And now these rural folk are now saying that, "Okay, if the urban population are enjoying, then we too have to lay down our tools and also go and join them in the urban areas."  
 So there is this migration issue there.
 So to address this issue, we actually need to start considering opening up data.  We need to get systems that citizens can actually get satisfied with what government is doing for them, in the sense that whatever program the government is giving to the urban populations equally should be available to the rural folk.  An example would be energy, which is electricity, and Internet and all that.  These are some of the things that when we do, we'll actually empower the rural folk to stay in the rural areas to still continuing with their farming produce.  
 In Africa, one of the issues is that when you look at our educational sector, our (indiscernible), for example, is not that captured in the curriculum.  I don't know why.  But it looks like students are no longer interested in (indiscernible), but then they are looking at science and all that.  So this is just one part of the problem within the Africa region.  
 There is this problem that there is no data available.  We are talking of reaching the SDGs.  Now, there is no data available to actually measure whether we are doing well or we are not doing well, so we need to also start talking to African governments to start releasing data.  Based on this data, we can actually know which sector is performing, which sector is not performing, and then the issues can really be addressed.
 So this is one of the things that I think when we look into it we will have.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Wisdom.  
 Jac, you have the floor.
 >>JAC SM KEE: Thanks, Lynn.  This is Jac SM Kee speaking as MAG this time.
 I guess I note with both interest and slight alarm that gender and human rights is something that is required to articulated in Internet governance spaces and Internet governance processes today.  Though WSIS Geneva declaration as well as the Tunis Agenda for Action from 2003 and 2005 both have very clear comment (indiscernible) to both human rights and gender, so this is not new, and it shouldn't really need rearticulation.  But maybe what if new is the application of human rights to new and emerging issues, which is something that IGF really provides for.
 However, the comments about gender, that its issues that being limited to numbers as well as for kinds of devices that women and men use, this indicates to me clearly that capacity building is critically needed for this so we that we can really integrate gender into Internet governance policy and processes in a much more comprehensive and cohesive way.  And also governance in discussion about policy doesn't really fit in a vacuum affecting technology without humans.  So if policy discussion misses out on human rights, then its really missing out at exactly what and whom it most affects:  People, humans.  It's diversity that starts with gender, but it's by no means the only diversity.
 And finally, if one of the priority issues for IGF is to improve engagement by different stakeholder groups -- in particular, governments -- then human rights is critical since one of the most important role and obligation of governments is to both uphold and protect human rights of people in terms of civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, both online and offline.  And IGF is a valuable space to also share and work towards developing best practices for this.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jac.  
 We have Liesyl in the queue, unless you took yourself out.
 >>LIESYL FRANZ: I did take myself out.  Things I was going to say have been said.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Then we'll go to Cheryl.  Cheryl Miller, you have the floor.
 >>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Chair.
 I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments and follow up on what's been said already, most of it probably a little repetitive anyway.  But I think if we put ourselves in the position to think about what do governments and what do businesses really care about and what do they want.  So obviously governments want to protect their people.  They want to boost their economies, and they sort of want to take the lead in different industries.  Industries themselves, they want to increase their stance in the global marketplace, and the industry that we represent is one that's changing extremely rapidly.
 And so I think if we think about these different audiences and we maybe get a little bit creative, perhaps reaching out more to the entrepreneurship community and the startup community and maybe trying to build in, whether it not be -- you know, we've been more creative with our different panel sessions, but maybe building in some sort of side event that is very attractive for them where they can come and sort of meet new people and engage in that way.  Possibly also repurposing day zero.  I think there's a lot that can be done with that.  I don't know if we're even having a day zero for this one or not.  But almost turning it into a form of a resources exchange for governments.
 So one example is all of the connectivity work, the connecting the next billion, et cetera, it might be of value for governments to be able to actually have exchanges with these different financial institutions and other partners that would actually be able to help them do that when they go back home, rather than just sort of talking about it.
 And I want to challenge.  I know some folks have said maybe we need to go back to basics, go back to our main focus.  And actually, I want to challenge that.  Maybe we do need to change a little bit.  I think industry is changing so rapidly and sort of the Internet ecosystem is changing so rapidly around us, maybe we should start to think in those terms and really make sure that the programming that we're putting together is really reflective of that and it's moving forward.  It's going to be something that is so cutting edge, I feel that I absolutely need to be there.  You know, the IGF is something where if I'm not there, I'm missing out on something.
