IGF 2015 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting 21 May

 IGF  MAG Meeting
Thursday 21 MAY 2015
ILO Geneva, Switzerland

 [ Gavel ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for coming back for the second day of the MAG meeting.  Today, we are -- today, we will be dealing with workshop selection, and I think that this is one of the most important tasks that the MAG has been entrusted by the secretary-general.
 But before embarking on this path, I would like to thank all those who contributed to open consultations and MAG meeting yesterday, because yesterday we also advanced on other issues.
 We had a very good conversation on main sessions.  Based on conversations and inputs, the secretariat will be reworking the draft schedule, and I hope it will be circulated by the end of tomorrow.
 We do not have a rush with this, but just that we leave with a proposal based on our conversations and also some modifications that I had to introduce simply because of circumstances.
 And the main thing that will be changed in this new schedule is that the opening ceremony and opening session technically cannot be organized in the first part of the first day, in the morning of the first day, because we are risking not having dignitaries who may want to participate in the opening of the session.  Likelihood that high officials would spend the night in Joao Pessoa and participate in the morning is relatively low, but likelihood that they would fly in in the morning and participate in the afternoon is much higher.
 So therefore, the opening ceremony and session should be organized in the afternoon.
 This is purely technical reasons.
 Secondly, we had also yesterday a good discussion and we endorsed in principle an approach related to intersessional activities, and I hope that by the end of MAG meeting, we will have a final version that may be circulated outside.
 I also was very pleased yesterday, listening to the reports on progress on best practice work streams.  This was really encouraging. 
 Maybe a minor remark from my side.
 I think it would be useful to align the timetables of all work streams and to agree on a cutoff date that we could circulate proposed text to the community prior to the meeting.
 There are different traditions, if -- but one, if we could meet, let's say, a deadline of six weeks prior to the meeting as a circulation of information, it would be very good.  It is not a requirement, it is just a best practice, and this is a courtesy to participants who may need some time to review all the documentation that we are proposing for IGF meeting. 
 So I would simply like to encourage coordinators of best practice work streams to try to factor that in.
 And of course for those who have advanced already a lot in the work, that may be easier.  For those who are just starting, that may be slightly more complicated.  But nevertheless, please try to factor that in.
 For the task to select workshops, we have allocated ourselves nine hours, and I think that we should do whatever we can to use those nine hours in the most rational way, starting with a punctual beginning of sessions. 
 I noticed today that we started 10 minutes late, and I think this is just lost time. 
 But also, we need to be as flexible and as cooperative as we can, because of course all of us, we have certain preferences, we are coming from different perspectives, but our task is to find consensus on the workshop proposals and consensus in -- in two-way consensus, whether we -- all of us, we're happy with the result or all of us, we're equally unhappy with the result.
 Every deviation from these two options means that we have not reached a reasonable outcome.  If somebody is extremely unhappy, it's bad, and therefore, let us work collaboratively and show utmost flexibility --
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Hi.  Can you hear me?  Check, check.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- and listen to each other because everybody has their own reasons to do what they do and propose what they propose.
 So coming now to the methodology, I hope we will not spend too much time on that, but since you asked me to circulate a proposal at the -- during the last conference call, I did it, and the comments that I heard were encouraging that the proposal was, it seemed to me, accepted, and let me recall it.
 That we would take automatically 60 first workshop proposals that have been submitted and during the evaluation got the highest scores.  And we have full statistics of those proposals.
 And then we would do a selection of the remaining, as we agreed, 40 workshop proposals based on highest scoring, but equally, looking at necessary balance that we're willing to achieve in the program, and balance of a different kind.  Balance of representation, balance on thematic -- or themes or subthemes that we ourselves have identified, balance of proposals from developing and developed countries, first-comers and old-timers and so on.
 Again, most probably the result will not be ideal, but it is feasible.  Last year we reached consensus and I think we were not blamed for failing in our task.
 So that's my proposal, and I would like to see if there is -- there are any comments on -- in that respect.
 And I see that there is Marilyn, Virat, and Michael, and Avri, in that order.
 And Shita.
 Please, Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.
 My name is Marilyn Cade.  I -- good morning to all colleagues, or good afternoon/good evening, for those who are participating remotely.
 I want to make two comments and ask a question for clarification.
 I, first of all, want to thank the secretariat for the analysis that they did which helped to put into perspective the number of workshops that we put forward in 2014.  Not the -- just the number received, but also the number that spread across the subthemes.
 We have that same information for this year that helps us to understand how many workshops were presented against the subthemes.
 One comment I have is that I want to take note, for us to come back to in further consideration, of where we may have significant duplication.  Even though we may have workshops which are rated very high, I believe there's some significant duplication in some of the workshops that are in the -- perhaps I'll call it the initial "high" category, and I just want to reserve the opportunity for the MAG to consider that, since inclusiveness might lead us to consider how we might be able to encourage merger of some of those.
 My second comment has to do with the topic of Internet economy and its linkage to the main theme of sustainable development, and I wanted to just call colleagues' attention to that as a -- perhaps something for us to consider on how we make sure -- even if there's a low number of workshops that are in that category, that we try to make sure in our balance discussion that we do reflect the participation -- the recognition that Internet economy and its linkage to sustainable development may deserve some particular focus from us.
 Now, my final question, actually, Chair, has to do with a discussion we had yesterday, and that is:  Possibly that if we limit the closing session to 90 minutes, we might recoup a small number of additional workshop slots, and could I just ask clarification on that?  Because that might help us in terms of thinking about whether we have a little more flexibility.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Those 10 workshops of the afternoon of the fourth day have been already factored in in the total number of 100.
 Virat and then Michael and then Avri.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Good morning, everybody.
 Are we going to discuss the criteria and the discussions on the workshops just yet?  Because it's listed after lunch. 
 In the agenda, in the first half, it's overview of the open forum submissions, comments from the floor in the open forums, dynamic coalitions, et cetera.  So are we changing that?  Because I wanted to post some information about the analysis and some further -- but I held it back until the lunch, given the starting at post-lunch on the workshops.  But if the chair plans to bring that up, then I --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, Virat.  I thought I yesterday mentioned that since in the last conference call it was specifically requested to reverse-order and to do selection of workshops first and then a discussion on open forum and way forward second, so I -- yesterday, I said that we would start with the workshops and we would do workshop selection today and tomorrow morning and we would discuss open forum tomorrow in the second part of the day.  Forum -- what was suggested, forum, dynamic coalitions, and interregional dialogue, that would be at the end, as well as the way forward and next steps.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.  In which case, I just wanted to -- I'm sorry, I can't post that thing because it was -- it's under preparation, but let me just make a few comments.
 You've recommended starting at 61.  Taking the first 60 and then going 61 onwards. 
 I just want to note for the MAG where we are in terms of what we have set ourselves in December, because that will help us decide the focus of where the intervention should be and also perhaps at what level we should come in, whether it's 61 or 71 or later.
 The three objectives established for the MAG in December, with regards to the workshops, were:  increase the number of workshops from developing countries; increase the number of workshops from first-time proposers to encourage new voices; and increase the diversity of platforms, since nearly 90% tend to be panel discussions which was not considered ideal for delegate participation by a few of the MAG members. 
 With these objectives, the process for selection and guidelines and criteria were written.  MAG members have recommended several corrective actions to help achieve these three objectives, and the final document produced by Susan and Fiona included those selections.
 There was a clear preference expressed in the six translated invitations in local languages for developing country proposals, first-time proposals, and an additional hurdle was set in by way of an accompanying note for panel submissions.
 Each of these actually yielded excellent results. 
 Where the developing country workshops is concerned, in the top 60, it's up from 12% in 2014 to 37%, an increase of 200% over the last year.
 This number actually improves to 39% if you go to the top 80, in terms of calculation. 
 Where workshops from first-time proposers are concerned, in the top 60, they're up from 15% in 2014 to 38%, an increase of 150%.  This number decreases very slightly if you go to the top 80.
 Where subthemes are concerned, it's fairly even, but given that 65% of the workshops are in the top 60, and top 80 are from civil society, the leading theme remains Internet and human rights, followed by enhancing multistakeholder cooperation, both in the top 60 and in the top 80.  However, no theme dominates beyond 30%, which is an excellent result again.
 It's only where the stakeholder groups are concerned that we see a variance in favor of civil society proposals, both in the top 60 and 80, vis-a-vis the total proposals received. 
 The civil society forms, I think, about 55% of the total proposals sent in, but it's up to 68% of those who made it in the top 60, and 65%, so that is a positive variance in favor of civil society, but that's probably because of the quality of proposals that were written.
 Finally, very important on format, there is tremendous success, since panels are down to 12 or 14% in the top 40 and 60, roundtables are dominating now with 63% in the top 60 and 58% in the top 80.
 My request, Mr. Chairman, given this, is that the merits-based evaluation process, which does have within itself corrective versions to take care of variances that various MAG members don't score at the same level, actually allows us to take the results all the way up to 80 and only seek intervention in 20.
 It will save us time and it will yield us all the results that we had set ourselves:  Higher number of developing countries, very high number of first-timers, excellent distribution on subthemes, and an excellent distribution on formats.
 The only thing that we are still concerned about is the number of civil society proposals, which dominate at 65.  I'm not opposed to that, because they did submit the highest number of proposals, but it is higher than the percentage.
 So corrective action can be taken in the remaining 20, if we start at 80, bring in non-civil society proposals, and that will bring the number of civil society proposals to 50% of the total 100, and every other objective would have been met.
 So unless there is a real reason to intervene and change the merits-based process, we can actually save ourselves time, reap the rewards of the corrective process starting in December, and start with 81 rather than 61. 
 This is my proposal.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Virat. 
 As you know, I'm always very attentive and flexible in that.  I would like to hear reaction to the proposals starting not at 60 but at 80.
 We have Michael, then Avri, and then I will take a remote participant and then we will continue with Shita. 
 Please, Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you very much. 
 I would strongly oppose changing the procedure which worked so well last year.
 One reason for that is that it's going to look rather arbitrary to the people who suddenly find that they are now not part of the final selection, whereas somebody -- somebody at 79 will be in, somebody at 81 has a very low chance of being in because those last 20 people are in competition with 100 good proposals further down the line.
 And I think that the reason that we're doing the selection the way we are is not to achieve the statistics that Virat is talking about.  It's to incorporate new topics and new people which otherwise will be overlooked.  And if we only allocate 20 spots to bring in those new topics which didn't score so high, often because they were new topics that people were not familiar with, we're going to miss the chance to bring in some very exciting new topics and new people.
 I think in the end, we're not going to save any time if we do what Virat proposes.  We'll just argue twice as hard, perhaps three times as hard, about those remaining 20.
 I also would suggest that we think a little bit about the top 60.  Marilyn made one point, which is that there is some duplication.  I don't think that's a bad thing.  In some cases, we have two really strong proposals on a given topic and they bring different looks at it.  I don't think we need to spend too much time on duplication.
 I do think we need to consider some of the comments that were made in the evaluation process.  If you do a search on the comments, you'll find that the word "flash" appears 108 times.  And that's because many of us ranked proposals quite high but said, There is no way this should be a 90-minute talk.  This is a good, strong 30-minute talk.  We definitely want to do it.
 So I think we need to make sure within those 60 proposals, we don't have a number of proposals where two or three or four of us all strongly suggested a shorter session.
 I think in particular we should avoid giving people 90 minutes to talk about a report that they published a year ago.  There is a number of those proposals this year.  They're important reports, but they don't deserve 90 minutes just to highlight something that's already been widely distributed and isn't even new.
 So I think it is very important we do go and take a look and see if the proposers will be amenable to shortening the length, as that was the recommendation of many of us.
 And the last point, again, several of us wrote extensive comments.  There were some highly ranked proposals which I ranked very highly but there was a lack of balance.  One example was a panel of 12 people criticizing ICANN and nobody from ICANN was invited.  There's other cases where you'll have eight people all saying exactly the same thing, all singing the same song, and nobody from the two or three other perspectives that are important.
 And so, again, I'm not asking that we throw some of these panels out.  I'm just asking how will we make sure that we not only have a balance in proposers, we have a balance in panelists.  This wasn't a problem with most of the proposals but I think a number of us did comment on some of the proposals that needed additional panelists.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  It is my intention to allow comments on 60, seeing which would need to be shortened or merged, if there will be any proposals of that kind.
 Avri, please.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.  I wanted to just bring up a couple of things I had noticed, and one of the things you remarked on was the number -- or somebody remarked on, the number of panels versus the larger formats.  And I think in many cases we found somebody taking a panel with lots of people and giving it a different name.  And in some of those, I think it's reasonable to perhaps make recommendations if they happen to be in the ones that are selected.
 I was very taken with Virat's proposal of the extra 20.  But taking into account what Mike has said, I think it makes sense that in that next 20, they are strong candidates perhaps for moving forward.  But there is perhaps a little bit more give and take in whether something is moved.  In the top 61, there seems to be a presumption, and I think a very good presumption, that those go forward.
 Finally I want to add two things.  On the civil society, I think it is also important to look at how many other groups became partners in putting something together that just because somebody takes the lead in putting in a proposal does not mean that there haven't been other of the stakeholder groups participating.  And so I think that's important.
 But I also very much agree that giving advice on how to improve the workshops and add people and balance speakers and such is a very good thing for us to be doing.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Avri.  I think we already introduced that practice last year when, after selection, MAG members who volunteered were given certain number of workshops.  And they coached the organizers and advised them how to improve the proposal and how to improve the workshop.
 Let me now turn to remote participant.
 >> Okay.  Subi, please go ahead.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair.  With all the power of the words at my command, I submit this to the floor, that we do not review the criteria at this late stage and change the numbers from 60 and take that up to 81.  There are statistics -- and thank you for those excellent in-depth analysis of those statistics.  But then there are lies and then there are non-lies.  Excuse my French. 
 I have been a teacher all my life.  And I believe that grades are not an adequate reflection of either the content or the substance.  In the interest of time and process, I recognize that that is a good way of evaluating things but it is not perfect.  I believe a lot of time rested in the process.  And the review that happens together in this large main hall with all the MAG members contributing is stage two of the evaluation process which builds on the quantitative inputs that we provided to workshops. 
 As somebody from a developing country and an emerging economy, we've seen -- we've come a long way.  And I thank Susan, Fiona, and all the colleagues who have contributed to improving the ratings and evaluation process.
 But I still believe when we look at a cumulative score of 1 to 5 when we have about six or eight parameters, we do end up not giving adequate ratings to either new participants or new topics or diversity.  We do tend to, at least in our heads on occasion, get swayed by excellence in presentation writing, clarity of the proposal, which is not necessarily a guarantee that they are inviting new voices, they are also innovating on formats, or building on innovation.
 So I, therefore, submit and strongly urge that we continue to retain the principles that we posted online and the Chair had initiated this discussion on retaining the methodology of looking at 61 upwards.  And we also look at mergers and possibilities of even those that make the cutoff clearly because I agree with Mike's comments 100%, that we see possibilities of collaboration. 
 And also as a MAG member, I see our goals as mentors.  And I'd be happy to continue to work with proposals to see how we can make that better.  That creates more value for participants.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Subi, for your comments.
 Shita, please.
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair.  My name is Shita Laksmi from Hivos.  I would like to seek a clarification on the agenda template sent by the secretariat because the agenda was made based on 90 minutes where we also have flash sessions which is only 15 minutes and birds of a feather which is only 30 minutes. 
 Perhaps if we could allocate as well sessions below 90 minutes, we could have more than 100 sessions.  I don't know.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You are right.  This is just mathematics.  And, indeed, if we will see if the MAG agrees to shorten some of the sessions, we may increase the number of selected workshops from 100 upwards.  That's one point.
 Second point is, as you recall last year, we allowed secretariat to -- discretion of selecting two, three additional workshops because there always are circumstances that need specific attention.  And secretariat was given such an authority, bringing in two, three workshops.
 That also would be my request to the MAG, to continue this practice and allow secretariat some discretion on a very limited number of slots.
 And, thirdly, I would suggest that we may also work on the reserve list which would be a given slot as a result of possible mergers or other deviations that may happen after the meeting.
 So these are just additional elements that I would suggest to consider.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I don't want to repeat here what I stated in a rather long email that I circulated a few days ago.  I only want to reiterate that I support your proposal.  And either I think that 40% intervention is a bit low, but I think we can begin that.
 I only want to add what -- a suggestion that came yesterday, the possibility of using half of the main sessions, the main sessions of 90 minutes to promote workshops to the main hall in the case of mergers.
 If that is the case, we could only -- we should also examine the first 60 to see if one of those workshops merge with some of the other that are below the 60 could be promoted because I think that even those in the first 60 that will pass to the main hall, it is a promotion for them.
 In this case, I asked yesterday some concept of main sessions that are organized by MAG.  In this case, if -- I suggest that if one of the 60 that are promoted to one of these half main sessions, it could be a joint organization between the proposers of that workshop and the MAG.
 Please, I ask to take this variant in consideration because it doesn't diminish.  I think the workshop proposer will happy to have a wider audience and also incorporating some participants of other workshops of similar topic.
 And I want to reiterate what I said in my email, and Subi just said, that we have to take this initial grading by points as a point of start.  It's a very useful classification, but it is not the end in itself.  Our responsibility is not to automatically grade workshops and select.  Our responsibility is to have an IGF forum that is interesting to everybody because of the topics, because of the speakers, and because of the inclusiveness that everybody feels represented and that everybody can get out of when the forum finishes feeling that this forum is useful for them, for the stakeholder groups, and for everybody.
 In this sense, also, there was a very interesting email circulated by Ana.  I suppose that she could speak about that.  She could voice the concern that one special stakeholder group, government, has a very low representation.
 I think we should pay attention to that, especially bearing in mind that this is the year of the renovation of the IGF.  And we should take special note that this stakeholder group finds that the IGF is useful for government as well, not only for civil society and business and academia.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  If I may ask -- go straight to the point because we're really burning our time on this conversation.
 Mark and then Ana and then Fiona.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  And good morning, everybody.  First of all, just quickly to express support for Mike Nelson's points about ensuring that we maximize opportunities for enriching the program through reformatting and fixing problems of supportable proposals that are deficient in some respects.  And I appreciate your acknowledgment of that in our work today and tomorrow.
 I just have a quick logistical problem.  Is it possible to log in to one's own evaluations?  I tried to do that and I couldn't this morning, so I can remind myself of what I said actually on individual proposals.  Is that not possible anymore?  Because I didn't print it off or anything.
 Secondly, the spreadsheet Chengetai circulated, for me, that only goes -- of evaluation comments, only goes up to about 35.  Is that just a problem on my end?  Or could the spreadsheet of the comments be recirculated, at least for my benefit?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, secretariat, look at that.  Until then, Mike.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Two answers to that question.  The first was that only about 35 MAG members responded.  That's why there is only 35 evaluations.  Are you saying only 35 proposals or are you saying -- within each proposal, you'll have 35 different reviewers.
 If you go to the top, you'll see the number of the proposer -- proposal and you have to find the proposal you want.
 But to find your own comments, you just have to figure out which of those reviewers is you and then keep going back to that.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We can give you your number, if you want.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  You can give me mine.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we can give you one.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just don't give out my number.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, no, no.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Ana, please.
 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you and good morning.  Well, I have several comments.  And I hope I will not burn time, but I think I have to highlight these points.
 First of all, I think I have to highlight the problem with governments.  I don't think it's normal that governments are not so involved.  I think it's something that we should think about it because at the end of the day, it will be governments that we are going to decide the future of the IGF.  So we don't -- I think that we have to pay attention to this.
 Another thing that I would like to highlight is the lack of the balance of speakers, is something that I raised, I think, in 80% of the evaluation.  I don't understand why the proposers didn't propose a balance of speakers, a lot of people from civil society and companies and not a mix.  I don't understand.  So I think that we need to improve that a lot.
 On the flash sessions, it's a totally different thing, I think.  So we are talking about sessions that are 15 or 30 minutes.  So the time that we have to allocate, it's totally different.  And I don't know if the logistics is the same as we have to have for the other formats.  I don't think it is.  So I think maybe we have room here to have more sessions.  And I think that's it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  On room allocation, please don't worry about that.  That is a secretarial job.  Our job is to agree or advise that we will have, for instance, ten flash sessions, ten sessions of one hour and remaining 90 minutes.  And then that would be secretariat's job to find the appropriate place and do this thing.
 We would, of course, take that into account.  And the decrease in number -- decrease in time of session would allow additional workshops, especially if that workshop also would have shorter than 90 minutes time slot.
 Fiona and then Xiaodong.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes, thank you, Janis.  Just maybe to start with the last comment.  I would agree strongly with the comment that Ana made.  I was quite surprised when reading the 250 plus proposals, the lack of stakeholder diversity represented on all of the proposals, in particular the lack of government participants in the sessions.
 So maybe when we're done with all of this, a suggestion or even a requirement can be made to proposers to make sure that their sessions are actually balanced and have all stakeholders.  But in particular it was surprising the lack of government speakers that are involved in the sessions.
 Why I wanted to take the floor was just to remind participants in the meeting the process we had agreed to last December and then what we worked on for the two months January and February.  You know, Susan, to her credit, did a lot to make all this work. 
 We are actually in the third stage of our evaluation process.  This is something we all talked about.  This is something we all agreed about and spent many phone calls and emails discussing.
 And if you actually look at what's on the IGF Web site and look at what's on the MAG page, it says we are going to take the last five or ten slots and make sure we use those to have balance.  So I would strongly agree with the comments made by Virat and appreciate the statistical analysis. 
 But for the sake of compromise and make sure we can go forward and actually get going, maybe we look at 70 or something or just -- but I think it would be important that we actually just move forward and go forward. 
 I would suggest to people that if these are concerns that you have for next time, make sure you have this conversation when you are developing the new criteria.  After the fact establishing quotas is not particularly transparent.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Xiaodong?
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  This is Xiaodong Lee speaking.  I'm very sorry for absence for last day's meeting, but I'm very like to catch up the discussion for today.
 So I have two comments.
 So if I review the schedule for the four days meeting, I think most of meeting is 90 minutes, so I strongly suggest maybe to allocate more time slot for maybe one hour.  It should okay to increase the time slot for more workshops to increase the presence for different communities for their proposals.  So I think maybe we can increase from 100 to 120 or 130.
 So another comment is for the diversity issues.
 If you look at the top 60 by stakeholder groups, you know, we have multistakeholder to cover the government, private sector, technical community, and civil society, but now there is lack of representation from technical community and government and private sector.  A lot of discussion from civil society.
