Secretariat

watch now! detail...

>>chair karklins: good afternoon. so thankyou for coming back and showing resilience to the temptation to walk in paris.so i hope that our session will not take longer than an hour and a half, but of course thatdepends how quickly we will get through the agenda which i would like to see be addressedduring this meeting. so let me start by asking ambassador fonsecato report back on the outcomes of the open-ended editorial group meeting and see whether theagreement which was reached could be acceptable for the mag, so that the secretariat couldcarry on work as a result. benedicto, please. >>benedicto fonseca filho: thank you. thankyou, janis, and good afternoon to everyone.

so i'd like to report that we had a very goodmeeting in which we could have a first reading of the document as it stands in regard tothe introductory part which frames and gives a context for the whole document.many comments were made and many improvements to the text were made.and basically, the most important thing we discussed is the structure of the document.we revisited the sections, the different sections, and some changes were made as a result ofthe discussion, so i'd like to thank all those who participated and i'd like to then turnto constance to introduce the document and the revised version on the basis of the discussionswe had in the morning session. >>constance bommelaer: thank you very much.so based on this morning's discussion, the

text, the structure has been amended, hopefullyreflecting the comments that were made this morning. we didn't have time to revisit theentire document, the 14 pages, but all the comments that have been made and that wereagreed by the group have been noted and will be absolutely reworked in the next versionof the document. what i would propose is that you simply havea look at the amended structure of the document -- you see it up on the screen here -- tohave a final look, discussion, hopefully agreement. and then on the basis of this structure, thenthe secretariat will be able to add some flesh on the basis of contributions, especiallyas we ask for additional contributions, including to the national/regional igfs, by 15th ofoctober.

so you will see that -- and i would suggestwe focus really on the section 2, the one called "policy issues and options relatedto connecting the next is billion." the first section, subsection, has been reorganizedto focus on issues related to infrastructure, and here you find the physical issues -- thephysical issues, universal service fund applications, the ixps and ipv6.in the second subsection, devoted to issues related to usability, we find issues suchas content, applications, services, local content, multilingualism -- i would say etcetera -- accessibility and ipr. again, we will look at the contributions thatwe actually received because if we have no contributions on any of those topics, i thinkwe should acknowledge them in the chapeau,

but then that the paragraph should actuallyfocus on what was submitted. in the third subsection, we're looking atissues relating to enabling individuals on line. here, the suggestions were to talk abouthuman rights, inclusiveness, user literacy, digital citizenship, and e-entrepreneurshipor entrepreneurship, if we don't want to make it too geeky.in the fourth subsection, we will look at issues relating to affordability, costs, digitaldivide, income disparities, and i think the title needs to be fine-tuned, with a suggestionfrom virat to include data, for instance, from itu on the cost of access per capita,with a graphic, if possible. and then in the fifth subsection, once we'velisted the various issues, finally we have

a subsection on the policy options for allof the issues mentioned above, and here a breakdown between government, regulatory authorities,and igo frameworks, then private-sector-led initiatives, and finally, nonprofit and otherinitiatives. so the request to the group would be to haveanother look at this structure, this skeleton, to make any final comments, and hopefullyat the end of this meeting we can consider it as more or less stable and then the secretariatcan add to it so that we will have, in two weeks, a full draft with flesh for the considerationof the editorial group. thank you. >>chair karklins: so thank you very much,benedicto and constance, for this introduction.

let me look in the room and see whether thereis agreement on the proposed table of content, with all the conditions that constance laidout, whether we can direct the secretariat to continue working on the text based on thisstructure. i see no one is seeking the floor. i takeit as a sign of agreement, so thank you very much.secretariat, please start populating the -- this structure with content. so thank you verymuch. and thank you, ambassador fonseca, for the work that you did in the previous session.so thank you. so let us now move to the next agenda itemfor this afternoon's meeting, and that is reports back from the work -- breakout groupactivities related to main sessions.

so may i ask wsis+10 coordinators to reportback on progress that has been made in these two days?and essentially, i would like to hear the following information: do we have a conceptualclarity about the main session, and do we have a preliminary list of speakers for themain sessions? so that these are two essential questionsthat i would like to hear answers to. marilyn? >>marilyn cade: thank you. i'm going to providean answer to both of those questions but i'm going to then ask for us to be able to distributeour updated document to the list, and perhaps take detailed questions on that later. buti can respond on our behalf on these two.

we met yesterday, and i want to thank everyonewho was able to come in person. i know many of you had competing meetings, but we reallyappreciate that a number of people have joined our working group list.we spent a good deal of time i think achieving improved conceptual clarity in our session,so i would describe, yes, we do have conceptual clarity and i'm going to say a few words aboutwhat it is. we will be basing -- this session is a veryinteractive engagement based on formal documents that are being developed in new york as apart of the wsis+10 preparatory process that is called, euphemistically, the wsis+10 zerodraft document. so when you see our document, you're goingto see we're referring to the zero draft.

that will be a document with numerous headingsand numerous paragraphs in it, so we will be using that as the basis of the interactionand the comments. it is really an interactive consultation against that document.we will have invited guests, being the two co-facilitators from unga. the ambassadorfrom latvia and the ambassador from uae are both invited. they are co-facilitators aspart of the preparatory consultation on wsis+10. and we will also be sending a formal invitationto the office of the pga, the president of the general assembly, to also send someoneto attend. so they will be invited to make a statement.not to play a formal engagement role, but to make a statement. each of them would beinvited to make a statement.

the chair, of course provided by the hostcountry, will open the session. we would then ask him or her to invite the statements, andthen we will use two co-moderators who will provide any additional necessary explanationof the formal process, and then we will go into a managed comment process similar towhat was used in netmundial in 2014, april, which some of you are familiar with. but basically,it will be a pre-identified list of topics drawn directly from the zero draft, distributedahead of time, and projected in the room. we will have four microphones, one labeledfor each stakeholder group and a remote moderator microphone or identified, and we will askthe moderators to rotate across the stakeholder groups on taking concise comments on key sectionsin the zero draft.

