Geneva - Switzerland
Multistakeholder Advisory Group Meeting
24 February 2011
Afternoon Session
***
The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF MAG Meeting, in Geneva. 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 session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>>ALICE MUNYUA: We're now going to start. Going back quickly to the session we had when we discussed about the overall theme, and we still don't have full consensus on that overall theme yet.
(poor audio).
The microphone, there is a problem with it.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Does somebody have a power supply next to the microphone?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Can you hear? Now, yes.
But at least we have consensus around the subthemes.
What might be a bit problematic is under the subthemes we have got so many questions. In some of them eight; in other areas we have nearly 15. And I think it's very important that we really scale them down to maybe about six at the most because if you have three-hour sessions, I don't see how we can deal with 15 or more questions.
So in the interest of time I was going to suggest we have volunteers. There are four or five themes, that we have volunteers to drive the process of reducing the questions to a manageable number. But we're not going to try to attempt to do it here. I was going to suggest that (poor audio).
It's gone off again. Okay.
That we get volunteers who will lead each of the subthemes, and people who will work with the person leading to reduce the number of questions, you know, merge them. And the deadline for that would be a week and a half, as Secretariat is mentioning, get that back by mid March.
So do I have an okay for that? And could we get volunteers for each of the subthemes, please.
Comments.
Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Yes, I think that's good, and I'm happy to take the critical Internet resources theme with some others and see if we can get that sorted.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Waudo.
>>WAUDO SIGANGA: I just want to know is the program catering for four subthemes or five? But there is space for five. We dropped one, Internet for development.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, we dropped Internet for development because of the suggestion that it should be a cross-cutting theme.
>>WAUDO SIGANGA: So we have space for one.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: No, we don't have space for one. We dropped it, and the fifth, Internet governance for development becomes integrated into each theme.
>> Madam Chair, this was a suggestion at the very end, and I believe (poor audio) withdraw the subject of the main session, the (poor audio).
(static in audio).
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Testing.
>> Can you hear me?
>> Hello? Hello?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. I think we can move on while they try to sort it out. I think we can hear it now. Yeah.
So Alvaro has brought back the topic of Internet governance and development. Yeah, please.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Yes, during lunch Brazil and many others, representatives, discussed that it would be -- it will be nice to keep the session of Internet governance for development.
We have so far -- one, two, three, four, five -- five main sessions, if we consider an emerging issues session. We have a lot of space. And the importance of maintaining Internet governance for development is that there is a lot of subthemes to be developed, and the fact that we are in the very beginning of a new cycle of IGF.
So it's important to highlight the priorities from the perspective of developing countries. It should be kept, this main session.
Thanks.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. But if I understand the logic behind the suggestion, it was that, yes, Internet governance and development is very important, and that's why it needs to be considered from all angles, from a critical Internet resource angle, from an access and diversity angle, and so we don't need it as a standalone topic because it's just a -- we have been dealing with it as a standalone topic without really going in depth, discussing it in depth. So that's why the suggestion to have it as a -- as a cross-cutting issue. Which means, then, that each subtheme will have to consider the development angle.
Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I think, from memory, and I may be wrong here, but I am fairly certain that we're taking that on board, we actually in our list of questions for every topic have something in there that refers to Internet governance for development. I think.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes. And I think the important factor to take into consideration is that it doesn't get lost. So we need to make sure that that question is asked under each subtheme.
Fouad.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: The important aspect of Internet governance for development, number one thing, it was only introduced last year. And that started the thought process behind it, and for everyone to actually look at the global, and regional and country level policy, Internet policies, and the development of those policies and the impact of those policies.
And, yes, there has been a development aspect amongst other sessions, but when we say we'll angle out, there's no predefined format or way to angle out anything, and this is the only session which actually looks into helping understand the correlation of development with regards to the Internet governance.
And even when we started this, like as I shared yesterday in the consultations, we have a working group for this which has nearly 64 members in it which covers all the stakeholder groups, group members in it. And even last time when we were building the subtopics for this, it worked through the working group.
Because this really has to be looked at from the perspective that, yes, it does require a bit of time, because there are certain issues which may develop into ICT4D or Internet for D and so forth. But still, a group is there which can work towards building out those topics in going through this.
And the workshops around this topic have been successfully managed throughout the five years of IGF.
I think we should not (inaudible) this because at the end of the day I have seen a lot of consensus for this and various issues are coming out on a regular basis, like network neutrality and openness with regard to Internet policy-making. So we cannot undermine this, because if you look at the other session topics, let's say if you touched development aspect of security, openness and privacy, there's already so much being discussed over there. If we just look at the amount of questions that were stimulated in the morning session, we can understand that the development aspect will just, you know, will just vanish over there. Why? Because everything is being discussed over there.
So there has to be this basket which discusses development and the opportunities or the implications for Internet policy-making. And this is an important aspect of which definitely affects a lot of stakeholders and it should stay there.
And I am once again willing to bring together the group to work out the details of Internet governance for development.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: And thank you for offering to lead on that if members feel that it needs to come back.
But before we go on, I just note that our observers have come back, and I think it's important to let them know what our discussions have led to.
So good afternoon, and welcome back.
We had a discussion amongst the MAG members, and we are of the opinion that while the IGF has evolved quite well by allowing observers to be part of this process, the MAG members do have work do and they have a really packed program, and it's important to just have MAG members discussing the program and the agenda for today.
If we do have time, you know, we can call upon a discussion of the sort, but then yesterday we had open consultations where observers did have the chance to speak then.
So the agreement is that this is -- speaking is restricted to MAG members only. I hope you understand.
And now to go back. We have Katitza.
>> Yes, we have Olga Cavalli and Katitza wanted to let everybody know that they are following here, and Katitza, can you hear me? Maybe you can speak now.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: I just want to make brief regarding the previous comments, since I just have the floor. Sorry. Hello, everyone. I didn't know it was going to be a MAG meeting. When I learned about it, it was too late for me to change my work commitments. So I apologize I am not there right now.
But having following the meeting at a distance, I just want to make two quick questions.
Regarding the volunteer for the organization of the session, I will like to volunteer for the sub main session to organize it. And second, regarding the main session on development, I would like to support Brazil's position on that it's important to have in the (poor audio) on this (poor audio) improvement compared to other -- the last IGF compared to previous IGF meetings. And I think that now that we are going in a new transition with IGF, it should be kept.
Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
And then there is Olga.
>> Olga just wanted you to know that she is following.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay, okay.
Any more comments?
Okay. So the main agreement that we have the five. The additional, we bring back the development agenda.
Thank you.
Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Sorry you didn't see my flag before. I'm actually not in support of that.
I'd like to go back to this issue for two reasons. For one, we're also forgetting that we have one other main session, which is taking stock of Internet governance and the way forward. And so we should make sure that we're keeping that in the schedule at least for discussion today.
On the IG for development, I also wanted to remind us that over the years we have experimented in that slot with a number of different issues. The one before it, I recall, was IG principles. And each time it's been about giving an opportunity for an issue that was looked at in depth in workshops and which had emerged as something that could be a good main session. Experiment was done, and then a decision was for the IG principles topic that it could now be taken up again in workshops and it was not being ignored.
I'm really not -- I want everyone to understand, those who really want this to stay, that I am trying to be constructive in actually giving more emphasis to the development and capacity-building cross-cutting themes and not trying to undermine it. And I think it's very important that what I proposed earlier and what others have supported in terms of being vigilant, that there is an angle on the issues.
I was a part of the development of that main session last year. I think it was important to have that session. It had emerged from the community as being important. There had been in-depth workshops. That was a good thing.