 I think it's good for civil society to give more presence in the forum, but I strongly suggest we need to discuss the -- to balance the multistakeholder to -- for -- I mean, balance the proposals from different stakeholders.
 And we know that we have a lot of discussion about the policy issues, but we need also to think about how to find a technical solution.  We need to hear more voice from the technical community and academia.  It should be better for us to further thinking about a solution.
 And another diversity issue is that now I think -- I saw the percentage from developing countries.  I think it's good.  To about 40%.  But I strongly suggest to increase the presence for developing countries.  And I'm not sure what's the percentage for different regions and different Internet users, so maybe we also need to know how many proposals are from different regions.  Especially for Asia-Pacific.  I think that we also need to strongly think about how many proposals are from the developing countries, especially for some big countries from -- that have a lot of users.  We need to know more about what happened and to hear more voice from this community.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I will be brief.  I just wanted to come in and support the comments made by both Ana and Fiona with respect to the low level of government participation, but also Fiona's comment on process I think is really important that we understand. 
 There was a group that worked very, very hard and we did decide on the process and we are now at the stage we're in.
 I've heard the word "problem" used a couple of times with respect to the top 60, and I'm having a little bit of trouble digesting that because I think, you know, we should be praising these top 60 proposals for scoring so highly.  You know, it was a -- we went and we had these criteria.  We've seen a huge increase in what we wanted to increase:  Participation by developing countries, new first-time proposers, and some of the other criteria we set forward.  And so I think rather than looking for problems with those, you know, we should focus on ones that can be fixed and can also move that forward.
 I think with respect to mergers, very quickly as well, we definitely need some more guidance on the merger process, just based on my involvement in trying to help merge two workshops last year.  That didn't work.  So I think we need to understand why it is we want to merge two before we move forward with that, so that we understand what criteria it is we're trying to achieve.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 May I suggest that we stop commenting or provide comments of a general nature but we go on with the selection process?
 I heard clearly -- and this is, I think, uncontested understanding -- that we need to search for balance and balance on a number of issues.  The participation of different stakeholder groups.  We heard technical community is underrepresented.  We heard governments are underrepresented.
 Equally, we have certain dis-balance on themes, and we may want to bring -- or improve, let's say, ratio of our subthemes that we have, and the way how we should proceed in this respect is as follows.
 So now we would start reviewing all 60, listening to those MAG members who have something to suggest in relation to the first 60, whether a decrease in time or something.
 I would like also to ask you, do not touch in every of those 60 proposals the question of participants who will be speaking.  All that should be reviewed and I would advise that MAG members would coach all the workshop proponents and would -- we would provide clear guidance that the multistakeholder representation should be ensured by all means.  So that would allow us just to look on length and see which of the proposed 60 workshops would be 90, 60, 30 minutes.
 After that, we would look at the next 10, going -- just taking from 61 to 70, and seeing whether there are any objections to add those in. 
 And after that, we would go -- we would start balancing as -- on stakeholder groups, and I would like to ask MAG members to be ready to make very concrete proposals in relationship of those underrepresented either stakeholder groups or subthemes, that we can -- that we can examine those proposals. 
 And of course we need not to see -- I mean, we need not to avoid or be afraid to pull up some which is scored very low, provided that the proposal is really unique.  Either unique in terms of theme or unique in other way of suggesting -- according to our criteria.
 At the same time, most probably this balancing act, we should look at those proposals that have been reasonably high scored as well.
 So by saying this, I would like to really engage in substantive discussion and would not like to prolong general comments, because we will -- we heard most of what we need to look at, and I think we should proceed with the real scoring.  Or real selection.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I don't want to burn up any more time but I do wish to ask for a clear set of objectives that we are now setting ourselves up, because the exercise can be a solution in search of a problem.
 At this time, based on the figures that have been put up by the secretariat, the technical communities have put in a total of 12%, and at 80, they are at 12%.
 The private sector is at 10%.  They've put in 12% of the total proposals.
 The government is actually higher.  The government only put in 4% of the total proposals.  They have 5% in the top 80.
 IGOs are slightly lower.  They had 6.7%, but they are in at 5%.
 So if we're now saying that we don't have diversity, which is at complete odds with all the charts that are being displayed, and we don't have enough newcomers, which is also at odds with the charts that are being displayed, and we don't have developing countries, which is also at odds with all the charts that have been displayed, then we better get ourselves a new set of objectives before we start this.
 I'm going to -- I'm going to -- we should start, no problem, but I think we should have clear two or three objectives now, because the objectives that have been stated about new voices wouldn't get in or that there isn't enough diversity of themes or that there isn't enough new respondents, that is not true based on the evidence that the secretariat has put up.
 So if we can just agree on two or three things that we want to achieve, we can start at 61 and go there, but I just want to make sure that we have a new set of specific objectives, which are different from the ones that we set ourselves in December, because those have been achieved in these numbers.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I'm glad Virat brought this up.
 The thing that really concerned me was that we have some very strong proposals that are below the 100 cutoff, with brand-new ideas, things that we've never had an IGF session about, and for whatever reason, they did not get well-reviewed, often because these people who proposed it are not well-known to us.
 So I think while you're right, we've done a great job -- better than ever before -- of meeting many of our criteria, the one thing that really is important, to me at least, is bringing new ideas to the discussion.
 The other thing that's very important is more government participation.  And not government proposals; government panelists.
 And again, if you look at many of the sessions that I ranked very highly that other people did not, they were ones that had a number of government propose- -- panelists.  And so I think those are two criteria I'd like to see.
 The other thing I'd remind people is, if -- in our criteria that were published, we said that we would look for about 10 proposals that were below the cutoff line.  If we make the cutoff line at 80, we are now telling the people between 80 and 100 that their chances of getting accepted are less than 50%.
 So I think we have to look at the -- at the panel- -- the sessions between 60 and 100 and then figure out which of those are redundant and not necessary, so that we can bring up those 10 proposals that are brand-new ideas, things we've never seen before.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Look, there is no ideal solution to that, and I think that we should not also look purely mathematically.  All we do, we are managing perceptions, and if perception is that government representation or government proposed workshops are not enough, no one will seek information how many or -- in percentage terms from total proposals were proposed by governments.
 They will say governments were underrepresented and the same will apply for every other multistakeholder -- or stakeholder group.  That's one.  The same applies for themes.
 I fully appreciate that there are objective criteria, but still we need to introduce some subjectivity because that is our job.  We need to seek for a balance, and balance is not objective.  Balance is always subjective.  And so let us go down to work and then we will see.  We can review this theoretical discussion once we have maybe 90 workshops agreed, and then see whether the balance is right or not, and then take this discussion further.
 But I would encourage to really go down to real decision-making now.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair. 
 I understand the rationale of accepting the first 60 and just discussing the time, the time slots, but I'd just like to make a point that Avri made earlier, that a number of the top 60 proposals are what I would -- I would say are a panel in disguise.  And that's kind of my own notes, my own notetaking, when I was going through the grading.
 So there are a number of proposals that were submitted in formats different than panels but are, in -- in essence, seem to be panel sessions.
 So I would just ask that if we could have a bit of flexibility to discuss some of these sessions which are essentially panels but are proposed as roundtables, if we could just take -- keep that in mind.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Can we go to the discussion?  Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Just one quick practical point, which is:  Half of the membership of MAG is from governments, so if they can help us recruit the missing government participants in these panels, roundtables, or what have you, that might be helpful as a later step and not worry about it now.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  It's exactly what I was saying.  Don't worry about speakers now.  We will worry about once -- for those who will be selected.
 Can we move on?
 Xiaodong?  Can we?
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  Just one -- one minute comment.  I think maybe we can use a very simple way.  We can review how many proposals from different communities and maybe we can just review the maybe top 15 or top 20 of proposals from different communities and then give some flexible number for different communities to cover the balance issues.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So let's go down to the work.
 Sixty- -- sixty- -- top 60.  Please, any comments on top 60 related to length, related to format of proposals.  Very concrete. 
 And please, when you intervene, mention the title and the number, that we can -- all of us could go quickly to the proposal. 
 And Secretariat, I would like you to follow the discussion and scroll up and down the screen that we have also those proposals on the screen.
 Juan Alfonso, please.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 
 My intervention is to -- sort of an example of what I think we should do right now. 
 If you see the Number 3 in that list, that is Workshop 97, that is the third highest scorer, "How to Bridge the Global Internet Economy Divide," and it's proposed just as a -- I think as a flash thing.  This is one of the workshops that I think that we could promote to the main session.  Many persons here have talked about the importance of Internet economy, and the name of this workshop, I think it could be promoted and also enhanced with some other that we can find in the -- in the 60, the first 60, that also deals in this. 
 I check out, because I have it here, I have to move it all up and down, and of course we can do this collectively, but this is a proposal.  This -- we can get one of the 90-minute slots of the main sessions and move that there and join with that some other that are in the same topic.  If you read down -- well, now I don't find it.  It's something...
 Okay.  Well, anyway, that's a concrete proposal.  And we can do that with any of these first 60 that it has a real overarching topic, and we can promote it. 
 I like the word "promotion" because this is not merging.  This is promoting this workshop to a higher category in the main hall, which gives it even more time, and with the collaboration of some other panelists or proposals of some other work.
 I suggest to do this exercise.  And see, of course nothing of this will be written in stone.  We could, at the end, go back if we feel that there's another better line of action, but I suggest this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you. 
 Any reaction to the proposal? 
 Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I have a practical question in terms of:  How does one do this promotion? 
 The person that put it together thought of it as a flash.  That's the concept we had.  Are we saying that we're going to somehow take it over and turn it into a session?
 I mean, it's a form of micromanaging the session that I don't understand exactly how we would do.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso, could you explain how -- what you mean?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yesterday -- and you can excuse me because I'm new in this, but yesterday I asked about the -- what is the qualities of main sessions and I was told that main sessions are organized by MAG.
 I think that what you said is exactly what I mean.  I think that we -- it's not that we take over, but in conjunction with the proposal and with other proposers of similar topics of workshop, to agree between all in a format with more time.  I'm talking about 90-minute slots.  Maybe it could be a combination of a panel with audience participation.  I don't know.  We can do that.  That's why we're here. 
 I think that when the chairman asked us to coach, we have to do it anyway, even with accepted workshops as they already are.  But in this case that we are promoting it, I think that we can engage with them and in a mutual agreement way find the way of this to do it.
 As Mike Nelson said to promoting new ideas and enrich discussion and in the end to make the forum more interesting for everybody.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for this explanation.  I understand what you're saying.  You're saying this would be a workshop or flash session that could contribute to the main session provided that we will decide to have Internet economy as one of the main themes for the main session.  But I don't think you would like to delete this from the list of flash sessions as such.  That would be rather penalizing than promoting them.
 But I see -- I hear what you say.  And if we will decide to have this topic in the main session, we certainly would ask proponents of this flash session to contribute to the main session.
 Okay.  Further comments?  Not on this topic any longer but on new things.  Marilyn, please, and then Michael and then Hossam.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks, Chair.  I'm having difficulty open the workshop proposal.  I can only open about 70 of them.  My technical question to the secretariat, I think others may be having that problem as well.  But I just wanted to make a comment, perhaps when we run into a situation like the one we just did, we can have a category of parking something and coming back to it.  Particularly on the flash sessions, since they're going to take up smaller slices of time, if we could quickly go through those and see if we have any issues about them, perhaps that would also be a way to expedite this.
 But I want to repeat something that Avri said.  If a proposer -- and this one did -- identified a flash session, I would be a little bit reluctant for the MAG to actually make significant changes into a larger session since we have many sessions that we want to reduce from 90 minutes to 60 or even 30.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn, I was -- I was basing my calculations on the secretariat's report.  The secretariat during the last conference call said if we accept all open forum proposals and best practice streams, we had 91 slots available.  I take it that includes already a calculation, whether that is a flash or not flash or whatnot.
 So we added -- we changed the structure of the meeting.  We added ten additional.  So one disappeared in translation for the discretion of secretariat.  So we are talking about 100.
 So I assume that proposed flash sessions are calculated in that hundred.  If not, then secretariat will correct us.
 So, therefore, our task is now to see whether sessions among first 60 which were proposed as 90-minute sessions would deserve those 90 minutes according to your opinion or should we propose to diminish the time allocated for that and turn it in a shorter session.  So with that in mind, the floor is open for proposals.
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just to close on this idea of promoting sessions, I do think there are at least two proposals in the top 60 that could be promoted, but they're already 90-minute proposals.  And I think we should talk about that later after we've collected a list of ones that we think might be useful.
 I would oppose taking a flash session which we ranked very highly partly because it is a flash session and would only take 30 minutes.  But we should consider Juan's proposal when we get to that stage.
 The session I was particularly interested in was one on encryption.  And I think that was a hot topic.  It was ranked 25th.  It is Proposal Number 53.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, Chengetai, please.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  About the calculation of the flash sessions, et cetera, we did not calculate the flash sessions.  Because, for example, in the top 60, there's two flash sessions.  So we just left it as the leeway because it's kind of difficult to calculate "possible" with flashes.  But it doesn't make that much difference.  It just gives us the leeway of one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, thank you.  So we have now a full picture.
 Still, that does not really change the hundred that we would adopt for.
 Hossam, please.
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair.  I reiterate what Marilyn said because we are not able to view the rest of the proposal descriptions.  If there is a possibility to help us on that, this would be great. 
 Now, as an example, I don't know, there is a Proposal Number 132 which is, Transnational due process, a case study in multistakeholder cooperation.  It is to present Internet Jurisdiction Project.  So it's mainly a representation of that project and discussion about it.  And I think it could take less than 90 minutes.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So 132, which place it has?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  20, something like that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  28.  Yeah, 28.  Opinion of others?  In the meantime, can the secretariat fix the technical problem?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The problem is that you want to view the workshop proposals.  We can do two things.  First of all, we can resend out the PDF of the workshop proposals, if that might help.  And you want it to be available on the Web site as well?  Correct.  So we'll do those two things.  I mean, that's...
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So proposal is to cut the time for 132 from 90 minutes to one hour or 30 minutes?  One hour.  Objections?  I hope that secretariat is taking note on that.  Okay.  Thank you.  Decided.
 Remote participant?
 >> Subi, are you here?  Please, go ahead.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It seems we have a technical problem with Subi as well. 
 Any further comments on first 60 highest score proposals?  Hossam?  Any further comments on this?  I see none.
 Michael?
 >> HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Just to see the proposals because we don't have them.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I understood from the general conversation that MAG members have a very good idea which proposals from 60 should be shortened and for the moment, we heard only one proposal. 
 Are there any other workshops in opinion of MAG should be shortened?  Is Subi now available?
 >> Let's see.  Subi?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, doesn't work.
 >> Subi, you have the floor if you can unmute yourself.
 >> It seems we have a problem with Subi.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I hope not with her but with the connection.
 [ Laughter ]
 >> Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If we do not have further comments on 60, I assume we could move to the next -- to the next ten which is 61 to 70 highest score.
 So if we look at those ten, 61 to 70, do we have any comments on those?  Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  Sorry, it's not a comment.  It's just on process.  I mean, can we make sure -- can we go through them one by one?  Part of the problem with the first exercise with regard to the top 60 is I couldn't really respond because I would have to go through each one actually.  I wasn't prepared really for this morning to be able to comment on any of the 60.  I just assumed we were going to go through them one by one, not with the risk of endless debate on any individual one but quickly one by one so we can look at the evaluation comments and then react and also remind ourselves if we had proposed a shortening reformatting and so on.  That was the problem with the first 60 for me in terms of process.
 As we're now onto the next ten -- am I right in thinking that we're looking at proposal 23?  Is that right?  Or am I totally wrong?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  According to my table, that was circulated yesterday by Chengetai, Number 61 is the right to protect online, 159.
 Look, I think that there is no point of going through one by one of top 60.  That was the meaning on that, not to spend time on that, unless there are any specific proposals related to top 60.  So then we would discuss those proposals. 
 If we're not ready yet, maybe we could proceed with those who are now beyond 60, 61 and onwards, and then revisit first 60 in the afternoon very quickly hoping that then we would be prepared for that.  We can do -- we can do that way.
 And actually 60 -- 61st is not the right to protect online but tech related, gender violence and freedom of expression.
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Chairman, can I give a proposal?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  May I suggest a way?  We are counting with a hundred slots at least.  So I think that -- I agree with you that this should be an iterative process.  So -- because what we're looking now, the basis solution is that the first hundred is the first that's going to be there.  So I think we should begin in a 101 going down to see if something below, as Mike Nelson said, that deserves to be -- to move to the hundred and then we will have to look in the hundred, in the last 40, which one to substitute by this one.  I think -- because otherwise how can we take out something from the first hundred if we don't know if it deserves to be substituted by somebody?  That's a way.  We could do it also cleaning slots from the first hundred, then try to fill it from the other one.
 But maybe to go to the first that are out to see if there's some reason to consider to get in, whether there is a stakeholder, whether there is a new idea, whether it is a new format, or something.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This is what we will be doing.  But after we would examine the first 60 to 70.  So that would give us 30 additional slots.
 Then we would start talking about which stakeholder group, which theme, which topic has not been covered and would identify them.  Put them on the list.  And then once we would examine all those questions, we would see how many of those proposals we have. 
 And if we would have, for instance, 30, we would be fine.  If we would have 20, then we would take those 20 and then add ten highest scores from the list and then, again, looking for the balance all the time.  This is my proposal based on what we discussed about an hour.
 Lynn, are you in agreement?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I'm in agreement, yes.  And I was actually going to make one suggested refinement for the first 60 proposals, as if the MAG is actually going to coach those 60 proposals, perhaps we can identify the coaches for those, have the coaches go away and look at the proposals which they are going to coach, and take any further refinements there so we don't have to tie up the full MAG with those 60. 
 So, again, I was just trying to carve out a little bit of time from there, but I do support your approach.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Once we have those selected workshops, then MAG members would volunteer which particular workshops they would like to take and contact proponents and do refinement of that.
 These refinements should be based on what we discuss here:  Multistakeholder participation, plurality of opinions, different perspectives, different geographic representation, and so on.  And then based on that, this advice would be given.  Whether the proponents would take the advice or not, that, of course, is a different story.
 Xiaodong, please.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I support the Chairman's suggestion.  I just want to give some numbers for the top 60, should it be useful for us to consider the next 40.  In the top 60, there are about 41 from civil society, three from the government and intergovernmental, none from technical community, and seven from private sector. 
 If you consider that for the top 60, I mean, the reviewers give very good score for the 60 proposals.  We don't need to review one by one.  We waste time.
 So for the rest 40 time slots, I stress we can give more (indiscernible) to other communities.  That's what I suggest as the Chairman's suggestion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant.  I assume that's Subi.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  No.  It's Ginger actually.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Ginger, please go ahead.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Hello.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yeah.  We can hear, Ginger.  Please go ahead.
 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Oh, thank you very much. 
 First of all, I -- just because it's the first time I'm taking the floor, I would like to thank everyone for the efforts for remote participation.  In no way do my recommendations or requests for improvement imply that we are not doing the best we can.  We're just trying to improve.  So thank you very much, everyone.
 I -- it would help me very much, because unfortunately I did not save my notes before I submitted them, so if I could see my own evaluation sheet, I don't know if it's at all possible to make that available because that would really help me see how I evaluated them and which ones I noted specifically for inclusion if they were missed.
 As we move forward to try to analyze which ones we might add, I would like to really emphasize my agreement with the chair that we look closely at topics.  If we are missing specific topics that should have been included and didn't make it because of some point about the workshop, we could choose them by topic and mentor them to include missing areas for topics.
 And I also, with the last speaker, agree that we could also look at government proposals, and especially if they deal with topics that are not being dealt with in other areas.
 For instance, there's a -- one I know that was on taxation and it's something that is not dealt with in any of the others.  If there are topics we need to deal with, I would like to see that we include those materials.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Ginger.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  We have another one.  Subi's waiting, so perhaps we could do it now.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Thank you, Ginger.  And please, when the time comes, don't hesitate to make your proposals on which workshops should be considered for inclusion, those which are not scored in top hundred.  Subi, please.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair. 
 Just very quickly, on what would be the modalities, because last year we went -- when we looked at top 60 as well as the other workshops, when we're looking at renewal or revival, we -- Chengetai read out the numbers and we were supposed to very quickly respond and say whether anybody had a comment about that or not, so I just wanted to understand the modalities of making that intervention on line remotely.
 And second, on the two proposals by Juan and Hossam on Workshop Number 132, the one that ranked third, there's also a very successful roundtable that was done on human rights, so I don't know if -- we see about four -- at least four good proposals on the document, and therefore, good proposals on digital economy. 
 In case we're looking at making time -- and we see many similar threads there -- are we looking at the possibility of a roundtable for these four flash sessions that could come together and create more space?  Because that is promoting them and that is also acknowledging the fact that they're well-written proposals. 
 Two short submissions there.  Thank you.  And a question.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 I think we should not try to modify the nature of proposals and only if -- if there are two very similar proposals addressing the same theme with the same objective, so then our proposal would be to merge them.  But if these are different then, we should not do it, in our view. 
 Fiona, please, you have a proposal?
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Janis.
 So if I've understood correctly, we've had a conversation about the top 60 and we're looking at 61 through 70 and can you just confirm that starts with Number 159, "The Right to Protest On Line"?  Is that correct?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  Actually that starts with 196, "Tech-Related Gender Violence and Freedom of Expression."
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Gotcha.  Okay.  So if I'm looking at the next 10, I would suggest that Number 196, "Tech-Related Gender Violence," as well as 253 -- no, no, sorry, the one about accessibility which I now can't find.  253.  Yeah.  Both of those deserve, I think, a conversation because they're both different topics and I don't think well-represented, so that would be my recommendation is we consider those two.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Your recommendation is that we consider those positively.
 Okay.  So shall we look at 196?  Any objection for retaining -- for retaining this?  Any comments?  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Not on this one, but I have a different point.
 I think it was mentioned that technical communities are not in the top 60.  Actually, that chart is wrong.  If I could just ask the -- if I could just ask them to bring the chart back up, we should be careful --
 Not this one.  The other one.
 This one is -- there is something wrong with this chart, because -- (audio issues) -- technical communities contribute 15% of these proposals, so I don't know why that thing is not showing up.  It's showing up in five colors but actually it should be six.  So there is -- so we should be careful.  This graphic is slightly off.  There's something -- I can't quite tell.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  If you look at the chart that you put next to it --
 >> Yeah.  So if you look at the table to the left there, you have one category, being the non-selected.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >> Yeah.  So that one just follow with the top 100, but it has a zero here and that's why you have a zero percent there, for example.  Because you have technical community represented there at 15%.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: -- technical community is there is 15%.  I'm sorry, I thought there was a comment made that technical community was zero.