identifying what those sections will be iswork still in progress, and i'll make a quick comment about how we're going to handle that.the zero draft will be available actually on the -- we expect it to be available thelast week of september. we will conduct -- the coordinators of this session plan to conductat least two more planning sessions to help to further refine what topics will be drawnfrom the zero draft, and we will do that and finalize that within a week after the publicationof the zero draft. at the conclusion of what will be roughlya two-hour interactive consultation or engagement around these topics, the rapporteurs in theroom, supported by a secretariat-provided resource, will present key messages that wewish to send forward into the formal consultation

process, and they will be probably calledsomething like "key messages" from that session. so they're not called "outcomes." they'renot called "recommendations." and they will be really more of a synthesis of what hasbeen said. you asked about panelists, and i just wantto clarify that we are not officially using panelists. the panel approach does not suitthe design of what we're trying to achieve, which is really an opportunity for a verybroad set of participants in the room to be able to make -- to offer comments on particularsections. thank you.and we will be distributing our document, revised, very shortly. and again, just realquickly, we're going to hold two more consultations

with you guys similar to what we held yesterday.one will be the week of september the 7th through the 10th, which will be a discussionon the non-paper which should be available by that time. it will be probably roughlya five- to six-page paper that we're expecting to be widely available. and then a week afterthe publication of the zero draft, we would expect to hold another real-time webex consultationto take further input from all of you. >>chair karklins: so thank you, marilyn.any questions? if none, let me invite markus to inform usabout dynamic coalitions main session. >>markus kummer: thank you. yes, we had abreakout session yesterday to discuss the dynamic coalition main session and some excellentsuggestions were made on how to refine the

preparation.but at the outset, i think we agreed that we will ask for compliance with the basiccriteria as they are set out on the igf web site. that is, we will check and we will remindthem, "please make sure that the mailing list is listed on your web site, and all thesecriteria, that the contact person is listed." and if they don't have this basic information,then we will tell them that unfortunately they cannot be part of the main session.in the discussions on how the documents are presented, the point was made that they arevery backwards-looking on the work achieved so far, which is fine, but the suggestionwas made that they should aim to provide more context, be that either in the document orthen at the main session itself, explain why

their work is important and what the surroundingcontext was, like how it fitted in in a broader policy environment, and also give an outlookon future objectives and future work. it was argued that quite often experts arein their own world and they agree on what is important but they forget to explain tothe outside world why this is important. i think this was a very welcome suggestion andwe pass this on. additionally, we discussed a little bit morethis idea of the rating sheet. again, "rating" may be misleading. it is more a comments sheetthat should facilitate the main session. and the point was made that we should maybe tryand get some public comments in order to shape this discussion, but this is something wewill take up in a separate call and see how

we can refine that.otherwise, i think the concept is there. it's fairly straightforward. we have -- each ofthe dynamic coalitions will, in the first half of the session, present their work done,and in the second half we will have a discussion/debate and see how the igf community reacts.i wonder whether avri has anything to add on that, as my co-facilitator.that doesn't seem to be the case. thank you. >>chair karklins: did you mention that youhave an idea who will be moderating that discussion? >>markus kummer: we have suggested jeanettehofmann, former mag member, professor at the humboldt university in berlin.the second moderator is open still, but obviously avri and i will be in the background.avri, please.

>>avri doria: on that, i do have somethingto add. avri speaking. we had had a conversation when we had ourgeneral meeting about trying to match with a youth moderator and have been talking tobianca to help us find a couple of appropriate candidates to pick from. >>chair karklins: okay. thank you.any questions for clarification? if none, thank you very much for the updateand progress. now i call on constance for intersessionalactivities. >>constance bommelaer: thank you very much.so yesterday, actually the two groups -- there was one discussion for the best practicesand then another one in conjunction on connecting

the next billion, and the two groups endeddiscussing all together, and it was proposed to bring, actually, the substance of boththe best practices and connecting the next billion into a continued extended main session,the rationale being that the best practices have been working, bearing in mind this broaderpriority theme of connecting the next billion and within one session we could talk aboutwhat has happened over the past month in terms of intersessional activity, bringing communitiestogether through the best practices but also through the intersessional work that wentinto connecting the next billion, explain why we have done this and put it in perspectivewith the broader ig picture, wsis+10 coming up, the review of the sustainable developmentgoals, where connecting the next billion appears

as a horizontal priority.and then we would dive into the substance of the issue, mainly following the structureof the document we just -- we just discussed. because the best practice forums will alreadyhave a separate 90-minute best practice forums session, we would not have them go into thedetail of each theme -- ipv6, ixps, et cetera -- but they will all be invited to come inand share the key takeaways and how this supports the broader effort of connecting the nextbillion. we would also ask the regional/national igfsto come in, do the same exercise, and of course the other main sessions who have related themes,especially the main session on sustainable -- on sustainable development.and then we would link this discussion to

overall improvements of the igf. and, hopefully,the q&a would also cover the discussion of improvements about the process in the future,the future of the igf. thank you and, if any colleagues who attended yesterday'sdiscussion would like to come in and add to that, please. >>chair karklins: thank you very much. haveyou spoken also about potential moderators of the session? >>constance bommelaer: so because of thesechanges and because initially we had thought these would be two different main sessions,we now need to identify a moderator that could do the job of taking care of the overall session.

