[governance] Transcript of discussion at IGF Open Consultations

[Pranesh Prakash]

Pranesh Prakash [2013-02-28 17:45]:
> Pranesh Prakash [2013-02-28 13:06]:
>>
>> Transcript from Pre-lunch discussions on Day 1 of the IGF Open
>> Consultations.
> 
> The full transcript of Day 1 of the IGF Open Consultations.

Pre-lunch transcript from Day 2 of the IGF Open Consultations.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
-------------- next part --------------
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.Quicktext.Com** 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.Quicktext.Com***. 
[ this is a test of the scribing ] ***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.Quicktext.Com***. 
>>chengetai masango: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Shall we start the mag meeting? Thank you very much. I want to hand over the floor to the honorary chair to start the meeting. Thank you. 
>>ashwin sasoneko: distinguished guests, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning to all of you. This is the -- as we discussed yesterday, this is the mag meeting for discussing the next igf meeting in bali. 
I understand that to this agenda we will see the preparation -- presentation for the next igf meeting from any -- from the logistic sites, so i hope during the presentation we can also discuss the logistics sites, what we discussed yesterday, and perhaps some plus and minuses from the previous igfs so we can have a better igf meetings from the logistics side. 
And of course after that, we will discuss the agenda to discuss the substance of the igf, and after three days of wsis and yesterday open consultations, hopefully we can have a better substance to be discussed as well as organizing the discussion of the substance better. 
Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, i hope we can start as soon as possible and we have to conclude also at the end of the meeting to conclude also what we have before then we have the next mag meeting in geneva, hopefully, to finalize everything. 
So i would like to pass the discussion to the chair of the discussions, mr. Markus kummer. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Maybe let's start with a couple of housekeeping issues. Today we don't have interpretation, and people have asked whether we could maybe reduce the lunch hour to one hour and stop one hour earlier, as many people have planes to catch. 
So unless i see violent objection, then i would assume that we have an agreement that we work till 12:30, have one hour lunch break, and resume at half past 1:00 and we conclude at 4:30, so we have plenty of time to go to the airport. 
There is one issue which i mentioned briefly yesterday. That is the dates of the may consultation which in principle have been agreed on, but many mag members pointed out that hotels in geneva are -- hotel rooms are difficult to get by, and those who actually managed to get them, they can be very, very expensive, because there are other meetings there. 
Now, however some people have already made arrangements, so i wonder whether we can agree whether we -- either -- it's a binary choice. Either we keep the dates or we go for new dates and the new dates would have to be, i think, in june. Jocken from the european broadcasting union has said he would check availability of the rooms in the ebu, but i wonder could we have maybe a show of hands who would be violently opposed -- understandably i -- some people have already made arrangements and cancelling/changing arrangements is usually not cost-neutral and can also be an annoyance. 
Who would be violently opposed to changing the dates, just to have an idea? 
>> (speaker is off microphone.) 
>>chair kummer: well, we would have to look at -- do we have tentative dates for june? I think it would be back-to-back with the cstd or -- 
We have this discussion some months ago, i think, and because there's plenty of meetings in may, and some people said "no, this doesn't work because it's back-to-back with that and we cannot have that." yes, raul, please. 
>>raul echeberria: i have already my arrangements for attending the meeting in may. I have no problems for booking in the hotel. In fact, i know that some people have booked today without any problem. But -- so i'm open to change the date, but depending on the date. Yes. 
So it's -- if you have a concrete alternative, but tunis -- there are other commitments in june, so if it is the first week of june, it is okay, or the last week of may. If we delay the meeting one or two weeks, okay, more, i'm -- 
>>chair kummer: okay. And let's wait until (saying name) gets back to us with proposals of concrete dates and let's revisit that, hopefully before the end of the day we will have a decision. And thank you very much for that. 
Now, what is the -- that's also actually linked to when we have the date. It's basically what we ought to have at the end of the day is a clear time line of how to move forward. That is deadlines for submitting workshops and so on, deadlines -- 
Also, we have the igf village then presumably again we had the past. That sort of deadline ought to be fixed in relation to the meeting. They have to be well ahead of the next meeting. 
We don't need to agree on anything today. I think with ought to agree on the time line, but i think we had a very good discussion yesterday. Many interesting proposals were mentioned for main themes, overall themes of the meeting. 
There was a strong notion of themes that should be addressed by the meeting. I think science and technology for development was supported by several people. Human rights had strong support. Internet principles. Enhanced cooperation. Multistakeholder principles as well. And best-best practices. 
Also internet as engine for growth and advancement. All -- one proposal, i think it was mervi that had strong support from several delegations, enhancing multistakeholder collaboration for growth, development, and human rights. Internet cooperation was mentioned. Building bridges. And a lot of support for focus on cybersecurity, also for linking security and human rights. Support for dealing with young people, children. 
The point was made that should be a horizontal issue that should be brought into all sessions. Spam was mentioned by various -- many people as an important issue also, in light of the discussions in dubai in december. 
Internet exchange points. It has been with us in the igf, i think, since the very beginning. 
Public access was also mentioned. 
As i said, i don't think we need to agree on that, but i think it would be helpful if we convey that these are possible themes that have some strong support or that would guide those who are thinking of workshops, but of course a call for workshops should not preclude any other themes. 
Some workshop proponents may wish to address. 
And there was a lot of discussion, i think, on the format of the main session, a strong notion that past formats is maybe not the right way forward as people many found it, at current, stale. 
The three-hour slots could be shortened into two 90-minute slots, for instance, as three-hour panels are long panels. 
Clearly there was, i think, strong support for more interactive sessions and for maybe also experimenting with new formats. Roundtables were mentioned, like the roundtable we had last year, which brought together workshops on one given issue, and that proposal was made that maybe the last sessions could deal in a roundtable format with workshops that have been proposed -- had been held in the previous days. 
And there was a lot of support for being brave and experimenting with new formats like poster sessions, bird of feather sessions, while at the same time i think maintaining formats that governments find a little bit easier to engage in very strong support was for a better integration of regional igfs. That, i think, has been a common theme for the past few years but we haven't found yet the right format for doing so, and i think in terms of organizing the meeting, i think more or less everybody agreed that it is important to have a newcomer session to introduce newcomers to the igf, and i think also kind of a taking stock session at the end of the meeting. 
There was, i think, proposals were made for keeping open a session for really emerging issues. That is, issues that have emerged either during the igf itself or the weeks before, so that we have a slot where we can address burning issues, so to speak. 
And, yeah, that's, i think as far as the discussions on the main sessions. 
On the workshops, i think at the end of the discussion, there was agreement that we should keep the slots at 90 minutes, as -- yes, you need some time to get started and some time to clear up, and 90 minutes, to most, seemed to be the appropriate time. 
There was no agreement on the number of workshops. Some were in favor of making really strong -- taking a strong cap on the numbers, whereas others pointed out that it is workshops that bring in participants, as many people might find it difficult to have periods sign onto a travel requests if they don't get a speaking slot. 
But there was, i think, a strong sense that maybe the mag should have a tighter control with the selection of workshops, but not only at the front end, also at the back end. 
The feedback, quality of control of workshops that we have to find may be a formula that we really have a score sheet, how many people participate in the workshop, was it really interactive, were the panels indeed diverse, so that we have a little bit of an idea of how it went. 
In the past, we don't -- we haven't had that. 
Now, to integrate the workshops with the main session, i think there was considerable discussion on that, and i think also general agreement that in the past whatever we tried, it didn't really work that well, so the -- i think the roundtable idea of bringing people together who organized a similar workshop, that could indeed be the way to generate discussions. And yes, of course, we had also a discussion on implementing the cstd working group on improvements and i think there was a general agreement that the mag -- that we have to take this very seriously, and this would, in many ways, be a horizontal issue guiding our preparations for the bali meeting. 
This is my reading of yesterday's discussions. Before opening the floor, maybe we also need to agree on the rules of the game, on the rules of engagement, at today's meeting. We said it would be an open meeting, but i think, as far as i understand, the mag has developed last year a way to proceed that mag members are given precedence and then the nonmembers can come in at the end of an agenda item. 
Is that correct, chengetai? 
>> (speaker is off microphone.) 
>>chair kummer: okay. So that seems to be a correct interpretation of last year's rule of engagement, and i suggest keeping those. I think it's important to be open and inclusive, but at the same time the mag members have a clear responsibility and they should be given the preference -- precedence. 
I wonder, should we -- if the bali -- the indonesian presentation, would you be ready or should we start with that? 
>>ashwin sasoneko: yes. 
>>chair kummer: shall we start with that? Okay. Why don't we start with the show, please. 
>> good morning. First of all, thank you, chair, for giving us the opportunity to present our preparations as hosts of the eighth meeting for the igf, 2013, in bali, indonesia. 
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, in this opportunity, i am -- and my team would like to present the preparation process and the logistical aspects for the eighth meeting of the igf 2013 in bali, indonesia. 
First of all, i'd like also to extend my appreciation for the letter of confidence from the undesa for accepting indonesia as the hosts of the eighth igf meeting in bali, indonesia. 
There are three main sections in this presentation. First of all, is the process of the igf preparation which leads to the (indiscernible) internet governance forum of we call it idigf. 
The second thing is the information concerning the venue of the igf 2013, and then the third one is the welcoming address. 
First of all, reflect the multistakeholders principles, we will do the (indiscernible) multistakeholder principle in these presentations. It will be done by three speakers. The first one is i -- me, myself, (saying name) -- representative of the governments, mag members, and the second presenters will be represented by mr. Sammy (saying name) from the isp, india nearby you know internet service provider association. And uh third presentation is by the private sector." 
Ms. (saying name) from the id config. 
This is the structure of the indonesian internet governance forum known as idigf and (indiscernible) igf. 
As you can see, the structure of the idigf consists of government side, name ministry, and then also ministry of foreign affairs and national ict council, and then the business of private sector from indonesian internet service provider association and indonesian ict federation, (saying name) association, (saying name) association, et cetera. And then flip one from the civil society id config, and (indiscernible). Before we made a commitment to propose as a host of the eighth igf meeting 2013, we have made several public consultations process as an implementation of the multistakeholderism principles. 
The public consultations were starting in 2010 with discussions with stakeholders. 
In early 2011, freedom house came to indonesia to share experience in internet governance forums when we meet the transition of the igf book authored by mr. Jovan kobe a luigi a, to indonesian language in 2011 (indiscernible) stakeholders. 
After that, many discussions had been made including in november 2012 when we declare the establishment of indonesian internet governance forum, also known as idigf. 
In the follow-up to that, a series of meetings to propose igf 2013, the preparation include the (indiscernible) from undesa, mr. Slav slava and igf secretariat, mr. Chengetai, on january 30 to february 4th, 2013, and mr. Slava and mr. Chengetai had met with our preparation team. Officials from minister -- ministry of ict, minister of foreign affairs, national ict council police department, in gentleman character a and also in bali. 
And after that, we have just received the concurrent letter from the usg director-general undesa stated that based on our offer and the assessment (indiscernible) report, the undesa has accepted our offer as the host of the eighth meeting of igf in 2013. 
The venue of the igf 2013 meeting is in bali, indonesia, and the tentative schedule for the igf 2013 is 21st to 25th of november 2013, where on the 21st -- that is a monday -- we prepare for preparation process for 30 sessions and also plus another side event, high-level meeting, and the 22nd to 25th is the real igf meeting. And because of the (indiscernible) 24th is the u.N. Day, so we try to use that day to become the (indiscernible). 
And the next presenter of information of the venue, i'd like to give the floor to mr. Sammy (saying name), please. 