 >> Oh, no, no, no.  It was there.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yeah.  So that was one.
 So it is there.  But my comment about moving ahead is sort of rather than looking at proposals, is it possible to look at themes that -- or subthemes that we think are underrepresented? 
 Because if we're going to -- it's going to get very subjective if we're going to look at individual proposals to move up.  We should really try and concentrate on subthemes that we think are underrepresented, to bring in proposals in that theme, because then they can compete with each other, rather than --
 There should be an objective criteria of how we are picking stuff that we want to bring up rather than a proposal that we like, because all we have in front of us right now is a one-liner for us to respond and say "No objection" or "Objection."  We have to go back to the full proposal then and read that.  So that's -- I just want to be careful about the fact that we are not putting up proposals which are of individual liking but -- rather than subthemes that we think are underrepresented in the discussion.
 Unfortunately, for that, the subthemes are actually very well represented.  Almost all of them are represented.
 So I just wanted to bring our attention back on a subjective criteria for bringing in what we think is missing before we proceed proposal by proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks, Chair.  Marilyn Cade.
 Let me build on that.
 I think -- and I think it also is in line with at least one of the workshops that Fiona Alexander mentioned.
 There's a number of workshops lower than 61 or 80 that focus on gender participation, and I think that actually I'd like to look at inclusiveness of gender -- those gender workshops, even if they needed to be merged.
 The other thing I'll comment on is, participation at the local and national and regional levels, not just by -- through the IGF initiatives, I think also deserves a bit of a look as something that may be missing.
 And I say that because I find, in my work with developing countries, both businesses and governments, that they have very strong interest in what is going on at the national and local level.
 So those are two ideas that build on the idea that was just mentioned as maybe we could identify a couple of thematic gaps -- "theme" may be the wrong term to use right now, but issue gaps -- identify then some workshops further down and see if it's worth trying to merge them, to move them up into the slots.
 So gender inclusion, let me be clear.  Inclusion of women and -- sorry, men -- and secondly, local and national activities, not just the initiatives.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So I'm hoping that MAG members will -- based on that, will make those proposals.  And this is how it should work. 
 So we go now from 61 to 70, seeing if we can agree to include those 10 on the list, and then -- and then we go either by topics or by stakeholder groups and pull up -- or pull out from the list those that MAG members think need to be considered and put them on the potential inclusion list, and then we see how many of those MAG members will identify.  And I assume that all MAG members have looked and have come prepared to the meeting with a very clear idea which workshops need to be approved and pulled up and -- or discussed or should be discarded and so on.
 So I really rely on your knowledge and on your opinion, because this is not a secretariat-driven process, it is not a chair-driven process, it's a MAG member-driven process, please.  So -- and with that in mind, we have a remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi, please go ahead.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Chair.
 A couple of interventions.
 I support, at the outset reviewing the proposals for the workshop that Fiona just mentioned on gender.  I think it's a very good proposal and it's just below the cutoff mark.  It can be reviewed. 
 I also disagree with the approach that was just outlined which says we should go thematically.  I believe all grading processes are subjective.  I do feel a greater sense of comfort if we go by number, where we're not necessarily supposed to comment on each workshop, only if a MAG member believes that the workshop is falling below the 60 mark.  If there is a particular workshop that needs to be revised and for the reasons stated, we can all look at it collectively.  I don't think that means we're doing a review of all the workshops and that makes the proposal review process subjective.  I think it's the other way around.  And when we're trying to do a balance of things, I find that more artificial because it's a reflection of the interest of the community, the number of proposals that are made under a particular topic. 
 So two suggestions.  I support if we go by number, and in case we feel that there's a workshop that can be reviewed or revised, that is looked at and one supporting Fiona's proposal workshop to be reviewed.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Subi.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I agree with Subi.  I think it's impossible at this point to decide, "Okay, here are five themes that are underrepresented" because we won't even agree on what the theme is and how to define it.  We just have to get in here and start going through and saying, "This one's worthy, this one's worthy, this one's worthy."  And let me do that.
 I want to also agree with Fiona and Subi.  I thought Proposal Number 169 on gender violence and revenge porn was outstanding.  It was a new fresh way of looking at it.
 I also thought that Proposal Number 147, which was ranked 63rd, on "A Network of Virtual Working Spaces for Internet Governance" is also new, very practical, it's something we're obviously struggling with right here as we try to build a virtual space that Subi and Ginger can use. 
 And I would also like to support -- what was the other one within this?
 Number 178 is "Beyond the Tipping Point:  Safer Internet Day in the Global South."  And this is not a normal format.  I think it would be an interesting -- because it's a breakout session.  It's a discussion group.  It's exactly the kind of thing that you can't get from just watching a panel discussion.  It's the kind of thing that only can happen at an IGF. 
 And so those are three examples for me of things that are unique and new.
 I'd also like to point out, I guess it's -- let's see -- Number 70, which is ranked 75th, is called "Death and the Internet:  Managing Digital Legacies."  I know that's in the next block of 10, but it's one that I would like to see promote -- included in the process.
 And if you would allow me, there is another session in the top 60 which I think at least four of us thought could be shortened to a flash session or a -- at least a 60-minute session, and that was the session on African rights.
 The reason we weren't able to respond immediately to your request for flash sessions is we didn't want to stand up and say, "I think."  We wanted to be able to look at everybody else's comments.
 So Session 96, at least four of us thought that that was not a large enough topic, a large enough focus.  It was focused on one particular project, and I would propose that Number 96 be considered for a 60-minute session.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  This is exactly what I think we should do, like the proposal by Michael. 
 So Proposal 90 -- Session 96, Number -- Number 37 -- or scored in 36th place.  Sorry.  36th place.  African Internet rights.
 The proposal is to lower it -- I mean, shorten it to 60 minutes.  Any objections?
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but you said "Any objections."  We have to go read out the proposal.
 This is a really -- I -- you have to give us time, then.  We can't -- I mean, five proposals were just named.  I can name another five and then we'll have 30 proposals.  People can't just put up their hands.  They have to go read up each proposal.  So --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So can we get the proposal on the screen?  Would that help?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yeah, because that -- I mean, we can't -- I mean, it's just an exercise in futility, if you're asking for --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we get the Proposal Workshop Number 96 on the screen?
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks very much, Chair.
 Yes, 96, if you -- for MAG colleagues, you'll see my comment at Number 25, exactly in line with Mike Nelson. 
 This is extremely valuable, but a 60-minute session is the right time allocation.
 I also suggested that the declaration be circulated as a document to inform prospective IGF attendees beforehand and that there be a room document.
 I have a proposal on 196 but do you want to do that separately?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah, we will do separately 196.
 Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  On 96, the one we're talking about, this has been very much a subject in Africa this year, this declaration, and I think it would be a pity to, you know, take away 30 minutes of conversation on it.  I really just don't see the value in shortening it by 30 minutes.  This has been a very large conversation, it's a very ongoing discussion in Africa, and for us to sort of say it doesn't merit a full 90 minutes just seems difficult to me.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I just wanted to support what Avri was saying as well.  It is quite a big and important topic and it actually isn't quite as narrow as it was -- that it, I guess, appears to be. 
 And the other thing also is just a reminder that the PDF was sent and circulated in the list with all of the workshop proposals, that maybe we can just go back to the list and pull it out.  It will really help just linking through what we're discussing here and reading the full proposals as well, so that it doesn't just appear as titles.
 And the other thing is to also support Subi's comment, in that I think subthemes is not the best way to really go forward, because a lot of things get mushed into subthemes and sometimes subthemes is a little bit of a subjective thing in which -- which workshop proposal you choose to be slotting under.  And so I think looking at it in terms of the topic is much more precise in that sense, and in -- with that, I will support the one on gender and also the one on accessibility and disabilities, but I would just go through it one by one for now.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Chengetai has information, please.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I just resent the PDF so you have it.  I sent it about 10, 15 minutes ago.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is to respond to Avri.  I fully agree that talking about Africa is incredibly important.  My concern here is about how we handle proposals that are just about one project and one group of people.  There's a lot of proposals that were in that category, and most of them I was recommending be as flash sessions.  I do think the declaration is important, but it was also broadly discussed in Istanbul.  There was a booth set up to talk about it.  It was a widely discussed topic.
 So the question we have to ask is whether there should be 90 minutes devoted to one particular project and to look at the progress made on that project in one year.  I'm happy to take the other alternative which would be to say to the organizers:  Is there a way to broaden this proposal so it's not just about the declaration?  And it is not just people promoting one particular thing.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we are still on 96. 
 Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  I support Avri's proposal to leave it at the 90 minutes.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, thank you.  I think we should then stay with 90 minutes because it seems there is no consensus on shortening of that.  Can we agree on that?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Can we ask them to do something more than just focus on the declaration?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We can ask to increase the scope of the conversation on the topic.  I hope the secretariat is taking notes on what we decide here.
 Okay.  Any other comments on top 60?  Marilyn, no.
 Then shall we go 196?  Workshop 196.
 Fiona, you suggested that we need to discuss it.  Could you start the discussion?
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Sure.  I just thought it was interesting.  I think someone else already commented on this.  I think it was Mike.  This is an interesting and new topic, and I thought it was one that merited inclusion in the process.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any other comments on 196?  Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  Well, yes, I agree, I scored it highly.  And it's invaluable to have this proposal included in the program.
 You will see from my comment that I determined a linkage to the best practice forum on encountering abuse against women online.  As this proposal is based around research undertaken by UFBA and Internet Lab, I was unique in suggesting that actually we reduce this time allowance in order to have this proposal reformatted as an input into the best practice forum.  So that I suggested a 30-minute flash session for UFBA and Internet Lab to present their research and then it's an input into the best practice forum.  So we retain it but also we ensure that there's time freed up for other proposals that are going to be more challenging and meriting full 90-minute sessions.  That was my suggestion.
 I see from the comments it was unique.  But I do see one or two other comments saying that the aim of the session was not clearly identified.  But as I say, I think it should be in the program.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 I support Mark's comments.  But I need to be clear that I also -- and all of the proposals to present research suggested that they become flash sessions or that they be shortened in length because research -- the time will be taken up to present research.  It's valid.  I do think it feeds into the work of the dynamic coalition.  So I'd like to see it shortened but retained.
 And I do think given the topic that's being covered, a flash session of 30 minutes or a session of 60 minutes seems more suitable.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  I support including it and perhaps we can figure out later timing in terms of working with the organizers.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Jac?
 >> JAC KEE:  I support inclusion as well.  I think that what actually what would help this session is the invitation of private secretor stakeholders that they intimated at the bottom that they would like to do.  That would actually turn it into a conversation rather than just a presentation of research.  In fact, there are four research that have been identified, rather than two.  So I would say 60 minutes.  And yes to linking it with the BPF work.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We have then consensus that this should be included, 196 should be included, shortening to 60-minute session, and linking it to best practice forum on the topic. 
 Shall we move to the next one, 126?  Marilyn?  No.
 126, can we put it on the screen?  "Can Internet rights and access goals be reconciled?"
 Any comments?  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is a little bit of process.  But last year what was so successful was to actually see which ones at least one of us was willing to speak up for.  This was one of the ones that I'm not willing to speak up for.  Maybe the silence means there's no need to do it.  I think just asking which of these top ten people want to speak up for should be sufficient.  I just want to avoid being in a situation where silence was consent and then later on we have to knock out something to find room for a really good proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So we will be looking for a sponsor of every proposal but with understanding that that sponsor would not have vested interest in the proposal.
 [ Laughter ]
 Fiona and then Mark.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yeah.  It would just be helpful at least for me -- I don't know for others -- to get some clarification.  So my understanding of where we started and what we're doing, so we spent many months developing an elaborate process to review workshops at which we're not willing to fully accept the results of, which, you know, that's fine.  That's where the group is. 
 So we've taken the first 60.  Now we are taking the next ten and saying:  Are they okay to include?  And then we have 30 more slots at which point you're going to ask everyone in the MAG to propose the five or ten that they want. 
 If that's what we are doing, why don't we just admit clearly that's what we are doing, which is fine.  I have no problem with that. 
 But I would like to clearly understand what the exercise is because if the question is:  Do we accept the next ten so now we got to 70?  We have 30 slots left.  Perhaps the next step then is for MAG members to take the lunch break and to come back from the lunch break and before that send on the list the five or ten workshops they think we should all be talking about.  Then we wouldn't have to go through these one by one.  We could clearly have a composite list of everyone's favorite or most focused or whatever criteria you think we are missing so we have a composite of what we're looking at. 
 Because I feel like we keep going back and forth between different approaches.  And I think just being clear with what we are doing would be useful, at least for me.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Let me reiterate what I said before starting this -- this part of the exercise, that we would -- based on our general exchange, we had a suggestion to automatically accept 80.  So I proposed compromise 70, which is not really automatic but quasi-automatic.  And this is what we are trying to do. 
 After that -- and I hope we will conclude this exercise by 1:00.
 After that, we will have two hours of lunch during which MAG members will review their grades and evaluations.  And we would talk about underrepresented issues, either that is underrepresented governmental or thematic or subthematic proposals.
 And we would listen to proposals coming out from MAG on different identified dis-balances.  We would look through the proposals, and we would constitute the possible inclusion list only on those identified categories.
 And we will see how long this list will be, whether that list will be 10 or 15 or 20 or 30.  And then based on that, we would decide how to proceed further.  And with that, we would try to correct those apparent or perceived dis-balances that we have now when we see that governments are underrepresented, that the technical community might be underrepresented, that some themes might be underrepresented.
 So, that will be -- that is what we will start after lunch because I see we need some lead time in that.  Also, secretariat will be better equipped technically that all of us will be able to access that very piece of information.
 Therefore, now we're looking at 61 to 70 going one by one and seeing whether there are any particular issues with any of those ten workshops.
 Mark and then -- and then Virat.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  We're on 126.  I don't see in the comments any major deficiency.  There are one or two general criticisms.  But overall, the scoring was very high.  I would -- I certainly do support this with just the caveat that the geo diversity of participation could be looked at with regard to Africa in particular.
 But looking at the page of comments, I think this is a good example of a candidate for inclusion.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to support Fiona's comments completely.  I just wanted to say that I support this 126 for sure.  This is at the heart of the discussion that we have, even with regards to net neutrality where there are comments on both sides:  One which requires large scale funding for building out digital infrastructure and the other that requires some sort of restrictions on what can be done with the networks.  And so this is really at the heart of that, and it should be discussed because these are the kind of balances that we need to achieve through these debates.
 But just going forward in 60 through 70, could I submit that you -- the one stakeholder that is underrepresented is government and intergovernmental organizations.  They're certainly underrepresented.  We should make a conscious effort to pull up proposals either submitted by them or the ones in which they are in plenty.
 Apart from that, I think we should get a clear idea now of what is it that we think is missing because then it's going to get very, very subjective.
 What I put in my email and Ana put in her email, government and intergovernment is certainly a big problem. 
 I take your point, even though they are proportionately represented in the top 80, slightly less in top 60, people will say only 10 proposals or whatever.  So we need to sort of pick those.
 But apart from that, if there are any other objectives, then we should clearly establish those now.
 The second point I'd like to make is:  Would you rather want to go with the process saying 61 to 70, does anybody object to any of these proposals?  And if yes, please put your hand up, proposal, and give us the comments you have, whether it is an improvement or it should be removed?  That might be a faster process to say, can you tell us if you object to any of the next ten or we can go one by one.  But I'm just trying to give an alternative process that can be slightly faster and help people focus on what they don't want.  Otherwise, we will be looking for sponsors in each case.  And the fact they made it into the top 70 should assume there were sponsors and they were highly ranked.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 German, you had your flag up?
 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  German Valdez from the numbers organizations.  We need to remember that there are remote participants to want to be identified as speakers.  It was related to the clarification you raised before.  I also wanted to mention there is a lot of work behind these ratings, and people have done his homework. 
 So maybe I was a bit confused, but I received well the idea of having a champion of each proposal.  I mean, I think the proposal is there because there is some work behind for many people.  And this is there.  So I think the consideration is it remains unless there is serious concerns.
 And I would like also to review the proposals as you suggested.  And I share Virat's concerns of looking for the right proportions of the workshops and the proposals -- proposers of those workshops.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I just want to say that I think this can be very fast.  What Virat just did by sponsoring that last proposal means that we're done.  We can move forward. 
 I think it's politically very difficult to ask people to put their flag up and say, "I object to this one particular thing."  We're then going to have a long discussion.  And I think the worst part is that people are not necessarily comfortable saying, "I have a problem with this" because then they'll be fingered as the person who killed somebody's proposal.  That's not what's useful here. 
 What's useful is to pick out -- to make sure there is enough space here by not supporting a few of these 40 proposals so that we have places where we can move proposals with government, with new ideas into the top 100.
 I mean, the sponsors thing worked very well last time.  We can move very quickly as long as there is somebody willing to say, "I thought that was a good proposal."  In some cases no one will say that because they already got a proposal that they thought was better into the top 60.  So that -- some of these are going to drop out because there isn't real support for it because it's not the best proposal on the topic.  It might be the third best proposal on the topic at which point we shouldn't even be considering it.  But nobody's going to stand up and say, "Take it out."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Susan.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Hi.  When we're ready, I have a suggestion about few workshops which I think they focus on the same content and all of them are 75 and above.  So if we get to a point where we're discussing perhaps mergers and bringing these workshops together, I'm ready to do that because do I have a concrete proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  We are not yet there.
 Baher.
 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.  This is Baher Esmat.
 I have been listening to comments made by colleagues, and I'm also a little bit uncomfortable with the fact that we're trying to identify workshops that made it to the top hundred and scored 4 and above.  We are trying to identify them and take them out of the list.
 I think instead of doing that, let's try and identify workshops that could not make it to the top 100 and, based on reasons that we've been discussing about stakeholder groups, themes, et cetera, identify them, see whether they are 10, 20, and if we have agreement that we need to get those 10 or 20 into the top 100, then we go to the top 100 and see from 80 to 100 which ones we can take out. 
 So let's do it the other way around.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  I'm not sure that we are ready to do that now, and since -- since we had this conversation about how many we include automatically and it was -- there was a proposal to change that ratio, after conversation, general discussion, I propose to do a compromise and go with the 70 quasi-automatic and just to review whether out of those additional 10 there would be any comments, whether shortening or some other things, and then after -- in the afternoon, we would start exactly with this -- what you are proposing, Baher.  We would start pulling the list together of workshops which would need to be included not on scoring, but on balancing -- for balancing reasons, for perception reasons, and so on.  So I'm not sure that if we start it now, we're -- we're not ready yet.  We need some time to refresh our memories, and to -- each of the MAG members to look through the list again and identify those workshops that they would like to propose be included on this separate list.
 Marilyn, are you in agreement?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  My comment is going to be a specific proposal, but yes, I'm in agreement.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  The specific proposal for 178?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  It's a specific proposal for 146.  It's the one right beyond it.  So whenever you get to that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 178.  So proposal was to include and do it as a breakout group discussion, which would be a new a new innovative format.
 Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi, please go ahead.
 Subi, are you still there?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Let us move, then.  I assume that this is a wish, Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Sorry.  We're commenting here on 178 now?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, 178.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  178.
 I think, judging -- looking at the comments, or rather the absence of comments, in the evaluations, all the high scoring is suggesting that this is retained as a valuable platform for -- a 60-minute platform for the Safe internet Day campaign.  So I detected we were all in consensus on this, the MAG scorers.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Just making sure that we are in consensus on this.  So we are in consensus.  This is retained.
 Next one, 146.  And can we get it up on the screen, please?
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 I understand this is an innovative idea, but I would like to propose that it be shortened.
 I also will note that it's proposed as a panel and I assume that's because the idea is that there has to be a good amount of information-giving that is done, given the topic.
 I do think it's an interesting item.  I would not have made it as big a priority as others, and I think there are others below it that are actually a higher priority than this one.
 So if we keep it -- and I am asking the question -- I'd like to move it lower in the priority and shorten the amount of time.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  There is a proposal.  Any reactions?  Mark? 
 Sorry.  Avri, first.  Mark after. 
 Avri, please.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.
 I -- it's one -- actually, I didn't get my sign up in time.  It's one I wanted to speak out in favor of supporting.  I think it is a new topic that is becoming an important governance issue, and I think it will take that much time, and yes, they did do a panel and I was one of those that wasn't in favor of panels, but they also did a very adequate paper to go along with it.
 So I would suggest keeping it in.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Actually, yesterday I read the news that somebody was -- hacked a flying airplane, and that may become increasingly an issue.
 Mark, then Dominique, then --
 Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I agree with Marilyn Cade that we shorten this.  It's a very specific topic, automated vehicles within the IOT environment.  So include it, but shorten it.
 I did suggest potentially a merger with Number 8 as another option.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Can we see also Number 8 on the screen?  And in the meantime, Dominique?
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Thanks.  I'm just trying to -- okay.  Yes.  So this was going to be my point, actually, because the autonomous vehicles are -- are part of Internet of Things and I believe if I -- if I can remember correctly from my response on the first -- not on this but on the one we're discussing -- my concern with this was the lack of private sector confirmed for this particular panel, because basically that's what's driving this.
 I know at the GSMA, in particular, we are working on this quite a lot, so I was more interested and hoping to see more confirmed private sector in addition to everything else there.
 But I'll support Mark and Marilyn in merging it with Number 8.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just want to strongly support inclusion of a merged proposal.  8 and this proposal would fit together great, complement each other, fill in a lot of the gaps.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  It seems that Workshop -- or Proposal Number 8 is scored and is on -- is ranked 128.  Okay.  Just for information.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  And that's primarily because it wasn't as diverse as it needed to be.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I want to ask my colleagues to please bear in -- put yourself in context.  This IGF is going to be in a developing country.  Also in a part of the developing country -- it's not exactly the northeast, but it's also in a part that is not the most developed part of that country.  And all these things is science fiction for developing countries, and I really think that these are the places where we can move on some others. 
 So actually my proposal is to not consider this at all.  I didn't vote for any of these things.  Not because it's not going to happen, but because we have to be in context.  We -- this is the year of sustainable development, development post-2015, development agenda.  We're talking of clean water.  We're talking about access to education. 
 You know, talking about Internet of Things when we're discussing all these things, you know, to have medication, to try to increase life expectancy above 50 years, and please --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Point --
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- we have to be in context --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Point taken.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- and otherwise, we're not going to have any free slots to move nothing from the proposal, so maybe we --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  We will have -- Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- and just take the first hundred and expect -- (off microphone) --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso, I understand that we -- we need to be attentive to every -- every proposal, and if in one part of the world it seemingly is not important, in other parts of the world it is important.  And I wouldn't like to fly -- fly planes or be in a car which may be hacked by somebody.  So that's very simple.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just a quick response. 
