The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the First Open Consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) Meeting for IGF 2016 in Geneva, Switzerland, from 4 to 6 April 2016. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
6 April 2016
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We're starting the second day of the MAG meeting. I'll just quickly hand it over to the chair.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai, and good morning everyone. I'd like to go through, in a moment, just kind of the structure overall for the agenda today, and I think we're going to have to move forward at quite a pace. Hopefully just fast enough, not too fast.
I'll just remind everybody that the equivalent of this meeting last year took place in December, so we were able to move some of our decisions to off-line meetings and virtual meetings and phone calls and lists and take, frankly, quite a bit of extra time with those discussions.
We really just don't have that luxury today because if we postpone a lot of these, for one thing we'll run by the timetable we agreed to yesterday, but again, we will be just right in the middle of the summer season in the northern hemisphere and, frankly, then, you know, we're just -- it's just too late in the year.
So I'm going to have to ask, I think, some forbearance to try and move some things forward.
There may be an opportunity to create a few more working groups to work over the lunch period as well.
I mean, I think the group that met this morning will have a report out in a moment, but said they were very successful in getting to agreement and some work done, so again, I just appreciate everybody's forbearance and support in making your comments as to the point and brief as possible.
If it's been said before, a quick iteration or just a +1 works, as opposed to, you know, significantly expanding on a point that's been made quite a number of times.
So with that, I think the work that's in front of us is, one of the first items will be a short report out from the working group that met this morning on the guidelines for the workshops.
We need to cover the various pieces of intersessional work, so the national and regional IGF initiatives have some input and some comments on a survey in terms of the direction of both their work and possibly the IGF itself, report outside from the work of the dynamic coalitions, the best practice forums, and last year we actually undertook a very significant piece of intersessional work which was called the connecting the next billion. That was actually led by -- chaired by Ambassador Fonseca and ably led by Constance Bommelaer, and I think Constance is going to give us a short report out and some thoughts on perhaps a second iteration or second phase of that work. And all of those are very important because if we're going to have additional best practice forums or a second piece of work, we need to determine what that is today to get that started.
The secretariat needs some time to process that, we need to find appropriate support and experts, and populate the working groups. They need to populate them themselves as well, but it's also a substantive piece of work.
We clearly have some theme and subtheme discussions to try and wrap up on from all the work yesterday. I really like Juan's admonition of keeping it short and elegant and hopefully that will help us come to conclusions more quickly.
We have a discussion on main sessions. Our main sessions have quite often influenced the themes, or perhaps vice versa, and I think we need to take that into account as well.
I'm not sure if we'll be able to close on those today. I think a couple are probably quite evident. We may need to take that to a subsequent call.
And then possibly a discussion on day zero as well.
And Victor actually informs us that unfortunately he'll be with us for the morning session, so we may look at one or two of those pieces. Perhaps day zero we should take a short conversation and pull up a little bit. That actually impacts the opening ceremony and if we are going to do something there at a high level or sort of ministerial level event, then I think that's also something that we need to get into the planning quite quickly.
So I'll stop there for a moment. Does that seem like a reasonable piece of work going forward? Michael Nelson, you have the floor.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Seems to me it's more than we're -- it's going to be hard to do it all but we can. But to make it more difficult, I note that yesterday's agenda included a discussion of a best practices forum which we didn't really -- did we cover that in the 20 minutes I was out of the room or do we have to get to that?
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That is part of the report out this morning and the intersessional -- no, we -- that is one of the key pieces of work that I think we need to get quite close on today, if we're going to support them over the course of the year.
So with that, can we have that sort of working outline? Is that an agreed way forward?
Okay. Thank you.
I'd like to make one announcement before we move to the program.
As I think many of you know, the MAG chair actually has the prerogative to appoint special advisors, and I think every previous MAG chair has done -- has done so.
Some of them, quite a number, in fact.
And as I think we've said many times over the course of the first few days here, Ambassador Fonseca's support to Internet governance and to the IGF itself last year was critical in helping us get to the right places, have our voice heard. He was very instrumental at the IGF itself in terms of helping to pull together I think what was a very influential session, the WSIS+10 session, and he also helped in a number of other intergovernmental, U.N., and governmental fora. And I'm honored to be the first MAG chair that comes from a stakeholder group that's nongovernment, and as a woman as well, as people have pointed out, but I want to make sure that we don't lose any traction or any momentum from those excellent efforts last year.
So I'm really, really happy and I think we're all quite fortunate that Ambassador Fonseca has agreed to be a special advisor to the chair, specifically to help in that continued and sustained governmental outreach. So he's here, he's been with us for the three days, and I'd really just like to thank him and hope you have your --
[ Applause ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Ambassador Fonseca, you have the floor.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA: Thank you, Lynn. And thank you, colleagues. I'm really honored by the invitation and also to have your confidence and your -- and I will do my best to meet your expectation, colleagues. As I have said in the beginning, our engagement as government with the multistakeholder approach in the context of IGF and other foreign processes is something that stems from the approach we have been developing in Brazil for the last 25 years. It's something that we really believe in, that we see a lot of merit and benefits for governments' involvement in that format from the perspective that it adds legitimacy and sustainability to decisions related to Internet governance.
So we are partners with the Brazilian Steering Committee. I'm part of the Brazilian Steering Committee. We don't see "multistakeholder" as multistakeholder minus government. It's multistakeholder with the involvement of governments. And we are more than happy to contribute to that vision, to fulfill the vision that stems from the WSIS outcome document also internationally.
Thank you very much again. And I pledge to do everything in my capacity and with the full support, I'm sure, of the Brazilian Steering Committee to assist you and to assist the Mexican host -- Mexico host country to organize a successful IGF. Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. And, indeed, we should recognize all the work of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and CGI.BR. They're just so central in so many of the Internet governance processes across the world, and support is always appreciated. So thank you.
With that, I'm not sure if it's Virat or Susan who are going to give a short report-out this morning from the working group which was to help us advance our workshop proposal documents.
Susan or Virat?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Chair. And good morning, everyone. So the purpose of our meeting at 9:00 today was to make small adjustments to that host of documents that guide the call for workshop proposals because we seek to issue that call for proposals as soon as we can.
I want to thank everybody who attended at 9:00 a.m. Thanks -- thanks for coming. And I also wanted to thank everybody who submitted points via email on the email list last night and this morning.
So what we did is we worked through each suggestion that was sent through on the email list. And there will be -- what I'm going to do is I'll make track changes in a Word document so everybody can see what was suggested.
And then -- and then -- I'm sorry. There was a broader question about methodology, the overall questions about the methodology. But it's good to defer these conversations to an online discussion. So that can happen online. But I think that for the purposes of getting the callout, we're just making small improvements.
So I will work on that right now, and we can hope circulate that soon. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Any comments or questions? Because once it's circulated, we'd like to try and ask the MAG to take a quick look at it, again, a subcommittee. Quite a large number of members, I think, were here this morning working on it. It is the set of documents we actually used last year. So there is some running code, if you will, with respect to them. And, again, I think it's important to get those out. It's certainly a critical part of getting the call for proposals out. So we will try and bring that to an approval point later today. If that's not possible, we will do it very, very quickly on the mailing list. But, again, that's not the best strategy either because we lose several days with travel for everybody going back to their far-flung locations.
So the next items, I wanted to invite -- and, again, I think there have been a lot of reports through the stock-taking exercise and a lot of reports coming out of the IGF activities last year as well. So we don't need to cover those in any depth. But I'd like to invite the facilitators or coordinators of the dynamic coalitions, best practice forum, national and regional IGF initiatives, and the intersessional work to give us some brief updates primarily with a focus in terms of where they think this work should go 2016 and beyond.
So I don't need to overprocess that. I gave everybody a heads-up earlier this morning that that was coming, but I will see if you want to select yourselves in terms of taking the floor on those topics.
The floor is open. And, Markus, you have the floor.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, thank you, Lynn. Yes, I was asked to facilitate the dynamic coalitions. The aim was to integrate them better into the IGF mainstream. For those who are new to the IGF process, the dynamic coalitions were started at the very first IGF meeting in Athens ten years ago. They evolved in the margins of the IGF and were never integrated into the main program. So there was a strong feeling last year that there would be merit in integrating them better.
And one main session was given to them. It was split into two halves. And the dynamic coalitions were very happy with being given this visibility.
And they actually agreed in Joao Pessoa to continue their work. There was an agreement in principle to set up a dynamic coalition coordination group. And we have had regular calls, since Joao Pessoa every month a call. They also made a joint submission that has been duly reflected in the synthesis paper prepared by the secretariat.
One concrete proposal coming from the dynamic coalitions is to set up this dynamic coalition coordination group, and they have developed terms of reference for this group. And we will have the first proper meeting of this group at lunchtime today with virtual attendance by some members who cannot be here.
There's general agreement to have -- that dynamic coalitions should be based on three common principles -- or common principles. And the three core principles are three opens, as we called them: Open membership, open lists, and open archives.
And also in more concrete terms, the dynamic coalitions feel it would be useful if they would have a liaison from the MAG in this dynamic coalition coordination group and vice versa, that they would have a liaison on the MAG representing the dynamic coalitions.
And one issue actually came up in this discussion that may seem arcane or technical, but I think it is really important. And several MAG members have commented on the usefulness of the realtime transcriptions. The IGF was actually a pioneer of introducing realtime transcriptions in the U.N. context. The ITU has picked up since.
But what the IGF has not done is to introduce realtime transcripts -- transcription into the intersessional work. And one of the dynamic coalitions that is very active is a dynamic coalition on accessibility for people with disabilities. And they made the point that for them, it is almost impossible to follow calls if there's no realtime transcription. So there's a strong urge coming from this work to introduce realtime transcriptions in the intersessional work in all the calls.
Now, we are aware, of course, that there are financial implications. But this can be sorted out. It does not cost the (indiscernible). Andrea Saks, present here, she has a lot of experience with that and she will be happy to assist the secretariat.
So the main message then coming is that the dynamic coalitions would like to have a main session again at this year's meeting to continue their integration into the main work of the IGF. So that would be the main ask coming from the dynamic coalitions meeting.
And, of course, MAG members are welcome to join our lunchtime meeting and the dynamic coalition coordination group will meet.
This is my brief report. Thank you for your attention.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So we have a small queue forming. What I would like to possibly do is ask if the MAG would support moving the discussion on a liaison between the dynamic coalition coordination group and the MAG to our virtual call, probably our first virtual call as well as the transcription issue. The latter one I think takes a little bit much examination from the secretariat.
I personally really welcome the coordination group, and I think that will help integrate the good work that they're doing into the work of the IGF.
And I note for discussion on main sessions later a request by the dynamic coalitions to have one of those main sessions.
So I put that out there again in terms of trying to keep us focused on the things we really need to move forward on, which are best served by all of us here face-to-face.
So Virat is in the queue, and Andrea, I will give you, by exception, the queue.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just very -- three quick points on dynamic coalitions.
Firstly, as a MAG member, I welcome very much a main session for dynamic coalitions. It's we'll deserved. It's excellent work.
Second, almost all dynamic coalitions do outstanding work. They work through the year, and their work has improved and their reporting has improved and the structures are improving.
The third point is that the three points mentioned by Markus about the requirements of being open, open lists, and open archives, is certainly a good point to start, but last year the challenge was around one specific dynamic coalition. I'll be sort of clear and sort of speak about it so that we're all on the same page. The dynamic coalition on net neutrality.
I think the challenge is that the dynamic coalition will have to find ways to make sure that when there is opposing points of views, even if they're a minority in the opposing, we'll have to find a better way to reconcile that and reflect that in the documents that are produced.
It's not so much that they have to be reconciled. Sometimes they will not be reconciled. And therefore, the only request that I have is, when opposing views are presented, the opposing views should then be presented. If there is no -- after discussion, if reconciliation is not possible, then those points must be reflected in the final document that is presented. And if we can't do that, then it creates heartburn and unfortunately brings all the dynamic coalitions under a cloud, which is completely unnecessary, because almost all of them are -- even net neutrality -- outstanding work but requires to have a mechanism to reflect an opposing view, even if it's in the minority. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So I think those are good points, Virat.
I really want to make sure we don't kind of slip into an extended dynamic coalition call because I think that would be better done with a specifically focused call where we could actually get some additional representatives of the DCs as well.
And there is an online participant in the queue, as well, and we had a discussion last night. I don't like referring to them as "online participant" but I don't have any visibility into who the individual actually is until Anja introduces them. And we are trying to work to see if we can get a split screen so we can actually see the online participants queue and things like that, so we're trying to look at a couple of different things in the background to better facilitate their, you know, virtual presence in the room, if you will.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you very much.
Jac, you have the floor.
>>JAC SM KEE: Can you hear me okay? It's sort of storming in this part of the world, so to me the sound is -- it's okay.
I just wanted to give some comments around some of the work, the best practice forum work that we did last year on countering online abuse. It was really -- I think it was -- it was -- it was hard work but extremely useful, and I think IGF played a very timely and important role. I think the IGF is a multistakeholder space that enables this kind of discussion from different viewpoints. The DCs contain a very valuable platform to kind of facilitate such conversations on topics, so it was very -- very useful and valuable process as well as output. So a concrete paper with recommendations came out. It's actually 182 pages. And on top of that, a synthesis paper was produced also out of all of the DCs work -- and so all six of the DCs -- with recommendations. I think what we do after IGF is important to make sure that there is a continuity of the work, that it is, indeed, intersessional, and that it's intersessional work before and after. So what do we then do with this outcome document? How do we come up with ways in which we can make sure that the dissemination is there, that it's able to interconnect between IGF work and other policy processes?
So for example, the ITU also recently came up with a paper on this issue and cited the best practice forum as a valuable contribution to the (indiscernible).
And I also wanted to say that it's significant that a topic that's centered on gender was looked at as one of the DCs' topics because it has quite -- you know, because gender has quite a lot of different dimension, as well, and I would like to continue this effort.
I have a proposal for a topic but I don't know if now is the best time for it or if we should suggest topics later, but I just wanted to say that this is quite useful, and extend also to echo the sentiments that the DC has been doing really, really fantastic work and I would also like to support a main session on this.
I'm sorry. As a last point, a workshop session for the best practice forums. A workshop session that was dedicated to discuss the (indiscernible) output but also very good methodology for bringing the IGF community into the conversation and to broaden the discussion as well.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jac.
>>JAC SM KEE: (indiscernible).
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I couldn't hear your last question. I -- I -- if you could wait for a moment.
Once we get into the theme, it sort of becomes all-encompassing and these report-outs are not just tangential to the IGF. This is part of the CSTD recommendations for more sustainable and more specific outcomes. It's also a significant piece of our extending the IGF's activities when we talk about best practice forums and national and regional IGF initiatives, and I actually think the work that they say is important to them and that they're willing to spend their time and effort into doing ought to inform our theme and subtheme discussions.
So I would like to get through those first before coming back to that set of topics, if that's okay.
I did note your point on the best practice forums as a part of the main sessions as well.
So with that, I think Marilyn, you're in the --
>>MARILYN CADE: Sorry, Chair. It's Marilyn Cade. May I ask a quick question as we think about this?
As -- when we are saying, as we go through this, "We propose a main session" and someone says, "Yes, I agree with that" or "No, I don't," shouldn't we be just gathering the concepts and the ideas and then going back and looking at the magic grid and figuring out how the puzzle palette fits together, perhaps?
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That's exactly what we're doing. So I'm just collecting a list of suggested topics, and when we open that discussion up later on, we can come back and revisit it.
Andrea, did you have a point? If it's -- okay.
>>ANDREA SAKS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the MAG for allowing me to be here.
I wanted to point out that the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability has two jobs, and it took the second job as its first job, even though that wasn't the original intent, and that was to make the IGF accessible to persons with disabilities so that they could participate on an equal basis. Nothing About Us Without Us.
And I just want to highlight the dynamic coalition's work on guidelines which I have given to a few people today in hard copy, but it's on the Web, and part of the problem in including persons with disabilities is that we need to educate people to be able to make accessible meetings. And we're getting better, and as Markus has rightfully said, he's one of the first to adopt what I call captioning.
And I'm very willing to help and I will definitely work with Chengetai and Markus to try and accomplish that.
But it has taken away from the actual work of making political or specific comments, and until we get accessible meetings and educate the world on what they need to do to include us, we find it difficult to accomplish the other purpose.
So I really would like to emphasize guidelines that the DCAD has written to make our meetings accessible, and I appreciate the time to allow me to say that. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No, if -- and thank you, Andrea. It's obviously very critical and we've had a couple of discussions already over the last few days in the secretariat, so it is an area we need to advance.
Constance, you have the floor.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone.
If now is the time to report on some of the best practices, would that be appropriate?
Okay. And perhaps also invite some of the MAG members who were involved in those best practices to complete the report. I know that some, unfortunately, could not participate to this week's meetings.
Overall, for the six set of best practices we had in 2015, we followed the methodology that the MAG discussed and agreed on prior to kick-starting the work, so this is something I think important to consider in terms of having a rigorous approach and a process that is inclusive and completely transparent.
For each of the six best practices themes, we had an individual report that was developed by the expert leaders working in close cooperation with usually one or two MAG members.
Again, I would insist on this practical approach. Having a MAG person involved in the leadership of some of these best practices is very useful in terms of guiding the work, so it's nice to have a combination of an expert or two plus one or two MAG members.
We also insisted that the best practices experts leaders think about the over-arcing theme of connecting the next billion, and you will recall that in Joao Pessoa the expert leaders of the best practices reported into the -- the same main session on connecting the next billion.
We don't necessarily have to reiterate this experience in 2016 of having one main session for the best practices plus connecting the next billion, but it was quite useful to try to tie the themes, the different themes of the best practices, into an over-arcing theme of access and connecting the next billion.
We also developed a synthesis report that gathered a short summary of the six best practices into a small report, and this was quite useful in terms of outreach after the IGF in terms of presenting a short document that IGOs, intergovernmental organizations, business, civil society organizations, could read, digest easily, and use. I think some of the leaders of the best practices will want to say more about their specific -- their specific themes and tracks.
With regards to the security one, Markus I know will come in later with a proposal that I think is very good.
With regards to the theme on IPv6, there is clearly appetite. This came through the calls of the best practice experts, and also during the main session, to pursue this work to go further, to dive further, and explore business cases, look also into the issues of economic incentives, why is the IPv6 implementation more rapid in some regions than others.
We know that the OECD has identified this issue, but at the same time no best practices, no platform has tackled these best practices in a clear and efficient way yet, so perhaps this is an opportunity for the IGF.
With regards to the best practices on IXPs, which is another group that worked very well last year, there was also a strong interest to pursue the work, to look at the specific case of small islands, how do we address that specific environment, and look also at cases where there have been IXPs developed in the past but they went dormant, and identify the reasons and best practices to address that specific issue.
Jac just reported on the best practices with regards to violence against women on line, a very good group, and again, appetite to pursue the work on that track.
I think if -- if we -- Markus will address the security best practice, but if we have -- we have four themes in 2016, perhaps one over-arcing theme on security, one on IPv6, another one on IXPs, and another one on violence against women on line, theoretically this leaves room for one or two additional new themes. But something for the consideration of the MAG is that if we are to do more in terms of connecting the next billion and more with dynamic coalitions, this also means that it's going to use some of the resources of the secretariat. And I'm happy to report on the connecting the next billion perhaps later.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Let me see if I can try and advance the best practice forums.
So I think where we are in terms of the report-outs that we've heard to date is it seems as though there's support for continuing with -- and obviously the key thing is the communities need to be in support of doing the work and going forward -- IPv6, IXPs, violence against women on line, and then Markus is going to come in in a moment on two that he saw this year and a potential --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And the multistakeholder --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Markus is going to come in on that one in a moment.
So I mean, I'm just trying to recap the discussion to date, because if when we're done with this particular session, I'm assuming that when Constance says there's support from the group to continue the work in something like IPv6, that that means they think it's important, they're going to contribute to the work, and what I'd like to put forward then to the MAG is if he would be supportive of those best practice forums going forward.
And again, if we don't get some of this work started very soon, it will be too late to actually have any practical impact over IGF.
If people in this room have desire to have some other best practice forum work put forward, then I think you need to have that defined, we need to ensure that there's a community that will stand up to support it and drive the work, and probably that that MAG member is going to drive that work and coordinate it. Otherwise, I'm not sure that realistically we have the ability to do anything with it for this IGF.
It might be something we put in an information category and we take some piece of this next year and maybe we use the IGF to get some interest in a new best practice forum, but I just -- if we're going to suggest new ones, we need to have a pretty robust plan, support, and agreement to drive the work forward because that is how this work gets done.
So I'll ask Markus to come in on the other two and then we'll go to the people in the queue. Markus, you have the floor.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. Thank you. Yes. I was facilitating the two best practice forums on CSIRTs and unsolicited communication, also known as spam.
They had their second run last year. They did excellent work. And the experts agreed that there was no point in continuing with exactly the same theme, but they felt it would be necessary to have some cybersecurity-related theme.
This is also very much in line with the WSIS+10 outcome which places a greater emphasis on cybersecurity issues.
They did not recommend one particular issue at this stage. There were several issues that were floated. I do remember responsible disclosure was one. Ethical hacking was another. But there was no agreement among the experts which should be the focus.
And my suggestion would be to have that agreement in principle at this stage to have a best practice forum on a cybersecurity-related theme and let the experts develop the theme and bring it to the MAG for final approval in the coming weeks.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Markus. We have Renata on line in the queue --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Renata, you have the floor, if you would like to speak.
>>RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Hi. Renata Aquino Ribeiro from civil society.
I would just like to make a comment on the main session. I realize it's abused a bit, but I would ask for time line of the dynamic coalitions work for those of us who follow any outputs. They were just amazing.
And another contribution in the best practice forum. The documents were so valuable. If a special highlight of the output could be directed in the -- in the new work in the best practice forum, it would also be very good. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Renata.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you. We have two more interventions from Avri and Jac.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Right. So Avri and Jac are going to talk to us about their work on the -- some of the intersessional work, too.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Avri, you have the floor.
>>AVRI DORIA: (off microphone) -- the facilitator and the multistakeholder methods and this was basically a two-year effort.
Now, it was discontinuous because we don't have yet a notion of a sort of ongoing effort on best practice forums that I would like to recommend, and I think fits in with what Lynn said about perhaps we start new ones this year but don't necessarily expect them to terminate and finish their work in a year, though they should report each year.
So with the multistakeholder one, first of all, I want to mention also how critical it is that we had very strong support from the secretariat in terms of having Brian Gutterman, who was basically with us the whole time, did the writing, certainly the bulk of the writing.
Now, we eventually got to a report by the end of the year. We got to a report that actually I recommend that MAG members read because it really discussed different ways that the multistakeholder process was run by different groups and gives lots of hints and clues, and it's something that, you know, in the notion and the parlance that we came up with last year, that our outputs were seen as inputs to other processes, to other groups, and have been given to understand that indeed the output of the multistakeholder methods best practice forums has been used in some regions and elsewhere as sort of input as to what things we could do.
The first year, we had basically worked on the theoretical framing. The second work we got down to was practical recommendations. And that two-year process was really quite useful to it. So I definitely want to recommend the notion of continuity.
At the end of last year, when we got to our output, we decided it was at a good starting point. And while it may be appropriate to do it again in the future or to take up some other multistakeholder methods, discussion, best practice forum again in a few years, it wasn't something that we felt ready to do again this year. So we feel that a two-year run for this one.
The final thing I want to say is winding my way to make this best practice forum not just a one-year thing, not just between two sessions but something that is work that actually stands beyond session to session of the IGF meeting, I think, would be a good innovation to add this year to the excellent work that was done by all the BPF groups last year and the year before. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Avri.
>>REMOTE INVERVENTION: Jac, you have the floor.
>>JAC sm KEE: Jac speaking. Just wanted to apologize for jumping the gun earlier before Constance was done reporting. I think it was a little bit open -- I just wanted to support what Avri was saying in terms of the importance of consistent and really, really good support throughout the BPF process as well.
We worked with Anri van der Spuy, and really the support was integral to the success throughout and also the commitment into the whole process.
And then also I want to say that the support from the MAG community, when the attacks happened to the BPF processes also very, very important and valuable to ensure that there was done kind of like, you know, a broader community that was really committed to the work as well and to the (indiscernible). And I wanted to just note my appreciation on that.
And the other point was to talk about maybe we need to discuss a little bit about the open platforms for discussions and it's subjected to attack by, for want of a better word, bad actors.
So, for example, when we were doing the work on the BPF, we had people impersonating -- we basically the people who were attacking the work impersonating as generalists and other people joining the meeting, recording, and then taking (indiscernible) it and (indiscernible) disposing and so on.
So that created a kind of very unsafe space for really continuing work happening. It really had an impact on the momentum of the process.
And we had to make some decisions because some other participants not feeling comfortable or safe to participate. I think that would benefit from a broader discussion with everyone in MAG.
And, finally, while the work on countering online abuse was really good and it had a lot of support from the community, we also felt that because it is presented as an evolving document and building from what Avri was saying about continuing the work and that interest can still be given into pieces of the work. And there were parts which were highlighted where there were gaps or can be even more.
We also felt that it might be a good idea to focus on a different dimension that is related to the topic of gender as well. And something that came up quite stronger with quite a lot of support is looking at gender and access. So this also links to the connecting the next billion work that was happening last year.
And I guess the proposal is that the topic on countering online abuse be now shifted to gender and access, which also speaks to SDG Goal 5 whilst at the same time adding to the previous document considering it is an evolving, living document.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jac. I think that's very -- (audio cut out). Just see if I can underline where I think we are with respect to the review of the best practice forums we actually have in place now, and then we'll open it up.
I think we've heard from the communities there that they would like to continue with IPv6, IXPs, that what was violence against women online will move to something similar to gender and access -- I'm not sure if that's the final title for it or not -- that multistakeholderism is still very, very important and there's continuous work but that it wouldn't continue as a formal best practice forum.
And that there was a new forum which is -- best practice forum which is imagine, which would focus on cybersecurity. And, again, it sounds like that title and specific definition is still to be agreed.
So if we could get sort of a quick set of comments and/or support from the room for that recommendation, at the same time if we're proposing new ones, we can take that up. That might be something I move to our first virtual call, though, just in terms of the agenda in front of us today.
So we have Izumi, Mike, Marilyn, and German in the queue.
>>IZUMI OKUTANI: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to express quick support for continuation of the best practices on IPv6. It was really successful in getting the people who have the expertise but usually not get involved in the IGF process to contribute. And so I received a lot of positive comment around this.