>> thank you, mr. (saying name). Thank you, mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Before i am starting my presentation about the venue, i'd like to express my gratitude specifically for mr. Robert guerra, who has been helping us on the capacity-building in 2011, how to open-dialogue on the multistakeholder. This has really, really helped us. And this will help understanding the multistakeholder outlook, how to conduct a -- open dialogue on the multistakeholder. And also, i'd like to express my gratitude to mr. Jovan carb a luigi a (indiscernible) translate the book. This book extremely help us in understanding what is the internet governance forum -- internet governance itself. 
Okay now i'm starting with my presentation on the venue. 
So the venue will be taking place in nusa-dua. Surrounding the venue, as we see, there is 42 hotels started from the 5-star hotel to the 2-star hotel, and then the other end of the venue from the hotel is from the walking distance to 15 minutes by taxi. Next? 
So this is the -- the venue we located. We have 20 more rooms that can be capable of whatever agenda that we are going to decide on this mag meeting, and you can see we also can -- yesterday we discussed what -- how the format (indiscernible) with the roundtable discussion, we can also form the venue into the roundtable discussion. 
Next. 
This is the facility, and then we also on the facility, we have a very large corridor that can be used for the booth -- for the -- from the organizations that we will use. 
Next. 
This is the form -- the layout of the venue. Can -- if you all can see that we have -- the venue is very close by, so the movement from one classroom to other classroom will be very easy. 
Next. 
And then this is the -- so from the big one for the plenary and then we -- and then the -- and the five other large rooms for the bigger class. 
Next. This is also -- this is the smallest class. Next. 
This is another -- medium classes that can be used also. Beside the total classes that the venue has, they also have many rooms for the office that can also be used for the undesa and all of the igf delegation. 
Next. This is the -- how we can set the room. 
Next. So this facility function will be meeting rooms and the 50 vip rooms and we also have vip rooms if some of the -- maybe the president or the secretary of the united nations will come, we also can handle that. 
Next. 
Next, the presentation is -- will be done by civil society through the video, so i'd like you to enjoy this. 
[ video starts 
>> the discussion of the internet governance forum started in 2010. I.D. Igf was in november 2012. It was based on the stakeholders that was the government, the citizen id, the private sectors, that the internet is not just technical matters but also to talk about matter like law, security, human rightses, freedom of expression (indiscernible). It also requires active participation from all the stakeholders. With (indiscernible) as our background, we are, therefore, uniting a truly multistakeholder forum in hosting the igf 2013. The initiative is also intended to showcase the good practices that has been happening in emerging countries. The new model for hosting the global igf also requires a new approach of the event. Therefore, the idigf members are looking for assistance, support from the later government, an international organization, private sectors to support the igf 2013. We welcome your support and we also welcome you to bali in october 2013. We hope that your busy discussion on internet governance you are still able to enjoy the beautiful island of bali. See you there. 
>> okay. That concludes or presentation. Thank you very much for your attention. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much for this presentation. I wonder whether there are any questions, comments, from the floor? I see bill drake, please, and judy. 
>>bill drake: i was just wondering if the workshop rooms are separate rooms with walls between them? Or if it will again be a situation where you've got a large space that's been split up by sort of thin dividers and people have to listen with headphones in order to hear each other? 
>>chair kummer: i'm told they are separate rooms. 
Judy? Judy? 
>> thank you, thank you, markus. I'm worried about the accessibility of the venue. I didn't see any accessibility issues being addressed. 
>> thank you, the accessibility for the handicapped, we have it also on the venue. The venue also provide that. 
>>chengetai masango: when we went there, we check accessibility of the venue and also hotel rooms. There are hotel rooms available with accessibility features in them so we got that covered. 
>>zahid jamil: that was faster than usual. Thank you. I just wanted to ask. There was an incident in baku where i was told there was some documentation made available for the status of the internet in baku. And what i wondered was some u.N. Rule had been violated. I would like to get some more clarity about what it was that went wrong so participants didn't repeat that if there was a rule that was violated. 
Secondly, what would be the impact of similar publications being made available at the next igf? 
>>chair kummer: thank you. This is a complex question. The host country agreement the u.N. Concludes with the host country guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for words spoken or written in the conference. But it does not guarantee that you can take in whatever you would like into the conference facilities. And u.N. Has the ultimate authority what documents -- written documentation is being distributed. 
Now, the rules -- that's what the rules say. And there is established practice and tradition, but there is no written rules. The incident you're referring to was dealt with based on past practices as handled in u.N. Premises in geneva. 
We have also evolved a bit in the igf context. You were in athens, i remember that. 
[ laughter ] 
And in athens, we did have some, shall we put it, vigorous discussions. And there was quite a bit of naming and shaming both with regard to countries but also companies. We did have reactions to that, and there was the general feeling expressed that it might be better for the igf to refrain from singling out individual countries or companies. 
And we have a member we have refused, for instance, contribution that single that they provided -- we said we cannot accept that. There was a lot of shouting going on with the offer. But then we agreed it and the offer renamed it, instead of naming the company addressed the problem in a more generic way. 
I think we also encouraged in past sessions not to single out countries pointing fingers at companies but, rather, discussing issues. 
And we also -- there was, you will recall, one incident are in sharm el-sheikh. We had also, i think, in the past because we precisely did not want to be censors, said don't put up posters all together. Remember in rio, for instance, we told the private company that had organized the pre-event in the premises (audio dropped out) -- banners, you are not allowed to make commercial publicity for your company. You are allowed, of course, to have the meeting. The meeting was not the commercial concern but it was a meeting on open standards. 
Okay. We can discuss whether this is a good way to proceed or not. But, again, we have to bear in mind that we are meeting in an u.N. Context and ultimately it will be member-states that will decide whether the igf is an experiment worth continuing. 
And the question is -- i mean, there are various other issues. We have established a practice of an igf village. But the booths are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. So it is not so that every organization has an automatic right to get a booth. And there are also limitations to the number of booths. And that is the host country that will see how many booths will be made available. 
I think that's all i have to say on this particular issue. You would like to come back, zahid? 
>>zahid jamil: just wanted to get -- maybe not now, maybe separately, i don't know. But it may be helpful for people to know what are the sort of -- as an example for this to avoid because i don't know exactly. I personally don't know what was in that document. And that may be helpful either to avoid it or they can discuss whether or not that's a good thing. But it will at least inform people as to what to do or not. 
I'm trying to be helpful. 
>>chair kummer: yes, thank you. I haven't seen it myself. But apparently it was on the practices in the host country. It was uniquely on the host country. Now, if you have, for instance, i think -- google has an annual thing of some state or censorship of the internet globally and the map. I think that would -- there would be no objection based on u.N. Practices on something that addresses the more generic issues. 
But just focus on country or one company, no. Why this company is evil, i think, we will consider this as not appropriate. 
Now, i do know there are passionate views held about this. But then again, i would like to recall that in the end in 2015, there will be member-states who will take a decision whether the mandate should be renewed or not. And if we go against the practices that are normally used in the u.N. Context, we may have to bear the consequences. It's open for discussion. 
Mervi, you were the first to put up the flag. 
>> mervi kultamaa: thank you very much and good morning to everybody. I would also like to thank our indonesian hosts for the briefing and for the very inspiring video. 
I think we can trust indonesia as a very experienced host of big international meetings. And i look forward to coming to bali. 
I was especially encouraged to see that even the (indiscernible) rooms permit more innovative arrangements than what we have had before in the main sessions such as roundtable formats. 
But my question is about the high level event which is forcing to take place one day before the actual opening of the igf. I know it has been the tradition that the host country is in charge of the arranging the event. But i hope it will be arranged at a truly multistakeholder format on equal footing and hopefully there will be much attention given to what kind of topic will be discussed there and that it will be well-defined beforehand because it is really the selection of the topic which is very much linked to what kind of high-level representatives we get to bali and what kind of attention it attracts. 
Personally, i hope that we could bring more parliamentarians this year than perhaps in the recent years and hopefully the international parliamentarian union, the ipu, could help us in this manner. 
I know before they have organized some kind of briefings in very knee have a for parliamentarians. I attended one of them which was very good. 
So once we know the focus of the high-level event and we know a little bit more about the substance, i hope that we could attract parliamentarians as well. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I wonder whether you or a member of your delegation would like to comment on the high-level event. 
>>ashwin sasoneko: yeah. We do also plan to make the so-called roundtable. Plan it on the 21st because igf will be on 22, 23. We will do it one day in advance. Okay. That's what we plan today. We can ask (saying name) if you can say more about the plan. It is understood this is not an igf event but it was arranged by the delegation group. 
Please. 
>> thank you. The actual igf meeting is on the 22nd through 25th as i told you before. And the 21st is we added for high-level meeting. We just try to plan that the high-level meeting would be an asia-pacific high-level meeting but it is not decided yet. For the question about the rooms, the first question, i think there is no problem for the rooms because it is a conference center company. Right now they are still building another venue. Same thing as right now, the venue right now. So the rooms will be developed -- will be ready in august because it will be used by apoc (phonetic) meeting in the first week in august. It is about 20,000 attendees for the apoc meeting. So it will be used from the 20th to 25th. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: i also noted as mervi did in the presentation the big roundtable setting. It is obviously attractive if you have have roundtable workshops. The question will be if it is able to change the configuration in short time. That's a detail chengetai and the host country will sort out. 
There are other people. Anriette, andrei, izumi and i think you have remote participants. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: i just wanted to echo the comments about the pre-event. I think it's challenging but on the one hand, it is really good to get high-level representation from governments because it does add to the stature of the igf. But it is also important to get people from governments who actually stay for the entire event and were not so senior that they have to rush home immediately after the high-level event because we really do need more, particularly developing country participation in the igf. 
So i think the selection of topics and maybe the selection of -- or the planning of more sort of practical problem-solving events either inside the igf or also as pre-events that can attract and be useful to governments. 
I think on the issue of the distribution of material, i think, markus, your points about the future of the igf and risks to that are really relevant. But i think those risks run both ways. Think, one, it is important not to alienate governments in the u.N.-decision-making system. It is also important not to alienate the global community and the internet community which does value the free flow of information and very highly. 
And i think the world has changed as well. What happens in the internet universe, or the world post-internet, and we have seen that with wiki leaks and other instances like that, that information is restricted in one place, its dissemination explodes in another. I'm not sure how effective those protocol which is have polite intentions, how effective those protocols are and they might actually create more tension and more feelings of being persecuted than just letting things be. 
And i do think that while you've explained to us the context, what we found in baku was that for newcomers to the process, that subtly is actually really difficult to use as guidelines. I do think we need something that is going to have to be -- either you have to be a little bit more open and let things be -- (audio buffering) -- more guidelines. I think we find it difficult at the time to not have any written guidelines available to refer to. So it is still a little bit unresolved. 
>>chair kummer: i agree. And i think in the past, that was maybe not communicated well enough. And i think it was chairman malcolm who made the point in baku that if the mag was actually doing that, discussed the basic framework. 
But, as i said, it has a certain history and no naming/shaming was the result of the first session. There was a clear feeling if you go down that way, we end up in a (indiscernible). 
(saying name). 
>> this is (saying name) kelly from freedom host. First, i would like to congratulate indonesia on that wonderful presentation on for truly embracing the spirit of multistakeholderism. I was quite encouraged by the presentation and i look forward to working with indonesia in the coming several months. 
I would like to echo a couple points that were made before and one has to do with some of these written rules. As anriette mentioned particularly for newcomers and newcomers from civil society, it is very important that they feel that they can participate on equal footing with some of the other members. So having the situation where they felt one stakeholder had decision-making power over what other stakeholders can distribute was kind of a weird dynamic at the time. Of course, we acknowledge that the rules exist and i'm also, like my colleagues, trying to be helpful in trying to figure out how to best go about it. I would also like to stress the importance of making these rules transparent and clear and putting them on the web site if that's also helpful. 