 Many of the Internet of Things applications are being rolled out first in developing countries.  In A lot of cases, new infrastructure is being built with the Internet of Things built in, and drugs is a great example.  Putting sensors on prescription drugs so that the right non-counterfeit drugs get deployed in the Third World is a great application of the Internet of Things.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I support the merger.  I think this topic is a key topic and will be a good proposal.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Fiona, please.
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Just to be brief, I'd like to support the comments made by Avri.  We did establish this higher threshold for people, if they were going to do a panel, to actually write a paper, and I'd like to respect that request we made of people.  So for those that bothered to take the time to write a paper, we shouldn't penalize them by changing the format that they've proposed. 
 I'd also like to point out this is actually from the intergovernmental organization stakeholder group, which people keep saying is underrepresented, so I think you should take that into account when considering deleting things or merging things as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I take that we are in agreement of retaining it and suggesting that proponents of 146 could consider merging with 8, or at least putting their theme in a context -- broader context of safety, security of -- on Internet of Things.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm going to make -- Marilyn Cade.  I'm going to make one final effort at this.
 I think these two should be urged to merge, and I think that I support -- I support Juan's comment about we really need to look at the workshops and also urge these folks to make their session relevant to how IoT in this particular application area also relates to the needs of the developing countries, and I think with that, the two could merge, they could be given 60 minutes, they could be left at 90 minutes as merged if they also reflect the relevance for developing countries, so that it's more easily understood.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  This then is also our decision. 
 Jac, you are in agreement, right?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Yeah, but I'm not so pushing for a merger.  I think mergers are quite difficult things and maybe even though the topic seems similar, it might not be coming from the same approach. 
 And I want to support this also because of the lineup of speakers.  There's a lot of government speakers and there's also speakers from developing countries, actually, that they've identified.  For example, Learnasia. 
 So I think -- and also to say that even though IoT seems to be science fiction, it is something that is being tested out in -- often in developing context where there isn't such regulation or concerns about rights.  So I think it is quite an important topic to also like bear to -- you know, to bear in mind.
 But I do support the proposal of -- of recommending to think about this from the perspective of safety, privacy, and risks as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  So retained.
 Wout, please.
 >>WOUT de NATRIS:  Thank you, Chair.  Just a few -- to not confuse things, I'm putting on my NL IGF hat at this moment and not the U.N. hat.
 There's a proposal called 180 -- sorry, 48, which is basically looking at this topic from an even larger and more abstract level, because what we're talking about here is the change that we are making from one society to another.  We're moving into a digital age and one of the factors of that is automated cars.  The other one is healthcare that is going to change, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
 In Proposal 48, we try to tackle all of that, from very different sort of angles, so if we're talking about mergers, then I think that perhaps it's possible to look at it from a more abstract level and look at, okay, are these sort of topics coming into the same sort of -- the same sort of topic that we're discussing, changing our society, which is going on at this moment.
 So my suggestion would be, could we look at it from just a little bit more abstract point of view and see what sort of topics have been brought in, proposals have been brought in, and if they try to merge it from that angle, because then it will be much more valuable than to just look at what does it mean for cars.
 So that's a suggestion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, though we -- we agreed not to promote workshops where we may have some vested interests, and putting your NL hat, so you -- you did it, but -- okay.  Thank you.  It's understood and taken.
 So let us move to the next one, 253, "Empowering the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility," currently scored 66.  Any comments? 
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I thought Fiona supported that earlier and I would support it as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Any other comments?  Specifics?  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  I have a specific comment.
 I'd just like to ask them to have a little more clarity on how they're going to handle the -- I support including it, but a little more clarity on how the expert presentations -- this says, "Open, interactive discussion with all participants."  I don't know if that means a town hall or it means a -- something -- that they're going to use some other well-defined approach to make sure that it is actually an interactive discussion.
 So I'd just like to forward that question, but I do support including it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  To whom do you address your question?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I think it would just be a MAG comment to -- to -- from the secretariat to the organizers, whenever they're told what their status is.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much for this proposal.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  So very strong proposal.  Support it.  I just noted absence of African participation.
 A number of us identified merger opportunities, but I see there's no consensus on how to merge it.  The number -- the suggested opportunities for merging are all different for all of us, so that suggests that we keep it as a stand-alone proposal.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I see that there is a general consensus. 
 Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  Number 55 is similar, "Internet Governance for the Next Billion," and the proposals are from South America and some other places.  Maybe we could try to merge.
 Have we already lost interest in merging to try to include more people into the program?  Because I think this is an opportunity, if we have a similar, that if the name is similar, "Internet Governance for the Next Billion," why don't we try to merge and bring more people in the program? 
 And there's some other in "billions" around there that we could try to merge.  Is that not what we're supposed to do?  Otherwise, I really -- well, I don't know.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Thank you, Chair.  Well, I can see that it is organized by the dynamic coalition for disability and access so maybe they have already an opportunity within the dynamic coalition, so my suggestion is to shorten it or to merge it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Michael. 
 And Avri afterwards.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I would go along with shortening it to 60 minutes.  I don't think it would make sense to merge it with another session on Internet governance for the next billion because this is really focused on accessibility.  It is a well-focused proposal which I think would be lost if we tried to merge it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Avri speaking.
 I generally don't accept the advantage of merging.  I don't suggest merging this one.  I think something we need to put on our notes for the future is that we give people a chance to merge before we do the grading, but I think enforcing merges has shown itself to be something that does not work.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you.  I would not support merging this particular one.  I do support including it on its own.  I think it is a really key topic.  I offer a suggestion since it seems that there are still a lot of outstanding questions regarding merging.  And taking Avri's point, we can't go backward.  But maybe what we can do is possibly over part of the lunch break, a group can get together and try to work out exactly how we will go about putting these mergers together or at least approaching these groups and encouraging them to possibly merge, if that's what the MAG's final consensus is.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yeah, sorry to come back in again.  As I said before, I think it really does deserve stand-alone treatment because as Mike Nelson mentioned, it is referring particularly to empowering people with disabilities.
 And I think that could be put into the title to help people understand what this session is going to be about.
 It's just I noted on quite a few proposals that titling was pretty poor in actually conveying to participants exactly what this valuable workshop is going to be about and they will miss potential participation as a result.
 So that's a point to pay attention to, I think, the titling.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 German?
 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  Thank you.  German Valdez, NRO.  I want to fully support what Avri mentioned, that some action should be taken in the future for the merging of proposals.  I can see five proposals that talk about the next billion just in the title, just five.  And I agree that working on merging in the practical way, it doesn't work very well.  So some action should be taken before the grading regarding the merging and so on.  So I would like to add that to Avri's comments.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much. 
 Excuse me.  Xiaodong, I didn't see your flag up.  Please.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I saw that there is four proposals that discuss about the next billion:  Number 55, Number 266, Number 139, and Number 253.  And for the Number 266 and the 253 is to discuss how to improve access.  I stress maybe we can merge that.
 And I think there is a little bit difference for Number 55.  I saw the proposal.  It is a little different from the other three.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant and then Juan Alfonso.
 >> Ginger, go ahead, please.  Ginger, you have the floor.  Go ahead, please.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Sorry.  I have been speaking to myself.  I hope you can hear me now. 
 I would like to support trying to work better with the titles so we can identify them and particularly because this says it is the next billion but it is, as mentioned before, specifically for disability.  It is an important topic that we need to include.  I do support including it because it does offer a different facet of disability and inclusion.
 I'm wondering, though, if we can make available to -- after we select all the workshops, we know which ones have been selected but somehow make the information very available to people with a more proper title so that they can easily find workshops they might offer their resources and their speakers and their input to so there can be self-mergers or self-inclusion of ideas from the non-approved workshops into the ones that are going on, to use them as an additional force to improve the ones that were accepted and then to make a note for next time if there's a way to identify more clearly from titles so that people can offer to work together.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes, I want to thank my colleagues to pointing me out because I made a mistake.  In my table, this should be under "accessibility" and not under "the next billion." 
 But I still think that we can do some merger here because I identified at least six other workshop proposals relating with blind, disability, and accessibility.  Number -- if you want to take note, please, Number 32, 39, 90, 253, 256, and 259.  And I believe that maybe that is not an exhaustive list.  I might have missed something.
 So in my ranking, this is the third topic in terms of popularity from the workshops' proposal.
 As I said before -- I think I sent an email last month about this -- the topic that has more workshop proposals is child and use issues.  They have more than 15 workshop proposals.
 The second one comes women and gender.  That has nearly ten.  And then it's this blind, disability, and accessibility.  I think in trying to be inclusive with all those that has proposed workshops in this topic, we should strive to see -- reach them if they want to merge their activities.
 In that case, if it is a merger, I will suggest to keep the whole time proposed because it's an important topic and because of the proposals.  It's not because of our criteria.  It is because of the number of workshops that are proposed.  It is so important, this accessibility part.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  It seems to me that we can -- we can agree of retention of this and suggest the workshop proponents to consider fine-tuning of the title and considering possible merger or at least invitation of proponents of other workshops on similar topic to join them.  If that would be something we could agree, then we could proceed to the next one, 167.
 Any comments?  167, "Unlock Internet economy through copyright reform." 
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I do support including this, but I take note that actually I don't think I see the participation from all points of view.  This seems to me to be focusing on participation from primarily from developing countries which is a really important thing to do.  But I am wondering if it could be strengthened by also adding in perhaps the more traditional developed country perspective to this workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay, thank you very much.
 Any other comments?  Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  It's an interesting proposal which talks about copyright reforms, and it's from the civil society, and it is also a debate.  So I think it should be preserved -- several reasons to be preserved.  And I think I agree with Marilyn if they want to include or can be recommended to include some new voices.  But I think this (indiscernible) believes kind of discussion. 
 Debates are only at top 60 only 2%.  So I think it will be a good thing to keep this format since we have fought so much to improve formats.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes.  I would also support preserving the proposal as is.  I also note that I think it's pretty exciting that they've brought in the South African Screen Federation and working with kind of the rights holders from the developing countries, oftentimes we don't hear much from them.  So I think it would be great to preserve it as is.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  This is one of the ones -- Lynn St. Amour -- that I actually wondered if this was positioning itself as a debate but it was more of a panel.  It also references there had been a detailed analysis paper done, but the paper wasn't included.  So if it does go forward, then I would suggest that we ensure that the paper is, in fact, included and circulated.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you for this proposal. 
 Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I just wanted to point out that this one did include WIPO and governments.  So it wasn't a civil society-only or a southern-only.  It really did have a much wider perspective.
 I agree, it called itself a debate.  So I think, you know, we should encourage them to remember that they're setting up a debate.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes, I agree entirely.  And it would be useful to have that paper.  But it's a model of aiming for balanced and geo diverse participation.  So full score on that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We then can retain it and ask proponents to submit paper as they have promised.
 Let us move then to the next one, 123, "Indicators to promote evidence-based policy making,"  Panel.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  There are several workshops in the topic of indicators and measurements, and it is an important and interesting topic because it serves the basis for objective policy making that it benefits all stakeholders.  So I suggest to not only retain this but to see if some other workshop's proposals could be merged in order to have a more comprehensive coverage of this subject of indicators and measuring of the information society.
 This is the thing that is not only -- only covered by governments and intergovernmental organizations like, you know, the initiative of the ITU, the World Bank, UNESCO, and some other in the measuring information society grand collaboration. 
 But also civil society and some other organizations also have indicators and are using this for policy evaluation and development. 
 So I think it's an important topic.  But I suggest for inclusion to try to include maybe those workshops that are beyond the 100 list to include it with this.
 I reiterate that my feeling is to try to include as much workshop proposals into existing ones.  And this one is important.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Avri?  It's not on this topic.
 Ankhi.
 >> ANKHI DAS:  I support this proposal.  I think this is one proposal where we will have an opportunity to encourage more participation from government stakeholders, which is a focus of our discussion in previous workshop sessions also which we have discussed. 
 Therefore, it is not only relevant but it also gives an opportunity to involve more government stakeholders in this discussion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much. 
 Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I support the proposal.  It has got some really good speakers, some very experienced ones.  Has the government of Egypt.  It sort of -- has a really good sort of feel to it.  And I think especially in the developing countries, we get a lot of policies that are not always substantiated by evidence.  So this would be a good discussion.  I'm not sure 90 minutes is enough.  I would seek a little more, but I think we should certainly let this go.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You suggest this is emotionally driven policy making.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yes, yes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Sometimes it happens.
 Remote participant?
 >> Towela indicated her support for this workshop Proposal Number 123.  Because her Internet connection is bad, so she cannot use audio.  And we have Subi, also, waiting.
 Okay.  Subi, please, you have the floor.  No, Subi, we cannot hear you.  She said in chat that she supports the proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Subi.  With Subi's support of the proposal, we can then put it on the list.  Also, indicate to proponents that they may wish to see enlarging and inviting similar workshop proponents which proposals may not enter on the list to join the effort.
 Let us move to the next one, 187, "Promoting local actions to secure Internet rights," 187.  Any comments?  Still two more to go for this session.  187.  Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  I rated this highly because of its local community emphasis.  I think it is valuable for the IGF to have this kind of reach-out into local community challenges, thinking, and so on.  I would argue for this being retained.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 >> -- English proposal.
 >> CHAIR KARKLINS:  Aida, please.
 >>AID MAHMUTOVIC:  I am also in support of this project because it is one of the rares that really brings the local aspect of it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  May I take it that is our wish to take it and support it and include it and move to the next, 114, "Implementing core principles in the digital age."
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I spent quite a bit of time looking at this.  There's a number of workshops that focus on principles.  I'm just going to take this opportunity to say I think it's a topic that we need in the IGF overall.  But I'd like to see the topic examined for possible merger with some others that may be further down and otherwise might not be included.
 I will just say, you know, this seems to be -- also it's proposed by two governments.  I think it could have legitimately been presented as open forum as well, and I just want to take note of that.  So I'd like to ask that they consider whether they're open to including other groups that are interested in the same issue or if this is, in fact, really just focused on the two governments' joint initiatives, in which case I would say reduce it to 60 minutes and retain it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So Ambassador Benedicto cannot support this but I'm going to support this.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I think it's a really good proposal.  I just -- before we -- if I could get a -- do we have a count on the number of open forum requests that we got.  Do we have that?  I'm sorry.  I don't have it handy.  If the secretariat could support with that.  Because if that number is full, we must retain it as-is.  Do we have that?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  20 open forums which are factored in already.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Sorry.  Can you speak in the mic?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We have 20 open forums which were factored in, and then they are at the bottom there.  If you see on the screen, if it's -- if you can zoom in, I think there's eight which we -- or seven which the secretariat think don't qualify with the definition of an open forum that we posted.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lea?
 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you, Chair.
 I don't want to -- I can't really support or -- this proposal as I have been noted as one of the speakers and I haven't graded it for that reason, but I can say that I've been approached by the German proposers who have put this proposal together, and perhaps to answer Marilyn's question about the scope of whether it's just to do with these two governments' perspective on the issue, my sense was that it was to do with much broader -- dealing with a much broader issue that had to do with bringing a principled approach to a number of decision-making bodies that have to do with Internet governance, including spaces such as the IETF and the ITU.
 So if that helps clarify the matter, I just wanted to offer that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  I see a remote participant, and then Ephraim.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Towela suggested that she's supporting Number 114 and she's particularly noting that it's coming from a government stakeholder and it has diversity in speakers.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ephraim.
 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Actually, Towela just said what I wanted to say, that I support it, and if you look at the speakers and the participants who have been invited, it's diverse and we should support it, with just the recommendation that they should make it more diverse by including the global south, more speakers from the global south.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Can I take that we are able to support it? 
 Lynn, you are in agreement, right?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I am in agreement --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR: -- but I also wanted to suggest if it was possible to look at merging or inviting 55 in as well.
 55 was ranked 92, but it would be quite interesting to look at the questions that they actually pose in their abstract and to see how these set of studies actually support that.
 But I support the proposal, even as it stands alone.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you. 
 Marilyn, you have a last -- last word to say?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  I just have one final comment to make.
 So I would just invite the organizers -- and I realize that our host is here -- that there are a number of proposed speakers that are not confirmed.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  The confirmation usually is a bit tricky thing at early stages.  But -- so I -- my sense is that we retain this proposal.  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I would also suggest that we merge it with 55.  Several people mentioned a need to broaden.  I mean, it's a lot of people on there, but many of them are already committed to other panels.
 I noted that Mr. Kay is on 11 proposals, including this one, so I think that putting this one with 55 would justify a full 90-minute session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  You took the words out of my mouth, Michael.  I was about to say that we -- and encourage the organizers or proponents of the proposal to approach organizers of 55 and to see if cooperation is feasible.
 So with that, we have reached agreed level of 70 proposals which are provisionally on our agreed list, and in the afternoon we will start compiling a list of proposals in order to seek the right balance in the overall workshop proposal list.
 So how we will be doing this?
 We maybe can spend now another five minutes to remind ourselves what -- where are these missing balances.  I take that one of them is governmental -- or lack, rather, of governmental participation; that we should see whether there are any ways to improve it.
 There might be, but there may not be.
 For instance, we cannot seek more government proposals than governments have actually proposed themselves, so that would be one limitation and that would be a natural limitation, so that's one element.
 And another element, we would seek also other stakeholder groups if they feel they are not represented, and I heard technical community and I want to hear whether that is confirmed or not.
 Then on themes, the reason why we choose subthemes of the main theme is to kind of help us structure the whole event, and therefore whether we like it or not, we most probably need to stick to subthemes that we have identified ourselves and to see whether the proper balance is found also on subtheme level, what we have identified, and we have identified eight of them.
 Statistically, as we see, there is a certain dis-balance on subthemes, on a subtheme level as well, and it would be interesting to hear which, in the view of members, are not sufficiently represented.
 So, please, I will ask Shita to launch this discussion.
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Thank you, Chair. 
 My name is Shita from Hivos.  I would like to propose including Southeast Asia as well in our criteria to make more geographic balance.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Clearly, government and intergovernmental. 
 So during lunch we'll try and get a list of proposals beyond 100 which had government and intergovernmental and sort of put them up there and see which of those can be pulled in, in case we are able to create any space.
 So that's a list of about 18 or -- I'm just doing the rough numbers right now. 
 So that would be one to sort of just have in front of us.
 The second, I know it keeps coming back, but the technical community is actually quite well represented.  I just want to be clear again.  Of the total proposals submitted, only 12% came from the technical community.  In the top 60, they already have 15% share, which is higher than the proportion.  And if you went to top 80, they're at 12%.  So I don't think we should worry about technical communities.  They are well-represented. 
 Government and intergovernmental are rather short. 
 Private sector is a little bit short but I think they can take care of themselves.  I would just sort of keep it at that.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I -- Marilyn Cade speaking.
 I'd like to clarify, and I will do this over lunchtime.  I think saying that governments and intergovernmental organizations are not represented does not recognize that, in fact, they may be well represented as speakers, but they may not have chosen to submit workshops where they are shown as the organizer.
 In the past -- in past IGFs, in many cases IGOs chose to use open forums because they -- the criteria is quite different.  It does not require balance.  It allows them to provide information about their initiatives and activities.
 So I think over the -- over the lunch hour, I would -- I want to look at this and ask others to, to look at whether the participation is limited on governments and intergovernmental organizations or whether it is that they are not showing up as organizers.
 The second thing I just want to mention is, I -- it's my view that the Internet economy is not yet, as a subtheme, well-represented, and I will take a look at that. 
 And then I will just -- after the lunch hour, I have some comments about possible mergers among some of the workshops that focus on women, to see if there would also be a way to advance more participation on that from that workshops.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Fiona?
 >>FIONA ALEXANDER:  Yes.  Thank you, Janis. 
 Just to respond to Marilyn's point, at least my observation was that it wasn't governments as proposers of workshops.  Governments weren't well-represented as participants on the workshops.  So I think that can be fixed after the fact.  I don't think it necessarily needs to be part of this.
 But I do have a question for clarification, Janis, about the next steps.
 So is the expectation that we're going to come back after lunch and the people are going to propose from the floor workshops to be considered, or is -- are we actually going to ask MAG members to provide those numbers of workshops to the secretariat during the lunch break so that we can come back and start with a list on the screen?  I would propose the latter, so we can be a little bit more focused, as opposed to just general conversations again.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  There -- thank you, actually, for this proposal.  I think it's a very good one.
 Maybe we still also need to think about the right to food of secretariat and let them one hour loose from 1:00 to 2:00 and then ask somebody to be in the room at -- starting from 2:00 that could take those proposals and cluster them in one sort of file that we can quickly put them on the screens.  Thank you for this proposal.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I, too, am very concerned about the government panelists that aren't there, and I know why, having been a government official.  You don't know that you can go to these meetings, often, until two months, maybe one month before.
 It would be very helpful if there was a way to find out early which government officials are coming so that there was a pool of people that might be tapped by those panelists who are trying to round out their panels.
 I don't know what privacy implications there are there, or whatever, but if there is a way to identify those government speakers who might be available, because that -- that's what it comes down to.  You might identify the best person and then find out they aren't available and then find out there was an even better person who was already there.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Makanye.
 >>MAKANYE FAYE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Makanye Faye, ICA.  I suggest that we also try to bring more intergovernmental organizations because not only they represent government but also they have in their stakeholder groups civil society, private sector, and technical community, and I don't think they are well represented in this round.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Lynn St. Amour. 
 Just a quick comment.  A number of people have said that they have some concrete suggestions with respect to proposals to be merged, and I noted there were a lot of comments merging them.
 I don't know if the secretariat has, or if they could actually pull together, a subsection of the remaining proposals to say, "These are some of the clumps, if you will, of proposals that have been suggested for merger" and see if we can deal with them around a fit for theme, are they actually filling some of our other gaps, and then in that way actually address a lot of the perhaps lesser valued proposals.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Mark, you had the last one.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yeah.  Thank you.  Just I'm with the U.K. government, as most of you all know.
 On this issue and challenge of governmental participation, it's -- Mike has hit on one aspect.  Officials have wide dossiers on -- usually in the ICT area, and they have other conflicts, and so on, so it's difficult for them to commit.
 And also at a time when many governments are hit by ever-tightening travel budgets and austerity-deficit-addressing issues -- that's the case in the U.K. -- it's a challenging, challenging time.
 I would recommend proposers reaching out to governments at an early stage and really getting a particular government expert to engage actively, and then you're more likely to secure that person's presence at the event itself.