But in focusing to try to, (a) shape that session and (b) be a floor moderator along with Christine Arida, it was extremely difficult for that session not to be either duplicative or stay at a level that did not reach depth on certain issues.
So my personal experience with that is it would be very important to give a large-room workshop to that topic again should people want to do that, look at how you get IG issues on the development agenda or whatever angles not covered, but I really think we should be vigilant about putting a bullet-point question on a series of development angle issues that need to be handled on every issue, again because it was difficult to see how we weren't just redoing certain security or privacy or access issues in the IG for development discussion, and actually not even getting the depth we did in the other sessions or in workshops.
Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Ayesha.
Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I agree with Ayesha. And unless I missed something, the reason why we took this out this morning was specifically because there was a very strong input yesterday from everyone saying this should be an overarching, whatever you want to call it, cross-cutting issue and should be dealt with in every session.
So again, I thought that was the reason, and I completely -- I agree with Ayesha. It's important for those who are pushing for it to understand that this is not about side lining it. This is actually about lifting it -- I think lifting it to a higher and more important level.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Alvaro.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Thank you. I appreciate the previous comments that highlights the importance of having development as a priority in the whole IGF. And this was -- this is also our concern.
At the very beginning, we were thinking of the possibility of having development discussed in all sessions. But as we were working, we realized that the questions about development are totally spread. So we have a double problem here. We have sessions full of questions, and maybe if we concentrate the specific questions on development on a specific main session for development, this would help first to keep development as a priority approach to IGF. And second, it will help the discussions on the other main sessions.
So it's going to be very useful, practical to have a main session on IG4D, including to bring questions related to development from other sessions to here.
And my second argument would be -- point would be that regarding paragraph 72 of Tunis Agenda that was mentioned today in the this morning, paragraph 72, item f. There is a clear mandate here that says that the mandate of the IGF is to strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing or the future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly views from developing countries.
This is only one example. There are other -- I can mention other two items in Tunis Agenda that clearly says about developing countries, participation of developing countries.
So I think there is plenty of subjects to be discussed in the main session on IG4D and the symbolic approach that we are having our new cycle of IGF beginning in Nairobi, a developing country. Very important developing country.
We should keep this main session as a really strength of agenda for development in this IGF.
Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Alvaro. Any other comments on that?
Michael? Chris? And Theresa.
>>THERESA SWINEHART: Hi. I just wanted to lend support for the comments and observations that Ayesha and others had made.
I think it, in a way, it risks diluting it from the other themes. So by -- it's not in any way to -- to not emphasize the importance but by integrating it into the other topic areas, I think we strengthen the importance of the theme across all subject matters.
And my concern is by having it as a separate agenda item, we actually dilute that emphasis, or we risk diluting that emphasis.
So I would like to see how we can give it the most strength and the most visibility throughout the entire meeting, and strengthen and build upon what we have done over the past years.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
Bill.
>>BILL GRAHAM: Thank you, Chair. I agree with what Theresa and Chris and Ayesha have suggested. But I do think it possible for us to take a step to formally recognize the importance of development as a cross-cutting theme. And the way I would suggest we do that is in each one of the volunteer groups preparing a theme, let us have a dedicated volunteer responsible for bringing the interests of the developing world into the planning for that session.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Fouad? Valeria?
>>VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you, Alice. I would also like to agree with the previous speaker, particularly with Ayesha's proposal. However, let me add if we really want to find a way to consolidate mainstreaming, we should thinking having both. And perhaps a good way to do it is to have a main session of development at the end, particularly not to dissipate the importance that the issue has. So that is my proposal.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: How about having both, mainstreaming it as a cross-cutting issue and still having a session towards the end on development. I see some nodding, other shaking. So we will go with the nodding. Okay, thank you.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: We are back to five, six themes, five being the main themes. The sixth one, emerging issues; and the seventh, taking stock.
So we've got a volunteer for critical Internet resources, Chris. We need volunteers for the others. I think Fouad has volunteered for development. What about openness? Security, openness and privacy, a volunteer to lead that process? Just looking at the questions and distilling them to -- that's the objective. Any volunteer?
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay, for security, openness and privacy, okay.
Access and diversity? Valeria.
Internet governance for development, it's done.
Emerging issues. Ayesha.
And then I think taking stock. No volunteers. So perhaps the Secretariat -- (laughter) -- will do that. So thank you very much. Then we can move the agenda forward.
Pardon?
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Valeria.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Sorry to take the floor again. I'm just wondering, is each of the lead people going to just do this by themselves or are they going to work with a small group? Because I think in order to be balanced about the editing of the questions, it should be a multistakeholder group of people actually doing it.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes.
Chris, do you want to respond to that?
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I'm actually just about to send an e-mail out to the IGF list asking -- the MAG list asking for volunteers to help me. So, yes, I certainly think it needs to be a small -- a small group -- I mean, you don't want 20 people -- but working on the questions. Presumably this document that's up here will be produced within a day, and we can then work through the questions as a group on the e-mail list and come back as quickly as possible. So I suggest every volunteer leader does the same thing.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, yes. Fouad?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you, Chair. I will initially send out an e-mail on the existing group we have for the IG4D and I will also send out an e-mail on the IGF members list.
Secondly, just for the record, my name is spelled F-O-U-A-D. Just like Fouad.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay, thank you. And the deadline for that from the Secretariat is one week, mid March, 10th March. We expect the volunteer -- the leads to have finished with that process and send back the subtheme and the question so that we can have the call for proposals out by 15th of March. The IGF Secretariat will discuss the dates towards the end.
So we can move to the next agenda item which is just looking at the program outline. The Secretariat will take us through that.
Chengetai?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: The next thing, just following the program paper which we've set forth as our agenda, is the program outline. And if Avri can -- Yes. I think maybe it is best -- Yes. That's, basically, the program outline, how we want to set up the program.
We usually have, like, the opening session in the afternoon, which has worked quite well with us because people are still arriving on the first day. Then we have Internet governance, setting the scene.
Well, I won't read everything out because you can see it. I suppose we can discuss it day by day, starting with the opening session -- with Internet governance, setting the scene. Do we want to keep that? Do we want to change that? And then just walk down to see if you have got any options or things that you want to change?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Chengetai. So do you want to keep day one as it is with setting the scene and then have regional perspectives and this opening ceremony? Yes? Okay.
Day two, same?
>> (Speaker off microphone). The alternative.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes.
>> I think we need to look at the alternatives and decide which ones we are moving forward with
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: That's the traditional.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Oh, sorry, yes. The traditional one is the first one.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And then there are alternatives A and B. If somebody doesn't like the traditional --
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Then we take the other.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: -- they can say which alternative they like.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: I'm assuming okay with keeping traditional day one as it is. Okay? Yeah? Perhaps you can scroll down so people can see the alternatives.
So the second alternative is having an introduction to Internet governance and then regional perspectives and the opening ceremony I think are somehow similar.
And then the other alternatives to have setting the scene, regional perspective lunch, opening ceremony and then the workshops start.
Shall we maintain the traditional? Yeah? Okay.
>> (Speaker off microphone). On alternative B, there's a -- the afternoon on the first day, there is opening ceremony and workshops. So I think we need to have some kind of idea how long is the opening ceremony we're thinking of so we can decide whether we can settle for the alternative that's given in alternative B. Are we anticipating in a long opening ceremony that would take a whole afternoon?
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> Pardon?
>> The timing is there. But what I'm saying is the alternative B, the timing is different from alternative A and the other alternative.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: If I'm mistaken, like, for alternative B, we have -- and there is also workshops on the day one. With the main sessions, we have workshops. So do we want main sessions and workshops together on the first day?
>>WAUDO SIGANGA: That's the question I'm asking.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: That's the question you should decide on.