I will tell you from the experience of freedom house which has been involved with the u.N. Process since the very beginning, considering that eleanor roosevelt is one of our founders, even for us it was confusing at times because when it came to that particular literature that was mentioned, at certain points, even freedom house put on our table and then we were told not to hold it there. So even for an experienced organization, it was a bit difficult to really truly navigate in terms of what's permitted or not. 
For example, for us, you know, since we have worked with the u.N. For a number of decades, we notice that even within the u.N. There are different rules. For example, whether something is permitted within a particular session or whether something is permitted to be distributed in the hallways or in the village and so forth. So having that clarity is very important. 
My second point has to do with the participation of local organizations and local stakeholders. One thing that was very apparent in baku was that, for example, in a single civil society organization from azerbaijan was given a booth in the village. I understand that the number of booths is limited and there is a preference given to international stakeholders and organizations. But not having that local presence was truly missed. And i think it was also a bit of a missed opportunity to allow that voice. 
And just finally in terms of logistics, my third question has to do about the current site in indonesia and whether there are going to be enough rooms for bilateral meetings because i know in the past that has sometimes -- sometimes been challenging to navigate the side meetings that a lot of different stakeholders like to organize. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Just one correction, it is not that one stakeholder group has control over the document. It is the u.N. It is u.N. Staff that basically under the u.N. Rules has the responsibility. 
The problem is these rules are rather vague. So it is based on past practices and i think you pointed out rightly that there are different practices in different parts of the organization. 
As far as i know, i was not involved there at all. But the staff member who took the decision took this decision based on his experience in the u.N. In geneva. 
But i would like to ask chengetai to comment because there is under the "frequently asked questions," there are some notions on the web site of what documentation is allowed. 
Please, chengetai. 
>>chengetai masango: yes. We do have something under the "frequently asked questions." this can be expanded and also -- i don't know if you have got any ideas how to make it more prominent. One of the other problems is that we've got so many things that we would like to make prominent, we don't know exactly where to put everything. 
On the web site under the "frequently asked questions," we have just a short question on the distribution of materials and written materials and documentation can be distributed at the designated areas of the igf venue. 
We found out that in most venues, we have materials being distributed, let's say, at the lunch area, et cetera. We would like to stop that and only confine it -- not for censorship purposes, just for tidiness and neatness purposes -- to designated areas. 
Documentation related to the workshops subject matters can be distributed in the workshop rooms and should be removed by the workshop organizer at the end of the workshop session. I think that's fairly clear why we say that. 
Organizations that are holding a booth in the igf village can also distribute materials at their booth. Materials found in non-designated areas will be removed immediately. 
Their distribution of materials should be internet governance related of noncommercial nature. The documents should follow u.N. Guidelines on suitability and should be blatantly -- should not be blatantly inflammatory or potential libelous and actions and arguments should be criticized based on their merit and not their source. 
Of course, we can't really set very precise rules because some of these things are a matter of judgment as well. But we'll try and expand it and do something that's better. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
(saying name), you have a remote participant, i think? 
>>remote intervention: i received this remote e-mail intervention from jeremy malcolm which is related to the distribution of material. At the baku igf meeting, concerns were expressed by a number of participants about constraints on freedom of expression at the meeting following from the seizure of certain civil society publications by u.N. Staff. This recalled a similar incident at the previous igf meeting when u.N. Staff removed a poster at a civil society book lunch event. 
As a measure toward preventing similar incidents in the future, chengetai masango accepted my suggestion in baku that a written set of guidelines be provided for discussion by the igf community that would clearly delineate the u.N.'s view of the acceptable bounds of both written and oral communications at igf events. 
I would like to know what is the current status of the preparation of these written guidelines. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Whether or not you can hang up a poster has nothing to do with freedom of expression, that it has something to do with whether or not you allow people to put posters all over the place or not. And there are certain rules like the u.N. Says. Drinks are not allowed in the room. And i see a bottle of water. I don't know if that's allowed in unesco or not. But in geneva they say no drinks are allowed in the room or sandwiches. There are certain rules the host is allowed, i think, to impose and enforce. Thus chengetai said, it is a question also of tidiness of the facilities. 
But, yes, okay. I think we're working on these rules and expanding. 
Yes, jeff? 
>>jeff brueggeman: i think a suggestion might be to issue clear guidelines in this particular case with this facility, what will be the designated area so there is no confusion ahead of time. That might help. 
And then chengetai, the guidelines you read, you have a substantive component. So it might also help to clarify what is the process for getting content reviewed so that -- my impression from not being directly involved, the word gets out about the arbitrary decision about the material not fitting the guidelines. It might help to reassure people if they knew what the process was, if something is going to be removed on substantive grounds as opposed to being posted in th>>chair kummer: thank you. Yeah, i mean, i certainly agree with anriette, that these practices were established well ahead of wikileaks, and times, they are a changin', and quite often, actually, by imposing these rules, it has the opposite effect. It actually amplifies the issue which nobody would have noticed. 
I do remember in the wsis one in geneva, there was the cohost, tunisia. They went around, taking documents they saw in the exhibition part. I mean, that was the old government. That did not have a stellar record on freedom of expression. 
But as i said, i think the times, they are a changin', and we have to see how we can adapt our practices, i think, to this evolving situation. 
But, you know, the action of naming and shaming, and i'm sure the business community would agree to that, that you would, for instance, not consider it helpful if single companies are -- individual companies are singled out for practices. However, if there is a report on business practices that addresses a global issue, then it's slightly different than an inflammatory leaf let singling out one particular company. 
Izumi? 
>>izumi aizu: thank you, chair. Yes, i'd like to echo what jeremy and jeff pointed out. I'm not talking about the substance of the rules, but procedure. 
I think igf is a place for innovation from the very beginning, even under the u.N. Framework, and also we are a sort of multistakeholder setup, that the rule-making process itself is very important. And i also suggest that are the secretary will prepare a document well before the next may consultation meeting, not only to the mag but for the world, and so that we don't have to repeat the same argument, you know, again and again. 
That's my one sentence. 
My second sentence is about this -- first of all, i'd like to really commend indonesia to kindly offer a very pragmatic and great opportunity in bali. Being familiar with the geography and the area, to some extent the participation from the southeast -- or south and east asia to igf hasn't been really as much as what we wanted to, with the exception of perhaps hyderabad where we had more than 30% from asia. 
So -- and we have a lot of ldcs and pacific islands near indonesia, so it would offer a very good opportunity for them to sort of participate into the multistakeholder igf, so. 
-- 
And i also really see that indonesia is almost exceptionally well exercising the multistakeholder thing. Ngos, isp associations, businesses and the governments together working, so i really would like to see it to be recognized by the other regional folks as well. 
As for the high-level meeting which was also discussed, i share the concern that although i understand it very well, it's a sort of host country's prerogative, if not the host government's, although it is called as a ministerial and it may be that the devil might be in the details, not in the other areas, but i'd like to suggest if -- as much as possible to try to stick to the multistakeholder principle, if they carry igf as a title of the meeting, and so sometimes i think it's better to have a little bit more transparency, openness. We don't know who is -- if it is -- in my understanding, it's by invitation only. This is the past practice. Some of the civil society members and the business people outside the government are invited while others are not. And we don't know how it happens. 
Of course you have the freedom to select. But if you could make some way to share this process or as well as the substance or result to all igf participants, not a secret meeting but a well architected meeting output, that would be very helpful for the -- continuing the discussions. 
Finally, also i'd like to encourage some of the high-level officials, they come to the high-level meeting, they may come to the open ceremony. That's it. 
I experienced that with my delegation last year -- well, previous years -- and we tried very hard to get them to come to our sessions, main session, and they said "sorry, you know, my schedule is -- i have to fly out in the afternoon of the opening ceremony, can't really stay." 
So in the spirit of the multistakeholder openness, i'd like to really encourage the next high-level meeting to try to come up with some of the ways -- maybe the details -- so that they can engage in longer and deeper with us. 
Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
I think there is a strong message coming from the room encouraging you to make the opening session -- the pre-event ministerial as multistakeholder as possible. From and there's also -- i think we had a good discussion, and chengetai has some homework for the may meeting to elaborate a little bit more on the rules for documentation in -- at the igf in bali. 
Would you like to comment? I think we have concluded the discussion on your presentation and i think you saw everybody is remember happy and excited and looking forward to coming to bali. 
>>ashwin sasoneko: yeah. Thank you. First of all, as was mentioned, the igf meeting will be held just after the apick meeting, so we have -- we'll host the apick first, and then we host the igf, so hopefully the organizers will have better facilities and so on to do the apic meeting, which hosts something like 20,000 or so people with so many (indiscernible) coming. 
Now, secondly, all the inputs are well taken and of course we have to consult how we will arrange the -- the high-level meetings or if it looks like it's still in the preparations so all your notes, all your inputs are well taken as a high-level meetings that we will have one day before the igf. 
Now, secondly, we will of course as your proposed how to hold the high-level government officials to stay and involve and getting more involved in the -- what's it called -- igf meetings and so on, where we will do our best. I mean, i cannot promise you that one minister will stay for three days or so. I mean, that's, of course, beyond my capabilities. But what we will do is that we will propose -- we will promote the igf meeting as well as the ministerial meeting and high-level meeting and so on, and on all occasions we'll have the asian and partners meeting in a few months' time, we will have the apic meeting also. We have apic some mean -- similar meeting in jakarta, and last month during the apic, some meeting for electric commerce, we already propose that the high-level government officer can stay after the -- the meeting for the rest of the igf. 
So that's what we'll do our best to make sure that most of the high-level government representatives also stay during the igf. And perhaps igf can also provide them with when -- when they stay, they can also give inputs during the meetings. They have to make some sort of short presentation of what happened in the -- in the ict field in their country, for example, or, you know, things like that. Bearing in mind that in that part of the world, in southeast asia or even south asia, the development of the internet is so -- so fast, and the problem faced by the government as well as the community is perhaps important to be more understood compared with the other more developed countries, like in the u.S. Or like in europe and so on. How most of the areas, like, budapest convention, for example, how the budapest -- how we see what the budapest convention from the local legal system. I think that is the kind of things that can be dissented and discussed in many discussions during the igf meetings. Not only the social sides, perhaps, but also the legal sides. As perhaps as you might be aware, some of the asian countries has just -- like japan just adopted the budapest convention, after so many years, but so has t theunited kingdom. 
(indiscernible) budapest convention, so there are differences in adopting that. And it is also important to see how the start of the world (indiscernible) countries see the development of itr. Different in asian countries, the discussion on itr is -- well, what i should say? -- very hot? Very warm? I do not know. I'm sorry about my english. But even in southeast asia, you have countries like singapore but you have also countries like indonesia, you have countries like myanmar where there are some differences. And yet the similarities is that the ict is developing so fast, but the community, the readiness of the community, the readiness of the legal system, might be different from one to another. 
So this is -- this should be a very important topic, interesting topics to be discussed later. And i'm sure that the government representative will be more than happy to share with all the shareholders the problems that they may -- they have, because we -- those countries have their own problems and they also need to discuss with all the stakeholders with each, you know, rather than in a more official meetings and more bilateral countries-to-countries agreement and so on, and probably discuss if multistakeholder in bali (indiscernible) will be very useful for the development of ict globally or regional, as well as not only ict sectors but also the other sectors, because we would like to see also how ict can support the other sectors' development. Just for one -- one -- just for one -- can i give you one small example, for example? 