 There is the remote participation opportunity, and that should be presented to targeted government experts. 
 So that -- you know, there are a number of factors and ways to address it.  I do note that the -- the level of participation in terms of attendance at the IGF from governments has improved in recent years.  The number of governments who have somebody representing them in some way actually at the IGF has remained quite high.  About 90 governments, I think, in Istanbul, if that -- if I remember correctly.  So that's a positive indicator, at least.
 145.  Oh, right.  Okay.  Well, I stand to be corrected.  It was much higher.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think we now have more or less a good idea of what we should look at, talking about positive discrimination and bringing workshop proposals which are not -- which did not receive highest scores higher, and so I expect that we will start next session with -- smoothly with those proposals.
 Of course we also need to keep in mind that emerging issues that has never been discussed in IGF also might fall in the same category, emerging issues to look at.
 So that said, Council of Europe, I think we need to break.  If that is something essential, please, very quickly.
 >>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Just very quickly, to respond to Mark Carvell and the question about governmental representation and the IGOs. 
 To be more efficient, I think from my perspective, from the Council of Europe perspective, human rights, rule of law, democracy issues, there are many workshops there.  I wonder whether I can serve as sort of a resource person or as a sort of a gateway for access to possible governmental speakers and IGO speakers because I've been around for such a long time.  I know many experts.  It might help the process, it might help you in actually identifying quickly who could be useful.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We certainly will remain -- remember your offer and will call on you on this particular question.
 So thank you very much.  We're now breaking for lunch and we're reconvening at 3:00 sharp to continue our conversation.  Secretariat will be available in this room at 2:10 for all those who want to give preliminary information to secretariat.  So thank you very much.  Bon appetit.
 [ Break ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good afternoon.
 Ladies and gentlemen, I was just advised by secretariat that there are very few proposals that have been submitted to compile information for our conversation.  And maybe we could do the following, that we will talk about open forums for the next 15, 20 minutes and maybe possibly take decision on including those proposed open forums.  And please use this time to submit proposals to secretariat over there.
 And then in 10, 15 minutes, when this job will be done, we could go back to the workshop selection.  If that is acceptable, then we could proceed in that way.  I see no objections.
 Then I would like to ask Chengetai to drive back to the table -- (laughter) -- and introduce the subject of open forums.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Janis.  For the open forums, we do have -- we sent out a call for open forums.  And we do have 20 -- sorry, 27 open forums which were submitted.  20 of those, the secretariat looked at and we deemed that those ones are the ones that actually fit the requirements or the description for an open forum.  That is a government or a major transnational organization that is -- has activities in Internet governance fora.
 So these ones are -- can we get them on the -- we can?  Yes, briefly.
 It's also on one of the worksheets.  So open forums, major transnational or intergovernmental organization engaged in Internet governance or Internet governance issues and also countries, member states, or observers.
 Yes, Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Could you just resend them, the open forums on the mailing so everybody has it?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  It's the same workshop, but I'll resend it.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Which list is it on?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Don't worry.  I will resend it.  It is always easier.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just to make sure I'm looking at the right chart, the list I see has 25 proposals of which 17 were deemed to meet the minimum.  You had different numbers.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The proposer sent them through a different format.  Since it wasn't specified, we had to add them.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Which were the three proposals that met the criteria that weren't on the list?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just hold on.  I will read them out.  So it's open forum by the European Commission, GIPO, open forum by UNCTAD, and also by the Government of Brazil.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So shall I read them out or is it okay?  They're on the screen.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So you can maybe expand a little bit, the picture.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'll just read them out while it's being expanded.  So we have APNIC, APC, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization, Council of Europe, Government of India, DiploFoundation, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Internet Corporation -- that's ICANN, sorry, ISOC, EBU, Cuba, NETmundial Initiative, OECD, U.N. HCR, Senatics, the U.S. Department of State, UNESCO, Government of Brazil, European Commission, as I've said, and UNCTAD.
 The other list is the ones that we did not deem to fit the criteria, is Busoga Rural Open Source and Development Initiative because they're a more nationally focused, non-government organization.  Center for International Governance Innovation, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators for London, Digital Infrastructure Association, The Internet Society of India, Les Anges Du Ciel, and MSH because they were either very small or very locally focused.
 Does anybody have any other comments? 
 Oh, one other thing is we are not giving them an hour and a half slot.  We have decided to give them a 60-minute slot so that we can conserve space.
 Does anybody have any comments on that list?  Yes, Marilyn.  Or do you want to carry on?  Sorry, I was overstepping.  So let me give it back to Janis.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Chengetai, for introducing the topic.
 Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  It is Marilyn Cade speaking.  I have a point of clarification.  As I recall in the very early days, open forums were limited to governments and IGOs.  And I think now you're describing the idea that an open forum could also be organized by an NGO, et cetera.
 I just want to make a comment about the guidance and guidelines for open forums.  We don't seem to -- we do not have the criteria for open forums in terms of representing all points of views or being geographically diverse in the panelists, et cetera.
 So I respect that.  But I also want to understand -- and maybe we do this going forward.  Maybe we need to return to having a little more guidance about who qualifies.  I'm not talking about for the IGF 2015, but who qualifies to submit an open forum.
 Otherwise, I see perhaps a rush of entities and that if I have workshop proposals from the same group or the same group is heavily represented as a speaker in workshops and they also submit open forums, then I'm -- I have an imbalance.  But it is not easy to find that imbalance or be aware of it until after the fact.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Marilyn.  I think this is a very sensible proposal.
 Baher.
 >>BAHER ESMAT:  Thank you, Chairman.  Just a point of clarification.  Is the suggestion to allow open forums one hour instead of 90 minutes?  All of them?  And is this subject to further discussion, or is this in light of some other restrictions?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  It is -- since we have many -- maybe more than usual proposals for open forum, it was calculated within the sort of slots available.  And that is purely limitation based on available space.
 If we increased to 90 minutes, which means then we are carving in workshop numbers.  And we intentionally made a proposal 60 minutes in preliminary calculations.  Of course, nothing is decided.  Everything is in hands of the MAG.  And if MAG will say, no, we need to go for 90 minutes, so be it.  But then we need to deduct ten workshops from the list of 100.  So that's a consequence.
 We have a remote participant.
 >> REMOTE INTERVENTION:  We have one quick request for clarification from Subi.  She's asking about the number of available slots.  And then we have Ginger in the queue.  So the number of --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The number of available slots is 20 as suggested now.
 >> REMOTE INTERVENTION:  20, okay.  So, Ginger, you have the floor.
 >>GINGER PAQUE:  Thank you.  I am hoping you can hear me well.  This is Ginger Paque from DiploFoundation and MAG.  I wanted to clarify that because Diplo did make a request for an open forum.  But also because of that, I do know a little bit what we used as our criteria.  And you will see on the Web page that it says organizations dealing with Internet governance-related issues are invited to submit a request for an open forum, da, da, da, in order to present and discuss their activities.  The meeting should focus on the organization's activities during the past year and allow sufficient time for questions and discussions.
 And I point that out, Marilyn in particular, because it's not meant to be -- have balanced speakers but to present a project.  For instance, Diplo will be presenting the new -- it is not an observatory.  It is called the Geneva Digital Watch which will discuss digital issues, their complexity across disciplines which, you know, makes that hard to follow effectively so it will offer some analysis as well as the updates and time line and monthly summaries of what's going on. 
 So this is a point where another group like Diplo might be presenting their activities and their project.  So it won't particularly be balanced in speakers, I think.  So I think we should be cautious about intervening in what kinds of presentations because they're precisely for that purpose.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Ginger, for your comment.
 I have Virat next in line.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  As full disclosure, I have been requested by the government of India whose proposal has made it here to moderate the session.  But I just wanted to submit there are four governments who have submitted open forums:  India, Cuba, U.S., and Brazil.  I'm assuming the NETmundial Initiative proposal is by CGI.  I'm not sure whether it is by government of Brazil or -- it is by the government.
 >> (off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  That wasn't mentioned.
 So there's two from Brazilian government, United States, Cuba and India. 
 In view of the fact that we're short on the workshops from governments, MAG might wish to consider a distribution of time slots and 90 minutes for governments and 60 minutes for the others, if that helps.  I'm not saying that we can solve everything with that.
 But I think we need -- it is just very difficult for developing country governments to get the permission to get on the plane and go to Brazil.  And if you give them a half-hour slot or an hour slot, I think they might not get the permission that they need from the ministers and funding that they require to sign off on the files.  So we should just be sensitive about this and not saying we need to take a decision now.  But please keep in mind the difficulties some much these governments have in getting approvals to travel that far.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much for this proposal.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I think the staff secretariat has done a wonderful job in differentiating between those that meet the criteria and those that don't.
 I just had three things to say.  I think changing the time slots at this point would be a bad idea.  People proposed to do an hour-long -- people proposed to do an open forum, and I think we can fit them into 60 minutes.
 I think people who were smart enough to submit for an open forum had a much higher chance of being accepted, and I think that's part of the benefit.
 I'd note, though, we do have one place where 90 minutes might make sense.  The Council of Europe has its own proposal, Number 4, and it is teamed up with the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights.  Perhaps combining those two into 90 minutes would make some sense.
 The only thing I would question about the way this has been broken up is that line number 24 among the proposals that did not meet the criteria is for a brand-new organization, an industry organization in the Netherlands that really brings together all the key company sectors.  And I think it's a very interesting project.
 And I would note if they had been smart enough to team up with the Dutch government they probably would have been accepted in a minute.  So I'd like to know a little bit more why the DINL was not selected.  But I think the other ones clearly don't meet the criteria.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I have a clarification.  When we put out the proposals, was it for 90 minutes or 60 minutes?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We didn't specify the length of time.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  But we've always had it for 90 minutes for the last 10 years.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Traditionally it has always been 90 minutes.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.  Okay.  So I just wanted to see -- 
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: And not 60 minutes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  But we have never had so many requests at a time.  Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Okay.  Subi, you have the floor.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  I hope I'm audible.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes, we hear you.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you.  On open forums, I'm really, really happy that we have so much interest, but I do believe that we have some parameters in place and (indiscernible) or the fact that you've been a veteran at this should not be a quick, easy, and less competitive solution to getting into an open forum slot when you're clearly eligible for a workshop. 
 There has been tradition and there's been documented parameters of who makes it into an open forum.
 While it's fantastic to encourage new proposers to also fill in proposals for workshops, open forums we agree are when initiatives have reached a certain level of maturity. 
 And I also second the suggestion that was just made.  I believe we need to enhance the role of governments and government participation at the IGF, so a 90-minute slot for governments is something that I would second.
 I also want us to be careful because it should not be a case of "I knew about this availability and therefore I applied for it."  I would want to see open forums reserved for governments and intergovernmental organizations, as we have had in tradition, and with very good reason.
 I support Marilyn's comments on those issues.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, Subi.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, Ginger just wanted to make a note that shortening the opening forums will likely cut off audience participation.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  I think, responding to Subi's last point, the secretariat followed the rules and Ginger read out those rules and there is no contradiction.
 If we need to review principles, that's a different story.  We certainly can do it, but not for this year, because we are not changing the rules of the game during the game. 
 For 2016, we may revisit and see what type of criteria we could put for open forums.
 So after hearing different opinions, may I suggest the following:  That we would accept proposed 20 workshops -- sorry, sorry, open forums; that for the moment we would retain 60-minute slots and would ask secretariat, in case of the possibility, to provide 90-minute slots for open forums with a preference to governments, especially governments traveling very far to Brazil.  Which means that Paraguay government may not have privilege vis-a-vis Indian government, for instance.
 And then a remaining issue, as Michael suggested, on DINL, we would -- we would do additional inquiries and would revert back to the MAG at one of the next meetings and would inform about the results of this inquiry.
 Would that be acceptable?  UNESCO.
 >>UNESCO:  One question.  So you said that 90 minutes for governments.  How about IGO?  UNESCO COE, we have 60 minutes or 90 minutes?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So as I said, for the moment, default would be 60 minutes for everyone, and then instruct secretariat, in case we can carve out some additional time and space, so then we would give additional 30 minutes starting with governments, then following, intergovernmental organizations.
 I see no objections, so then we could proceed in such a way.  Now I would like to ask secretariat to see if we are ready to move on to the selection. 
 We are.  Good.  So then this is what we will do.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Would you like to present them yourself?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we will now put on the screen the distribution statistics on the current situation after 70 accepted workshops.
 Michael, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  While we're filling time, do we have closure on the dynamic coalition sessions?
 I noticed in the worksheet that there's a number of ones that seem to be unresolved.  Do we have updated information on that?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No, we don't.  Not yet.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We will revisit this issue.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Okay.  And do we know, are the dynamic coalitions also a one-hour time slot or what was the format for them?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We still have -- (off microphone.)
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Okay.  But during the normal schedule, is that correct?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  During the normal schedule. 
 Carl, would you like to speak and explain?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  You need to come to the microphone.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So could -- okay.  Let me try to see that far.
 So when we look to the distribution, current distribution we have on subthemes --
 I can't see.  Sorry.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  For the current statistics, on the subthemes we have -- oh.  No, you have to read them out.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I guess I'm getting close to that age as well.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  11% is --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CARL GAHNBERG: Okay.  So this is just an update of the distribution after the top 70 selections, and as you can see there, the largest subtheme is still Internet and human rights, followed by --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Give the percentages.
 >>CARL GAHNBERG: It's 30% on Internet and human rights. 
 And then we have 20%, if I don't -- I think 20%, yeah, on enhancing multistakeholder corporation.
 Unfortunately, I can't bring my computer up to the mic.  That's why it's a little bit tricky.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CARL GAHNBERG: I'll send it to Chengetai and then he'll pass it around.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  And in the meantime, please, put also the compiled list on the screen.
 So while we're waiting, there is a remote participant asking for the floor?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes.  Ginger, you have the floor.
 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:  Thank you very much.  I know this might be a little unusual and probably the moment has passed, but I have been asked to make an intervention by Pat Ryan, and because it involves a specific workshop from Russia, I would like to read his proposal.
 We're talking about Number 58, "Empowerment Through Quality Online Education."
 This proposal is from the Russian academics that are here.  It's a nontraditional group but I've worked with them on their workshop in the past three years and have been very favorably impressed with their work.  They're surely part of the state machine there, as all universities are, but definitely not mouthpieces for government.  The proposal needs support because it's ranked in the lower quartile.  I believe it's worth exceptional effort here because this group is genuinely different and brings a very unusual perspective to the discussion.
 So I thought it was important to include this proposition.  If we can still look at it, great.  If not, I'm sure Patrick understands.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think every -- everything what we need to discuss, we will discuss, and your proposal is noted.
 I was just asking the secretariat to put on the screen those workshop proposals that you have indicated to secretariat that we should discuss.  I hope they are now on.  Not really visible, but anyway, we'll try.
 And in the meantime, Chengetai will distribute the statistics for 70% agreed.
 So let us -- let us now move on and start populating the list of proposals that MAG members think should be considered, in a view of balancing current lists with accepted workshops.
 So who would like to start?
 We heard one proposal, Workshop 85, but I would like to -- to take -- sorry.  58. 
 Yes, please, Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I think those who have recommended that these proposals should come up are in the best position to explain why.
 I suppose we should either hear that explanation -- or I mean --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Absolutely, absolutely.  This is my intention.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  And the question I have is:  Are these proposals ranked below a hundred or below 80?  Below 70.  Sorry.
 Where have these been picked from?  Are these proposals in the first hundred?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm sorry.  You can't read anything here.
 >> It's hard to read it.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Where is the rank?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Let me now establish the following procedure:  So we have now the list of proposals that have been submitted to secretariat.  They are listed on the screen.  The proposals -- the first column is the workshop number. 
 The second column is current score, and that answers your question whether they are in top hundred or top 200, and so on.
 The fourth column -- the fourth column is number of MAG members who have expressed support to that proposal.
 So -- and I would like now to take one by one here and ask those who made this proposal to introduce the workshop and give us the reasoning why you think this proposal is -- should be examined.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm sorry.  The ranking in the first hundred, which column is that?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think it's the second one.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  That's the ranking.
 >>CARL GAHNBERG:  Yeah.  So the second column that says "Rank" there, that is the ranking according to the grading, the total grading that we've been looking on all day. 
 The fourth column, to the right of the yellow column, that illustrates how many MAG members also highlighted the same proposal.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  The one on the left of the yellow column is the one that gives the ranking from 1 to 200, whatever, right?
 >>CARL GAHNBERG:  Exactly, exactly.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So should -- then a question for you, Mr. Chairman:  Should we start with those which are below 100?  Because that -- those are the ones who are struggling to get in.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: If I may interrupt, please.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Could we -- could we just make an explanation for the guys on the remote participation what Excel file this is, what tab we are looking at, so they can find it on their computers?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we -- we're looking at -- at the spreadsheet of workshops that was compiled during the lunchtime on the basis of proposals made by MAG members, and these are the ones that we will examine during this session.
 This spreadsheet, if -- hasn't been sent yet, is about to be sent to all IGF MAG list -- on the IGF MAG list, so in a few minutes you will get it, and as I -- as I see, I think you will understand which sheet you need to look at.  Unless Carl will tell me. 
 What's the name of the sheet?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Can this be sent to us?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It's going to be sent.  I'm sending it. 
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Don't worry, I'm sending it.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Okay.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: It's on the way.  On the procedure, is -- everything is clear?
 Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I think one thing that's not clear is that that's not the entire spreadsheet and that if you go down to the next page, you will have those proposals, including many that were between 70 and a hundred, which got one person to support them.
 So I think it's fair to say we have a decision here.  Do we want to start with those proposals where at least three MAG members thought they were exceptionally good and needed to be considered or do we look at the whole sheet and look at everything that at least one MAG member thought was useful.
 So, yeah, here's the rest of the sheet, and as you can see, we have a lot of choices here.
 We have -- what's the total number here?  We've got...
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  How many do we have that people have nominated, total?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we have 50 highlighted or nominated workshops --
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Right.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- and we have 30 -- 30 slots.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Right.  So that's our challenge for today.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  That is the challenge.  And we need to cope with that challenge, and I -- I think it would be just fair to start with those who have been supported initially by more MAG members than just one, but nevertheless, we need to go through all 50 proposals, and after every -- so --
 And actually, I think we cannot accept or make a final definite decision, but we can put proposals -- "preliminary" on them on the list based on certain criteria that will be explained by those who supported and proposed them.
 And then we will see how far we can get. 
 And Flavio, you want to say something.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  So we have 50 workshops that have been highlighted.  It does not mean that we will select the remaining 30 workshops from this list of 50 proposed, because we still have our original ranking from position 70, 71, 72, and so on, that we have to respect.
 So we have to a little bit merge those two criteria.  Follow the ranking, the original ranking, and try to accommodate as many as possible from -- workshops from this list of highlighted ones.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think the most important is to understand why we're doing this.  We're doing this to balance the imbalances that we have identified.  And these imbalances are not sufficient government proposals, not sufficient representation of some of the subthemes that we have identified and not -- or we need to look at very new subjects which have not been touched or discussed at IGF, for instance.  And based on these criteria, we would collectively say we think it is worth considering this or that proposal.
 If we will see that a proposal does not meet any of those balancing criteria, so then, of course, we would not retain it.  And after a certain period of time, most probably at the end of the day, we will again ask secretariat to provide us statistics and see whether our decisions have made any balance or not on the list.
 Please, please, go ahead.
 >> FLAVIO WAGNER:  It was not clear before lunch that we would give preference to a list of highlighted workshops, at least not for me, that we would give preference to this list instead of following the original ranking.  I think we have two competing procedures there, methodologies.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If we would do just mathematics, then we would not need to do this balancing act.  We would take top hundred and that's it.  And then top hundred, we would see that there is not enough governmental representation and so on.
 So, therefore, I asked MAG members to give secretariat proposals which workshops we should look through and examine based on understanding that they would be the ones which we would bring up higher than they are and they would do this balancing job and bring those underrepresented things in the program.
 And if there are 30 -- I think there will be less than 30 because it will not be a beauty contest, I like this and that so I need to be brought in.  There will be discussion, and that will be collective decision.
 Why don't we give a chance and we start this process and then we will see how it goes.
 This is more or less the same thing we did last year as well when we went through proposals by individual MAG members and then decided to add or decided not to add.
 Michael, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Just to add to your excellent explanation as why we're doing this, the other reason we're doing this and not just taking the list from the first rankings is because if we were to look at those proposals we have not yet accepted in light of the ones that have been accepted, many of us would change our rankings quite dramatically. 
 In some cases, there were two proposals from the same organization.  They covered similar topics.  We might have ranked them both well, but we didn't want both of them to be accepted.  And so I think that's why we need to do this second round and reevaluate some of the ones that we've -- some of our earlier rankings.
 The other thing that's very important to realize is that more than ten MAG members did not do the full ranking of the proposals.  Some of them are in the room, and this is their chance to make input on those proposals that they think would be useful.  They bring another perspective that, I think, helps round out the criteria for us.  So I think this is a critical, important way to do it.
 In the end, I think the majority of the ones we're going to add are going to be ones that were ranked pretty highly.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Hossam?
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  Well, I have a different opinion because the fact that MAG members were allowed to suggest proposals, if two are suggesting the proposal does not mean that this proposal is better than if one is suggesting it.
 It simply means that this proposal deserves to be considered. 
 Now, we have to look back to the ranking, the original ranking.  So my opinion is original ranking was already suggested by one, two, or three.  Should be considered as a priority.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So in any case, we need to go through all 50 proposals.  I would like to encourage us to start this process and see how far we can get.
 Juan Antonio and then Virat.
 >> JUAN ANTONIO:  Thank you. Chairman.  I think we must begin.  I ask my colleagues to give some hand to the Chairman to move this and see how it goes. 
 To begin, I was one that proposed workshop proposal 171.  It's regarding the IXPs.  And I put it because although they say that is the civil society, actually there's some intergovernmental organizations there like the Caribbean Telecommunication Union is one of the sponsors of this workshop.  And also the topic of IXPs, well, we have here our Brazilian friends.  They are going to be to have one expert in this workshop as well. 
 IXP has proved to be an essential tool in order to lower access costs in, well, not only developing countries, also in developed countries.  It's a thing -- Okay.  That's the main argument.  I will stop it there.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you. 
 Shall we move onto the examination?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that it is -- I'm a little uncomfortable with this.  I just want to be clear with this.  28 or 30 MAG members voted a proposal to the same 71st rank.  And two MAG members now propose that we should bring in something that's 180 -- I'm just picking a number -- up into the first hundred.  To remove someone that was actually -- got themselves a score at 71 by 30 MAG members, we're really reversing the stuff on its head at one point.