 So thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Cheryl.  A number of comments.  I can maybe just respond to one or two.
 There will be a day zero this year.  Because of the timing of the IGF, day zero is on a Sunday, which isn't quite so conducive to people's travel schedules, and....
 Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry.  I just thought, you're talking about day zero or you're talking about the high-level leaders' meeting?
 >>CHERYL MILLER: I guess I'm talking about both.  Maybe just thinking about how we do that overall.  Sort of how can we make that more of a draw?  So there are some other types of conferences, like the GSR, for example, where they will -- they'll do some different closed door meetings just for the regulators and then they'll have the full conference.
 I'm not suggesting that we copy that but just to kind of think about from a government perspective what the value add could be for that day.  Because for some, you know, it's been mentioned, it's really expensive to travel and spend a week in these different locations.  But perhaps we could at least get people to spend a couple days early in the week.
 So I know we've talked about this before where you sort of -- you maybe build it sort of top-heavy in the beginning for those folks to at least come and participate, and then have other things throughout the week for your other audiences, so to speak.
 So something else that is very focused on students.  I know folks have mentioned students.  The entrepreneurship piece I think is a spot that you can really grow.  And the other industries as Marilyn and others mentioned as well.  You know, the automobile industry, et cetera, thinking of telematics and sort of all these different cross-sectoral points.  But the problem is going to be outreach and explaining to these industries what Internet governance is and why they should care.  Because I think even within our own industry, I find myself having to explain the work that we do over and over again to people, because it just -- it doesn't come -- it's not, you know, second nature to really kind of understand the point.  You've got to sort of explain three points before, before people can fully understand.  And a lot of it is the language as well.  Internet governance sounds remote.  So someone else made a comment earlier and I thought it was a very good comment about really thinking about when we -- when we explain to people the purpose of coming to the IGF, to think about the words that we choose because certain words are buzzwords for certain people.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.  Let me just try and clarify a little bit, too.
 So day zero is a series of events that are held outside of the IGF program, and it's basically if the space is there, those rooms are available.  So there's certainly room to, you know, coordinate and organize some of those other efforts.
 Specifically to the high-level event which has traditionally taken place on day zero as well, the Swiss are actually trying to I think help the IGF resolve something which has been a longstanding critique, which is this open ceremony which tends to be this long parade of individual speeches.  So they've shared a couple of thoughts, and we'll talk some more about that on Wednesday where we actually talk about the main session and the opening and closing session somewhat.  But that's one opportunity to reinvigorate some of that activity.  And then, of course, we could still revert back to high-level events on day zero in successive years if that's of interest to the host country.
 But again, I'm trying to, I think, get ahead of potentially some confusion on the day zero versus high-level events, which tend to be grouped but really -- really shouldn't be.  
 I think you made a couple of other good points as well, and maybe there's even some specific requests we can do in terms of getting policymakers and governments into some of the workshops and (indiscernible) that are eventually selected.
 I have Sala in the queue next.  Sala, you have the floor.
 >>SALA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: Thank you, Chair.  I'd just like to pick up on Jac's comments in relation to the notion that there may have to be some level of awareness in terms of agenda and things like human rights and whatnot.
 And the comments that I'm going to make would probably sort of link into things that will be discussed tomorrow, but I thought I should make it now in case anyone would want to comment further on it.
 So one of the things that I have been observing is that within the IGF context, human rights tends to be sort of sidelined into a thematic topic.  And I have to be careful how I word it because it might not be perceived as -- I might not be communicating what I want to communicate properly.  But what I'm sort of trying to say is, like, essentially almost anything that you can pick up -- and again, it depends on how people see it -- personally for me, and I make this as a personal observation, has a human rights component, whether it's access, whether it's in things like education.  For example, for most countries, it's a constitutional right for a person to have the right to an education or the right to shelter.  And I noticed Wisdom talked about hunger and security -- I think he mentioned hunger and poverty.