One of the trends in -- in some different countries is that if you have a house problem, if you remember a doctor, you want to make a practice, open practice, then you have to apply for application to open house health doctor consultations. 
Now, with ict, for example, a doctor in (indiscernible) part of the world can open the consultations in that area through the ict tools. You can do an operation, if you like. Now, there is also -- this is very interesting. It's how the presence of the doctor is there because of physical presence. They're the kind of things that was interesting to be discussed as the -- as what -- as one of the ict applications. 
Another one is the property -- as you mentioned, property -- how you call it -- intellectual property right, which also has importance, bearing in mind that in this part of north and south asia, for example, the -- the business, entertainment business and so on, is growing so fast, while there are so many cases regarding intellectual property rights, as well as online piracy and so on. 
(indiscernible) for the government of name (indiscernible), and to solve that kind of problems, while on the other hand, we get complaints from the property owners, on the other hand, we will have complaint from the freedom of getting more and more informations, how to balance all of this are perhaps interesting things to be discussed in -- in the meeting rooms. So ladies and gentlemen, i think -- well, we can have more and more topics to be discussed, of course, and i think with the -- we can keep all this government representative longer, it will be more and more -- it will be better, and i will do my best in all -- in all occasions to ask them to be -- to stay and discuss with each the problem with the global multistakeholders. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much for that, and i think with that, we conclude this segment, and would like to give the indonesian delegation a big applause for their presentations. 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: thank you very much, and i think we all look forward to coming to bali. 
Can we go back to our own planning exercise? 
I think the next issue i would like to discuss is basically how to launch the call for workshop proposals and in more concrete ways to look at the selection criteria. 
Looking at the criteria we had for 2012, i want -- could we put them up on the screen? 
Well, you'll find them on the igf web site, if you look under the -- 
>>chengetai masango: under baku, if you go to the right, you see baku, and selection -- i m mean-- 
>> (speaker is off microphone.) 
>>chair kummer: anyway, the criteria, they're a little bit difficult to find, maybe, but you have to go on the left and then scroll to the baku meeting and then there's the preparatory paper and it is on page 18, and you'll find the selection criteria, and there are a number of bullet points. 
And i think there are, on the whole, good and relevant, these criteria, and maybe we don't really need to invent new ones but that is something i would like to discuss. 
The question in my mind was maybe more where they really actually applied. 
Bullet point number 1, the requirement of having submitted a substantive on workshops organized in previous igf meetings. 
Number 2, degree of multistakeholder support and participation. 
Number 3, developing country support for gender balance. 5, youth participation. 
6, balance of speakers to participant discussion and the design of the workshop. That is, the degree of international planned. 
Then relevance to overall theme or one of the key themes, including the area of emerging issues. 
Relevance to the attendees, both physical and remote, at the igf meeting. 
And last, suitability for remote participation, for example, linkage to a hub event. 
So they're quite comprehensive material and i'm not sure whether they were actually applied to all the proposals, but there were several statements made yesterday that maybe we should also tighten the criteria, so this is a -- they are on the screen. These are the selection criteria for the 2012 workshops. 
Izumi, please. 
>>izumi aizu: thank you. On the first -- i cannot read from my eyesight, but the point i found is that the requirement for submitting in the past report or something -- right? -- that what if you are very new and you might be dis-encouraged unless you have somebody that you can put together, so i'd like to see some kind of measures to help the newcomers to welcome, encourage, or support them added somewhere. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: gentlemen. That can be misconstrued, it's true. It's not that you have held workshops in the past but if those who have held workshops in the past, have you indeed submitted a reports. And i think that has helped a little bit, because in the past, reporting was very slack and i think -- 
>>izumi aizu: if i may. 
>>chair kummer: yes. 
>>izumi aizu: and putting it in the first bullet point, it really sounds like, you know, unless you did that, even that you meet the other criteria, you're out, so just kind of modification for the details. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: point well taken. 
Ayesha and then lucinda. 
>>ayesha hassan: thank you. Ayesha hassan speaking. 
I agree that the criteria are pretty comprehensive. I'm supportive of moving the first bullet lower down or -- but i would also say i think that it was really a matter of the bag not implementing these criteria, so i think we need to be much more stringent about this and brave to say, "no -- or if you haven't really ameliorated by the things that were done by the mag in may, if you really don't ameliorate, you get cancelled and i think that's just going to have to be an at the time-in-stone approach this year. 
The other thing i was going to say is maybe we can explore if there's some kind of -- where somebody would submit a workshop proposal, if there's a way to put something on the web site that says "do you need help?" 
I know it's a burden on the igf secretariat, but hopefully some of the resourcing can be built up so that there is help for people to understand, you know, what they really need to do. 
>>chair kummer: well, that was -- we discussed that yesterday, and i think we agreed that we, for instance, would hold a webinar for newbies to explain a little bit how it works. 
So a kind of workshop help desk, yes. Lucinda and then c constance. 
>> thank you. I think it's very helpful to have criteria. I think they can show the seriousness, if you like, of candidates, so i think as was ayesha was saying yesterday, it's a lot of work to produce a successful workshop, and maybe by someone adhering to all of those, it can show that for a new person, they're prepared to do that, and they will have a successful workshop. 
As i mentioned yesterday, i think it's really important to understand the context of the workshop and also if there are going to be constraining factors, and so that those applying can't necessarily meet all of your criteria, and perhaps you should make an option for that, for if it was a sole youth focusing, there may not be young people attending from across the whole geographic spectrum, so to give people an opportunity to say why, perhaps, they can't meet all of those, but what their specific reason for their workshop is. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Who was next? Constance? Constance? 
>>constance bommelaer: thank you very much, chair. 
We had mentioned perhaps requesting that individuals commit to preparing very well in advance their workshops through conference calls or even informal meetings on-site during the igf. 
I think that that would help. And also limiting the number of workshops -- workshop proposals from -- from individuals and various organizations. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Nurani? 
>>nurani nimpuno: thank you. Nurani nimpuno, net noticed. I just -- i would simply like to echo ayesha's comments. I don't think the challenge in the past has necessarily been the selection criteria. The challenge has been that we haven't actually implemented them, so let's do that this time. 
Let's follow up on workshops, and if they -- if we get back to them and they, in the second round, simply don't improve their workshop proposals and don't meet the criteria, then they get cancelled. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. But i think we should also -- lucinda made a fiscal point that they minot apply to all workshop proposals. So it's a "to the extent possible" clause. Bill? 
>>bill drake: thank you. Last year, we -- when we did the ranking, the criteria we ranked against was actually only five of these: relevance to the particular issue, geographical representation, completeness of the proposal, gender balance, and multistakeholder representation and representation of diverse views. 
And i had a number of conversations with people who were asking exactly how the ranking was working, given the fact that there was this long list -- excuse me -- of criteria, but we aren't actually applying them. 
So i think we need to be a lot clearer in our communication about exactly what we're doing. 
It is very much the case that not all of these are going to be really applicable in each case. I mean, it's great to say we should have youth participation. Somebody's organizing a workshop on some technical details of ixps or something, you may not find youth who can do it. 
Developing country support, a lot of people ask me "what does that really mean? Do you have to get a government, a developing country government to endorse your workshop?" now, i've been able to do that sometimes in the past, but some people might not have the connections to be able to do that. 
So we put these things up there and they're not entirely clear to everybody exactly how much weight we're really attaching to them. 
It doesn't do us any good to set standards that -- not only that we don't, you know, precisely follow but which can't easily be followed, so i think if we're going to have these standards, we need to have more explanation for the community that logs on, saying "no, there's a -- we're talking about an overall balance among these factors and that in particular, when it comes to ranking the workshops, we have this particular emphasis on xyz. (indiscernible) when i look at them, their particular trieds from the internet governance community that are all sort of on the same page about something and they get together and talk about something and that's great and interesting, but it doesn't make for a lot of dramatic tension or representation of the rest of the views in the larger environmentsome. 
So if i was going to emphasize anything in particular, for me the multistakeholder representation, the diversity representation, gender balance, these things -- and completeness of the proposal. We just -- in my view, we let way too many go through that just were so incomplete. I was astonished, frankly, at the end of the day, how many -- how the bar kind of changed. 
We did all this elaborate ranking, we spent all this time doing this, and so many of the proposals were in such an early stage of development that i thought my god, i mean, the deadline's been clear for months, you know, and you're sending us something with no names on it and three sentences, and that gets -- that ends up getting approved. 
So i really hope that we can be a little bit firmer on the completeness of proposal requirements and be clearer about exactly how people should read these things. 
Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Judy. And anriette, yeah. Oh, sorry, vlad, first. 
>>vladimir radunovic: thank you. Vr. So criteria, i think in general, it is okay and we haven't been implementing that. The question is if we want to limit the number of workshops. For azerbaijan, we decided not to because we had enough rooms. As i understood the indonesian host this time, we can also have enough rooms. It's a matter if we are going to select the workshops based on this criteria, and even limit the number in spite of the number of rooms, but my bigger problem in this is the practice. If you go through the criteria and in practice when people are putting up the list of speakers at some point, to have a multistakeholder balance, a geographical balance, a gender balance, a youth involvement and so on and so forth, you have to have 10 participants and it was absolutely impossible. 
I think the greatest mistake was insisting on names. I don't care about names. You can give me anybody on the panel as long as they address these different perspectives. 
So i think one of the biggest problems is asking the names. Instead, what i would ask for when we are asking for the application is what is the format? Is it a roundtable? Is it an open discussion? Is it a panel is this are you presenting? Are you discussing? Are you coming to results? 
So what is the stage? It is the level of interaction and maybe the names of the moderators. This is much more important for interaction than the names of the panelists, and also we don't know the panelists up until the last moment, who is going to show up. 
It is the names of the organizations and organizers, so the -- even the persons that are taking the role to organize this, and based on that, we can say "okay, we know these persons are reliable, we can check, we can talk to them after all, so this is something firm," and finally, the topics that are going to be addressed, not only the thematic correspondence with the teams we set up but also specific topics you're going to address, and how are you going to address the youth angle, the multistakeholder angle, the development world angle, and so on and so forth. So not who, but how you are going to address it. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Judy? 
>>judy okite: thank you, markus. I would like to speak before vladimir because he has taken away all of my words. 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: olga? 
>>olga cavalli: thank you, chair. Some things have already been said. This is olga cavalli from argentina. The gender issue, it is sometimes a problem. There are a few women from latin america, so some of us are invited to ten workshops at the same time. And that's challenging. 
The ages, youth, i mean, i like young people and mixing ages, are we going to ask how old are you to put them in the correct workshop? And also diversity does not apply to all the issues that are addressed in a workshop. For example, we organize a workshop each year about latin american languages in the internet. Honestly inviting a speaker from asia to talk about latin american and native american languages is strange. 
I think the challenge is how we do the revision. If we don't have enough information to decide and if we can somehow have a tool to divide all the information in a more selective way, i agree with bill about the relevant issues of diversity of views and i also agree with vladimir that the names of the moderators is perhaps more relevant than the panelist. And perhaps we could think of other formats for presenting the workshop. Maybes an open space for a moderator focusing on some issues or round tables. To stick to this format of panelists and these rules, sometimes these rules in my modest opinion are somehow restrictive and makes us repeating some of the panelists because of the lack of people available in some igfs. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, wendy and theresa. 
>>wendy seltzer: thank you. Wendy seltzer here. I wanted to recommend that we take a more holistic view of our project, that our project is to put on a multi-day event and we should ensure over the multi-day event there is diversity of genders of ages, of geographic regions, of topics. We shouldn't require it at the microlevel of every panelist or every encompassed the entire spectrum. I think we can then make sure that we're looking at those criteria while allowing a little bit more leeway in the individual events. 
I'll also say quickly recognizing the attention between giving lots of people opportunities to do something and justify their attendance and interest in keeping the numbers of parallel events down, i think that's another reason to support lots of alternative formats so that we could have poster sessions and lightning talks that give many people an opportunity to be presenting, be engaged in dialogue without stacking up dozens of events at the same time. 
I would suggest even if we're unconstrained by the number of rooms, we should impose that constraint on ourselves so that we're not forcing people to look at a grid of dozens of boxes in a row to figure out where to go next but rather a smaller number of magnet events. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Theresa. 
>>theresa swinehart: i think in relation to a couple of comments made, one on the issue of the number of workshops, we don't need to fill all the rooms necessarily. But also, too, an observation that con stance had made about the important of adequate preparations and really forcing that part of the preparation at the early stage. 
And while i would hate to get into a situation of, what do you call, micromanagement, i wonder whether as part of the workshop proposals, we should ask the proposers to provide just a brief description on how they intend to approach the workshop, how they intend to have an interactive and creative dialogue and if they could touch on how they will be preparing for that given the diversity of participants. 
It might also encourage workshop proposers to think a little bit about the amount of work and preparations that need to go into it rather than just the submission of a list of panelists with "to be confirmed" next to it. It is just a thought. A small sentence, one or two, to do that. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. 
Jeff? 
>>jeff brueggeman: having been on both sides of this last year, organizing a workshop and trying to review this, we had a lot of the same discussion last year about being tougher. And i think we need to adjust the process as others are suggesting, if we have any (indiscernible) of doing this. I wanted to start with anriette's suggestion clear about a thematic roundtable. I thought it worked extremely well. That's the kind of innovative, new thing that, i think, helps, maybe what we could do is take a much more active role in the thematic priorities that we decide and say there is a track of workshops and we will filed five as feeders. But we will demand early in the process what is the substantive issue you are taking on, what's the format. 
I think we should give more time to fill in the names. But i think ultimately it is important to have a balanced set of views and we should reserve the right maybe to suggest additional participants or help get a better range of views, if need be. 
I think having that early in the process, i was pretty (indiscernible) in may that you didn't know what was going to happen later. If you could force the substance. I know merging two workshops, i think we should try to force those combinations as early as possible. Maybe the first step is identify issues and say does anyone else have an interest in this issue in let's make it very easy to connect people together on those. 
And i guess the other suggestion i was going to make was to identify innovative topics or other issues that we think should be prioritized. It is hard to reject things but if we start by affirmatively filling this priority, this priority, we make it to the point where it is easier to say, well, your workshop just didn't meet any of the other priority criteria so you're down here and, you know, kind of on the margins. 
But i feel like we should focus on what we want to be affirmatively worked -- let's have as many good workshops as we can instead of focusing on weeding out the bad ones. That might be a better way to address this problem. I feel like last year we ended up struggling finding ways to deal with that. 
>>chair kummer: now there are many speakers on the next. Ricardo next and mark. 
>> thank you, ricardo (saying name). I wanted to echo my colleague's suggestion to focus more on the methodology and the content of workshops and the panelist focus. Let me share just an experience at the baku igf. I had a chance to participate at the new delegates briefing session, introducing the ig4d main theme. Given the interactive format said by vlada which i applaud, by the way, we had the chance to spend some time in groups with the newcomers according to their interest. 
Let me say that i got really impressed by the newcomers' concrete expectations. And in that sense, i believe we should focus and we should value workshops that intend to submit best practices, global models or submit a set of rigid options about specific topics. 
So, in brief, i just want to support the idea of including in the criteria aspects related to how the workshops are going to set up methodologies of -- innovative methodologies of participation and how they are going to address topics of especially newcomers from developing countries. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Mark? 
>> thank you, mr. Versus. I just wanted to come back on that theme of identifying the hot topics i think is the phrase, where we are looking for concrete a sort of distillation perhaps by the end of the forum itself or perhaps at the end of the session. So i'm coming back to what i said yesterday maybe coming on some of these topics, maybe four or five. We have a format which is a bit extended so we have time for the experts to contribute their views from different aspects, different angles, different positions maybe. Some engagement with those stakeholders, including government policymakers who are looking for guidance for expert distillation in one place and be able to go away with a set of options. So at the point of inviting proposals, i think we make this subjective pretty clear so that if it is not relevant to what the stakeholders are intending to propose, they go ahead and submit a workshop proposal or some other format, flash or roundtable or bof or whatever for their issue. 
I think related to this hot topic, we invite them to contribute their perspectives, ideas, maybe volunteering to take part in that extended workshop. We have already preidentified the issue. And that, i think, deters perhaps a plethora of workshop proposals which are similar to that theme, overlap and duplicate and so on. 
So we introduce some very instrumental management of this process right at the beginning, driven by our sense that there are following dubai, there are some key topics that we really hope and look for the igf to make contribution to and to empower stakeholders and hopefully there will be plenty of government people from -- certainly from south asia and southeast asia still there in the forum to be able to pick up on this, to empower and to allow them to take away a set of options, a set of "this is what might work for us." we'll try that or maybe, you know, combine or draw from particular options. But you can't to capture that as a result of the workshop. 
And i think that process starts with the invitations out. 
And i also really welcome the point that was made two or three speakers ago -- sorry, i didn't quite catch the name -- about the ease of navigation. That we don't construct a complex grid of workshops which is just frightening for, i think, everybody. How the hell am i going to handle that, oh, i want to be in that maybe from a particular constituent sole representative of a government. Was the word used "magnetic"? I thought that was a good term, vocal points within the program and then an enriched environment of different formats. I think that's a very good approach. Really endorse that. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Who was next? Mary and then (saying name). 
>>mervi kultamaa: i want to come back to the list of criteria which is ambitious to me. It is clear it is very tough to fulfill all the points of the criteria and it's really difficult for the proponents of the workshops to know what are the criteria that are the most important and against which we actually assess the workshop proposals and what are the less important ones where it's nice if the workshop proposal fulfills the criteria but it's not an absolute necessity. 
So perhaps my suggestion is to modify the listing of criteria by introducing two categories. First, those criteria which the proposals have to absolutely fulfill and among them the diversity of different points of views. And perhaps another list of softer criteria. For example, in addition preference is given to those proposals which fulfill these criteria and among them, i would suggest to have a knew criteria that preference is given to proposals from those entities which have not suggested workshops before. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Baher? By the way, please always introduce yourself when you speak for the benefit of the scribes. I tend to forget to give the whole name sometimes. So it is good that you have say who you are. Okay. Baher esmat. 
>>baher esmat: baher esmat from icann. I wanted to echo the views on the criteria regarding the number of workshops. Certainly the number is not the criteria nor is it the number of rooms. We should not try to fill in the rooms if we have plenty of them available. I think completeness of the proposal is key and to add to -- and also support what others have said about, you know, having clear description of the workshop and what it tries to achieve, i think it would also be useful to include a clear list of topics or questions the workshop is intended to address. 
The other thing about the criteria that is important is the multistakeholder representation of the participant. That's another key issue. I find it a bit challenging in some cases to maintain the geographical balance, and i think if we were to encourage participants from developing regions to come and organize their own workshops, we should not expect them to be able to attract speakers from other regions. Some workshops may only include speakers from one or two regions. I think that should be acceptable. 
We may also want to think about how to encourage or how to -- if a group wants to have a workshop with their own language, how we could possibly provide interpretation at least to english. In this particular workshop, this would certainly encourage those communities to come and participate. 
The last thing i want to say, and it is more of a question. I'm not sure whether some heard that the other format like roundtables and so forth, and i'm not sure whether the criteria we are discussing right now is only limited to workshops and for other formats we're going to have other criteria. I'm just questioning this. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Well, as far as i understand the discussion goes, there are many in the room who think also the workshops should be encouraged to come up with innovative formats and is rather interactive roundtable than sort of standard panel discussions. But this is something we are discussing now. 
Egor, at one point, you put up your flag? Yes, please. 
>> thank you very much, egor (saying name). Just also wanted to echo the discussions earlier about the ability to cooperate. We have had a problem, i think, in may last year when we were looking and revising different workshops. Since we have seen a number of almost identical workshops or similar workshops, we felt that we do not have the ability or the right to intervene or to merge the workshops into one. 
So perhaps the way out of that would be to introduce a separate category, the ability to cooperate with other candidates so that we actually can then ask them to work together and limit the amount of space by exactly or almost exactly the same issues. 
>>chair kummer: raul and then remote participation. 
>>raul echeberria: thank you. Raul echeberria. I think about the format of the workshops, i think that we can have two different kind of workshops. One format that is very highly interactive, and another format that is more speaker oriented. Sometimes there are good speakers that deserve -- it is good to hear what they have to say. I think the organizers should be very clear in saying what kind of workshops they are proposing to have. 
So when people attend the workshop, they know if there will be something like a conference with two or three speakers or some high interactive workshop like a roundtable. So we can at the time we are evaluating the workshop, we can find the right balance between -- or trying to prioritize the interactive workshop. But not all the workshops necessarily have to be roundtables or these kinds of things. 
I was thinking that one criteria thing could be to ask for geographic, gender diversity in the speakers and panelists if we want to very interactive workshops because for achieving all the balance and the diversity in the panels, we -- it is necessary to have at least four, five, six speakers. 
And so by definition, those workshops will not be very interactive because there would be plenty of speakers. So i think it is more important to see the diversity in the engagement in the organization of the workshops. So it is important to see the diversity in the organizers, that the workshop is supported by different kind of organizations that represent a broader range of views. 
Regarding the number, my last comment was the number of workshops. I agree with the people that say even the fact that we have enough rooms, we don't need necessarily to fill all the rooms. 
I would be in favor of limiting the number of simultaneous workshops because i think the quality is more important than quantity. I think that's also a possibility. But we have not taken the position yet to move in that direction. So i will favor that. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Yes, it is clear we cannot have more workshops than available slots. But we don't need to fill all available slots or available rooms. 
Remote participation? 
>> i will start with a comment from a mag member (indiscernible) who trying to make an intervention earlier to congratulate and thank the host country. One very question for him on that and that is about visa and facilitatation of visa procedures, particularly for people coming from africa and countries like nigeria where it can different. 
I'm now on workshops. I have got paul wilson from apnic, initial ashton-hart and then veronica cretu and jim as well. I will try to give them the mic. If it doesn't work, then i will read out the comment. 
>>paul wilson: hello, thanks, anriette. It is paul wilson. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: we can hear you. 
>>paul wilson: excellent. Nice to be there. I'm stuck in singapore. I will try to follow the discussion. It is obviously not possible to contribute too interactively. So i've got a few comments. 
I really do agree with (audio dropped out), there is a possibility for some sort of creative competition between formats and approaches to learn and improve as time goes on. I agree at the same time to balance that reducing complexity and not to have a huge matrix of different styles and topics and approaches in many, many parallel sessions. 
So i think that can be achieved some quality control exercise more diligently probably with clearer criteria up front. I would suggest to make the call for proposals with an earlier deadline. 
I think we should be prepared to make a short list and really encourage or go to the developing good proposals which come to an earlier deadline and can be developed down a longer track. I think the longer deadline encourages people to wait to the end and then we don't have enough time to further develop. 
So i think in that first round, we would not demand full exhaustive details under every sort of field of information but we would look at good concept-type proposals which have sort of quality of the idea and the proposal without the completeness in all the details. Of course, all the details need to be provided for some sort of final deadline. But i think a couple of rounds could help us to sort the poor from the better ones. 
I would like to see some priority given to proposals that show some linkages with previous igf themes for workshops and which sort of -- which propose to really develop those previous outputs, if you would like, or the previous results and follow them up in sort of specific ways because i think what we lack is a continuity or a connectiveness between events. 
There is some thoughts -- a set of similar thoughts. On another topic which i guess raul has just raised, interested to discuss or to think about how we could accommodate some really higher profile speakers, almost like celebrity sort of key notes, sort of an individual of a particular type caliber. 
And i'm really talking about sort of someone who can draw interest and credibility to the event and how we could have sessions that build a workshop or build something around an individual. 
And i know that has to be reconciled with our tendency to have sort of flat sessions, but i think there are some overpopulated panels where speakers don't have much to say needs to be balanced with the idea that -- i think as raul was trying to say, there is a possibility and it would be very good participation and i'm afraid sort of the credibility of the event. I say that knowing that it may be not be to everyone's taste. But i think -- i mean, i'm thinking of people like, for want of a better example, people like tim berner-lee. I'm also not trying to suggest purely technical stars, but i'm really after thinking about the high (audio dropped out) of that kind of degree of recognition. 
I think that's all for me. Thanks a lot. 
>>chair kummer: thanks a lot, paul. 
You have more? Can we have the non-mag members at the end? That's what we said. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: nick, if you can wait a little bit. I have you on mic but i'm going to read out veronica's input. Unfortunately veronica cannot join us in audio, but she has sent her written input. 
All workshop proposals should provide a description of the methodology of the workshop, whether it is a roundtable, open space, more groups, et cetera, or a mix of approaches; secondly, the name of the moderator; thirdly, key expected results of the workshop; fourthly, key issues to be addressed by the workshop and the link of the main issues with other emerging issues on the global development agenda. It is important that workshop themes come in synergy with those emerging issues such as cloud computing, open government, ict for engagement. 
In principle all workshops should be centered on approaches and methodology and speaker use 40% of the time for presentations while 60% is dedicated to interactive discussions. 
Next we have some comments from another mag member and that is jimson from my year gentleman. I will try to give him the audio but it might be difficult. Let's just see, jimson, i'm trying to give you audio. Just let us know if it works. I don't think so. 
Okay. No. I don't think that is working. Okay. I will come back to jimson later. 
Before we go to nick, my own comments were -- that's anriette, apc. I just want to go back to the suggestion made in the cstd working group on igf improvements, that the call for workshop proposals be made before the first open consultation. Now, we can't do that now but we can still make the call earlier. And i think that's consistent with what other speakers have said. 
And then i think it could be useful to ask the workshops which policy questions they are addressing. And in the sense that the working group on igf improvements report is suggesting we use policy questions as a framing device for planning the event. So it might be useful to add that as a question. 
And then i want to reinforce what baher from icann was saying. I think we need to be flexible about how we use the multistakeholder and diversity format in the same way that perhaps it could be appropriate for a workshop to have speakers primarily from one region. 
I think a workshop could also have speakers primarily from one sector. And next with the chair from indonesia's proposals to look at something like the budapest cyber conference. It could be very useful and then have people in the audience among the participants from other stakeholder groups who can engage them. 
Remember, multistakeholder participation is our goal. It has to be contentional, just form. 
And then i think three-hour workshops should remain something that's an option, particularly for workshops that have a capacity-buildingbut i just want to make a general point before i go back to the remote participants and that is it feels to me as if we are discussing workshops before we've actually looked at the overall flow and logic of the event and how the different components of the event will feed into a final outcome. 
And now we have nick ashton-hart -- 
>>chair kummer: can you wait, nick? We have many mics in the room. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: okay. In the room. 
>>chair kummer: yes. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: okay. 
>>chair kummer: a brief comment on why we are discussing this, because basically we have to conclude on having -- out a call for workshop proposals. So the question is how do we do that, and you make the point we cannot do it ahead of the first consultation, that's too late, but it -- your suggestion also to ask which policy question they would like to address reminds me that some years back, i think, somebody had proposed why don't we have a kind of preliminary call for workshops because once people have done their elaborate proposals, they usually are married to their proposal and not keen anymore to merge. Whereas if you would have a kind of preliminary call, what issue would you like to be involved in in a workshop, and i think the policy question could very much frame that, then we would get a list of names and we would be able to put them together "okay, you guys, now you work on the more elaborate proposal, and i think there is -- and that came across yesterday. There's no one-size-fits-all format, but i think, again, many people say we should be a little bit more open, more to have more experimentation, to have more roundtables. I think vlad made the point with the diplo experience do away completely with panelists but what is important is to have a good proposal and a good moderator and then be as interactive as possible. 
So -- but on the other hand, there are workshops where a more classical approach with a presentation, somebody explaining an issue, makes sense. 
So i think there we need to be flexible but i do remember, i think at the very first igf, we always said "we want interactive sessions and want as much discussion as possible," and -- well, up to a point, i think collectively we managed that compared to other international meetings but the stated aim was always to be as interactive as possible, and i think if we push this even a little bit further, there will be no harm. 
But i would be interested in your reaction about maybe a kind of preliminary -- asking for a preliminary proposal, indication of interest on what key policy question are you interested in, and then take it from there, and obviously that doesn't take long to react to that, so you could have a relatively short deadline and have an online process in assessing the people and then asking them to present a more elaborate proposal in time for the may or june meeting. We don't know yet when it will be. 
So this is just for discussion, and back to our list of speakers. (saying name) you have very patient and then (saying name). 
>> thank you, and good morning. So my point is not exactly about the themes. It is more about the -- the format and the substance, because -- well, i'm going to echo what some colleagues already said that i think it's important to underscore some of these comments. 
So i think that depending on the theme and on the topic that we are going to discuss we as mag, we should think whether it better fits in a roundtable format or in a -- in a workshop format. And besides that, the -- the layout of the room and the seating is very important to trigger a good discussion. 
And i'm sorry about my ignorance, but what happened to the dynamic coalitions? Because i don't know so much about that -- those, and i didn't hear anything about those. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: we have not touched on the other formats except the workshops, but the dynamic conclusions, yes, we have them, and i think in the past they were given a slot for a meeting if they could prove that they had some intersessional activity, because the dynamic coalition should not -- the aim should not just to be have one -- some meeting, and some actually looked as if their own reason to exist was to hold a workshop-type meeting at the annual igf, and that is definitely not the idea behind the dynamic coalitions. 
Jennifer? 
>> yes, thank you. I thought i'd first respond to your request for feedback on the preliminary call for proposals two workshops. I think that is a very good idea, because one, it would allow for exchange between the mag and the workshop proponents early on, and identify where there could be possible collaboration among proponents, because we'd get to see at least where there's some potential for overlap. Secondly, i wanted to endorse -- and i apologize, i don't remember whose proposal it was -- but the flexibility of the workshops. Just as anriette i think mentioned we should have respect with what diversity means for topics of workshops, i think we should recognize that different topics may be more susceptible to certain formats, whether it's roundtables, more interactive, less interactive, and so i think that's another area where we should maintain some flexibility. The reason i originally asked for the floor was to focus on speakers for workshops. I agree with those who have said the substance of the workshops is probably the most important thing to get us started early on, but -- and it's most likely to be able to help to maintain and secure the list of speakers. There's been a lot of fluidity in speakers and participants in workshops and i think if we have nailed down earlier the actual goals and focus of the workshops, maybe we'll -- we'll be able to obtain speakers and keep them committed with you i also think it's important to have the speakers identified i didn't recall enough so we can respond to one of the open consultations feedbacks, which is ensuring new faces, new participants, and not the same people. And if we don't see who the targeted speakers are for the workshops, we're not going to be able to respond to that suggestion which we heard, i think, repeatedly. 
So i -- we need for find a balance in timing, and perhaps your preliminary call for proposal idea will help kind of sequence that. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Yes. Franklin, you're next. 
>> thank you, mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, i'm without my -- my name bag here, but anyway, thank you for the formation. I'm from franklin net to from brazil, a mag member. I would just like to raise a point to concur with some of the colleagues that spoke before me on the issue of -- of criteria for the workshops. I mean, there are some criteria that are pretty, i would say, logic, like the multistakeholder approach and the balance as -- even as a goal, and their relationship to the main topics chosen for the -- for the -- for the igf. But my point would be specifically on the diversity and on the request of participation of developing countries. 
We have heard some comments on the question of geographical balance and why geographic name diversity in the workshops is highly desirable. It's also impossible to have this -- all the times in all the themes have participants from all the regions. But in the other hand, i think that it's very important and absolutely possible to have in all the -- in all the -- the workshops the participation, the vision from the developing world. And i'm not mentioning developing governments. It can be from any of the stakeholders, from the civil society, from the private sector. And i think this is important because they cannot see any -- any issue or any theme or any workshop proposal that would deal with issues that did not have an impact on the developing world. 
Then my -- my -- my point here, my case here, is that i think this criteria have developing world participations highly -- highly desirable. 
I see that there was a criteria last year about this, meaning developing country support, and i read that very much as developing country participation and because participation is also support for the -- for the -- for the workshop, and then i understand that this would be a very important and (indiscernible) essential criteria for any workshop would be the opportunity for the developing world to have a voice and have an opportunity to share their views. 
And more than that, mr. Chairman, i see that we have in effect here a two-level assessment that should be made. I mean, not only the assessment on the workshops themselves but also on our -- on a higher level after the workshop starts to appear in the proposals starts to appear, we should have on this other -- from this higher perspective also a view on trying to achieve a framework where we have -- where we have in all the opportunities possible the participation from developing countries and also workshops that dealt with the quest and the question of development. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. And i think it is a very important point and i think changing the bullet point to developing country support which was confusing to some last year to developing country participation makes it easier to understand what is required. 
I agree, i think it is an important point. We don't lose out of sight the development dimension, which is very much was at the heart of the u.N. 
Nurani? 
>>nurani nimpuno: thank you. Excuse me. Nurani nimpuno from netnod. 
I'd like to propose a way of working between now and -- and the meeting, and i'd also like to address the -- your idea about preliminary workshop. 
I think there's a risk of falling into this very bureaucratic way of working where we create a long list of impossible criteria to meet where -- which discourages workshop proposals, because it takes a lot of work to put together these proposals and then a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to meet these criteria, and then we spend a lot of time as the mag evaluating these criteria. 
Excuse me. 
So i think we need to work in a more dynamic way. 
I agree with -- with mervi that we need to clarify, maybe rewrite this document, with the criteria, clarify what are hard criteria and what are so-called desirable criteria. 
I'm happy to do work, together with other mag members, if need be. 
I think we should have more of a dialogue with workshop organizers. I -- i actually had a similar idea about having a preliminary call for workshops, so we avoid creating this long list of criteria, but to have some initial criteria where people in their proposals, in the lightweight proposals, put forward ideas. 
Like you say, if you've put -- if you've spent a lot of time organizing a workshop and putting together a proposal, you're already set in your mind-set then. 
Recognize that not one-size-fits-all. Some workshops might need to be workshops, some panels, some polite need to be roundtables, some more interactive discussions. 
Maybe some don't even have to be 90 minutes. Maybe some could be 60 minutes. Why do we need to impose those limitations on the -- that early on in the process? 
So i think we should have some initial criteria, which makes it easy for people to put in their ideas. All the mag members evaluate that -- those workshop proposals like we've done in the past, that we simply divide the list among our mag members, and so we each get a set of workshop proposals that we need to -- to -- to communicate with, so all of the mag members go back to those workshop proposers and ask them -- ask them questions according to these criteria that we've set. 
We can report back. We don't need a separate mag meeting for that. We could do that on the list. And based on that, i think we could do some initial pruning, merge workshops where appropriate, et cetera. And then we look at the next step as a second phase, instead, where we ask questions like "how do you plan to do this? Have you confirmed these speakers? What format do you need? Are you going to have a panel, an interactive discussion, a roundtable, et cetera?" 
So we work a bit more continuously between now and the meeting to secure good quality workshops. 
I think it is -- it's unrealistic to ask for a workshop proposal from the start that meets all the criteria and that ensures good quality. If we want good-quality workshops, we need to continue to discuss this with the workshop proposers now and the -- until the very end of the period leading up to the meeting. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: (saying name). 
>> thank you, mr. Chair and let me start my comments with wishing the indonesian host in organizing the eighth igf meeting. 
I would -- most of what i was trying to say has been said by nurani, really. We are complicating the process. Workshop proposals sometimes there are issues that you cannot control. For example, when you suggest the speakers, sometimes comes a month before the igf or two, and for one reason or another they could not participate. When you put a description and you attend the workshop, one of the speakers may take about an issue in a different manner or of different relevance. There are certain things that we cannot control when we put forward the proposal and then we see that a workshop might be -- there was a difference between what the proposal was and what happened in the workshop. 
Not all of that is really in the control of the organizer. 
This is one. 
The criteria that we have used previously looked -- i look at that positively. It's increased the number of workshops. It's encouraged more participation, more workshops organization within each topic, so i think a light criteria that is flexible but yet linked to the themes and the activities of the receiving is really the best way to go. And i'm afraid that if we complicated the process and start with establishing rules rather than a criteria, it may discourage people from participation or discourage people from submitting workshop proposals, and this way we will lose audience. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Chris disspain. 
>>chris disspain: good morning. I just wanted to agree with your suggestion about a first round of workshop proposals, a lightweight round and also to endorse what nurani said about how that could -- how that could work. Thanks. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Teresa? 
>>theresa swinehart: i think it goes to this point. We do have a bit of a chicken and egg, if i can use that expression, situation because we're looking at making the call for workshops but we i think also need to be clearer on what some of the themes are, and topics are that we're discussing, and i think if we were able to come out with an announcement that said, you know, "here's one of the key overarching themes" during the public consultations we heard the core topics around spam or principles or, you know, we heard various topics being discussed. Really put those out there, say "in this regard, we'd like to make a first call for things, creative proposals on workshops, full these criteria, please identify how you plan to fulfill these criteria" do a first sifting, and then do a second call. Instead of very -- very sort of concrete time line for this, so there's also the opportunity to ensure that we can identify a wide range of speakers who can participate, get this on their schedule, and make sure that they're able to attend. 
But i think we do need to make the call in the context of the substantive themes that will be discussed and perhaps we can move toward that discussion as well. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. A question. Should we limit a call for workshop proposals to the themes we have to be discussed or should we also not also be open to other proposals that might come up to capture issues the community may be concerned about? 
>>theresa swinehart: i would say leave it open, but identify that there's some themes that have come up through the consultation process as both the documents that came in prior and yesterday, but leave it open. 
>>chair kummer: that is basically the intention that we at the end of this meeting have a summary report which would list these themes we have been discussing. Role gha has been waiting very p patiently. 
>>olga cavalli: thank you. I would like to support what baher said about the possibility of having workshops in other languages. We had some workshops in spanish, but then there's no transcribing, and you would not imagine how people called me and said "why there is no transcript for this workshop?" so people do read transcribing. 
I have a comment. I think we have to be open about the themes. We should not limit when we make the call. We should not limit the call -- we should limit because of relevance and because of proposals are good or not good. If we have the space and we have and we have a willing host that have this venue, we should use that space, and if it's a challenging schedule, well, this is a different event. It's a challenging event. I think it's good to have diversity also in workshops. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Vlad? 
>>vladimir radunovic: judy is going to complain again that i take all her words. Vladimir radunovic from diplofoundation. 
Two short remarks. 
One is based on what we discussed of different possible formats of sessions for the dear friends from indonesia, that to have in mind possibilities for different setups of the rooms which means from session to session, maybe changing the layout of tables or chairs and so on, avoiding high-level panels with all the seats but rather just having the seats for panelists on the same level, enough microphones because there was -- there's always been a problem with roaming microphones and persons to assist with that and bring the microphones and so on. So have that in mind when you're preparing for the igf. 
And the second one is a suggestion for mag, which is reflecting on a couple of previous thoughts, is that in this process -- and, by the way, i also agree with this preliminary call and this is something we can learn from the eurodig, which is working quite, quite well with the preliminary call. 
The other thing also works quite well with eurodig, whenever there are proposals, there are certain persons which are usually on a voluntary basis just applying to assist a workshop proposer or organizers to do it better. 
So this is the invitation from mag. Maybe we can make again kind of a small groups, thematic groups and volunteer from mag that can help the applicants to decide on a forum, to decide on a focus, to get connected with the other workshop proposers, and as igor and the others mentioned, and also to bring people from the region where we can communicate with the indonesians and other networks that we have in the region to bring -- involve other locals in the preparation and organization of all the sessions. That's the point. I mean, the circus is coming into that part of the world and we should mobilize that part of the world. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. And i take it we are the circus, yes? 
[ laughter ] 
(speaker is off microphone.) 
>>chair kummer: well, why don't we get straight to judy. 
>>judy okite: thank you, markus. Just two quick remarks. I support what nurani says, that we need to communicate more with the organizers for the workshops. 
I would just like to add if we could avoid the general remarks that normally send to the -- to the organizers. 
When we do evaluate the workshops, there's always a reason why we feel that this and this workshop needs to be matched. I believe it would be important if we shared that particular reason as to why we feel that this and this workshop should be matched, and secondly, if there's something that they're meant to do in their workshops, if that can be shared. 
Because from time and time again, the workshop organizers have to come back to you like i've received this e-mail but i don't understand it because it meets the multistakeholder request, there's the gender balance in it, there's the youth in it, and all that. 
And then secondly, if we could, as the mag, we could take off that that task from the secretariat, that if the particular people dealing with the thematic issues can be the one to communicate with the organizers and tell them "okay, we evaluated this particular workshop and one, two, and three are our remarks," as opposed to the general remarks that are sent from the secretariat. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Sonia? 
>>tom keller: thank you. This is sonia kelly from freedom house. I would like to support what nurani and a couple other colleagues have mentioned about setting some sort of minimum criteria and then desirable criteria for workshops. 
One thing that was queer during the previous mag meeting, when we were selecting workshops, was that we spent a lot of time going through each workshop and looking whether, for example, there is the right gender balance or whether there is appropriate regional representation, without really paying too much attention to the quality of the idea and the content of the workshop. 
And i would really encourage us to avoid that this time, so for example, if we were to set up clear minimum criteria in our call for proposals, we could say each workshop, even to be further considered, needs to have x number of participants from developing countries, or this, you know, gender representation as the minimum. 
I think that that would, at the outset, weed out some of the workshops that just should not be considered to begin with, and then from that point on, we can then focus on the actual quality, and i personally support this approach where part of the call for proposal could be focused on a specific policy question. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Baher. 
>>baher esmat: thank you, markus. Baher esmat with icann. 
I just want to support the proposal from insist emphasizing the developing countries participation in workshop, and i guess your suggestion, markus, to tweak the language from "developing country support" to "developing country participation" is excellent. 
To the question of whether to keep the call for workshops restricted to the themes or make it open, i certainly would say just keep it -- keep it open and, you know, do not suggest any themes. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Mark? 
>>mark carvell: yes, thank you, chair. I wanted to pick up, in particular, on your exchange with theresa swinehart -- sorry, mark c carvell,u.K. Government. 
With regard to the issuing of requests for proposals covering both themed topics and being an open process. I was trying to sort of convey that earlier on, that we -- i'm not at all suggesting that we cut off this avenue of connection to new stuff, new emerging issues, but we've for the these important issues that are on the table now, and i -- i'd like to propose that the five be the following: spam; secondly, internet exchange points; thirdly, ipv4 legacy and ipv6 transition; fourthly, implementing multistakeholder principles at the national and international level of internet governance; and fifthly, enhanced cooperation. 
So i put those on the table as topics we say we want proposals now on those, but also we invite proposals for other issues to be addressed in varying formats. You know, (indiscernible) through to the -- through to the established medium of 90-minute workshops. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. 
Yuliya? Where is she? Oh, over there. 
>> thank you, mr. Chair. Just -- (saying name) from (saying name). Just briefly a number of points. Concerning the remote participation which is very important, i think we should pay attention to the fact that people who will be moderator for -- moderator and people who will intervene as remote participants followed the information briefing session, i don't know how to ensure they follow already what was done, but i do think it will be very important. I know that there is a number of information session organized already and the information was on the web site. Maybe we should increase the number of these sessions in order to be sure they know how to -- which press a button and just from technical perspective because i remember a number of workshops, the remote participants wanted to participate and they were unable to unable practically from a technical expect to deal with it too. 
Afterwards, concerning the microphones, from a very practical perspectives, i do think it will be useful to have in the rooms microphones on the table bulls microphones with -- that we can just move around, you know, or that you have more interactive session and i remember during a number of workshops, it was very hard to find these microphones just to be able to move around and to make it a more interactive session. 
Concerning the issue of (indiscernible), i do think we should leave this open, maybe the emerges ideas, innovative topics as well. So i think what was underlined concerning the budapest convention and the role in the region, it would be very interesting in the cybersecurity topic could talk to high-level participants because it is a hot topic practically for the region if you take into account the (indiscernible), the cybersecurity bill and the in initiative going on in the asia-pacific continent, especially in the field of the harmonization of legislation. So i do believe as it was suggested by mark to add cybersecurity as one of the topics. 
What was said by vladimir radunovic concerning the format of the workshops, i think it is really a very good idea to look at the formats of how and not focused on names because if we do have names from the beginning, it is one of the major points for assessment. I think in case, we assess the experts and the names and not the format or maybe the innovative idea then could appear. So roundtables or just classical workshops for a number of subjects, i think it will be a great idea. 
And it was said yesterday, maybe we should pay attention concerning the open forums in order not to have the duplication of the workshops and really to be sure that the open forums, it is the space where concrete organizations will present the initiatives and not to have a kind of workshops which will give an added value to this format of the open forums, once again. 
And at the end, i would like to say that we should encourage the new topics to come into here in order to be able to appear in to support the new topics. And maybe during the assessment process, we can have a look at is it a new topic? Because if it is a topic that came from the same organization that was organized this same topic during the last three years with the same panelists, maybe we can just ask ourselves and take a point of assessment, what is the new angle or what is the added value of this concrete workshop proposal? Thanks so much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I would like to close the list. I think we have discussed, i think, in great detail now the workshops. I think there is a general sense that we do want to work more closely and have more of a guiding role, shall we put it, with the workshop organizers. There is a general feeling that quality matters, matters more than just a number of workshops. 
There is not a general agreement on how we want to limit it. Some would like to limit it radically. But i think we all agree that we need to focus more on the quality of the proposals. The criteria used last year i think may be a little bit too rigid. And i notice also there seems to be a general sense that there are two kinds of criteria, there are those that it really should apply as a minimum threshold and then there are others that are desirable if possible. Among the minimum criteria, i think you said diversity of views. We had that from the very beginning. And i think that remains important, that we don't have capture in a single workshop, that workshops really allow for diversity of views to be expressed. 
Developing country participation i think remains important and we should insist -- we can help organizers who may not have contacts with developing countries to give speakers from developing countries. We had in the past the resource list, list of resource persons posted on the igf secretariat. That can be helpful. But it can also be more proactive in suggesting speakers to achieve the diversity. 
The point wendy made is, of course, very relevant, the overall diversity of the event. However, this is much more difficult to achieve when you look at each individual event that i think we all recognize this is almost impossible to achieve in a single workshop unless you have gained the time of ten people or so. 