 Second, the criteria that you laid on governments is completely understandable even though I've insisted again and again that the government representation is proportionate to the proposals submitted. 
 But the suggest that subjects have not been covered, we invited people to submit proposals on subthemes that were identified.  Now we are penalizing those who stuck to the directions of the MAG and submitted straight and narrow proposals on the subthemes in favor of new subjects that are not covered. 
 So I just want to be very careful about what we are doing in terms of just simple math.  But I don't want to take it beyond this point.  I just wanted to lay out some of the downside of rejecting 30, 40 MAG members having voted in favor of a ranking and picking something which is 190 to bring it in.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We need to do this balancing.  Otherwise, let's just take a hundred and go and get criticized from every corner we may expect criticism.  That's why we're here.
 And I see no reason why we shouldn't -- or why we couldn't go through these proposals and to see how many of those 50 which have been suggested are acceptable.  It may happen that there will be only five.  And then we'll take 25 from 70.  And so if we will identify that there are ten, we will take 20 from the highest rankings and add those ten.  But if it will appear that there are 30, then we will need to discuss what to do in that case.
 Then your argument how -- whether we should do it or not because it may happen that these proposals would not change anything and would not meet any criteria, simply we think it would be a good idea.  So then, of course, argument that good idea does not substitute a high ranking by 40 would apply.  So that's why I think we should continue.
 Giacomo, please, you are asking for the floor.
 >> GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes, it is a matter of method.  Because when I made the evaluation, I also made some suggestions for merging of workshops.  And now I didn't recommend it to add other workshops because I still wait to know if this merger proposal will be considered or not.  If we are starting to evaluate a single workshop by single workshop without knowing that there is any chance that this will merge, then it is proceeding the other way around.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So, Giacomo, we have spoken about mergers many, many, many times.  And we may propose mergers, but it does not necessarily mean that workshop organizers will accept either from one side or another side.  So that has been our historic experience.  And we're always going this path.  That is not necessarily something that works.
 I would like -- still insist let's give a try and let's do not spend too much time on every of those proposals but just go through them see what are the arguments by those who propose those proposals.  And after five or six, we will see whether our method is sustainable or if we need to review it again.
 Shita, you are in agreement with me, right?
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Yes, Chair.  My name is Shita from Hivos.  I would like to go directly to the proposals that I support.  I support proposals number 153, "The freedom of expression on land gaps in policy and practice."  I support this proposal because there are some stories which are very relevant for the bigger discussion in southeast Asia region regarding the implementation of freedom of expression.  The plus point is that this session also has a voice from Malaysia and Pakistan. 
 My suggestion for these workshop is to add more government representatives in the sessions.  They currently have a deputy to privacy commission from New Zealand.  But I would like to recommend to add another government representative from southeast Asia, though perhaps it's challenging but possible.  That's one point.
 The second point is actually I don't know -- I did not know that we need to get support from other MAG members.  But, yeah, but it's going on.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Shita.  I will ask you to repeat everything you said when we get to the workshop proposal on our list.  This is more or less what I expect from MAG members when they introduce the text.  Why?  Based on criteria and what's the reasoning behind it. 
 So let us start with a topic that's 171.  Could you enlarge a little bit this thing?  171.  Your proposal?
 >> GERMAN VALDEZ:  I strongly support 171 as these workshops about IXPs are critical infrastructures with a direct positive impact in the concept of connecting the next billion.  Additionally IXPs are directly linked with building code infrastructure for developing countries.  Sorry.  Also help with the development perspective. 
 And, furthermore, there are currently no other IXP-related sessions in the workshops considered so far.  So it will contribute to a variety of topics.
 Looking also at the list of speaker, I can confirm that they are top-class speakers and also there is a good balance geographically and gender balance in this panel.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Any comments on 171?  Mark, Susan, Izumi, but very quickly, please.  Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chairperson.  I support this.  I also recognize its strength in terms of geo diversity and panel expertise.  And this has the makings of the session at the IGF on IXP-related issues and intersects well with the best practice forum on IXPs.  So support.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  I'd just like to second what both German and Mark have said.  I also strongly support this workshop.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  That would balance out the presence of technical community proposals on the list.
 Anybody opposing?  No, okay.  Let's -- everything I say we retain.  We retain preliminary.  Nothing is decided until we get better understanding whether the method is right.
 207, please.  Who is speaking on 207?  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is, I think, an important one for several reasons.  It brings in more economists to the discussion, and we don't have a lot of economists proposing things this year, nor did we last year.
 I know people involved in this.  I don't agree with their politics.  And I think most of the people in the room would be more liberal than they are and want a larger government role.  But I think it's clear we need to be more open to people who take a more cyber libertarian intervention approach.  So I would strongly recommend we take this. 
 The proposer put in two proposals.  This is one of the two that I think is certainly worth taking.  And rejecting both I think would be a bad idea.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I didn't hear which of the balancing actions we would have with accepting this proposal.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  We're looking for more viewpoints.  Economists are not well-represented in our present program.  It's also political diversity.  And if you look at the political viewpoints of most of the people speaking at IGF, there tend to be more Democrats than Republicans.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It means these guys are not converted yet?
 [ Laughter ]
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  They are not Swedish socialists.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I also support this proposal.  And I would also note, I know others have said earlier that we could use some more bulking up under the "Internet economy" theme or subtheme.  And I think this proposal may be able to also assist with that.  I thought it was well-written and I thought there was good balance, and I do think that this is a key topic that's going to feed into some of the other work I'm doing.  So I support as well.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Lynn.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I support it as well, Chair, and specifically because it does help fill the gap on Internet economy.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Dominique?
 >> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  I absolutely support it because it does bring economists to the table and also provides an outlet for a lot of the research that I don't think we've seen yet.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  So can we get back to the list?  Okay.  So that is not also very far from them.  It's 84.
 And Marilyn?  No?
 Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Support as well, but with an additional comment of maybe, if possible, to get a government perspective into the list.  That would be great.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So for the moment, we are retaining it.
 Let us move to the next one as 70. 
 70.  Who is speaking?  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I spoke earlier on this one.  This is a very important topic having to do with what happens to your personal information when you die, and this is a very hot topic developing in the U.S., and as social media spreads and people put more of their life on line, it's going to be more important in other countries as well.  And I thought it was very well -- it's a brand-new topic.  We've never looked at this topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we know that this is a brand-new topic.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thanks.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 I found the topic interesting, but I'm -- I think it is one of those that -- I know you don't like to hear the word "merger," Chair, but I'm going to use the word "merger." 
 I think it is one that possibly could be merged.
 The issue is emerging, and I agree with Mike on that, but I -- I also think the title actually, while it may be factual, "Death and the Internet, Managing Digital Legacies," I'm not sure that translates, so that probably fits more in the category of a more informative title but I'd like to be a little cautionary and see whether it fits into another -- with another workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  There is some doubt. 
 Ephraim?
 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Okay.  For me, I think I like it, but when we retain -- in case we retain it, we should recommend that they should include governments because to this -- to get a government perspective, because I'm looking at the list of invited panelists, but it will be interesting to get a government perspective on that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  German, are you in line or are you -- please.  Now it's your turn.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I had my doubts. 
 Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Well, thought-provoking topic, yes, but I -- I was very critical of this.  Lacked diversity of participation and I didn't think it was a well-presented proposal, so I've -- I'm in the sort of "question mark" category for this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  There are some questions raised on this particular issue. 
 Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  There was just a note from Ginger and Subi that they are against merger.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good to know.  So thank you.
 Ephraim? 
 I -- I saw Hossam instead of Ephraim.  My apologies. 
 Hossam, please.
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Thank you, Chair. 
 Well, I just want to highlight that there is one workshop related to the right to be forgiven, which is --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Forgotten.  Okay.
 [ Laughter ]
 [ Applause ]
 >> (Off microphone.)
 [ Laughter ]
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  So --
 [ Laughter ]
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  -- let me just remember which number.  It's 142, which is, I think, like seventy- -- what is it?  The right to be... I just lost the count.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  142, so...
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>HOSSAM ELGAMAL:  Yes.  So it comes higher on the ranking and it's the same subject. 
 Am I right?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It's related, but not exactly the same.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Let me suggest the following:  For the -- I would suggest for the moment to park Workshop 70 on the "maybe" list.  And again, nothing is decided.  We're just -- there were doubts and we may revisit the question afterwards.
 We see that Workshop 70 was relatively high graded.  It was -- mathematically, it came 75th.  So -- but let us -- let us move now to next one, 160.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Janis, just a quick note.  I see on the chat that Subi and Ginger do support the Workshop Number 70.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  For 160, I think that's a winner, you know.  You have "security risk" and "sustainable development" in the title.  It's a winner.  When you see, the panelists are really top-notch panelists and it's a subject that -- well, the title says it all.  It's current, it's pertinent for Joao Pessoa, and that's it.  It's a good workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No doubt, I think every from 240 are very good ones.  We need to select simply the best and that is the challenge.
 I -- once again, I would like to ask proponents or those who introduced the workshops to tell to everyone which imbalance, in your view, this proposal addresses.
 So I see that this is intergovernmental organizations, but please state that, because we are looking for proposals -- we're doing this exercise to try to balance out the program, to make every representation right.
 So therefore, this is the criteria.  Not because the workshop is good or not good.  Of course that's also important.  But for the moment, we're looking for the right balance.
 So this is -- this would -- is a proposal from intergovernmental organizations, so that's --
 >> And technical -- technical sector.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So any comments on 160?
 Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I'm not a big fan of this proposal, but since we have to balance on the intergovernmental, I think it should make the cut.  I'm not a big fan of what's out here.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ephraim?
 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  I'm not a big fan of mergers, but I would suggest on this to look at Workshop 265 to find a way of working between the two workshops, because I'm seeing both of them are -- MAG members have highlighted as some things we should discuss.
 I think there's a way in which the two workshops can work together because they're some- -- discussing something similar and -- yeah.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Can we get on the screen 265? 
 In the meantime, Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yeah.  This proposal, I support.  I think for the reasons that we're establishing.  That it -- it's an IGO proposal, well-developed, hits on IGF at 10 themes, so I think it merits addition.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any -- any idea on proposed merger or suggested merger?  Ana?
 >>ANA NEVES:  Well, actually, I -- when I scored this one, I put that it should be merged with the others that deal with the CSIRTs and CSIRTs.  I don't know by heart which are the other ones, but my notes say that it should be merged.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  I see no over- -- big enthusiasm about this one, but since this corrects --
 Segun, please.
 Since this corrects intergovernmental imbalance, most probably we need to retain for the moment.  But Segun, please, you have the floor.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  If you would use microphone, because otherwise, no one hears you.
 >>SEGUN OLUGBILE: Yeah.  I just want to provide a little comment.  I think this topic should be merged with the first one because this has to do with Internet safety which I believe would be covered under the previous one, "Cybersecurity for Sustainable Development."  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  You are suggesting that 160 should be proposed to merge with 265.  Okay.  Let us then -- Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chair.
 There's a number of proposals having to do with cybersecurity capacity building, and I like this proposal.  I actually had ranked one or two others higher.  This might be one where at the end we want to go back through and take another look to see if we don't have a reverse gap, as in oversubscribed in a couple of areas.
 So I do like this one but I would like to make sure we're not oversubscribed in a very narrow cybersecurity development role.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman. 
 I'm not against mergers.  You know, I've always been supporting mergers because this includes more people in.  But I call the attention of my colleagues to look at this proposal in 160 and the -- vis-a-vis the other ones.
 This one, as you can see, it's more general because it addresses principles regarding cybersecurity and development, and the other ones that you're suggesting merging are more technical, because they are ways of doing it, the CSIRT, the other one 245, has Mozilla, because it's a way of implementing.  It's -- I don't say that it's not important, and if we want to merge, merge, but it's like, you know, merging an apple with an apple pie.  It's already made and cooked and here we're taking the apple from the tree.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for the allegory.
 So let's retain for the moment this 160, and as Lynn suggested, just to review whether we need to propose further mergers on the topic.  But we retain because of intergovernmental proposal.
 So let us now go to 241, which is currently ranked 87th.
 Who is introducing 241? 
 Juan Alfonso, please.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm sorry to take the floor again, but this is also one of my proposals.
 Here it's not only the topic of -- the balancing part here is not because of the stakeholder but because of the economics that -- as was argued before, it's one of the subthemes that is very important and relevant and unfortunately have been absent in the global discussion regarding Internet.
 And as you know, the revenue streams of Internet, now with the auctions of names, of languages, and all that, you know, it's a very interesting thing to examine.
 I have -- I am -- I have published academic works in this, and I always -- and some colleagues, academics, in many countries agree that the Internet economics is still in the infancy, so whatever discussion is surrounding this --
 I'm not against merging this with some other of the same.  As a matter of fact, there's some other, I think, proposal by I think it's -- it's Netherlands, but that is already in the 70 selected.  It's similar because it's about funding, innovative funding, and so on.  I'm not against merging but the topic I think is important.  The reason for the proposal here is the topic, not the stakeholder, although we can put governmental or intergovernmental organizations here like UNCTAD or some other that has to do with financial things to improve this workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Any reactions? 
 I'm looking to distribution by subthemes, and seems that Internet economy is in themes.  Actually, it's not overly underrepresented, but this is just statistics.
 Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  Marilyn Cade speaking.
 This is one that I had noted as well.
 The one area that I think could strengthen it would be to use an economist.  And I've noticed this.  I'm just going to mention it.  But I noticed that in several of the workshops, it's the same companies and the same economists from groups.
 I do think this is a good workshop, in that it will -- a worthy workshop, that it will attract attention from some of the developing countries who are interested in what the barriers are to growing the digital economy.
 I agree with Juan Alfonso.  It could be merged.  I think it's pretty robust.  And I -- it has OECD in it, as well as some governments that are not represented -- sorry, not confirmed.
 I did reach out to the organizer, who tells me he does have -- he has contacted the governments, but until he knows for sure, since it involves travel funding, he is not -- he has tentative names but they're not finally confirmed.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Thank you, Chair.  I'm in favor of this.  It's a three -- a very interesting three-country comparison, and it intersects well with the sustainable development theme and, you know, economic aspects of it, so I think it's hitting on I think an underrepresented thematic area of the IGF, and, yeah, I would support this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Let's then keep this for the moment.  241.  And let's move to the next one.
 Next one is 200, which currently is scored 89.  200, I think.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think title itself merits to be retained.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So who is speaking on this topic, please?
 If no one is speaking on the topic, we are not examining it.  Juan Alfonso, please.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I proposed this more or less around the line of the other, but because of the -- of the topic, although I recognize that I don't really know the panelists that's going to be here.  But it -- I think that it addresses one of the hot items of Internet nowadays.  That is taxation.  And when you were talking about leaving holes -- you know, the Swiss cheese analogy -- thinking of the hot items that could arrive in November, well, that is one of the hot items right now.  I don't know if it's going to be in November.  I presume that it may be still in November.
 So, again, it can be a candidate for merger, but I like it.
 Also, it's been -- many of the sponsors are from the host country.  I always have some positive discrimination in favor of the host country because they're already there.  So -- and the title is irresistible.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.  Please, Benedicto.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Okay.  Thank you.  Well, I'll make a comment and I'll -- I'm refraining from commenting on proposals that involve Brazilian nationals.  In this case, it comes from civil society.  But just to concur with Juan that this issue is an issue of particular interest from the perspective of governments.  I think since we are trying also to balance governmental interests, like I'm sure and confident that this will, indeed, be a very -- a theme that will appeal to governments, like others which have not been included in that list that were proposed by civil society organizations or other institutions not led by governments. 
 But for example, I would refer to Proposal Number 135 that was ranked 83.  That deals with the issue of jurisdiction, which is also something that is very much appealing to governments, so I would concur and support what Juan has said.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I have a question over this.  It seems to be too far removed from global Internet governance to me, national taxation policies in respect of Internet services.
 I don't support it.  Sorry.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Okay.  So before I give floor to Subi, I'll read just a note that I got from Li Jun Han who said that the selections should also pay more attention on the proposals from technical communities.
 And now, Subi, you have the floor.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you.  I agree with Mark's comments on this particular proposal.  I just also want to articulate that general principle.  I would support whenever possible proposals from local communities, whether it is civil society or governments, because that is the reason that we take the IGF to new regions or a new location each year.  So whenever possible, let's also try to facilitate proposals from the host country.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Ana, the last on this?
 >>ANA NEVES:  Thank you.  So I think that the beauty of the IGF is to discuss very sensitive issues.  And this one is very sensitive.  So I think that is a very good one, and I fully endorse it.  Thank you.
 >> BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Just a quick comment.  I think that issue, if you will recall, NETmundial Initiative made a call for the particular issue regarding jurisdiction to be further addressed by the community.  There is a particular call in that regard. 
 And I think that the reason for that is that although that refers not to the global Internet governance but it is at the heart of the tensions that permeate Internet governance, that there is this tension between national jurisdiction, the global nature of Internet governance. 
 So I think this is an issue that really should be further investigated.  There was rough consensus emerging from NETmundial that, indeed, this is a matter for further consideration.  Of course, it is up to the MAG to decide on that.  But the issue is on the table.  It is not something new.  It is not something being proposed out of the blue.  It reflects a need that was perceived and is very well-articulated in the NETmundial outcome documents.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Let us retain but with a bit of a marker that there were some doubts expressed about this workshop and let us move to the next one, 35, which was initially scored at 90.
 >> REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Excuse me, Janis.  Just a quick note Subi said that she would like to revise her comments and she supports the previous proposal.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  So proposal 35, who is speaking on this?  "Local infrastructure is local development," private sector.  Who is speaking in favor of this?  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm sorry to take the floor again because I propose this one.  It's the same.  It's about the economics and local development.  That is one of the key issues of this sustainable development, even the post-2015 development agenda, local development.
 And, also, the presenters are a very, very high rank and from a broad fan of institutions and opinions.  And that's why I suggest -- but I'm not so easily defending this like the one before because I recognize there's no government there.  So maybe if can be improved with some government.  If it doesn't pass, it's okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  If presenter says it doesn't pass, it's okay, then it most probably shouldn't be there.  Right?  At least not on this list for the moment.  So that's why I would suggest to put it aside on the second list constituted.  "Maybe" list.
 189, currently scored 95.  Who is speaking in favor and explaining the reasons?  Please, Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I'm sorry.  I again propose this.  Not only because it is the Americas, it's some government there.  It's one that was proposed for merging and it's a government and it's -- the panelists are mainly from government, all of them.  And it's a topic of interest. 
 I know that last year it has a best practice forum on this, no?  Maybe -- I don't know if we need to repeat it again or if it's interact.  I leave it to you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Other interventions? 
 Mark.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Just on that last point, this is an overlap with the best practice forum.  And if we are agonizing over additional substantive workshop proposals, I think we ought to bear that in mind and perhaps put this in the category of an input into the best practice forum, perhaps as a side event on regional cooperation of SIRTs.  That's my suggestion.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Xiaodong.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  I think it is a good proposal.  The experience from government in the region would be some very good experience which can be learned for other regions.  So I think -- it's also from the government stakeholders.  So I think it's nice to consider that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Hi.  I hope I'm not estopped from saying something about the previous one, number 89.  I may have lost my chance.  But I really do think it would be a good workshop, more than a maybe, I think, on the local data center development because there are new faces.  And I think it's a really important issue, building local infrastructure.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Susan, please follow the sort of theme.  Otherwise, we'll be jumping.  Your intervention is noted.  That was on the previous workshop.
 Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking.  I support the idea of making this a feeder into the best practice forum.  There's another workshop also on IXPs that is, I think, 123 that we probably won't get to.  And I think those that are so specific but they're very informative but they're also specific to regional could be really good feeders into the best practice forum.  So I would support that suggestion.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I wanted to support the idea of making this part of the best practices forum but also asking about posters because this is a topic that I think would be one that if they had a poster and some of the panelists were willing to spend a few hours at the poster you'd have some very helpful discussions with other governments who are facing similar problems.  And it might be even more effective in reaching the target audience than doing a panel discussion because people could have one-on-one consultations and share lessons.
 Are posters available for free for people who we don't approve as speakers?  What's the financial arrangement if someone wants to have a display to share their insights?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We've had poster sessions before but then would have to speak to the host country if they are amenable to provide poster stands.  It depends how many poster sessions you want.  We just have to look into the logistics of it.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I've run lots of academic conferences, and often the consolation prize is a poster which people can often find more useful than doing a presentation, particularly if they are in an awkward presentation time opposite some really popular session.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  I would just like to come in on Michael's request to support posters.  They are extremely useful as well, and it could be a good way to get further, deeper engagement on a few topics.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Markus, what do you think, whether that would be a feeder or part of best practice discussion?
 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  We could definitely get in touch with them and build it into best practice forums as case studies have been seen as one possible priority for them.  So let us get in touch with them and see how we can incorporate.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  Maybe we can park this proposal and propose that this becomes part of the best practice potentially and do -- explore possibility of having a poster session on this.
 Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi and Peter Dengate Thrush also support this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  My proposal, thank you.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Regarding the posters.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Proposal 64.  Who is speaking in favor of 64?  Currently on 101 rank.
 No one is speaking on this?  I see immediately that there is -- this would not really balance anything.  And I would like to suggest not to retain this.  Objections?  I see no objections.
 So 141.  Who is speaking on 141?  Michael.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I mentioned yesterday how important this topic of encryption is.  This is right to the heart of the issue, which is will encryption make the job of law enforcement much more difficult and is there a need to have weaker encryption?
 This is not a debate that will go away.  I was personally very involved in this issue at the White House 20 years ago.
 What was very impressive about this proposal was they were bringing in people who are not typically attending IGF.  They had confirmed speakers from law enforcement.  And I just -- I proposed yesterday that we consider doing encryption as a main session.  This one could be combined with another encryption session and be a main session.  But I think this one is unique.  It has new people, new topics.  And, again, the issue is only going to get more attention in the next few months.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  It's also from technical community and representative -- Flavio, please.
 >>FLAVIO WAGNER:  There are some other proposals on encryption.  They were in the comments from the evaluations, there's some proposals for merging with other workshops.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I think this has merit as cross-community.  The balance I think is important.  If the law enforcement agencies are confirmed, yes, certainly.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So maybe we could retain it with the potential of merger with others on encryption on a similar topic.  We'll retain for the moment.
 So 228.  Who is speaking?