 And so whilst the globe is divided in terms of the nature of the rights, whether it's economic, social, cultural, or political, and security, whilst the world is divided into that, I think one of the challenges that lay with the MAG would be in terms of how do you -- how do you create a culture where people's basic rights are embedded into the thematic processes where it's not sidelined into an ordinary other keg -- for example, 45 kegs on human rights or 45 kegs on such and such -- as opposed to a philosophical approach to how we bring the collaboration where you reduce the disparities from both ends.  When I say "both ends," I shouldn't.  I'm not saying north and south or east and west or cultural disparities or geographical disparities or political disparities or even geopolitical disparities or power disparities.  But how do you reduce this?
 So this is something for the MAG to sort of discuss, particularly in the next -- you know, going forward.  Because these are actually very strongly linked to bridging the SDGs or meeting the goals by 2030.
 That's all.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Sala.  
 We're sort of coming to the close.  There's one more agenda item at the very end here, but I think we're sort of coming to a close on this session.
 I think there have been a number of good ideas here.  There are a number of good suggestions that have come through the retreat and various other improvement discussions.
 I'd also make the point that of course it's also important that we all do everything we can to promote this to all of our colleagues, whatever stakeholder group they come from, you know, in our everyday activities.
 So I think everybody should take that responsibility home as well while continuing to think of things we can actually do collectively as an IGF or a MAG.
 But let me see if there are any further comments again.  This was the 13th agenda item, which was an open discussion on ways to encourage governments and private sector participation.
 So I also see some comments in the chat room that says maybe it's taking some time to get recognized here in the room or not allowed in a second time if you want to speak.  So I'm waiting to see if anything pops up through the online, through the remote online, or here in the room. 
 Renata, you have the floor.
 >>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Yes.  To the point, again, of participation and speakers, and different stakeholder groups, there was a -- an idea, one of the many -- in one of the conversations about the language used.
 So, again, I think that one of the things that I remembered quite clearly from the beginning of 2016 was the visibility discussion of IGF outcome document, how great work was being done intersessional but some of these documents weren't explored or weren't seen in context that they deserved to be.
 So again, I see -- and I think this comes at the moment that we're also approaching the end of the day of open consultations and starting a deep dive in workshops, the IGF is like a mosaic.  And if we don't have all the -- all the -- all the pictures, all -- if we don't see all stakeholder groups, we tend to imagine that they aren't there.  But also, I concur with Juan, even late, that he thought that private sector and government need to find interesting this dialogue at the IGF.  And I think -- but I don't agree that the things are not interesting.  Like algorithms and digital recognition, for instance, is quite an interesting thing.
 So I think we need to probably create a few more problematic themes and try to put this in the context, try to work this language of such revolutionary things.
 So just leaving this thought.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Renata.
 Is there anyone else looking for the floor?
 On this topic?
 Let me just do -- Okay.  Mark.  Mark Carvell, you have the floor.
 >>MARK CARVELL: Yes, thank you.
 I -- Mark Carvell, United Kingdom government.
 Just following on from that comment, I just wondered if there is a plan to brief missions here in Geneva.  You know, to convene an opportunity to brief all the government missions here at -- at the U.N.  And with that, you could provide links to the outcome documents from last year on connecting the next billion and cybersecurity, et cetera, an outline of the next tangible outcomes.  And then following on what I said earlier, a brief digest of this is what IGF is going to do on digital future and on sustainable development.
 So you've got kind of a neat package there that will be the signal out through the missions back to governments this is why you need to be here at the IGF 12 in December.
 So I just float that as a thought.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Mark.  Those are very good suggestions.
 Thomas.
 >>THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you.  And thanks to Mark for the suggestion.
 Actually, we're doing so many things that I forget the details about what it is that we're doing.  But we -- of course we have the mission on our radar, too, and one of the vehicles that we use and have been using and will continue to use is, of course, the Geneva Internet platform run by Diplo on behalf of the Swiss government that is regularly organizing briefings here, (indiscernible) plus and also online, and also it's a private ambassadors briefings.  But we'll have -- the missions are one of the -- one of our stakeholders, target stakeholders that -- I can't tell you whether already -- our mission here, by the way, who is very active and very supportive.  They have actually organized something already, or they will, but it's definitely on the radar.
 Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Thomas.
 I don't think there's anybody else in the queue.  I have to admit I have so many screens open.  At the moment it's not in front of me, but I think not.
 Just a couple of quick points.  There's been in one of the chat rooms some questions on what's involved in hosting an IGF meeting so I'd ask Chengetai if he would just give a couple of short sentences on that, mostly to dispel some of the I think incorrect information that's floating around in the chat room.  And, Chengetai, you have the floor.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Chair.