>>WAUDO SIGANGA: What I said is it will depend on what the planning committee -- how they can guide us, how they feel the opening ceremony will be. How long will it be? So we can decide whether we can also fit in some workshops on the same day.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: The planning -- the opening ceremony is as stated, should be one hour, two hours maximum. Like, you know?
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: What we need to decide is which option are we taking. Are we taking the traditional?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Can you give us at least five minutes? And reduce the size of this so we can see the three on the same page, reduce the size of the document to 100% or something.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: You all received it on your e-mails this morning, correct?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Have a look.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Just five minutes.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sure, no problem.
[ Break ]
[ Gavel ]
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Thank you very much. I hope you have consulted, and we can then move the discussion forward. We need to agree on whether we are sticking with the traditional main schedule or the alternative A or B. But just to remind you, we got six themes which will have to fit in.
And when you look at the themes, we have to agree on whether or not we want them as main sessions or not. And I think that will help guide the discussions.
So may I have comments? Waudo and then Fouad.
>>WAUDO SIGANGA: Thank you, Madam Chair. After talking to many of my colleagues, I think we have thought it is wisest to go with the traditional program, the tried and tested program. But also we think a small change would be useful, particularly with regard to the situation that will be there in Kenya and that is the opening ceremony.
We feel it has to be done in the morning session. So we are suggesting it be done on the second day. And the session that was to be done on the second day in the morning can be put forward to the afternoon of the first day.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Any other comments?
Fouad, yeah.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you, Chair. After discussion with my colleagues, there's something we revisited, was yesterday's comments from the stakeholders. And there was a strong sense of the possibility to have more workshops before the main sessions.
Now the particular case why is that we have a division of workshops, which is feeder workshops and which are parallel workshops or workshops which are not feeding into the main sessions.
So in alternative schedule B, which is the third number, we see that on day one we have two sessions which is Internet governance, setting the scene, and regional perspectives. Maybe -- As you said, there are six main sessions. We can have maybe starting something over -- This still has to be discussed out. From day one to day two, we see all the feeder workshops completing before these slots we have on day three and day four for the main sessions. And the non-feeding workshops can run in parallel on day three and day four. So this might be a workable opportunity that the feeder workshops would actually happen before the main sessions and they would -- it would be easier to feed the results into the main sessions while at the same time, the next day, day three and day four, would also have the parallel workshops running which are not feeder workshops. So this might be a very good approach to take into account what the comments we have received so far by the broader stakeholder group. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Well, first of all, feeder workshops by definition have to happen before the main sessions that they feed a workshop to; otherwise, they are not feeder workshops.
We actually need to take a step back. I think I heard you say that we got six themes, and we need to decide whether we are going to have six main sessions. Now, I don't think we can have six main -- I can't see any way of -- we have never had six main sessions, I don't think. I'm fairly sure. But even if we do have six main sessions, then basically alternative schedule A or B won't work because they are built around fewer main sessions.
So if what we mean with our six themes that we have talked about is we are going to have main session on each of those six, then we really have a struggle to make it work, but the only way it can possibly even have a chance of working is if you use the original model. And even then it's going to be hard, but maybe we can do it.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: That was the question, do we want the subthemes to be main sessions or not, and how is that, then, going to work with the schedule, the traditional schedule and the other alternatives.
Any additional comments?
So we have one suggestion to maintain the traditional one, and another to adopt alternative B, both with a few changes.
Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: (poor audio).
>>AVRI DORIA: Can I ask a question? Something I was trying to understand while I was playing with boxes. Did the opening ceremony, moving that to the second morning, was that something that had to happen in any case or just if we did "A"?
I didn't -- Or maybe I totally misunderstood what was being said there.
Opening ceremony remains where it is in all cases?
>> Okay, I have my colleagues here who works in the planning committee. I know most of them are not on the MAG so I just consulted with them, and they mentioned to me with our situation in Kenya, the opening ceremony is based in morning session, not an afternoon session. So that appears that whatever alternative you are thinking of, it has to be a morning session.
And then the other thing to consider is that it's best not to do an opening ceremony on the first day because things are not settled down, people are still registering, so on.
The second day looks the best for opening ceremony.
>>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. This is Avri again. So therefore, we would need to apply in any of the models we are looking at, whether A, B, or C, that move would need to be changed. That's what I wanted to make sure I did correctly. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: The suggestion is to have the opening ceremony on the second day in the morning.
>>AVRI DORIA: So that's now option C. So B became C.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes.
Any additional comments? We have got the two, either the traditional one or the alternative B.
So some people wanted to have a look at alternative B -- no, C -- B. Or C.
>>AVRI DORIA: I moved the opening ceremony to Tuesday morning and called it C.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So that's the other alternative.
Yes, Fouad.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Sorry, chair. It would be worth asking the host whether the opening ceremony would be on the first day or the second day.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Second day.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Then that again gives the opportunity that we start the feeder workshops from day one; right? We move into day two after the opening ceremony. So that prepares us for feeding all the main sessions on the day number three and day number four with the parallel workshops, which are nonfeeding workshops, running on day three and day four.
Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Sorry, again, maybe I am confused. Fouad, I understand what you are saying but how can you possibly run six main sessions on day three and day four? It's just not logistically feasible do that.
So if what you are suggesting -- which I agree. I think having the workshops before main sessions is a good idea, but you logistically can't do it if you want to run six sessions. It's just not possible.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: And do we want to run six sessions? We haven't agreed on that yet.
Alvaro.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Just to clarify, Chris's doubts. That's also mine. When we mentioned six sessions, we were talking about emerging issues as one of these. So it's already there. And also Internet governance, setting the scene.
So we have in the screen the six, the six blocks over there.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: No, there is managing critical Internet resources; security, openness and privacy; access and diversity; the development -- development theme; there's emerging issues; and taking stock.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: So it was taking stock that was missing.
Okay.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So those are six.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: So the emerging issues was one of them.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes. So we need to agree on whether we want six main sessions with the subthemes and how that will work.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Or we need to agree if we are going to run another three -- I know the three-hour slots are there for a reason, because of translation, et cetera, but the emerging issues and taking stock have normally been an hour and a half each, I think. Chengetai; is that right?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: The other question is if that's the case, do we want to have three-hour sessions for everything else or could we maybe have an hour and a half -- I don't know. I'm just raising it.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Fouad.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Just as a starting point on the main session time issue, as we are going to also look at IG4D, take feedback from all the main sessions, the development angle of the development aspect, as already discussed, I think that allowing it to share time with another session would be a possibility. Staying to one and a half hours for that particular session.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. But which -- what session would we share it with?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Since it's near the end, we could have it, after that would be taking stock.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Is that had a possibility for everybody?
Okay.
So it sounds like we are settling for alternative C. Alternative C is okay?
>>AVRI DORIA: I'm sorry, I missed the last change. I don't know what change was asked for.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah, the last session, development issues to be at the same time with taking stock. Is it? Taking stock. Yes, parallel.
It's not parallel.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Giving them one and a half hours each.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Rather than two.
>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. At the moment if you look at day four, second slot, you are already splitting emerging issues and closing ceremony in that same slot.
>> (speaking off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So we have got a challenge.
>> On day two -- On day one, the feeder workshops will start on day one. Now considering for a particular session the feeder workshops are complete on day one, that session, main session, can happen in parallel on day two.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Which main session?
>> Say if we took C for our starter -- Let me run up there.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, please.
>> (speaking off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, thank you.
>> (Speaking off microphone).
>> What I'm saying is, I'm going to go back to it. On first day, CIR workshops, feeder workshops. Second day, a parallel main session on CIR happens here, three hours full. And these workshops feed into that. So they are completed at the same time, in parallel. The other feeder workshops for this main session is happening on the second day as well. Right?