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Janis, could we please have a remote participant for the previous one?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, please.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi, you have the floor.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Thank you, Janis.  I completely support my (indiscernible) on workshop.  I do believe that it is a very good proposal, and it is extremely difficult to get people from law enforcement to come in on this perspective.  It is also a (indiscernible) which would still need a lot of work.  I very strongly (inaudible).  And thank you for (inaudible).
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I understand you were talking about 141?  Can you confirm, please, Subi?
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  Yes, I confirm.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 228.  Who is speaking on 228?  Lynn, please.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I'd like to support this proposal going forward and also look at a potential merge with 208.  The title of that one is "The woman's role in the Internet governance over the years."  And in light of our themes and desire to get greater participation, I think this is an important topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Merge with 208.  There was consensus in the comments about that.  That's the best approach for this one, I think.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  Yeah, I think it is an important topic.  But I would suggest that maybe the workshop proposer get in touch with the agenda dynamic coalition to work on strengthening the proposal a little bit more, considering the topic.
 And, too, it was -- on principle, I really want to support it.  It felt really poorly written by one person, and I wasn't really sure whether the participants were being identified or not or whether it was simply just sort of names picked out. 
 Maybe if they can have a conversation to mutually strengthen each other's proposal working together with the DC, it might work.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  208, do we have -- retain 208?  Okay.  Thank you.
 Honestly, looking to proposal, though, I acknowledge the importance of the theme.  I do not see how this would provide additional balance.  And on that grounds, I would like to put it on the second list.
 Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Just looking for clarity as to whether you're proposing 228 or 208 or both go to a second list?  Because we were discussing 228. 
 I'll also point out that 228 and 208 have a high degree of overlap in panelists.  So it should be a relatively easy merger if we decide to do that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  We're examining 228.  Again, we are doing this exercise with one thing in mind, not to bring -- or decide whether that is a good or bad workshop.  All proposals are good.
 What we're trying to do is to balance -- identify imbalances.  And honestly, I do not see that this would contribute to a sort of balancing exercise.
 Jac.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  For 228, if the proposal organizers were intending to work with national and regional IGF organizers, then in that way I think it will address some of the key imbalances that we were thinking of.  Namely, to bring in more national and regional perspectives.  But I'm -- but it's not clear how, but maybe that's the question or the direction in which we will ask.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  So I want to note that I'm listed as a co-moderator.
 This is a focus on data gathering from national and regional IGFs, as you see in the write-up that there's an intent to do a questionnaire about participation of women in leadership positions at the national and regional IGFs.
 I suppose there's another way to approach this, and that is to think about it, encouraging participation in the interregional dialogue of the national and regional IGFs.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  No.  Just to point out to the secretariat that there are other six workshop proposals that deal with this topic.  Not only 228, but 208, also 196, 144, 107, 59, and 20.
 This is the second cluster of workshops behind youth and child issues. 
 I -- I also -- I always said that this is a candidate for one of the many main sessions because of the, well, popularity, if we can speak it like that.
 So I only want you to take note of that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I would suggest that we, for the moment, put it on List 2, "maybe" list, and move to the next one.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  There is a note from Ginger on chat.  She said, "I support 228 with help from the gender coalition and perhaps inviting the collaboration from 208, but 208 not on any lists."
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think also the dynamic -- not dynamic coalition, but the best practice forum might -- on gender may consider sort of --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  No.  Sorry.  I'm withdrawing my proposal.
 No further comments. 
 Let us move to the next agenda.  Next item.  134.  134. 
 Who is speaking on that? 
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I think that one of the good things of IGF is plurality of opinions and diversity of participants.  This 134, as you can see, is about a new initiative that is the Internet social forum, and taking into consideration that the world social forum, as the general, as the parent movement, was born in Latin America, it's -- especially even in Brazil, and it has -- throughout the years has been very important for the grass-roots civil society movement in Latin America.  And taking the thing that I think the IGF should be open to different viewpoints, I think it's important to give space to this organization.
 I realize that maybe they will have logistics because the organizations that support this are not well funded, but in any case, it should not be us, the one who shut the door to this initiative.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  You didn't mention anything that would go towards our goal to balance things. 
 Mark, please.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  I mean, exactly that point.  I don't see how this will contribute to filling any gap in balance.
 I think this is an interesting initiative that does deserve some visibility, if you like, but not a 90-minute workshop, in my view.  Perhaps a flash session approach or something like that.
 But it's not serving, as you say, our objective here now.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade.  I was going to propose a flash session or a poster session where people would be able to seek out the organizers and spend time dialoguing with them.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I would propose not to retain, but propose if we -- we will have poster -- poster opportunities, that organizers would have this opportunity, if they wish so.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Please, Chairman, the balance -- we need to balance -- the more important thing that we need to balance in IGF is we -- viewpoints, and we should not let IGF --
 Because the stakeholder categories, it's -- is secondary, compared -- I don't -- I don't -- it's more important to have different viewpoints than even geographical. 
 For instance, it's not the same -- it's not important to have somebody from developing country if it represents the elites or the rich persons in developing country.  I think that the most balanced -- balancing that we need to do in Internet governance -- and by the way, it's one of the criticisms that the working group for the improvement of Internet governance pointed out -- is that it should encourage the diversity of view, not to be captured with one general concept of the Internet.
 So I think that this is an important balance to be done, so -- and this is not for a poster.  Maybe as has been suggested, a 30-minute session, but give them the space.  Otherwise, we are being exclusive for ideological reasons.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Remote participant, please.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  There is a -- there is a note from Peter and Subi supporting a flash session or a poster for this, and there is also a request for the floor from Subi, so...
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Subi, go ahead.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  So Subi, please go ahead.
 >>SUBI CHATURVEDI:  I -- (audio issues) -- session -- (audio issues) -- but if that is not possible, I believe -- (audio issues) -- be acceptable.  In this case, I think it's -- (audio issues) -- but it's not acceptable -- (audio issues).  I think.  -- (audio issues) -- in any case, I think it shouldn't be -- (audio issues) -- thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Honestly, I didn't understand anything.  Would secretariat make sure that we have a better sound quality?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Yes, Subi was breaking up.  We couldn't hear you.  Could you please perhaps send it on the chat and I will then read it out loud.  Okay?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I only nominated a handful of sessions that I thought we needed to consider, and this was not one of them, but I did give it a 5, even though I'm probably not going to go to it and my politics are not the same as these people's politics.
 But I think it's a useful new format.  I do think we should think about the politics here a little bit because this is a group that might very well make a big stink, and like we had in Istanbul where, you know, since we didn't take some proposals, people went out and created their own alternative IGF.
 This group is a grass-roots group.  Why don't we foster it. 
 I don't think it needs 90 minutes, but I think we could call it an open forum and I suspect if we had called it an open forum, there would have been a lot of support for it.
 I think the lower ranking was probably because it was not seen as very diverse, either geographically or ideologically, but open forums don't have to meet that criteria. 
 The other thing that I would suggest is that you -- whenever you -- if we do accept it, schedule it at the end of the day so people can have their meeting and then go off and continue the discussion, because that's the kind of thing they're trying to foster here.  They're trying to get a community organized to do something, and that often requires a trip to the bar.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I'm not buying the argument with the stink, because one may -- one group may do a stink, but there are 140 other groups that may also do the stink, and then the smell will be much stronger.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  My -- that was just, again, to say if we don't welcome all -- if we're not perceived as welcoming all political perspectives, we are not doing our job, and we failed to do that in Istanbul and I think this is an example of if we think these people are too far away from the mainstream and we exclude them, they'll have a good -- they'll make a good argument.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  More interventions.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  With the exception of the open forum part of Michael's intervention, I do agree in principle with what he says.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Any other opinions? 
 I -- simply I don't feel the temperature in the room on this.  I do not want to stand against it, but I feel that this does not respond to the objectives that we are trying to achieve, to balance.  Now, I hear arguments that there might be also alternative opinion that might be an argument.  I need to hear opinion.  Please.  Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Subi said a flash session or a poster, it's a valid criticism, just not acceptable here, and we really have done our utmost to strive for diversity and plurality.  I agree with the chair but we refuse to be held to ransom either.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.
 My -- I gave this a very low rating, but not because I disagree with anyone's political position, but I did not feel that it really added to the entirety of the program.
 I can support giving it a flash session.  And all are welcome to come to the IGF, so I think it's not really fair --
 But not everybody is going to be able to hold a workshop or be in a main session.  I think we have to recognize that our principle of openness and inclusiveness is about being able to attend and participate.  Many of the participation opportunities are from the floor.  They're not necessarily a right to run a workshop.
 Secondly, I would just say, Chair, that I really support your point of view.  I don't think it's fair for any group to say, "If we are not given a speaking slot, we're going to protest."  Otherwise, we would have all of us protesting.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I -- my sense of the room here is that -- is not to oppose the opportunity for this group, so I mean, is there a consensus here of a short session -- you know, 30-minute, flash -- as the solution for this discussion we're have- -- resolving this discussion we're having now?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Two last interventions. 
 Lynn and then Jac.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I'd like to echo Marilyn's comments as well, and perhaps we could actually have a flash or a BOF.  That's the other sort of session that's ideal for this.  But whatever we go back with, whether it's a no, a flash, a BOF or something else, I think if we can stress Marilyn's points about the inclusiveness and participation and we do welcome diversity of views and they need to be spread throughout the program as well, so I think if we can make those points back, I'd support any one of those decisions.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Jac?
 >>JAC SM KEE:  I actually ranked this quite high.  Not super high, but quite high.  And I'm -- I think it's one of -- you know, it's one -- it's quite an important initiative that came up this year that's sort of maybe they are really trying to -- it's similar to many other sort of important projects that people want to bring to the IGF in order to share with the broader community.
 Sort of rank -- and I looked at it in a similar way.
 And in terms of the stakeholder groups, it also seemed to be quite a nice mix between technical community and governments because -- as well as members of the -- of civil society, so I'm not quite sure where the imbalance is as well.
 But saying that, I'm -- from the comments, it seems to be lacking in clarity in terms of actually what is this workshop session trying to achieve.  If it is trying to be an outreach session, how is it aiming to do that.  And maybe 90 minutes outreach session without more information is not going to work very well.  So I would support maybe a proposal in changing of format.
 And on another similar note, in terms of organizing parallel sessions or parallel work- -- parallel IGFs, I suppose, in order to be able to hold conversations and discussions that may not fall into the formal Internet Governance Forum process, I don't think that's a bad thing.  In fact, I think it should be encouraged.  I think alternative spaces that is being organized in parallel to IGFs is actually a good thing and an indicator of how important this space actually is in order to bring different groups of people together to have conversations around a topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Not because I'm afraid of alternative opinion, but because MAG thinks that there is some merit of retaining it for the moment, but not as a full session but as a flash session, a short one, at the end of the day, that people then can go and have a drink afterwards, as it was put by some -- one MAG member, so we would retain it for the moment.
 I would personally not go that way, but if that's the wish, then we can do it, and then please go to the next proposal.
 I think this time it is not accurate reflection of what I said.  I said retain as a flash session, not proposed to go to a flash session.
 263.
 Who is speaking on 263?
 No one is speaking on 263?  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I thought that 216 was before 263, but anyway -- in the -- in the list.  Can you put the list again?  It's 216, the one we are -- have to look now, no?  Because --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.  Sorry.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- retain -- you have a wrong --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Sorry.  I made a mistake.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  So --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  We are talk- --
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  -- (off microphone) -- back to 216 then.  No.  Because retaining a flash session is 134.  I think you missed --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes.  Please.  My apologies.  We are now talking about 216.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Why not?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  216.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Oh, now 216.  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  My apologies.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Okay.  So -- so I proposed 216 because it really balances.  It's governments is mainly the panelists.  Also civil society, but also governments.  And it's also a topic of the -- the topics that are, you know, economics and development.  That is one of the most interesting thing for governments.  And this really balance.  You can see the panelists are mainly government.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I would seek opinion of others. 
 I have a feeling that we're overemphasizing, in this exercise, economic issues here, creating another imbalance, but that's my -- my feeling.  I don't -- please.  Who wants to speak on this topic? 
 Michael, please.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I just wanted to comment.  The fact was that a number of the economics-related topics were just below the cutoff or, you know, in the -- in the zone that we did not select.  There weren't a lot in the top 70, so we're not over-emphasizing.  We're, if anything, making up for that group.  But I'm not going to speak out on this one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So -- and what's the opinion on 216?  Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  There are a number of proposals that deal with zero rating in the course of them, and I was trying to look quickly to see if we had covered that in any aspect.  That is a pretty topical conversation at the moment.  Maybe there's an opportunity to merge the other three or four that also focus on this into a proposal.  But I don't have anything concrete to add.  I was trying to run through everything.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please keep -- keep looking.  We will be a few minutes on this topic.  Giacomo, please.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yeah.  This is exactly one of the topics I was suggesting for merge.  There are four -- four different workshops on the same topic.  One has been retained.  It is Number 156.  And there are other three that are not retained.  I think that according to the various angles, I think it's very easy to merge all of them.  So my suggestion is for this, as for Number 79, as for 156 -- no.  156 is in.  For 204 and 206 to be merged all together.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  I think that is maybe sensible proposal.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi agrees on the merger.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we do not retain as a separate proposal, but we suggest to 156 organizers consider merger with others on similar topic.  That is decided.
 263 then.
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Sorry.  263 is a governmental organization there, ECLAC.  It is a key economic commission of United Nations and it has been very active in Latin America in economic issues and ratings.  And I think that the topic is very relevant, being held in Latin America this IGF.  And I think it could contribute for balance.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Question to the secretariat.  If that is ECLAC, why is it mentioned as a private sector initiative?
 While secretariat is looking for answer, anyone speaking in favor, against this proposal?  Marilyn?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  ECLAC is a -- is a governmental group.  So I'm -- I don't know.  I did not notice that it was labeled as private sector.
 The interesting thing about all of the regional organizations are that they bring together -- and in this case they should be able to bring together a different set of government-level officials.  "A different level" is the wrong word.  Different ministries than usually attend.  So I'd like us to at least consider how it fits.
 It is in the region.  That is, ECLAC is from the region we're in.  And that may be attractive for that reason, that some of the economic ministries would be able to join us.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Any other reactions?  Personally, I see that this does not add -- or does not meet the criteria for exercise.  And I would seek further comments from the MAG.
 Please.  Makanye.
 >> MAKANYE FAYE:   Makanye Faye, ECA.  ECLAC is our sister organization.  The proposal I have seen is from the private sector, and ECLAC is sending one person as a speaker.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I also don't see ECLAC as an organizer.  That is a group which self-identified itself as a private sector.
 >> (off microphone).
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Please, I can explain.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please.
 >> JUAN FERNANDEZ:  I don't know how many of you were last ten days in the CSTD session.  I see some that were here.
 In this workshop, we're going to be fortunate to have one of the leading world experts in the impact economy of Internet.  This is Raul Katz, professor -- it is Argentinian in origin but it is from University of Colombia in New York.
 Also, this work goes very well with what ECLAC is doing with the project ALAC 2015.  Now it has been changed to ALAC 2018.  That is the governmental plan.  Here somebody could speak about this, the Brazilians.  That is the regional project for use of ICTs in Internet economy.
 Also -- and that is confirmed, the participation. 
 Also is confirmed the participation for the Andean Committee (saying name), SCAF (phonetic).  It is also an intergovernment investment organization of Andean countries.  So you were asking for high-level government participation.  And this -- that also relates to Latin America and also it has top-notch panelists, even the best in the world at the moment.  You can Google Raul Katz if you are really interested in Internet economy.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  So I don't say to have the conclusion that this is not relevant.  I think we should think a little bit more about this.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Juan Alfonso, if we would not have any limitations, we would be happy to provide opportunity for 240 workshops to take place.
 >> (off microphone).
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, I happily repeat.  If we would not have any limitation, we would provide opportunity for 240 workshops to take place.  But we do have.  And here we're doing a balancing act.  This proposal was scored relatively low.  It is in the middle.  151 out of 240.  So we have limitations for a hundred workshops.
 I do not see what of the balancing things we're talking about this would address if we would retain it.  So, therefore, it should be scored on the merits of the ranking.  This is my position.  And I seek opinion of other MAG members because I heard only one.  And I do not want to make any ruling without having opinion of the group.
 Mark and then remote participant.
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thank you, Chair.  This was a bit tricky to evaluate actually in my view.  It provides a valuable regional perspective, an evidence base on ICT's contribution to sustainable development.  But it's a regional -- wholly regional proposal.  So it was scored down for lack of geo diversity.  So I think that's the reason why the scoring was kind of placing it in the middle -- middle area.
 I'm sort of edging towards support because it does provide that important regional perspective on sustainable development which is a key IGF theme.
 And maybe if they brought in one or two external panelists to sort of reflect on the regional perspective, that would certainly enhance it in terms of scoring, I think.  So it's a bit of a tricky one to determine the future of, I have to say.
 But I'm sort of going in favor of it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Lynn?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR: Apologies for taking the floor so often but trying to help with some input.  I actually scored it quite high as well while noting that it obviously lacks diversity. 
 I scored it quite high because I think we should expect when we hold conferences such as this in a region that there are going to be regional groups and efforts that want to both get more global visibility and, frankly, it's a good opportunity for them to build their own networking in region which I think is something we want to support as well. 
 I actually ranked it quite high while noting that it did lack diversity.  But I also couldn't think of any concrete way to bring the diversity in without changing it fairly substantially.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Remote participant.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Subi said that she doesn't support its inclusion.  It lacks diversity and doesn't add to the present exercise for balance.  Professor Katz is hugely respected but this does not make for a workshop.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I yesterday mentioned that I wanted to work with others on putting together a main session on -- that was related to our theme "sustainable development." 
 I understand the concerns raised by colleagues.  I think there are aspects to this workshop that have merit.
 I think it is a candidate for merger or incorporation into an existing workshop as it is incomplete in some ways.  So I'd like to park it for now with fate undetermined but not just reject it out hand.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Then maybe we could retain it on list number 2 as maybe.  And then we can revisit it once we will see the global picture.
 Juan Alfonso, please.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Chairman, I'm not going to defend this workshop anymore.  But I'm worried that we're moving the standards of the inclusion of this last -- well, these proposals on this list because we have included some other workshops just because they have government participation.  And this that has government participation and also has brilliant other world-class panelists confirmed, then we're not accepting.
 So I think we have a different standard.  We should revisit some of the earlier that we accepted.  With the criteria flimsy like this, maybe it is because of the effect of piling up, but I think that as time goes, we begin to change our criteria.  Then this is not a serious way of doing it.
 Please.  We accepted some other because government participation.  And here at least there are two government participation.  And as was mentioned by "high level," also they say they're going to reach to other governments to participate.  I'm sure that many other governments that have very good relations, we act like we happily participate in this.  The Government of Colombia, maybe the Government of Brazil they are asking.  Or maybe even, well, if they want, maybe our government representative there.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I would like to very strongly reject what you just said.  We're not changing criteria.  This exercise is to -- not to bring one or another workshop up but to do it with balancing objective in mind.
 This workshop was scored relatively low, in the middle.  There were a number of people speaking in favor.  There was a number of people speaking against.  That's why we're saying let's put it on the "maybe" list because this does not meet criteria as we established for this exercise.  That's point number one.
 Point number two is we have examined about 20 proposals, and another 30 to go.  And we need to be much more selective and strict in applying criteria for this exercise, to balance out an imbalance.  Otherwise, we would take the hundred highest scored proposals and that's it.  That would be pure mathematical exchange.
 I don't want to go that route.  And that's why I would like to have ask your flexibility and see how far we can get with this exercise.  Thank you for understanding.
 Proposal 19.  No, this is over.  On this topic, it is over.  Proposal 19.
 >> Just one kind request that you -- for Juan Alfonso not to speak so loudly over the mic.  This is from a remote participant.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I will keep that in mind.
 Proposal 19, please.  Who would like to speak in favor of this proposal 8?
 Lynn.
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I actually ranked this one quite low because it gets very specific.  But I think it could be merged quite easily with workshop Number 94.  And I actually think the notion of internationalization, whether it's IDNs or multilingualism, endangered languages, does support our theme of inclusiveness and diversity.  So I would support it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Opinions?  You did not say whether and on what criteria we're talking about.  Diversity is sufficiently represented or is not?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I actually didn't put this on the list.  I was simply trying to get the discussion going.  If it fits -- the subtheme it fits under is inclusiveness and diversity but frankly I'm having a hard time tracking what's overrepresented or underrepresented.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  It means if no one defends it, it was put on the list by mistake.  No. 
 Susan.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair.  I didn't put it on the list, but I would just like to raise a point which can be taken or dispensed with.
 If it's the only workshop on IDNs, I think in terms of balance it might be useful to include it for a thematic balance.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Question to secretariat.  Is this the only proposal around IDNs?
 In terms of methodology, we agreed that the MAG members would be prepared to speak for the proposals they put forward.  If there is no MAG member speaking about a proposal which is put forward, then we're not examining that proposal because we need to know the reasoning.  We need to understand the reasoning and not to invent the reasoning.  Those who put forward proposal should speak about it. 
 Please.  Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Yes.  I just suggested this when you asked at the beginning, but now I don't know, because it has intergovernmental organizations among the sponsors there.  Somebody from UNESCO is confirmed to be there, also, from the European Commission is going to be there.  And that is why I placed it there.  Also, because of the topic.
 But mainly because there are two intergovernmental organizations present.  There's going to be panelists there that are confirmed.  That was the reason why I included.  If you don't want to include it, okay. 
 Did I speak low enough?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Michael, then Mark.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  This is a rare occasion when I don't agree with Juan.  I think this is a topic we've covered a lot in IGFs, and there are two other panels that touch on linguistic diversity.  So I don't think we need to include this one.  We could talk to the other panels that have more support and not require a merger but indicate that there are some other interests, other panelists who might be able to join their panel.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  I agree with that last intervention.  The only other point I would add is that there is a -- as is up on the screen, the report by EURid and UNESCO.  Maybe that could be the topic of a flash session to give some visibility to that report which would be valuable.  I don't see the balance question here for the reasons just described.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Let me suggest that we propose a poster opportunity for this proposal, because that is not supported by the majority that it does not contribute to the exercise we do, it was scored as it was. 
 And though the report of EURid and UNESCO was started when I was at UNESCO, we started together, with a hurting heart, I make this proposal and propose to move on.
 I see no objections.  We are proposing a poster session for this report.
 45.  Who is speaking in favor of 45 and explaining reasons why we're looking at it?
 No one is speaking in favor?  Juan Alfonso. 
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Chairman, I'm checking because I have 45 here on my list, but I don't recall -- no.  It's what -- maybe my mistake.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  We do not retain this, for the moment.  We move on. 