 Just to -- I'm just answering my questions based on what I see in the chat room as well.
 First of all, you do need a government sponsor.  So it can't be any other stakeholder group.  It has to be the government that approaches the United Nations to host an IGF meeting.  And they do have to sign a host country agreement that's between the government and the United Nations.
 The government is responsible for all costs of the meeting, hosting the meeting; that is, the venue, the transcription, setting up the computers, all that.  And....
 I don't know -- Oh, yes.  The number is 2,500, I think.  That would be a good estimation of how many people come.  I mean, of course there might be slightly more, slightly less depending on where the place is and what time of the year it is set, if it's Clark with other meetings or not.
 If anybody's got any other specific questions, you can ask it now.  I can answer.  Or you can come and see me and I can answer them as well.  These are just for reference.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And let me just add one or two.  So if -- ultimately, the approach to the U.N. and the contracts are all signed by the government, because it is a U.N. hosted event.  We've had a number of people approach us that weren't from the government that said "There's significant interest in my government or in my country or amongst other stakeholders," so the initial thought can of course come from any stakeholder --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- but ultimately, as it progresses, it needs to be an engagement between a government and the United Nations.  
 There's another point I was going to make a moment ago but --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  Just to add on that point, yes, we've had various multistakeholder host country organizing groups, but the lead when we are making negotiations with the United Nations has to be government.  It's just the way that it is right now.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And again, we have 2019, '20 and '21 are fairly oversubscribed in terms of the number of very serious offers we've received to host the IGF.
 2018 next year, not.  
 We were actually hopeful that we had a couple of countries that would do that, but various things such as political elections and all sorts of other things either happened or are happening and have taken some of those off the table.
 So we're redoubling our efforts for 2018, and as I said, I think 2019, '20 and '21 will take care of themselves and that will give us the longer runway.
 But, you know, I've always said you can't -- you won't get anything if you don't ask and it's not known, so this is in the light of making it known that we are, in fact, looking for folks for 2018, and if there are substantive suggestions, then please reach out to either Chengetai or I.  
 And I hope that kind of answers the question.  There's a whole serious of -- in fact, they're on line.  The sample country documents, the sample contracts, all those things are actually on line, which give a lot more detail, but I think we've just covered the kind of pertinent things here.  
 A couple of more quick housekeeping.  Luis -- I've just seen a whole spate of comments in the chat room.  Luis is trying to, I think, help people understand how to use the queueing system if you're participating remotely as well.  Maybe those instructions can actually be updated and reposted and maybe there's even a different set of instructions if you're participating on line versus in the room here.
 But, you know, the whole purpose of that system was to, as has been said many times, equal the playing field between online participants and people in the room, but I'd say even between people in the room, because when a topic is opened up and 10 flags go up, whoever is on the list first, second, and third happens to be wherever the person who is recording the queue is looking.
 So this actually is a much more equitable system, and I mean, as Luis so rightfully said in the room, if we want it to be successful, we have to actually use it and just share any improvements, et cetera, that you'd like to see.  
 But I think it's been, from my perspective sitting here, trying to management queue, and Chengetai's as well, I think it's been a tremendous aid, tremendous boon to the system, and most critically, it really will equal the playing field in terms of all participants.  
 So please work with Luis to help that.
 At the same time, I'd like to thank Abboud in the back, as well, who I think was maybe a little bit surprised by trying to manage all these different systems and has really done a great job at responding to a lot of the comments in the chat room and here as well, so just like to express my appreciation for that.  And while I'm here, I suppose we should express our appreciation again for all the support of the ITU staff in terms of supporting us here and note that we are meeting in a different room tomorrow.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  In the tower block.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  In the tower block.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I just have to talk to Eleonora.
 >> Room A.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Room A in the tower block.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So the -- yeah.  The question -- you might want to turn your mic on.  The question is how do we actually most efficiently enter the building?
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: I would use the same entrance.  I'd just follow the directions for tower building.  But there is also the tower building entrance on -- I don't know what the road is called, though, unfortunately.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Yeah, I actually think having experienced both of these and having experienced trying to go from this building to the other, you can do it internally, changing floors up and down as you move, which it isn't the straightest.  You can -- if you come into this building, you can walk back outside, look to the tower, walk across the streets to the tower and enter that way, or enter from the tower.  And if you just Google "ITU tower," you'll get the exact address.  I'm also forgetting the street number.  But that would be the most direct there.  