So in parallel you have main session and feeder workshops for the upcoming main sessions.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. That might work.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Isn't that essentially the original model?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, it sounds like it is.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: If you actually go back to the original model, isn't that essentially what we had? Because that's what we did last year.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: We had the feeder workshops for CIR on the first day.
There you go. The workshops are all happening at all times. So you might want to move it forward a bit, but that is effectively what we have always done.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah. What you have just described is effectively, yeah.
>> (speaking off microphone).
>> On the first day, we are not having a main session; right? It's just workshops on the first day. That is what I was mentioning. So on the second day we actually have one of the main sessions which has its feeder workshops feed in; right? So then I think we will have ample time over here on day three and day four to collect the rest of the main sessions.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Is that agreeable? Yeah?
Yes.
>> (speaking off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Microphone, microphone.
>> On the traditional schedule, the way I see it here, we don't have any session, main session on the first day. So with the feeder workshops that are required to be done on that day to feed into day two, they can still be done.
Madam Chair, maybe we would need some guidance. I would really like somebody to maybe tell us a very good reason why we should deviate from the traditional schedule.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah, Fouad, can you -- Yeah.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: What was the question?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: We need to move on. We need to agree on -- yeah.
>> Second day. Second day, parallel workshops will still be happening for the next sessions.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Fouad.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Just in response to my colleague's question, the idea was to have the feeder workshops complete by the end of second day, day two, so that on day three, the main sessions could benefit. So we're benefiting one main session on day two with the workshops of day one.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So there are days to have all the -- most of the feeder workshops taking place on day one.
Yeah.
Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: The concept of the feeder workshops -- I'm not clear why we think we need to have the feeder workshops completed on day one, or most of them completed on day one.
The concept of the feeder workshops is that they are obviously completed before the main session that they are relevant to.
Whichever way around you spin this, one of the problems we have always had, and we're going to continue to have, is this is a very, very tight schedule to try to fit everything in. Especially when you have an opening ceremony, closing ceremony and all of that stuff.
So what you need is as much flexibility as possible. And if you start with -- The other point I want to make is if you don't have a main session on day one, then there is every possibility that a number of people will not arrive until day one. If you have a main session on day one in the afternoon, then people will be there because it's a main session.
So if you had the workshops -- some workshops in the morning of day one that were feeding into the session on day one, which is what we did last time, and then you run the other workshops, as long as they have taken place beforehand, that gives you the most flexibility to spread it.
The other point I would make is that two main sessions each day is quite -- can be quite challenging. So maybe if you go back -- if you go back to the way that we originally did it, there's a reason that we did it that way. It's because it kind of works. Having said that, I am arguing against myself because I have argued consistently that it would be great to have nothing competing with the main sessions, but I just don't see how logistically you can do that.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah. And then there was a suggestion yesterday regarding taking stock and merging it with setting the scene rather than having it at the last. Because we are taking stock of the last -- perhaps the last IGF. That was another suggestion yesterday.
Okay. I am inclined to say we stay with the traditional main -- yeah, with the traditional one.
Thank you very much. Ayesha? No. Okay. So we can move on, please.
So we'll have -- We are staying with the traditional main schedule, and I think we need a discussion around where we fit the subthemes or the main sessions, and how, then, those fit to the feeder workshops.
Is that okay? Thank you.
Cathy.
>>CATHY HANDLEY: Yes, I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I thought there was talk of moving around, and I can't see all of that from here, but that a request had been made by the house to move the opening session to a morning on day two. So is it the traditional with just moving it over there?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: It's all. All alternatives, one, two, and three, A, B, and C. The request from the host country is to have the opening ceremony on day two in the morning. So everything else will have to fit around that.
And then the discussion to have feeder workshops on the first day, which I think has been accepted. So I think what we need to agree is where we fit in the main sessions.
And which ones. Yeah.
Is that okay?
Anybody else?
Yes, Chris. Photograph.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: One second.
Can I ask that I -- that you ask -- you allow Bertrand to say something, please? Does anybody object if that happens? Otherwise I will just repeat what he says which is silly because I won't say it anything like how he will, and it is an interesting suggestion for the agenda.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, please. Bertrand.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence. I won't abuse it.
The suggestion is the following. On the first day in the afternoon to have two one hour and a half sessions. One would be Internet governance for development, and one would be the emerging issues session that would be moved to the first day. Because actually the emerging issues is not what we thought at first, the sort of taking stock of the issues that have emerged during the IGF. It's now sort of education and launching topic.
Then the second day would be entirely devoted to workshops and with a big priority on feeder workshops, apart from, of course, the opening ceremony.
And then the three main sessions, in the morning and afternoon of the day three and the morning of day four, would be ordered, depending on the amount of feeder workshops for the given theme; i.e., if one of the themes has more feeder workshops it would go to the last day and the theme that has less feeder workshops would go on the third day in the morning.
Therefore, you would have at least one full day to have feeder workshops in parallel, and a potential additional half-day, all-day if there are many others. And the last afternoon would be taking stock and the way forward and closing ceremony.
Thank you very much.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
(poor audio).
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Yeah, so -- Yes, in the afternoon of the first day, whatever the order, it would be Internet governance for development, which actually solves some of the conundrum whether it deserves a full main session or big workshop. So it's one hour and a half instead of three hours.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Maybe can you just go to Avri?
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Yes. I think she knows it.
And then on the second day, it depends on how long the opening ceremony and so on would be. But that's it, feeder workshops mostly, and potentially other in parallel.
Afternoon is -- There would be workshops in the morning, I suppose, if the opening ceremony is not --
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, yes.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Yeah, okay.
And the main idea is to use the ordering of the main session one, session two, and session currently four, in the order of the number of workshops that will be submitted that we can see afterwards, it has no basic logistical consequences.
Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah.
Thank you very much, Bertrand.
Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I just think that works. I mean, that seems to me to be viable.
The only issue I can see with that is the possibility of there being -- you may not get all the feeder workshops done on day two, but that doesn't matter as long as you stagger them so that all of the main session one ones are done and so on. I reckon that works.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Alvaro.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Yes. Following the spirit of being constructive here, I think we should consider the main session, the same time to all main sessions.
So if on the first day we are giving one hour and a half for one main session, I think the other main sessions should also have one hour and a half.
So in this way, maybe we could -- My proposal is the following each main session, instead of taking three hours, it would take only two hours. And the extra hour in each day would be fulfilled by workshops.
Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: How is that?
Yeah?
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: There are a couple of things. The first thing is if you switch the -- if you reduce the main sessions down from three hours down to two, that means you will have to split -- you will have to bring your questions down to four. There is no way you will get through, in any meaningful way, five or six topics. That's the first point.
Secondly, if the reason for suggesting it is because there is a concern that IG4D only gets an hour and a half, then I would rather solve that issue than reducing every other session to three hours. I'm not clear if that is the reason, but if that is the reason, I think that's an issue that can be solved in another way.
And I thought we had agreed, had we not, that with IG4D we would still maintain it as a very important part of each of the other main sessions. And if that's the case, then I can't see why there should be an issue with it having its own session of an hour and a half and then being a significant part of all the other main sessions.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah.
So, Alvaro.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Yes. There is a good point in Chris's last comment. Maybe we have considered the main sessions as a two-hour main session. It will force us or move us to reduce the questions into only four questions.
This would be quite innovative for this IGF. And I think it would bring more attention to main sessions.
So maybe if we followed this way, I think we should face this challenge and go in that way. We would gain much more in following that way than trying to start discussing which session should be in which part. And this is one point.