And since this theme of IPv6, it's very wide. You have to take measures from various aspects. So we were not able to cover all the aspects of best practices last year. So last year it was focusing a lot on community building and specific practical experiences around how to encourage ISPs' networks. But there wasn't really coverage on the economic motivation, the economic aspect of the best practices. So I hope we can continue on this -- on IPv6 best practices with a difference in focus in the theme within this area. So that's, you know, to express my support on the theme.
And just my quick observation about the best practices in general, I think it was really helpful that there were regular online calls and documents for the people who were not able to physically attend the IGF to contribute. And it was also a good way to make sure there is regional balance in contributions. Because for verbally speaking, not everybody's comfortable. But people who are not maybe so good at verbally speaking, they were able to give contributions in terms of the document.
Just one small suggestion for improvements for this year, is that while the document itself was very well-written, I think more work on outreach on the people who would benefit from the document is needed. So I hope in planning for next year, if we can actually put how we're going to do the outreach for these best practices can be a part of these activities for the best practices, I think that would be very useful. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Izumi.
Mike, you have the floor.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Thank you very much. Want to strongly support a couple of things Izumi just said about the need for more outreach. A lot of good work goes into these projects, and sometimes I've found that the best people in the field don't even know about the work being done because we haven't had the resources for that.
And, also, I'd strongly support continuing some of the work on IPv6 because things are changing very quickly. There's -- we're sort of at the hockey stick part of the curve.
As a Web security company, we would like to work with Markus and the others in that group to see if there is something that involves cybersecurity and Internet governance and can be done there.
But I want -- I want to put out a proposal. Frankly, there are a few areas where we haven't done enough work, probably because they're very controversial topics. One of them is censorship, but the other one is corruption.
And I haven't pushed that topic before. But this week the revelations with the Panama papers, I think, is going to make corruption a very hot topic around the world for at least a year or two. There's a lot of corruption that influences Internet governance decisions and telecom policy in various countries. Maybe there's not interest, but I would be willing to step forward and see if there is interest in working on this topic.
There's two pieces of this. One is how is corruption influencing the allocation of telecom licenses and how is it influencing political decisions that favor one company over another.
Even more important perhaps is how we can design the Internet to assist whistleblowers and the people who are going to expose corruption. So there's at least two very big pieces of this puzzle.
If I'm the only one who cares about it, we're not going to go anywhere. But please talk to me if you're interested.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: The other thing you could do, Michael -- thank you -- would be to put a short, you know, synopsis or something out to the MAG list, and we'll see what sort of interest there is there.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: I will do that.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.
Marilyn, you have the floor.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade.
I really want to join with others in recognizing the very positive contribution that was made last year in the work done by the best practice forums. I think we -- as someone who -- I sent two years in the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF. And the challenge to the IGF that was a very real challenge was the lack of visible outputs. And, you know, I think we have really made phenomenal contributions. And I want to applaud everyone who worked on this.
I think another thing that they accomplished -- and Izumi mentioned -- made reference to it, but I want to mention it again as well. The best practice forums offer an opportunity to bring in a subject matter expert who is not interested in spending their time planning the program of the IGF but is interested in furthering the work of an area that is critical to them. And I think trying to capture that additional broadening, concentric circle ringing that is developing is something that we should try to think about as well.
I would support the idea of examining a dynamic coalition that focuses on the SSR issues, the security, stability, resiliency. The term "cybersecurity" might be a little too narrow, but I know Segun and others who are here may want to comment more on that.
And, finally, on the last issue Mike -- well, let me say and I also support the idea that we might broaden the coalition -- the work of the coalition to the broader definition of gender diversity and equality as I think was being proposed.
On the issue that Mike raised, I'd like us -- and I look forward to seeing Mike's ideas. I'd like us to think carefully about how we identify it so that if we do take up a dynamic coalition on this issue, that we're actually able to be productive in the work that we do and we don't find ourselves bogged down perhaps in strongly different points of views but we can actually do real work in a dynamic coalition.
And then, finally, Chair, my only other point is I would like to take the mic again when we talk about the intersessional work on connecting the next billion.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Marilyn. Your last couple comments actually refer to dynamic coalitions. I think you actually meant best practice forums.
>>MARILYN CADE: Sorry. Yes, I did mean best practice forums.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: It's simply important because of the way they are actually supported and stood up. In the end, there's quite a significant difference between them.
German and Mark and then I'd actually like to go -- okay, there's a few more people. I will close the queue and go for a sense in the room with respect to whether or not we can close on that Route 4 for best practice forums.
German, you have the floor.
>>GERMAN VALDEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to express my support to the continuation of IXP and IPv6 best practice forums. Outcomes of these -- (audio cut out). Significant achievements have been made. However, there is more work to be done in both forums. Some more outreach and business analysis and development platform, some examples of the work that is planning to be done.
And in regard to connecting the next billion, a better understanding of the Internet infrastructure like the IXPs and IPv6 will be critical.
We have very good momentum in both forums, and it will be a pity to lose it. There is also a network of experts already in place, and we are offering to incorporate new players so we can continue this work. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I'm going to take the support for continuing IPv6, the best practice forum, as a given, which means it's not necessary for any more comments in support of it at this point, I think. And, again, some forbearance. We just have an awful lot to get through.
Mark, you have the floor.
>>MARK CARVELL: Thank you, Chair. Mark Carvell, United Kingdom government, former MAG member.
I just wanted to express some support for sustaining some element of continuity for the best practice forum on multistakeholder mechanisms. This is an important function of the IGF, to promote multistakeholder processes.
So my suggestion would be if some part of the IGF Web site could be dedicated to multistakeholder mechanisms and promoting such initiatives and processes so that emerging or newly enacted and, indeed, existing multistakeholder mechanisms can report in their experience, can actually contribute to a resource, if you'd like, that would support new initiatives and critically promote the development and emergence of new multistakeholder mechanisms particularly in those regions where it's a real challenge and they need help and they need guidance and they need to look at similar experience.
So perhaps that's one way of providing such continuity without the necessity of establishing a new best practice forum group and so on and all the resource implications of that. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think that's a really interesting suggestion. And I think the secretariat will go away and look at it. Thank you, Mark.
Segun, you have the floor.
>>SEGUN OLUGBILE: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yeah, I actually want to lend my support to the continuation of the best practice forum on cybersecurity and a particular theme which I discussed with Markus. It has to do with the Iota security framework. That theme is also (indiscernible) of attracting IEEE because I know that they have a conference in December where the issues of Iota framework and Iota for development is going to be discussed. And there's a concern that Iota cybersecurity framework needs to be addressed in all that.
Secondly, I also want to support the best practice forum on corruption, especially look at the intersection with Internet governance and open governance -- open government initiative or concept because from the African perspective, it is something that is really impact us really. Because the bigger problem we have in Africa, as you know, the leader and corruption.
So I would like to join that best practice forum. It's an area that I'm really passionate about. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. So on this particular subject, the queue is closed with just two more in, Mourad and Liesyl. And then I would really like to see if we can just underline where we are on best practice forums and move on to the next topic.
So, Mourad, you have the floor.
>>MOURAD BOUKADOUM: Thank you. And good morning to all.
Just wanted to support the proposals made by Nelson, our colleague from Nigeria, on corruption and would like to -- just to look to this issue from the following perspective: How ICTs and particularly the Internet can contribute to the fight against corruption and increasing transparency in government; how governments can use ICTs and Internet to promote integrated accountability. A best practice forum would be good for this item.
Also, the same, I would like to support what our colleague from Nigeria said regarding the necessity of having a best practice forum on cybersecurity. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Liesyl, you have the floor.
>>LIESYL FRANZ: Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone.
I'll just start by thanking everybody for their reports on the best practice forums and the work that has been done on them and agree completely with the comments that have been made about how it reflects a resource as an output from the IGF to so many more in the community.
So the comments about outreach -- about outreach about those documents is also really important.
Chair, actually the comment you made struck me that we could maybe even use the IGF to -- the IGF itself as a way to determine what might be a next best practice forum, and I'm just wondering if there's a way to put out a call for best practice forum suggestions on the IGF Web site and have some sort of discussion about it, perhaps, in the IGF, and that way we get suggestions from the community, presumably and hopefully with some experts that would be willing to be involved in it, and then the MAG members could sort of pick up on where -- what has the most traction as a suggestion.
It just struck me that that might be a valuable approach going forward.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Yeah. I think we'll take that away with the secretariat. It's a little bit what the purpose of the birds of the feather sessions are. You know, people that are interested in a particular topic gather and then understand how it's actually best to advance discussions on that work, but I'll ask the secretariat to go away and look at it and see what we need to do.
With that, I actually think that there's agreement in the room to move forward as outlined a few moments ago with the best practice forums, and would just like to thank everybody in the best practice forum work for all of the work that they do. A lot of it is not actually seen, you know, frankly here in this room and even not per se at the IGF. The output is seen but not the work that actually goes into producing the output, which is substantial. And of course to all the coordinators and supporters in this room as well, it really is critical and it does speak directly to the recommendations from the CSTD group.
I think the only remaining item we have with respect to the intersessional work is the connecting the next billion, so I'll ask Constance to actually talk about that, and she was going to talk about it in the context of implications for future work.
Again, the report has been out for some time, so hopefully we've all read it and we're all familiar with the contents so we don't need to take a lot of time on a summary.
Thank you, Constance. You have the floor.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
With regard to the policy options for connecting the next billion, which was an over-arcing theme for 2015, as the chair mentioned, the full report is on line on the IGF Web site. We also produced a short synthesis, basically a 20-pager, which is easier, of course, in terms of outreach and presenting to relevant organizations or stakeholders.
The document was developed on the basis of a public consultation, and then we integrated over 70 written contributions from IGOs, business entities, civil society organizations or individuals, and of course national/regional IGFs.
For the latter, we got input from over 20 -- I think precisely it's 23 -- national/regional IGFs, and the focus for 2015 was quite broad. You will recall that we looked into the following issues: Deploying infrastructure, increasing usability, enabling users, ensuring affordability, creating enabling environments, and finally we had a set of policy recommendations that were shared with all IGF participants in Joao Pessoa.
In Joao Pessoa, during the main session a set of recommendations in terms of taking the work forward were discussed, and they were actually aligned with the recommendations that came out of the last conference call of the virtual working group.
The main idea that came out was the possibility of taking this work forward by tailoring the policy recommendations at the national and regional levels in order to adapt them to the various environments, whether it's the level of development of various markets, the community of users, the various policy environments, and so on and so forth, and possibly to adopt a case studies approach.
It was noted that we should really capitalize on the network that we have built, whether it's IGOs, private sector entities, technical community, civil society organizations. I think we have over 300 people now on that mailing list who were very active in the preparations of this -- the 2015 outcome document. And of course build on the network of national/regional IGFs.
I think the excellent work that Marilyn did through the survey shows that there's also support to go in this direction.
I'll conclude very briefly by insisting on the need to think of an outreach strategy to disseminate the outcomes immediately after IGF. This takes planning and resources. And also perhaps the idea of fine-tuning the community management tools that we use to make the dialogue and virtual interactions perhaps smoother in the ramp-up to IGF 2016. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Constance. I actually think that's a really interesting idea to take the --
So the concrete suggestion, I guess, for the next phase was to take the policy recommendations that came out of the connecting-the-next-billion work and work to move them into -- at a national and regional level, and of course our national and regional IGFs would be a key piece of that.
So I'd like to open the floor to see if there's support for that, how we'd like to progress that discussion, and/or any next steps.
And again, this is more about determining how we begin action quite quickly, then I think bring it to full closure unless there's immediate and full agreement.
So in the queue here, we have Ambassador Fonseca and Marilyn.
Ambassador Fonseca, you have the floor.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA: Thank you, Lynn, and I'd like to thank Constance for reporting on the preparation and the way the document was presented to IGF in Joao Pessoa.
I was formally chairing these efforts, upon the request of Janis and the agreement of the MAG, but of course the real work was done by Constance. I had more like an overseeing function.
And I'd like also to acknowledge the work that -- done by the secretariat. Brian Gutterman was very instrumental and always helpful in that regard.
I'd like to add two points to I think the very complete assessment that was already made by Constance by recalling one of the main features we decided that should be attached to this document, that it should be a living document. It's not a document that was produced and that should stay in its format as presented in Joao Pessoa after the Joao Pessoa meeting. It is a living document that should be regularly updated in order to remain a useful tool for practitioners in that area, be they from governments or private sector or other stakeholders. So it's very important that we keep it under review in order to make sure that any important developments that take place also can make their way into the document. In spite of the fact that we want the document to remain concise, to remain very straightforward, we should not lose sight of that feature that was attached to the document from the beginning.
And the other point is to agree with Constance and to also emphasize the need to devise outreach strategy, because this is an effort that was undertaken in the intersessional period leading to Joao Pessoa, but -- and has led to this very useful document, but it is very important that it should be made known. I am thinking specifically from the perspective of governments.
I would say this is one of the concrete examples for government officials that are working in that area of the usefulness of IGF. They can -- if we have an outreach strategy that can make sure that we can -- that this document gets to those people, it would be a very visible indication of what IGF can assist in very concrete areas.
So I think this is something that I understand, and I recall last year there was an effort that was led by Dominique and others in that regard to the outreach strategy, but I think this is also something we should keep under constant review in order to make sure that we can further develop -- and I think this would also apply to the best practice fora and dynamic coalitions, that any outputs coming from the IGF and intersessional work can be channeled to those people to -- for whom those tools will be useful. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ambassador Fonseca.
Marilyn, you have the floor.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade speaking.
I want to strongly support the idea of continuing the work on connecting the next billion, but I might slightly edit it and say "connecting the next billions." I think we somehow left the "s" off last time and wouldn't want to do that. But to think of it as a next phase.
But I do want to -- and when I speak on -- report on the survey that the national and regional coordinators undertook, I'll say more about this then, but I do want to ask us to really think about what it is we are asking to be done in this phase and are we accepting of the fact that connecting the next billions, the issues may vary and the conditions may vary from country to country.
Some countries may have underdeveloped infrastructure while other countries may have underdeveloped digital skills on the part of the user. Other countries may have underdeveloped or not-yet-developed political expertise in understanding the importance of the investment at a national level.
So when we think about taking this further, and in particular, asking the national and regional IGFs to spend time on this and to think about what it would mean to effect policy change and recommendations that are relevant, we must keep in mind that this is great work and very important work, but it is also incredibly time-intensive and it may mean that the national and regional IGFs have to significantly shift the stakeholder groups that they are working with within their country in order to do this.
So that might mean that this, too, becomes a two-year project, just as the best practice forums have. So I'd just ask we think about that.
It would also, I think, be helpful to think of this as an a la carte menu, in asking the national and regional IGFs to take this up. There might not be an interest in each one working on all five areas.
And then finally, I'll say something about communication and outreach.
I feel very strongly that we should assume that developing a professional-looking and professionally edited version of the report and the document is a communications output that should be supported by the secretariat by being able to hire a professional editor, rather than relying on the volunteer efforts of the MAG.
And I say that because readability and understandability is a critical issue, and I think even the report we have right now could benefit from being professionally edited, a few pictures added, and it, in and of itself, would make a great-looking output.
So rather than thinking that communication and outreach is about volunteer work of the MAG, I think we need to separate the idea that our documents and reports that we do do have this professional look and that the secretariat be supported in the idea that they retain those resources.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And I think the last point is a very critical point, Marilyn.
I have Baher in the queue and I'll come to him in a moment, and then I would like to put a question to the floor with respect to the connecting the next billion.
I mean, it was a major piece of intersessional work. The purpose -- because it was actually meant to be a substantive piece of work, I don't think there was the expectation that it was a one-year project and it ended.
So while this may feel a little bit fast for, you know, the third of the new MAG members coming in, in fact a lot of it does build on the process and the expectations when we launched this process some time ago. So I'm hoping that I can very quickly get support for continuing the connecting the next billions in a Phase 2, and to that extent would then ask Constance to go away -- and I'm sure she will have some additional volunteers -- to write up a more specific proposal that the MAG could address and we would begin working through our -- in communities -- our own communities and with the secretariat.
So I'm going to put that question to you in a moment.
I'm hoping that a lot of it is pretty self-evident and we can move on quickly, but I had Baher in the queue, Michael, and Makane, and then I'd like to close it.
And please, everyone, just be as brief and to the point as you can.
>>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chair. Baher Esmat, for the record.
I'd like to support the proposal to continue the work on connecting the next billions sort of project or initiative. As, you know, other colleagues said, this has been a great effort that needs to be continued. It could be the sort of, you know, key thing that the IGF is going to work on over the next five to 10 years. It's an effort that is not going to -- I mean, connecting the next billions is something that is not going to go away.
And just to be more sort of practical in terms of -- you know, and be more action-oriented, I think there are two things.
One, as Ambassador Benedicto said, this -- the document itself, we agreed from day one that it would be a living document. So the document itself needs to continue to develop itself through the same bottom-up process, through regional and national IGFs and initiatives, to get -- to get input from community members and stakeholders.
So the document is one thing and of course the issue of communication and how we're going to make the document more visible and more sort of available to the wider -- wider community.
The other level is taking this work to the next level, to take it to the sort of -- you know, to get it into -- into action. How we -- not necessarily as MAG, but how we as IGF community could engage with stakeholders in the regions and the countries could be national/regional IGFs, could be other, you know, partners. We have ISOC chapters everywhere. We have ICANN at-large structures. We have other stakeholders who might have better ideas that we as, you know, whether outgoing or current MAG members, have.
So the document and continuation of the document is important, and getting this piece of work into action is another important piece. And again, it's not going to take one year, it could take five years, but we need to build on that. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Excellent. Thank you, Baher.
Mike, you have the floor.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Just real quickly, I hate to be a grammar nudge, but you can't say "next billions," because when you say "next" you're referring to one thing.
More seriously, I think the reason we -- it was chosen -- the "next billion" phrase was chosen was to somewhat limit the scope and to focus on the next three to five years.
As a futurist, I like to look all the way down the road, but I think it's a big enough challenge to talk about the next billion and realize that in three years we'll be talking about the next next billion, which isn't grammatical either.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Well, connecting the last -- connecting the last billion, but let's not get into that discussion. We can take it to the MAG list.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Those are two different issues.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I know. I know. We'll take the discussion to the list. I think the overall trend of the work is what we're interested in. Makane, you have the floor.
>>MAKANE FAYE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Makane Faye from the African IGF.
Yes, I support the idea of continuing the next billion because at least in the African IGF, it was one of the key sessions where many people were there too. And we had Constance who participated through Skype and gave us the background. And we also had some countries which did the same session at the national IGF. We believe it is a good concept where the connectivity issue is there. And, also, there are other issues of access, all encompassing connectivity part of the next billion.
So we see this like putting pipes and getting connected, but there are other issues surrounding this connectivity. And there is very important. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Makane.
Segun, you have the floor.
>>SEGUN OLUGBILE: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I actually want to emphasize, once again, that connecting the next billion is one of the most important resources that we ever have.
I remember last year that that the policy main (indiscernible) actually was (indiscernible) in Nigeria Internet Governance Forum where we were able came up with the national agenda of connecting the next 15 million. Fortunately, the current administrations of the government of Nigeria has adopted it as part of the process framework on ICT.
Now, the reason why -- how we would like to support it, the connecting the next billion is addressing almost everything we can talk about. We talk about access, inclusiveness, security, infrastructure, all inclusive. But, however, I want to propose that the next stage of the connecting the next billion intersessional should probably look at the implementation framework, particularly from high-level policy, advisory, and all that and then how do you assist in providing implementation advice, especially for the developing countries. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Segun.
So when I closed the queue moments ago, I said I was doing that and would look for whether or not there was broad support here in the room for continuing with the significant piece of intersessional work which will be called something similar to or close to connecting the next billion. And had requested Constance to put a fuller proposal forward to the MAG with respect to some of the modalities of that.
Is that supported by the room here?
Jivan, I know you put your hand up for the queue. If it's an objection or something, then we should hear it. If it's words of support, we would appreciate a "that was excellent." Thank you.
Okay. So we'll go forward on that vein, and we will work to get some information out to the MAG quickly and certainly get it on one of the very earliest calls which there may be a few calls ahead of us in the next month or so.
So with that, I would like to move to the national and regional IGF initiatives. And then we're going to ask Victor to talk to us a little bit about any particular desires, aspirations for Mexico as a host country, probably focus certainly for the whole meeting but possibly with the high-level event so that we can get some feeling for that here.
Again, it's the sort of thing that takes some time to organize. It's certainly an event that the MAG has always felt very strongly about in that it actually engages policymakers at the highest levels which, of course, is one of the critical pieces of our success here.
And that may lead us into -- although that's probably this afternoon -- a subsequent discussion in how we make a distinction possibly between that high level event and the opening ceremony. I think there have been quite a number of comments in the past about them being somewhat redundant and a series of talking speeches. So I'm just trying to give everybody a heads-up with respect to where we're going in terms of the work here. And Victor, as co-chair, will chair that portion of the session, too.
So thank you. And, again, thank you, everybody, for helping and staying up with the pace here.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade speaking. I move to sit next to the person who is probably the most responsible for the fact that the national and regional initiatives have, I think, really come together as a network and have become much more effectively organized, and that is Anja Gengo.
And when I may be taking credit for her work, I don't want to do that. I want to reflect the credit back on the secretariat. Both Chengetai and Anja have absolutely ensured that the work that the national and regional coordinators have done has been so effective. Now I want to talk about what it has been.
Last year I was very privileged to have Janis Karklins as the MAG Chair to ask me to act as the substantive coordinator with the national and regional initiatives to help them plan a substantive session.
So in doing that, we undertook a survey so that they could design the substantive session themselves and they could determine what the themes would be and whether or not they wanted outputs and how they wanted to run it.
We set the meeting up in a -- for three hours. It was not a main session, and that was their choice. There have often been calls by MAG members that the NRIs take a main session. And there are challenges to a main session in terms of the requirements that may not always meet the needs of the national and regional initiatives. So last year the determination was to have a large room.
We did the survey. We developed the themes. The agreement of the coordinators was to actively participate in connecting the next billion as intersessional work.
And thank you, Constance, for referencing that. We had such good response, 23 contributions.
We also had a number of national and regional IGFs who chose to conduct a WSIS+10 workshop or session during their annual event.
We had a number of members, participants, from the NRIs who were actively engaged in dynamic coalitions and in best practice forums. One of the things that is a -- we made a number of concrete recommendations mostly having to do -- in the substantive session, mostly having to do with continuing to call on the secretariat for the continued consistency of the excellent support and even making some calls for additional support.
We also came up with a couple of concepts that I think have been helpful, and one of them is the idea of reflection that the national and regional IGFs should be reflecting into the IGF and the IGF should be reflecting back into the national and regional IGFs as well.
And then we decided that we wanted to continue the evolution of the concept of the networking between and among the initiatives. So among the recommendations is a call for the creation of the observatory additional ways of interaction, et cetera, which I'm not going to go into. I believe those are really in the hands of the secretariat.
But the point is that since we left Brazil, we have continued to work together with virtual meetings. And we did a mini survey which I'm going to summarize, which is about input into the themes and the issues and the intersessional work.
We used a very informal survey tool, and we took a very light approach by -- and several members of the NRIs contributed to helping to devise the survey. It is not by any means a quantitative survey. It is kind of a snapshot.
We gave a list of issues and asked them to be ranked. And then we gave an open space and open area where any topic could be suggested. We'll display in a few minutes the summary, the findings; but I'll just cover it very quickly.
We asked about connecting the next billion, phase 2, which received over 50% response. We -- again, it's not a statistical survey, but I think this is interesting. And we had I think about 69 responses.
We asked questions about inclusion and reflection of the SDGs into the issues, and we received some responses on that which I'll cover in just a minute. We asked about youth inclusion. We asked about privacy and security. And then we also asked these open-ended questions.
All in all, what I would say is the mini survey, the snapshot that we received is going really in the same direction that I think we're seeing reflected here in the comments from the MAG with, I think, perhaps one other caveat that I would mention. And that is there needs to be significant sensitivity to the uniqueness of each of the national and regional IGFs in terms of their composition, their stakeholders, their resources. And I've already made a comment about inviting them, which I think they will be extremely positive about, on connecting the next billions, phase 2, and inviting them to participate. I think it will be important to let them individually determine whether they contribute to all aspects of a request or they prioritize one.
It is entirely possible that in some of the African initiatives -- and I would turn to Makane and others who are here -- that there could be a choice of prioritizing and focus on inclusion of women and youth in the area of connecting the next billion. While -- and Sala may want to speak about what the priority may be in the Pacific Islands. So I think this idea that we are building the capacity and the reflection is really being borne out.
The final thing I will just say so that all MAG members are aware of this is, is we are working on improving the look and feel of the materials that are being -- can be published including the idea perhaps of a template for the meeting reports, et cetera, so that we can simplify but also make more appealing looking the reports that the initiatives are required to do.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Marilyn. That was a very helpful report.
And I have certainly been involved in many of the national and regional IGFs over the years, and I think they're always great events and just getting stronger.
>>MARILYN CADE: I just want to make one other factual report to the MAG in terms of time line. There are -- there is some issues about timing that we need to ask you to take into account. There are 12 regional IGFs right now and 35 national IGFs plus four youth initiatives which we consider but they're not necessarily face-to-face meetings.
In March, there was one annual meeting. In April, two. In May, two. In June, three are scheduled. In July, three are scheduled. And we have the African IGF which will probably be either in September or October.
So what that tells us is there's going to be an acceleration of the scheduling of the national and regional IGFs. And we will find ourselves with probably five, six, or seven coming into the June, July, September, October time frame.
And the earlier we can tell them that, yes, you will have a substantive session, that you will self-direct and, yes, there will be a connecting the next billion intersessional project and, yes, this is the title of the IGF 2016 and the core themes, this is really, really important for them. Many are able to flexibly add a workshop but few are able to completely redesign a program since they take a bottom-up approach to the development of their own program.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I just wanted to correct Marilyn a bit. She mentioned my name. It was mostly Anja who did all the work for the national and regional IGFs.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: We have a small queue, but let me just pick up Marilyn's specific question.
Do you think that the NRIs are asking for a main session or substantive session? And maybe it doesn't matter if what they're asking for is one of the three-hour blocks of time.
>>MARILYN CADE: There are -- there are NRI coordinators here. And I know it's not lost on the MAG that I have magically changed the name of the national and regional initiatives by shortening it, thanks to the suggestion of Anja.
The issue of a substantive session means it is in their hands to organize. We have certain other criteria for main sessions. And I know that will be talked about later.
Some MAG members will recall that last year by agreement, the MAG agreed to a different approach to organizing the WSIS+10 main session. So we did not follow the same format that we have established or the kind of template that we have established.
