2010 IGF Planning Meeting Transcript (Day 2)

Transcription

1 2010 IGF Planning Meeting Transcript (Day 2) IGF Consultation 11 May 2010 Morning Session Geneva, Switzerland Palais des Nations Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the May IGF Planning Meeting in Geneva. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. [ Gavel. ] >>NITIN DESAI: Good morning. Let me begin first by spending -- just summarizing where I think we reached yesterday. Then I suggest we spend a little more time in coming to closure on that. After that, I'm going to request a few people to work, say, from around 12:00 to 3:00 on the details about the workshops, moderators. Then we reassemble at 3:00 to see what proposals they have for us. If we agree, this is the way we can proceed. Because it's very difficult to talk about which workshops should go where in a big group like this. It's better if somebody comes up with some ideas to which we can react, you see. And same thing, the same group of people can also make an effort at identifying potential moderators. Or in one or two cases, I think we have talked of panels. So let me first summarize where we are session by session. We -- our opening will be the "Setting the Scene" session of -- which we have started and we've had in the past. And the general feeling was, it worked quite well the way we did it in Sharm El Sheikh, and that we will follow the same pattern, structure, and format for that "Setting the Scene" initial session. The second session after that would be on the regional perspectives. And, again, we felt that there was probably a case for trying to ensure that the contributions from the region were given in a form which is -- makes things comparable. And we suggested that the way to do that is to encourage the contribution from the regions to follow the structure of the agenda that we have so that there will be contributions on the agenda items that we have from the regions so that we can then look at it across, without ruling out the possibility that each region we have something more specific to its concerns which it would wish to advance. There was also the suggestions which have come that this would also be a very good way of tying in with the regional hubs which would be there for the remote participants. And we should design the regional session in a manner which facilitates this engagement of the regional hubs of the remote participants that would be there. I think, by and large, these opening sessions have -- more or less well defined. I'm not sure we need to do too much extra work on this, because there are workshops which we have to tie in, we don't really have to worry too much about moderators. We can follow the same pattern as the past. The opening ceremony we discussed. And it hopefully will be a short one. We then go on to the substantive sessions. And beginning on the second day, with "Managing Critical internet Resources." My understanding from yesterday is that we agreed that this session, as in the past, would be moderated by Chris Disspain and Jeanette Hofmann. Chris had already made some suggestions on which are the workshops which could feed in into this session. And I thought there was general acceptance of this.

2 We still have to look at the other workshops. And let me just anticipate a bit and say that what I'm going to propose is that we ask some smaller groups to look at each of the sessions and give some indication of which are the workshops which are clearly a good idea, should be given a green light straightaway; which are the workshops where we need to maybe find out a little bit more what they have in mind or where, perhaps -- perhaps encourage them to merge with some other workshop. Let's call that the Amber light workshops. And somebody will have to sit down and do that with the list of workshops that we have. And I'm going to suggest later how we -- and in this particular case, I'm going to suggest that maybe Chris and Jeanette can take on this responsibility of looking at the workshops which are part of this and just give an indication as to which do they think would be clearly a good idea and should go ahead, and which of them should we really ask for more information or encourage merger or something of that sort. The second session after that would be on "Internet Governance for Development." This is the one on which we spent a great deal of time on which there was a certain amount of -- how shall I say? -- lack of clarity on what exactly are we trying to do in this session. It's going to require perhaps a little more discussion. And maybe we should do that. My understanding of where we were yesterday was that in some ways, this is the session which is going to see in what way do Internet governance arrangements make it easier or more difficult for Internet expansion in developing countries, Internet reaching people who otherwise are excluded. So this would include some discussion of what are access issues, but not just that. There are other dimensions. But I suspect that we may have to talk a little bit more about this. My understanding was that the feeling was that in order to set the scene, we do need something in the beginning. And there was some consideration thought of a small panel which would set -- say what is it that we are talking about when we say "Internet governance for development." And I do feel a certain obligation to do this session in a constructive fashion, because this is the one continuous comment that I've had from participants and generally stakeholders, that they don't see sufficiently strong focus on development. I'm not entirely sure everybody has the same thing in mind. Let's see whether we can do something more with this session. We go on to the "Access and Diversity" session. There was this certain understanding that some of the items that are listed under "access" would probably more logically belong under "Internet Governance for Development." One example is the whole business about whether regulatory regimes encourage investment or not is probably the best place under the "Internet Governance for Development," and that there would be inevitably a certain focus on the access side, not just on issues of access in terms of how many people can get -- have access to the Internet, what's the cost, but also those dimensions of Internet infrastructure which do influence whether or not you have access to information knowledge which is available there. There is a little confusion there as to how much of that falls under this heading, how much of it under "Openness." But the feeling was that this is not a big issue. My understanding is this would be one where we would have two moderators, one for access and one for diversity. On diversity, there's, of course, a great deal of focus on multilingualism. But we will emphasize, there are other aspects of diversity, including for the disabled. There's a whole issue of migrants which was mentioned and one of the workshops involves. And that is something which we should not lose sight of when we look at the issue and question of diversity. The fourth substantive session would be on security, openness, and privacy. And here, I think this we did discuss fairly extensively. And my reading of what we discussed was that we would have an opening which would allow the issues to be linked with each other, emphasizing not just that there is a competition between security, openness, and privacy, but there could also be synergies. And a point which was made by, in fact, a lady from the Internet rights group. But very quickly, we would -- it will be handed over to two moderators, one for security and one for openness. And I thought there was a willingness to experiment with my suggestion that the security session should be moderated by somebody who's a bit more of a specialist on openness and privacy issues, and openness and privacy session by somebody who is more of a specialist on security issues. That's an experiment. Let's see whether it works. But we can try. Again I am going to request some people to go into the whole question of which workshop belongs where, who are the moderators that we could ask, and so on.

3 That brings us to the last day, where we will have the opening session on taking stock and looking at the future. We did discuss this quite extensively. And this is not a session where we are thinking of a panel. We would still have two moderators, more for logistical reasons than for any other. But we will have an open process of inviting contributions around a set of questions, built around the three questions that were listed in the paper which has been sent to you already. But making them a little more precise so that we get responses which are helpful. And we will certainly, say, request perhaps the secretariat to see whether it can draw on those contributions to prepare something like an issues paper for discussion or simply a summary review of what is it that has come from the different contributions on these dimensions. And the last session, then, would be on cloud computing. There was -- Again, we discussed this quite extensively. And this is a session where there was perhaps a feeling that we may need a panel which would have one -- one person who would be there to explain what this is all about, cloud computing; one person who would focus on the issues of governance which arise from cloud computing; and perhaps one or two people who would reflect a user perspective and the issues that users would see in relying on cloud computing for their purposes, for instance, Fouad mentioned issues about this for the public sector in this area. This is, I think, more or less where we were at the end of the day yesterday. My suggestion is that we just quickly go through it session by session to see whether there are any second thoughts, and come to closure on the basic structure that we have agreed on and then ask maybe two or three people to take on the task of connecting the workshops more precisely and identifying and suggesting perhaps a list of people from whom we can select moderators or panels as necessary. So let me begin, then, with -- if you agree, with the -- if you agree, I would leave the "Setting the Scene" and the regional thing as more or less a done thing, because we don't have to identify any specific workshops there or any such thing. Let's start with "Managing Critical internet Resources." Here is one where I think we have in some ways come to more or less a closure, and the only thing left is the workshops, the work on the workshops. Which are the workshops which we give a green light to; which are the workshops which require more consideration, either in terms of the content or in terms of the possibility of merger. Are there any other reflections, et cetera, on this first substantive session on "managing critical Internet resources"? Any overnight doubts which people have which we need to look at? Or can I take it that it's okay if we ask Jeanette and Chris to have a look at the workshops, and we come back to their proposals in the afternoon? Is that okay? Good. Then let's move on to the next one, where I think we do need a little more time to discuss, which is "Internet Governance for Development." We did spend a fair amount of time yesterday. But my understanding is that people are still a little hesitant and not entirely clear as to what all this is about. And, Bill, I understand you have some -- Did you want to say something on this? No? Bill? Who -- oh, Bill -- this Bill, not that Bill. Okay. This Bill. [ Laughter ] >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Which Bill would you like to hear from? >>NITIN DESAI: This one. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, unfortunately, I was not able to be here in the morning, when apparently there was a quite interesting conversation about this. But I looked over the transcript of the discussion yesterday, and some thoughts came to mind that I thought I would share, just responses to points people made and perhaps, hopefully, some clarification based in part on the fact that I've been beating the drum on the notion that development should be more central to the IGF for about four years now and

4 have organized a series of workshops over, now I guess this would be the fourth if it's approved, over four years on the notion of a development agenda for Internet governance. The first point I wanted to raise was that there was apparently some discussion yesterday about the notion of the relationship between IG4D and ICT4D. And people were concerned about that. And I think that part of the problem here is that we, in a lot of these discussions, have never been very clear, I think, about precisely the level of analysis that we're concerned with in the IGF. I mean, even going back to WSIS, we use the term "Internet governance" in a kind of broad, inclusive way which allows for the inclusion of national-type mechanisms as well as global mechanisms. I mean, it's hard to tell people that the national policies that are being adopted in a given country are not somehow Internet governance. They are. But I think what we are concerned with are those mechanisms that are global or transnational or international, at least, in their extent. And to the extent that that's the case, the whole discussion about the kinds of issues that normally we would go into the rubric of ICT4D, having an enabling environment, the proper licensing and regulation of independent ISPs, all these kinds of questions, in my mind, would not necessarily be apropos. I would think, instead, what we would want to focus on and certainly what we've done in the workshops I've organized is to try, instead, to home in on the linkages between global Internet governance mechanisms and development specifically. So I think if you take that route, you can sort of bracket the whole ICT4D type question and stick to what are the institutional arrangements and the policy procedures they follow and the policy outputs that they generate at the global level and how those relate to development concerns. And sometimes you'll find that they may not, which is the next point. I was interested when Bertrand raised the question -- and I think somebody else did as well -- of, well, just what is the connection? Is there any connection between these two worlds? And it's precisely -- that's precisely the point, isn't it? We haven't really talked about whether there are connections or what -- how we might think about those at a level beyond some workshops. We've not had a broad-based, inclusive discussion about this. And yet, development was an overarching objective and concern throughout the WSIS process and certainly for developing countries, you know, for years now. So it seems to me that part of what we're doing, then, is necessarily an intellectual exercise. When I think about IG4D, to me, it's about mainstreaming development considerations into discussions about global Internet governance as one of the set of parameters. People often talk about cross-cutting parameters like human rights, transparency, and so on. Well, I know that from my involvement, for example, in ICANN and in other environments that I have followed that in many cases, development questions are never raised. It's simply not posed. Hey, what might this mean in terms of development? The whole notion of taking that as one of the baselines that one would necessarily want to think through when adopting policies on new gtlds or anything else just hasn't really by institutionalized. And so part of what we, I think, are trying to do is to establish the presumption that among the factors that one might want to take into consideration, as appropriate, would be what is the relationship to development. And, again, once we go through that kind of an exercise and look at both the institutional arrangements pertaining to Internet infrastructure, critical Internet resources, and so on, and those pertaining to the use of the Internet for information, communication, and commerce, it may well be that in some instances, we note that there are no particularly significant or special developmental dimensions, that the existing mechanisms are perfectly fine, address development issues in entirely adequate ways. And that's fine, you can sort of set that aside and say that no longer an issue that we have to be concerned about. But it might also be the case that one would identify in that process some issues where a development perspective would have been usefully brought to bear or could have been and hasn't been. And in that case, then the exercise is about, okay, let's put that on the stable. Let's think about if we look through this through that -- look at the issue through that optic, do we see different dimensions? Do we see different types of policy implications that might be of concern? And if there are, are there either -- is there good news to share? Are there best practices to identify, ways in which institutions are taking steps that are very effectively promoting and enhancing development? Or are there potentially problems? Are there

5 potentially ways in which development has not been thought about and perhaps some tweaks, some enhancements could be contemplated that might improve the mesh between development and Internet governance. So alongside criteria of efficiency and everything else, you would want to treat development as simply one of the -- one element of the mix. That's sort of what we've been doing in the workshops I've organized, then, is to try to march through the set of issues and to look at, in particular, three dimensions, capacity-building, of course, as something that has to be systematized more; possible institutional issues, including potential barriers to participation and engagement by developing country actors, whether formal or informal, cultural, information overload, so on; and the substantive policy outputs, whether it's the names and numbers, standards, security, whatever, looking at each of these arenas where policies are being adopted and asking, "Has development -- are there developmental dimensions that haven't been brought to bear?" So I hope that if we have a main session on this, that we can stay at that sort of global level and try and make those linkages to identify the issues that are particularly important. I'll make one other point, I guess, that I heard some discussion about the notion that perhaps this session should be framed more as being about developing countries and IG. And Waudo made a very interesting observation that I think has to be kept in mind. When we talk about development or developing countries, we don't mean just governments. We mean developing country actors, including the private sector, civil society, and the technical community from developing countries. We want to think about how to advance development in a people-centered way that engages all of those actors. And the impacts on those actors may be differential of different policies that are being pursued and different procedures that are put in place. So I think that that has to be kept in mind. Certainly governments are an absolutely essential part of the mix. But we don't want to just talk about the sort of -- I would presume we don't want to just talk about the international political questions as much as we want to talk about development per se. So that when you talk about the elephant in the room issue, the root, for example, the question is not just have there been political demands about, you know, making that more international and so on, which I would certainly support, but, rather, does the existing mechanism in some way impact development in a way that we can identify? And if not, fine, let's recognize that. So I think that -- I hope we can make that kind of international level and kind of systematic walk-through an important dimension of this conversation. Otherwise, you do slide into an ICT4D national policy thing, and it could become very unfocused. And, finally, I just want to note, there was talk about background materials and so on, and it was noted, I guess, by Markus yesterday that for the IGF book that's coming out that I'm editing, we're having a series of papers by different people on different dimensions of Internet governance, has this been addressed in the IGF, I just want to note that I'm doing a paper on the notion of development agenda for that -- in that context. So that will be available as well as perhaps one other input. But the notion that Brazil put forward of perhaps forming a team of experts that would define exactly what the issues might be, how we might frame this could be an interesting approach as well. It would be useful to get a number of different inputs, I think, as background to this. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Yes, I think since we have a transcript of what Bill just said, maybe that will give us a starting point for this paper that we want. >>NITIN DESAI: Yeah, I think since we have a transcript of what Bill just said, maybe that will give you as starting point for this paper that we want. No, I think that's very helpful. Any further comments, et cetera, on this? Yes, Miguel.

6 >>CSTD: Thank, Chairman. Just to refer also to the national level, Bill was very to the point when referring to the international level. In the national level, I will -- as a person that has been a struggle with this relationship for years already, I can cite examples of Internet governance and development relationship at the national level, radio frequency management, infrastructure sharing, and also Internet exchange point. Also, you have regulatory issues, mainly because of convergence. These four areas definitely impact access and connectivity. And most of the time are at the national level that they are taken. They are also taken at the international level, but you can do a lot at the national level with them. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Ayesha. >>ICC: Just a brief request. Would it be possible for Bill to share with us who all of the people that are going to contribute to the book so we can perhaps help to provide input on which of the contributors to the book might be a good combination for the panel and whether also see whether there might be, outside the authors of this book or contributors, other people who might be good for the panel of this session? >>NITIN DESAI: I think, may I suggest it's very difficult to discuss names in a big group like this. I am actually going to suggest or anticipate that I am going to request Bill, maybe Alvaro and Fouad to really have a crack over the morning at connecting the workshops, identifying names, et cetera, and come back to us this afternoon with some specific suggestions. And three of them can -- and Alvaro, is he here? He is sitting there. So if the three of them can have a crack at looking at how do we do this in terms of who are the people, which are the workshops which we connect with this, that would be very helpful. One of the things that is leading to this confusion and problems in this whole area of Internet governance for development, is it that or is it ICT for development, is that in some ways ICT for development is too undifferentiated. There are at least two distinct categories there. There are a class of public-policy applications for education, for health, for governance which typically remain within the control of the government departments which are also responsible for Internet infrastructure. The Department of Information Technology has a responsibility both for the management of the Internet infrastructure and usually also has a certain role to play in public-policy applications of the Internet. Now, those public-policy applications of the Internet report in the "ICT for Development" basket which also includes what I would describe as private applications of the Internet, for commerce, for whatever. Media, whatever it is, which I would describe as essentially private applications of the Internet. And that's the problem that arises, that the government departments are really combined. They have looked both at the infrastructure issue as well as at the use of that infrastructure for public policy. And particularly when you get into issues of e-governance, then I think that the governments find it difficult to say, "Why are you saying this is not part of your agenda?" And also the point which Miguel raised that we do need to ask the question, are there ways of managing the Internet at the national level which is positive or negative for development? And there are issues. There are ways of managing the Internet at the national level which could be negative for development. And there are ways of managing it which could be positive for development. So if we are talking of Internet governance for development and not just global Internet governance for development, then I think it is legitimate to include somebody there in the panel or wherever it is who will be able to talk about national Internet governance. And I do hope, Alvaro, you can look into this because a lot of thought has gone into this particularly in Brazil. Bill, you wanted to comment.

7 >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I wanted to respond real briefly. First on Miguel's point, it is certainly the case that if you were to try to sit down and figure out what's most important to developing countries, probably getting the national policies right is 70% of the game; okay? So I am not in any way suggesting that national policies don't matter, but those kinds of national-policy issues, the enabling environment type issues, are discussed in a lot of other institutions, whereas there's no place in the international system of organizations to talk about how the global Internet governance mechanisms relate to development. So that's part of why I tried in what we are doing to keep the focus there. But certainly one could find a way to mesh those two sets of concerns, but it does, then, lead one towards a much broader discussion of national economic policy and so on. Then I just want to make sure I understood. Ayesha was asking about the authors and the chapters of the book. They are not all about the development. There's only one chapter about development. I can certainly tell you about the authors in the book, but I don't know that that would necessarily mean that those are the right people for this particular panel. So I can do that off-line, if you want to. >>NITIN DESAI: Yes, Fouad. >>FOUAD BAJWA: Fouad, Mr. Chairman. I echo what Bill has said and I echo what Miguel has said. And yes, I also support your recommendation. And last year I put up a small mailing list on google.com/group/ig4d which was to bring in people to discuss the subject, they were the broader stakeholder focus. And like many of the searchers joined up. And I think this is one place to start up involving people and their comments online. So this list is available, and I can circulate the address. Second thing, obviously like every Internet governance issue has a developmental aspect, and that's why we are running into the cross-cutting and the overlapping issue. But at the same time, the precondition is actually having the Internet in the first place, then it being available to everyone across the country, and then the effects and impacts it can have on people's lives. Obviously that is ground with Internet policy development and issues of development. But, again, it is goes into coordination. They are moving towards coordinated efforts in aspects of IG and not the supply side such as telecommunications. That's why we keep on bumping into that ICT4D issue, because people tend to take it too much towards telecommunications. And I think it's the access to the factors shipping the use of the Internet that are central to the features of the development debate. And again, many things come into it. When financial aspects come into it, human development, the access issues, definitely. And I think the way we moved the session in the beginning actually creates the foundation for later-on discussions. And then I am hopeful that as the mandate is continued for the IGF next year may have a very large amount of particular input from people. So this is a step to go forward, and yes, let's get all the actors together and come out with a background document, because that is necessary. The one in the IGF report will be substantial, and at the same time, more documents on the subject. Because this is one way we should start going in the IGF, that you know certain background papers which are not like making recommendations but discussing the issue, and creating the background material for setting the scenes of these main sessions is a very good approach. And I think we should go about this support. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you.

8 >>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN: Thank you. I just wanted to pick up on your comment about national policies. And I attended Bill's workshop last year and I thought one of the interesting parts of the discussion was thinking about ways to expand the multistakeholder dialogue that occurs at the IGF and translate that into ongoing capacity building and discussions that may help national thinking on Internet governance. And I think there maybe is a process way to talk about the issues instead of just the substantive issues of development, but also it was kind of a thought that there's an interesting model emerging here that can help with development as well, and what can be done to help promote that and foster that at the national level and bringing the IGF process to kind of back home to national and regional issues. >>NITIN DESAI: (Speaking off mic.) >>M. KATUNDU: Thank you, Chair. You can call me Michael. Thank you. What I wanted to -- I wanted to add my voice on the discussion of IG for development, and it's true that there are two perspectives in this IG for development. Someone at the global level where we end up drawing best practices and so forth and policy issues, but we also have the IG for development at the national level. And the linkages have been coming out from the regional IGFs. From this point of view, my suggestion is that, yes, we need a panel to set the scene for this very broad session, and the panel should draw the representatives from the various multistakeholder. That is the private sector, civil society, the government as well. And we could have some of the panel participants in this session drawn from the regional IGFs so that we can be able to take advantage of some of the issues which are the regional levels. And most of the time you find these are the same issues which are also at the global level, especially when you talk of issues of access, there are also issues of Internet exchange points, issues of infrastructure. And all those issues, they trickle from the national level to the global level. So I think, yes, I hear Bill, but at the end of the day, some of these national issues, they symptom need to be able to be discussed at the global level so that we can see how we can link them with the global perspective of the IG for development. Thank you, Chair. >>NITIN DESAI: Yes, Adiel. >>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Thank you, sir. I just wanted to comment that the IG4D has scope that goes from national to regional, and it's good because we can get it both ways. We can contribute from the local knowledge to the global, and also improve our best practices from the global to the national. So that's good. The one thing that concerns me is I think ICT4D is distracting. It takes us way too far from our focus, and so for that reason, even if there are overlaps, I don't want to see T I think I want to focus on our Internet governance and provide development through that. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Yeah. I think that point is well taken. Nobody has disputed that our focus should remain on Internet governance for development. We should not stray into ICT for development, even if they are public-policy applications like e-governance, e-education, e-health because that will take us too far afield. I just want to mention why these issues crop up, because the same people are usually doing both at the national level and therefore confusion arises. But I would completely agree. Can I suggest, I think we are getting closer to what I think we expect out of this session. And Michael, maybe you can also

9 joint that group. And what I would request of the four of you, which is Bill Drake, Michael, Fouad, and Alvaro, is to have a look first at the workshops, she which one clearly fits into this, which are the ones where we really have to get more information or encourage merger. The whole idea of the background document, how would that be done. The panel. I think one of the things that I hear is the importance of reflecting, if we like, some comparative national experience in the discussions because in some ways, this may be the most important take-away for people who come to this meeting. They go away, say, oh, I found out about how they handle this multistakeholder dimension in such and such place, or how they handle the whole issue of the interface for telecom regulation in that country and so on. So I think that might be a valuable take-away for people. So let's see the panel that we put together for this includes somebody who can talk well about the national dimension of Internet governance also. And maybe the regional dimension, as Nii was mentioning, because the Number Resource Organization -- the real interface of the Internet Service Provider is through the regional organizations, with LACNIC, et cetera. The other ones who are the primary contact points with ISPs at the country level. So let's do look at this and maybe come back to us in the 3:00 session with your suggestions on how -- in terms of people and workshops. Okay? Is that fine? Can we move on to the next session, then, "Access and Diversity." Now, "Access and Diversity," as I said, is something which will have to take on board what will be discussed in the "Internet Governance for Development," but the broad understanding was that we really have to look for two moderators, one handling the access side, one handling the diversity side. And are there issues which people want to pick up there or which -- I also want to emphasize that we do have to have a closer look at the subheadings under "Access and Diversity" and see which of them should be shifted really to "Internet Governance for Development." And I would request whoever we ask to do this work on the workshops, et cetera, also to give some ideas. Olga has already done some work on this. Olga, could you tell us a little bit about it. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yes, chairman. I have been reviewing two documents, one the workshops proposed for diversity, which was requested by you yesterday, and also I have been reviewing the subthemes under "Access and Diversity." And I have noticed that most of the subthemes included under "Access and Diversity" mainly are for access. There are a few of them at the end of the list which are related with diversity, which are mainly multilingualism and gender and some other issues. And in the revision of the workshops, there are 12 about diversity. Four of them, in my modest opinion, are not so much related with diversity; mainly more related with openness or some other issues that I cannot really identify. And eight of them, four are multilingualism and four are gender diversity, migration of populations, and some other issues. So I would say eight are focused on diversity and four of them may be merged or put into another issue. And my comment about the subthemes in the main session from "Access and Diversity" are that most of them are for access, and few of them for diversity. So I wonder if some of the subthemes should go into development or we should perhaps enhance the subthemes about diversity. That's my comment. >>NITIN DESAI: Okay. Are there any further reflections, comments on this? Then can I suggest that in terms of -- this is where we have to identify names for two moderators. We have to do the sort of restructuring of the themes which Olga is suggesting, have a closer look at the workshops and how we connect the workshops with -- Yes.

10 >>GINGER PAQUE: I would just -- I agree with you, and I think the work that Olga is doing is very important. I am willing to help Olga work on it. >>NITIN DESAI: Okay. >>GINGER PAQUE: So if there are other -- >>NITIN DESAI: Okay. Olga, Ginger, maybe one more person to do this before 3:00. Yes, Tulika and -- >>TULIKA PANDEY: I volunteer myself. >>NITIN DESAI: Sure, