Transcript of September 17

IGF OPEN MEETING
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009  

******** 

       >>NITIN DESAI: Good morning.

Can we settle down?

Okay.

We had a good first look at the schedule yesterday.

If you agree, my suggestions let's begin today morning by just a working discussion.

I'll call it a working discussion.

On the main sessions.

So that we spend a little time on how each of the main sessions is best organized.

Because this time the formats differ a little between the main sessions.

So I probably would just -- I probably will just go through that.

After that Markus will explain the changes that have been made in the program schedule.

On the basis of the comments that all of you gave yesterday.

And he tells me that he has been able to accommodate most of the requests that have been made.

I don't think there's any point in our doing a second round of detailed discussion on when -- it's best then to leave it to each individual workshop organizer to deal directly with the Secretariat.

Otherwise we may not be able to accommodate -- but otherwise we have been able to accommodate all of the requests made yesterday.

So we'll quickly look at it.

And I believe that there is still a fair amount of work that needs to be done at a working level.

And we can try and see how much we achieve before lunch.

But I believe many of you are still around here today.

So you may wish to go into a sort of, you know, group mode or something afterwards.

But let's begin with the one discussion we should have at the plenary level, so to speak.

And that's on the main sessions.

And we'll just go through them one by one.

And if we agree, I'll begin with the first one.

Which is -- and I'll just ask Markus to give us a sense of what is we decided last time about that session.

We had a brief discussion on those things yesterday.

Rather we can have a more complete discussion now.

So that the Secretariat has a better sense of what is it that they have to work on between now and Sharm.

Okay?

Thank you.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay.

Thank you.

Good morning.

We don't need to discuss I think the opening day introductory session.

We did that I think in a satisfactory way yesterday.

At this stage I would only ask the various stakeholder groups to make proposals of names of who would give a stakeholder perspective during the introductory session.

That we have a -- should we have a private sector representative, civil society representative, a representative from the technical community to give their perspective on the introductory session.

The regional meetings is also fairly straightforward.

The afternoon is the Opening Ceremony which we will sort out with our Egyptian hosts and the keynote panel which to a large extent will be managed by our Chairman himself.

So the first substantive session we have to address is the critical Internet resources in the morning of the second day.

What we agreed on in May on the program and substantive issues is projected up on the screen as a reminder it's of course also -- it's from the program paper we have posted on our web site.

So this is basically the framework we have to fill.

It will be an open discussion without the panel.

And it will be the first substantive session.

Which the challenge here is it there will be very few related workshops beforehand to feed into the session.

But nevertheless, we know there are related workshops that will take place afterwards.

So the moderators will be able to call on the various workshop organizers what they are planning to discuss on the more technical level, be that IPv4, IPv6. 

CCTLDs.

The many interesting workshops there.

But the challenge will be to find a narrative that goes through the session and to keep it going for three hours.

This is basically what we will have to discuss.

And then maybe we can split up in the afternoon and continue the discussion in smaller groups who are interested in this particular subject as we can do with the other sessions, as well.

So this would be my introductory remarks.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes?

       >>JEANETTE HOFFMAN:  Wondering.

Because this year we don't have that panel we had last year.

What it be helpful if we could find people who could give short introductory sort of five-minute overviews over the various bullet points we want to address?

Would that be helpful?

Because just to open the discussion with a provocative question might not sort of be helpful for everybody in the room.

       >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  I just wanted to agree with Jeanette.

I think if you take those five bullet points considering there would be something else exclusive to work out but if we take those five bullet points and we work out the order to do it them in there will be an introduction from the chair and we'll take whichever one the first one is and let's just say the first example will be IPv4, IPv6 then one way to do it would simply be to get Raul or someone to start the ball rolling on giving an update on so on and so forth.

So I think that's right.

And I think that would work very well.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Bertrand? 

       >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Thank you very much.

I also would like to support that path forward.

For example, if you look at the fourth bullet point which says the importance of new TLDs and IDNs for development it's always the case that quite a lot of people that run the technical part of the Internet, the word critical very much tells it you that you should be conservative which implies that maybe you should not add new TLDs so for that specific point it's very important to have a more neutral description of what the impact is or like a neutral thing.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Bertrand? 

       >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Thank you.

Bertrand de la Chapelle from France.

I support what was said before.

I think on each of the issues there have been development or there will have been developments just before Sharm El Sheikh.

It's very important that for each of them the beginning of the discussion brings everybody to the same level of awareness on where we stand and where we are at.

Actually if I look at the list, yes, and where we come from.

Absolutely.

       (Chuckles.)

       >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  When I look at the list, there clearly is the IPv4, IPv6.

There has been agreements in the past year on for instance the allocation of the last 5/8.

It's important to know that since the meeting in Hyderabad, there has been progress on decisions and that therefore the question is moving towards spreading adoptions and so on the second issue regarding the JPA the contract and the internationalization and I would put in the same basket enhanced cooperation as least for a portion we all know the end of this month there's likely to be some new situation whatever it is with the end of the joint project agreement and the greater likelihood is some process regarding the continuous meeting of ICANN institutionally thinking will be under way or beginning by that point.

I do hope that the Sharm El Sheikh meeting will be taken as an opportunity by the US government and others for ICANN to explain what are the next steps, what is going to happen in the following months.

So this is an opportunity to discuss what is going to happen afterwards.

And finally regarding new TLDs and IDNs I think the discussion will be more or less separated because they don't raise exactly the same issues.

IDNs are very important and it will be an opportunity for ICANN in particular and some regions to explain what progress has been made.

And likewise for the new TLDs the debate might be more heated than we would have expected in the past.

Strangely enough this topic might be more provocative than it was before.

And maybe then the evolution of ICANN it self.

So I fully support starting on each of the three or four sub teams with a brief introductory comment that says where we are, where we came from, and where we are going.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you.

Remember, please say who you are for captioning.

       >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  Christine from Egypt I also Greece very much to the appropriate of China because I think if you have newcomers and I'm expecting there will be many from the region where IGF is coming to it will it be very easy for them to follow the discussion and maybe then start asking questions if they have the scene set in front of them for each topic but I would rather think we should -- maybe that's the initial idea -- have the whole session structured just to have the scene set and go back and forth with questions and come back and set the scene again for the next sub topic we're discussing.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

Can I make a suggestion?

Ayesha? 

       >>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you this is Ayesha from the ECC.  Just briefly I would support the direction we're going in.

I just wanted to raise a link to the workshops afterwards because there will be a challenge for the moderators to manage the level of detail and the satisfaction of the interaction in this session they do have the benefit of being able to point to the workshops that will happen after the session and people who have a deeper knowledge of the issues and would like to drill down deeper into the subject matter, they can be made aware that there's going to be an opportunity and that this isn't their last shot of having a full range of discussion on this.

I think that the other point I wanted to make was the -- bearing in mind that all of these issues have been discussed at previous IGFs but our audience is not only people who have been a part of the all of the discussions in the past few years whether at the IGF or in other fora, just keeping in mind that we do have the capacity building and development angles that need to be taken care of.

And that we have two types of audiences.

Those who are really deeply involved.

And those who are coming here to learn about what the opportunities are for them to be more involved in these issues.

Thanks.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

Can I make a suggestion to move us forward?

First, as we have decided last time, this is an open discussion session.

This is not a session where we are going to have panels.

I also want to try and (inaudible) with what Christina was saying it's not as if you will have brief introductory statements on all of the teams which you think you want to cover straightaway but you may have to sequence it a little so one team does not overwhelm the discussion all together.

I think this is a good idea to -- for the moderators to initially call on somebody to make what would be hopefully a non-controversial factual statement on what the issues are.

I think in terms of sequence in my own -- I think we have to be realistic.

And we will have a new JPA in -- when we meet in Sharm.

And there's bound to be a fair amount of interest in talking about it.

Perhaps it would be realistic to say that you start with that.

Move on to the other -- well, we said five.

But from what I hear, it looks more like four issues rather than five.

But whichever way it is.

It can go in sequence.

I think in the case of the first one, the JPA, one suggestion is that initially we simply ask somebody from ICANN and someone from the Department of Commerce to say:  What is it you have done.

Tell it us what it is you have signed and explain it.

Let's give them an opportunity to explain what it is that's been decided.

So if that happens then -- or if you prefer -- my worry is that if you go out of that framework, then you probably get an evaluation rather than a description.

Whereas if you just ask the people who have signed the deal they will obviously say it's a good deal otherwise they wouldn't have signed it but nevertheless it will be factual or do we do a third thing or is that we simply ask the moderators to do a summary of what the JPA is.

Now I think this is a sensitive issue.

These are three possibilities.

And -- yes, Chris?

       >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  Thank you,  Nitin.

I haven't thought this through properly yet.

But just a word of discussion.

I agree with you, I think a discussion around the JPA or whatever replaces the JPA is obviously going to be important.

And for that reason I would tend to not do it first.

I would actually tend to do it second and something a little less controversial first and get the room coming into the thing rather than actually leaping in on the first nano second to discuss the JPA.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes, Jeanette. 

       >>JEANETTE HOFFMAN:  I fully agree with Chris.

But for different reasons.

       (Chuckles.)

       >>JEANETTE HOFFMAN:  It's like when you think of a TV show, you don't start with the sort of most prominent guest.

You sort of do a bit of warmup also to avoid people leaving the thing before it's over.

If all of the people who are interested in the JPA get their sort of candy first they might just leave the room January wards.

       >> I too agree but Internet Governance Forum even a third reason.

One of the things I think we struggled with throughout each of the IGFs but we've done a really good job on is trying to educate everyone that critical Internet resources are actually much more than just the unique indicators.

And one of the things I noticed immediately is that we are -- you know, we are focused primarily on the unique indicators.

And in this particular workshop.

I do think ICANN -- the issue on the JPA probably needs to come second or third.

Maybe even fourth.

To allow sufficient time to the other topics that are there before that topic perhaps subsumes or sucks all of the air out of the room but the one thing I would ask the moderators to think about is in setting the definition of what critical Internet resources are, I think it's really important to try to make sure we keep consistency with that broader definition that has emerged out of earlier CIR workshops and panels.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Well, we can -- very certain we will leave it to the fourth.

Be realistic.

There will be many people out there who will want to discuss this.

Who have to be -- we have to be realistic.

And they are not necessarily going to be disciplined by you.

They will not say because you told me I can't talk about this until we are finished talking about topic 1, 2, 3 so I'm going to talk.

That's not going to work.

So be realistic.

We probably have to play it by ear.

So just -- I'm a little worried that somebody says that:  Oh you people have time to down play something, see.

Because there will be people out there who will want to talk about this.

Be realistic.

Both -- not just from governments but also from civil society.

And it is the biggest change in some ways from what was previous.

So I don't have a big issue with it.

But I definitely won't leave it until way late.

It just won't work.

Following what Chris and Jeanette were saying as a warmup you might want to start with something like IPv4.

Also because people take time to come into a room, this, that and all of that.

And you may say:  Look, we are not going to not talk about it.

But welcome to it in a moment.

And that's agreed anyhow.

       >> Nitin, something you just said concerns me a little.

I just want to make sure I make this absolutely clear.

If you have a concern -- I want to make sure that everybody in this room is really clear that Jeanette and I are really clear that whatever comes up in the room comes up in the room and there's actually no intention whatsoever that any discussion would be closed down unless there are people making inappropriate comments we call -- if you recall the last one a gentleman stood up and started to make comments about specific countries which is inappropriate and we closed it down immediately but with that one caveat there should be no concern whatsoever about there being any attention to avoid a subject.

I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear.

       >>NITIN DESAI: No, simply that you may not be able to structure it as simply as you think you will.

Why don't we just keep it in this order.

Why we do it in this order?

This is the order we sat out in the report of the MAG and therefore we are following that order and it will still means that anybody that wants to will raise this issue and I think to some extent the two moderators will have to be creative in how to fold the discussion together.