 Let me just see if there are any other admin and then I'll go to Ji, who has his hand up again, and then we were going to have a short tribute to one of our MAG members.
 So first, Chengetai, is there anything else from an administrative perspective or... no interpreters to thank this time?  Just --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So I would like to thank the scribes.  Really excellent, excellent efforts again, which I know -- I have to say I rely on --
 [ Applause ]
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- I rely on significantly when I've had another quick chat in the room and I find I fall behind, I can quickly go to the -- and look for it.
 So Liesyl has her hand up, Ji, and I want to go to Liesyl first.
 >>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thanks.  And I'm sorry for not using the queue but I just logged on.  Sorry about that.
 Thank you for giving one quick question for tomorrow's logistics.  
 Chengetai, you had mentioned a briefing on the trust fund.  Can you -- can you give the exact time and location for that?  Thanks.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We're going to have it in Room A.  We'll just give like 10 minutes for those people who are interested -- those people who are not interested to leave and then we'll start at 10 past.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, you want lunch first?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Will we lose lunch if we're too late?
 >>LEISYL FRANZ: Sorry.  On the mic, the will of the briefer.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  No, no.  I just asked Chengetai if we'll lose lunch if we launch too late because --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We're going to meet in the room, so we can have it at 2:00 and then power through, if you want.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  If that's the will of the room.  If that's the will of the room.  I was going to --
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  What's the will of the room?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  2:00 is -- 2:00 is the will of the room.  I was going to quote one of our secretariat staff for lunch, but I won't.  Yes.  2:00 is fine.  Yeah.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  I'd also like to thank again the secretariat for all their preparation in terms of getting us here and the on-site preparation here in the room.  There's a great effort from a very small dedicated team.
 [ Applause ]
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And then Ji, you were looking for the floor, and then, Elizabeth, will come to your item.  
 Ji, you have the floor.
 >>JI HAOJUN:  Okay.  Thank you, Chair.  I just want to ask a quick -- first ask a quick question about how -- the hosting of the IGF annual retreat meeting.  How much would it cost?  Because I'm considering if Beijing would like to host the future meetings.  Not necessarily next year but in the future.  
 And the second, about briefing during the lunchtime, since we have cut the French simultaneously interpretation, that saves a lot of money.  Could we, in the future, when we have such briefing, we -- we arrange a decent buffet for us, for participants?  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much for the suggestion.  We'll look into that one.
 For the --
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  For the costing, we -- you know, because each country has got different costing, sometimes the government owns the venue so it's very -- so it's much cheaper.  Sometimes they don't.  They have to go out and commercialize the whole process, you know, put it to a commercial entity, so that's much more expensive.
 What we can give you is the costs for the U.N. participation, which is quite easy.  We can give you a cost estimate for that.  But for the rest, mostly we leave it up to the host country to figure out.  But we can also talk off line.  I mean, I'm very well willing to --
 >>JI HAOJUN:  Would $10 million be sufficient?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It really depends.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thomas has the floor.
 >>THOMAS SCHNEIDER:  Thank you.  And just to add to what Chengetai said to our Chinese colleague, it absolutely depends on where and how you do it.  It depends -- 
 The most important things is the location.  Then transportation, if you have to have buses for thousands of people throughout the city, because there's no other way to get there.  That makes a huge impact.  The availability of food.  And then of course the pricing involved, the country or the city, whatever, and the effort that you take in communication.  
 And so there's no limit to the "up" side, or whatever you call it, so it's -- it really is very individual, but I guess all the past hosts are happy to tell you about their situation if you're interested.  So -- and you can maybe compare which of the past situations is the closest to one that may be comparable to yours.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  And let me just say there's lots of detail to this that we can't possibly cover here.  You know, we've had many of these discussions before.  IGF participants don't expect lunch to be paid for them.  They simply want to be able to grab a lunch quickly within a very tight schedule and in a place that facilitates 2500 hungry people getting lunch in a relatively short period of time.
 So there's a whole bunch of details for every one of those line items that we're happy to go through for folks that are seriously interested in hosting.