The second point is, if we leave one hour each day for workshops, this, at some extent, receives the comments that we listened yesterday claiming for more space for workshops during the whole IGF.
So just bring to consideration of everyone the idea of facing the challenge of reducing each main -- reducing to four questions each subject of main session.
Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah, and the Secretariat is reminding us that whatever schedule we have, we have to have three-hour blocks because of interpretation. Yes, so we have to keep that in mind. And also the logistics of moving around. So we have to keep that in mind.
Unless we want to stick with that, and perhaps, if the issue is about the Internet governance for development, I think it's to ensure that it's covered properly on all the main sessions. Yeah, because we also have to take into consideration the challenges that the Secretariat will have in terms of interpretation, and then just the logistics.
So can we stick with that?
Chris.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Sorry, I just wanted to pick up on the two-hour thing because I'm not actually against, necessarily, having two-hour main sessions. I just wanted to say that you will need to reduce your topics.
But if did you that, then you could -- you could have -- and still leave it as a three-hour session, but you could actually have the first hour of that three-hour session being a roundtable of the feeder workshops. And then -- So that the whole room gets to see what the feeder workshops have to say, and then have a two-hour moderated open-room session. You could. I'm not saying it's necessary, but that might work as a way of bringing the feeder workshop input into the main session at the very beginning of that session, and then opening it up to the room.
But -- Just a suggestion.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: I am just comment to support Chris's idea. I think that would be an innovation this year, something new. Try it. It might also reduce need for large panels for the two hours, which is a criticism we have heard that, people would like to see more interaction in the main sessions, and it may actually make some of the main sessions more -- more well attended and actively engaged in if we change the format around a bit.
Thanks.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Are we in agreement? Great.
Then thank you very much. We can move on to the next agenda item.
Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: For the schedule, I'm sure we're in agreement with this. Just stop me if there's any disagreement. The issue of dynamic coalitions, meeting, if they have produced a report, giving them space. That's fine? Okay.
All official events will end at 6:00. That's fine.
And of course we have also agreed on -- I'm sorry, I am not doing it in real order. But we have also agreed that for workshops, you have to submit your reports; otherwise, you won't be given one if you are the same organizers. That's fine? Okay.
Reports for the event, everybody agrees on that.
No official events during the lunch break? That's not an issue.
Of course, all efforts on remote -- I think that just speaks for itself that we have to enhance all our efforts.
And also there's the issue of remote moderators which I think don't really need to discuss. It's just a requirement that we have to put in. I think everybody is agreeable on that.
And of course the opportunity for ad hoc meetings. We'll try to have a room available where people can have ad hoc meetings. You have to speak to the Secretariat staff there to book rooms.
And also the types, the reading of -- I am just reading page 7.
The prepared statements. We still keep the same structure, no prepared statements. We really want the discussion type. Everybody is in agreement with that; correct?
So we come up to the next item, which is meeting types and structure.
So we have just discussed about the hours. So we will just go through that.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Sorry, just a question. We haven't really done the same thing we did last year about defining which should be open dialogue and which should be panel, et cetera. And I think some of the text might just be --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: You want to get to that now?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sure.
Well, we can start a discussion on the type of -- the structure of the sessions itself. I mean, open dialogue sessions, and does anybody want to add anything on those types?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: I would say that now that we have gone with the new roundtable one-hour format, that might be included in the description that --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: And then I think that some of the examples here are actually from last year, because the emerging issues session, that's -- We can ignore that?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we can ignore that. We are just going to polish it up.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: I'm assuming it's going to be polished up with the new input, today's input.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Input, and then we are going to send it to you. And then if you have any comments, of course, as we usually do, and then you come back to us.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes.
Other sessions -- I'm just reading down. Sorry, yes?
>> ALVARO GALVANI: I apologize very much. I just have a question regarding schedule. It is not regarding main sessions. I don't know if I can do it now or afterwards, at the end.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: You can do it now so we finish with it completely.
>> ALVARO GALVANI: Sorry. It is just that I don't know that in that schedule where we were -- the time frame, the timetable. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There was a proposal yesterday to merge "Internet governance, setting the scene" with "regional perspectives" into one-only block. I don't know if there is any opposition to it or we can go with it. Just that. Thanks.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Can we go with that, merging introduction to Internet governance with regional perspectives? Is that okay? Great. Thank you.
>> ALVARO GALVANI: It is still ten to 1:00?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah. It will make it a three-hour session. So that's okay? Thank you.
So we can go back to panel sessions. Thank you. Thank you, Alvaro.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We've agreed that the opening session is going to be on the second morning of the second day, so that will be updated, if it hasn't been already.
And the afternoon of the fourth day will include a closing ceremony. Anybody disagreeing with that? Nope? Okay.
Workshops, while we have agreed that they are going to be -- Sorry, I'm just paraphrasing. I am not actually reading this now. But we have agreed generally that there are going to be workshops based on the themes and also a set number of workshops that are outside of the main themes to encourage new themes to come up during the conference. No comment on that? Everybody's agreed on that?
And the best practice forums, nobody has any -- I assume -- and if somebody stops me -- that nobody has any disagreement with best practice forums, which are different? Okay.
And then we have open forums which are at the request of regional fora and also some organizations. And then there is regional and national IGF meetings.
I do start to remember there was some discussion about how to really integrate the regional and national IGF meetings, either giving them their own sessions or feeding it into a main session. Does somebody want to say something about that?
Fouad, yes, please.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you, Chengetai. There was a suggestion to hold a special workshop actually last time.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: A special workshop?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Like a dedicated workshop for bringing together all the IGF -- the regional IGF people and interested people together so they could learn from each other's experiences or share, whatever.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: I recall, there was a roundtable --
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Yeah, exactly.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: -- last year set up for regional and national IGFs.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We can keep that.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: We can keep that.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay, fine.
And then I am just jumping to dynamic coalitions. We still agree to give dynamic coalitions a space if they have been active and they follow the rules that they have submitted a report of their activities. And that session is the same two-hour session as the other meetings.
Okay, the other meetings we have said on special request. It really depends what it is. Depending how much room we have. We'll have more news on that in the May meeting for you.
So the next topic would be remote moderation. We have agreed as a requirement for the workshops they have to have a remote moderator. Yes, all workshops will have to have a remote moderator. If they cannot find a remote moderator, either the Secretariat or the remote working group will help them find a remote moderator. We should start that early for training reasons.
>> ALVARO GALVANI: Mr. Secretary.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, Alvaro.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Just a suggestion regarding Point 9, remote moderation. If we manage to successfully turn the process of remote moderation not only a process attached to the meeting itself but a whole process during the year and so on, maybe the remote moderation team could provide a very brief input from the remote participants all along the year of the discussions they had about the topics.
So the remote moderation team could provide inputs for each main session. I don't know if it was clear.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah, it's clear. It was suggested yesterday. But I'm not sure I see it happening for the Nairobi meeting. But if it does, then, by all means, yeah, it will be a very welcomed. Yeah, because I think the team needs to get -- we need to have already started by now.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Also setting up remote hubs so they can have input into the main sessions.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Perhaps another alternative is to request, like I think was suggested yesterday, that national and regional IGFs to have remote hubs. And in that way, they will be able to then contribute at the global one as a way of contributing to -- I mean, the year-round discussion. Okay?
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Can we just leave then the possibility of receiving input from --
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, national and regional, yes.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: -- as a target to be achieved.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: If not for this meeting -- it can be a target for this year with the national and regional IGFs that haven't happened and then for the next meeting as well as we move on.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Great.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And then last year we started this registration of resource people, people who would like to offer their services because there's -- we had difficulty with some workshops finding resource people to work with them and work on their panels.
So we are going to do that again, invite people to register. And workshops who are having trouble, we can just point them toward this resource, with short bios, and then workshop proponents can get in contact with these people.
For logistics and meeting rooms, while -- question A, there is no need to discuss that because that speaks for itself.
We are going to try and have all the standard -- because it is the U.N. and we are going to try to have all the standard facilities that we have had in all the meetings, including the IGF village. We will have more news for you after our first planning mission which we are going to do in April.
And so in May, we are going to have actually more news for you and actually have more detailed plans that we can go over. So there is no real need to go through that unless somebody has something to add.
And we've already talked about the hubs.
As far as the program paper is concerned, are there any additions somebody wants to make?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Any comments? Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Just a process comment since those of us who will leave the revisions of the questions, et cetera, will you first send a draft to the MAG list and then post it later?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: For the program? Yes, yes. The MAG will have a first look because this is a MAG meeting and this is basically a record of this meeting. And then you will have the opportunity to correct anything that you would want.
The next thing -- (Speaker off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: The Secretariat would like to introduce the next steps. But before we go to that, I think we've gone through the entire agenda. We have finished our agenda literally. But I do realize that we hadn't agreed -- we didn't have the final consensus around the main theme. And we still have it as "Internet as a driver of change: Access, development and innovation." I'm not sure this is the right place -- I'm not sure that we really do have the time to start discussions on that again. I think I would like to hear what MAG members think.
Should we open it for discussion again so that we can finalize it, or are we happy with just what we have there? Thank you. Waudo.
>>WAUDO SIGANGA: Madam Chair, I think the overall theme can wait. Last year we got it quite late, I think around June. Let it wait. We can mill over it and come up with something that's acceptable to everybody.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Chris?
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I agree with that as long as we are all clear that we haven't agreed yet, then I'm comfortable that we work on it on the list and come to a conclusion a bit later on.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah. We do need a deadline as well. So we will have to set ourselves a deadline.
Fouad?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: We can set a deadline to the May meeting. The MAG convenes in May. But one thing has to be ensured, that we do not take any decisions on the IGF members list unless, you know -- we shouldn't take a decision. We can have stimulation of ideas on the MAG list, but no decision should be considered final which has been discussed there.
Still we have to meet in the MAG meeting in May, and then we finalize this.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Ayesha?
>>AYESHA HASSAN: I think we might be making this a bit more complex. I would like to hear from the host country when they would need -- depending upon when the dates are of the IGF, when they would need to have an overall theme for the Web site, for the PR, et cetera. It also is an important messaging tool about having a title.
And, yes, it did come out late last year, but then things were -- for this year, we can try to improve. So I would prefer that if there are some real issues around this, that we handle this on the MAG list and that we set it earlier than May. Otherwise, we also risk having this become part of the whole open consultation discussion and -- I don't know. I'm not sure that's very effective. I would prefer to do it earlier.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah, thank you.
Michael, do you want to comment, dates?
>>MICHAEL KATUNDU: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate Ayesha's comment. And, of course, as the host country, we wouldn't mind having all the information today. But we also appreciate it is a process that has to be followed.
But some of the things which can be concretized through maybe a mailing list or something like that before May to facilitate, to be able to set up some of the processes moving like coming up with Web sites so that we can come here and be able to demonstrate to you how far we are during the May meeting, the better for us.
So if we can expedite on some of the processes, I think I want to return it back to the members, we would really appreciate it as a host country.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. We do need to set a tighter deadline than that. So I think I will ask the Secretariat to help here perhaps.
We have 10th March as the deadline for the subthemes. So could we have the same deadline to have finalized with the main theme as well? March 10th? Because, generally, I think we are in agreement, it should be "Internet as a driver of change." I think what we haven't agreed upon is the "access, development, innovation, the democratization, the freedom."
Fouad?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Would we like to attempt to do another 20, 30 minutes of discussion on this? Because --
>>ALICE MUNYUA: You want another half-hour discussion so we deal with this?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Yes.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. I see people nodding. Chengetai?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I just wanted to just briefly go over selection criteria for workshops once we have the main themes and the main questions.
As we were discussing yesterday, there was a general feeling that merging of workshops doesn't really work. And we shouldn't -- Yes, okay. We shouldn't really require that.
And we also said that while this also maybe depends on the number of workshop proposals we have and the number of workshop proposals that are outside of the main themes that we have to allocate a number of workshops that are outside the themes.
But when the Secretariat does issue a call for workshops, we do have to have a description saying that we would like -- this is a call for workshop proposals and workshops will be chosen on A, B, C and D.
So if maybe you would like to spend a couple of minutes thinking about that and just writing down the criteria because this may happen before we next meet, unless you want to have an online discussion on it.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. So can we have a discussion on the general theme, 30 minutes or less, if possible.
George?
>>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Thank you. I have been thinking a little bit about everything we've discussed so far. And one of the reasons there have been quite a few arguments put forward regarding the elimination of "democratization," I would agree for that but for different reasons.
It is a far-fetched assumption to say that the Internet has led to democratization. I don't know of any country that became democratized because of the Internet.
However, what cannot be denied is that the Internet either through Internet voting or e-democracy has facilitated the process or that it has induced political change either through campaigns, through one reason or another.
To come back to the experience in the Middle East that has -- we have spoke about recently, yes, the recent events have highlighted the role of the Internet. But I think it was mostly social technologies like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. And that's what accelerated social protests.
So there is another question, the question of the social media which has challenged the state source of news and the legitimacy of some of these countries.
So what I think the intention is to explore some of these aspects. And that's why I would say that political change could be a useful term to have included in there.
And, as I said, again, political change can come about from many, many reasons. It does not necessarily relate to the events in the Middle East. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. So, George, you're suggesting that we add "political" --
>>GEORGE PAPADATOS: No, no.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: We replace "democratization"?
>>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Since we have the word "change," there was some ideas proposed earlier that I cannot remember right now. But all I'm saying is that political change could be an element that is in there that encompasses a variety of developments.
I don't have a formulation as it is, but that is to cover some of the arguments and proposals that were put earlier.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Any additional comments? Remote? Okay.
>> Katitza?
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Hello?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: You have the floor.
>> Hello, we are listening to you, Katitza.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Well, if you have the name of the main theme, we would prefer that -- we believe that "driver" doesn't mean itself -- the Internet doesn't make the change. It is the people who make the change. And I think that better wording might be "Internet as a catalyst for change," two points, and then "access, development, and democracy." That's all. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Katitza.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: I guess to summarize, "Internet as a catalyst for change," the two points, and then "for access, development, and democracy." Thank you.
>> Thank you, Katitza.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: "Internet as a catalyst for change." Okay. Any additional comments?
Chris?
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Yeah, I actually quite -- I think I quite like -- at the risk of "catalyst" becoming a massively overused term, I think I quite like that.
George -- I agree with George. I'm not quite sure how you would actually put it in there.
My main concern is that I would quite like to see the return of the word "freedom" or "freedoms." And I think that terms suggest as "democratization" which would actually quite comfortably sit under the banner of "freedoms" and, therefore, don't necessarily have to be mentioned for all sorts of reasons which we all know. Thanks.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. So, again, yeah, no "democracy and freedom" instead, "freedoms," yeah. So "Internet as a catalyst for change: Access, development, freedoms." What about "innovation"? And "innovation."
Okay. Are we comfortable with that? Yes, okay. So "Internet as a catalyst for change: Access, development, freedom and innovation" -- "freedoms and innovation."
Any additional comments? None. So we are okay with this? Yay, okay. Thank you. Thank you.
[ Applause ]
Thank you very much. So I will give the mic to Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Since we've done that, shall we talk about the criteria for the selection?
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Did we have any last year?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I beg your pardon?
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Did we have any last year?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we did. Last year was disappointing because the Secretariat sent out the criteria, but I do understand with over 90 events probably -- okay, let's say 80 workshops, people, the MAG group had to go through all of them and assign marks on a Likert scale. And we had very few, less than 10 respondents back.
This year we are going to try to start it earlier because last year, I think it was during the summer break. So if we start it earlier and people are still working, they can do it. But --
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: What were the criteria, Chengetai?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry, I said them yesterday. But I will -- I don't have my notes here. I will just -- Yes. Oh, okay, good.
>>NURANI NIMPUNO: I think I have multistakeholder support, development country support, gender balance, relevance to theme. Does that sound familiar?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. And we had some suggestions on professionalism, but I don't know how exactly you are going to define professionalism in a workshop.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: That's a judgment afterwards, not a judgment before.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yeah. And we also had timeliness in completing -- the completedness, if that's an English word, of the workshop proposal. That is the description, the panelists and -- which is difficult for some people, especially if they have a great idea for a workshop, they have -- they do work within their stakeholder group, but then they have to have representatives from other stakeholder groups. So maybe the list of resource persons help them complete that. But that was one of the selection criteria.
Nurani?
>>NURANI NIMPUNO: I have two comments. One is just about merging of workshops. I think we all agree that merging of workshops is not a good way of solving the problem of too many workshops. I do still think that if we identify workshops that are almost identical that there should be the option of actually talking to them and saying, Your workshops are very similar or overlapping. It might be beneficial for you to talk to each other. That was my first comment.
My second comment about professionalism, I don't think there can be criteria that we can introduce. But I think what -- if I interpreted Bill Drake's comment yesterday correctly, it was, basically, about setting timelines and deadlines and having people respond within those timelines. And if they don't, then that way they disqualify themselves.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: So just to understand you, we agree that we should set deadlines and be very strict about those deadlines. We should encourage similar workshops to merge. But if they do not merge, what do we do?
>>NURANI NIMPUNO: I'm not saying -- I'm not in advocation of merging workshops, but I do think there is something in some cases the workshops are almost identical and then I think, yes, if we think that they should merge, they should be encouraged to do so. And then I think they should at least try to do so. It is not acceptable to just come back and say, No, we don't want to talk to those people or, No, that's not happening.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Chris?
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Yeah, I just want to echo what Nurani said but also just make a point about deadlines which we are notoriously good at setting deadlines and then ignoring them. And one of the key things for deadlines is tell us who you are going to have in this workshop, because what we've seen in the past is workshop ideas being put up as sort of -- "I'll be there and I will get 17 other people," and that's fine but there needs to be a deadline by which you tell us that. And if you don't, then you are not in because, otherwise, we are.
And the other point, of course, is that if we don't merge workshops -- and I understand the reasons for not doing that, that's fine -- we just need to be aware that we may very well not have enough rooms anyway to actually run all the workshops.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Ayesha?
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Just one suggestion. I think some of us in the community found that when we met in person in May, and then I guess June or whenever, those were actually excellent opportunities to say to colleagues I am looking for an X type of expert or I need a moderator or I need what have you.
So maybe if we think about our deadlines with those in-person opportunities in mind that, might help to facilitate that the.
And for those people who wouldn't be coming to the in-person meeting to find a way to say this is a moment in time where if you have particular needs, you can send in a message and we'll try to get it heard in the MAG or in the community.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
Any other comments on the criteria?
Cathy.
>>CATHY HANDLEY: Thank you, Chairman.
A novel idea would be to, prior to putting out the full-blown request for workshop proposals, to, somewhere on the Web site, somehow publish these are the rules. And, you know, whether it's once you turn in this, you have 60 days to follow up with this so that people who are trying to come up with ideas for workshops understand prior to applying for something that these are the rules. And it maybe gives them a little more time to get their act together. Something along those lines.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
Any other final -- Alvaro.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Yes, thank you. We should also consider the possibility of providing funds, financing, for bringing workshops, especially in developing countries. For bringing people to speak in workshops and so on.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
Okay. So I think we finished with our agenda. If there is anybody with any other business....
Chris. Okay. Cathy? You have -- No. Okay.
So -- Yes.
>> (speaking off).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Microphone.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Concerning the Nairobi meeting or what the next steps are?
>> No, Nairobi.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Oh, Nairobi meeting. As we said, we're going to do our first planning mission in May -- I mean in April. And then in the May meeting, we will show you the plans in a more detailed information.
But mainly, it is in UNON, that is the United Nations headquarters in Nairobi. I think they have eight rooms at the moment. And we're going to have, you know, the full Webcasting and for remote participation.
If many of you were there for the ICANN meeting, the Kenyan Internet infrastructure is wonderful, one of the best that I've seen throughout. So I think I have no worries there.
We are going to have a list of all the hotels. In May, we are going to have a list of all the hotels that you can start booking and all those other logistical things. But if you have a specific question -- No. Okay.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah. We should have all the logistics sorted in a couple of months, after we have had the first planning mission. And then there was quite a number of questions, I'll take advantage now as any other business, quite a number of questions around the dates for the IGF. Just to let you know we are in consultation with UNDESA to settle on the dates. We request for your indulgence. Just coping with planning for this meeting has actually been a challenge in itself because we had to deal with the IGF renewal and all the other processes that had to come. So, you know, I am requesting for your indulgence. Give us a few more days and then we will come back with concrete dates for when the meeting is going to take place. But what I can say is it's not going to be before September, but again, not over Christmas.
But please give us time.
(Laughter.)
Please do give us time and we will get back to you. Thank you for your indulgence.
And if there is anybody with any other business? And I think -- I don't know, we had agreed we may allow observers, if they do want to speak, if no MAG member wants to say anything. Thank you.
Oh, yes, Ayesha, Theresa and then Cathy.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Just a question about the May meeting. Has there been a decision about which days that meeting will take place? Because that would be very helpful in terms of scheduling.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Please repeat. Sorry.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Has a decision been taken on our next planning meetings in May, just to facilitate scheduling?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I did announce the dates proposed period of which we plan to have the meeting. So 13th and 14th were more or less ruled to be difficult, and also straight after the meeting. But it's going to happen within that week -- well, I do not want to give you a definitive it is, but it most probably will happen within that week. I just have to go back and see if the rooms are there. And then I will send an e-mail out, and if there's any problems, we'll -- yeah, during that -- Yeah, before CSTD, during that week.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Theresa.
>>THERESA SWINEHART: Just before we conclude, I just wanted to thank madam Chairperson, the Secretariat, UNDESA and everybody for hosting a good meeting these pass few days. That's all.
[ Applause ]
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
Cathy, you had your -- Yeah.
>>CATHY HANDLEY: Yes, and we hope you come back.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
We have a remote participant.
>> (speaking off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: We can't hear you, Katitza.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Coping with -- Sorry. I have the video, it's a few minutes delayed, so I didn't know it was my turn to speak.
I -- Because of the delay of the video, I think I missed the discussion, what is going on with the title, the main title of the program. If someone could tell me quickly, I can make a quick reaction to that.
I just want to make sure if the discussion will continue on the list or what was the suggestions.
I am a little worried about the use of the word "freedom," especially which will be the reaction for developing countries. Maybe "freedom of expression" is a better word for me than just "freedom."
And also, fundamental human rights. I also think the democratics could work. That should be considered.
If someone would let me know what is the title, I would appreciate it. I'm so sorry, I am not able to follow up all of the discussion because there is some delay in the video.