       >> Actually if I look at the five things there,  three of them are about the same subject, only different perspectives.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yeah.

It's really more like two, three or four things rather than five.

       >> That's all I wanted to say.

       >>NITIN DESAI:  No.

You are right.

So we can go -- call it in that way.

Okay?

Markus?

Does that work?

So we do have some people who we would request in advance and make it clear to them, try to be as factual as possible in describing where we are.

And the focus should be on what other -- and please individuals start focusing here as an annual meeting saying what are the changes that have taken place from last year.

Rather than go through from Ground Zero at every meeting.

It should be a meeting which starts focusing on okay what happened with the previous 12 months which we need to take note of.

Okay?

Is anything else on this session?

Yes?

       >> I think we should keep -- I think we should keep the enhanced corporation as a separate subject because we should care about the international public policies and the big amount of problems it carries with it.

But we should not put it in a marginal title.

So I am for keeping it.

       >>NITIN DESAI: The titles will be as they are here.

As they are here.

Which is the five titles like this.

       >> Five?

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yeah.

But it's what we are saying is in practice, a discussion.

We are not -- we will not fall into five parts.

It's more likely to fall into three parts.

That is what you see.

Because you really cannot discipline speakers that much.

So they tend to -- speakers will tend to cover more than one topic when they speak.

That's what I think we had in mind.

Because they are connected.

       >> Thank you.

I just -- just a remark on some comments that were made yesterday and one today with regard to we are talking about freedom of expression.

On the other hand we are worried how some of the discussions may derail.

There is a little bit of an incompatibility there.

I mean, who sets the limits?

How can people express themselves freely and what can they talk about?

So I'm not very clear on that.

Because we had some comments on the original initiatives yesterday.

And there was a comment today.

I don't know what happened last year.

But who draws the line on this?

I just want to be clear.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I think the only line we draw is the line we would normally draw in the UN which is statements which are about individuals or individual countries are things that we do not normally wish to encourage.

But otherwise anything else is possible.

That is the only thing.

This is not a forum for slamming individual corporations, countries or individuals.

That would be a misuse of the forum.

And that I think has something that we would have to -- and it's not just countries.

It may be corporations.

It may be individuals.

And that is what we have to essentially get that basic ground rule done.

       >>NURANI NIMPUNO:  I just wanted to make sure that I understood the discussion correctly.

We won't necessarily use that wording or those statements as starts of the discussions.

But more -- rather than the topics.

Is that correct?

The reason I'm asking is for example actually going back to Bertrand's question about the importance of new TLDs for development given that this is actually something that's currently being discussed and there's a study going on assessing the impacts of new details.

So for us to go out and with quite a strong statement saying the importance of new TLDs for development might set the -- might be a bit specific and might actually imply something else than just a broad statement about discussing about new TLDs or IDNs.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Do you have a specific suggestion on the wording?

My point is that I would like to keep the wording which this wording comes directly from the MAG report.

And I don't want to fiddle around with that.

Unless there's some really serious issues or problems.

       >>NURANI NIMPUNO:  The reason I bring it up -- and I don't remember -- and I don't want to -- I don't want to harp on this or dig too deep into this.

But I don't remember necessarily that the statement as such came out of the MAG meeting.

I know we talked about new TLDs.

But the course is something that's currently being discussed and there's been quite a substantial study going on that's about to be released.

About the impact of new TLDs.

I think the statement is such -- as such indicates that new TLDs and IDNs are critical for development and not -- and that's not -- that's quite a strong statement for -- for us to come out with as a starting point for a discussion.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I think people can dispute it.

They are most welcome -- anybody can stand up there and dispute it and say no this is not true.

Or that there are other issues involved.

So I don't think that is implied here that you are to necessarily agree with the statement and then move onwards.

That's not the intention at all.

In any title.

Certainly anybody who feels so should stand up and say that this is not -- but on the whole I would prefer to avoid fiddling around with something which has gone out in the public domain already.

       >>NURANI NIMPUNO:  I understand that.

I'll leave it at that.

Thanks.

       >> Jeanette Hoffman.

Now that Nurani mentioned studies on the importance of new TLDs, we are not experts on all of the various themes we will discuss I will be very interested in getting material I can read beforehand to prepare myself.

So anybody who knows about studies that could be relevant, I would be really glad if you sent it to the two of us.

Or tell us where we can get ahold of it.

The thank you.

       >> Andrea from EPC thank you,  Nitin.

I arrive a little bit late.

So I might have missed something.

But I agree with the proposals.

I just think we really need to be careful not to skirt the issues.

I think for me the achievement of Hyderabad was represented from China standing up and talking about this issue virtually moved to tears at the time it.

And I felt that was a real break through that we had moved away from the tone of previous IGFs of politeness and skirting the issue, avoiding the contradictions and the conflict.

So I think it would be quite important for the resource people perhaps to draw out the fact that there are still different perspectives.

That perspectives have moved.

And we have a much healthier environment of discussing them than we used to.

But I think any attempt at coming across as not confronting or including the fact that there are still issues of concern would undermine not just the session but the entire IGF.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you.

I completely agree with what you just said and that is actually if you go -- scroll back to the list again, please.

-- yes, sorry, I didn't say my name.

Not good.

There thank you very much.

I also of course do I understand and I agree with you, Nitin that we do not change any text that's coming out I'm just talking about what actually should be discussed.

And ICANN has written a report which actually I was one of the authors of.

And under NDA it will be released any day now so I cannot disclose what's in the report but what I can say is regarding the importance of new TLDs in fact there is an important discussion because there is an interest of getting new TLDs but it's also the case that additional TLDs have an impact on the stability of the DNS so there's a balance, a calculation that has to be done where you have to weigh one of the things against another one and that discussion is what I would like to have on that session and that's why I was a little bit nervous on the importance of new TLDs because that might not bring up the potential bad things of adding new things.

So I'm not trying to close any debate or stop any debate there.

It's completely contrary.

And that's exactly what I think personally the IGF can be used for people can stand up and really dispute things.

       >>NITIN DESAI: The very first thing I have to say is Chris and Jeanette have one speaker to start off the discussion with in the thing because Bertrand was involved in this report.

But -- and certainly given this it would be in fact a very valuable opportunity to have this discussion on what this balance is and here you have one speaker who has already identified himself.

And Sajad, I think there's no way in which you can ever try to say this is not on the tables in a discussion.

As I said, other than this limited restriction on statements made about specific individuals, et cetera, where they do not have an opportunity of replying, I would say anything will be possible.

Yes?

       >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Bertrand in France,  just an additional point in that line, I think this demonstrates something in addition to what you said, Nitin, regarding the fact that the IGF is a place where we evaluate what has progressed, how the discussion is moved rather than doing the discussion onsite.

This illustrates that there's another dimension that goes in the same direction which is that the IGF is the place where you can point at where the discussion is going to take place or is taking place.

And in the issue that Bertrand is mentioning, the report regarding scalability of the route is something that is being produced for the ICANN process.

The and anybody who will be made aware of this discussion in the IGF will know that this is the place where the discussion is going to take place afterwards.

So that's the function of the IGF, also.

The.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Heather? 

       >>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, chair, Heather Dryden from the Canadian government.

I actually wanted to raise something that's not related to the current discussion.

So I can hold off and -- or I can go ahead and ask my question.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Is it about one of the main sessions?

       >> Yes it's about this main session on critical Internet resources.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes, please do.

       >> We have discussed in the past the challenge for governments to bring senior level people to these meetings.

And one of the ways that we have tried to address that is by, for example, having them chair the main sessions, which is entirely helpful I think for governments that are accustom to speaking roles or active roles to senior people.

So my question is:  Do we know who the chair is for this session?

And as we go through each of the main sessions, can we raise this?

Can we discuss whether or not we have a chair in place?

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Our normal practice is the chair of the conference is Egypt.

And it is Egypt which basically has the -- because the chair -- in every session because they are the chair of the conference and they will actually decide as to who they will request and my understanding after talking to Christina and the others is they do intend to pull international -- go international so to speak in asking people to chair.

So it all depends on who is coming.

And they will certainly be inviting people to comment.

This particular session I tell you frankly I hope that Mr. Kamul (phonetic) himself chair it but in this session the chair is just a requirement because he will sit in order while the moderators do the discussion and conclude at the end and he will certainly intervene but it's my desire that it will be himself because he's a person with very good standing in the business.

People in the Internet community know him.

People in governments know him.

People in industry know him.

So he is a person of very high standing amongst all of the stakeholders.

And so that's my desire.

But I mean I cannot dictate to Egypt.

They will decide.

And they certainly -- Christine can confirm this that the intention is to ask people, senior people from other parts of the world who come to Sharm to take on certain other sessions, et cetera.

       >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  Yes,  thank you, chair.

Yeah, I do confirm there is an intention to do as you mention.

We really don't have for all of the sessions names and places right now because we are still looking out to who will be there.

We may have to accommodate high level figures, ministers, I don't know.

Whoever will be present.

But for this specific session yesterday it was this idea and you already mentioned that during our last meeting to have the commission the common chair and I think there is some agreement that he is ready to chair this session as was asked.

       >>NITIN DESAI: While you are talking I just want you -- to tell you that they just received confirmation that the prime minister of Egypt will open the conference and will be there at the opening of the conference.

And I just thought for those of you who are perhaps talking to senior people in government or in corporations, you should know this in advance so that the prime minister will be there.

And I expect there will be a fairly high participation from senior people.

We already know quite a few senior people who are confirmed.

Yes, Christine?

       >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  I also wanted to mention if anyone has some specific names in mind that they would like to exchange with us so we are completely open and please do as soon as possible.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes.

You should be in touch with the host and with Markus.

Can I -- Nurani and then Stefan. 

       >>NURANI NIMPUNO:  Just very quickly.

Nurani Nimpuno again.

I just want to say I agree with that approach regarding the discussions and the critical Internet resources panel.

My concern was that we would -- by making statements set assumptions for the discussions while in fact if we see it as provocative or statements that generate discussions, then that's a good approach.

And I think I guess -- I agree, also, with the approach that if we know about discussions that are going on, the right thing is to feed that information to the moderators.

And they can then draw upon that to get a good discussion.

So thank you.

       >> Thank you,  chair, this is Stefan from Hong Kong.

I took a way a couple of salient points from the discussion so far.

The one that really struck me has been one was to do with using the example of this particular session in terms of actually like on JPA asking the Department of Commerce or ICANN who -- which have really been very much associated with this particular agenda item or this particular event.

I think that's good.

But we have to really be careful about if we use the word sort of ahead planning for some direction coming from the audience.  It's a double edged sword.

If you plan too much then you almost have your own view of how the session or the moderator should be conducted but in this case I do completely agree.

It's not a function, it's not an attribute.

It was an actual event which is of particular bearings as one of the critical points of discussion.

So I think if we have either one of those entities to be involved, that would really be great.

My second point was I think when everything is settled in terms it of the moderator, it's something like it was mentioned earlier on that you will have a kind of a writeup that leads onto this discussion for people to read and be prepared.

And understand you know what the issues are.

And then the moderator, the topic they are going to discuss.

And some information relevant or otherwise -- relevant upon which we can do some preparation.

So I think for every one of these sessions we have to have that kind of writeup, it would really be useful for the participant or the informed parties.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes.

       >> Sorry; just an additional comment.

Brief afterwards of what you said from France I think it would be better to have ICANN presenting in that respect the new arrangements rather than both the Department of Commerce and ICANN or the Department of Commerce.

ICANN is the one that has to present the evolution, whatever that is.

And what they intend to do afterwards.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

Good.

So we have I think it is reasonably -- everybody is reasonably happy with this?

Anything more?

Are you okay?

Yes?

The next session, please.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: The next session is security openness and privacy.

And it's up on the screen.

As you will recall, we decided to have a panel -- a compact panel of practitioners as we worded it back in May.

Meaning I suppose not more than three or four panelists.

To deal with this cluster of issues.

A moderator was proposed I think by Lee from the Council of Europe.

Was a BBC journalist, a woman journalist for the interest of trying to balance who had moderated a session at the ministerial.

And I understand that the European Broadcasting Union is liaising with the BBC to see whether the BBC would make this moderator available.

So here we would have to look for panelists.

And also look maybe at the substantive workshops that can feed into the session.

I had mentioned yesterday that I had the agreement of well known leading express Bruce Schnia to be part of this.

He would like to be the last speaker on the panel.

But he's broadly in agreement with these issues, bullet points, as relative issues to be addressed.

So I would be interested in having suggestions for other panelists.

And also on how to structure this session.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Raul?

       >> I have to go first.

I didn't remember that we are going to have a panel in this session.

Are there other sessions in which we have also panelists?

I thought that we will have the same format in all of the sessions.

       >>NITIN DESAI: In the session with diversity we will have a panel.

Let me go back to why we thought of the panel here.

It's largely -- please remember, there will be a large number of people in this meeting who will be first time participants.

And the idea behind the panel -- and personally I have found that at least on the security session, the panels are very helpful in terms of informing people of issues and structuring the discussion.

Because there will be a lot of people there who are only familiar with it in a very vague sense.

And I found in Hyderabad, also, I found that the panel -- it took too long, yes, but that we will try to cover by keeping the panel small so that there's more time for an open discussion.

But I do believe it's helpful to have a panel in something like this.

So that a lot of people who are not completely into the issues are brought up to speed.

And it is an opportunity, also, for us to bring some well known experts into the meeting.

It's not that easy to ask a major figure to come and say come and raise your flag and if at this time you'll get two minutes.

That won't work.

But it's something like this where it does give us an opportunity to find the space for people who are particularly well knowledgeable.

So I wouldn't worry too much about why do we have a panel.

The idea is more to help us to orient the discussion rather than to give us answers.

Markus has mentioned one name but you are more welcome to suggest others.

Yes.

       >>MARILYN CADE:  It's Marilyn Cade may I ask a question rather than give a name?

One of the things that I note as I look at this list is that there are a number of very deeply knowledgeable experts on each of these topics.

It would be very -- but there are few very individuals who are horizontally rich on all of the topics.

Oops, that's in writing now, isn't it?

       (Chuckles.)

       >>MARILYN CADE:  So could you just restate again what you sort of think the optimal number of panelists are.

That would be helpful as a bit of guidance.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Let's work to a figure of three or four.

We'll see after that.

I think.

       >> I would like more experience.

It's true not many people have expertise on these topics but there are a few people who work on all of these topics daily but for in civil society for example in the experience we have at the ministerial meeting for the future Internet economy, one speaker summarized the liaison, -- the liaison summarized the hot topics from different civil society participants in one paper.

And the speaker have to put all of the positions of all of those topics in the main session.

So we can analyze all of the positions in one person it's not one person who wrote the paper, many people but just one speaks.

Thank you.

       >> Someone who might be a good addition to the panel,  a very good speaker, very innovative and dynamic who we hope will be in Sharm El Sheikh is Simon Davis he's the director of privacy international I think he can particularly speak to the first point actually.

On probably all of them.

But I think he's been doing a lot of work with privacy international in the last couple of years working with business.

Most of the big online search companies and so on and so forth but anyway it's a suggestion because we are hoping he will be there.

And it might be worth considering.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Very good.

       >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Bertrand de la Chapelle from France.

Two quick points.

The first one is I still have a little regret that we have lost in the title something that we had managed to obtain in Hyderabad which was a notion of fostering security openness and privacy.

And the notion that they can be fostered together and not one against the other.

So my call as it is not in the title anywhere is to make sure the moderators and the presentation of the panel really insist on this commentator and not the fact that we will have to sacrifice one for the other.

The second thing is that in the panel this is one where the balance of stakeholders is very important.

And a special effort must be made to have representatives from business who will present their view of the challenges they face.

So that it's not a debate between government and civil society, however important it is.

And business sector is just left outside being the subject of the discussion.

I think the discussion in the EuroDIG at the beginning of the week shows that one business participates in the discussion.

They have very positive comments.

Unfortunately there are in social networks, it's very hard to get them to come.

       >>NITIN DESAI: We can insist that the panelists for most of the idea that the two can be fostered together.

If they agree, they will.

If they don't they won't.

So it's not possible for us to insist that they say that.

But you're right.

Most -- yeah, one suggestion I want to make.

Yes, we talked of balance.

I also would like to see geographical balance.

I think it's very important that our panelists don't have a predominantly OECD flavor.

And it's very important that we get names of people from developing countries, from -- I want names from Latin America.

Asia.

Africa.

Because it's important that the balance have a geographical balance.

And I'm afraid that so far most of the names which have come from the OECD.

So we will have to hunt and find names from these parts.

But we cannot afford to have panelists which look obviously unbalanced geographically.

Yes, sir.

       >> Thank you,  at this stage I think I can put forward two ideas for business people who would have at least a range of experience one would be Joseph Aladef the chief privacy policy for oracle and also the head of chief communications policy for oracle.

I think he's involved in a number of other arenas like APAC and OECD so he has a broader view of some of the forums where these issues are going on plus he clearly manages these issues from a business perspective the other person that obviously comes to mind is our colleagues Jamil (phonetic) who is here who could also be a contributor on this panel.

So I put those two names forward for consideration in the balance.

And I hear your message in terms of sectoral diversity as well as geographic diversity and we'll certainly all be working together to see who from the business community around the world will be present and who has the expertise to really contribute.

Thanks.

       >> Stefan here for Hong Kong,  looking at the range of topics in terms it it's to do with technology, business neutrality, all around security and privacy.

I'm aware of at least two persons who are really good at this.

These topics.

And could really provide 360 kind of input and perspective.

One of whom is Ann Cavoukian is the information protection commissioner from Ontario, Canada.

She and her office specializes in RFID 2.0 social engineering networks.

Really, really good speaker.

I would like to put that forward.

Thank you.

       >> Ana from the Internet Society in Bangalore.

I think there's a whole range of topics in this list on which one could have very interesting gender perspectives, as well.

And there are two speakers in particular whom I'm thinking of who would be able to address these things through the cultural and technical perspectives on regulation, openness, models for privacy.

I think even social networks.

One of them is Jacia Semke (phonetic) from NPC last year and I think her range of expertise is much wider than what she addressed last time and the other person is normally from the alternative law in Bangalore who works with IPC so I think they would both bring a very different contribution from the -- to the panel from a very different angle than most of the other speakers.

       >>NITIN DESAI: That's third world as well as woman.

So that's two important considerations.

And civil society.

Rafid? 

       >>RAFID FATANI:  Regarding names for security panel, I think Christy Hoffer from Brazil is very good.

She's already been a panelist if I remember well in Brazil in IGF.

But I'm a bit concerned about what we are doing here.

Because we are producing -- reproducing what we have done in the past.

We will have a lot of names.

So it will be difficult to accommodate the requirements of everybody as we are -- we have the risk of having again a large panel.

So how do you suggest to proceed in order to have a small panel?

We will continue discussing here?

       >>NITIN DESAI: No, I don't think it's -- first, it's very difficult for us to fix the panel.

Quite often we have to find out whether these people are going to be available.

If they are going to be there in Sharm that's one second to -- we collect names and then we look at the panels across the three or four panels we are discussing to keep this notion of geographical balance, gender balance, sector it balance, age balance because there's a lot of demand seems to be going to younger people, et cetera.

So I think this is an exercise which will in the end have to be done by the Secretariat.

But I think we should here agree on a size.

And I'm suggesting whichever way we look at it we avoid going much beyond four.

Because beyond that you don't leave enough room for people from the floor.

And we can always call on individuals, particularly MAG members, et cetera.

We can always call on them and say:  Join in the discussion.

The idea behind the panel is more people who will be able to so to speak educate the thousand or so people who are there who are not familiar with the issue.

It's not meant to cover everything.

Incidently I also wanted to suggest that we -- I almost want to suggest a ban on PowerPoint.

Because it takes up a lot of time.

And there's a tendency -- yeah?

Yeah.

       >> Actually I've been more ambitious than you.

I was hoping to conclude this discussion today.

That we agree on panels where we have panels and it's also not least because our hosts plan to prepare a printed version of the program.

Yes, we do understand changes will always be possible and that is normal.

But we need to conclude the list as soon as possible.

And one thing I would like to avoid is the epic discussions we had in previous years when we just added names and added names.

And never agreed on taking off names.

And then it ended up with these monster panels so I think we should be able to conclude this discussion today.

And some suggestions are very helpful.

I mean for geographic diversity but obviously we also look for expertise.

And instead of looking for names which will be -- which would be nice to have and we don't know whether they plan to come we can actually look at the workshops.

As -- we can set the time of day they will be there.

So -- like Simon Davis it would be great to have a person like him I know Bruce Schneider there who is incidently British telecom which is the site and we need to integrate geographic expertise from Brazil and south Asia and I think that would already be a perfect panel but maybe we need to continue the discussion in an informal setting but I really hope we can conclude.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Can I suggest after we do the first round of discussions on the panel we have a set of names and collect a few more and then we'll do that, go through all of the main sessions.

And either after the coffee break or if we finish -- I don't think we'll finish before the coffee break.

We'll probably go on to lunchtime.

No, it's just 11.

We will not stop for coffee.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: You do have to give the captioner a wee break, my dear, it's like an interpreter.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I fully understand.

But we'll give the captioner a break after another 15 or 20 minutes.

So we are not going to finish our discussion in the plenary before lunch.

It doesn't look like it.

And my suggestion is that after lunch we sit in smaller groups and just hammer this out.

But keep to this business.

Please avoid going beyond four.

The purpose is not to try to reflect every point of view.

The purpose is to give a -- get a set of people who will be able to inform the discussion.

And then we can always call on individuals and have a second list in our pocket saying that in the discussion request of the moderator please make sure you call on X or Y or Z.

For further discussion.

I have Kapitsa and Genesco and Ayesha and --

       >> I want to say I'm very glad to hear all of the speakers propose for all of the stakeholders.

And Ann Cavoukian is a good choice from data point of view and data protection she has an expertise in all of these range of topics.

And she's a very good speaker.

We are also glad to hear the proposal from the business sector Fernando.

He also has a very good understanding of all of these issues and also very good speaker.

We also support Simon Davis from privacy international as a representative from civil society.

Bruce Schneider could give a view of the technical community because he's an expert of topography and he's a business sector but he'll give a technical point of view in the privacy and security you need to understand technology it.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: U UNESCO.

       >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, actually I would like to support what just Mr. Kummer said.

Basically UNESCO for example has three workshops under the team of openness.

We would bring expert -- we are working with our office in Cairo to bring experts from the region.

And then we are happy to provide one of those experts for the main session.

We can submit a name now for instance the director of the -- (inaudible).

But I think that it's not the point now to fix names for the main session because anyway we will bring experts for the workshops.

And we are happy to provide them for the main session.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes, I hope we will be more than we will just be part -- more than just part of the panelist.

He's a very good -- but that's a possibility.

Neal?

       >> Thank you,  I'm not going to make their job any easier.

I believe we are coming to Africa.

So I'm obligated to at least give you some potential that you may consider.

I think in the security area we have a lot of respect for Ian in his area and I think he can hold very well on his topics there.

In the openness area you have had Pierre in the past and he seems to be quite balanced on the subject matters there.

So if you are looking at geographical diversity for priority of coming to Africa, you have two to consider.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Sure.

Ayesha and then Christine.

       >>AYEHSA HASSAN:  Briefly I just wanted to call attention to the fact that the social networks issue area is also going to be taken up in the emerging issues session so it might be useful to think carefully -- have the moderator think carefully of how to divide up the emphasis in this session so that we don't sort of undercut the discussion in the emerging issues area.

Two questions, one, how is it going to be best for us to give you input on resource people who I think as we start to balance the compact panel, the resource people have a very important role to play.

And people can give names for instance I have somebody on cloud computing but I don't want to go through right now and describe to you who he is.

Shall we give you names of people with particular areas of expertise in a list and that way the moderator can have a balanced set up people?

I think the communication out to the resource people that they have a very important opportunity to contribute their expertise is going to help them to see themselves as not having been not put on the panel but instead put into something else.

The last point I wanted to just ask if we know who the moderator and chair for this session will be.

Thanks.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Moderator the suggestion was this person who did the moderation for the Council of Europe session.

       >> Yes,  BBC has agreed to confirm the participation of Jonathan Charles, also, for this year.

So he's available according to which session we want to put him more.

And also we could think of others if there's more need.

So it depends which one of the session we need people who has already experience in the previous IGF or newcomers.

It's up to you.

We can define as soon as possible.

       >>NITIN DESAI: There was another name which was proposed.

What was the name?

I couldn't get it?

       >> It was Lucette (phonetic).  But she's not aware at all at the moment the only one who has booked the dates for Sharm was Jonathan Charles.

He was one from last year.

       >>NITIN DESAI: So we have to find a very suitable moderator for this.

We have a name.

But we don't know whether that person is going to necessarily be available.

So this is something which we will have to address.

I had -- Neil has spoken.

Christine, Jeanette and then -- why are you sitting right there at the back.

Come forward.

Come.

       >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  I also wanted to propose an expert in diversity he's from Egypt his name is Shadi and he serves on the dimension of the business sector but he is also a professor at the medical university he is knowledgeable he's been in both setting up the Egyptian cert as well as the initiative of setting up the route certificate authority of Egypt so he could serve on the diversity.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yeah, I think we have a fair number of names now.

And fortunately we are covering all of the sectors we have gender balance, geographical balance and then the challenge is to see how we come down to four names.

And I think we should be able to do that.

I have you and the lady to the back.

       >> Sorry I just got lost in the process.

So earlier we had a moderator and with no panelists so we are introducing panelists and I'm assuming that if there are four panelists it would be one from each stakeholder group.

       >>NITIN DESAI: We are not -- the panelists -- we are not going to get into this business of if you start doing panels which are balanced between stake holler groups and geography you end up with probably eight and ten people.

That's not the intention.

We are simply going to go for a four-person panel designed to inform the discussion.

Rather than to say -- what we are looking for is afterall, there are people with adequate substantive knowledge in all parts of the world and in all sectors.

So we just have to make sure that across the spectrum, the overall -- there's a sense of balance that we drew on expertise of all parts of the world.

That and all sectors it.

That is the message we are to convey.

Not balance in the sense of each panel consists of one from each stakeholder group.

That is not the intention.

I'm quite happy to a panel where all four people are from civil society.

Provided it serves our purpose.

That's not the point.

And we are not going to get into the business of anybody demanding representation on a panel.

       >> Okay.

On that note then, I would just -- like the person from UNESCO just said we have our experts in different workshops and we would also propose having some of the experts on the panel.

I'm not in a position to give the names right now.

Is it okay if I take until tomorrow to get the names?

       >>NITIN DESAI: I would say that remember there's -- there are two ways we will be using the expertise available there.

The panelists are mainly there as people who will be able to inform the discussion particularly for people who are not well into the issue.

And remember this, there will be a large number of people in that hall who are not fully familiar with all of the issues, et cetera.

And then second what we intend to do is to get the moderator a list of resource persons.

People whose names the moderator has.

And who the moderator would call on at appropriate times.

Because we don't have speakers lists and things of this sort.

So the moderator would at appropriate points feel okay the discussion is not getting very far in this we need to bring in people with special knowledge here so the moderator would then turn and say Mr. So-and-so here.

Would you like to say a word here?

And that's the way we'll go.

And in some ways it is good for the experts to be called rather than for them to demand the floor.

       >> Is there a process for collecting the resource person names.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes, I think as I was suggesting at the start you would pass the names onto Markus so that Markus would have this and make it available to the moderator.

Yeah, I have the lady there then Jeanette.

Right at the back.

       >> Thank you, I'm Freta from Nigeria.

I just wanted to ask a very simple question.

And sorry if I sound a bit like I'm a bit on the chip but I'm not trying to be.

I wanted to find out if there was going to be some sort of (inaudible) who are going to help resource panelists coming from Africa because we do have some people unfortunately I'll have to go back and get a couple of names and suggest some names for next week but sometimes you might have the issue of the financing.

And I don't want to say like for -- if someone is coming from Nigeria then my office will pay if they have to they will but we don't necessarily have to so I wanted to find out if there was any kind of financial availability for certain people who wanted to come as resource persons or panelists.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I would say -- it's a good point.

Incidently we had a couple of names that (inaudible) gave us and you also raise an important issue that in certain cases people from Africa and Asia may not be able to participate unless there's some source of funding.

We don't have as such but the way people come is by participation in the workshops.

Because workshops are mostly funded.

And they have resources to bring people.

And I would certainly -- I'm sure there are workshops that would be interested in getting a sense of geographical balance there, also.

So I would certainly encourage you to pass on names.  And then we can see what we can do about it.

Yes?

       >> Sir,  I just also wanted to say that while the workshops are wonderful and I love workshops and I will try to be a part of a workshop myself, I can talk -- sorry; I don't want to always do the raising of it but from my own knowledge if you have -- if you have sessions and the average person, the average person from a developing country looks and does not see any name that sounds to them that has any linkage to them, they probably won't attend.

                 So if there are published names of resource persons of course the panelists are published I'm not sure about the resource persons they must be able to have give them reason to go if all of the names are John or Tim they will not come and that's leaving out develop nations.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Sorry; I have a lot of people that want to come.

There's Jeanette.

There's Raul.

Heather has something to say on the financing.

Then Jeanette has been waiting Raul and Jeanette have been waiting and then you can go.

       >>JEANETTE HOFFMAN:  Thank you, Jeanette Hoffman.

At the risk of saying something controversial I wanted to caution against relying too much on journalists ads moderators for one specific reason.

The main sessions are very important, also, because we want to make progress in certain areas.

And my experience with main sessions is that if persons are not really into -- if the chair is not really a specialist on an area, then he might miss good opportunities to build bridges, to forge compromises.

To bring people together who are very opposed in their opinions.

A journalist who is not an expert doesn't see these opportunities.

So a journalist might be very good at entertaining the crowd and stirring a good discussion.

But he is not really good at getting us where we want to go.

So if for various reasons we think we should have journalists, then we at least should have a co-moderator who can really fulfill this role.

It's very important for the issue.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Raul.

And once again -- are you asking to stop?

       >> No.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay, sorry.

       >> Thank you, Nitin I share Jeanette's concern regarding the participation of journalists, I appreciate very much the kind of prestigious media companies to provide the very good journalists and very famous.

But I appreciate -- while I appreciate it very much I have the same concerns that Jeanette has presented.

Regarding the panel, in order trying to help to conclude some discussion, I think that this is very difficult to get balanced -- geographical balance and also balance of different providers of speakers just for people.

This is the same challenge that we have faced in the previous years.

We have mentioned Christine Hoffer she's very good from Latin America.

She's from a cert perspective and also has a very broad knowledge about this issue.

We have mentioned Bruce Schneider.

He's very good from the technical perspective.

I understand that he's from North America.

I'm not sure.

But we have we have mentioned also Simon Davis.

He adds the privacy perspective.

Because that's very important.

But we need -- we still need somebody else from maybe IETF or IEB.

We need also somebody from the law enforcement issues.

Somebody from identity.

It's difficult to find the fourth person to accomplish the geographic balance and also to have a complete set of providers in the panel just my two cents.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I think we should be looking at geographical balance across the whole conference not just in individual panels that's overall in the conference we should have -- get a sense of geographically balance and let's not start looking for balance in each individual panel.

That's impossible.

I have a lot of people.

I have Kapitsa.

But Heather has something to say on the finance side.

       >>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Yes, thank you, chair it's Heather Dryden from the Canadian government we have provided some and I emphasize some funds to the ITU who have again this year kindly agreed to administer those funds.

In order to support developing country participation to the IGF.

It's not limited to any one particular stakeholder group.

And so that is available.

And it is also focused on those that have a speaking role.

So priority is clearly given to those that have a speaking role at the IGF.

What I would propose for those of you here, that if you're interested in applying for that fund, you could get ahold of me.

So approach me here today.

And I'll give you my details.

And let's try and work it that way.

Okay?

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I have -- now I have Andrea here.

I have Kapitsa, Charles -- a lot of people.

Then I think we have too many and we need to give the captioner a rest.

Okay, Andrea, since you are -- yes.

One question.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: One question in relation to the moderators, I had my first experience with Jonathan Charles I was so impressed (off microphone).

Wanted to know -- we want them to be a part of it.

We really want them to be -- we want them to be educated and this is the process so somebody that really knows the sector, we have that in the workshops.

We really need to get into the outside world and the BBC is fabulous if they can come in we are going to get more press, more support and maybe even sponsorship which is what I'm working on.

I think if we don't have these people involved, we're missing out on a big opportunity.

That's it.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

No, we have to stop.

The captioner needs a rest.

And we can have a coffee and be back in ten minutes.

Because the captioner needs a rest.

She cannot continue.

Okay.

Back in ten minutes.

                 (Break.)

                 (Break.)

                 (Background talking.)

                 (Background talking.)

       >>NITIN DESAI: Can we settle down and start?

We are still on the session on security, et cetera.

I think I have got four or five people still wanting to speak on this.

So if I could just again have the names, it's Freda and Kapitsa, Charles, Marilyn.

So Kapitsa, Freda, Charles, Marilyn.

       >> I want to support many of the comments that have been made on all of the speakers.

I think those -- a speaker from different stakeholders bring a strong point of view like Ann Cavoukian from the Canada commission of Ontario, I think, another reference from the business perspective.

It's important to make an interesting debate and discussion on this issue.

Also the representative from privacy international.

If we want to add original diversity I would prefer someone like Asia like (inaudible) would be interesting or the authority for Australia and New Zealand.

We are always in contact with data protection authorities.

It is easy to reach out to them they will have their international meeting just two weeks before the Egypt meeting.

For me it was very easy for my -- to bring them to my workshops.

So I think if we reach out to them to go to Egypt it would be close because they are close to Madrid.

       >> Two speakers from -- I would like to recommend from India.

One is Suniel Abraham. 

He's a director for the center of information and society.

And the other is Lawrence Leon.

These two people have very good expertise and moderation expertise for issues on openness and privacy in particular.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Can I suggest that I think it's not easy to start as if this group is going to involve all names or anything.

And there are a very large number of names now that we have for this.

I think it's going to be easier if a smaller group sits down maybe after lunch and then narrows this down.

May I suggest that we instead focus a little on how we handle the moderation, on the moderator side because there's a suggestion which has come.

We don't know.

It's possible that we may not be able to get two.

Because we already have a certain commitment on Jonathan Charles who is going to be there anyhow because he has been released for this.

So it's not entirely clear that we will get two from there so we may have to look for others anyhow.

There's also been the question that's been raised about whether this is a session where you need a journalist moderator or a more technical moderator.

But we need to discuss that.

And there must be some names which must come up if we have an -- if we have an alternative suggestion in mind.

Instead of getting too further into persons -- names of individuals which I think can be discussed after lunch in a smaller group, let's decide on how we handle the moderation.

It's always a bit of an open discussion going on right now.

So I had four others, Charles, Marilyn, Juan is also there.

       >>CHARLES SHABAN:  Thank you,  Mr. Chairman.

Charles Shaban. 

I wanted to talk about this issue in specific.

I have the same feeling with Jeanette with journalists as moderators but at the same time journalists are known to be very good moderates of course so in case we have for one session a very good moderator who has the technical information, too.

That will be fine but if not I prefer to leave it to journalists as moderators and then the panelists will cover the technical issues that sometimes as Jeanette said maybe the journalists would not know about so I think it should be a combination in the different panelists about this issue.

       >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm not going to offer a name of a journalist.

But I'm going to suggest that actually we should establish some criteria that will be very helpful, whoever the moderator is.

We need to have not only preparation of the moderator considerable amount ahead of time.

But we also need to have onsite preparation with the expert people and the panelists.

We lost a little bit of that due to the Bombay incident and I just want to mention that because as you look at the idea that you're putting forward to the speaker, you are planning yourself to be in workshops and putting forward a speaker, I think you need -- we need to have -- if we have a moderator they have to get there in sufficient time.

There's to be enough time commitment to allow for really good prep on side as well as preprep.

There has to be space for the go-to experts as well as any supporting MAG members.

And the moderators to have an early preparatory session.

And we need to stick to that as a criteria.

That will help us, whoever our moderators are.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes?

       >> Thank you,  Mr. Chair.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Sorry there's a lady behind you.

       >> I'm sorry.

       >>GINGER PAQUE:  Sorry, Lee, this is Ginger from the Internet Governance Caucus.

We've done a wonderful job at looking for balance.

This is not specifically on moderator but it's a general point.

Unfortunately our youth representatives seem to have had other commitments today and I would like to point out that we have across all the panels it would be good if we include some youth speakers where appropriate.

And also call on them as resources during the discussions.

So could we bring that up?

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you.

       >> Thank you.

Chair, (inaudible) from the DiploFoundation.

Two quick points.

One it is on the journalists versus experts I think it's in a way a dilemma but generally speaking IGF should if I can use terminology for climate change increase its footprint.

And it should be more present in the general public and overall discussion.

If we -- it is -- if it is useful to have a journalist both as the conveyer of the message in IGF and people with expertise in moderation obviously we can't discuss it on the level of principle because we should have concrete names and concrete people and decide on their participation.

Second point is about youth participation.

I know that there is an uneasiness whenever we start discussing quotas and balancing principles and the formulas.

There was one major break through during the EuroDIG the first two days of this week we had an excellent substantive concrete participation from youth.

Therefore they were included initially through quotas and general orientation through these type of meetings to have more youth but those people brought really substantive input to the discussion and one of them I think Lee will help me were the Council of Europe one was from Greece but there were three or four of them from Council of Europe and some from Diplo that were excellent contributors therefore we can have both sort of balance in representative but also substantive contribution from youth.

Thank you.

       >> Thank you,  Mr. Chair, Lee from the Council of Europe.

Yeah, just to pick up that point from Joergen, youth were very welcome and in the EuroDIG and brought fruitful discussion and everybody I talked to said the same thing I would strongly support the youth as a panelist and one particularly one I have in mind from the European youth forum who was prepared and everyone was impressed by him (inaudible) from the youth forum.

The second point regarding the question of journalists as a moderator or another person, from my experience and from recent experiences in quite large scale conferences, I've been helping prepare the brief for different moderators some of which are professional some of which were not professional as such like a BBC moderator.

And in my experience, it's even if you're very, very well prepared, it's not enough.

It's quite clear that to do a very good moderation you need to have that extra professionalism.

You know for example like a BBC moderator to get the needle and thread and to sew the discussion together.

And I really believe that it's really for the MAG and for us to brief and properly prepare that person and I think that's the way forward.

I think there's a deal of risk management here, risk assessment.

And I really believe that other people, other speakers with lots of knowledge, very good.

But that can be pulled upon from the audience.

But in terms it of moderation it's a different skill.

And I really think that's a job of a professional journalist rather.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: JosA and then George. 

And then Andrea.

       >>JOSA VITOR CARVAHLO HANSEM:  JosA from the Technology Society.

Just to continue the discussion on youth, I think, Mr. Chair, if we look at some of the issues, Web 2.0 the social networks frameworks of freedom or ethical dimensions of the Internet this is what the strong hold of youth and the Internet.

So I think just to continue the discussion on that and supporting the other statements that was done about youth participation hopefully we can have a youth moderator for this session.

There are many of them who can be capable of handling such issues.

And they have the knowledge and the experience in dealing with issues.

And really I would think that when we talk about Web 2.0 and social networks and the frameworks of freedom and the ethical dimension maybe these topics will be the focus of this panel.

So we need someone who may be knowledgeable a practitioner on this.

And really the youth will be the best.

So I would strongly recommend to have a young moderator plus a young panelist for this session.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: We do have social networks in the emerging issues as a separate topic.

And there is a little overlap here between this and that last session.

But I suspect we will try to keep much of our conversation on social networks in that dedicated session which is only on social networks.

And certainly I think the points we can pick up later.

I have George. 

I have Andrea.

And then I have (inaudible).

       >> I'm George from Greece.

I would like to echo and support the views of the last three speakers, in particular those of Ali and Joergen regarding youth participation and I'm glad that Lee pointed out that the representative -- the Greek representative of youth was a very good one.

And I could second that, too.

And also the idea of a moderator from youth is a good one.

What impressed me the most was how sophisticated some of these interventions were.

And indeed, the bridging aspect between things that are of relevance to youth and also are of relevance to us, as well.

Thank you.

       >> Just -- Andrea from EPC in South Africa I support the idea of young people but I just also wanted to comment on the notion of journalists versus people who understand the field.

Just based on our experience of the access panel last year, having a journalist moderate an open dialogue is a very different thing than having a journalist moderate a panel so I also feel that having journalist moderates panels works very well I feel that having a journalist moderating an open dialogue in our case didn't work that well so that's just a practical thing for the Secretariat to consider so possibly if the journalist is going to moderate open dialogue it might be good to partner them with somebody that knows the sector it.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Doesn't the floor?

       >> That's right.

Sorry.

I just wanted to also add a point with regard to data -- you know, privacy data protection issues with regard to Asia many of the develop countries in Asia don't actually have data protection authorities or legislations and frameworks so what might be interesting is to look at participation from there which related to countries which are dealing with these issues I'll give you a simple example I see social networks for example up there I come from a country and other regions that have legislated it's illegal and a criminal offense to put someone's picture up on the web without their expressed consent so if you did it you could go to prison that becomes a major issue for MySpace and Facebook so what are the privacy aspects related to that and security so I would like to sort of mention that we should definitely take into account data protection authorities in Asia but the challenges and the evolution within developing countries in Asia with regard to privacy may be something we also want to concentrate on.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

Now I think we probably have more names than we need on the panelists.

And -- but that's all helpful because it means we have a larger pool to pick from.

So I suggest that let that be resolved in a smaller group which meets in the afternoon.

Rather than our trying to nail this down.

As far as the moderator is concerned, I take the point that -- I think there is in some ways a distinction between the access and diversity panel recession and -- of every session and this but in many ways the access and diversity panel is dealing with issues which are much more a part of everyday peoples lives and et cetera and we expect in any case we have Jonathan Charles coming there any house.

And he is going to be involved in a lot of other events.

And it's relatively easy thing for us to do.

And I'm not too worried about that.

In this area of security, openness, it's going to be very difficult to find one moderator who has sort of complete command over all of these things and can be the somewhat technical perspective.

And we may have to see who is available.

Because it's not certain that the name that we have suggested is necessarily available.

But I still haven't got a sense about what sort of person who look for.

I think -- may I -- I wanted to make a suggestion that when people start looking at the panel, once they put the panel together, then they can decide what is the best way of supplementing that.

Is it that this panel is fairly technical?

And it will be useful to supplement it with somebody who can handle it from a broad brush public interest perspective which is where the journalist comes in.

Or is it that the panel is of a very different character of people who are activists, et cetera, who are involved in these issues?

And many of the issues of public interest will be articulated by them and will require simply a moderator who will simply be efficient at giving the floor to A, B, C, understanding when he needs to find -- he or she needs to find a resource person.

But we are really at the moment a little bit up on the Aaron the moderation side on this panel.

And I think we have to recognize that.

But I hope we can make some progress.

Markus, can you comment at this point and see where we are on this?

As far as the session.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: On the moderator, I think Lee made a very eloquent plea for this particular person he proposed and he worked with.

And who is very familiar now with these issues through her previous work.

So next step will be to see whether she's available.

And then whether the BBC is ready to finance her or if we find another sponsor to finance her.

But I think we should explore this venue also based on this recommendation.

Of actually a working -- working with her on related issues.

Otherwise I suggest for the panelists, as you said we have many good suggestions but we have to sit down this afternoon and ask interests of people to sit together and reduce the number a bit.

It is obvious if we don't close the discussion we will repeat what we had in the previous year the people come up with other good names and other good names.

They are all excellent people.

But it does not help us to finalize the program.

And that is what we have to do.

We will have a printed program.

There will be changes in the print.

Sure, that always happens, people have to cancel at the last minute.

But it will have to go to press.

And that is what we will have to decide today.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

       >> (Inaudible) from Pakistan.

My suggestion for the name of Suniel Abraham from the Center for Internet and Society from India and Lois Hansen because these people have had a wide interaction across the areas of Europe, Asia and many European countries certainly they have led programs at the UN level at the civil society level and at the private sector level where they have engaged with -- I don't see any issue in security openness and privacy which they have not touched it.

And they have deliberated at very big international forums which we've been participating in in the past five years.

So this is definitely necessary.

I would not suggest going for the journalist approach.

Because you need people who have had interaction -- direct interaction, direct experience with these issues and they have engaged with broader audiences on these issues.

And they have participated in a policy related activities regarding these issues.

And the current role in society is such that they participate in this.

And they participate on issues of how it affects the various countries and their citizens.

So the person who is appointed as a moderator for these sessions should have a wide range of interaction experience, wide range of practical experience.

And large scale of interaction with all of the stakeholders.

The governments, the private sector and the civil society.

And again, he is under 40 years of age.

So that's another aspect I want to touch upon.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Can we move on to the next session?

Yes?

       >> About the moderator.

Thank you, Nitin. 

This is Kapitsa.

I think that there are many journalists who have the expertise on working on technology, on privacy and security even in the BBC.

If we find those moderators who brought all of these articles about cloud computing, identity theft, identity theft, ethical dimensions on the Internet there are many articles on the BBC we can find those as moderators.

I have no problem.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Can I suggest I think let's pursue this step by step because we don't know who is going to be available.

Who is going to come.

Let's focus on getting the panel right.

We will keep in mind the point which Juan made that there are people who can probably act as moderator you don't want someone who has too many strong views we had a journalist once with very strong views who didn't let anybody else speak.

So we don't want somebody whose views are so strong where he or she sees their role as essentially educating everybody.

But Josh?

       >> George from Greece.

I'm sure that any moderator that will be asked to moderate this, the first question will be -- that will be put to you:  What is this discussion going to accomplish?

And we never addressed that.

And I'm sure that different people here are suggesting different things because they have different ideas in mind.

Is it to have an enlightened discussion?

Is it to try to squeeze some ideas out of the individuals or possibly to come to some elementary consensus among individuals?

So this was never touched upon.

And I think that that's one of the difficulties of identifying the right person.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I think here the closest was what we were mentioning earlier is that the idea is to get people to see these are not competing requirements security and openness but there are certain things you can do which serve both purposes.

That is the one thing that I would say is the message but we don't know whether that will be the message that comes out of the thing.

This is the point of an open meeting.

That you don't necessarily have a preconception of what you -- the general -- there are no outcomes in that precise sense and of course it's a great challenge for whoever is chair of the session to summarize what the outcome it is at the end.

I have Ayesha. 

       >>AYESHA HASSAN:  Very briefly it always helps to have a deadline if we know we can put that pressure on people to confirm their participation, et cetera.

Do we know what date the Secretariat and the host country --

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: Today.

       >>AYESHA HASSAN:  Pardon?

Today?

That might be a little difficult with the time zones.

       >> We'll find someone.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

Can we move on?

I'm going to rush you a little now because we must finish the discussion on the main session by lunch so there's enough time after lunch for the more detailed task of fixing panels.

Okay.

Let's move on to the next session, which is on . . . access and diversity.

This is one we did have a brief discussion on yesterday.

Where we recognized that there are three themes.

But that we don't want to have it in three sessions.

But a more continuous session where -- because we are talking in terms of what is it that we need to do in order to promote access by all.

To the Internet.

And the way we talked, we would make sure that we give adequate attention to the three sets of issues.

The technical and affordability questions about access.

Disability.

And multilingualism.

By basically requesting the moderator in this case we do have a name of somebody who is available.

And who I think most of the people involved in organizing -- was one of the people involved in organizing the things going into this session and seem to be comfortable with and that's Jonathan Charles.

We request about it we say at a certain point now we have had a discussion on this.

Let's move on to the next thing.

And the presentations I don't think should be all by the -- the panel should be all together in the beginning.

It should be by team.

As you know as Andrea explained to us in the case of access for people with disabilities, what they are planning is one, an actual demonstration by -- would you like to say a word?

       >>ANDREA SAKS: Yeah, we're doing an actual demonstration presenting a message.

And I want to say the multilingualist and the access situation we've just had a discussion offline that access to the actual technical features that are in Africa are extremely important.

And I personally always consider that.

So that's going to be added in.

Of so we will have a little bit of a blending there because I'm going to talk to them about adding that to the message.

So we may not have such a diverse situation between access and accessibility because without access, we can't do anything with accessibility, can we?

So there is a direct correlation.

And I'm very clear that -- and I'm glad I had this discussion offline.

So at that point we present the message.

And then we're supposed to have the questions.

Depending upon how you set it up, whether you want to do questions jointly or whether you want to do or after each little bit we're open either way but now that we have a mutual connection I don't think there's going to be a problem with that at all.

So that's the point I just wanted to make.

       >>.

       >>NURANI NIMPUNO:  I would like to suggest an idea actually.

I think it would be really neat to have someone with a disability help moderate the session.

It can be somebody who has a hearing disability or a visual disability to actually also demonstrate some of the challenges involved in having such a discussion with people with different disabilities.

But also other barriers that you get in a forum like this.

       >>NITIN DESAI: There will be.

In fact one of the first things we are doing is a blind person.

So it will actually be -- there will be an actual demonstration.

Bill?

       >> Yes,  I was having a very similar thought.

And I was thinking specifically of Arnoud van Wijk working with the real-time text Task Force he's a very capable profoundly deaf person and I know he would be very, very willing to chair if he had the invitation.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: Arnoud is presenting in the super Workshop on Accessibility.

And it was decided we didn't want to confuse real-time -- and I'm the original real-time text person because my father was one of the inventors of the first real-time text back in the '60s.

So Arnoud and I are really good friends.

Arnoud is in -- definitely was in and was definitely in the last time.

So he's definitely there and he has contributed to the message so the consequence of we have Shadi Abou-Zahra who is in the main session who is in a wheelchair whose specialty is web accessibility.

So how integrated is that?

And we are Gerry Ellis who is blind who is going to be demonstrating the screenreader.

We can't do everything in -- we have a limited amount of time.

We felt that that was the easiest thing to do rather than do real-time text and next time we decided we will do something with real-time text because that's something that's very close to my heart but we have it set at the moment and everybody knows what they are doing.

And to have somebody who is actually -- I still believe a good moderator will do a good job.

And then the persons -- the people that we have can concentrate on the task, which is getting the information out there and the demonstration out there.

And they will be on the panel with me.

       >> He was not --

       >>NITIN DESAI: He was not talking about the moderator he was talking about the chair.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: Moderator.

       >>NITIN DESAI: No, the chair.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: Oh, I misunderstood.

       >>NITIN DESAI: And we have talked -- we will discuss it with Egypt because they have to decide.

They may have a point of view.

But that's a very good thought.

Yes, you've been waiting for a long time.

       >> Thank you, chair.

I want to really make a call on this session to talk about Africa.

Everyone knows the problem of access in Africa is a very huge problem.

And through this process we talk about access.

And we have a cert IGF meeting and it will take place in Africa.

I think it is an opportunity for Africa to talk about this issue as having access.

And I think it is important to have a chair or some people on these -- on this session from Africa.

And who will talk about all of the initiatives which takes place in Africa like the summit and connect Africa.

Like the experience with India, with the pan African e-service network and all of those initiatives that try to connect Africa.

And really falls on the problem of infrastructure.

It's a very, very big problem.

Inside the country, each country.

And also between countries.

Because if you look at the map of the world, the country of Africa is a less connected country in the world and because of bandwidth it's one of the big issues.

The I think that we have to take this opportunity to tackle this issue.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes.

That set of issues on access are very much a part of this agenda.

And we would be addressing them here.

And certainly because we are meeting in Africa, this would be an issue that we would receive a lot on.

Yes, Andrea?

       >> Thank you,  Andrea from EPC.

I think Nitin I would just like to support that.

-- from two perspectives.

The one is from having been involved with other people in the room.

On facilitating or the access theme and access issue in the IGF.

And then from the perspective of this IGF being in Africa.

So I think I agree with what the previous speaker said.

But I think we might want to go even further than that and be quite explicit that for this IGF in this main session the discussion on access to infrastructure focuses on the current context and way forward in Africa.

I know this is possibly controversial because there are access to infrastructure issues in other parts of the world.

But I think also in support of what the speaker from Nigeria said earlier, I think as the IGF community we want to send a strong message to Africa.

And to governments.

And business and civil society in Africa that we do recognize that this is a major challenge.

So something that might you know not just cover it, actually be explicit that we are prioritizing it.

       >> Floyd from Pakistan within the general discussion this is just a general discussion in selection of the speakers the source people and the moderators,  can we also respond regional diversity.

And there's been less participation from the east Pacific Asia part of the world and we have many countries from where we should also have some people included.

And I would say start from -- down from Laos all the way to fiji. 

Even youth from that part of the world.

Please keep that in consideration.

Thank you.

       >> Thank you,  I just wanted to put forward a name for one of the panelists for the access and diversity area and I would say that's my boss Angia and I think he has a great passion and is very knowledgeable about this whole area and he's really working towards having access not just for the west African region but for Africa and initiatives to help bring down the cost of bandwidth and such so I really think he'll be a good person.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: So one way specific -- the operation that's been suggested by Andrea is that in our access we have a very clear focus on Africa.

And we are meeting there.

And it is -- so I just wanted -- Raul?

       >>RAUL:  Okay.

I have a list of maybe 10, 20 people proposing from Latin America for access.

We have very good people in the region for this issue because it's been a challenge in the last few years.

So there are many people making outstanding things.

For example, experience in Uruguay regarding the local implementation of the one laptop per child is very interesting the penetration has rose 50% as a consequence of this program, the participation has grown.

So this is really a good thing.

So maybe the director of the program who is -- which name is Jose Glatormi could be one person.

Also there is Armano Gitsemi is a leader in wireless connectivity.

He has improved the -- Armano (inaudible) is the name but I can provide his name really later.

He has -- he has improved the wireless connectivity and the technology behind the wireless connectivity around the world and he has been involved in many experiences connecting small villages both in Africa and Latin America and I'm sorry; many in rural areas.

We have, also, very interesting experience in ISPs.

One of them that has called attention of many people is the recent ISP created in Haiti.

Haiti is the poorest country in Latin America in the Caribbean nation as they have a very good -- all of the ISPs of the island.

Sorry it's not exactly right.

Of the country.

And also they run IPv6 in the ISP.

And they provide many services.

It's an example of what they can do.

So those people.

I remember also here about the Cicero (inaudible) who is the advisor of the Brazilian President who is leaving I understand and the Brazilian colleagues can explain better that.

But I understand he's leaving all of the access policies in -- leading all of the access policies in Brazil so I think we can provide many people for this panel.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Lynn?

       >> Thank you,  Mr. Chair.

At the risk of making your job more difficult, I want to add one more name.

Within the region --

       >>NITIN DESAI: You must remember that my job and your job are exactly the same.

       (Chuckles.)

       >> Thanks.

I think in the area of interconnection points it's impact on the affordability question, I would like to recommend you consider Mohammad Dejupe who is well known in the community and commands respect and would be useful.

thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I think let me just mention here on the question of focus, yes, I think we should certainly keep our -- keep in mind that we are addressing issues in all possibilities.

But the reality is a very large number of people who will be attending this meeting will have an interest in issues in Africa.

This is the practical reality of our attendance.

We will have people of course from Latin America, from Asia.

But my guess is that in terms of the -- if you like the people who are new participants, people who are coming to IGF for the first time, a very large number will be from Africa.

And they will be interested in this issue.

Because this is probably the most important issue right now.

For people involved in Internet in Africa.

And that is access.

Infrastructure access.

And we should respond to that.

But I think it's important however to keep in mind that we also need to have people who have solutions to offer.

And some of the examples that Raul was mentioning are people who have solutions to offer.

And so when we say focus on Africa I don't think we should end up simply with a list of problems but also with some suggestions on answers.

Raul?

       >>RAUL:  Yes, I think that's maybe ten years ago or maybe less than that people from Africa and from Latin America was accustomed to listening to what other people had to say in order to learn.

Now I think that's -- we have very good experience to share.

As in many fields we are living the (inaudible) in some fields because of our needs.

So we have to face challenges that probably people from the first world has not faced yet.

So I think that's while I see that there will be surely less presence of developing countries in other panels, I think it's not too bad to have mainly people from Africa, Latin America in this session in access.

And I think -- I anticipate that it will be a very good panel.

Because really the situation has improved very much in the last few years.

       >> Yes,  I also want to support the idea of other colleagues from Africa that access is a very important topic in this part of the world and in Egypt we have had an experience with policies that have related to the issue of the safety and the redundancy of access with the several cable cuts in the Mediterranean that happened during the last year so maybe there's also a possibility to get this experience on board.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

       >> Yes,  chair, I just want to add one name it's Dr. Arachasia. 

He is the director of DCOM in Africa.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Anybody else?

I think a good way of tackling this to meet this is to when we do this -- when the moderator starts this access session focusing on infrastructure, affordability and so on, we give the moderator a list of names of people.

And request these people saying don't give a long speech.

But in five minutes explain how the issue can be solved.

How you have addressed it.

How you have tackled it.

And don't give a long lecture.

But give a five-minute presentation.

And then we can have -- we can call on many people.

We can call not just on one.

We can call on half a dozen people and just say what did you do on mobile access in such-and-such country.

What did you do on the one laptop per child case.

What did you do on broadband spread in such-and-such.

Just we know other people have done something.

We just call on them to come and give a quick statement without necessarily creating a big panel.

Yes, Marilyn?

       >>MARILYN CADE: Marilyn Cade.

I'm struck by something that I'm thinking about all of the wonderful resources that people are identifying.

And hoping that we will also see the identification of additional participation and resources from within the Mideast region states, as well.

Because I think we're getting a good long list of resources from Latin America and from Africa.

But there are some other economies that will be participating actively at this meeting, as well, that may have unique contributions to make, too.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Jamil?

       >> Yes, sir, I just wanted to sort of see if I'm not totally way off, when I look at access and diversity I remember from the discussions and remarks that there was some discussion about web filtering as well access to me is not just access which is infrastructure access but access to information, as well and if that is the case then I just look at the list over there and I see most of it to do with infrastructure.

And do we also want to talk about web filtering, content access, services access, things of that nature.

And I'm not sure.

I just wanted to raise that issue.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I think that was thought -- when we discussed it here, it could -- there's somewhere areas -- some areas it does figure.

       >> It goes under openness.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yeah, I remember seeing the reference somewhere.

       >> Technical perspectives and consideration of the legal web content.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes?

       >> Nitin,  I'm very pleased I'm not on the MAG.

Because I think this is going to be a tough task organizing this session.

But I think one thing that might help is to refer or to get the moderator to refer in the introduction to this session to the evolution of these issues.

I think it actually applies to all of the main sessions.

But I think speaking for access because in that way it can be made clear that some dimensions of the access issue has been addressed in a lot of detail.

In previous IGFs.

And I think one can use that to make the argument that you can't address all dimensions of this issue in this particular IGF because there simply isn't time.

So it might be worth looking back at what has been dealt with in access.

How it's evolved.

And then use that to narrow down how you deal with the issue in this particular IGF.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

I think this session is probably -- actually I don't think it's going to be so difficult to organize.

There's a fair amount of work which has gone into it already.

And one part of it is already pretty well organized which is the part dealing with accessibility.

The other parts I don't think multilingualism will cause huge problems we have some well defined issues and people which we can draw on.

And a lot of them are going to be there.

And I think there is a sense in which we can try and focus the third part, which is on access.

On trying -- yes, we keep -- we will obviously have to keep a strong focus on Africa.

But my guess is a large proportion of the audience will be interested in talking about that.

But I think we should also focus on solutions.

And this is where the experience of other parts of the world can be brought to bear on this.

Okay.

Can we move on to the next session, please?

The easy one.

       (Chuckles.)

       >>NITIN DESAI: This is the one where we had spent probably the most time last time we met in MAG.

And have produced the shortest mandate for the session.

And that is -- it refers to two paragraphs in the WSIS.

And it's very clearly stated no panel.

This has to be an open discussion.

But this means then that there is a strong burden on whoever has to moderate this to -- and the chair to -- well, the chair really.

To direct this discussion in some form.

I also want to suggest that we really have to in a write up of this have to explain what we mean by WSIS Principles because a lot of people will thoroughly be amused to what is WSIS Principles because they have not participated in WSIS they are not familiar with the text and they don't know these paragraphs and I think this is a cryptic statement here at least if we want to interest people other than a very small group it will have to be explained a little.

Chris and then Freud.

       >> Thank you.

I just wanted to echo your comments, Nitin, about the session.

And suggest that as a -- at least one moderator I would like to put forward the name of Yanis, the ambassador of France who was formerly involved in the WSIS process and if he's available may be able to act as a moderator for this session.

       >> (Inaudible) from Pakistan.

I want to also suggest this is again a general comment to at least once again bring life the IGF participants mailing list.

Because that can add as a major communication medium for like extending out what these topics mean in detail.

And that can be a very good list for even the participants from these meetings to share with the other participants before the actual IGF what are these issues and so forth.

So their discussion list should be opened up.

And of course the members should be all the people who were just referred the IGF.

Thank you.

       >> I notice the Greece proposal I think that Yanis would be a very good moderator.

Maybe -- maybe without maybe it would be very difficult to find somebody better than him.

He was the chair of the PrepCom before the WSIS meeting in Tunis 2005 so he was the chair of all of the negotiations and I think that he was strongly involved in the definitions toward the summit.

So he can understand very well what does the WSIS principle people.

I think that's probably -- not probably.

I would like to suggest also Andrea if she's available for sharing with the -- with Yanis the moderator of the session I think it would be a good combination of different skills and also they belong to different stakeholder groups so I think it would be very good.

       >> Thanks,  Nitin.

I also would like to speak very strongly in favor of Yanis as a moderator.

And also to pick up on the -- what I think I heard Chris say was maybe having co-moderators.

And I'll take the risk here of putting forward another name of a person I think would be very appropriate.

But I haven't yet spoken to her to confirm whether she would be available.

But Anretee Esterhisen would be a very good co-moderator I think.

Maybe I'll wake up after lunch.

       (Chuckles.)

       >>NURANI NIMPUNO: Nurani Nimpuno I would like to support both of those names.

I think also the combination of those names would create a very nice balance.

And maybe to retaliate, I might put someone else on the spot as backup.

Apologies in advance.

I think Bill Graham would be another nice name actually has a co-moderator, someone who has been involved with the process for a very long time.

Has good insight into all of the different issues.

You know, has experience in both -- both in the government and -- yeah.

Civil society areas.

So apologies, Bill.

       >> (Inaudible) from Pakistan.

This is still part of our new MAG learning experience.

Again, the MAG -- can the MAG members be recommended to actually be resource persons and moderators of these sessions?

Because then we have many people like we've got (inaudible) over there and Andrea and of course there (inaudible) have already been recommended so there can be many people for resource persons to not confirm their availability.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I would say there's no bar but we have to avoid creating the impression that the MAG members are appointing themselves.

So we should be a little -- do 2  it when it is really very necessary but we should avoid creating the impression that the MAG members are treating this as private property you see.

       >> We'll keep it to the failover.

       >>NITIN DESAI: We are responsible for organizing the whole conference.

And we should therefore be -- give a sense of openness about that.

Yes?

       >> Yeah,  I just want to add the name of Adamas Seco as chair.

       >>AYESHA HASSAN: Ayesha from ECC.  I have great respect for Adamas Seco this is no reflection on my respect for him and all that he has contributed in the past years.

But I would like to put my support for this particular session at this particular IGF and at this juncture behind all three of the colleagues that have just been named.

Yanis, Anriete and Bill out of the three of them two people would make an excellent co-moderated session and the third one I would just ask that the third person from that group lend a helping hand in the preparation and be deeply involved in it.

I think all three of them have an enormous amount to contribute.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Chris?

       >> I just want to support the names that has been presented here.

And I think they meet the criteria.

We need people who actually participated in developing these paragraphs, this text it, at the time of the WSIS and the PrepComs so I think this combination at least fills out the criteria and I support them.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

So I think we seem to have made reasonable progress on this one.

So let's move on.

And I think the suggestions are quite welcome I'm sure.

Markus.

And we'll check.

I think Yanis should be there.

I will check with him.

But I think he's going to be there.

So let's check.

Let me move on to the next session, which is -- no, taking stock and moving forward.

Now actually this is a session which Markus did explain yesterday.

It's different from our usually sessions.

This is a session where in a sense we as MAG are stepping back.

Because it's -- it's an evaluation session where to a certain extent we ourselves are under evaluation.

So to some extent we are stepping back from playing a direct role in this.

And what we'll communicate to you is what how DESA the Department of Economic and Social Affairs which is the department which is responsible for this proposes to handle this.

And their proposal is that under the Secretary-General Mr. Shar Zucon would himself take this session.

Because this is the session where we can -- he's supposed to consult with the participants on -- and come out with some views on the evaluation which has to be presented.

The intention is to have a -- have people on the basis of various suggestions which will come and which will be available in all languages the format will be more like a classical UN conference the idea that you -- we make sure all of the major country groups interests, stakeholder groups, past hosts, if you like, of the IGF who have obviously focused a lot on some of these issues are -- have a say in the -- give their assessments.

And that there's enough time for others, also, to join in the discussion.

But this is a session where we are not really directly in charge.

And I've been very particular.

As I said, this is a session in which we -- you know the process is under review.

So the people who have been managing the process should not be trying to run that.

And so I don't think we need to discuss this.

It is -- it is a session we're handing over to them.

And if we can agree to move directly on to the emerging issues.

Is there anything else on this so can we move on to the emerging issues so that before lunch we can do this.

This is the one where we have the impact of social networks and I think several comments were made here about participation of youth, et cetera.

And this is perhaps one area where we may want to do that.

I understand that there is a good chance that some of the key people involved in the forum -- in some of the these networking sites could also be there.

Most of them seem to be at least by my standards acute and so they are pretty young some of them.

The Facebook people and so on.

So I understand some of them are going to be there, am I right?

Yeah?

Yeah.

So that will be a very good opportunity to associate them.

Since they are going to be there.

The people involved in Facebook, et cetera.

And -- but what else can we do with this?

How do we structure and organize this session?

The social networks one.

Yes?

       >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Thank you,  Nitin.

Bertrand de la Chapelle from France.

Actually there are several sessions during the IGF that would be devoted to one aspect or the other of social networks.

The EuroDIG itself actually had lengthy discussions on that issue that will feed into the workshops.

And this is one example of a theme that will actually provide a very easy articulation between the workshops and the main session.

We are organizing with a few others.  One whose title is the governance of social media.

I know there are other regarding aspects related to privacy in particular and legal aspects in general.

We're at the Internet Governance Forum so the theme of the session is probably less about just assessing how important those things have become.

What we see emerging in terms of possible structure is that one, there is a setting the stage type of introduction that could be made like just describing how it has grown and what people actually mean by social media.

There are different definitions but at least you can include in this the pure social networks like Facebook, MySpace and others.

The user generated content site.

It can be for video like YouTube and for other types of contents.

Pictures or large blogs.

And the third category is the emerging subgroup of micro blogging like Twitter and a portion of what Facebook is doing actually with status updates.

So some kind of introduction by whoever is presenting the environment.

And then there are two main threads that emerge from previous discussions.

And that could be used.

One is to see how traditional policy challenges or policy issues take either a new dimension or raise new problems in this environment.

And at least there are for instance one issue is the evolution of privacy.

What kind of new challenges, management of identity and that sort of thing.

The second issue is everything that has to do with the rights attached to content.

And particularly the rights that are attached to either content that you post in terms it of ownership, the rights that people will post have on their own con ten it.

But there's also another dimension is what kind of rights are attached to any content that is posted about someone.

It was already alluded to in the security openness and privacy session.

So first privacy, second rights in general.

It's also dealing in the second case with the regime applicable to copyrighted material.

And the third issue is the diversity of national legal frameworks regarding illegal content or content that the not acceptable in some national context it.

And how it is handled when you have completely trans national spaces like this one.

So there may be other issues.

But just as an introduction, the first thread is how do these classical teams that are being used in traditional media change or pose new questions in the social media environment.

And the last element is something that emerged also in the discussion which is those spaces are becoming so large when you have more than 100 or 200 million people participating in those spaces, what is the internal governance of those spaces?

And in particular, how do you develop and how do companies develop their terms of service or their terms of reference dealing with those issues?

Because before there is global regulation or an overlap on national regulations the terms of service actually have a very strong power on what is accepted, what is not accepted.

And what are the internal roles.

So something that would structure the session around those three elements, a brief introduction on the landscape.

The policy issues, how they are differing from traditional media and something about the internal governance of those spaces to be a threat.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Stefan? 

       >> Stefan from Hong Kong.

Thank you, chair.

I just I agree with what Bertrand said about the implications and the future of social network and all of that.

I just want to add an additional point.

All of these social networks it at the moment are not making money.

So there's a very strong push to come up with new business models such that they will be viable financially or as far as the Wall Street or the investment banking side is concerned.

Recently we look at the fact that YouTube is going to have downloading music or video, movies to charge the community and all of that.

That's just an example.

What I'm trying to say is there will be emerging -- we are talking about emerging there will be emerging issues for new business models to be undertaken, promoted and exercised by these networks.

So we are anticipating.

Let me just talk about some of the these business models.

And thereby the implications.

Thank you, chair.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Ginger and then Kapitsa.

       >>GINGER PAQUE:  Thank you, chair. 

I'm Ginger Paque speaking for the remote participation working group right now.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Not ITC? 

       >>GINGER PAQUE:  Not ITC.

Remote participation and youth.

Because actually this session combines emerging issues, youth, there's a strong push and a priority of the idea of Secretariat which has been remote participation which I would like to add to Batron's level of social networks, I would like to -- Bertrand's I would like to include remote participation as a social network or social possibility if we apply that and maybe rather than take time in the session to talk about it, could we use remote participation as an emerging issue and a youth issue and highlight it by having perhaps a panelist by remote participation from the youth hub?

With Finland there's a great initiative to have one of the hubs be a youth hub.

They will be present.

If they could be a very short intervention from the youth hub by remote participation, we're giving a best practice.

We're illustrating it.

And we're involving people that we need to involve in this particular session.

So thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I have Kapitsa and then Andrea.

       >> I want to fully support what Bertrand de la Chapelle has said.

The complementary comments of Stefan Lau for example new business model are advertised and this is a huge business model I have several -- and has several implications for all of the stakeholders.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Andrea?

       >> I have not checked if this person would be available.

But I would like to propose the name of a Lebanese woman based in Cairo, Jan (inaudible) who is the coordinator of something called the (inaudible) camp which is the capacity building and social networking initiative for Arab youth all over the north African region because I think it would be quite good to have somebody who works from young people and from the region I'm not sure if she's available but she's based in Cairo and I'm willing to follow up to see if she is.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Yes.

       >> Ana from CIS and India I want to strongly support the suggestion to also discuss the terms of reference of businesses and the large I can topic that Stefan indicated around it.

Also in the light of what do social media networks do in terms it of social citizenship and social fabric, et cetera, et cetera.

The second thing I want to point out is I think there's a big challenge for policy in terms it of a generation gap that's slowly growing where many people do for example not have the same notions of privacy anymore than older generations very similar and something that came out something very strongly in the EuroDIG current IP regimes are being seen as completely obsolete so people said explicitly you can legislate all that you want we know you can always access everything somewhere for free on the Internet.

So I think there is a big challenge for policy in terms it of are we going to create policy now that will be completely obsolete in ten years?

Are we going to take these opinions into account?

And how do we deal with this then and I think this is an important -- deal with this then and I think this is an important issue that should also be addressed.

       >>WAUDO SIGANGA:  Thank you,  Mr. Chairman.

I would like to just mention that there are quite a number of young people, some of them in my country Kenya.  I'm Waudo from Kenya.

There are quite a number of young people that are actually utilizing the social networks the social media to facilitate business and I think it would be a good idea to incorporate this aspect in the discussions that will come up in this particular session.

There's one particular young man.

I think I'll try to see how we can facilitate his coming to Sharm El Sheikh probably through the commonwealth setup.

So that he can be able to talk about -- or to give his inputs regarding a business that he has set up on Facebook called Barbatoto.com.

So I think that bringing to the attention of young people that these social networks can actually be used to facilitate business I think will be one way to encourage them to be able to attend and to participate.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

I've got Kapitsa, Andrea, Freud.

       >> The panel of emerging topics I would like to propose Mark Rutenburg as a given director of epic he has brought an understanding of new business model from the civil society point of view and emerging challenge what's involved in all of the discussion of internal services of a big social network.

Have brought to the understanding that all of the topics that Bertrand and Stefan have described so far.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Andrea, --

       >> Thank you (inaudible) from UNESCO.

I support almost all of the suggestions for the emerging of social networks we want to add from UNESCO a proposed workshop on information literacy and social network the information literacy aspect and how it's extremely important and relevant to be fully aware of the potentials and the risk of social networks and we would like to see it reflected in their main session.

And I want also to just remind that for our workshop, we are contacting local social networks.

Networks that not like apart from the global like Facebook there are some regionalized social networks.

And we want to see which are there approach towards protection of privacy and freedom of expression.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

Freud.

       >> Freud from Pakistan I would first like to support the recommendation of Mark rutenburg and secondly I would like to again say please include gender balance in this section emerging issues.

Because we want more balanced participation of which -- the developing countries, the gender, the youth.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Okay.

(Inaudible).

Where is she.

       >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Bertrand de la Chapelle from France.

But I'm afraid I have jumped somebody who was speaking before now.

No?

Just one question.

I did not understand whether there would be a panel on just an open discussion.

In that subject I would favor rather launching the discussion after the introduction and having interventions by people in the room according to those who are here.

The main challenge being not necessary to a set of panel -- not necessary to set up panelists but making sure in the room there are participants from the different categories.

And in this respect regarding social networks, some will be very willing to come and participate.

But there are some very large ones that are very difficult to get ahold of and we'll try to make an effort with the actors who are involved in the preparation of workshops to get people from major network and Facebook in particular, which is very difficult to get ahold of to show what is the benefit for them to participate in such a discussion.

Because in the case of the EuroDIG it was clear that the business actors who were -- business sectors who were there really took a benefit from the interaction.

There's one element I wanted also to share is that I fully support what Stefan was saying regarding business models because the business models are not only related to advertisement or to the copyright notion but to the privacy and data protection I mentioned.

Because a lot of the business models of the future could be based on behavioral targeting or user profiling, which is a very important element that has to be taken into account.

So being able to scope the different issues is important.

The last point I wanted to make, I don't know if there's somebody from the Council of Europe here.

But I know they are very interested in that subject.

And will be certainly contributing to the discussion, as well.

       >>NITIN DESAI: (Inaudible).

       >> Thank you, could I just ask Bertrand to clarify two things the three points was the sort of what is it.

I know the last was what are the governance issues.

What was the second.

       >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  The second is basically taking what I would call traditional policy issues, privacy protection, copyright regime in general and freedom of expression according to the different national laws.

And see whether they bring new problems or there are new solutions or new elements when we talk about social media as opposed to traditional media.

I'll give you a very concrete example.

If you take defamation or libel in terms of the national regulations on newspapers or whatever it is territorially based or much easier to address because there's a legal framework when you are doing it trans nationally on a social network and there's a permanency of the information on the web, repairing libel is sometimes more difficult this is the type of example and the last one maybe I was not clear, it's -- the theme is when we talk about governance is the governance of the social network like the regulation that can be applied to the social networks the last point that I think would be interesting is how the social networks themself organize their internal governance.

And the involvement of their users in particular.

       >> Yeah, sorry; Nitin, I just needed to clarify before the other comment I wanted to make.

Because I think what would add to that -- and I think that is a nice framework is how are people using social networks in light of those kinds of governance issues that we're aware of.

And which -- in which case I would certainly like to see someone like the young woman from Lebanon that Anriete spoke about but I think if we understand a little bit more about how people are using this in ways that are causing these challenges in terms of governance issues, that's going to make the whole governance thing more -- have more traction I think.

And I'm still not clear on the structure, whether you're talking about one person sort of laying that out or we have a series of people dealing with those different elements of the introduction.

But in any case, I do think Mark Rutenburg from Epic would be an excellent person to help us work through some of the implications of governance issues.

I mean they have been working on it for a very long time now and I think he would be an excellent speaker.

       >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  I'm Christine Arida from Egypt and I think we do need a panel in this session because I think the experience in last year and the year before have shown a good panel with good moderation with back and forth discussion from the floor could be very attractive.

But I wanted to mention one topic that I'm not sure if it was mentioned before.

I think we also need to look at social networks in relation to mobility.

And all the policy implications that may also affect the different business models of those social networks.

So maybe this is one topic that could be added.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Could I suggest that I think I need to wind up -- wind this up.

We have about five minutes but we'll try -- first I think we do not have a panel in the full sense.

But we do need some people to make some initial statements.

In fact, this very conversation has suggested it's necessary to have some initial statements and we will have a lot of people there some names have been suggested for people here.

And again I suggest today afternoon a smaller group sit down and try to come down to a set of maybe three or four names of people who can contribute to framing a discussion on this including on the business model side as was referred by Stefan.

I think the report that was made by Ginger about remote participation.

And I would urge the group also to see the possibility of actually having somebody participate as a panelist from the remote youth hub.

Because we actually anticipated that in what we discussed last time.

I think we should also -- we really make a conscious effort here to get younger people engaged in this process in some form.

Whether it's panelists:  Whether it's source persons or whatever.

So we do need a moderator and we haven't given much talk to this.

And my feeling is that it's possibly the same sort of person that as you look at the set of people who you think will be able to help in the overall discussion.

And then say:  Okay.

Of these people we will ask X to be the moderator.

Request X to be the moderator.

Who would guide the discussion.

And help to focus it.

So it will probably be part of the same process of getting down to that list of names and then saying okay this person out of this list of four we will treat as a moderator.

So here the moderator is more like a co-panelist.

But is given a certain role in organizing the discussion.

Okay.

I think we have more or less done our work on the main sessions.

Because now what we are left with is the closing session.

And I think in the afternoon I suggest that we sit down and -- yes?

       >>ANDREA SAKS: Do you want the captioning after lunch?

       >> I'm not sure whether we have the financing.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: I think we will be okay.

I've got a cover if it goes over the figure that she's got.

So would you like captioning if they can do it and we have to ask Cindy.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: It's basically an organizational issue.

As we'll break into groups, there will be nothing to caption.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: Then you don't need captioning.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: I was just going to say maybe can I say a few words on the revised schedule of workshops so that can be captioned, also, for a wider audience.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: Fine.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: We have had a large number of requests.

Some of them pointing out to obvious areas in the scheduling such as we had three competing workshops dealing with CCTLDs at the same time we also had requests pointing out that speakers would not be available because they had clashing slots.

So we managed to correct all these.

And we did wherever it was possible also take up requests for different slots.

But we were not able to accommodate all the requests.

The some of them are just nice to have.

Someone said no I prefer my workshops to be in the morning.

People are more awake in the morning than in the afternoon.

       (Chuckles.)

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: This sort of thing.

It's impossible to accommodate all of the micro planning.

And obviously many of these requests are very sensible that some workshops wanted to be upstream of the related main session which is one of our general principles we try to follow.

But it is just physically not possible as also some of the sessions are too early.

So I call on you all to bear with us that we were not able to accommodate all of these requests.

The updated schedule is posted on our web site.

The changes it necessitated may have led to other clashes.

If you notice one of these problems, please get back to us.

But again I urge you only if you have overriding concern we will not be able to accommodate the nice to have requests.

But we will look at it very seriously, if it creates a real problem in the sense that panelists would not be available because they have to leave early or arrive late and so on.

Or if you have direct clashes.

So please check it and make sure that it's in the right slot.

If you see any problem, get back to us and we will try to do our best to correct the list.

But I think looking at it now it looks fairly solid as a schedule.

Thank you.

       >>NITIN DESAI: So I think in the afternoon then we will meet in smaller groups perhaps even in parallel if you like and try to get down to this list of a smaller more focused list of people.

So we have not more than three or four people for these.

So that's it.

So we have really done our work on the main sessions.

On the scheduling of the workshops.

We now have to do the actual names.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: I was going to suggest maybe we should try and set up the groups and find leads for the various issues already announced so that the people can then decide freely when they want to get back and where to go.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Would you like to have a bash at that.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: We have I think the critical Internet resources.

The it is fairly set.

But I feel that the moderators may wish to develop this a bit further.

Chris is not in the room but Jeanette is still here.

So whoever has anything to say on the critical Internet resources, follow Jeanette.

And up to you to say where you want to be and where to start.

On the other issues, we had various interest expressed.

We have volunteers who would like to be the openness -- security openness privacy.

Do we have any volunteers who would like to take the lead? 

Kapitsa?

Would you like to make a suggestion of when to be back after lunch?

It's quarter past 1 now.

       >> Is there anyone who (inaudible) --

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: I'm sure we'll find quite a lot of interest in this session.

We come back here but we don't need to be back here at the same time.

       >> I won't do it immediately.

       >> What I suggested is that we come here and maybe work in subgroups in corners.

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: That's the idea.

       >>NITIN DESAI: I don't think we'll be able to do this in five minutes now.  Why don't you resemble here.

Let's see 2:30?

2:30 okay.

That gives you about an hour for lunch or if you want 2:15.

Yeah?

       >>MARKUS KUMMER: If there's a need to split in small groups, we can provide other rooms.

       >>NITIN DESAI: That's very kind of you but I think they can probably manage here.

But if this is necessary -- what I suggest is we just come here and you just make it three big groups.

One, two, three.

And Markus can float between them and take care of things.

Okay.

So Kapitsa is one.

Bertrand can take one.

And access, I mean . . . thank you very much.

We'll see you all in Sharm El Sheikh.

       >>ANDREA SAKS: Thank you for the captioning, Cindy.

       >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you for the captioning.

       (Applause).

       >>NITIN DESAI: For the lunch we have informed the canteen of what's going on today so if you want to go upstairs instead of going outside, it would be welcome.

Thank you.

                 (Background talking.)

(Session ended at 6:19 a.m. CST)

***

This text is being provided in a rough draft format.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

***