 56.  Who will speak in favor and explain the reasoning behind it?  Nobody?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So if no one speaks, then we can move on.  Juan Alfonso?
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  This is my list.  I put it because somebody said also the technical community was underrepresented and it has some technical community from Asia, China, and some other countries.  That -- and that's why I put it.  Not -- I'm not defending it for anything special.  Just for that reason.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much. 
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify for the end of time that the technical community is not underrepresented.  They are the single -- second largest sector -- I know that impression has gone on since morning.  They are the second largest stakeholder after the civil society.  We should be careful.  We should certainly bring up governments and IGOs, but the technical community, it seems, has taken good care of themselves.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Then I propose to move on.  Xiaodong, please.
 >>XIAODONG LEE:  This proposal is from China but -- and I'm also from China but I think I just speak as a MAG member. 
 So even this proposal was from civil society, but you know that the panelist is from the technical community and private sector, so I think it's -- (indiscernible) mobile payment and -- you know, is very hot topic in China.  I think it can bring some new ideas and new information to this forum.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Yes.  Very much in a similar vein, really.
 This is, from memory, a unique proposal on mobile banking and, you know, its criticality for the digital economy, and we've seen the impact in Africa of the IMPASO (phonetic) and things like that, which the proposal lacked, I think, participation from sub-Saharan Africa, which was -- so it was a -- that was a deficiency, but, you know, I -- I value the merit of the -- I recognize the merit of the proposal and it's addressing an important aspect of the Internet economy, which the IGF would be, I think, deficient in not covering.
 So I see a balance issue there.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, I was going to just recommend, should we take a two-minute break, hold off, just check the ones that have made it for sure, and see if that covers a sufficient number of governments and IGOs?  Just a rough number to know where we stand at this time?  Are we at the halfway mark or, you know, will we have 50?  I don't know how many we've covered.  I can't tell right now.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Neither me.  I'm trying to ask and --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Just to check if we've got enough governments and IGOs in or is that still an area that we need to now look at in the remaining or do you think it's worth just going on?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Let me make an inquiry, but please do not leave the room because if we break, then we are in trouble.  And moreover, there will be -- you requested yesterday more information about this deliberate polling, and we are trying to arrange a very brief session, 10 minutes to 6:00, with -- remotely from Stanford, that we have an opportunity to listen briefly what this initiative is about and why they are chosen to -- asking to do it during IGF.
 While secretariat is counting, please Michael, go ahead.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I think that mobile money is an incredibly important topic and I care passionately about cybersecurity.  I just don't think this proposal is the one that we want to support this year.  I'm involved with the D.C. chapter of the Internet Society.  We're doing a session in two weeks on digital money because it's a very important topic, but again, I don't think that as structured, this is a very strong proposal, and when you look at the rankings, there was a grand total of one person who thought this was a 5, so there seems to be broad consensus that this is not the strongest proposal and I would hate to have a great proposal next year that we decide not to do because we covered it this year with a proposal that's not as strong.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Izumi?
 >>IZUMI MATSUZAKI:  Izumi speaking.  Thank you, Chair. 
 I'm very much in line with what Mark has expressed and I think this is a very good topic to cover.  While I really don't know the speakers too well, so it's a little bit difficult to judge -- on my side to judge the quality of the -- of this workshop and this topic, but I do have a favorable opinion about covering a workshop on this topic.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  I think that we're -- I see that we are split on this particular question.  Maybe while I'm asking also to get one of those candies that are now distributed in the room, I would ask Shita to help me with the conclusion.
 >>SHITA LAKSMI:  Chair, thank you. 
 I just would like to make a clarification that this proposer has submitted like five proposals to the -- to MAG, so it's not -- based on diversity, it's not really supporting.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Let me -- let me suggest that we would park, for the moment, this proposal on the "maybe" list and see what -- where we are now with the balancing -- balancing act.  Chengetai, are you able to tell us now something?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  Those numbers were correct, actually.  We've gone through -- (off microphone) --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please.  The microphone is here.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We've gone through 16.  We've retained 8.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  For those left that we have to go through that more than two MAG members commented on is 6.  6.  And then where one or more -- where one MAG member has commented on, it's 34.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  28 that's remaining.  28 that's remaining.  That's where one MAG member has commented on.  So maybe we could make a -- (off microphone) --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  May I ask:  Of the 8 that we have said "yes" to, how many are government or intergovernmental?  Do we know that?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.  Okay.  Thanks.  We can move on.
 And also if we could -- you know, how many of them were within the hundred anyway?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  First four were in 80, in top 80.  I don't have information which is the next -- next we need to look at.
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  131.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, so we are effectively at 78 now?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I'm trying to understand where we are.  Could you increase the -- the picture?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  So let us -- let us go to 131 now.
 131.  Who will be introducing and explaining the proposal?
 Juan Alfonso.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Chairman, again, I proposed this because it's a purely intergovernmental workshop.  It's -- as you can read the proposal and how it's going to be carried out, it's a commonwealth organization that they -- they are going to do some sort of briefing with the member countries, and that is why I suggested it. 
 I don't know the participants, but it's a purely intergovernmental workshop.  That's why I put it in the list because you asked us to do that.  I try to follow your instructions --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- to the best that I can.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much. 
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  Yes.  I support.  Commonwealth is 53 countries.  Population is 2 -- 2 billion.
 The session perhaps could be reduced.  I think a number of us made comments about perhaps a flash session, as a specific --
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Oh, sorry.  It is already a flash.  Sorry.  I'm behind on that.  Okay.
 Well, as I say, the merit is the number of governments involved and the topicality and the global reach of the topic.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.
 Any opposition that we should not retain a flash session, on intergovernmental organization?  No?  Yes?  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  It's a -- Mr. Chairman, it's weakly written.  The names and affiliations are partners are fairly -- they're almost missing.  There are no names there.  But it is one of the higher-ranking intergovernmental proposals after the cutoff of a hundred, so I suppose it can be on the "maybe" list, but if you read through what they have submitted, it's a bit of a lazy proposal, I'm afraid.  We'd like a little more detail to be able to make it.
 But it does balance on the intergovernmental, so you might wish to retain it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I wish to retain it.  And German will confirm it.
 >>GERMAN VALDEZ:  Well, you asked for any oppositions, and my comments go along those lines, that the proposal is poorly written, and if we're going to start accepting these sorts of proposal, then we are becoming extremely flexible in what's going to enter at the end of the final list of workshops.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So can we then suggest that we would retain on the merits that this is from intergovernmental organization and that we strongly advise and will help to improve the quality of the proposal and make a meaningful discussion on national cybersecurity strategies and on the case of commonwealth countries? 
 Lynn, you are in agreement?
 >>LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I am.  I also just wanted to point out that it's a new proposer and one of the things we had wanted to do was to support and mentor new proposers with different workshop proposals.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Then we retain this one and move to the next one.
 Proposal 33, Workshop 33, who would like to speak in favor of this and explain the reasoning why we're examining this now?  Ephraim, please.
 >>EPHRAIM PERCY KENYANITO:  Okay.  I think this is -- I looked through the proposals and I didn't see any on data retention and it's a new emerging topic.  That would be the rationale.  I don't know if anyone else would think something similar.  Because you've seen what has happened in recent history of some countries, like China, Russia, on data retention and the impact on all those users.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I did not nominate this one but I did give it a 5 ranking.  Data retention is a growing issue.  We have some people involved from Latin America who probably will never be able to come to an IGF if it's not in Latin America.  So I thought it was a strong proposal and a very important topic, and I was astonished, actually, that the ranking was so low.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Other opinions?  It does not -- it does not really add to balance in terms of geography and government participation on the topic.
 I see that Jac is asking and Virat.
 >>JAC SM KEE:  It is an important topic and I also note that in the speakers that were suggested, that included within them is someone from the law enforcement as well as a member of judiciary, which I thought were interesting points of views.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Yes.  I think there is one positive, which is it's an important issue, very important growing issue, but also I think it's coming to the theme, which is human rights, which is probably the most oversubscribed theme of all the themes.  IT'S dominating with 30%, so I think -- and it's scored very low, 178, so we should kind of probably put it on the second list and see if we can accommodate it, and it doesn't help the immediate criteria for this round.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you for your proposal.  I think we should go for this and put it, for the moment, on the List Number 2, "maybe." 
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  Again, I stress that there are people on this proposal who just would never come to an IGF, people from law enforcement, people who are from Latin America who would never -- I mean, I know we look for geographic diversity, but on some issues we're bringing new people in and you're never going to convince the people who aren't part of the IGF community to fly a full day.  I think we should think seriously about the diversity that's added by bringing in a law enforcement perspective, and I was critical of some of the other human rights panels because they did not have a law enforcement person to balance the concerns about privacy and data collection, so I thought this was more balanced than a lot of those.
 But again, I suspect it got very low rankings because it was so bias- -- or so -- there was so much -- so many panelists from Latin America.
 But again, that's also because we are getting unique people from Latin America.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Aida.
 >>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: On the other hand, I would like to stress there are people who are listed even as confirmed that have no idea that their name is there.  I don't know if that can be an argument or not.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Of course, we do not know that.  But we have gone through the discussions and asked specifically do not put anyone confirmed if person has not confirmed really.  I would still suggest we put it on "maybe" list and then revisit depending on the situation we're having at the end of this conversation.
 No one objects.  Thank you.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  I understand we are examining proposal 202.  Can we hear comments in that regard?
 Yes, Juan.
 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you, Chairman.  I propose this to be merged with the previous that we had on measurement.  But I don't know if we are doing mergers at this point.  But I proposed.  I give it on the list with that intention, to be merged with the previous one that we had on measurement.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Okay, thank you.  Anyone else would like to comment on that particular proposal?
 I'm not sure at this point.  I thought -- I think with the criteria that Janis was trying to apply that he would like to seek feeling from the room whether there is support for the idea that by accepting this, we are kind of balancing, addressing some gaps.  But I don't feel this is the case in regard to that particular proposal.
 Mike.
 >>MICHAEL NELSON:  I know this area very well, and I don't think this would add a lot to our conversation.  I also think there's a lack of geographic balance and even more important lack of private sector balance.  And I don't think that merging this to the other much higher ranked proposals would strengthen those other proposals so I would wait until next year and encourage these people to come back with a broader -- with a more -- a broader panel, more focused.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  I think then we could leave that aside on that note.
 Could we move to the next one, please?  So now we'll focus on Proposal Number 21 that was ranked 74.  Is that correct?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah, 74.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  "SIDS roundtable on free Internet."  Would anyone like to comment on this?
 Just for precedence for secretariat to clarify what does it mean to select stakeholder group?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It just means the proposer did not select which stakeholder group they belong to so we cannot define exactly which stakeholder group they are.  We can also judge it on its merits if you feel.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Yes, Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  Actually I had a question about this one and a couple other ones where the workshop was not identified and the stakeholder group was not identified.  I find that challenging.  So when you say we are evaluating something on the merits, I think we have an incomplete proposal.
 >>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:  Thank you.  I will turn back to the Chair.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.
 Mark?
 >>MARK CARVELL:  Thanks.  I think this brings -- this proposal brings to the IGF focus on the issues facing small island developing states.  And that should be spelled out, that acronym, SIDS in the title, if it goes through.
 So they are bringing something important to the IGF that should be there.  I know from speaking to colleagues representing small island developing states that their voice is often not center stage.  And this -- and there are a lot of them.  So this brings that.  So I support this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  I think that there is a good merit in supporting small island developing states just on that merit if we do not have any other workshop on that.  I would propose to retain -- and I see the body language suggests that this would be a good thing to do.
 And I would put it on provisional list of retained proposals.
 Susan?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  I recognize the importance of including the SIDS.  But I would just like to say that if you look at the content of the proposal, it focuses on zero rating in developing countries.  So I think that if the proposal is specific with respect to small island developing states and zero rating otherwise, I think it would be a good candidate for a merger with the proposal that Lynn suggested a merger with.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  But let us look.  This was mathematically scored at 74, 74 in terms of ranking.  So I think that also on that merit, it is relatively high scored and we need to acknowledge that.
 Michael?
 >>MICHAEL NELSON: I also, I think, strongly agree that small island perspectives are valuable and I'm sure that's why it got a relatively high ranking.  But I think this topic could be covered in 60 minutes and perhaps even a flash session.  It is really very narrowly focused on one particular paper coming out of one particular conference.  It's not a broad discussion.  It doesn't pretend to have all sides of the view of the topic.
 So if we're looking for diversity of opinion, we are not accomplishing that here.  I do think though -- I would strongly support a flash session and as a compromise 60 minutes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Okay.  Avri, sorry, I overlooked you.  My apologies.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I support leaving it in and retaining it and leaving it in at its current length.
 If you look at the full writeup, yes, there may be issues with it not having had the name of the proposer in the right place.  But if you look at it, you see it is people from three island states proposing it.  It has got a diverse panel.  And I believe it really should be retained in its full format.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you very much.  I think we will retain it to our list one.  We will see if there should be shortening.  But for the moment, it feels to me that this is something we could go along with.
 So here I would like to suspend our exercise since our colleagues from Stanford University are online.  And I hope the technology will not fail us.
 And I would like to invite proponents of Deliberate Polling 2015, in five minutes explain the project, the highlights of the project, and leave a few minutes for questions.
 We cannot go beyond 6:00 Geneva time.  So, therefore, we have about ten minutes for this exercise.  The floor is yours.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  Please unmute yourself.  Okay, James, you can go ahead.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Seems we have a technical problem.
 >>REMOTE INVERVENTION:  James, we cannot hear you.  Could you please disconnect and reconnect audio in Webex.  You can find this on the "quick start" tab.  Okay.  We hear you now.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Can you hear me?  Can you hear me knew?
 >> Please go ahead.  We hear you.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Excellent.  Thank you.  So the idea is very simple of deliberative polling.  We have done this in 23 countries around the world, about 70 times usually with citizens rather than netizens, or usually with citizens rather than stakeholders.
 But the basic idea is very simple.  We take a random sample.  In this case, it would be a stratified random sample of the IGF.  Our presumption in this project is that the IGF is a relevant population for Internet governance. 
 We will take a stratified random sample representing all sectors and geographies and engage it in a serious deliberation.  About 300 people.
 We will also give the same survey to the other members of the IGF before and after.  We have a distinguished advisory group that is clarifying key questions that are ripe for discussion in Internet governance in three different broad policy areas.  And we're working with the advisory group to clarify those questions.
 The idea of the deliberation is to have small group discussions for several hours alternated with plenary sessions during which questions from the small groups are answered by panels.  The question is what would people think if they really had a good chance for thinking about it?
 Obviously the IGF participants are well-informed but they are siloed.  They are -- the different groups could engage in greater cross-sector, cross-geography discussion.
 The question is:  We get the final results of the deliberative poll in confidential questionnaires, and we see the changes of opinion from the initial questionnaire.  Usually we get pretty big changes.  But in addition to the changes of opinion, we get a sense of why people change or why they don't change, what policies would they really support.
 So instead of a bland consensus statement of general principles, we will have -- we think further the dialogue with this process and pilot a further specification method of deliberative democracy in Internet governance.
 So, if it's done right, it will be extremely inclusive and also extremely thoughtful and it will cross all the barriers that now limit the discussion.
 So that's -- that's the basic idea.  I don't know if -- There's some interference.  I don't know if you were able to hear me.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, James.  We did hear you.  And one question is if I understand correctly, you will be doing this experiment on the margins of IGF, and this will not interfere with normal process of IGF.  You will have a meeting before --
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Yes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: -- before IGF and you will have a meeting before IGF and you will organize a meeting after IGF.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  That's the plan.  Our plan is to do it -- is to start with a dinner on the minus one, to have all day on day zero, and a bit of the morning on day one before your opening session.  And then we will then collect the results and present them and try to engage with a discussion about the results at the conclusion of the IGF. 
 That's the reason for the workshop proposal at the end, to not only present the results but to start a dialogue about them at the very end.  So we're very at the beginning and the very end.  But the rest of the IGF, we will not interfere with the rest of the IGF in any way. 
 But, in fact, if we succeed in doing what we hope to, which is to have a random sample deliberating, a stratified random sample, and we can share the questionnaire with everybody else, this becomes a controlled experiment to see what is the value added, if anything, of the intensive, balanced, hopefully thoughtful deliberative process that we are doing compared to the rest of the IGF because the other participants will have gone through the rest of the IGF.
 So this is meant to -- we hope to add something.  But, of course, it is a pilot or an experiment.  But if it works, we would hope to do it at other IGF or IGF-type events because a lot of people involved in Internet governance on our advisory group think something like this could add something.  And since this is now a well-tested method, it's been used around the world, we could -- we hope to pilot in this context.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Marilyn?  One question and then we will suspend the session.  Thank you.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Marilyn Cade speaking. 
 Perhaps I pose my question.  It's really more for information and then perhaps information could be sent to the MAG list.
 A couple of questions.
 Is it -- are the names of the advisory group members available in a public way so that we could see who they are?
 Secondly, I just want to ask a question about -- it's a complicated question but since there's an effort to do a stratified group, that means it will have to be drawn from the registered attendees, and if that is the case, actually I do have a concern that we can address off line.  People are coming because they are booked to do other things all day on day zero, and the morning of day one actually interfere with the rest of the purpose.
 So I just would like to have an opportunity to take it up maybe on line and hear more.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Yes.  First of all, the list of the advisory group is public.  I'm not sure what was sent to you, but we can certainly send that.  And I think you'll agree it's a very good group.  And of course we're open to suggestions.
 In addition, the -- we're wrestling with that about the stratified random sample.  We hope to actually begin also with -- on a rolling basis with previous attendees.  We hope that some people who are willing to accept the invitation will -- yes.  I mean, there are a variety of pre-conferences that people could go to.  Think of this as another pre-conference.  But if people don't want to do it, we will continue with stratified random sampling, asking people until we get a reasonable representation.
 People will hopefully understand that this is a unique opportunity, if they've been randomly drawn in the sample, but we will not interfere with the regular IGF process.
 Perhaps there's some way that we can correspond by email or phone afterwards.  I'm James Fishkin.  That's [email protected] .  And maybe we can send contact details about all the advisory group members and the working group that's trying to implement this, and we're happy to follow up at your convenience to try to get your counsel and advice to make this work without interfering with other processes.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, James, and then maybe another question from remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Peter asked how this proposal came before the MAG.  Was there an internal champion proposer?
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  I'm not --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I can answer, James, on this.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I was suggesting that since this is experiment linked -- well, not linked but which will take place on the margins of IGF, I suggested that information should be given to MAG in this respect.  And I can tell you --
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- I am on -- also on advisory group, and Hartmut also is on advisory group for the experiment.
 So thank you, James, for --
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  -- for this presentation.  It would be good, most probably, to send the materials to the list, MAG list, so that people are informed about the substance of the experiment.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Great.  We'll be very happy to do that.  And thank you for the opportunity to be part of these discussions.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much, James.
 >>JAMES FISHKIN:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So we have reached the limit of today's session.  It's 6:00.  We need to break.
 We have not concluded the full examination of proposals.  We will continue tomorrow.  Tomorrow morning we will have full statistic -- actually, tonight, the secretariat will send out full statistics on decisions that we have made, but since we cannot stop this exercise in the middle, we need to get down to the list, and I hope that tomorrow in the first part of the day we will get through all proposals, and then -- if earlier, even better, and then after lunch we will make final decisions.
 For the moment, I was told that we have -- we have made improvement on balance by bringing two additional proposals from technical community, three from intergovernmental organizations, three from civil society, but on topics, not on civil society, and that makes eight.
 Remaining is undecided, so...
 Questions?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  What's our count at the moment?  This is Avri.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Count is 70 plus -- eight or nine?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Nine now.
 >> Should be nine, yeah.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Nine.  So for the moment, we're 79, but we need still to continue examination of the list because we have not concluded it and we will continue tomorrow.  Dominique?
 >>DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI:  Yeah.  I just wanted to say after this meeting, there's a common outreach group meeting right here, so can we just gather here?  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  Lea?
 >>LEA KASPAR:  Thank you.  This is Lea speaking. 
 Just a question about tomorrow's agenda, if you're going to address that later, and I would just like to stress something that I've posted on the MAG list, and that is whether it would be possible to pivot back during the session tomorrow to the conversation about the main sessions.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So that depends how quickly we will conclude our work.
 Certainly I intend to circulate interim proposal for main sessions tomorrow.
 Cheryl?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Just wanted a quick clarification.
 So the list that Chengetai sent out earlier, the Excel sheet that we've been working off of, are those the only proposals that are for discussion? 
 So if we submitted proposals and they're not on that list, does that mean, for whatever --
 So they didn't make it.  Is that correct or --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  This is what we discussed, that in order to facilitate, that MAG members should submit information to secretariat and that was compiled in one list of 50 proposals that now we are going through.
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  So the cutoff was at 50, so -- okay.  I understand.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Cutoff was not determined.  It was just those who were submitted, we're now working on the basis of submissions.
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  So I had some --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  Is there a number missing?
 >>CHERYL MILLER:  Yeah.  There were some numbers missing.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Just come and see me and then we'll --
 >>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair.  I posted to the MAG list but I -- this is just a reminder that the WSIS+10 main session or sessions will meet tomorrow morning at 9:00, assuming I'm not interfering with your meeting, and everyone who's already said they're interested or hasn't yet said they're interested should come along.
 We'll talk about the scenario options, which I think we covered in our discussion, and that is, if it's a three-hour session or if New York participates, but I really welcome even if you haven't indicated your interest, you should come.
 We'll meet here, unless Chengetai finds me another room.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you.  Remote participant?
 >>REMOTE INTERVENTION:  Peter Dengate Thrush made a comment on chat probably regarding the -- Mr. Fishkin's presentation.  He asked:  Does it need MAG blessing or we are just being informed about the peripheral activity?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think it is more information because this is not part of IGF, but it is organized on the margins of IGF.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Mr. Chairman, can we make two requests from the secretariat? 
 One is if they could provide us the list of the nine that got through, just so we know that that's 79 then.
 And then when -- just a start point of where the list begins tomorrow.  From the 50, I think we've -- if we could --
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  The list begins where we ended today.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  So that will be?
 >> (Off microphone.)
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  I just wanted to get a confirmation on the number.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So 151. 
 So we omitted 53?  Seems we omitted 53.  We decided on -- (off microphone) -- so we will start with 153 and we will continue with 151 afterwards.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you very much.  Thank you for your diligent work, and have a good evening and we'll see you tomorrow at 10:00 sharp.  Please come here at 10:00 sharp. 
 Thank you very much, interpreters, for helping us, and scribes transcribing our conversation.