I leave it up to the -- some of the coordinators who are here to speak about whether they want it in the main room or -- but the point is, I think, they want to organize it and own it. And perhaps I can turn to some of the coordinators who are here to ask them to comment on that.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Well, let me just put one quick question to the floor because I think we need to know when we know enough. And if the national and regional IGF initiative coordinators are asking for substantive block of time that they would like to organize themselves for their own purpose to support the very good work they do, I can't imagine that as a MAG we would say anything other than yes and thank you. Now, I say that only because it's just so evident to me how critical they are to the process here.
If a fast answer from this room facilitates them, then I think, you know, we're sort of beholding to do that. So I'll put that out there and come back. And everybody can tell me I'm completely wrong or that they support it.
But in the meantime, in the queue we actually have Virat.
So, Virat, you have the floor.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Marilyn, for an excellent presentation. Trying to get my head around the world NRI because it has meant in my mind "non-resident Indians" only for the last --
[ Laughter ]
But thank you for clearing up a vision.
Of the three points that Marilyn mentioned, Madam Chair, the fact that they need to know the theme, rightly. Actually, the workshop proposers also need to know the theme minimally. The fact that we're going to incorporate them into a main session.
I just want to point our attention to the grid that exists, the time and space challenges that we have. My recommendation is given the very well-deserved case of NRIs to have a main session or be in a main room, one way to do that could be to -- and we did this last year. And if time permits, we can discuss it. We can bring together best practices and dynamic coalitions in a three-hour session that allows for approximately 18 read-outs of four to five minutes each. We will have to do the exact numbers.
And we can try and combine the intersessional work session with NRIs in the sense that NRIs could be the biggest contributors to the intersessional work session. So if there's a way to do that, that might be sensible. That way you get two three-hour sessions set aside.
If you were to add another session individually for the NRIs, then it will become of the six available slots three sessions would have gone. So then you are left with two more because we all decided to leave one space.
So one sort of creative way to do this is to get best practices and dynamic coalitions in one block for three hours and see if they will all agree to sort of limit their slots and, yet, make presentations for five to seven minutes. I think that was the requirement last year, or the need expressed last year. And we could get NRIs to be a substantive part of the presentations and inputs provided into the intersessional work, if that is what they would plan to work through the year. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Marilyn, you're next in the queue.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thanks. I was just looking around because I see Laura and Juuso and Sala and Makane and several others here. I'm not sure if Sandra is here.
The substantive session that they organized last year and have chosen to organize in the past has always also had an element of their best practice sharing.
So one idea might be if -- Virat's excellent idea might be that the work that the NRIs choose to do on the intersessional would be in the main room but that they also could choose to have more of a workshop time slot at another time if they chose to do the best practice sharing. And I'm using the word "best practice sharing" a little differently maybe than others would.
But if they chose to do another session where they are exchanging viewpoints and experiences that is not about the intersessional work and space could be made available for that, that could be perhaps presented to them as an option.
I would just say that folks who are here -- Laura and Juuso and Ana and Makane and -- I'm looking for more of the coordinators, and we have Juuso, I think, so perhaps we might just quickly ask the point of view --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. I mean, the queue is actually growing here and I think, Virat, the points you mentioned are important with respect to -- I still come back to, I can't imagine with what we heard about the venue yesterday and the space, if the national and regional initiatives are asking us for a substantive block of time to allow them to progress their work, that there's, honestly, any way we wouldn't open our arms and welcome it, never mind saying "no."
If that's true, I'd like to be in a position to tell Marilyn and Anja they can go back and share that information with them so that we're not holding them up from doing their work, and then, you know, over the next few weeks when we get to the workshop program, we make sure that we're working the main session big block of time formats properly.
But if I could, I actually have had -- Sala's been in the queue and -- so Sala, you have the floor.
>>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd just like to commend the excellent work by Anja and the IGF secretariat in launching the NRI survey that's been shared with us, and also, thank you also to Marilyn and the team for the support within the community.
I'd just like to underscore and support the call by the NRIs to have access to the main room.
I think it's -- I don't "think," I believe it's a conviction.
Very different from "I think." So I believe that it is critical, particularly when you're gathering a whole bunch of people from all across the globe, to be fully aware of the issues that are happening around the world.
In fact, that's the most fundamentally powerful thing about the Internet Governance Forum is that it brings people from all walks of life together in the same room.
And sometimes even in meetings like this, and even in meetings outside of this, we tend to forget that, at the end of the day, it's about people.
Even here, we are busy with the MAG and we've got stuff going on and deadlines to meet and whatnot, and there are really very severe and critical issues that are faced by people all across the planet.
And I really would like to also commend the report by Constance, particularly in relation to the technical community, from the challenges particularly in terms of the sustainability of Internet exchange points, the IXPs and that sort of thing, the best practices, and also to see how that can actually -- and I really am excited about how that's developing, moving towards tangible action.
And also for policymakers and government agencies who are there on the ground, learning how they can actually create enabling environments.
We've heard from our colleagues this morning about how they have challenging political contexts in certain regards.
And so at the end of the day, it's really about people.
Having said that, I would also like to -- whilst I have the mic, to also support the comment that was made earlier by Markus Kummer and Andrea in relation to having remote transcripts in real time available, so I'd like to fully support that request.
And thirdly, I can understand that some of the people from developed countries might think, "Oh, there is so much song and dance about the developing world. What about us?"
I'd also like to say that I remember -- (off microphone) -- at the IGF in Vilnius when I heard about a situation in Europe where the elderly community -- I can't remember for the life of me what session but I can remember how they were being marginalized in terms of access, and -- in certain regards. Somebody was sharing that from the floor.
So there's a lot of room to share cross-cultural, cross-global.
And I think it's very important, also, in terms of the evolution of the IGF 2016, that we move from isolating, keeping the dynamic coalitions separate from the -- from the IGF, per se, and to look into ways of how we can actually start integrating them. It might not happen overnight, but certainly to look at steps, tangible steps, where we can start moving them into the -- to make it to be part of the core. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Sala.
There's a few -- quite a few requests for the floor here, but could I take a little bit of a chair's prerogative and put it: Marilyn, on their behalf, asked for support whether or not we would be willing to indicate to them whether or not we would find time in the agenda for a three-hour slot for a substantive session that they would actually control the agenda for themselves.
At this point, I see lots of heads nodding yes and sort of that it's the right thing to do, so what I think what I'd like to do when I look at all the flags up in the room, is if people want to speak contrary to that point, I'll take their comments. If you're speaking in support of it, I mean, I think we could probably take that as a given.
So when I do that, I see there are still two -- no flags up. Oh, sorry. Sandra. EuroDIG. Sorry. I didn't see.
>>SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. It's Sandra speaking from the EuroDIG.
Just a couple of points regarding how national/regional IGFs could -- should meet during the upcoming IGF.
I am in support for organizing another substantive session where we exchange best practices where we might organize a survey beforehand.
This is all good and has been done over the last couple of years, and I think this work should be continued.
Still, I have the feeling that the results of these surveys of this exchange of best practices is not really visible for those who are going to start a new IG initiative wherever in the world. It happens again and again that people come and ask, "Oh, well, how are you doing? Is there a sort of toolkit or is there -- is there something where I can start with?"
And, well, what I can do, I can share the experiences from the regional IGF from the EuroDIG. Of course I cannot speak for other regions. And I always say there is a lot of flexibility in the thing.
There are some useful toolkits around. I know ISOC did a very good study about this. This really helps, to start, but still I would like to see some more information from these substantive sessions on the IGF Web site.
I mean, the survey is there but it's obviously not what they are looking for.
So this is one point. There might be some -- some more work to be done in order to make the information about -- or the information from the substantive session a little bit more accessible and visible for those who really want to start from scratch.
But then I have another point, and I was proposing this, actually, last year already.
Of great value for the EuroDIG and for the European region was the open forum. Unfortunately, as a regional IGF we could not apply for an open forum because we were not an eligible group, so to say, but the EBU kindly dedicated their open forum space to the EuroDIG. EBU is also a partner of the EuroDIG.
So we organized a joint session, invited regional and national IGFs from the European region, in particular, but of course also others were invited, and I must say this was one of the most productive sessions I ever had.
We could define some goals. We discussed our relationship to the global IGF and how this can be improved. We defined some work -- or some goals where we have to start. And we will continue to work on these results or to -- yeah, well, not to work on these results but to produce results which were demanded during that open forum. We will continue with that during the next EuroDIG meeting, and then have another session probably in Guadalajara and --
[ Laughter ]
>>SANDRA HOFERICHTER: I practiced.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.
>>SANDRA HOFERICHTER: So what I would actually -- would propose and would like to see and I would be particularly interested in all the other regions if we could dedicate sort of an open forum space for all the five regions in the world where they actually discuss -- let us know about the status quo in their region, what's -- what are the issues. I mean, meanwhile we have national and regionals in all the five regions in the world, and I would be really interested to go maybe on day zero or on day one to an African forum and to a Latin American forum, to a North American forum, and -- just to see what are their issues, what are the differences compared to Europe, and where we can find common ground.
And I would really, really ask the MAG and the secretariat to consider dedicating open forums to the regions, to the five regions in the world. I think this would be of very great help so that we don't have to again through another organization which kindly dedicates their open forum space to a region. I believe -- I strongly believe this would be also very helpful for the other five regions to meet among themselves and also to -- to let others know what's going to happen in their regions. Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Yeah. Thank you, Sandra. Some very interesting points.
We have Slobodan in the queue and then we'll go to the last hour and take advantage of our Mexican co-chair being here.
>>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Well, the biggest value of IGF is this network of regional and local IGFs that grew up in the past 10 years.
We need to include these communities, I think, in our own work much closer.
So my key point is, I don't have any problem with giving space to -- at the IGF to local and regional IGFs, but I wonder if that is -- if that is enough. It strikes me as odd that at least to my knowledge we don't have any mechanism in place for horizontally connecting the work of the MAG and the local and regional IGFs on a permanent basis.
For instance, global IGF has only about 50% more workshop proposals per year than, for instance, EuroDIG, so it seems to me that there is a space for improvement.
We could use these synergies with the local and regional IGFs in opening up to a wider community the very process leading to our own decisions that we make, for instance, on IGF topics and themes.
We could get more legitimacy behind our own decisions and get better quality of workshop proposals.
So I wonder if we could build, in the next 10 years, a better structure of permanent cooperation, not just provide a space for a session at the yearly IGF.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think there's some very good ideas there and we certainly should look at how we could strength then the support here.
Final two remarks. Aida, I'll let you in the queue, and then Marilyn, if you want to --
>>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Thank you very much.
I would just like to quickly second what Sandra said and the huge need for a toolkit is actually really what we need, because as an EXCOM for SEEDIG, what -- we had this challenge at the beginning. We wanted to include national IGFs. But it was really hard for people even to start speaking on Webinars and online meetings because they had no idea where to start from, and when you mention a bottom-up and don't go from up to bottom, then they just get scared.
Therefore, we believe that for SEEDIG, this is the second year that we will have it in Belgrade, on the 22nd of April. So far, we managed to include all national IGFs for -- we will have a third meeting with them and we really see improvements. Therefore, what is important is really just to have these discussions and meetings with them. Because let's again remember that not everyone can travel and be in place to see how everything works, and it's very, very difficult to understand only when someone is explaining by words, so this is just my few thoughts. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No. Excellent thoughts. A toolkit is critical.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. Marilyn speaking.
I made a reference to concrete recommendations that came out of last year's substantive session and said I would skip past them, but let me go back to them because some of the comments that have been made are directly relevant.
There was a recommendation for the creation of an observatory where materials such as toolkits and best practice activities, standard practices that are used in one, such as the registration system which gathers all the relevant information, where those -- that kind of information could be shared and would be in a dedicated page that was really the observatory for the national and regional IGFs.
There was a recommendation about the development of a toolkit, and in fact an agreement to begin to develop a framework for a toolkit building on work that's been done by others, but to really make it coming out of the experience with a kind of an a la carte approach.
There was also the suggestion for improving the visibility of how the resources that the secretariat can provide, such as access to scheduling the WebEx, et cetera, could be made easier.
So some of these things are the things that it would go into.
The second thing, just to respond to Sandra, the -- in the -- there will be a request for meeting room space from a number of national or regional IGFs who wish to meet within their own region or who wish to work together and take advantage of the logistical coming together.
I think Makane may even want to comment about whether the African IGF would want to hold such a meeting. I think they did in the past. The Arab IGF did.
I did not treat that as competing with the substantive gathering because of the size of the room for those other sessions, but I do think we have to be careful -- and by the way, there were workshop slots that were workshops applied for and conducted, one of which was very similar to the format that -- and which was an excellent workshop that was organized and delivered.
So, you know, I think perhaps one of the things that's really coming across is the visibility of the participation is not as good as it should be in terms of there being workshops organized by a group of national IGFs, but it's just entitled a workshop and so it wasn't recognized as actually being a contribution by a group of national IGFs. Or, as Sandra said, the open forum they conducted wasn't necessarily recognized as being -- as having an identity.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Well, I mean, I think that was a very good session, and at the top of that particular session I heard support from the NRIs to work with the connecting the next billion intersessional activity, but obviously recognizing that it's their choice in terms of their priorities and interests, and I think that's a critical linkage.
If we can now, we have another hour here with Victor. I think -- I mentioned earlier day zero and I was probably a little loose in my terminology because somebody pointed out that, in fact, the MAG doesn't have specific responsibility for day zero.
I would say that I think there are two points, though, where we have typically engaged.
For those that are new, the day zero is traditionally largely organized by discussions from the host country with the secretariat, and there are a number of, you know, very worthwhile events that meet there, Gigabit and that sort of thing, which help to bring additional parties in, which is always helpful.
There have always been discussions, at least in this room when I've participated deeply, between the high-level event which for the last five years or so has taken place on day zero, because again, it does actually serve to outreach to senior policymakers across the world which, as I said earlier, is something that is critical.
So while we, I think, as a MAG recognize the host country's responsibilities and the secretariat's to work with that, the MAG has, you know, at times had some, I think, helpful comments on it. I think last year there was a point made where maybe we wouldn't do that, and some of the MAG -- some of the governmental representatives within the MAG actually argued that without that, it would be hard to get senior policymakers at the IGF itself because that was one of the draws.
So I think the other tangential point to that discussion is, we do have an opening ceremony. If the opening ceremony and the high-level ceremony are the same people talking in the same format in a set of -- you know, that's less valuable than it could be than if there was some level of, you know, coordination or collaboration across the two of them.
And I know Victor, he and I had a discussion and he's certainly willing to learn in terms of what we can do to make those two sessions, should there be two, different and what we could certainly do to make the high-level meeting perhaps more interesting.
And I'm sure there are many people in the room, particularly governmental representatives, which will have some good thoughts on that.
The only other point I make is last year there were a number of items which had come into the secretariat which actually had a fairly significant implication on the work of the IGF and on the IGF itself. In those cases, I think, there's a discussion needed between this room and the host-level country.
I'm not actually hearing any those sorts of requests at this point in time. And maybe we can just take as one of our own working modalities the fact that if, in fact, some significant requests come in that the MAG is actually informed and could determine whether or not there's any further engagement needed. Something just really lightweight and more about communication than a formal process.
With that, I would like to turn this portion of the meeting over to Victor. I'm sure he has some additional thoughts on theme and subtheme. As well, the host country clearly plays an important, important role in the IGF. And we're certainly very anxious to engage Victor and, in fact, the political will, if you will, of Mexico as well and a lot of our activities so we work to make the IGF even more impactful as it has been in the past.
Victor, I will leave the floor to you to sort of use this as you might find most helpful.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks again for the opportunity.
So moving into day zero, we did review our, I guess, experience during the last three at least IGFs that we have been part of and many other events where there have been high-level ministerial engagements per se.
And we believe it goes -- it drills down into what really is a line of -- I'm going to be very candid here. And I do apologize for that, but that's how I talk, I guess.
It's a long line of counterpositionings. And it tends to be very formal, and it tends to be very long, and it tends to be very, very repetitive. I don't mean that as devaluing the message that each country that we as ministers want to share with different colleagues and peers within the room.
But to -- the challenge to have only one day in which we want to share the position of our countries around Internet governance makes it basically a full day. And it has to be like that. And to ask ministers to make use of only five minutes each to make their high-level remarks and a summary of basically the approach towards Internet governance basically means that we're going to use a full day and there are going to be ministers that will not be able to share their own thoughts and experiences and even summaries. So on our minds, it's probably not the best use of that day itself. But it's a challenge. It's a trade-off.
So for once I will be asking -- I will be opening the floor for feedback. But part of our approach towards it would be to really ensure, of course, that the voices are head and the ministers are able to submit their own counterpositionings.
Yet, I think it will be our responsibility to aggregate them and be able to summarize them and be able to have those positions expressed throughout -- either online or through different channels.
At the same time, really exploit the opportunity we have to invite our ministers. And really our proposal would be to be more sectorially or vertically oriented. What I really mean with this is we really want to support the SDGs, and those are vertically oriented.
So, first -- the first one is eradicate poverty, for example. That actually has to do with certain ministries that have within their attributes and responsibilities the social development and the economic development attributes and responsibilities within our own countries.
Hunger, of course, the same. Education, we know exactly which ministers we're talking about. Healthcare, the same. Sustainability and ecological responsibility, the same.
So our proposal would be actually to start focusing and to really open up the box, if I can call it like that, towards thematic groups in which we can start drilling down into what's the value of Internet governance towards a different sector. I am willing to engage in those conversations.
If we can bring our ministers and make them more interested in to what Internet governance means to ensuring that healthcare digital initiatives, you know, get deployed in the best way possible, get shared, get that value extracted, then I believe we're really getting the value across.
The other -- I guess one of which is sectorial, vertically oriented. The other one would be national and regional. We believe we can create a forum in which -- and the venue itself presents a great opportunity towards that to have regional, you know, side meetings or forums in which we can start to summarize and aggregate information from the regional initiatives; that we can then put them forward towards, of course, the global one.
Another trade-off we have, of course, is scheduling and logistical approach. For those of us who attend these types of forums and meetings, we understand on Monday we travel. The forums usually happen from Tuesday to Thursday, and then on Friday we go back home. Day zero is on a Monday, so that presents itself a little bit of a challenge just for traveling purposes. And I believe we need to understand the whole scope of what we're dealing with.
Yet, I also perceive that we may be -- we may be dealing with a little bit of redundancy in terms of inaugural events. One idea and proposal would be to overlap -- overlap them. We're asking our ministers to be there. We're also proposing -- we're also putting forward content and workshops that will be valuable for them.
So for us, the event is a big celebration of our work and the value that Internet governance has. So because we're already there, I think it's going to be very valuable to make one single event and one single inaugural event in which I think the proposal and the bet here is to convince our ministers to hold back a little bit and present actually at a big enough or good enough panel that will be for common interests and would actually be -- will bring value to our ministers and industry leaders.
And I know I'm leaving some things on a general landscape. I know I'm not being specific enough. But I do believe it's part of the responsibility of we as MAG to ensure that we can drill down and we can summarize it in a way that we can raise sectorial concerns as well as the regional ones in a single -- in a single panel or in a single forum.
So what I'm really asking here is to open ourselves for the opportunity to change the format of day zero. And that's based on my three-year experience of attending IGFs. So I understand you've been there more times than I have. Yet, to me, day zero has been a long line of counterpositions which are extremely valuable but they tend to be very, very tiring. And I don't think we're -- that's where the value lies. We need to understand the counterposition. We need to read them. We need to aggregate them. But I think we really can capitalize and make it much more efficient if we change the format a little bit.
The venue itself, as I said, opens area for collaboration and engagement with different common interest groups. And, also -- and this is the other ask for this group. As minister, it's very hard to understand fully what the IGF provides. If I'm -- and I'm a technical person. It's my responsibility to share and to communicate how Internet governance is of value to my different ministers within the federal government, for example.
So for me it's a great opportunity to bridge that gap. So it's one of those divides that we are talking about. If we can actually communicate and translate what governance -- Internet governance means towards our different sectors, in terms of value, I think we're actually, you know, doing our job better.
And that's where I would like to change -- or to propose how can we drill down and make that ministerial and industry leader day zero event more valuable towards -- to our ministers.
If we do a good job in terms of agenda, then they will come. That's my opinion.
If I can explain correctly to my ministers, you know, why we're doing the event that we're doing, why it's important for Mexico, and why it's important for the world, then they will come. They will make their time, and they will put it in their agendas, and they will understand how this is important to them.
Those are my two cents, I guess. I open the floor for discussion as to how can we capitalize on the time that we have on a single day to format, and, second, towards either sectorial/SDG-type approach into bringing value to our ministers.
So I'll --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I'll do the queue for you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: So, Virat, of course.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Victor, for this outstanding sort of push for a new looking high-level. Essentially there are a couple of differences which we want to just sort of capture in our minds as we move there. The opening ceremony or session -- there's a session and ceremony both in terms of structure -- is limited to a three-hour slot. Usually it's post-lunch on day one. This can go on -- high-level can go on for the entire day or four hours or three hours across lunch, you know, whatever we like.
Second, the opening ceremony's very formal, very structured. This can be very innovative and different.
Third, if the ministers and the industry leaders and the civil society -- I know that you have mentioned two stakeholders, but I'm sure civil society will put in their spokespeople there and technical community as well so it is sufficiently informed at all levels.
I think one thing we also care about, high-level meeting is not part of the recorded records of IGF. The opening ceremony is. So that is one difference. And I know in the U.N. system, people do care about that. So I just wanted to mention that. That shouldn't come in the way of getting the best talent.
I was going to recommend that given the fact that this is happening in Mexico and you care so much and so deeply about sustainable development and that there is now half a dozen messages in the last three years about sustainable development -- we all sort of deeply care about that fact -- it might be a worthwhile pursuit to use this as a very sort of informed decision on what is going on across the world with regards to the use of Internet and Internet technologies in the business of supporting sustainable development.
You could look at a -- I am going to say WEF, but I don't mean WEF as business but in terms of structure. They do these open panel discussions. They don't have daises like this but just chairs. And they can frequently change them because you have the opportunity to bring in a panel for 60 minutes and then another one and another one. That allows a lot of involvement.
Or you could look at ways in having a very charismatic moderator. Perhaps somebody from the BBC or somebody which is well-known for moderation who can go into the delegates and then come back in and conduct this in a very sort of interactive manner that has not happened. It shouldn't be everybody standing up and making five-minute speeches. So lots of innovative, different -- but you need a really high-quality moderator.
I believe you have a minister who's charismatic and who wants to do this and is willing to. That could be perfect. But if there are some parts left, then we could look for something which is a globally recognized moderator to run this session. There is a lot of energy required for three or four hours.
But I think the idea of including in addition to honorable ministers and industry leaders, civil society, technical community, folks in academy would be a good one to consider. I think it should be truly multistakeholder. I'm sure you meant that as you presented.
But, also, if we could use this to really focus on the sustainable development piece and the role of developing countries where, of course, the developed nations can contribute or we can focus on something very specific. Hopefully, we will emerge with a theme that allows us even better to sort of close in to the high-level with an innovative format in an innovative setting, make it somewhat different from what we've done in the previous years. Thank you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Lee?
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe.
Coming from an intergovernmental setting, I understand the call-out very clearly. It is something we are faced with a quite a lot.
I would also ask -- I invite colleagues from other IGOs to take part because they are intimately involved in these sorts of challenges.
I think the things I have learned over my time is that I think high-level people, ministers, like to talk to other ministers, first of all. I think they're comfortable between peers to talk about the things they want to talk about. So I think that has to be brought in mind.
When you bring others who are not ministers, there needs to be a certain level in order for them to be sort of accepted almost. I think it is very important to see how one could get a minister talking with another minister on an issue and for them to really -- you know, for them to really enjoy that discussion.
Also, to get the right ministers, you're talking about -- there's a range of issues in the Internet Governance Forum. The challenges of getting the ministers relevant -- responsible ministers for those issues. SDGs and development perhaps won't be the same ministers as Internet issues. You will have ICT ministers. You'll have ministers of culture. I hopefully enough ministers -- the risk is you only have one type of minister type coming into the meeting.
So is there an opportunity to target different ministries in terms of outreach to make sure that you're not getting only one type? Because that is sometimes the problem with silos. And once you put the word "Internet" into the letter of invitation, you come up with one silo, if I can say. So if you can try to bridge the gap between different ministries and try to work out a way to encourage at the national level reflection of which ministry or -- maybe even more than one minister could take part. This could be very interesting to cross over the silos regarding sustainable development and these issues.
And I think we should also learn from what exists. I mean, this discussion -- this challenge is ongoing.
I'm thinking about the WSIS forum in May. The WSIS forum will bring together many ministers to talk about the WSIS. And so what does the ITU have to say about that? And maybe one could even ask their ministers while they are there what they want to discuss because I'm sure there will be coming to Mexico. How would they be open to dialogue in a different setting that you're perhaps maybe calling for? So I would be interested to ask those questions.
There will be Sherpas and other people involved in the whole setting up of the WSIS forum in May. So perhaps it's a good opportunity.
And as with regard to the format, I think if you really want to change the format, one will never stay without a formal setting. So some sort of statement at some point perhaps. But one -- perhaps you could have a formal beginning and a formal end, but you have a sort of a breakout. And would ministers be interested in sitting at small tables amongst ministers talking about the issues in a much more intimate fashion? Perhaps having one or two individuals of the right level moderating those discussions and having small discussions, coming back into plenary, that may be a way forward respecting their status.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Lee. And going back rapidly, I did mean to engage in the whole multistakeholder ecosystem and actually give them -- give us voice. Us as part of, you know, holding each other's stakes. And thank you, Lee, for your comments.
We have Juan.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Gracias, Victor.
I agree with Lynn that I think that the MAG, or at least the secretariat from United Nations, has to coordinate with the host country what is happening in day zero.
Day zero, it was designed as some sort of prerogative to give the host country to organize these activities, but in previous IGFs there have been some holes or some -- in that day zero that have been used for some other activities that, I don't know, in my view, were without some country, like a no-man's land.
And in that case, I can mention that some activities has been organized in day zero by NGOs that does not have ECOSOC consultative status, not even information society status that is even wider, and they have taken that and even some proposals of initiatives that were very contested within MAG had their spot there in those day zeros.
So I know that this is a prerogative for host country but I really urge you that -- to keep -- because this is not officially part of IGF -- of the IGF, but it's within the context of the IGF and it has a set of rules. Especially for these organizations that are not even participating in this.