But the completeness, i think, of the proposal, i think, is a relevant criteria. And i think there is also, i would say, an emerging consensus that we issue a call for preliminary proposals that don't need to be concrete but where we do get a feeling of what people are interested in. 
In terms of substance, we will revisit that in the afternoon. But i will give the floor to observers as well at the end of the mag members. 
But we had a lengthy list, and i mentioned the issues at the beginning of the meeting. But we will revisit that in the afternoon. But i think -- and also the idea to group the workshops. I would assume that we have agreement on that kind of format, that we will then look at group a cluster of workshops and organize a roundtable. Would be nice if it can be done in the big round table we saw in the main hall to make it as interactive as possible. That's a logistical detail we will leave to the secretariat and the host country to sort out. 
This is my sort of preliminary reading of the discussion any think also the new faces criteria is something we have to take very seriously, not just the usually suspects. And i think we're all guilty of that. We appear too often in workshops that we should maybe think when people approach us, yes would be nice but actually, i know somebody else who would fit your bill equally well, if not better, and just bring a new face to the floor. 
Okay. Sorry, i have talked for too long. Izumi and then anriette and then (saying name) and then we go to the observers. 
>> izumi aizu: while listening to some of the suggestions, i think last year we had broken into a few groups, the mag members, to evaluate the proposals by tracks or themes or subthemes. And while we are very busy inside the group to evaluate, last year's notion was as many pointed out, we encourage as many proposal to meet -- if they seemingly meet the criteria to accommodate, not to restrict too much. Although my group, we did relatively more rigorous evaluation than others. I'm not so sure. And we didn't know how the other groups were selecting until the very end. 
And we didn't have the time to see the overall balance or completion as a whole. 
I'm still hesitant to say whether we should see that overall balance after selecting each groups -- i mean, each proposal and also each thematic group in relation to if, for some suggestions are saying, we don't have to really apply so strictly of the criteria of the gender balance or representation of the regions. But that may locally accepted for evaluating the proposal in terms quality. But if you take back one step or two and see the balance, i think it will be very difficult exercise. But i think we need to at least keep in mind that viewpoint as well. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Anriette? 
>>anriette esterhuysen: just trying to figure out why izumi is trying to sacrifice gender balance among all the others that could be sacrificed. Not sure i agree. 
Thank you, markus, for giving me the floor again. I'm not happy taking space from the observers. I just want to make a suggestion for process for the afternoon. At previous mag meetings in the last two years, we broke up into smaller subsets of mag members where we addressed a subset of questions or planned in a smaller space. 
And i would really recommend that. This room is full of people with very good ideas and this morning we've heard a whole sequence of those ideas. I don't actually see how we can possibly process out that and synthesize them into concrete suggestions if we don't actually change how we work. 
So i would propose that we spend some time after lunch breaking up into groups where we look at the overall format and flow and shape of the event and, secondly, how we ask for proposals, what type of themes and questions we want to use to invite proposals? And then -- and also looking at how we would do selection and criteria -- a set criteria for selection of those proposals. There might be other issues the secretariat would like us to discuss. 
I just think that we'll use our resources and our time more effectively if we do not speak in just a sequential one person after another. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Yes, and the setting of the room is not very helpful either. It is in a sort of classical u.N. Setting. A roundtable setting is more helpful for interactive discussions. 
We turn to -- (saying name). Sorry. 
>> thank you, mr. Chairman. (saying name), igf azerbaijan. I will try to be very short. First of all, i would like to talk to (saying name)'s comments and then i have own proposal for the next host countries regarding the preparational issues. I think it will be better to involve the preparation of previous host country staff in order to eliminate any kind of shortcuts since, let me say, i have experience to receive so-called (indiscernible) regarding the preparational issues. And i'm ready to test this as i come as i could. 
The second issue i would like to bring, we have noted that we have all of the prepared event summary as a report and in a short time, you will receive them. And from your stakeholders as well. The last issue i would like to inform that during the last lesson learned since igf, we gained many things and now we are ready to start up the two big projects with desa related to internet governance. In this regard, all interested parties are most welcome to join this. 
And the last thing i would like to add that these two projects remain funded by the government of azerbaijan with the support of you united nations development program in azerbaijan. Thank you, chairman. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Start with nick, is he still online? He was waiting patiently. Okay. We give maybe the floor to adam and you try and get him online. 
Adam, please. 
>> adam peake: it would be helpful if the mag were to better define internet governance and how it should be used and considered in workshop proposals. There are plenty of other spaces in wsis follow-up for non-ig events. It seems the mag is going to take on the unenviable task of rejecting workshops or being more stringent. That being the case, i think we should consider conflict of interest, i.E., don't assess your own workshops. That would be a bit unfair. 
I wondered if there is any discussion in the mag about your assessment methods and how you're consistent with scoring. I've not seen anything so far. I think that's going to be important because otherwise it is rather random. How many mag members completed assessments last year? Again, if there is going to be this new stringency in assessing workshops, then i think the mag should take this very seriously. I know they do and it is hard work. I don't mean to suggest anything negative about that. But it does need a very significant number of mag members completing all assessments and that is not an enviable task, but it is important. 
The may meeting is also important for the assessment process. We've seen that before. The mag plus other members have been able to make good progress together, moving the meeting to june might mean mag only which might make your assessment tasks much harder and not involve as many observers which is going to be difficult. 
A quick comment for olga and transcription, and this isn't that helpful but actually transcription costs are quite low and i know you still have to find the money yourself but they really are quite cheap to do transcription. So spanish transcription, you could probably find online. It is really quite an affordable service. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Is nick ready now? 
>>remote intervention: if this igf could be a positive challenge to the (audio dropped out) raise the bar on content. Of course, i understand that decisions are self-organized but creating some basic evaluation criteria that make clear to people they have to do something more than a repeat of the past to get through is a challenge that many would choose to meet. 
This could also help solve the issue where there are too many sessions submitted for the available time slot and people are encouraged to simply combine multiple sessions together. It would be nice to see everyone who wants to organize a session get a slot, but that's not realistic and simply combining sessions doesn't really upgrade the content much. It just offers results in a session in which there are really large number of panels who speak one after another with little audience interaction. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: andrea becalli and then robert guerra. 
>>andrea becalli: thank you, mr. Chair. Andrea becalli from (saying name). I will try to be brief. A lot of of the points have been covered. Is there another format for criteria? It is important if that will be further organized? If another format was going to be a new criteria for the workshop selection. 
And then, also, it is important to know in advance if these emerging process that workshop proposers we have to engage into. I know it is a lengthy process. It is an useful one. It creates a lot of interesting synergies. It takes time. If something has to happen, it is important that the workshop proposers are aware of that in the early stage. 
And then i think theresa mentioned before, yesterday in the open consultation we saw there was a call for moving to new themes. And the new themes means also workshop has to be in a way looking to the new themes. That could be parent of the selection process so asking for new workshops to (indiscernible) thematic discussion there. 
I think it was important to remind the proposal that unesco mentioned yesterday that we actually report back to the igf on the activities and actions that happen after the igf. Often these activities are actually discussed during the workshops. I think it is important to promote that around the other workshop organization stakeholders that are proposing workshops so they know that from the igf they can go back and show us what has been done. That's also an implementation of the multistakeholder process. 
I also (indiscernible) new how many new faces you bring on the panel. That's something you mention before, mr. Chair. And i think it is a good approach to being new stakeholders. 
One last thing, as has been mentioned before, flying panelists from one part to the other part of the globe, it costs a lot of money and doing remote participation is a resolution. So making it clear it would be important to look from stakeholders from the region. Many of the stakeholders involved in the igf have a global reach. So if they want, they can do that. I think that's something that can be part of the suggestion for the new workshop. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: , andrea. Robert guerra? 
>>robert guerra: this is robert guerra from the citizen lab. I would like to thank the indonesian delegation for what is a very multistakeholder approach in putting together the igf? It really differs to some of the other organizations of the igf and really shows a progress in how the host country themselves are taking it on. 
In accordance to some of the comments made earlier today, i will just go through a couple of things. I would echo some of adam's comments in regards that if the mag is going to be taking on more of a task and looking at more innovative approach at reviewing proposals such as a call for topics or a call from interests, taking a look at them and then selecting a short list and then having that go out for further proposals, definitely issues of conflict are going to be important. But it is also going to shift to the mag more work to do over the next few months. And so it will be important for the mag to recognize that. But i think it is an important kind of innovation. 
Going to some of the comments that vlada mentioned yesterday, in submitting the preliminary proposals or statements of interest, that should be light. Perhaps that could include tagging or a couple of other things so the mag and others could more easily cluster the proposals and take a look at them but also take a look at issues that are similar and panels that could be merged. 
An issue of concern might be something that was flagged yesterday and today as emerging issues. Some of the emerging issues raised may not be something that the mag knows particularly a lot about. I would ask thoued maybe submitting proposals or something around emerging issues put in an explanation as to why they think this is an emerging issues and the mag may have a slightly different deadline for emerging issues or a longer window. 
In terms of other innovative approaches for proposals, might i suggest that a small number of proposals be up for competition and that they openly compete. A conference that's done is the south by southwest conference that takes place every we are where a variety of proposals get submitted, open to the public, and people can vote. And that might be a way to engage some of the of other stakeholders in that. It might want to do that for a small number to see how it works. 
But an innovative approach in helping a mag select some performances and bring the community onboard could be particularly helpful. 
One last comment in regards to new participants, i think that's a great idea, but i think new participants that have no idea how the igf works might be a recipe for disaster, so it might be useful for them to explain why they think they can actually contribute and maybe some experience that they bring in organizing events elsewhere. So that would be something that would be useful and perhaps if there are others that want to encourage them, if that be there as well, too. So i think it would be good to maybe include that. But for the new participants, it's key, but i think it's also careful that they also be good at it. And i would like to echo an earlier comment in regards to having high-level speakers participate that's going to draw everyone to the meeting. And the sooner some high-level topics can be mentioned, it will be easier to recruit them as well as high-level corporate officials that usually require several months' advance notice as well as heads of state. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I have closed the list. I saw two flags going up. I presume it was in reaction to one of the statements. Chris first and then bill. 
>>chris disspain: simply just say we have actually done this thing with workshops before. This is not new. Last year we split the workshops up into the -- sorry -- the five pillars a subgroup of us went away and worked on looking at the workshops. I shared the critical internet resources subgroup. And we did actually say no to some workshops and we did require additional work so on and so on. It is not new and we have dealt with it before and we have managed it and we have dealt with conflict. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
Bill? 
>>bill drake: i'm going to, since people want to go eat, i'm going to resist the temptation to do my 47 points and make one. And this is something that some of us have been crabby about for years around the igf, but i'm going to raise it again because adam raised it and i'm just going to echo him. 
Could we not perhaps build into the list of criteria that must be met by workshop proposals that they be on global -- that they be on internet governance? As internet governance was defined through the wsis process and understood, i thought, in setting up the igf, the definition of internet governance was very much linked to the proposal to create the igf so we all know in the wgig and subsequently. 
There are still, every year, many, many proposals that are basically information society, ict for development, all kinds of -- anything related to i.T. And communication, information in any way. 
From the standpoint of having criteria that are clear to use as a threshold seems to me asking people to submit proposals about the nominal focus of the forum. It shouldn't be that complicated. 
So i would like to propose that. 
>>chair kummer: okay. Point well-taken. 
And with that, we adjourn for lunch. Let's be back here at 1:30 so that we can -- and let's start at 1:30 sharp. Enjoy your lunch. Talk about it and come back with new ideas. 
(lunch break.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/3e7e23b7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t