>>chair karklins: okay. thank you. virat,please. >>virat bhatia: thank you, mr. chairman. ijust wanted to compliment the work and the words of what constance just mentioned. actually,the meeting of these two sub-sessions occurred in two separate rooms and then got togetherin a single room and planned that they would be best for us to sort of bring these twotogether in a 3-hour session. i think that was the other agreement that seems to resoundin most rooms. when most of the 3-hour session planners now want a sort of ongoing 3-hourslot rather than the 90-minute break. so i think we need to as mag take that decision.because right now the structure shows a breakout of 90 minutes and then lunch and then 90 minutes.and it seems we want to sort of go back to

the running 3-hour sessions. it doesn't impactthe workshop planning that much, because they have done the appropriate breaks. but it willbe of great help to the 3-hour sessions. i know this was discussed in the meeting thatyou were there and wsis+10. and then bpfs and other sessions discussed this and allagreed. there's also this plan to try and discussthe process through which this -- these two efforts came together, right, in the beginning,hopefully, with some graphic representations. and the stakeholders put up some numbers andwho participated and how this process came along.if you can combine this into a single session, then it will give us, i think, about 40-45minutes, maybe more, in the end, actually,

to go to the floor and invite delegates toengage both on the point of process but also on the points of substantive inputs.and one of the things that we thought we should do is to have the moderators while openingtalk a little bit with graphic support on the process piece so that that becomes clearsince this is a branded igf product, as it were. and that was sort of the overall planthat the two groups agreed to when we got together in a single room. so thank you. >>chair karklins: so thank you. i don't thinkwe need to take a special specific decision about coffee break. but that i would leaveentirely to the organizers of the main sessions. i think what i would suggest that lunch shouldnot be compromised, but coffee break can be.

virat, please. >>virat bhatia: right now the agenda thatappears shows a coffee break, which means there is no 3-hour session. it's a 90-minutesession, 30-minute break, and then a -- so the recommendation is to formally remove coffeebreaks and show a full session on the charts so that people are not disillusioned by lookingat a coffee break which they have to then work through. that was the request of themeeting. in that sense it would have to be a mag decisionto go back to what we've been doing for the last eight years. it can't be done sessionby session, because then there will be some days and some sessions where you'll have nocoffee break and then others which will then

have a problem for delegates who are attending. >>chair karklins: can we agree with that?that on a session-by-session basis and session organizers talk directly with secretariatand make necessary arrangements. okay. decided. thank you.next on my list sustainable development and economy. hossam. >>hossam elgamal: thank you, chair. we hadour meeting day before yesterday. and we had a short meeting with few of the members todayas well during the break. day before yesterday we had 13 members participating.and we discussed. and a lot of valuable inputs came in. we drafted a new draft of the document.and we are working -- we have work in progress

with that regard.a lot of suggested speakers came. many ministers, which is showing that thesession may bring high-level participation. we have potential moderators, suggested moderators.but we did not decide yet, finalize yet. we gave ourself until 15th of september to receiveinputs on the document as well as on the speakers. by the 15th of september we will have a call.and then start moving on the speakers -- calling to a priority list. we have already agreedon criteria for the speakers distribution. and by then we will post the document to openmag list. so we receive, again, more enhancement to that document until the 10th of october.this is many, i think. we agreed that this is important to have reverseclock during the meeting and to give enough

time to the floor for participation. i saidalready that the recommendation for moderators, yes. okay.so it would be good -- one of the things that we have discussed that because -- not justfor our session but for others, but many for our session -- it would be good to have volunteerssupporting us for the logistic side making sure that everything is well set up, especiallywith some language barriers that we may face, et cetera.so it could be a good idea to have volunteers from the mag to support us with that regard.thank you. >>chair karklins: okay. thank you very much.any questions to hossam related to the session? including volunteers. of course, mag membersmay volunteer. but, if you need a logistical

support on the spot, i think that that ismore host that need to be asked to provide some volunteers who will be on the ground.virat, please. >>virat bhatia: so on this volunteer, we hada short discussion, mr. chairman. the unique situation this time is to run 11 sessionsback to back with no breathing space. and usually the -- and also unique this time thatalmost all main sessions have a very different format. none of them are just u table.there is open consultation. there is dynamic coalition. there is u table. there is roundtableformat. so it's a lot of changes. and it was felt in istanbul, as a main sessionorganizer, that the organizers have about 10 minutes, 15 minutes before the sessionin which all they can do is brief the speakers,

the moderator, give them queue sheets, andhave them run and get inside the room. and, while the organizers are there, thereis sometimes difficulty of familiarity, language, time, et cetera. so i had a discussion withhartmut on this. and we both agreed that i'm happy to volunteer -- and maybe others can-- to be there to assist the main session organizers to make sure that other than speakersand getting the room out and, you know, all the other discussions about reverse clockgraphics, if there's a film that has to be played, whatever has to be done we could helpcoordinate quickly because there would be a level of familiarity with the organizerteam. i sort of volunteered myself. and, if anybodywants to join from the mag, they're welcome

to help run the main session smoothly. thankyou. >>chair karklins: so thank you very much. >>chair karklins: any immediate volunteers?so, if not, then please think about it. and certainly we'll revisit that online. and we'llcall for volunteers accordingly. so zero rating and net neutrality. who willbe reporting? remote participant. that's ginger. >> subi. please go ahead. >>subi chaturvedi: i just wanted to echo theconcerns (indiscernible) and at main sessions. and i'd definitely like to assist other colleaguesfrom the mag with main sessions in coordination with the local team.and it would be very helpful to hear from

hartmut if we can also have some youth members.he mentioned about 100 of them would be present at the igf to help us. and also people whocan speak english and portuguese to connect with the technical team. so that is an essentialrequirement. thanks. >>chair karklins: thank you so much. thatwas on the previous topic. on zero rating and net neutrality, do we havea reporter? seems we don't. netmundial. flavio, please. >>flavio wagner: thank you, janis. we hada fruitful breakout meeting on wednesday evening. as an outcome of this, i have already sentyesterday morning a new version of the description of the session. and i'm waiting anxiouslyfor new contributions regarding a language

and small improvements that are still neededin the description. but -- so the main improvements we made in the description regarding the policyquestions, we put policy question related to igf up front, so as the first one. howis the internet governance community advancing toward the netmundial proposal of turningthe igf into the focal point for discussion of those issues that are not being fully addressedby the current ecosystem? and added a second question related to thisone is how is igf supporting the netmundial principles and the roadmap?we also modified language in these three policy questions we have to make clear that it'snot intention of the main session to make critical analysis. and so we had languagehere stating how well is the communique advancing.