>> Thank you, Katitza. I am passing for the chair. Thank you very much.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. We have agreed and closed the discussion, and the final overall theme is Internet as a catalyst for change, access, development, freedoms, and innovation. Thank you.
I will hand over the mic to Chengetai first and then Alvaro.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Basically, thank you very much. It was a very good meeting. We managed to finish on time, and -- Oh, sorry. We have some observers -- Oh, sorry. Oh, gosh.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Alvaro, and then George.
>>ALVARO GALVANI: Yes. Congratulations very much for the Madam Moderator, the Secretariat. It was a very nice job.
I just beg your -- apologize forgive a last contribution that I think it's important for -- to be part in the consolidated document in order to the discussions we will have on 2 - 10 of March. It's specifically regarding the emerging issues. I think this is the only point that's not completely clear so far, or the proposal not completely on the table.
So I just want to suggest one topic for the emerging issue. That would be, if Avri could just write it, emerging issues. It will be net -- It's a bit emerging, the several comments. Network neutrality in wireless networks and applications with access to knowledge. It's a bit mixing of the comments, and just for a final contribution.
Thank you very much, and congratulations for the job.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you very much.
Any comment on that?
I realize that we didn't really -- Yeah.
Theresa, sorry. Yeah?
And Ayesha is -- she is the one leading that on emerging issues so she is going to allow everybody to contribute to that.
So if there is no other MAG member, I think please will you let me allow Bertrand to speak? Oh, George, please. Sorry. Bertrand, just wait.
Yes.
>>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Thank you. Let me echo the thanks and congratulations of Alvaro, and I have one question regarding the MAG renewal.
Do we have date for this? Or how we are set up for that? Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Let UNDESA speak to that.
>>UNDESA: This decision is up to the special advisor. And the special advisor is a direct appointment from the Secretary-General.
So the Secretary-General is considering the -- the appointment of the special advisor. And until the decision is not taken, this is up to the Secretary-General.
I don't have a date or a time right now, but for sure would be a decision that have to come as soon as possible.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. No other MAG member?
Okay. Bertrand and then Izumi.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would have been remiss not testing a rule of procedure for the record, so....
Thanks for giving me the floor. Very quickly, regarding the dates, I'm sure the Secretariat is aware but there is a possible conflict with the IGF Russia on the 12th of May.
Another thing which may look mundane, but I would like to contribute in terms of logistics, I don't know the facilities, but the disposition in Sharm El Sheikh that allowed a central Piazza where everybody was sitting and discussing was an extremely valuable tool for interaction informally among people.
So I don't know if the facility allows, but if you can think about it.
Another suggestion that was raised yesterday is actually you know in scientific conferences, you have something called the poster sessions or the poster exhibition where actors or researchers present on one large page their research. And they usually, during a period that is dedicated to that, stand near the poster so that people can come and interact.
I wonder whether something of the same sort could not be done, with an appropriate screening, of course, but that would be in the central -- in the village or in the central area so that during the lunchtime, people who have one topic that was not going through a workshop or so could just make a presentation and stand by that.
And finally, just a contribution on the topic of emerging issues. I wonder whether a shorter wording for what Alvaro has raised couldn't be, is the mobile Internet different?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you for that.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you very much for allowing me, and congratulations for a great meeting. Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, the poster session has been under consideration, and when we do our planning mission, we'll set the site for that.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Just a quick comment. I would like to propose an amendment to Alvaro's proposal regarding network neutrality. I think yesterday we were mentioning in the open consultation the expression of wired and wireless. So I think it should be network neutrality in wired and wireless. Maybe that works.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. IGC.
>>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you. First on that point, that we, IGC, suggested, the open Internet, network neutrality on wired and mobile networks. Whether that will respond to what Raul said or not, it's up to you. But for the developing countries, especially for the youth, the major access to the Internet is through mobile or wireless. So I think we shouldn't miss that.
Separately, I would also like to join the thanks to the Madam Chair, the Secretariat under these kind of transitional days, it's very difficult, I assume, to take these discussions and meetings to this level. Although we may have suggested that the -- well, may have some misunderstanding, perhaps, of the nature of this MAG meeting, but in the end, we'd like to see some good hybrid.
For example, in the morning we couldn't really have a good channel between the MAG members and non-MAG members in this room, but we have used the Skype and lists and others so we could channel some of the concerns and the ideas into the MAG members inside so that they could speak up. One good example was the bringing the idea or the word "catalyst" was brought from the non-MAG members to the MAG members during the course of using the Internet.
So I would like to see this kind of actually using the Internet for discussion of this, not only confined by the face-to-face meeting, although it has some merit and productivity.
Finally, I am heading to the CSTD working group starting tomorrow, and we would like to bring sort of the spirit of these meetings into the very difficult meetings, two-day meetings to come, and appreciate your support.
Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you very much.
Any other business from any MAG member?
Okay.
Then before I hand on over to Vincenzo, UNDESA, I would like to thank you all very, very much for your support. It's been a great two days, very productive, and to thank you for having had the confidence to allow us to step in and manage -- or, rather, moderate during this transition.
We are very keen to see the future of this process, of the IGF process, sorted out pretty quickly and wish the best to all those who are participating in the CSTD. Please get there and do good work so that we get to move on.
And also encouraged by the level of dedication that we see from the UNDESA as well to make sure that we do get moving.
And also thank you for your indulgence. We don't have date for you, but we will be giving you a date pretty soon. And again, thanks for your support, and we do look forward to welcoming you to Kenya very soon.
UNDESA.
>>UNDESA: I want also to add my thanks and congratulations of the multistakeholder advisors for this meeting today. This informal MAG meeting was really, really important because it put the basis to design and to develop the program and the agenda for the sixth IGF meeting.
I'm sure that what we have achieved today, and also the activities that the advisors and the subworking group will do during this period to add more value and more content about the program will give a very strong structure of the program. And I am really confident that for May, after our planning mission and after the decision for the date and all the other pending decision, we will also get all the other requirements and the information that we need to go forward and to -- really to implement this meeting.
I want to thank you again, Madam Chair, to this very tough job she made yesterday and today as a moderator. Also, I want to thank the IGF Secretariat, and of course I really have to thank all of you for your great effort, professionalism, and positive attitude in achieving this important task.
Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: May I? Yes, thank you. I appreciate your indulgence at this final moment, and I would like to thank you both for your guidance at these meetings.
I know that we have had good meetings the last couple of days, and we all do appreciate that.
I did want to ask you one question concerning the process for identifying a special advisor and how you might be going about that, and some of the details.
For example, will there be efforts to consult with member states on that appointment? And how will that happen?
What kind of criteria will be looked at? And what is the anticipated relationship between the special advisor role and the Secretariat, or the IGF as well, more generally?
I would welcome any additional detail you could provide.
Thank you.
>>VINCENZO AQUARO: As I said before, the appointment of a special advisor is a direct appointment from the Secretary-General and the decision has to be made by the Secretary-General. So this is something that he will decide directly in a consultation process that is part of his business, not our business.
So from this point of view, I cannot go in details of a process that it is not under the responsibility of DESA, because it is under the responsibility of the office of the Secretary-General.
About the Executive Coordinator, this is something that I can say because will be a public vacancy. It will go through the recruitment process of United Nations, so it will be a vacancy, and we will select the best candidates for a short list for the interview and then we will select.
That is something that we will manage directly. And we can say that we have already prepared the terms of reference, and we have to go through the official process of the recruitment of United Nations.
And I think I responded.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you very much.
My understanding was that the Secretary-General would be responsible for appointing both of those positions, but I think you have been quite clear that you believe that that's something that DESA is going to carry out.
Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, thank you very much. See you in May or see you tomorrow.
[ Meeting concluded ]