And so I respectfully suggest that you consult with secretariat, or even MAG, if you want to, for those applications of some civil society organizations that can -- that want to use that spot that is outside. Because they know if they -- that they -- if they present it in the workshop, they will never get it and they try to put -- get it in that way, and that could be very -- sometimes it can hurt some sensitivities.
I am clear? Or should I have to -- I know that in the table, you already know what I'm talking about.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Gracias, Juan. I've got Cheryl.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a couple of observations. I've actually only been to three IGFs myself as well, so you're in good hands.
I think the first one I went to, it was not open to everyone, the high-level. You needed to get tickets. And I think making sure that it is open to everyone makes it easier and it feels more inclusive as well.
So my recommendation would be to make sure that everyone's able to attend whatever high-level events you might have planned.
I certainly like the approach of incorporating a new format, new ideas. I think following the SDGs is a great idea. I always, in terms of structuring events, try to think of, "Well, what is the real value proposition? If I'm going to send my senior people somewhere, they're not going to be doing something else, right? So what would take them away from that other mission-critical work?"
One idea that could be interesting and could help with your vision of including ministers from the different SDG groups -- sort of healthcare, all the different areas -- might be to have sort of a breakout session, as Lee mentioned. I think that's actually -- I like the idea of having smaller sessions at one point where there's more interaction because I think that's what kind of wears people down during the high-levels. There's a lot of long speeches, and of course everyone wants to speak and should have the opportunity to speak, but there's not kind of a break for that active type of participation.
So perhaps a breakout.
And my suggestion for a theme might be policies that foster innovation and investment in each of the different sectors.
So for those ministers that are -- you know, are looking to launch new and innovative programs or to bring in investment to do different projects and things across whatever their region might be, they can actively engage with the different stakeholder groups that are involved in those areas.
So that's just one thought. Thank you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Cheryl.
Marilyn Cade, please.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.
I think you've given us a lot to think about, so let me recall some basic information for folks who have come into our 10-year history of IGFs.
Originally, day zero didn't exist in the sense of it being a dedicated access to the facility -- the meeting facility that could be used for other meetings, and then it began to evolve because we began to realize that it was useful and that groups who were coming -- organizations and entities that wanted to come and participate in workshops also wanted to hold a side event.
And so day zero was sort of established. You could have access to the venue. You didn't have to operate totally under the U.N. rules. We hadn't raised the U.N. flag yet.
Then -- but the high-level event did not exist.
And we were really struggling with getting attendance from ministers and from the secretary and director-generals of the U.N. organizations. And when we --
We did the first high-level event in Kenya, in Nairobi, and I think we've learned that the experience of being able to bring -- and as Cheryl said, originally it was highly invitational, and I will just say, as a small business executive, I've observed each of the high-level forums and I do have some comments quickly.
I agree with Lee that ministers do like to talk to each other and they really value the opportunity to talk to each other, and when I have -- I helped organize a CEO event in Seoul at the G20 where the heads of state came into breakout rooms with -- and this was only a business and government exchange, but the business executives were -- perhaps I lured them to Seoul by the promise of giving them two hours with two heads of state around subject matter issues, and every CEO showed up, and so did every head of state.
But the difference there was, it was going to be a very, very senior dialogue.
I think that has great value, but here's my caveat: Earlier I proposed the idea of an SDG session that would have been modeled after the approach that we took with the WSIS+10. One thing you might think about is this more senior interaction you're thinking about and then the idea of coming into a main session where everyone who is attending gets their two minutes to speak.
Because in the session that you're describing, there needs to be that high-level exchange and the ministers talking to ministers, but the rest of us who are mere participants -- and I don't mean that negatively, but if we have 2500 people, we need to also have a space that can be separate, but perhaps we can make sure that the ministers come into that space and they can also have the opportunity to hear more broadly in response to ideas about the SDGs.
So it kind of marries the two ideas that you're proposing.
I see nothing wrong with dramatically changing the -- sorry, with changing. I think innovation is good. I want to show sympathy to the comment that Juan described. I think we have to have some standards for access for groups who come in and expect to use the venue on day zero, and yet at the same time, I think besides the high-level event you're talking about, Chair, that there's also a need for access to the facilities for groups to do their side event or their self-organizing event, and it sounds like the venue allows that and that that shouldn't in any way compete with the innovation that you're proposing.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thanks, Marilyn.
>>L.P. GJORGJINSKI: Thank you. I'd like to applaud the call for us to be creative and to open up even things that we might think are already set in terms of their structure.
The call was also made yesterday by Victor, so thank you for that. We must be creative and to think of the next 10 years.
So let me kind of connect this conversation with something that Virat mentioned as an idea of having a moderator that skillfully manages the conversation between high-level participants -- perhaps by someone like a BBC journalist or something like that -- in line with an overarching theme that we could have.
The first one is slightly tongue-in-cheek. The second one less so.
So many more things than 10 years will have -- will be connected to the Internet than they are right now. Most things in this room might be connected to the Internet and have an IP address, with the adoption of IPv6, which is an important topic that we will have, obviously, as a subtheme.
With that, Internet governance will get a completely different dimension than it does right now.
So the slightly tongue-in-cheek topic is Internet governance as information society governance. But slightly less tongue-in-cheek, as I said, is the -- and along the same serious lines is that as this happens, I think that many more people will be empowered, but that is not necessarily always the case.
I think that what will also happen is that many people and companies will accumulate a lot more power, and jobs will be also lost, leading to a lot of inequalities.
There will be increased wealth in society, but that wealth does not necessarily have to mean it will be distributed wealth.
So this is a good topic for government ministers or high-level panel participants to discuss, about thinking about how to reduce inequalities in society, and it is states that will need to address those inequalities.
So the second is, reducing inequalities while connecting people and machines, as we have to recognize that machines will be increasingly connected to the Internet as well and will have a role in it.
So just an idea that we can funnel a discussion of ministers around a given theme perhaps on inequality. Thanks.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Jivan. Very good comments.
>>LIESYL FRANZ: Thank you. I'm happy to take the floor, but many of the things that I was going to say have already been -- have been said.
I think that I guess I'll just take the opportunity to say while the day zero event is not technically part of the IGF, as has been noted, and MAG does not have a formal role in helping to organize that part of it, I am very grateful for your articulating your ideas here for us to hear, and you've gotten, I think, some really good reactions from -- and input from people. So thank you for doing that.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Liesyl.
>>NIGEL HICKSON: Yes. Thank you very much. Nigel Hickson, ICANN.
Yes, clearly day zero -- and we love calling it that -- day zero is an important part of the agenda, as has been discussed. It allows a certain degree of flexibility, as has been mentioned by several speakers. And as Marilyn has said, it's been something which has evolved over the years and I think is important.
I think we have learned that the -- whatever takes place on day zero has to be transparent, it has to be flagged, it has to be open so people understand what is going on, so people don't feel -- stakeholders don't feel excluded.
It has to be publicized so people clearly understand that if they're coming to this thing called the IGF in Guadalajara, then there is a day zero of activities.
In the past, some people have asked the question "Is it necessary to come to something called day zero? Why don't we just come to day one?"
And so I think -- you know, I think there is need, and of course it's not up to the IGF so much as to the host country to at least sort of try and ensure that there's understanding and transparency in that regard.
In terms of the format, I think I agree with -- with previous speakers, in that you can be innovative.
The OECD ministerial taking place in Cancun in June does not have statements by ministers. It has -- it does have an opening session where sort of heads of state, et cetera, might say a few words, but it doesn't encourage the 20 or so ministers coming to make individual statements. They will appear in panels, they'll be able to be sort of intervenors in various sessions, they'll have roles, but they don't make statements. And therefore, I think we don't have to have a scenario where there are sort of statement after statement. I think we can have a theme, as various people have said, in terms of inequality, in terms of the SDGs, poverty, or whatever, where ICTs can make this significant difference and we can include ministers in discussing aspects of that.
In terms of the -- in terms of the timing of this event -- and of course this is up to the host entirely -- I mean, I think it was interesting, as we reflected on Monday, that, you know, there was a suggestion that, you know, is it good optics for leaders to turn up, ministers to turn up on a Monday and gone by Monday or Tuesday morning, you know, and then the rest of the IGF takes place. It would be nice to have them there the whole week.
But there's also, of course, practical considerations.
But I do think that perhaps we, as the -- as the MAG -- well, perhaps not I as the MAG, but perhaps the MAG could sort of give some thinking to how you could involve ministers in some of the other sessions. Especially those that are able to stay.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Nigel. Very good comments.
We have Sala, please.
>>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: Thank you, Mr. Lagunes.
I'd just like to draw from the open consultations one of the comments that was made by one of the participants that came in -- I believe it was Cristina Monti -- where she said there is a need to create space for bilateral and multilateral meetings, whether that was side meetings.
I also noted your comments on day zero -- sorry, on the first day that we met here in this room where you mentioned that after the keynote address, like to sort of have the ministerial, slash, VIP, slash, industry leaders, slash, champions, digital champions, and whoever else in that circle, to have it a few days into the program.
I just thought I should highlight very quickly that Thailand happens to be the chair of the G77 this year, and on my right is the chair of the ICT expert group, and I know the G77 is actually meeting in September.
In terms of logistics, given the time lines, my recommendation would be, Mr. Lagunes, as host country, to begin to initiate an invitation letter jointly with the under-secretary-general, should the MAG see fit, where there's a joint invitation sent out to ministers. I'm not sure whether you would be targeting the ICT ministers or the prime ministers themselves, because in different countries different ministers have different portfolios, so I won't go into that.
But in essence, it would give them space to block out that particular -- those particular dates so that they could come in.
Now, the second thing I'd like to point out, I really like what you mentioned where you wanted to -- that there had been substantive discussions in the past in terms of getting the synthesized issues in front of this -- in front of this particular group, and so it's for the MAG to consider also a level of flexibility where you would allow for the consolidation of the issues to be presented to this high-level forum.
And the reason for this is simple. There have been calls from the technical community, I believe, on the very first day when we had the open consultations, if I remember correctly, when Constance said that there needs to be concrete actions. And so there's no better space where, you know, those synthesized issues actually get channeled immediately across the block.
Having said that, should the joint letter go out sometime this week or next week -- I'm not sure what the protocol is -- then the Council of Europe, the G77, and for me in the Pacific I have access to the -- I didn't mention this but I'm also part of the CROPP working group on ICT, and so I have access to the regional ICT ministers so I can sort of work through the forum secretariat to sort of tap them to say, "Look, these dates are coming." So -- but again, it has to be initiated by the -- from you. Thank you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Sala. We do need to get those invitations happening soon.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you. I just wanted to touch on something that was said earlier and also provide something of an answer to your question on explaining Internet governance to individuals who aren't as seeped in these issues as those of us in this room.
Virat said earlier that, you know, the meeting itself, that portion will be off the record. And I would actually sell that. I would say this is an opportunity for you all to have just some really frank discussions with all these different individuals on issues. So there's a benefit to that, even though, you know, two-sided.
With respect to the definition, I think sometimes we get so seeped into the technical aspects of everything that we're doing, we move away from what it's really about. And I think Sala actually said it best. It comes back to people. And I think for anyone, particularly people in a government role -- I know when I was working for the government, the folks that I reported to, they care the most about their constituents, their people. And so I think if you can bring it back to that, to that level, I would like to think that it will resonate better. Even though it seems completely overly simplistic, I think people will understand that and kind of get whatever flows from there. Thank you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Cheryl.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Thank you very much.
Usually I hate waiting to talk, but I'm very glad I did because both Sala and Nigel touched on points that I wanted to build on.
The most exciting thing I heard on the first day of our consultations was your comment about how maybe we should rethink how we do day zero. And I'm glad we're having this discussion. Day zero has become such a smorgasbord of events that it's very hard for everyone who wants to be part of the high-level event to go. And I think day zero is a great platform for groups like GIGAnet and some of the human rights groups to meet.
As a startup representative, I want to be a disrupter and just throw the idea out that maybe day zero should be on the morning of day four, the high-level event, so that we could do what Sala said, which is get the ministers there to react to what's happened over the previous days.
I've been very involved in the B20, which is the business leaders of 20 countries that advise the G20. And they always meet before the G20 and deliver their most important findings.
Sala talked about synthesizing what's come forward first, but I think actually we don't want to try to synthesize everything that's come before. We might think about focusing on the five most interesting hottest debates and the five most interesting concrete suggestions and choose them by crowdsourcing. Have the IGF participants vote up or vote down those things that they heard that really could make a difference and were really new.
The other thing about format -- and I think I mentioned this on Monday -- is the World Economic Forum has gotten away from having the formal speeches by the heads of state and the CEOs by letting them sit together at tables and have an hour-long discussion over lunch or in some other setting and then report back what that very distinguished group came up with. And, again, you're going to have to have the speeches. I understand all the ceremony that's needed. But these small-group discussions can often lead to some amazing revelations that then could be shared with a larger community. And doing them off the record without notetaking guarantees they're more frank and interesting.
The results are on the record, but the actual back and forth isn't going to turn into tweets. So thank you very much. And, again, I'm so excited that we're thinking about disrupting the process.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Michael, for your kind words.
We have two more inputs, and then I'm going to just open -- well, I'm going to make some comments around the theme, around subthemes. So I would kindly close this session after a couple of more remarks and jump start, I guess, the theme conversation.
I will not be part of it when we come back from lunch, and I do apologize for that. I was called into a meeting that I cannot miss for tomorrow morning in my host -- in my country.
Flavio, can you please share with us your thoughts.
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you, Victor.
So we have been talking here a lot about ministers. I would like to see not only ministers and private sector leaders in the high-level meeting, I would like to see a continuation of the approach taken last year also inviting highly qualified representatives of all sectors, including civil society and technical and scientific community, a true multistakeholder setting.
So, the second aspect I would like to address is that tradition is that the host country's responsible mainly for the high-level meeting. But day zero must be open to events organized by all sectors.
I remember very well last year 2015 in particular, proposals have been submitted directly to the IGF secretariat. They did not come through the host country. And it was the IGF secretariat which directly decided on the allocation of available slots in day zero. So just to remember how we handle this day zero in previous years. Thank you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, sir, for the quick second opportunity. Just a couple of points.
One, the day zero is not off the record. It's open to press. It's just not part of the U.N. record. I just want to make sure we make that distinction so they're not in a closed room. Unless we want to prevent people from being there, it will be open to the press. Wanted to convey that out.
I think letters to ministers do go out. I suppose ICT ministers are invited. I think it's usually done by the host country. So that is a part of the tradition. And so that, I think, just needs to be extended. And if different ministers join the G77 meetings, et cetera, then you'll have to look at combining those lists. But I know that ICT -- sorry --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. Actually that's a point, and I forgot to mention it because like last year, we had a little bit of a problem that the letters went to the ICT minister but some other ministers were interested in coming and didn't receive a letter so they couldn't come. But, yeah.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah. We need to find a way to make sure that those who are interested certainly get a letter. And then the ICT ministers must get a letter. That's kind of the -- we have to tick both the boxes to make sure that we're not leaving anybody.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry. Just to correct that. It wasn't the ICT ministers. It went through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That's the traditional ministry. But the ICT minister is the responsible minister in the country.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: No, absolutely. So the foreign ministry decides usually who would go for that event, and it usually turns out to be the ICT minister. But you are right. Those who are interested should also be somehow covered so we can get that list to you from different sources in the MAG and Sala has said it. If we can get names of people who are keen, if we can get those across, if you can give us a single point of contact, we will try to get those so at least you have that list.
There was one suggestion about having them on day four, evening or morning, talk about something. I just want to be practical about it. Ministers will not stay on. If ministers are bored, I'm not sure they are going to stay on for four days. But here's a way to involve them.
If we can get them in day zero at the high-level meeting in an innovative setting, day one at the opening ceremony anyway is a formal session. This they certainly want to speak at even if it's three minutes because that's part of the official records. Those are the places to make the speeches.
One thing that was done in Bali very interestingly led by the U.K. minister actually was the role of governments in Internet governance. Now, this might be too heavy in terms of government. But if you want to get them into a main session on day two or day three to stay on an extra day, then you could think -- let's say you have 15 or 18 ministers. And even if five or six stay on, it doesn't have to be an only-government session but we can do a main session, if that is an objective, just by way of suggestion, under the section "role of governments." It was a very popular roomful session in Bali, like standing room only. Just by way -- they can extend their stay, and some may stay on. That's just one innovative way to keep them going.
Last point is an administrative one, taken from Flavio which he had mentioned. Lots of proposals obviously. I would make one request unlike previous years. I don't think MAG should have oversight over proposals of day zero, but they should have a sight or a line of sight into what's happening on day zero. Sometimes it's a surprise at the last minute on what's going on or to the point that Jivan mentioned.
I think it will be helpful if as a practice we put a deadline saying two months before the IGF day zero submissions must come in and they can be shared with the MAG so the MAG knows what's going on. It's not like we want to run them or cancel them or whatever three months, I'm told. But at least we should know what's going on. There should be no last-minute surprises and both for the host country and the MAG because sometimes these come in very last minute and that we should sort of try and avoid because when there's space available, the secretariat is required to kind of -- and obliged to allocate it. So we should try to get a more structured system of getting these in. Thank you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Virat.
Ambassador Fonseca, please.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA: Thank you, Victor.
I would just like to share a few thoughts in our experience with regard to organizing these high-level meetings last year. And on that occasion, it was not discussed. The MAG had the understanding it would be part of our prerogative as host country to organize it. We did it together with the Brazilian Steering Committee, of course.
With regard to the government participation, I would like to focus on that because I think we have a very clear challenge in regard to the need to attract more high-level participation at the government level.
Well, first of all, we made -- we invited all governments through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- this is standard practice for us -- but at the same time indicating the areas of expertise that would be required. And, of course, each country organized itself in a way sometimes it is the ICT minister. Sometimes we found out in some cases the security area of government handles cyber issues. So we thought it would be useful to approach them through Ministry of Foreign Affairs but at the same time indicating the particular areas of expertise.
One thing in regard to these innovative approach, which we welcome, we think it's something very interesting to do but only to recall that there are some important aspects that should be also be taken into account. First of all, according to our experience, typically it is not realistic in most cases to think that a minister would stay more than one or one and a half days. So it is not realistic to think they would be engaged in other activities in the meeting unless they have a very specific role assigned to them.
Normally they come with an expectation of making a statement, as Virat has said, or if not a statement but some activity that would indicate meaningful participation for them. It has not been necessarily a statement but typically the statement in which they will express their views and convey some messages. And then there is a challenge, of course, to make that session interactive because usually ministers come with prepared speeches. And we always try to make it interactive but it's sometimes difficult.
What we did last year was to -- when we made invitation to indicate some areas which we would encourage them to talk about the NETmundial outcomes, the WSIS+10 process, the ICANN process, a sort of -- try to give them some hints on areas they could touch to try to link to the interventions that would be made by other delegations and other countries. But it is, of course, very challenging, very difficult to say to a minister that he should say that.
So I would only like to share that experience because I think it's important to reconcile the innovative aspects with, let's say, the kind of culture in which those high-level participants usually are involved and which they expect that would be addressed in some way. That's all. Thank you.
>>VICTOR LAGUNES: Thank you, Ambassador Fonseca. And I agree completely.
I'm trying to address one of the issues that I'm actually part of the problem as well. I would not go to some event if I don't have an active participation, meaning a statement I can share my country's position.
So I understand that by inviting some of the ministers, there's an expectation for them to have some time to share their -- their contribution towards the panel. So that's what I mean when it's a challenge for sure.
Also, we need to figure out, of course, whatever ministers, from which areas. And I think on my mind, of course, it's easier because I understand in my country who is involved in which initiatives and who would be the most engaged, I guess, and the most interested regarding the type of agenda that we build together.
So in many other countries, I think the path will be the same although here at MAG, we may or may not have within our countries of origin that access, direct access, to our ministers. But we can definitely help trigger that to the invited countries.
Thank you all for your comments. Kindly received. And I'm very honored really to gather your feedback and putting that into what we could say day zero or chances are, you know, even day four, if we choose to push it.
I do understand that I cannot expect the ministers to be more -- to be present more than one day. It's just not realistic. So let's just focus on just having them and make the best use of their time and our time towards creating an agenda.
And I do gravitate towards saying "ministers," but I do hope that you take it as I'm actually thinking on the whole multistakeholder ecosystem. And, of course, day zero has to encompass and have that umbrella to be open and follow the same philosophy that the MAG and the IGF has.
Moving into my -- the topic of the theme itself, yesterday we had some breakout sessions and some discussions with some of you into what type of event we're going to have and what type of thematic we would like to present. And I lingered certain thoughts around the types of -- the type of era that we're living today.
I do believe the last decade has proven that the Internet is a force to be reckoned with. It's definitely changing dramatically. Our society is changing dramatically, a lot of our sectors, a lot of our industries. And one could say without notice and without regard towards the type of stability that some things that we as countries and sometimes we as governments would like to pursue. That is something it is -- that is something it already is.
I'm part of a working group at the World Economic Forum in which we create and we provide feedback to our leaders, industry leaders, and government leaders towards Davos. Part of the learning that I gathered from those working groups is while I welcome technology innovation, vis-a-vis the new key buzzword from Silicon Valley which is "disruption" -- at the same time it's our responsibility to ensure that this disruption is addressed in a way that doesn't create too much social change and economic change too rapidly.
And I had to understand it fully to understand the role of governments and the role of public policymakers and people in this room would be -- could attest to that.
The role that we have is to ensure that this innovation, this rate of change, and this disruption is addressed in the right way within our countries so that we can foster economic and social well-being. And I believe that's part of the philosophy of MAG, and that's part of, of course, of the philosophy and UN DESA.
So for my proposal -- and I will still be general because I would like for it to be a conversation -- would be actually to gather those thoughts around disruption and around innovation but build a line towards still sustainable development goals. I do believe that's our role.
I would borrow some of the key -- a key analogy that Fadi, former president of ICANN, actually mentions in many of his speeches, which is the Internet as a river in which we -- we don't block it, we don't -- we harness it, we use it, we let it flow. It's a source of life. It's a source of opportunity.
So for us, really having the opportunity to create an event and to host an event would be to create an agenda towards, of course, innovation disruption, invite, I guess, or get all those topics into the agenda, but use them to bridge the gap into what would that mean for sustainable development goals.
The rate of, as I said, change/innovation disruption, in many fronts is -- it's incredible.
I'm very concerned, for example, for cybersecurity issues. I don't believe we're changing at the same pace as cyber threats. So to me, that's just an example of how can we provide a forum and a platform towards that.
So we're thinking around the lines of -- and I'm just going quote me on this, but it's around the lines of like "Harness Global Disruptive Transformation for Sustainable Development," and I just give phrase on taking this seven-word advice from one of you yesterday around the lines of "Harness Sustainable Development for All, a World Under Disruptive Transformation."
And I'm just leaving you those seeds, I guess, for thought, just so that we can open the conversations when we come back from lunch, if you're open for that topic or that theme, and then we can discuss and just -- openly the type of event we're going to host.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Victor, thank you. Thank you for your comments. And I've just asked Chengetai to check and see if you're, in fact, on the MAG list because there's been quite a discussion on the MAG list on themes and subthemes as well, so we will certainly integrate that and take that into the discussion this afternoon, which is, I think, the first set of items when we come back.
I think we made great progress this morning on things that I think are really fundamental to the work not only that we do specific to the IGF but specific to all the intersessional work that happens through best practice forums and the NRIs, et cetera.
So I mean I think we've done a lot. We still have quite a bit to do, but I think the background list, I think, is actually helping pretty significantly with some of the remaining themes and subthemes.
I want to thank you very much. I know I'm certainly welcome to do anything I can to help, you know, this be the most successful IGF, because we try to make every one the most successful, and I'm sure you have the full support of everybody here in the room, and certainly the secretariat and UNDESA as well.
So we can talk later and figure out what sort of additional channels or support you need in terms of moving this forward. And, Yolanda, you're going to stay here for the rest of the day, right? So that's excellent.
With that, I know we're coming back at 3:00 but the secretariat has said they have one more announcement to make.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. Eleonora?
>>ELEONORA ANNA MAZZUCCHI: Hi, everyone. Just a quick announcement. The DCs will be meeting in this room at 1:15, and all MAG members and representatives and members of DCs are very welcome and encouraged to join. Thanks.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. And thank you to the translators for staying overtime as well. Thank you.
[ Lunch break ]
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to start the final session of the MAG meeting today. I will just hand it over to the chair right now without any further ado.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai.
I think we had a very good morning this morning and managed to do -- get through a lot of the intersessional work, which, of course, is important because it should inform our work. And one of the things I'd like to -- us to think about as a kind of future process enhancement as we go forward over this next year is to start working with dynamic coalitions best practice forums, the intersessional work, to get some early guidance from them as we look towards the next year for agendas and topics and themes, and I think to that extent, when we kind of are able to draw a breath here in terms of trying to get through a lot of this work to establish a longer-term horizon, given this is the first year of a 10-year run and there's been a lot of support for sort of multiyear programs and a longer-term view, I think all of that will actually aid a lot of these processes going forward.
I have to admit in past years I just from time to time felt like we were sort of resetting and starting over again, and I think we've had to do less of that this year, which has enabled us to make some fairly speedy progress this morning.
So I have to say I'm hoping that holds for this afternoon as well when we look for some speedy progress in terms of trying to agree a theme.
And when we say a theme, it's pretty clear if you look at all the emails on the list that we're talking about a tag line or a title for the conference.
I do think there were a couple of comments yesterday that said it would be quite helpful to add, you know, a paragraph or a few paragraphs that put a little bit of context to that theme and would actually help guide the discussions a bit more.
I know past calls have listed the theme and the subthemes, but I think to put some additional text, it just talks about this is in the context of the 10-year renewal of the IGF and the SDGs just having been established, and maybe we do reference the climate change activities.
If we put it in that context and help frame it overall, then hopeful we'll actually make some progress towards Flavio's excellent point yesterday where he said, in fact, while we had the theme and, you know, very long discussions on theme, one of the proposals addressed it, the others were sort of more classic, I think you said, Internet governance topics.
So we'll see if we can take some steps this time in terms of trying to tie those things together a little bit more.
So the work ahead of us this afternoon is the themes, which I think it's very important that we actually come out with a theme, a title for the conference, today.
I mean, again, we've all heard about the compressed timetable but that will allow us to move forward with the call for workshops.
I think we also need to have a position on subthemes as well, and either we press forward and we kind of close on subthemes or we -- I think there's been some emerging consensus around a hybrid model which might have a couple of themes because they're so important and so well-supported by the MAG here, but that we also leave flexibility and room for some things to -- some themes to come up through the submissions and the proposals, and maybe do that through trying to work through a tagging methodology.