so we removed those -- this language so thatthe questions are now more clearly how is each item in the netmundial roadmap, for instance-- how is each item in the netmundial roadmap being covered by the current internet governanceecosystem instead of how well is each item. so it's much more of a question of showingmatchings of what is being done by the community and the principles and roadmap of netmundial.and so kind of mapping between efforts, current efforts and the principles and roadmap ofnetmundial. so this language has been modified in variousplaces here in the description. there is also a very substantive modificationin the format and in the agenda. so the idea that there would be a web platform for receivingcontributions previously so that this could

feed the discussion during the main session.this would drop this because it was a consensus that community is already very overwhelmedwith other initiatives in this time frame. lots of demands for contributions from thecommunity for other processes that are very important. so we decided to drop this. sothat there will be no previous contributions to the web. and so, accordingly, this willalso have an impact on the outcome. because then these contributions would not be partof outcome report. there is also modification in the format.it has been proposed that there is a very brief -- at the beginning of the session,there is a very brief presentation of the netmundial process and statement made by themoderators themselves so that we set the scene

and bring all attendees to the same level.because there may be people there that were -- that are not familiar with the netmundialstatement and the process for developing the statement.so then we come to the main part of the session. this will be organized in consecutive blocks.each block is responding to one of the policy questions. and then having two or three panelistsfor each block addressing these policy questions in sequence. and then having still some timefor discussion with the audience inside each block and also a final block where we wouldbe -- have free time for discussion with the audience.regarding, finally, the panelists, we still do not have the names. but i think that weconverged to a more clear definition of the

profile that we expect is that each panelistcan bring a very concrete contribution by giving a description and maybe an assessmentof current efforts from different players, organizations, processes, fora of the ecosystemat national, regional, or international levels regarding the application of the internetgovernance principles and/or the handling of open relevant issues as identified in thenetmundial statement so that people that are really aware of the current efforts that arebeing made and can concretely address how this matches or how this maps to the netmundialprinciples and roadmap. so we are open for contributions to stillimprove the language here in the description and maybe refine the policy questions andmainly to have suggestions of names of panelists

that can have this profile and give theseconcrete contributions to answering these three policy questions. so thank you. >>chair karklins: so thank you. i understandthat you have moderators, but you do not have idea about panelists. not yet. okay.mark, you had a question or comment? >>mark carvell: yes. thank you, chair. andthank you, flavio, for the report. i have a reservation about this -- was ita policy question about turning the igf into the focal point for discussion of issues thatare not being fully addressed by the current ecosystem? that was not an outcome from netmundialto do that. as i understand it, netmundial said considerationshould be given to the possible need for mechanisms

to consider emerging topics and issues thatare not currently being adequately addressed by the existing internet governance arrangements.but it didn't go so far as to state that the igf should take on that role.so i have a serious question here about the credential for that particular proposal inthis -- for consideration in this session. i wonder if perhaps flavio could expand abit more on the rationale for that. thank you. >>chair karklins: so thank you. virat, please. >>virat bhatia: i thought flavio wanted torespond. should i wait? >>chair karklins: let's take all questions,and then flavio can respond.

>>virat bhatia: i had a comment, not a question.so i can wait. >>chair karklins: please, flavio, then respondto the question of mark. >>flavio wagner: just trying to find herethe netmundial multistakeholder statement to read the concrete language that has beenused in the statement. yep. the exact language used in the roadmap ispart 2 of the roadmap, "issues dealing with institutional improvements."it is the point 2 that you referred to, "consideration should be given to the possible need for mechanismsto consider emerging topics and issues that are not currently being adequately addressedby existing internet governance arrangements." but then there is a second part in this part2 where "improvements should include, inter

alia," and then "a," "b," "c," "d." it's everythingabout igf here. "d" is -- and then finally "a strengthened igf could better serve asa platform for discussing both long-standing and emerging issues, with a view to contributingto the identification of possible ways to address them.so it's not exactly the same language that has been used here in the policy question,i admit, but i think it's the same idea, that open and emerging issues could be discussedat igf. maybe we can change the language of the policyquestion to better match the original language in the netmundial statement, for sure. >>chair karklins: so thank you.i think one of the mandated tasks to igf was

to look at emerging issues and consult existingorganizations on these new emerging issues, so that was already done in 2005.there wouldn't be any contradiction if igf would look at emerging issues, and actuallyit has been done already. icc/basis. joe? >>icc/basis: thank you, chair. that was alsoan issue we had flagged and had suggested some alternative wording to that issue thatperhaps soft- -- because i think the concern was the focal point was perhaps an overstatementof the nature of what it was going to be, but that it included the concept that igfcould better reflect some of the work on identifying where work is being done in the emerging issuesor otherwise undertake some work on some of those emerging issues as appropriate.i don't think it means that igf is the only

place where that gets done, but igf can contributeto this process. so perhaps it's a -- we can continue to evolvethe wording to, i think, reflect the concern, which is appropriate. >>chair karklins: okay. thank you.virat, please, now. >>virat bhatia: i just wanted to comment onthe meeting yesterday just to say that it was a very constructive meeting -- sorry,day before -- and had lots of suggestions, one taking -- between flavio starting hispresentation and ending it, he got a set of comments that we were trying to consolidatefor the sort of last day and a half. i think some of the concerns that have justbeen mentioned, which are valid, are in that,

but to the extent we are open to making sure-- and i think flavio has clearly indicated that openness -- i think we can work withevolving language. but he already has now in his inbox a set of inputs which were agreedto in the meeting and there is a sense of trying to ensure that everybody's concernswere taken on board, that this does not become bigger than ben hur, as it were, and at thesame time was quite effective in doing the evaluation that we are hoping to do. thankyou. >>chair karklins: so thank you. i hope thatthe discussion will be taken now on line in the -- on the specific list, and so we willhear back on the fine-tuned proposal very soon, including to -- on the names of potentialpanelists.

so let me move now to the next main session,and that is human rights on the internet. jac, are you ready to report? sorry. therewas -- sorry. jac. >>jac sm kee: sorry. sorry. i just managedto get in touch with ginger and deidre on net neutrality and zero rating, but i thinkginger had an emergency so she couldn't report, so i just wanted to really quickly perhapsask cheryl or patrick -- they also have been in the loop, so maybe that's something thatthey can comment. >>chair karklins: yeah. maybe if ginger isnot on line, let's take first -- >>jac sm kee: human rights? >>chair karklins: -- human rights --

>>jac sm kee: yeah. >>chair karklins: -- and then patrick, ifyou could advise us on the progress on that particular topic on zero rating and net neutrality.jac, please. >>jac sm kee: yeah. so we had a really goodconversation, particularly around fine-tuning the methodology and how to, like, work thehuman rights session. the suggestion is that we will have -- wewill organize the session to, at maximum, four clusters. ideally it will be three clusters.the first two clusters will be gathered through the workshop organizers, so the next stepfor that is really to try and step up that work in terms of getting in touch and tryingto facilitate conversations within workshop

organizers to self-identify which clusterthey belong to, because it's quite a broad cluster. it will probably be -- whoa. hello?okay. maybe i'm too near. okay. so the first cluster is probably going to-- the first cluster will be focused on civil and political rights. the second cluster willbe on economic, social, and cultural rights. we want to leave one of the clusters opento either -- one of the clusters will be looking specifically on the interrelationship betweenhuman rights and access, to link it back to the theme of the igf.and the conversation will happen cluster by cluster.so the workshop organizers will then appoint and self-identify within themselves who willbe -- one or two people who will be speaking

to that particular issue. and what they willdo is rather than provide a summation of what happened in the workshop, to identify oneor two key questions that they would like to have for further conversation at the mainsession. and at each cluster, we will also identifydiscussants who will then respond to some of the questions as well as provide some insightsand input into it and then open up the floor to further conversations. we're trying tostructure it in a more organized sense. and the objective is -- so the key discussantswill also point to opportunities where discussions at the igf can then be also brought to otherpolicy events. so that's also one of the roles that is being played.and towards the end of the main session, an

explicit question will be asked, which is,what message do they want the igf to send to the world with regards to access and humanrights. >>chair karklins: so thank you. in terms ofmoderators and panelists, how far are you on that issue? >>jac sm kee: there were some suggestionsthat were given. we've already -- we've set some criteria. it's quite similar to the dc,actually. we wanted two of diverging experience and levels. and there were also some suggestionsthat were given in terms of discussants into the cluster, but unfortunately they're allin my tablet which i forgot to bring today. >>chair karklins: okay. so thank you verymuch.

questions to jac about update and presentation?it seems everything is clear. so let me now turn to patrick on the updateon zero rating and net neutrality conversation. patrick, please. >>patrick ryan: well, thank you. this is patrickryan. i'm happy to step in to provide a -- some pinch-hitting on the update, although i wantto make clear to everybody that i am not one of the coordinators and so i don't intendto provide anything very detailed or to replace the excellent work that they've done.we had our meeting yesterday upstairs and had a little bit of hiccups with some of theinvolvement of the remote participants, as -- you know, kind of relived some of the challengeswe have even at the igf in making sure the

remote participants, you know, aren't justsort of perfunctorily in the room but are actually engaged in the process and we hada hiccup there, i think, yesterday and rectified that a little bit partway through but wereable to identify several candidates for panelists and several candidates for moderator.there was some debate -- i don't know that it's been resolved -- as to whether or notit would be one large panel that would be contiguous throughout the entire time frameor whether it would be split. the resolution of the coffee, you know, whether or not there'sa coffee break, you know, took a lot of opportunity for us to sort of talk through that and whetheror not the coffee option was, in fact, an option that the main session organizers couldelect or not. and so i think that's clarified

now.there was also lots of discussion around how zero rating builds on net neutrality, howthey're similar, how they're different, and how to hold a session on zero rating and netneutrality that doesn't just sort of, you know, repeat all the issues of net neutralityand has some of the negative consequences that the sort of intense net neutrality sessionshave had in the past. work continues, and i'm sure there will be much more to reporton next. >>chair karklins: so thank you very much.cybersecurity and building resilience? >>dominique lazanski: that's me. >>chair karklins: yes. dominique.

>>dominique lazanski: subi's on the line soshe might want to pitch in after this. we had a really engaging and excellent discussionon wednesday in which we talked about a variety of things from speakers to topics to coverto, you know, just about everything, but we decided that we really have to narrow thefocus on this particular session because cybersecurity is so wide-ranging.however, we need to acknowledge that cybersecurity is so wide-ranging.so we'll need to set the scene initially in this session, but we're going to focus primarilyon areas of collaboration between stakeholders and government, you know, private sector,civil society, and take stories and sort of practical examples that go beyond just talkingabout setting up a csirt and things like that.