 Again, it is a U.N. event so there are some specific U.N. costs, U.N. security and that sort of thing, that again we can put together, but there's a lot of details and just throwing figures out and even throwing out such as what they pay for does not necessarily reflect kind of the range of possibilities here.  
 Segun, you've asked for the floor.  I'd really like to close it.  If you could make it really, really short so we could take the one last item and not hold people up.  
 So Segun, you have the floor.
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE:  Yeah.  Thank you.  I will be very short.  
 We have the request from the members of the working group on communication.  We want to have a kind of meeting, (indiscernible) meeting with online participation.  I don't know if we can be considered to have that before the end of the MAG meeting.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So if I understand you correctly, you're looking to have a meeting outside of the MAG meeting hours but are looking for a room and some facilities?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  So why don't we just take that up with Chengetai outside.  I mean, off line.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Wednesday -- he's saying quickly Wednesday at lunchtime would appear to be a possibility at this point but take it up with him off line.  Marilyn, you have the floor, and that really is the last intervention so I can go to the last item.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  And again, I apologize for not using the queue but I wanted to ask Chengetai very briefly if he would remind all of the MAG members about the IGF informational session on Thursday, because for those who are still here and who may not have noted it, I think it would be great if they were aware of it.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, exactly.  We're holding an IGF informational session on Thursday.  If you're -- I mean, it's mostly aimed at people who don't know much about the IGF, but I mean, you're welcome, of course.  Again, I will ask Eleonora to give the room.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: So it's at 2:15 on Thursday.  It's actually a very short session.  It's only 45 minutes.  And I am looking for confirmation on the room myself, so please give me a second.  
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And thank you, Lynn -- I mean, Marilyn.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: So it's Room C2.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mark.
 With that, I just want to thank everybody for coming.  This next item I think is going to be a little difficult for some people, so we will close the meeting immediately following that particular item.  But I just want to thank everybody for the participation.  I want to thank all the community participants and members for all their comments.  Please, please keep them coming.  It really is essential that we hear what's working for you.  This is obviously everybody's Internet Governance Forum and we're here to try and steer the overall process.
 So it doesn't stop simply with the end of this open consultation, but do keep the comments coming.
 With that, we'll see everybody here at 10:00 tomorrow morning, and Elizabeth, you have the floor.
 >>ELIZABETH THOMAS-RAYNAUD:  Thank you very much, Lynn.  I'm grateful for a short moment of our time to remember our friend and colleague, Joe Alhadeff, who as most of you know passed away too early in his life after a battle with cancer.  
 Joe was one of the most insightful and informed members of our business community to serve as an ambassador for our common goals.  He encouraged people to see the value in IGF and to gain insights from it.  Joe also served as a resource to this community across stakeholders who wished to engage in an exchange of views.  His professional credentials included serving as vice president for global public policy and chief privacy strategist at Oracle as well as chair of the ICC Digital Economy Commission and an officer of ICC/BASIS.  He was also chair of the business at OECD work on digital economy, the U.S. India Business Council Digital Economy work and many others.
 Last year, despite already fighting this illness, Joe was in Guadalajara and he spoke on the trade main session panel.  In Brazil, Joe moderated the Internet economy and SDG session, and he's been an actively engaged participant and member at IGF since the beginning.  This made him an even more compelling advocate when he spoke on IGF's behalf during the UNGA WSIS+10 review.
 Joe served ICC members and the business community at large, often giving his time and leadership to help ensure business was counted but also that business was engaging.  He served ICC and BASIS members as a de facto leader at key moments.  His professional legacy would take more time than we have but I will note for those of you here that he served the broad business community as the ICC/BASIS representative on the IANA stewardship transition steering committee and he engaged actively in briding privacy divides across the global stage, most significantly invested in APEC cross-border privacy rules and the Pathfinder work that led to them.
 Finally, let me say that Joe was a global citizen.  His family extended to friends around the globe.  Just from all of the emails that we have received from friends in every region, we know that it was his intellect and experience and perception that earned him great respect, but it was his humor, his empathy, and his deep appreciation of all things human that made him loved and cherished.
 Thank you for sharing this moment to remember him and his invaluable contribution to our collective mission.
 >>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Elizabeth.  
 I know many of us worked with him for years, so it's a loss.  Thank you.  
 And we'll see everybody tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. in Room A in the tower.  Thank you.