We'll see where we come out on that today, but we need to have some fairly substantive direction around the subthemes as well. Again, in order to support the call for proposals.
We should come back a little bit later and determine where we are around the work on the workshop proposals and the guidelines from the working group meeting early this morning, and -- I'm just checking my title -- and a discussion on the main sessions or the thematic sessions, but what we're referring to here are those big three-hour blocks of time.
So with that, I know there was a lot of traffic on the mail list last night and this morning around the themes. I think I saw in the lunchroom quickly a number of groups sort of sitting together trying to discuss it, trying to look for consensus, in the best way of the U.N. system, so I think at this point it may make sense to open it up to the floor to look for some comments or positions on themes.
And Virat, I think you've done some work to help introduce and possibly to catalog them a little bit as well, so I see you have your flag up. I'm assuming you'd like to kick off with that?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Chair.
I've got two slides for the MAG to look at. One is the last 10 years of overarching themes which were read out yesterday but will just help us to just take a -- like a two-minute view of what we have, if I can ask them to put it up.
And then the consolidated list of what we have received so far by way of suggestions, to say that -- whether we want to be consistent in continuity or consistent in not being continuous and different. Those choices can be made. But I think it will help to sort of see what we've done so far over the last decade.
There's a third slide that does cluster broad subthemes together, just to see, "This is what it is," and we can decide not to do it or do it and that's a different matter, essentially.
But the first one is the one on overarching themes.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>VIRAT BHATIA: No. We just sent it. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe you could send it to the -- you could also send it to every MAG, in case they wanted to look, as an email.
>> So we can publish them.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Okay. So this is since 2006.
The word "Internet governance" has been used six times in red.
The word "development" in one way or the other has been used six times.
And the word "multistakeholder" in one way or the other has been used on two occasions.
Just spend a minute just looking at the journey over the last decade.
So unless we're trying to memorize these, I can move it to the next slide. The next one is on consolidation --
Do you have it?
>> No. The other one has not arrived.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Okay. Sorry about that. It's a joint email to you, Chengetai, and Lynn. Sent it 3:07. No?
>> It's okay. I will publish it now.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Chengetai, do you have it?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, he has it.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: No, not this one. These are broad subthemes. There's another one. Not this.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I know Brian had one as well. Is it different than that?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: It consolidates that.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: The secretariat last night had pulled together a list of all the --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I just sent one. Just now. Just have a look, just now.
>> It's not in the email. Sorry.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I'll pull it up.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Maybe we should work with Brian's list then.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Is yours there, Brian? Do you want to --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: It's titled "Recommendations for overarching themes."
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I've got it. Actually, I just got a -- it wasn't attached.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Okay. I will send it again.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: You always want to make sure volunteers who are active and contribute a lot feel fully supported.
[ Laughter ]
I have to say, Virat, we really do appreciate, too, all the efforts you put in all the times to help organize so much of the background materials here.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Not yet?
>> It's here.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Sorry about this.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So maybe just a word of introduction, Brian had taken the kind of emerging themes from our meeting yesterday and some of the mails that were online as of probably prior to 9:00 this morning and Chengetai sent that out to the MAG list.
I think what's here is both Brian and Virat worked to incorporate some of the mail list traffic from the course of this morning and I think probably tried to choose those that seem to be sort of emerging consensus. I mean, the line list is still quite long. So that was the genesis of this slide that's in front of you now.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: This is the full list. It has a little bit of -- well, if you look at the first two, you can tell. It is ensuring that no one is left behind.
>> Sorry, Virat. Where is Juan's proposal? It's my proposal a little bit by Juan's. It was on the list. It's not there.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: What was it?
>> Can we scroll down?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: There's 18. We are only seeing ten here.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Scroll down.
>> Yeah, it's 16. 16, 17, yeah. Okay. Sorry.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: No problem. If anybody is missing, please put it in. Brian and I looked at email lists to put this together. Something could be missing. Please do come in if yours is missing. I think yours is there. Number 2 there, right?
>> (off microphone).
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think what we should do with this is use it as kind of the current status of the discussions we've all had offline and in the room today. I'd like to give this a little bit of time but not much. I think we're -- we're quite close. I think the subtheme discussions will help to round out the intent and what we're looking for in terms of proposals.
But I'll open the floor here for any comments or reactions. What I would normally like is a lot of sort of defense over every one of them because I don't think -- I think most of them are fairly similar, and I don't think that will move us forward. So the floor is open. And I see Michael and Cheryl.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: I'm not going to delve into the details of the different ideas, just to propose something, and that is that we do strive as we pick up our overarching title and the subthemes to -- I guess I could use the verb "market" to the ministries and sectors outside of ICT. We've done a good job of attracting the ICT ministers. But Internet governance has a huge impact on the economics ministry, on business development. There's also a research component. So I hope that we'll have some things in here that will catch the attention.
And that goes to my second point, which is in our discussion about whether to do day zero on day zero or not, I think there was some confusion. Nobody was suggesting that ministers would stay for four days. I think the suggestion was that we have some of the opening ceremony at the start and some of the traditional day zero activity on day four. One big advantage of that is that you could then perhaps get two or three ministers to come. Some would come at the start; some would come at the end. In the U.S. and Japan and many countries, there's a real rivalry between different agencies who all think they have the lead on the digital economy. Give them two opportunities to come and maybe they'll both come.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Cheryl, you have the floor.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think all of the themes would work very well. The one in particular that stands out for me is "Internet for inclusive growth," however. And I just want -- I won't spend too much time but just a couple seconds as to why.
I think we're at a point now where we've just closed out ten years. We were looking back there, and now we have ten years ahead of us. And growth really is reflected in all of the SDGs, and I think we've had agreement that we definitely want that to be the main focus of this particular meeting. But it pulls in economic growth, opportunities for people, connectivity, and it's very forward-looking.
And so I think that that could be a very good one for this year, although, as I said, all of them are great. I could defend any one of them for any reasons. But I just put that out there for discussion. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I also think there was lots of support for Juan's concept of simple and elegant. And he's actually just put his flag up, and I think certainly that and a few of the others meets that criteria.
Juan, you have the floor.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: I'm not going to defend any, just to articulate some guidelines, even though in the past we have not followed it strictly.
But I have seen that when this is printed or displayed, it comes always, the main theme, after putting that the "Internet Governance Forum" and "Guadalajara" or whatever and the year.
So I would suggest not -- in the main theme itself not to repeat the words "Internet" and "governance," just to put the main idea, whatever it is, because, otherwise, it's a little bit cumbersome to read "Internet Governance Forum" and then seeing again "Internet governance" for this or "Internet" for that. It's already in the title. People already know that it's Internet and it is governance. So I will just recommend that.
And, of course, I, again, say that it should be short. There are many proposals there that are short. Any could do. And wide enough that it's not -- that it can cover everything. And another thing, you have to remember that nowadays, everybody agrees that Internet is not an end in itself, so I'd rather -- and along the lines that Mike said before, I think that we should not be technical or put "digital" or things like that, because that is not an end in itself. The Internet is a tool for something else. So maybe that -- we can put that in the subthemes or in the paragraph that you say in the call for workshops.
But in the main theme, we have to put, you know, a bigger aim. As was said, this is the beginning of 10 years era and so on and so on.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I'd just like to point out that I think one of the items that was missed here was Victor's suggestion, which is "Harnessing Global Disruptive Transportation" -- "Transformation for Sustainable Development."
I did speak to him before he was leaving and, you know, he appreciated the time to participate but also said he was comfortable with the result of the title coming from this room, so we should make sure that it's considered and there, but know that we -- he's given us his support.
Any other kind of general reflections or comments on the list, and while I quickly in the background try and figure out how we might close this?
I have Segun and Rasha and Omar.
Segun, you have the floor. Sorry.
>>SEGUN OLUGBILE: Okay. Thank you, Chair.
Well, I just want to provide -- I just wanted to contribute to one of the topics, the theme here, Number 9, "Internet Governance and Inclusive Growth."
If we were to go by the suggestion made by the last speaker, I would propose for "Enabling Inclusive Growth." Simply like that.
[ Applause and Laughter ]
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Segun. I do think that's a good suggestion as well.
So next on the list was Rasha. I'd like to give the opportunity to those people that haven't actually participated too, too much so I'll manage that queue first, if I can.
>>RASHA ABDULLA: Thank you, Chair. Actually very, very closely related to that and off of Hossam's suggestion, Number 13 on the list, if we would take out "Internet Governance," that would be "Inclusive Growth, Connecting the Next Billion, and Protecting Online Freedoms."
I would just really like to pitch "Online Freedoms," because if we don't protect the freedoms of those already on line and those we want to put on line, then there's really no point of people being on line. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Omar, you have the floor.
>>OMAR MANSOOR ANSARI: Thank you, Chair.
In Afghanistan, one of our basic problems is the price of connectivity. It's about 300 U.S. dollars per Mbps and that's extremely expensive and unaffordable for the common Afghan. In Japan, it's less than five -- less than half a dollar, I guess, for it. In the U.S., it's about 5, $6 per Mbps.
For an Afghan to pay $300 for one Mbps connection is crazy expensive and they have other basic needs so it's going to be really difficult for us to connect to the Internet.
I see the list includes some really good ones, like "Leave No One Behind" and "Internet for Inclusive Growth," "Connecting the Next billion." These are all good. And there are some other really interesting themes in there, but from the developing world's perspective, if we can focus more on the connecting the next billion, because we are part of that. Afghanistan is like 30 million population and the majority of the country is not connected. And if we can promote Internet as a human right issue as well, that's going to be -- that will really help.
And if IGF or in our meeting we can communicate to the governments, like Afghanistan, to recuse the cost of Internet so it's affordable for the locals.
So I'm -- I really like the "Leave No One Behind" and "Internet for Inclusive Growth." These are the two favorite ones for me.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. That was helpful.
And if the speakers that are in the queue, if you do have a preference or you could begin to support or get behind the "Enabling Inclusive Growth," that would be a good indication here.
So we had an online participant, and then Aida, you're in the queue.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you very much. I've just been asked to read one comment in order to save the time.
Deidre Williams: "I would like to see something about balance."
And from Shita Laksmi: "Following Juan's point and the necessity to include other government agencies and make Internet an issue for all, I would like to support Numbers 2 and 3."
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Aida, you're next.
>>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: I would just like to emphasize that we had a lot of support through the mailing list -- I don't know if everyone are able to catch -- for the human rights and I feel that "Leave No One Behind" really captures the idea of inclusiveness, so this would be for me.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. And Anja, let me just -- Deidre had her comment which was read out, right? Is she looking for the queue again?
Okay. We had Flavio, Elizabeth, and Virat.
Flavio, you have the floor.
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you, Lynn.
So I'd just like to give some arguments for Proposal Number 16, which is Juan's version of 17 which was proposed by myself.
So if we just forget the "Internet Governance Forum Guadalajara 2016," the title would be "Building the Future We Want."
It is simple, it's elegant, since they were the two requirements, and very broad.
I would like to remember that the 17 sustainable development goals are defined on top of three pillars, which are, end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. These are the terms in the United Nations site.
And many of the proposals we have there do not cover all these three pillars. We have -- if you take "Inclusive Growth," for instance, it's more about ending poverty or ensuring prosperity but not directly regarding protecting the planet.
That's the same problem with other proposals that speak about human rights.
Of course all those things are very important but they are not broad enough and we should not take a main theme which forgets some important aspects of human development, of sustainable development.
And "The Future We Want," this is the title of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in 2011 which is built on this -- upon these three pillars: Ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring prosperity for all.
That's why we did this proposal.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. No, and I appreciate --
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: 2011 -- '12 here.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Flavio. I appreciate your input. I'm not sure that I actually feel compelled to ensure that our title matches the sustainable development goals in full. I'd rather it really reflected Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum and our aspirations here for the next 10 years, fully recognizing that there's a strong link between the SDGs and our work but that there's not a hundred percent overlap.
But that was just the chair's prerogative of jumping the queue.
The -- next was Elizabeth.
>>ELIZABETH THOMAS RAYNAUD: Thank you, Chair. And I will be quick.
I wanted to support, actually, the state- -- the statement that the chair just made in terms of not repeating entirely the buzzwords or phrases from other initiatives. I think it's nice if we can roll those themes and ideas into the contextual -- the contextual paragraph, or whatever, that we thought we envisioned for this.
I think there are a lot of ideas that will not be captured by one overarching theme explicitly and so that paragraph could serve very well that way.
And so I would like to lend my support to the idea of "Enabling Inclusive Growth." That recommendation sounds good to me.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth.
Virat, you're next and then Sala.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Two very short comments.
One, one thing we need to bear in mind is that this is an unusual year where the workshop proposers will take their cue from the title. It almost never happens. Workshop proposers never take their cue from the main title. They normally take it from the subthemes. In the event we don't have subthemes, this is all they have to go with.
So as we pick our title or our theme, keep in mind that there are some 200 people who will submit proposals being guided by this and the paragraph that you said. They will not have subtitles to fall back upon.
The only compromise that I would offer, because the comment was made about the fact that growth doesn't cover everything, usually the words "growth" and "development" go together. There has also been a lot of emphasis this morning, since yesterday, on sustainable development, which may not sort of all fit in here and I think the host country also has that in their -- in their proposition. I'm sorry it caught here as well but he said this is the result of the written comment.
The only sort of compromise I would sort of offer that works for everybody is to say "Internet for Enabling Inclusive Growth and Development."
Usually the words "growth" and "development" go together, and there's a reason for it, because one doesn't mean the other and kind of when put together, they're more comprehensive. Just -- but I'm okay with one or the other.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Virat.
Sala, you have the floor.
>>SALANIETA TAMANIKAIWAIMARO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd just like to support Omar's -- what Omar shared in terms of the context in Afghanistan, to say that in Kiribati, we have to pay two or three (indiscernible) dollars to access the Internet for 30 minutes and from the brief survey that was run prior to coming here noting that we will be discussing themes, top on the agenda from all of the mailing list is bridging the digital divide.
However, having sat here over the past few days, notably I've heard from my colleagues in Europe because I took the time to ask the EURALO chair what the sentiments were in Europe and he said cybersecurity is something important to them.
And so in terms of -- in terms of themes, Chair, I would like to support either "Connecting the Next Billion" or "Leave No One Behind" for this simple reason: It captures the following. In terms of accessibility, availability, and affordability, issues that were raised by Oman and a few others from the emerging world; issues of interconnection, infrastructure, eCommerce trade. It captures inclusion in terms of gender, whether it's men, women, transgender, youth, children, elderly, geographical diversity or persons with disabilities. It captures security, stability, and resiliency in terms of cybersecurity, IPv6, sustainability of IXPs, disaster response reduction, critical information infrastructure protection.
It captures multilingualism in terms of IDNs, using the Internet to preserve language. Example in the case of the Catalan community in Europe. In terms of human rights, it captures civil, political, economic, social, cultural rights pertaining to the various human rights conventions. In terms of meaningful participation, participation from underserved communities and those from marginalized territories. In terms of sharing knowledge, we've heard over the last few days the need for observatories and knowledge hubs and the need for accelerated growth in partnerships. And also we've heard, from Silicon Valley, innovation disrupts. It captures showcasing how ICT and Internet is transforming communities.
But more importantly, Madam Chair, what I'd like to -- why I would like to reinforce my support for these two is this: If you look at the phrase "Leave No One Behind," underpinned behind it, underpinned behind it is a philosophy of collaboration, of extension, of -- you know, of working together.
So that was all, Madam Chair.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Sala.
We have quite a long queue here. I'd like to give this discussion about 15 minutes more, maximum, so I would just ask people to be brief, and really, if you can highlight sort of your support, I don't think we need a lot of background. I think it's pretty clear, but I'm just trying to get a sense of the room in terms of where there's any emerging consensus.
So Zeina, you have the room. Or the floor.
>>ZEINA BOU HARB: Thank you. Actually, I sent a suggestion this morning for an overarching theme but I don't see it in the list. That's why I just want to mention it in case -- (off microphone) -- the humanitarian crisis almost everywhere happening in this world. I think we should highlight the fair and decent living.
So I suggest "Internet Governance for Fair and Decent Living." Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Zeina.
Hossam, I think you were next in the queue.
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: I don't know if I have the right to defend my case or not, so if not, I can stop.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: You could start with a quick preference indication and --
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Okay. I would go for the adjusted one, which is "Internet Enabling Inclusive Growth."
And simply, many governments in the developing world are really concerned about fair distribution of welfare. Whether social, economic, political, et cetera.
So it answers all of that once we can see how Internet would be able to enable fair distribution and inclusive growth. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Hossam.
Mourad, you have the floor.
>>MOURAD BOUKADOUM: Thank you, Chair.
I would like to -- I'll be brief -- support Segun's comments on "IG and Inclusive Growth" and also the issue raised by Omar which is not particular to LDCs but also even in middle income developing countries (indiscernible).
As you mentioned, there are many similarities between the themes proposed, so as we use to ask the workshop proposers to merge their proposals, we should do the same, I guess, in our group by reducing the number of themes in the paper as a first step by adopting the first overarching theme. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Miguel, you have the floor.
>>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA: I'd like to support Number 11, but I'd like to add the words "Sustainable and Inclusive Growth." Maybe it would be a broader impact there.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Miguel.
Juan, you have the floor.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Yes. After listening to the previous intervention, and especially your words, Chair, that for me are orders that we need for contextualize this thing --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Nobody believes that.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- I have a new proposal.
But before saying the proposal, I will say again that I think all of these specific things that are being proposed lately, like the growth, the economic part, like the freedom of expression that is part of the human rights, those are important for us aspects of -- maybe that's good for the subthemes.
For the main theme, we need something that cover everything. So my proposal, if somebody can type it as I say it -- can you type it?
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: If we go back to the transcription for more, you can see it there, I guess, is probably -- that's a PDF, I think.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Or here?
It's very simple. "Leaving No One Behind: The Information Society."
[ Applause ]
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: It's part -- everybody will recollect we have the Information Society+10 summit last year. That's our context. And "Leaving No One Behind," it's -- as Salanieta -- as Sala explained, it has all these connotations and in the -- in the paragraph that goes below, then we can say that covers the "Connect the Next Billion," it can cover the sustainable growth and inclusive growth. It can contain and we can all explain that below.
But for that, I repeat: "Leaving No One Behind: The Information Society." That's my proposal. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: It's getting some support, while going away from the short and elegant.
But so did the -- Segun's, as well, which was the "Enabling Inclusive Growth." So let me just leave those --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Let me just leave those two on the table at the moment.
I mean, Juan, I'm not sure you're hearing, but there's --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So we've got "Leaving No One Behind: The Information Society," or a little bit of wordsmithing there happening in real-time. We've got Segun's proposal, which was getting quite a bit of traction here in the room, which was -- and obviously these are preceded by "The Internet Governance Forum." It was "Enabling Inclusive Growth."
So there's another six or seven people in the queue. I'd like to go through them quickly. If they can and they can sort of signal whether or not they're supportive of one or the other, we'll see if we can begin this -- bring this to a close.
And I'm very happy to say now that we have someone that we haven't heard from before in the queue and that's Xiaodong.
So Xiaodong, you have the floor.
>>XIAODONG LEE: Simply, Madam Chair, I think it's -- if I can do some combination between Number 2 and Number 12, I would support that.
I think it's very good memory for the past 10 years, there is four times to mention "developing" and third time -- three time to mention the "sustainable development," so I think personally 10 years development is the main topic. But I think because this year is the first year for the next 10 years, so I think it's very good we discuss how to connect the next billion. I think it's -- we try to make sure the Internet can benefit everyone, but we cannot assume everybody want to connect to Internet. So if we say that (indiscernible) behind the Information Society, I think we cannot assume everyone want to connect. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Xiaodong.
Moedjiono -- apologies for the pronunciation -- you have the floor.
>>MOEDJIONO SARDJOENI: Okay. Thank you.
It was said that it has to be -- there is engineering of the Internet governance and also to a prosperous world. That's why I propose No. 18, "Enabling and Internet governance for a prosperous world" or maybe just like "Internet governance toward a prosperous world," like that. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you.
Just continuing through the list here, Izumi.
>>IZUMI OKUTANI: Thank you, Madam Chair. So in principle, I think I agree with previous comments being made that this is not after -- since this is an overarching theme, we shouldn't be too focused on, like, one particular element of the issue but should be able to accommodate several different themes.
So based on this thinking, I have a preference on "Enabling Inclusive Growth" because it has the aspect of covering the issue of access, digital divide, but also the economic aspect of it.
I think "Leaving No One Behind From the Information Society" based on the same principle, I'm also fine with that. So these are the two preferences that I have. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Izumi.
We have a few online participants. Jac, I think.
>>REMOTE INVERVENTION: Thank you. I have been asked to read three comments on behalf of three MAG members. From of Silvia Monzon Bidart, a mix between 11 and 6, "Internet for Inclusive Growth and Knowledge."
From Sumon Ahmed Sabir: As we are talking about Internet of Things, sometimes called Internet of everything which is really going to impact users of Internet in a big way, along with the cybersecurity and freedom of speech also becoming a challenge. So my choice would be a mixture of 11 and 13. That is "Internet for inclusive growth, connecting the next billion, and protecting online freedom."
From Jac Kee, sustainable development and human rights are linked. Human rights is not only about civil and political rights but also about the economic justice, social and cultural rights. Human rights is a broad framework that should encompass the broad spectrum of all aspects of life.
And since workshop proposers are also very supportive of human rights as shown in previous years, I would reaffirm my support for human rights stated in the main theme.
Now, if you allow, Cedric from UNESCO would like to intervene.
Cedric, you have the floor.
>> CEDRIC WACHHOLZ: I would like to say a few words on different topics proposed. On "Enabling Inclusive Growth," I see very well what Izumi is saying on the universal access and economic dimension. But I go with Jac that that would not be sufficient. We really need to include the social, the human rights dimensions stronger in the title to leave it open to all kinds of different workshops as it stands.
So the different proposals made, one made by Juan Fernandez would not be very inclusive. And I would just propose to transform it to -- to transform the part of "Leaving No One Behind for Inclusive Knowledge Societies." Why is that? Because knowledge societies is actually the term which is being used in the adopted SDG text for 2030 agenda. And it is more inclusive because we want to include dimensions of culture and not only the hardware connectivity and access parts many of us are dealing with but also the other dimensions which are more inclusively reflected in the knowledge societies' concept quoted in the SDGs.
So that would be my proposal building on what Juan Fernandez says. Thanks. Cheers.
>>REMOTE INVERVENTION: Ginger Paque is asking to take a note that she is emphasizing her support for a human rights theme, so what was proposed by Jac. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. We've got sort of nine people in the queue. It ends with German, and I'm going to stop that. I really would like everybody's comments to be quite short. Express a preference. And if you feel the need to actually add some context, please do be as brief as you can so we can continue on the rest of the agenda.
So, Wisdom, you were in the queue.
>>WISDOM DONKOR: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Looking at the United Nations sustainable development, I think the first dialogue -- there are six dialogues. And the first one is ending poverty and hunger. The second one is tackling inequalities, empowering women and girls, and leaving no one behind. The third one, fostering sustainable economic growth and transforming and promoting sustainable consumption and production. The fourth one, protecting our planet and combating climate change. The fifth one, building the effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. And then the last one, strengthen global partnership for realizing the post-2015 development agenda.
I think with these six dialogues to connect with, I think number 11 which is "Internet for inclusive growth." But I like modification on that on the Internet part.
And I'll add my voice to what Segun said. We should just remove the "Internet" and "Enabling Inclusive Growth."
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Wisdom.
Liesyl, you have the floor.
>>LIESYL FRANZ: Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to come in after Cedric from UNESCO because his proposal was very close to the one that we had put forward on knowledge -- fostering knowledge and forging connections. So I would support the knowledge society approach that he took in his intervention.
I'd also want to support the comments that have been made about being as broad as we can to encompass all of the issues that we may find ourselves talking about in the IGF. And so I'd echo those comments and just add that I think where we're going with either writing a paragraph or having some themes will not -- I think we can find ways to not leave our workshop proposers without some context, even if we provide a broad theme.
And then I just -- I suppose I just have to be a little bit funny and be compelled to say that while I love the idea of "Leave No One Behind," it's a very American thing to say. I apologize for that. We have had a presidential policy in the past of "Leave No Child Behind."
And while I am happy to move past that, I just feel like I had to mention it for everybody's humor, perhaps.
[ Laughter ]
>> And what about those who want to be left behind?
>>LIESYL FRANZ: I suppose it is their human right to do so.
[ Laughter ]
So having supported Cedric's intervention, I can also support "Enabling Inclusive Growth" as another option. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Thank you, Liesyl.
Rafael, you have the floor.
>> RAFAEL PEREZ GALINDO: Thank you very much, Chair.
I am okay with Juan's proposal as submitted by, I guess it was, Cedric from UNESCO.
I would like to convey a message expressed in negative terms. So I would like to propose we put it in positive, something like, "Taking Everybody on Board the Knowledge Society" so that addresses Liesyl's concern as well. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Rafael.
Cheryl, you have the floor.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I actually was going to say in part what Liesyl said. It is the -- "no person left behind" is very much kind of an American catch phrase.
I do support Segun's inclusion and growth, some version of that.
And I just wanted to say I agree with all the comments that have been made with respect to how important human rights and some other certain issues are. And I think this is why sometimes the subthemes are helpful because then you have -- even if you don't have exactly, you know, underneath the main theme some of the wording that you think might attract certain proposals, the subthemes can kind of help to drive that. So thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think that's a good comment, too, on the subthemes.
Julian, I was having a hard time reading. Julian, you have the floor.
>> JULIAN CASABUENAS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think that based on the discussions there has been online, I believe that "Leave No One Behind," it's a good proposal from Sala. And also the No. 3 is related to human rights and combination. It is representing the work we have been doing and getting more people benefit from the use of the Internet. So I would like to support "Internet Governance and Human Rights, Leave No One Behind."
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Julian.
And, Alejandra, you have the floor.
>>ALEJANDRA ERRAMUSPE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's to support Juan's proposal. But now I'm listening in this theme about the phrase. Some I'm adapting.
And I think the No. 17, Flavio's proposal, is a good one, too.
>> JIVAN GJORGJINSKI: Thank you very much to drive further on Juan's proposal but also to rethink the metaphor because I think that the metaphor of a train or a ship or something traveling is constantly used and it's not necessarily a good one because we're talking about a society. And that's usually a community. And to connect to my -- this morning's intervention that I do think that the future might produce a lot more walled communities.
So perhaps "Leaving No One Outside of the Information Society" could be another way of thinking about it because if it is a society, then it's a space.
A connection of the two competing things, competing ideas could be more complex. "Inclusive growth that leaves no one outside the information society."
And a third but very simple one would be "All Connected and Included." Thanks.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jivan.
Next is Segun.
>>SEGUN OLUGBILE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Inasmuch as I really would like to consider leaving -- "Leave No One Behind" but from the perspective of addressing critical information infrastructure and the security and all that, I find it difficult to agree that that topic will address it or it would be inclusive of that.
Inasmuch, I don't want to be seen that I'm pushing what I have recommended earlier. But I believe inclusive growth is more generic. It's actually inclusive of all that we have been talking about.
Most of this on the list we are talking can come under another subtheme. You could have a comprehensive synopsis that could help us to capture most of these other topics we are talking about. I think we will get it in a better perspective. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Segun.
Next we have Mike.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: I will be very brief because I'm going to talk about being very brief. There's a great book that I've recommended before called "Microstyle, the Art of Writing Little." It's 80 pages long by a linguist, and it's all about how to write titles and bumper stickers and sound bites and PowerPoint bullet points.
Having listened to the discussion, it seems to me that "Enabling Inclusive Growth" is a very effective way to provide that quick buzzword, four syllables "inclusive growth" that people will talk about.
It's also a very timely topic since for the last year and a half, there's been a huge discussion in at least in the U.S. and Europe about income inequality.
I just think that the shorter the better. And in the end, you've got four syllables.
Juan's idea is nice, but we're hearing a lot of problems. One of the problems is that "Leave No One Behind" is a cliché. It's been around for too long. We might be able to turn it into "Leave No One Offline," which is a nice twist. But I really don't think there's going to be a way to add "information society" or "knowledge society" or "net society" because those are very amorphous terms and they extend a lot further than the Internet.
When you say "knowledge society," that usually includes brick and mortar libraries full of books. It includes newspapers. It's not just about the digital world.
So I come to the conclusion that enabling inclusive growth is probably the one that works best.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Michael.
I think we're getting down to the last four or five here. I have Makane and then Cisse. Makane, you have the floor.
>>MAKANE FAYE: Makane Faye. Yes, I would concur with Cedric from UNESCO that we should be speaking now about knowledge societies because in the outcome document of the high-level meeting in December, it clearly indicated we are not to -- ambition to move (indiscernible) information societies to knowledge societies. I think you should take into account that sentence from the high-level meeting in -- of the General Assembly in December.
In this connection, I support No. 24.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Makane.
>> CISSE KANE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Cisse Kane from African civil society. I fully agree with Makane about knowledge society. And, also, where can we put multilingual and local contents? Because if you say one of the biggest barrier of access to Internet is, one, literacy and then also not speaking that language at all. And, also, I have a concern with "leaving no one behind." Shall we include terrorists? I don't agree with this formula because if no one -- if everybody is inside, then we have to be sure that it's used in a proper and responsible way. So that people that are not using it in a proper and responsible way are outside. That's my point. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Cisse.
Iliya, you have the floor.
>> ILIYA BAZLYANKOV: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to support No. 11 with the added "Internet Enabling Inclusive Growth" because for me it's simple and understandable as a non-native English speaker. And I think that if we go for something more complicated, it may be not so easy to translate in other parts of the world.
I have this as personal experience with EuroDIG. We were unable to make the best translation of the topic to Bulgarian. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Iliya.
I think we have one online. We still have two.
Please go ahead, Anja.
>>REMOTE INVERVENTION: I'm going to read -- we received an email from Amelia Anderstotter. Honorable chair, colleagues, in the past two years, human rights in online environments have risen to the top of the United Nations agenda through the diligent work of many special rapporteurs and not to mention the General Assembly.
Human rights have also been part of the IGF agenda, although in a less prominent position. I want to voice my support for changing this.
If the IGF is a place where stakeholders get together to discuss issues of import to Internet governance, it seems clear to me that the impact of nation state legislation on technical infrastructure as was emphasized by the United Nations high representative of human rights in their report on digital rights of June 30, 2014, is part of that governance. For if Internet governance does not concern technical infrastructure, what does it cover?
I would like to bring the attention of the chair and of my colleagues to ongoing efforts at both of the IETF and the W3C to have better human rights assessments of proposed standards. This is a positive development and will balance power and equity between the world's nations both in a economical and political terms, not to mention the advantage effects for individuals.
For these reasons, the IGF should strive to be at the forefront of these discussions and not leave just them for other forums to deal with.
It is my belief that the IGF brings a legitimacy to the discussion it would not otherwise have. In order to safeguard this legitimacy, let's make human rights the main theme.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Amelia.
I have just two more speakers and then I am going to go to Juan, since his proposal has gotten some discussion, and then I'm actually going to put a proposal from the chair to the floor.
So we have Christine from Egypt and German.
And Juan, you'll give the penultimate --
>>CHRISTINE ARIDA: Christine Arida, for the record.
I would like to go with "Enabling Inclusive Growth," and I think "inclusive" is probably the same as "leaving no one behind," so it's probably the same. It gives the same meaning, and I think the word of "growth" is an addition.
So if we just say "leave no one behind," we may be including others that we don't really think should be included with the norms that they're included with, so -- with the rest of -- so I think "Enabling Inclusive growth" crosses additional. But maybe we can add "sustainable." So maybe we can add "enabling inclusive and sustainable growth." Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Christine.
>>GERMAN VALDEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Very briefly, I'd like to support the Theme Number 17, and maybe in combination with 16, which is Flavio's proposal. I think it is aligned with the recent mandate of the IGF that we need to focus on in the future. It has a broad concept, which I think is important for an overarching theme. And in addition to that, if I am allowed to say, I do not support anything related to "Leave No One Behind."
I'm a big fan of the American war movies, and one of the most common references they use is that phrase, and it was the first click in my head when I read it, even though it was linked with the sustainable development goals.
So that's it. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, German.
Juan, and then Yolanda has actually been in touch with Victor, so we have --
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Chair.
I'm not going to defend a particular proposal but I'm going to say what we're doing here, this is a marketing exercise. Somebody from marketing here?
>> Could we have a mic for the speaker, please? Thank you.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: A technical guy. Like you said before, he's a technical guy. I think that next MAG, we need marketing people here, because let me explain a little bit as an example. It's not that I'm defending this, but as an example.
We need here phrases. This is not a technical or an academic discussion. First of all, let me establish that this discussion of -- and you that are in the United Nations knows that, even though you are young. This discussion of the UNESCO defending knowledge society and ITU and those things, the information society, this is a 20-year-old battle.
But unfortunately for UNESCO what has prevailed in the document is the information society. We had a World Summit and Information Society. It's not a World Summit and Knowledge Society. So we have to have that so people that leads this, leaders, can identify, because we had this summit last December of World Summit of Information Society+10.
Well, in saying this, that this is referenced, that we are not hearing an academic --
Maybe I agree technically that it should be "knowledge," but this is a marketing thing.
And the other thing behind phrases like "Leaving No One Behind" or "A Future We Want" -- how was this? "The Future We Want" -- those are phrases that has the linkage with the sustainable development goals. For instance, the "Leaving No One Behind" is the title -- is the subtitle of the book that came out, you know, that has the introduction of the secretary-general of the United Nations and it's called "Global Developing Goals: Leaving No One Behind."
It's not the concept that we're defending here that we're going to have everybody in or that -- it's just a reference. Because as we said before, and -- that we want to be in that movement.
So it's the reference. It's not that it should be this or that. Just that people read there and they identify, "Oh, this has to do with the development goals," and the information society is the context that the chairman asked that we contextualize in this.
I -- it could be happy -- I could be happy by many of those. I could be happy for "Leaving No One Behind," "Connecting The Next Billion," although it's clear what we may mean by "connecting the next billion," but it doesn't have a reference to a global agreement in the world.
But it could be fine. It could be fine.
I'm not -- I'm not for inclusive growth not because I don't like inclusive growth but because it will need explanation because it's not evident what we're talking about when we talk of inclusive growth. It's not evident.
Of course we all know that we are not going to be taller, that we want to have economic growth, but that could be in the paragraph that you say inside.
By the way, I remember you all -- I said it many times in previous MAG meetings that sustainable development is a concept, that it's already been conceptualized that has three pillars. It has the pillar, social pillar, in which you have -- you have -- you have to be development with social inclusiveness with human rights.
We know that it has, of course, the economic pillar. It has to be sustainably economically, because otherwise, it doesn't stay.
And it has the third pillar that has to be environmentally. Maybe we could create that.
But when you talk about sustainability, it is that.
So what am I saying? This is marketing. Because if we go thinking with one word or the other, I think that will lead us nowhere. We need to have phrases that makes reference to what's going on in the world. And unfortunately that was not our choice. It was choice, this "Leaving No One Behind." There's another. That is "The Future We Want." It's another of those catch phrases that are aligned with the sustainable development agenda for 30 years, for 20 30. Those are the phrases.
And in our area -- in our area, the -- the phrase that everybody understands is "information society" because we have two summits and we have here now the high-level event of +10. That's why -- that's why I say just in this case.
But in any case, I'm happy with any one, but not to be very convoluted because then it will be something that we understand but as somebody said here, I will need to write a glossary when I bring back to my country to explain what we meant there, and I think that's not the idea. We have to sell, and for that we need marketing people. Maybe for the next MAG we need more marketing people.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Juan.
I had said a moment ago that I was going to close the queue and then go to -- and Miguel, I think your flag's just still up because you spoke earlier, right?
Okay. You have a short point? I thought- --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No, no. Please. I thought your flag was left up from earlier.
>>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA: No. I think we're speaking about marketing. "Sustainable" is, I think, one of the most marketed words in the last year, so I think the word "sustainable" to what was Internet -- "sustainable and inclusive" work -- would work.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: When I listen to the comments here in the room, I actually heard -- and -- a couple of things. An awful lot of support from a variety of stakeholders and geographies and countries across the -- across the room here for "Enabling Inclusive Growth" or maybe "Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth."
When we start "human rights" and "freedom" as subs, we're taking -- only -- we're, one, making it long, and I really liked Juan's earlier comments of, you know, short and elegant. I think some of those are important themes and, as Cheryl said, can better be addressed and called out for more attention through subthemes, and we will do a paragraph or two for some additional context.
So my proposal was going to be "Internet Governance Forum: Enabling Inclusive Growth."
As I was coming to that conclusion, Yolanda reached over and said he's been touched in Victor and he's been following some of the themes and the discussions on line and he actually had sort of a preference, and Yolanda is actually going to share his rational and his preference now.
>>YOLANDA MARTINEZ MANCILLA: Thank you, Chair.
Yes. Victor has been following the discussions, and I think one comment that he makes and I think it's important for the reflection that we're having this afternoon, is that even though "information society" is a very important theme, it's a theme and a topic that we understand, all of us, but when you go back home and when you try to invite ministers or VIPs for the different stakeholders groups, either private sector, academia, civil society, technical community, and as in government, it's hard to explain what is the "information society." It's our daily day's life -- right? -- but for not all stakeholders, VIPs.
So we think that in combination with "Internet governance," something to gather, I will say, all of the comments just exchanged before is "Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth."
And I will emphasize "inclusive and sustainable" because of the sustainable development goals and the 2030 agenda because those are terms that are more inclusive of other areas besides just Internet -- or information or knowledge society which are terms that are very important but only common to a very few stakeholders that on a day-to-day basis are handling those topics.
Thank you, Chair.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So I'd like to put forward "Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth" as the title for IGF 2016.
[ Applause ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Supported. "The Internet Governance Forum: Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth."
So I want to thank everybody for doing that, and I think we can -- this is probably the fastest the MAG has ever come to agreement on a title.
It still doesn't, you know, perhaps feel as, you know, efficient as it might and any -- you know, subsequently any discussions on how we might improve some of these processes would be helpful.
Juan, is it a short comment because I'm really --
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Just a short comment because it's basically what I said before.
Why -- instead of "growth," "world"? "Inclusive and sustainable world"?
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Sorry?
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Because "growth," it's narrow. "World" --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I know. I -- I had at least 20 people here in the room that were supportive of "growth," and I think it's --
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: And one also of the catch phrases of the sustainable development goals is "sustainable world." It's one of the -- like that, so if you have "inclusive and sustainable" --
Because "growth," it's only economic growth and --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No. I -- no, I think with --
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: -- growth we're talking about?
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: As a room we've had great support for "growth."
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR:
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Okay.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: It's been on the table for a while. You were instrumental in getting us to short and elegant, and appreciate your help in keeping us there.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you very much, everybody.
I think that's actually a really -- a really good and, you know, aspirational goal as well for the next 10 years.
So we have two sort of more substantive --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: We have two fairly substantive items in front of us. One is a discussion on subthemes. We need to advance that to a degree that would at least allow us to get the call for proposals out. And I think we should also do a -- sort of a session on the main sessions or the thematic sessions.
And by that, I'm referring to these three -- three-hour blocks.
I actually think that could be quite a straightforward discussion in terms of the discussions we've had here over the last three days.
And we have to come back at some point and determine whether or not we're ready to go forward on the workshop proposals and guidelines, the work from the working group this morning, which I'm --
Has that actually been sent out to the MAG yet?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. They should have it.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So Chengetai says --
Susan had, in fact, gone back and edited the documents and sent them out, and Chengetai says those documents have gone out to the MAG.
So I don't want people to take away from the next discussions, but I would like to close on those later on today, if we can, as well.
We've had, I think, two high-level proposals. One is we get to a relatively small number of subthemes -- I don't think we've ever had more than six, and quite often we've had sort of four or five -- and we try and define those today on the basis of obviously some very key topics that have come up through the course of the two days, and in fact, some of them through this discussion on themes.
Or, the other proposal that seemed to be gathering some support from the room was to establish a couple of subthemes and maybe leave a couple open that would come up through I think what was called sort of an induction process. But basically a process that would, again through a couple of paragraphs in the call for proposals, give some guidance to the overall proposals but allow the proposers to tag their proposals, and the committee would actually review those and basically look for where there was some support and aggregation and I guess a reasonable nice mix of proposals as well.
I will comment that doing that, you know, changes the -- I think the meaning and the work of the MAG a little bit.
I think we just need to take that into account because we're, you know, frankly I think thinking this process through while we're flying the plane, to use perhaps a bad analogy. But those are the two that I heard, was either we try and push through for an agreed smallish number of subthemes or we push through for a few and leave some flexibility for the others to arise through the process.
So with that, I will open the floor for comments either at a process level or hopefully precise short submissions on possible subthemes. So the floor is open.
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: In -- thank you, Lynn.
In fact, yesterday there was a kind of third proposal, high-level proposal, besides the two you have mentioned. It is that we leave completely open the list of subthemes, but instead, we allow the workshop proposers to tag their proposals with up to three or four tags, stating which would be the subthemes they think this --
And we can give some guidance. For instance, having a list, an open-ended list of 30, 40 subthemes. We can draw these from the previous IGF editions or we can start with this list and then give a few days to the MAG members to add other topics they think are missing in this list.
So this would be a list of 20, 30 subthemes, or even more, and then the workshop proposers would tag their proposals with these subthemes.
It would not be really subthemes. It would be a long list of possible tags.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Flavio.
Laura, you have the floor.
>>LAURA HUTCHISON: Thank you, Chair. I wanted to just come in in this discussion and link back to something that was in the session before -- well, one of the morning sessions before lunchtime when we were talking about the dynamic coalitions.
Mike Nelson raised the suggestion for having a dynamic coalition on corruption or working against corruption. I think that's --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>LAURA HUTCHISON: Sorry. I think that shows how we can't be too prescriptive. New issues are coming up all the time and I think if we try and nail down the subthemes too much, we risk stifling some innovation and some bottom-up suggestions coming through from workshop proposers.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Laura.
Virat, you're in the queue.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: So there is one slide that I sent to Luis, if you could put that.
This is the one that sort of gives us an idea. If you wish to work with -- rather than subthemes, work with clusters, that does not suppress innovation and yet allows --
The comment that I want to make is, if you say, "Please tag yourself to a subtheme" without giving a list, then lots of new first-timers will give us just --
So what the secretariat will have at the end of that is 150 subthemes that people will invent. It will then become a little difficult to bring it together and run with this.
I mean, that's the -- they'll need extra time.
We can go with that approach. Nothing wrong. But here is a -- if you can just see this on the cluster, this is a collection of --
Luis, could I ask you to get that slide?
This is a collection of clusters of subthemes over the last 10 years, including this IGF and everything that sort of has been thought about in broad terms.
It's not perfect, but this is -- we just collected this mostly using information that Flavio had posted and then some more research based on what is there currently.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Virat, can I just ask for a clarification? And there isn't anyone else in the queue. I think you're suggesting perhaps a variation of what Flavio said, which is rather than giving a fairly sizable list of possible tags, that you would actually give a set of clustered subthemes --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: If you want to --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- and just for the clustered subthemes?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah. If you want to, in fact, give out a guidance, then it might make sense to give these very broad subthemes under which several of them appear.
Luis, do you have that slide? I sent -- no?
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think you're talking about the --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: No. The one I showed earlier. Remember? We showed that earlier.
You showed that earlier. No, the one you showed after this. No, there's another one. The one you showed after this, you had shown that. And then we said "not this."
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Luis.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Sorry about this.
We can take other comments in the meantime.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Luis, take your time. Avri is in the line as an online participant, so we'll go to Avri and then...
>>AVRI DORIA: I want to thank Flavio for bringing up the idea of allowing the themes to emerge.
I can actually, though -- even though I haven't seen the picture, I could actually support the notion of including a picture of "Here, here's the themes that we have had for the previous ten years. Pick one of these or contribute your own" as a way of allowing that emergence with guidance.
But I still think it's very important for us to bring some part of this planning back into a bottom-up methodology that allows those that are going to be contributing to workshops, which to my mind -- and I don't think I'm alone -- is one of the most important parts of the dialogue that is the IGF and to put that in the hands of those that make the recommendations.
We've also talked about having Webinars. And we've talked about perhaps coming up with methods for helping, you know, proposal writers who may want a little bit of assistance in doing it right. So that becomes, again, something that can help them.
But I would really like to ask people to seriously consider letting us have some bottom-up emergence on the themes, perhaps bottom-up with guidance but bottom-up. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Why don't I put that question to the room. So rather than talking about the modalities of how we might or might not support some flexibility in the subthemes, are people generally happy with some portion of -- it sounds like some portion of subthemes perhaps being -- let me rephrase this.
Are we happy allowing flexibility, whether it's 100% flexibility on the themes or it's one or two subthemes and some other themes? There's no contrary opinions that say we should be extra prescriptive and define all the subthemes in the room? Okay. Just to take that off the table.
Makane, is it to that point?
>>MAKANE FAYE: Yes. Thank you, Chair. Makane Faye. I believe it would be very difficult to leave it open because if we leave it open, we'll end up having maybe 1,000 subthemes because workshop proposers -- if we leave it to workshop proposers, they just come on their own interest. I think we should go back to what we have been doing, giving subthemes. At least give a cluster of subthemes and see if people can fit in fine. If they can't fit, if they bring something which the MAG thinks it is okay, then they can add it. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Makane.
Would you support a hybrid? Would you support a hybrid, leaving some flexibility and some specificity to subthemes?
>>MAKANE FAYE: The MAG was appointed to deal with these issues. I would really prefer to be prescriptive.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Juan, you have the floor.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Yes, Chair. I realize that you are in sort of a conundrum here because as I said before in some other meetings, we, the MAG, are a -- we the MAG are a wedding planner. We are actually -- that's our job.
[ Laughter ]
Our job is to plan the whole wedding from the hors d'oeuvres to the drinks and even the selection of the orchestra. When we select the orchestra, we put the music. But we cannot know how the participants will dance to that music.
So I think that what you're saying as a hybrid, I think, is the solution because what Avri just said has a lot of merit. Because nobody here can say that we can exhaust all the subjects. There will be always somebody that will surprise us and will propose a workshop in a theme that we didn't foresee. And when we see it, we say, "Ah, yes, it's important." We should be open to that.
On the other hand -- on the other hand, as good wedding planners, we need some order in the party. So maybe there's some themes that we already can agree that because they're relevant, I think the chairman, the co-chair Victor mentioned cybersecurity himself, maybe that's one because it's very relevant and very actual. Or maybe some others that we should in a way suggest.
But I think that the way out of this is not to have a list but to have sort of a paragraph in the call for workshops, a paragraph in which we say we encourage -- as you said, to put the context. This is the year, as you mentioned, the climate change, the sustainable development, pop, pop, pop, to put that. And we encourage to mention a workshop that address these topics, whatever, and includes something important such as -- and we can put cybersecurity. And it's an open list.
And so some people -- to put it like that in a paragraph, not in a list like that because when you list it like is on the screen now, it seems to be exhaustive, you know. Is it that and nothing else? If you put it in a paragraph in good reduction, then you can leave open to that. That's what I think could be the solution to this.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And we can certainly obviously provide more context.
I want to come back to Virat now to explain the chart here because I think that might point to a methodology that hopefully bridges the differing views here. And then we'll go back to the rest of the queue.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: So these are the cluster of themes that have been collected over the last ten years including workshops that have been submitted. So these are over 1,000 workshops perhaps. And these are the broad themes under which they have been suggested.
If there are new ideas, we could either leave it under emerging issues and the people can sort of put it out there that says "others." So in terms of new ideas, things that are now coming up that may not have anticipated, you can leave it under emerging issues.
The reason, Chair, I'm suggesting "clusters" and not sort of specific subthemes -- by the way, in previous IGFs, surveillance has been a subtheme. Legal framework has been a subtheme. Enhancing digital trust has been a subtheme. We're not suggesting that. We're putting them under these main headers. We can reduce them from six even down to, let's say, four.
The reason why this is being suggested is the following. Apart from the fact that the guidance is required by the workshop proposal submitters, the program of the IGF when printed on the Web site color codes themes. People decide which workshops they want to attend based on the color codes because, remember, at any given point in time, 10 parallel workshops are going on. So the choices that a person makes when he gets into the IGF pavilions is, "I want to go and listen to issues of critical Internet resources." All of them are tagged in pink color. Then they don't have to read all ten parallel sessions. There are ten parallel sessions are running.
So then a delegate must read the details of every single workshop listed between, say, 3:30 and 4:00 to understand which room he needs to be in. So this is all -- now, we can avoid this, go with an open process. Then the task will fall upon the secretariat to bring these hundred or 200 or 400 proposals into the themes because in the end, the program in the agenda has to be color coded. I think Chengetai can explain a little bit.
So it's not so much only about what the workshop providers do, it's also about what they need to output in the final program and sort of link these two and, therefore, provide clusters. We can change these. That's all. I mean, I have no preference for one or the other, just providing an input.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Virat.
We had Cheryl in the queue next. Cheryl, you have the floor.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do support a hybrid approach, and I do take note of Makane's comment regarding what happens if we get a large number of proposals, say -- I mean, say someone tags it as "unicorn" as a theme. I think at that point we could then look at that, read the proposal and see, okay, well this is actually probably more suited for cybersecurity, put it over there. Or this is actually probably more suited for human rights.
But then it at least offers some flexibility. So for someone who doesn't want to be bothered thinking of a theme or they know they're definitely doing privacy, there's guidance there.
And, also, people can already see what already exists and get a good idea, "Well, there's a gap here so maybe I can propose this theme."
I think that's how we could address -- address that problem if we went under a hybrid approach. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Cheryl.
Flavio, you have the floor.
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you, Lynn.
Just would like to speak again for the hybrid model. It's -- I fully agree with Cheryl. We should not fear that people will come up with a unicorn tag or something like that.
As Cheryl said, if this is the case, this will be for a very small number of workshops. There's a very few number of tags that are completely unrelated to Internet governance. Then we can just correct those tags for easing the task of clustering the workshops afterwards.
So I think that if we propose a list of -- (audio cut out) -- we can decide if we already prescribe some clustering before. Or we just give a list of unclustered 20. How many topics we have there, if we forget the clusters? We have about 25 topics. That's not too much.
So we say these are possible tags but you are free to propose additional tags so that we give this opportunity to the community to feel that we are following a bottom-up approach and leaving it flexible to people to propose other things.
And then for clustering, even if you did not cluster before, it's not so hard. We had these six main clusters already. The tags that will come up will be not too much different from those main aspects there. And there is always -- we have been having this for many years, this emerging issues subtheme. So things that do not fit well into the five -- first ones, they will fit into emerging issues. So I don't see too many -- too much of a difficulty in clustering before -- afterwards and leave now an unclustered list of 25 topics.
And then give a few days for the MAG members to see if they want to add something in the list that will be published in this first call for proposals. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Flavio.
There's another four or five people on the list. But I just want to try and I think consolidate where we are to make sure we don't lose these threads.
It seems as those there's sort of an emerging consensus that we certainly need to leave flexibility, that working through a notion of -- trying to avoid the word "tags" -- tagging or a set of possible issue areas identified either individually in 25 line items or clustered into six, it seems as those that's supported as an approach here in the room. And I would like to know if that's sort of fair now because I think the next question is: Does the room feel any burning need to identify specifically one or two subthemes? I don't want to let that go without specifically addressing it.
And I really would like some -- you know, some newer voices as well. We do have a queue here. But, again, the two things I'm looking for that I saw heads nodding when I said, yes, it appears as though we're going to go to a hybrid which is going to allow some flexibility, I think we need to figure out how to structure that -- I think there's support in the room for that -- and I think the modalities a little bit and whether or not we feel there's a burning need to have any specific subthemes identified.
And with that in the queue I actually have Miguel, Jac, Rasha, Izumi, and another five below that.
Miguel, you have the floor.
>>MIGUEL IGNACIO ESTRADA: I'd like to support what Flavio just said. And I think we should have predefined clusters but not show them in the forms.
And then in the form, we could have a field for subtheme. But we may have predefined subthemes. But while the proposals are being written, we could suggest them. And only if they don't fit, they would write a new one. While we are writing different words, we'll maybe be suggesting them for subthemes for another topic. So we want to get a long list. We would be showing the list. And if there are really new things, we are going to take them into account.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Miguel.
I'd like to give maximum ten more minutes to this discussion given the other ones in front of us. I think there's fairly high consensus. So if you are in support, then I think we can take that as support. If there's something you want to comment that you think affects the direction overall, then, please, let's do that.
So give everybody a moment to put their flags down if we've made enough progress that we can do that. If not, we'll continue working through the list.
We do have Jac online, though, so we'll take Jac's comment.
>>REMOTE INVERVENTION: Jac, you have the floor now.
>>JAC sm KEE: Yes. This is Jac. I just wanted to support the -- I wanted to support the bottom-up approach and to have subthemes emerging, whether this is in entirety or in hybrid.
I also wanted to say that if this is happening, then the main theme would be quite an important part of providing some guidance to the workshop proposers, in which case there should be kind of maybe, like, a page that articulates all of the different components that we spoke about in the discussion earlier to make sure that this is also part of -- part of what we envisage in the inclusive and sustainable growth.
For example, linkage to the SDGs, that it should speak directly to the impact on human life, that human rights is a core concept and so on.
And for the clustering, I think that we should distinguish between themes and tags, right? And whilst you may be free to come up with as many tags as possible, which is something that has been done anyway in previous IGFs, then the task is done to cluster these tags into thematic areas that it may seem -- thematic areas that will emerge.
The only worry I have is that we might feel like in our minds a little bit very bound to the themes that we've had before, and that's actually not allowing ourselves the space to see the themes that could produce new areas for the IGF to also look at.
So in that sense, I would maybe push more for lesser predetermined subthemes and to give more space for new themes to emerge and not to cluster them all as just under emerging issues but rather to name them as themes -- subthemes in themselves, in their own -- yeah, in its own way, I guess.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jac. You made two interesting comments.
I also think at the same time we need to make careful not to mix themes and tags because your first comment actually said -- what I took away from your first set of comments was we can go through this call for workshop proposals, see what comes in, tag them, and then the themes come up from that. That says in mid July we actually had the subthemes underneath the themes in which we can really go out and then promote the program itself because we will have gone through the workshop and the workshop evaluation process.
So one option would be to go to, I think, what was Flavio's proposal which was to get to some list -- I think you said 30 which I have to admit seems quite long, but some list of sort of 20, I don't know, items or issues or areas or -- again, I'm trying not to use the word "tags" because I think that's confusing to some people. But we would encourage people to submit to, and then we would pull the subthemes out of the final submissions that come in that are actually approved by the MAG.
So I don't know if that's a way forward. We would obviously need to get some people to go away quite quickly and suggest those 20.
I think, Virat, your proposal of doing some of this through a set of clusters is interesting. I do -- I think the second point that I thought was interesting in Jac's is having the clusters might draw people back to a traditional set of topics and things and to some extent kind of minimize the innovation and flexibility we're trying to give through this process.
Let me just finish going around the room to make sure we get some other voices in here as well.
I think we have Rasha in the back.
>>RASHA ABDULLA: Thank you. One way to resolve this is to certainly include a statement that says "themes include but are not restricted to" and so that gives people the flexibility of proposing something outside of these themes.
And I would suggest sticking to the main themes of making these as broad as possible so that people can interpret them in whichever way they want rather than having, like, a list of 20 very specific subthemes.
And maybe just have a slot on the application that says, you know, a relevant theme to what you are application is. That would help us sort through things.
And one of the options on that could be a pull-down menu and one of the options could be "other" so it would already be sorted out for us. But it would also encourage people to sort of stick to the themes but still give them a way out, if they wanted to.
My other point very quickly is I would like to see human rights as one of the main themes rather than security, privacy, and openness, because I think human rights may be the broader theme and I think these other topics would fall under that, underneath that. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So what I heard was you basically supporting this cluster approach, and I think your second point --
>>RASHA ABDULLA: With giving some flexibility to people --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Right.
>>RASHA ABDULLA: -- going outside of that.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Right.
>>RASHA ABDULLA: Yeah.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And I think your second point was also to make human rights its own category.
The next in the queue --
Jivan, are you still in the queue?
>>L.P. GJORGJINSKI: Thank you. In line with the overarching theme that we've chosen, "Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth," I would suggest -- and also in line with our earlier discussion, which has been repeated every year, to try to get more government representatives to listen to, to not just come and speak in the beginning but to somehow participate more substantially, I would suggest that we add a theme called "Technology and Society" to nurture discussions of the disruptive, sometimes, force in certain communities of technology and policies that can alleviate it or at least a comparison of different policies that different countries are using, or at the very least a platform for discussion of how to address those.
One that I've mentioned a few times in my interventions is addressing inequalities, and there are rising inequalities in how technology sometimes and the Internet sometimes is introduced in countries.
So I think that there is a need for such a platform, such a discussion, and an ongoing one at that. Not just for this year but for future years as well.
So the specific proposal is perhaps instead of "Internet Governance for Development," to introduce a theme called "Technology and Society" and within it to have a subtheme of policies to address inequalities.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So again, I hear you going for a clustered approach as well and simply suggesting one or two --
>>L.P. GJORGJINSKI: No. I'm fully okay with the hybrid one. Whatever is flexible. But I think that this issue should float somewhere. But I'm okay with the flexible hybrid approach.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Jivan.
Hossam, you have the floor.
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Well, let me just highlight that from what I understood, those are more tracks than being subthemes. Those are the tracks that we have seen through the previous IGFs happening. Which mean many of the workshops goes within those tracks somehow. And I want to make sure that we understand there is still a difference between those tracks and the thematic sessions that would take place, the main sessions. So those are two different things that might have different titles, et cetera.
The five main traffics are a given. I mean, there will be always things under those five main tracks. So having -- maybe we can give ourself a period of time just to suggest one or two more tracks, if this is okay, or taking emerging issues and then if we find that many workshops will be coming under emerging issues and we'll have clear tracks, then we again would give a name for those tracks.
So it's more of a hybrid model, but this is sort of a mind mapping. It helps us clearly see what are the main tracks that we generally provide work- -- that we receive workshops within during the previous years.
One just suggestion is still -- I said it before -- is if possible, when organizing the workshop and the thematic session, if possible, to have the workshop leading to a thematic session. It will be -- it will need some heavy work from the secretariat, but it's really very important so that we can come within the thematic session with some conclusion out of the whole work.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Hossam. And, yes, I think this is different from the -- from the thematic sessions, the main blocks, which we will come to very shortly.
I had Cisse. You have the floor. No?
Oh. Omar, you have the floor.
>>OMAR MANSOOR ANSARI: Thank you, Chair.
There are a few key words, and since they're confusing, and these are "themes," "subthemes," "tracks," "tags," "topics," and "subjects." These are the words we often confuse.
We have discussed a main theme and then there are the subthemes which Hossam called as tracks, and there are the sub-subthemes, right?
There could be -- I mean, if we clearly define these for the MAG members and the people who are proposing workshops, it's -- it's going to be easier to understand and select from amongst them.
And also, I'm suggesting the hybrid model, as well as I spoke about it yesterday. There could be a topic, for example, cloud. Somebody is proposing something on cloud but it's also relevant to the -- that's an emerging issue, but it's also relevant to the access and diversity, the proposal.
So that means it's access and diversity but at the same time it's cloud.
My proposal would be that there is one main theme selected and then subthemes also selected because there will -- for example, the main theme could be under the access and diversity but it's also relevant to cloud so that could become the subtheme under that.
And then we could give an option to the proposers to make a selection from the drop-down list we are providing or add their own themes in there or suggest or propose their own themes, so that we can collect the proposed themes and make a final list of that.
And tags are really -- tags could be many, because, you know, they're basically the -- the different key words used in a topic.
So if there is the proposal on a Web site, we could tag a lot of different key words which will make it easy -- easier for the participants to find their desired workshops.
And also, as a last point, there is a proposal on including digital equality as a subtheme and that's digital equality in terms of Internet dynamics and core values in the Asia-Pacific region. That was a proposal which came from there. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Omar.
We have Wisdom in the queue.
>>WISDOM DONKOR: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was just thinking open government initiatives are gaining grounds globally, and within the African region, African countries are adopting to these open government initiatives, and then in my country, for instance, targeting Internet governance to reach through. They are drive both Internet governance and then digital open initiatives.
So I would propose that we include Internet governance within the subthemes and then with the Internet governance, you have -- comes -- and therefore you can have open government. You can also have transparency, accountability, as well as technology and innovation. So we can -- we should also try and consider this.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Wisdom. I.
Think we have another three or four people in the queue. We need to close this and figure out how we're going to move forward on the work. We still have a couple of items in front of us.
Virat, you're next in the queue.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just wanted to say that I didn't present this as a point of view. I just presented this to show that if you had to go for a cluster, of course you can use it.
But I actually have a question for the secretariat, whose work I'm deeply concerned with.
If we get a set of 150-odd subthemes --
Let us say we completely remove this. Remove the hybrid approach. Go to the excellent suggestions made first by Liesyl, supported by Jac, every -- several people. Innovation.
Will you be in a position, as the secretariat, in the seven-day period to cluster these in five or six themes and present them as a part of the program that has been done for the at least last two or three years, to help people guide which sessions they want to go to without having to read all the details of every session?
That's a -- that's an operational challenge that falls on you in the seven days, if we go to the innovative approach. That's one question.
Second, if I'm submitting something under human rights and you tag it under cybersecurity, then who's willing to deal with the complaint that will follow at the venue where the organizers will say we're in the wrong color or section?
I'm just on the practical issues which you will have to face if you have an open, bottom-up approach.
If you can deal with that, we should really go with that.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I think we can have complaints or issues both ways, whichever way we do it. Even though in previous ways, when we had the self-tagging or self-classification, there were some workshops that were clearly not in that category but they were put it in that category for -- maybe because there were less workshops in that category or for some other reason.
So I mean, either way, I think we can try and work with it.
But another point is that we are going to try and do it as they come in. If you submit and then it's published, then we'll try and do it, instead of waiting until they all come in.
And so it will take a -- we will have more time than those seven days, per se.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Madam Chairperson, can I just -- in that case if this question is -- unless there's any reason for us to cluster or give guidance, then we should just leave it open, let people come up. If the -- if the secretariat feels confident about it, then let's just give the choice.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Well, I think you should really -- I mean, if you can really do -- if you can do this in a bottom-up approach, I think it's perfect. We should innovate. We don't need to give people prescriptions.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>VIRAT BHATIA: We have to do it.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>VIRAT BHATIA: You want the hybrid? Prefer the hybrid approach? We should actually -- because it's an operational issue, it's not just a -- it's just us telling --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- with some trepidation, I'm going to --
The operational issue, I think, would be, can you get the online submission to enable self-identification of tags, because I think we should allow people to do that first.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Uh-huh.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: You know, maybe at some point down the stream in a review, we decide that the workshop proposal really is better in some other area, but I think that's a decision the MAG should take when they review the proposals.
So I think the work for the secretariat at an operational level is ensuring that the online form will allow identification and selection against some number of tags.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: But then we are back to identifying 25 tags.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I know, I don't think there's 125. I think there's --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: No, no, no. 25 tags. 25 tags.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Or 20 or 25 tags --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- is a number that everybody keeps shaking their head except for --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>VIRAT BHATIA: So 20 tags and then saying "Others."
>> (Off microphone.)
>>VIRAT BHATIA: If they're comfortable -- we should go with --
>> How many tags per workshop?
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So 20 -- I think we're saying 20 tags in total is the choice, plus an "Other," and that each workshop would be allowed three tags? Is that what everybody has been -- I see Flavio nodding his head and Mike shaking his hand and Juan looking for the floor. So let me see if Juan can help clarify this.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Three tags?
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Yes, Chair.
As I said before, I think we that I understand the problem that we are --
But what I recommend is what we need now. I think that what we need is the subthemes now or the themes or whatever. It's very important what my colleague from the Netherlands said that I think there's a lot of confusion here what are tags, what are topics, what are that.
I think really what we need is two things.
The first thing that we need, not now -- as Virat said, not now -- is that eventually all the hundred workshops should be classified. Classified. That's my thing. If you -- maybe you can call it tags or whatever. It's to classify.
As he said very clearly, in order that somebody who goes there that can see, "Oh, I'm interested in this and ta-dah, ta-dah, ta-dah." So that's classification.
But we will never know that classification until we receive the -- the workshops. I think that's the -- the beauty of the proposal of Jac and Avri that I subscribe.
But why do we need then subthemes?
Because we have to make a call for workshops.
I have worked in many scientific events. We always have, as you know, what is called the call for papers, in which in the call for papers, you put the topics, because we're doing an event in ICT, maybe not an event in QC or -- or in agriculture or -- it's very interesting, but maybe this is not the place.
So we put that in that.
So I think that if we go the way of putting 20 topics, we feel the risk of what do we leave out. Did we leave out it's included or not. So I think that we should do -- and what I propose to do it here now -- is to draft the letter calling for the submissions in which we already agreed in the main theme. Of course that will be the main theme. Then we have this paragraph putting the context that this year happened this and that. And so after that, we call on workshops.
And by the way, we need to work in the seven proposals of -- of structure of the workshops. I think in the list there was a discussion, very interesting, that Amelia and Marilyn Cade mentioned that -- that this -- the description is not very clear and we had roundtables, there were panels and not roundtables. I think that document that, by the way, is not on line -- it would have to go back on line for the proposers to really guide themself -- needs to be worked out also.
But, well, that's a parentheses.
We need to make this letter. If we can do it now, at least the -- the content of this letter, I repeat that I think we don't really need -- we don't need a 20 list. I think that we should put something as a guidance something, such as topics, and leave it open.
And then when we get, as you clear -- the task is not of the secretariat. It's to the evaluators. One of the tasks of the evaluators, we in the MAG, when we receive a workshop, is to put into what category you think this workshop --
Again, maybe I put one category and Flavio puts other, but in the end, in the meeting or in the list, we agree to which category to put.
But please, let's make this letter.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So we have one hour left here today. I want to see if in the next very few minutes -- something less than five -- we can figure out how to move forward on this enough so we can take the next step.
I think there's broad agreement on the idea of flexibility and innovation. We have agreement on a call which provides some context and some kind of directional guidance. We were on a track to do that through a list of 25 possible item -- no, no, I'm just -- just for a moment, just stay with me for a minute, please -- to have a list of sort of 25 items.
If we were to look at the 25, they're probably mostly already captured right there in those themes. You know, plus or minus.
The -- I think we're okay on the operational issues with respect to allowing -- being able to make the changes which would allow the workshops proposals, when they come in, to identify three areas, whether it's against a list of 25 or three that they choose freely, but that that would actually allow some consolidation, was I think the word you used, Juan, to help this process through.
I think that's where we are on the discussion now. I think there's only two ways to close that and that's you let the secretariat -- I'm spending the day with the secretariat tomorrow -- the secretariat and I go away and try and pull all this together and get a more precise proposal out to the MAG. We would need a very fast turnaround from the MAG, though, because our time line we adopted yesterday has the call going out the end of next week. And we really don't have any room for slippage in that call.
The other alternative, of course, we could try and get, you know, a small -- which I'm perfectly willing to do. I can't speak and wouldn't dare speak for the secretariat after how long these days have already been. I'm willing to stay after tonight for a period of time with a small working group and see if we can progress that. And, again, we would still get a proposal out to the full MAG.
At this point, I don't see a way to close it concretely where I think people would be happy and I would feel comfortable that we were all on the same page. And I also don't want to take the rest of the hour on that without having some time on main sessions, location of the second MAG meeting, and the workshop proposals. I think we need to keep some forward momentum on those items as well.
So with that, 60 minutes -- actually right now 56 minutes --
>> May I say something quickly?
>> I don't know.
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Please. You have the floor, Juan.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Maybe a solution is to do that call paper, you know, small and to put as an annex, say to annex this one with another one that says, "Other topics of your consideration" or something like that. And that's it. It serves as a guidance. Maybe you can put in the letter as a guidance we're annexing the topics of previous events just as a guidance. And it's an annex to the call for --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I like that idea.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: So they can guide themselves. But please include others so people have an idea that if it is not there, that they can present it.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: There will definitely be another -- and I do think it is important to split out along some of the lines we had security, openness, and privacy. So I think that's a reasonable way forward. I mean, I like the -- putting an annex and putting some more behind.
I would think that we could, I hope, with the secretariat or myself tomorrow get a call-out that shapes all of this a little bit more and what the call might look like. Might need to move to Friday morning, giving us Thursday night as well, and ask that to be turned around -- by Monday? Is that a reasonable approach?
[ Applause ]
There's still some flags up. Honestly, I would rather not take any more questions on this until we try and consolidate the discussions we've had historically. But if somebody feels that it's a critical question or a critical comment, then we should do that. I would just everybody to keep in mind that it will take from main sessions and location of second MAG meetings and workshop proposal.
So with that, I will do one more look around the room. I saw Laura, Liesyl. And I'm sorry, I don't think you are a MAG member.
Laura, if you can go first. You have the floor.
>>LAURA HUTCHINSON: Thank you. I will be really quick. It just seems to me if we are taking away -- we are letting go slightly by not being too restrictive with the subthemes and letting people self-select, we're happy for the secretariat to then put into subthemes, we're then imposing control in a different way by giving people a list of tags or however we want to classify it to then pick from.
I just wonder whether we could just let go a little bit and let people put their own tags or whatever we call them in terms of how they would like to classify and what they feel their kind of headlines and key points are. We could provide an annex as has been suggested in terms of things they might like to consider just to help them. But I would kind of suggest just letting go slightly.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And I think we're all on with the letting go. But I think on the other, we need to make sure we can process in a timely manner on the backend. And I think that's just where some level which says help us sort this out so we're not trying to look across similar terms defining a tag. But I think we can go away and think about that in a little bit more relaxed manner.
>>LIESYL FRANZ: Thank you, Chair, for indulging me two seconds. I just wanted to reiterate a comment I put in the responses for the meeting this morning to discuss this saying we do need to -- I'm sorry if you said this while I stepped out.
But we do need to explain why we want the hashtags. Previously we had the hashtags but no explanation as to how they were to be used. If we're going to say they'll be used for developing subthemes, I think you'll have a better response anyway. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Liesyl.
Okay. We still have quite a few, if you can make your comments brief.
Marilyn, you have been in for a while and then Makane.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'm Marilyn Cade. I am going to make a very brief comment, and then I'm going to ask Andrea to just make a quick comment about accessibility.
I last year experienced the problem of trying to coach some new workshop proposers who really felt that they should add absolutely every hashtag they possibly could and every label they possibly could so that they would get attention. And they became confused and so did the people trying to find them.
So even though I don't consider it -- I'm happy to have some flexibility. I think there's got to be a little bit of quality control and standardization so that -- because it isn't just the workshop proposer we are trying to satisfy, it is the participants who need to be able to use this information to find their way around. So there's got to be a little bit of a standard.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Marilyn.
>>ANDREA SAKS: I'll be fast. Accessibility for persons with disabilities usually is nameless and under access and diversity. I would like to raise its identity so the words are actually there and, perhaps, in compliance with the UN CRPD. And I think it would be good to actually have it visible. And that's my only comment. And thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Could you get a note to the secretariat to make sure we captured it correctly? Thank you.
>>ANDREA SAKS: Yes.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Omar.
>>OMAR MANSOOR ANSARI: Thank you.
(Technical difficulty -- audio disconnected.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Makane.
Okay. So I think we have agreement on that. Probably as much as we're going to get at this point in time. And we'll work with the secretariat tomorrow and get the next phase out. We may reach out to some of you specifically to help with some of the kind of finer points here.
Main sessions or thematic sessions is one of the two remaining -- we have three items left on our --
Kind of understand a little bit about main sessions, thematic sessions, where we're going.
I think I'd like to get a good start on that today. We can probably take the rest of it to a virtual call.
We do still have the workshop proposals and guidelines in front of us, and given a lot people stayed up late and got up early this morning for a meeting of the working group, I'd like to see if we can close that today.
If you think we should take it to the mailing list and give people till Monday, I think that's an option as well, so I'll leave it there.
And then we need an item on the location of the second MAG meeting. Again, those dates were July 13, 14, and 15. But to the extent we get some sense of MAG preference, then we can go away and see what the -- the options are.
Just quickly, we have eight three-hour slots. Two of those are reserved today for opening ceremony and closing ceremony. There is a slide, but I think we have to let Luis take a break for a moment. I think it's a relatively easy concept.
Primarily, we have two three-hour slots -- here comes Luis -- and typically what we've done is tried to -- and they really are thematic sessions.
There are other workshop proposals running in parallel to that, so it -- it's not --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: The opening ceremony and the closing ceremony do not have competing workshop panels or -- is that a correct statement?
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: They're plenaries and --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Right. So we have six three-hour slots. Flavio is correcting me.
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: We had the experience in 2015 of extending the duration of each day's schedule and we had two three-hour -- we had one four-hour slot and one three-hour slot per today, so what we had was main sessions that were two plus two hours. We just extended the duration of the work of the interpreters. You remember that.
So we have a little bit more flexibility if we do the same in Mexico.
So we may have three and four-hour slots, not only three-hour slots.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Well, that's actually a very good point because even with a four-hour slot, theoretically you could still have two two-hour slots and have a fairly substantive discussion, and maybe that's a way to square some of the comments we had this morning when we were trying to put two like things into the same slot.
But rather than work -- because I think you're right, Flavio, there probably is some flexibility and certainly Victor and Yolanda were clear that there's flexibility there on site.
Should we just try and get a quick sense of proposals for main sessions or thematic sessions, we'll capture those, and then maybe we can see how far we can process them here in this meeting but then take them to a virtual meeting. But at least we'll get the -- kind of the universe of possible thematic sessions out.
So the floor is open. We don't need a lot of description on what would happen in those slots. I mean, primarily kind of a title and a very brief indication of what would be captured.
So where does the list start? Right here?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So Rasha, did you have your flag up for this particular --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No?
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Cheryl, then I guess you were first, and then Virat, Makane, Marilyn.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think that it would be important to have a main session on the intersessional work, and I'd like to volunteer to help with that and would love someone else to volunteer as well to work with me. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So that would be the -- connecting the next billion, whatever its final name is. I think there was high support for that earlier, too, so we could probably treat that as a given.
Just in order, it was Virat, Marilyn, Juan.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: So after -- my first request is to try and make it more orderly than we were --
We had nine sessions at Brazil, and that is the reason why they were ending at different times and stuff.
We have to remember one thing. Delegates must know that main sessions begin at -- actually, it says 9:00 a.m. It should be 10:00 a.m. They begin at 10:00, they finish at 1:00.
Lunch has to be between 2:00 -- 1:00 and 3:00.
And we should preferably close at 6:00, though we made that exception in Brazil. By and large, in all other IGFs, we have closed at 6:00.
Going for two-hour slots and 90-minute slots for the main session destructs the grid and requires a lot of background work to try and fit these things in. It's not that it can't be done but I just want to caution against the work that it takes at the end.
If we go with the discussion that has happened so far, best practice and dynamic coalitions will probably take over three hours, at least.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Times two or one?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: One. So best practices about -- about six best practice sessions and about 13 dynamic coalitions, of which about 10 or 11 present, so you get about 15 to 16 presenters for about five minutes each. That's how it works out.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So I think one of the things we could do is take back to the individuals from the MAG that helped coordinate the dynamic coalitions and the best practice forums and see what works for them.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: That's one option, to sort of see if we can bring these two together, because bringing them together will really help --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: So I --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Yeah. I mean I'm -- honestly, I'm a little less concerned about helping the schedule and more ensuring that the efforts are actually getting the time and attention they need.
So let's just ask them if they could cohabit in the same three-hour slot, I guess, is what we're --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Intersessional work will require one. I think it usually requires one. So that now leaves us with four slots.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Do you have a proposal for another one? If not, I'm going to go to someone that I know does.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah. I have a proposal for I think either sustainable development or sustainable development goals. I'm happy to volunteer to work on that and see if we can try and get that -- that's a broad topic, but we can try and bring it down to something more specific, and if that's possible, then that can be one session.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Virat.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I'm happy to support Marilyn --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I suspect that's what Marilyn was going to come in on.
Marilyn, you have the floor.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. Marilyn Cade. Let me support Virat's proposal. I think a main session -- leaving aside whatever happens in the high-level meeting, a main session on the SDGs. And again, I propose that we follow and agree to and endorse the approach of -- that we used on the WSIS+10 and that we then are able to invite the national and regional IGFs to contribute to that, but also really be very participatory, and I wanted to volunteer to work on that.
I also wanted to propose, since he's not here, Ambassador Fonseca, who might be able to work with -- with Virat and I.
And then secondly, I just want to remind everyone that the national and regional IGFs would like a -- to have their substantive session in the main room.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Marilyn.
Juan, you have the floor.
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Chair.
I was going to propose the same session in the sustainable development goals, but as a continuation of the session last -- in Joao Pessoa that was -- in sustainable development that was organized by Hossam and some other parties, I also collaborate with him. So we have to be very careful not to repeat that one, but to be more with the actual linkage of Internet to this.
This was outside of the -- as you've seen, the linkage between the WSIS actions lines and sustainable development goals. Maybe we should do something similar with Internet and best practice and give a special call in that, trying to be sort of a guide and more -- more hands -- more practical-oriented, you know.
This is saying if somebody has a practice that can help for this, present it there and it could help some other one. That's one session. And of course I'm happy to collaborate, as always.
And another session that it was mentioned, and I think is unavoidable that we have to do it, something -- is cybersecurity.
As you know, cybersecurity is going on, and for December, I think that the GGE already have been summoned. It -- one of the reports will be out. So I think there's a lot of things going on in cybersecurity and I think that that's a topic that we should have to -- we have no choice but to address there, and also I'm happy if I can collaborate.
I'm in your hands, Chair.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Juan.
Hossam, you have the floor and then Elizabeth.
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: So -- okay. Thank you, Chair.
Yeah. I was going to -- I mean, this is something that we are discussing so maybe Elizabeth start and I'll support her for this. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Excellent. Thank you, Hossam.
>>ELIZABETH THOMAS RAYNAUD: So -- (off microphone) -- already that there was shall Internet and sustainable development -- Internet economy and digital -- was it Internet economy or digital economy? -- Internet economy and sustainable development session that was -- that happened last year that had all this substance to it that went very well and had a lot of -- in particular, some of the developing country government folks afterwards encouraging us to continue working on that. Hossam and I were just sort of pinging back the idea of the 2016 version, what that might be, and we thought that given the broader theme of inclusive growth, we could look at something like Internet and inclusive economy and have a session. We -- we'd rethink how it would work with the sustainable development goals to fit into that broader main session theme and be happy to work with Juan, as well as Flavio again.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth and Hossam.
Aida and then Michael.
>>AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Thank you. So I would just like us not to forget to leave a slot, since we are all about growth here and it seems we didn't manage to -- to put human rights -- sorry, to put human rights in the overarching theme, just to make sure that human rights find a place here.
And if we are a bit more braver, I would say then I would suggest gender as a main session. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Aida.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Just to build on what some people have said about the need for a main session on cybersecurity, but I would -- I would urge us not to do something similar to what we've done in the past where the focus is on malicious hacking and confidentiality, and instead focus a bit more on reliability and integrity of data.
I think we have a great team of people who could put this together, but we tend to focus on data being stolen. We don't focus enough on what happens when your Web site is down or when you can't control the nuclear power plant because the network has been hacked. The network itself, rather than the data.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you. That actually empties the queue at the moment, so let me try and summarize where I think we are --
>>L.P. GJORGJINSKI: I'm sorry. I had my hand up in the beginning as well. Perhaps -- sorry about that.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No. Jivan, you're absolutely right. Sorry. It's way on the list way over here. Apologies. So you have the floor.
>>L.P. GJORGJINSKI: So I propose the title would be, "The Internet of Things: IPv6 and Our Future Human Society."
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. At this point, just -- at this point, I'm collecting these newer ideas for workshops and I'll -- I have a proposal for a moment in terms of how we might advance them. So we're just noting them down.
And now there's an online participant.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Jac, you have the floor.
>>JAC SM KEE: Hello. Oh, sorry. Thanks. Okay. Sorry. This is Jac.
Just wanted to note that last year the BPS was in different sessions on the dynamic coalition, so the dynamic coalition really needed the time that it needed, and in fact, I think there were some issues about it being two days. And the BPS instead was linked to the connecting the next billion session. It was (indiscernible) than the linkages were made to the theme of connecting the next billion but it wasn't always possible, so I think maybe we should discuss about whether that can be put together or whether the BPS need a session of its own or whether it's enough for the BPS to kind of just put in some maybe interventions for connecting the next billion, but it was split into two sections. No one was really looking at the content of the connecting the next billion (indiscernible) people, and then the other was sort of looking at what came out from the BPS discussions and recommendations.
And I also would like to support Marilyn's proposal on IG linked with this SDGs as a main session.
And while inclusive economy is a great way to kind of look at this, I would also like to bring back Juan's earlier comment as well in that growth should not also be sort of limited to economy, but I think sustainable development goals will give it a broader kind of -- allows it to look at sort of various dimensions of this topic which might be a little bit more useful.
And of course to support Ginger and Aida's proposal on a main session on human rights but to build from last year's main session to also bring in economic, social, and political rights.
So to kind of look at this in this broader framing as well. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jac.
Wanawit, you have the floor. This will be the last contribution and then I think I have a proposal for how we take this forward and next steps.
So you have the floor, Wanawit.
>>WANAWIT AKHUPUTRA: Thank you, Chair.
I think from the last Joao Pessoa meeting, I also participate in panel topic related to trade. They discuss about how TPP or the other trade negotiation is affecting the Internet in general. I think the room was full with people. People were sitting on the floor.
And I think this year the TPP is concluded. RSEP is underway. The ability or the facilitation agreement (indiscernible). 133 articles was finalized. 85 countries (indiscernible) on that.
The first chapter even mentioned about the Internet, the important roles of Internet in giving out the information. So I do believe the main session will have some of these issues that are cross-cutting the trade or the things that are binding the country to participate in this eCommerce or Internet. It's something new for the community. If that would be possible to raise that kind of session. Thank you, Chair.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Wanawit.
This particular topic is one where we had a mixture of some sort of short-term requirements and more time for some of the others. The shorter term requirements I put down things like the NRIs -- I can never say that now, Virat -- the NRIs, the connecting the next billion intersessional work, the best practices, DCs. I think there has been great support for the SDGs as well.
But those first three that I spoke about are actually are important that we make a decision here that we're going to give them a substantive piece of time because we're counting on their efforts to actually feed and support those.
I think there's agreement I saw from the room to allow time for a connecting the next billion set of work. Obviously if this is a significant piece of intersessional work, it's probably worthy of a full slot.
I think sustainable development goals and Internet governance is just such a huge and so important that I think there was great support across the room for that taking one of the slots.
And then we have the RNIs and the best practice forms and DCs that we were going to go back and work with those coordinators to tell them that we're interested in meeting their needs, giving them a substantive period of time. And we need to identify in particular for the BPs and DCs whether they can share a slot. And this might be one of the times where maybe we look to have two two-hour slots or something if they can't. I think that's good.
And now we've got enough time now to go and give them some direction so they can organize their own efforts because every week that goes by, there's another Internet Governance Forum somewhere in the world through our activities. And I think it's important that they know that this is working towards something at the IGF.
And then there were another -- I took five -- I'm not sure if the trade point is linked to the Internet economy or not. I took five additional topics down and I'll note that youth was not one of them, although it featured very big in the stock-taking from last year and very big in our earlier conversations here the last few days.
What I'd like to do with those is to work with the secretariat to get a list together. Some of the topics actually came with folks who had said they were willing to work on them and to lead them. And I think we just need to process those through the MAG in some of our virtual calls, which will give the folks who were proposing them some time to write up in a little bit more detail what they're actually thinking, what they hope to accomplish and I think we could progress those probably over the next few months, in fact.
But I think that's good. We've got sort of the overall shape and, at the same time, I think responding to some sort of short-term requirements, some of our really important intersessional work.
We have the transcript. But we also took some notes in terms of what the proposed topics were and who was willing to lead a discussion with the MAG to see if that makes the thematic session cut-off or not when we get there.
Are we okay leaving that discussion at that level? Hossam, no?
>>HOSSAM ELGAMAL: I just had one comment related to the session that you are talking about, Internet and inclusive economy. We felt it's a must because it's building on the main session that took place in Brazil, and we had a lot of feedback asking to build on that. This is just a point.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think that's a good point. I think we're aware of it. I think that's probably fairly similar for a lot of the other subjects as well. So I think it's just worthy of a little more thought, some concrete proposals, and we'll address some of these at our virtual meetings.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: And in reality, the main session requires about five months of work. So even if we can get everything done and ready by our July meeting, we will have five months to then execute it. So lots of time.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Right.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: And usually the one principle that we followed since last year is notable speakers and making sure that anything that is not (indiscernible) would preferably be in the second half because you can go over the first half. The lunch has to happen at 1:00. So that's how the scheduling has to occur. And we can go to more than that if we go, like, 90 -- two 90-minute sessions or one two-hour session and a 90-minute session that's a BPF. All that's available. We can do it. We have lots of time.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: We do have lots of time, compared to some of the other things we have had to do here in the last few days. But I will work with the secretariat to get the request out formally to everybody. Because if we can advance those topics over the next month or two, we will be prepared to have some substantive discussions at the July meeting without having impinged on everybody's workshop evaluation rating time. So we'll move it forward.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: (off microphone).
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Exactly. So we'll work to move that forward.
Two items left. One is a discussion on the location of our second MAG meeting. And then the other one is a need to -- I haven't had time to see how the reaction is to the workshop proposal guideline work that has come out.
Are we prepared to take that decision here on the basis of the working group this morning? Or do people need time to go away and look at the work that was done and come back no later than Monday? And I guess not hearing, we'd assume a presumptive support.
So, again, if some of you have had a chance to look at it, I'd appreciate some indication as to whether we're close enough or we need to allow a bit more time to close on that.
So, Marilyn, you have the floor and then Virat.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade speaking. I want to speak about a brief comparison that I did, and it is truly not a statistical analysis.
I took a look -- and I posted to the MAG list. I took a look last night at the implications of holding a working MAG session outside of Geneva and potentially trying to hold it in Mexico. I didn't distinguish between either Mexico City or Guadalajara. So I compared -- I started out trying to compare the cost difference, and I found it very difficult because I couldn't predict whether a traveler would choose economy or economy plus or business. But what I could do is to compare the time of travel.
And so I did that and I posted a few of those facts to all of you. And let me just say that we have to give a medal to Fiji and Japan, New Zealand and Australia for always having to spend over 30 to 35 hours in order to meet with us wherever we are. But let me go on to the more detailed analysis.
You can look at it yourself. But I'll just cover a few of them. To fly from Addis to Geneva is somewhere around 10 to 12 hours, depends on if it's a direct flight or not. And Nairobi would be somewhat similar in that time. To fly from Addis or Nairobi to Mexico, it is 29 hours or 32 hours or 39 hours with multiple stops.
To fly from Geneva to Mexico, it is 21 or 22 or 18 hours.
To fly from Egypt to -- and these are just examples of -- Expedia-driven examples that I took.
To drive -- to fly from Cairo to Geneva, it's 9 to -- or 13 hours. From Egypt to Mexico, it's 24 to 27 hours.
From Paris to Mexico, it's 21 to 22 hours. To Geneva, it's two to three hours.
From Fiji to Mexico, it's 33.5 hours and it's about that amount of time to Geneva as well.
From Afghanistan to Geneva, it's 11 hours more or less. And then Afghanistan to Mexico, it's 22 hours.
Now, when you do an analysis of flying from Argentina to Mexico, the time is much less. Or if you fly from Colombia to Mexico, the time is much less.
To fly from the U.S. to Geneva, if it's direct, it's about seven hours from Washington or New York. If you have a stop, it's about 10 or 11 hours. It's only about three or four hours to fly to Mexico.
But I was trying to look at this in terms of the time commitment because if a large number of our MAG members are traveling over 20 hours to get to a meeting, we have to consider that a three-day meeting may only be three working days. But we've got to take into account the wear and tear on our participants.
We would also have to pay to fly for the IGF secretariat. And for a working MAG member meeting, frankly, I think we need the entirety of the secretariat present with us.
So, as I said, I didn't go into cost. But I propose that it's not really simple to confirm taking a MAG -- working MAG meeting out of Geneva for July. I'd like to postpone any decision about a working MAG meeting in September that might be held in Mexico to a later date, make a decision that we're going to work in Geneva.
I'll say one other thing. During -- it is not practical to go to New York for the meeting in July due to the ECOSOC competing meetings and availability of rooms, et cetera.
And I think also we have visa issues to always consider if we're going to a new location on whether MAG members can easily, particularly MAG members who don't have reciprocal agreements for their countries, the time it takes for them to get visas.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Marilyn. Just -- I was just trying to talk to Yolanda here because I was trying to assert that we were actually invited to Mexico before we started debating whether or not the time line was. And Yolanda said, in fact, they were happy to host any MAG meeting.
Chengetai says there are facilities here available in Geneva for our date as well, the CICG near the ITU building, in that area over there.
Is there a position on New York?
>>WAI-MIN KWOK: New York is possible. Although it's in July during HLPF, but I prechecked. It is possible. There is a conference, but we do need to confirm early. That means sometime in the next two weeks in order to get a location in New York.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'm sorry to take the floor, but I must ask a clarifying question of Wai-Min.
As a business representative, I attended every one of the preparatory meetings in New York at the United Nations. And I must say that I really question -- given what else is going on there, I really question the practicality of trying to have the working sessions where we may have to decide on the fly that we are going to stay very late or we're going to change the needs that we have to the I.T. group.
And I also am very familiar with the challenges of badging in a large number of non-accredited parties. I'm looking at some of my colleagues from business because we encountered significant challenges where we couldn't get last-minute badges easily.
And I -- I just really -- when we say it's possible, I frankly look at that meeting and think that we're going to be working from 8:30 in the morning until potentially 9:00 or 10:00 at night.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I'm not quite sure how the MAG has come to its decisions in the past. Maybe we weren't quite so invited.
[ Laughter ]
>> VIRAT BHATIA: We have never had a choice.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: The choice was Geneva or Geneva or Geneve. I'm not quite sure how we close this quite quickly.
We could either do a quick show of hands if there's a strong preference one way or the other. I don't -- doesn't appear to me that there are criteria that the MAG has ever used before to enable these sorts of decisions.
And, you know, I think information on visas and information on flight times and things is interesting, but that's hard to get to something, particularly the flight times. Because wherever you are, it will -- particularly if you are spread apart across the world, you're going to be -- you know, have a shorter flight time or longer flight time. So I'm not going to square that circle just now.
We have a request for the floor from Jorge from Switzerland. Jorge, you have the floor.
>> JORGE CANCIO: Thank you very much. Just to take the floor very quickly, with so many invitations, just to remind ourselves we are invited to be here in Geneva and that we are happy to host the IGF in this city.
I think that more on a general point of view, we should take into account and this was, in part, said by Marilyn from once -- on the one side that we maximize participation and inclusiveness in any meeting, especially if it's as we are used to doing open MAG meetings, also especially if there is a link with an open consultation in that meeting. So maximizing participation and inclusiveness is one factor.
And also on the other side, of course, minimizing costs because, as we know, this is a very lightweight endeavor. So if we can minimize costs, it's always criteria which we should take into account.
And with that, you all know that the synergies with representations both from the private sector, the civil society, academia, and governments in Geneva are well-placed. But I'll leave it at that, and I will leave it at your discretion, of course.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jorge. I certainly know we have always appreciated the support from Switzerland.
I think at this point since I think it's going to be quite a personal decision depending on what meetings we have before and afterwards and where we come from, that we should take it to a Doodle poll.
In the meantime, we can clarify what the offers are and room availabilities are. I can see pros and cons of things such as easy access of facilities. And I think determining where it might be in Mexico as well as is certainly another criteria I think for flights in. So we don't have a lot of time. As Wai-Min said, we need to make the decision quite soon.
But maybe we could early part of next week get a Doodle poll out to everybody.
I hope that's not just kicking the fun down the road in terms of a decision. But I don't think making one here quite on the fly without knowing where we're going in Mexico and a number of people have left already. And I'm not sure who's online is really the most thoughtful way to do that just now.
So that's my proposal, that we move to a Doodle poll next week. Is that supported? Virat, you have a comment?
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I do think we should move to a Doodle poll. I just want to make two quick points. One is the fact that the -- in terms of costs, roughly based on the membership of the MAG, the costs and the time of travel will go down for approximately 37 to 40% of the members and the cost and travel time will go up for approximately 60 to 63% of the members. This is based on if we go to Mexico. So this is based on the division of the MAG between people -- members who are from Latin America and North America and members who are from Europe, Asia, and Africa where the price and cost goes up. Just keep in mind that number.
I just want to clarify one thing. The distinguished delegate from Switzerland said happy to host the MAG meeting or IGF? I heard IGF. So is that, like, a proposal for the next IGF?
[ Laughter ]
I wanted to check. I would be happy.
[ Applause ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: In fact, 2017, '18, '19, '20, '21 --
>> (off microphone).
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- are all open.
German, you have the floor.
>>GERMAN VALDEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. German Valdez.
I think if we have -- if we are in an area that the Mexican governments can provide the support to the MAG secretariat and we can review those costs, we can move forward on that proposal. I don't see the reason why we reject the kind invitation of the Mexican government to attend our July meeting in Mexico.
The truth is there is no fair for everybody in a particular place. I mean, it's always someone to pay the price for a particular place. More time, more hours. The same with time for the teleconference. Someone has to pay the early mornings 3:00, 4:00 a.m.
And if we are looking for innovation, I think it would be very interesting to experience a MAG meeting in the host country for the first time. It could be also an opportunity to those MAG members who need visas to get to Mexico, could be this opportunity to resolve that issue. If they are going to attend later in the year, in December to the IGF in Mexico, this could be the opportunity to have those visas arranged in this -- for this meeting in July.
So I welcome the proposal to have the discussions. I propose that we keep this option open. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I think -- I appreciate the comments. And I think all three options are open. I don't think we have the ability here to just close the options down out of hand. I don't feel that's actually respectful or thoughtful enough. We're breaking new ground with respect to these multiple offers, and I think we should go away and we can all do some due diligence. We can ask the secretariat to work with the -- both Wai-Min and Victor and Yolanda to understand what the specifics are of those offers and take it to the list. I really think that's the only thing that's fair.
Cheryl, I will give you the floor and then we should move to the final item.
I really think that's the only thing that's fair. Cheryl, I'll give you the floor and then we should move to the final item.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
On the Doodle poll, I would also add Paris, just to see -- I mean, that's another option for -- you know, for comparing costs, et cetera.
And I would mention, as well, we're going to have a third meeting so even if we can't decide, you know, here, there, Mexico, this meeting, I mean, maybe we'll have more time to discuss it and do the third meeting in Mexico.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That's an option. And actually, Chengetai just said we had an offer from Brussels as well, from the European Commission, so I think we need to put our heads together a little bit.
We've never had this situation before, and we all know that the hardest thing in the world to get agreement on across anything more than two people is the location of a meeting.
We did well yesterday on the dates, and we'll work towards the location here over the next few days.
I need somebody to help me understand where we might be with respect to the workshop proposals and guideline, the work that came out of the working group this morning.
Have enough people in the room looked at it? Are we ready to close? Or do we think we need more time?
And I think Susan, you're looking for the floor? Hopefully?
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Chair.
The track changes have been circulated, so I guess it's -- it's up to you or the MAG members to decide when -- or for how long you'd like to solicit any further changes, and I'm -- I remain available to assist with that.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: For the floor, we have Slobodan, Michael -- I'll go to you last, Virat -- and German, are you still in the queue?
Slobodan, you have the floor.
>>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I took a look at the latest versions of the guidelines posted to the mailing list and I have only one short, but important, note, because as far as I understand, these are going to be the documents that we are going to put together with the call, right?
So I would like to ask Susan, basically, just to reconsider the wording that I originally proposed regarding the online participation because the way the text is now structured implies that using WebEx and other means of including online participants are equal in some sense. Well, they are not. Until we perfect hologram projection at the IGF, I think that WebEx is the preferred option and that should be clearly stated.
Alternatively, we could include people using audio only and resort to reading out text messages as a measure of last resort.
I proposed the wording which clearly advised the workshop proposers to have in mind the need to organize online participation via the WebEx platform, but that was -- that point was kind of lost in the adaptation.
The reason why this change was proposed was the last year's experience where a lot of workshop proposers just resorted to providing a Twitter hashtag and thought they sorted out remote participation.
So our host in Mexico will, of course, provide most of the rooms with the necessary technical means and provide technical assistance and volunteers, so let us not -- let us use this. Let us not waste this opportunity.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Slobodan. Thank you.
I think we said Michael was next, Zeina, on line, and then we'll close there.
>>MICHAEL NELSON: Just real quick, I was at this morning's meeting and I was impressed with how few changes we made. This is a 1 1/2% change. You know, it's not -- we did such a good job last year, we didn't have to do much to correct.
I would say that encouraging people to use sophisticated remote participation tools is great. Mentioning a particular tool -- WebEx instead of Skype or Google -- I don't care. I work for CloudFlare. But it doesn't make sense to single out one.
>>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: Well, if I may clarify, I mean, we need to include people using voice, using video. As much, you know, dimensions as possible.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: So I mean, that was my point, and I mean WebEx is readily available.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Slobodan.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yeah. I think we should just use what is going to be available. We're not going to have everything available. We know for sure we're going to have WebEx available. We can have text. So we can list exactly what is going to be available. And I know Andrea doesn't like WebEx, but --
[ Laughter ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: On line. That's not something we can -- we can resolve now. I mean, we'll let the secretariat get back on the tools that are available to us that we can use.
>>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: I mean, just -- I'm sorry, but I --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: We do have some other people in the queue, Slobodan, so please, briefly.
>>SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: Okay. Well, we have, you know, this whole system of remote participation is wired in the transcription capabilities, so this is why I'm -- I'm against, you know, using, you know, other means which are not supported, you know, in the system at the venue.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yeah. That's what we're saying. We're going to list the things that are supported at the venue, and that's the only options that people will -- and those are the only options that people will have.
If we can improve them by then, of course we will improve them and -- but we will list what we have. What is supported. Sorry. It's not a free-for-all.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: We had -- I had Zeina in the queue. You have the floor.
>>ZEINA BOU HARB: Yes. Thank you.
I already sent in the morning an email regarding the probability of launching a competition on social media. I would kindly ask all the members to review this email and think about that seriously because it's -- it can engage a lot of people, especially the young generation, when you -- when we talk about the social media. They will be very interested and they will attend and participate and we can elaborate on the idea if it's accepted by everyone. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: That's an interesting idea. Thank you.
We had an online participant?
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Thank you. Ginger, you have the floor.
Ginger, maybe you can try to speak now.
>>VIRGINIA PAQUE: I'm sorry, I thought I was unmuted. Okay. Can you confirm that you can hear me, please?
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: We can hear you.
>>VIRGINIA PAQUE: Okay. I think it's very important that we revisit Slobodan's point because it isn't any longer about the technology. I'm not going to argue about which platform we use. There are many good platforms. We get -- from (indiscernible) we get excellent support. The technology is now working.
We have a problem in the organization in the strategy of the panels and that is a weak point still in the workshop instructions, so I think it's -- we must address it to make sure that workshop organizers and panel moderators understand that they have to, for instance, use the example of this meeting as a model to make sure that online participants have full and equal opportunity to join in. It's not the same to have Twitter. It's not the same to design a meeting anymore for just the people in the room. I could keep going on. You know that. But I will -- for the sake of time, I will stop now, but we must reinforce this point.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: No, I think that was excellent, Ginger -- (off microphone) -- clear so I think that was good.
What I'm hearing from the room, then, is that we probably need more time to review the output of the working group that came in this morning.
I'm seeing people shaking their heads where --
>> (Off microphone.)
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah. May I -- if I could --
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I've been -- honestly, I've been here. I haven't had time to look at it so I'm trying to read the room in terms of is the room comfortable saying, "We're okay with the document as edited by morning out of the working group? If so, we declare them closed."
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: There's one thing we have to change.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Madam Chair -- yeah.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: There's just one or two things we have to change.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Of the 55 MAG members, 33 are the existing members. They already blessed these last year. And of the 22 which have joined new, I think 17 have provided their inputs.
If there are two more lines, including (indiscernible) the very important (indiscernible) by Ginger, they should be sent in now and we should please close this today.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Okay. So we will make the adjustment along the lines of whatever Ginger just suggested, whatever the one line was that Chengetai just said needed --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Yeah.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And we will --
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Perfect.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- post those and have those ready to go. Juan?
>>JUAN FERNANDEZ: Just one question.
I didn't read the final document, but now if we are leaving the tagging to the end, should -- in the document on the revision of the workshop, should it be that the -- the MAG members should suggest the tag or the theme for each workshop? Is that already in the document or that's in an update that we have to do to the document?
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Flavio?
>>FLAVIO WAGNER: The document was written before the decision -- before the discussion here in the plenary, of course, so there are some comments on the document you may find that state that depending on the decision of the -- of the MAG here, this phrase should be revealed, yeah. But this is -- this happens for three or four sentences along the documents.
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: And the room is confident that we can do that with the secretariat, so I'm seeing lots of vigorous head nodding. We will --
[ Speakers are overlapping ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: -- declare those approved and closed.
Okay. I'm going to turn the floor to Yolanda to say a few words. Wai-Min, if you'd like to address, you --
And then I think it just remains to all of us to applaud all the work we've done and for me to give my thanks to everybody.
>>YOLANDA MARTINEZ MANCILLA: Well, thank you all.
As Victor mentioned, it has been a very productive and learning experience for us and it's the first time that we participate in the MAG process.
We would like also to express that it's not just only us. Behind us is a multistakeholder community in Mexico that is very excited to host IGF.
So we are two persons that came all the way to Geneva, but behind us there is a very active multistakeholder ecosystem and community that is very conscious and anxious to receive all IGF delegates in Mexico.
And as Victor mentioned, we are focusing a lot in having a technology-enabled forum, and that means that operational issues like tagging or having technology-enabled remote participation and making sure that people with disabilities has enough tools to really take advantage and participate in the conference is going to be one of our priorities.
And as we mentioned when we presented our candidacy in Joao Pessoa, we are very pleased of the theme of the conference because we want a fora that is very inclusive, and that means having a lot of participation from youth, from women, from elder, from indigenous community, for people with disabilities.
Internet came to stay. We live in a digital world, and we need to make sure that everyone is included in that process and this fora gave us that opportunity.
We're also very pleased and we are conscious of the challenge that the venue has, but believe me, it's the best example of having something that is a heritage site that can host something that is the best for the future. So it is a beautiful space, it's open, it's ready to host a fora that looks for and promotes collaboration, openness, freedom of expression, and everyone should be welcome. We are a very hospitable country, so very -- we are very happy to host IGF, and the reason to invite you to have a MAG meeting in Mexico is because of that.
We have sponsors. We have a multistakeholder community that will be very active and sensible in having the opportunity to physically participate in a MAG meeting.
We know we have remote options, but if you want to have, you know, high-level ministers and people that it's important for us to host and to give us the support, just by telling them, you know, "We're hosting a MAG meeting here X month" help us a lot in having the support that we need in organizing the meeting.
And with that, I will also say that we are a federal government but we have the entire support from the state government as well, and that's something important to say.
So thank you all and see you in Mexico.
[ Applause ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: I'd like to add my thanks to everybody here as well. I think we've pushed through an awful lot of work. I hope everybody feels comfortable -- maybe just comfortable enough -- with that. We had an awful lot to get through and obviously there are a lot of different opinions, but I think the work we've done in past years has steered us really well. I think the secretariat is on top of a lot of items that we are going to work to close over the next few days and I'm confident that we can get everything out and meet our deadline.
So I really want to take -- thank everybody for their support, and particularly for making this job, you know, relatively easy, actually.
I think there was a lot of support for pushing through, you know, in the areas that we needed to, so I thank those that went with it.
I'd like to thank the scribes. Again, I think just superb, superb work, and I know I've gone back every night -- so I'd like to thank the secretariat for posting it so quickly as well -- and used it to get organized and settled for the next day, so I think that's been extremely useful.
And of course to thank the interpreters as well. Very, very useful and appreciate the effort, and we're almost ending on time.
And I think the final thanks is to the secretariat. I mean, there's a lot of work that goes into supporting this before the meeting, during the meeting, after the meeting. 7:30 last night, they're still here finalizing things.
So I mean I think it shows in the quality of the work, and I really would just like to thank everybody for everything they've done to make this a success.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Actually, I will thank the chair. I mean, it's -- for the first meeting and I think she did a very great job. Thank you very much.
[ Cheers and applause ]
>>CHAIR ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Marilyn, did you have a -- Marilyn has a short social announcement, so we are officially done.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.
I would like to propose, for those of you who are still around, although it's informal and it's not scheduled, that we gather at the Ariana restaurant, which is just down the hill. They have a back room. And we can buy pizza and beer and wine, and if people will chip in a little bit of money, like 10 or 12 Swiss francs, I will twist the arm of my colleague, Markus Kummer, from IGFSA, and of (indiscernible), and we will pick up the rest of it. And it will be informal, it will be standing room only, it's not organized, but I think it will be a great way to just socially toast the great working progress that we've made and the convening of the first MAG.
And Chair, I'm sorry. I have only one favor to ask you. Could you please instruct the staff not to work but to come with us?