so just to highlight the key threads or thekey areas of the agenda, we're going to identify the issues, assess the capabilities, lookat capacity building, look at multistakeholder collaboration, and then look at next stepsas well. i sent around an email, quite a comprehensiveemail, asking for feedback on that, and if anyone could feed into those particular areas,as well as having speakers and moderator suggestions. it's going to be a roundtable discussion,and in terms of the moderators, i think we suggested that since the dutch governmenthad a lot of experience dealing with this particular topic area, with the gccs, we hopethat we can look to them for at least one strong moderator who would be able to -- to,you know, really cover all these topics and

fluidly kind of manage everyone interveningfrom the floor as well. so any other suggestions are welcome for amoderator or for any speakers. and we'd also like to have quite a lot of-- you know, more input, i guess, from legal -- legal aspects and different law enforcementagencies that typically aren't involved. we also want to have remote participants,if they're strong speakers. definitely want to include them as well.but we're starting to get more -- more -- a lot more, actually, suggestions, so that'sgood. i would like to have a call next week, followingup on my email, and again, if anyone hasn't joined the cybersecurity mailing list, pleasedo that.

so thanks.and i don't know, again, if subi has some feedback as well, she wants to say. >>chair karklins: so thank you very much.i see that subi wants to add something. subi, please. now is your turn. >>subi chaturvedi: thank you, chair. and thankyou, dominique, for running the meeting really, really well.i was really pleased to see a full room and lots of interest and engagement that we'vereceived on this session, chair. we circulated the updated draft and the template. we'vehad five email circulations. the list is also beginning to look good. both through remoteparticipation on wednesday as well as over

email, we've received suggestions for aboutfive excellent speakers, and their profiles have also been shared.i would just like to reiterate that when you're suggesting names of speakers, do send us theircontact details and check with them if they'll be available at the igf or they're willingto travel. we're still looking forward to more names across regions and stakeholdergroups to reflect diversity. one of the things we do want to highlight and underline is thata lot of (indiscernible) diversity. right at the outset, we don't wish to take on toomuch. we will not be addressing every thread of the session, but the four key threads thathave been identified have been substantively reflected upon. the draft is still on lineand we're still hoping it will (indiscernible)

for comments. and suggestions also in termsof interactive format is something that we did discuss. we're still open to ideas. wealso have a detailed plan as far as engagement through social media, facebook, twitter, aswell as other platforms in the runup to the discussion is concerned, and we hope to dosome interesting outreach for getting more people for the session, because one of thechallenges has also been this is an important emerging issue. we don't want to make it soundlike a session which is too technical. so we hope that it will add value as a main session.thanks. >>chair karklins: okay. thank you, subi.virat, please. >>virat bhatia: mr. chairman, i wanted toemphasize the point that has just been made.

the main sessions have to submit their documentsback with speakers and all the linkages to workshops a month from today. that means theyactually don't have 60 days. they have 30 days.there will be some last-minute changes, as you yourself recognized on the first day,but apart from that, 80, 90% of the information, speakers, moderators, have to be there.so a request to all those making references should -- as has been stated by subi, pleasecheck if the person you are referring is there. please don't make the reference of one speakerto more than one main session organizer. and please do make email introductions so thatthe organizers are not on a wild-goose chase with a potential speaker who has no idea thatthey have been recommended or about the session.

so please, to the extent possible, if youcan do this and make life easier, we have to get everything out of the door, into thehands of the secretariat for printing within exactly 30 days. thank you. >>chair karklins: so thank you, virat.actually, you took words out of my mouth that i intended to say as a conclusion of this-- of the report back. so setting the scene. did we have conversations?subi, did you manage to get -- attract some attention of mag members on that topic? >>subi chaturvedi: chair, mike had to geton a flight and we had a skype call. i was informed, since he was present in person atthe meeting, that most of the people who have

expressed interest have already been subsumedwith the intense amount of activity in other sessions so we did not get a chance to gettogether in a room, but we've exchanged ideas and in the coming weeks we're going to becirculating a draft which will -- which has identified themes, ideological issues, philosophies,and then we're also putting out a call for speakers and we hope to connect with mag membersover a doodle call and a subsequent webex in the following week.so that's where we are at and we've just begun work. we're going to catch up speed prettymuch on this. thank you. >>chair karklins: okay. thank you very much.i also was waiting for at least one mag member to come -- come to the working group on takingstock, looking forward. i didn't -- i didn't

attract any attention so i was alone in theroom, and then i decided that after consulting myself, that the meeting was closed.so -- no. jokes apart, of course a taking stock session is very obvious and not difficultat all, so there is only one person on the stage and that is either the chair of magor the chair of the meeting from the host country listening to feedback from participantsin the form of an open mic, and then gradually moving the session to the closing ceremonywhere representative -- one representative from each stakeholder group will be identifiedand will be invited to say concluding remarks. and also, as we agreed last year, that theremight be also some -- one youth representative who would share sort of feelings about theigf brazil.

so that was relatively easy to agree withmyself and propose to the mag for consideration. so -- >>subi chaturvedi: mr. chair, i have my handup on this session, if i could make a quick comment. >>chair karklins: yes, please. yes, please,subi. go ahead. >>subi chaturvedi: thank you so much, and,i mean, self-reflection is a fantastic strategy. i would be very happy to assist and supportyou in any which way. i did want to remind ourselves that when we talk we will not havea separate main session called "igf for 10," there was also a suggestion on the virtualcall if the closing stock taking and way forward

could also be branded as igf for 10 becausethis is the 10th edition, it's our -- it's a special year. so if you could please takethat suggestion under consideration. and i really welcome the fact that this yearagain we will have a young member as part of closing and stock taking, giving us theirfresh perspective and new insights. last year, it was a fantastic addition and completelyloved it and appreciated it greatly. thank >>chair karklins: so thank you very much.last year we found somebody in teens, so we will look the same -- the same this year aswell. >>virat bhatia: i think the point that hasjust been made about sort of slightly rebranding the closing because of the role of the sessionon igf for 10, i think it would help to clarify

at this stage whether we should -- we aredoing that in this session or is that substantively now part of the wsis+10, because in sort ofbrackets, parentheses, we have that mentioned there, and i think it's an important partand there should be clarity on where it will be included and it could be in both but thenwe should just note from -- from the -- from what i read it seems there is a -- more thanjust a minor discussion on igf+10 in the wsis+10, so maybe marilyn can help with that pointas well. >>chair karklins: so thank you for suggestion.worth considering. mark, please. >>mark carvell: yes. thank you, chair. i justwonder whether the taking stock session is

an opportunity to do some soundings from thecommunity at the igf and those participating remotely on the future course of intersessionalwork. first of all, work that might be concluding. and we've already sort of signaled what mightconclude in terms of best practice fora in discussion here yesterday, i think. but alsowhat might become new elements in intersessional work. is this the opportunity to do that,or is there another sort of opportunity? i think with people still there in the igf,it's probably the ideal opportunity. i would suggest. thanks. >>chair karklins: no. thank you. that is exactly.the open mic session and stock taking session is to solicit feedback from community on everyissue they want to talk. whether they're happy

or they're unhappy, whether they have somesuggestions for improvement in the future. so it always has been the case and certainlythat will be the case also in brazil. that said, i made the proposal during yesterday'smeeting of national, regional igf coordinators that maybe if they would consider proposingthe topic for intersessional work 2016 cycle, providing that igf mandate will be extended,that initiative and the topic comes from them rather than from mag. because, at the endof the day, that is national, regional igf focused exercise. and, if regional coordinatorscould agree on the topic they would like to address themselves as one topic in differentmeetings, so that would be, in my view, the best course of action. remains to be seen.the initial response was reasonably positive.

but, again, we also need to be flexible andbe prepared for different scenarios in the future.marilyn, please. >>marilyn cade: thank you, chair. marilyncade speaking. i want to respond to both subi's suggestionand virat's question and also call attention, while i'm doing that, to the fact that thereis actually a specific workshop that is in and of itself focused on the review of theigf that is on day 4. and it is called -- i'm going to -- i'm goingto have to look it up again. i seem to have lost the title.but my point is that there are, sprinkled throughout the program, a number of placeswhere specifically the igf is being reviewed

at one level or another and commented on.during the session on wsis+10, i have every projection to think that there will be a majorsection in the zero draft and that as we, as coordinators, based on further feedbackfrom all of you, go through that draft and prioritize the sections that we would focuson, that that would be one of our key sections to focus on.i think that it's integral to the community we're in front of and was very significantlyof interest to our community. so i do -- it has always been my expectation that we wouldmake sure that it is well attended to. it doesn't subsume the rest of the core issuesthat we should take consultation on but would get some significant slot of that 2-hour consultation.so that is going to happen. and then there's

two or three workshops that are relevant toit as well. i'm just going to take this opportunity to make a comment about your invitation tothe national and regional coordinators. i think that idea was very well-received bythe coordinators who were able to participate. and we will be adding a question into thesurvey for them to begin to think about that even before -- even as they're filling outthe survey and so before they come together and meet in the substantive session. and thenit will be one of the topics in the substantive session as well. thank you. >>chair karklins: so thank you very much.so i think we have exhausted the list of main sessions.remote participant, please.

>>subi chaturvedi: thank you, chair. chair,just following up and trying to flag an issue and drawing attention to the conversationsthat we've had on self-assessment by the mag of the igf. i wonder if we've had time tohave a conversation around that. because i did not see any further conversation eitheronline or in the meeting. and i'm saying this because we already have mentioned time forsurvey and which is under process. so it would be nice if we could also look at, as mag members,what is the contribution that we have been able to make and look at a process which alsounderscores a self-assessment of either our work as mag members or what we think the igfis beginning to achieve. thank you. >>chair karklins: so marilyn, please.

>>marilyn cade: i'm -- i'm happy to have abit of a conversation about this. and i'd like to set the stage by noting that eachyear the secretariat does an excellent report on the progress on the 5-year project plan.and i -- if i were to ask for a show of hands of how many mag members bothered to read thatreport, i would probably be able to count them on one hand. because i think we as magmembers don't always pay attention to those resources.i want to flag that, because, in each of those reports, there is a substantive and usefulinformation broadly about the progress toward -- which is a form of assessment. it's maybenot an assessment. it is done by the secretariat, but it is a form of assessment.this year the secretariat, at the request

of the -- and i think dominique is here. yes-- at the request of the outreach and communication group, also undertook the preparation of,roughly, it turned out to be about 10 pages. it is also more of a backgrounder, but itis also a summary. i'm not suggesting that those are self-assessments.but i do think that if we are to decide that we're going to undertake a self-assessment,we have to take into account the fact that there is a legitimacy issue involved in aself-assessment and how that might be perceived. are we thinking about trying to actually measure,for instance, whether or not mag members actively participate and publish that information?that is -- i think there's a lot of sensitive questions about what we would be studyingand how we would be analyzing it and whether

our analysis would be viewed externally ashaving any credibility. if it is a report on the activities of themag that is intended to be informational, i think that's possibly easier to think aboutundertaking. but we also have a time crunch in terms of resources. and i'm -- i'm gettingvery anxious, as i think i've heard in the tone of some of the other mag members, aboutthe amount of work we need to accomplish in the next 30 days so the agenda can be published,which then leaves us very little time to take up new projects. >>chair karklins: so thank you, marilyn. ithink that was the voice of reason, common sense. indeed, we do not have any more timefor any other things but focus our attention

on preparation for main sessions and goodsort of organization of the igf itself. we have nine weeks to go. and nine weeks willgo by faster than we want. and that's the reality.therefore, we have made a significant progress in this face-to-face meeting on main sessions.but still i see that much work needs to be done, specifically on a few of them.so, therefore, i would encourage coordinators of all main sessions to take it really seriouslyand try to push forward as fast as possible specifically on finalizing conceptual framework.because i think we need also to publish or be able to publish the concepts and the policyquestions that each main session will try to address in the same way as any workshoporganizer should. and we need to be able to

identify speakers -- moderators and speakersof main sessions also as soon as feasible in order to avoid situation that one personis solicited to be speaker in number of panels. and then we create a perception that we arelacking experts or diversity of experts and so on.so, therefore, i really would like to encourage the coordinators to put all effort and maybeestablish a weekly reporting mechanism to mag list on progress and with a full disclosureparticularly on speakers that all of us are aware who was solicited and what is the stateof their replies. because one thing is to invite speaker and another thing is that speakeraccepts the invitation. that we're sort of on the same page and on a good way of preparation.so, that said, i have come to the close of

the agenda. or, actually, i have come to thelast point on the agenda. and that is any other business. do we have any other business?bianca, please. >>bianca ho: thanks, chair. so i just wantedto give an update on what we've been doing on the youth side. we'll ask them to signup as resource person. and i heard a lot of people now being more receptive for youthbeing either coordinators, panelists, or others. so i think that's a great start. and you canalso reach me if you want somebody -- youth to participate on your workshop or panel.the second but i think more important thing is something that i want to ask to the entirecommunity. as we say, we support youth. and i think maybe they really like a mentor, perse. i think if i can find a room on monday

on the first day and maybe have just 30 minutesjust to talk to them and kind of meet different youth and young people. i think we know -- asmag members, we know the process and igf much better than a lot of the rest. not than thecommunity. but we do have a lot of that knowledge. so i think that would be very useful to sharewith people. i think this is an ask for me. is there anyone who is keen on being a mentor?and i can include on the list. and the commitment would be small to start with. if you reallyenjoy speaking with your youth member, then i suggest you take that offline. i think that'sa good start. we also have a very active group. in fact,we just reached 200 members today. so we've been ongoing. i encourage a lot of discussionthere. and we share a lot of information and

updates on internet governance, on cyber bullying,on different topics. so i think that's good ground that we've been working with.and then -- then yeah. i think the other thing would be -- i'll just put together a toolkit,just kind of as a beginner's guide. and that would just be circulated. so we really wantyour comments on that as well. so that's my ask. and i wanted to see how people thinkabout it, about the mentorship. >>chair karklins: so thank you very much,bianca, for this update. very encouraging. peter, please. >>peter dengate thrush: thank you, chair.just to agree that an introductory session in the beginning for new people is very helpful,particularly for young people. and to volunteer

for your mentorship program. >>chair karklins: so thank you.fatima, please. >>fatima cambronero: yes. i support peterand bianca, and i support her incentive and economy with this program. >>chair karklins: thank you very much, fatima,for the commitment. any other interventions under any other business?sweden? no. thank you for being with us. so seems that we have come to close to thesession. i would like to inform you, for the sake of transparency, that i'm changing myprofessional affiliation on 16th of september. i am moving to geneva as a representativeto u.n. and presenting my credentials on 16th

of september. so i will be based in genevastarting from then. i would like now to invite ambassador fonsecato make some concluding remarks before we close the meeting. >>benedicto fonseca filho: thank you, janis.and let me start by congratulating you for the new position. and in the belief and convincementthat you will -- to the igf you will be able to serve in both capacities and guide us throughthe end of the process. but i want to wish you every success in that new position.i want also, since this is our last face-to-face meeting before the joao pessoa meeting, i'dlike to thank all of you for your contribution to the organization of the meeting. we pleasebe -- we -- i want to reinforce that we will

do our utmost to ensure the success of themeeting working together with you and the wider community. and we thank the work wehave been doing, we have done in the context of provide a very good basis for the successof the meeting. therefore, i wish to congratulate you and also to welcome you to brazil.i'd like to offer the opportunity for hartmut glaser or any other member of the braziliancommittee to address you since this is our last face-to-face meeting. the brazilian committeehas been appointed as the organization to steer the meeting on the brazilian side, soi think it's just appropriate if glaser or any other member of the brazilian steeringcommittee to address some words to you. >>hartmut glaser: thank you. only to repeatagain that we're doing our best to have a

very, let's say, high-level igf. not becausebrazil is doing but because it's the last of the tense. we like to show the full assemblyin new york that igf is a very important tool for our community. it's important that wedo our best, have very good results. and, if we can contribute to have a very, let'ssay, nice place and can facilitate, we can work together to have the best result in newyork during the assembly. again, i mentioned this, my remote participation in geneva, welcomein brazil. we'll do our best to really receive you as you need to be treated in our country.the official program is very, let's say, decided. and we will have some brazilian flexibilityin the networking and in our restaurants and our beach and other opportunities. so pleasebring your best -- the best, let's say, expectations.

and we like to fulfill everything with ourhospitality. and we'll do our best. welcome in brazil. we are very happy to serve you.thank you. >>chair karklins: okay. thank you very much.so that brings us to the end of the meeting. it remains me to thank interpreters and scribesfor helping us out throughout these three days. thank you very much.[ applause ] as well as staff of igf secretariat for preparingthis meeting and, of course, all mag members for hard work.so safe travels back. enjoy day in paris. weather is still good. not as warm as usuallyat this time of the year. nevertheless, enjoy paris.marilyn, please.

>>marilyn cade: thank you, chair. i feel compelledto take the microphone and turn to all of my fellow mag members and ask you to joinme in really expressing really deep appreciation not only to our chair, to the host countrychair and the great brazilian staff support, but in particular also to our igf secretariatwho we have decided this year to not just double their workload, but to perhaps quadrupletheir workload. and i think i'm -- i think we need to say -- yes -- thank you so much,because in the next 30 days they may never want to speak to us again if we continue atthis pace. so let's give them a round of applause. [ applause ] >>chair karklins: the meeting stands adjourned.thank you.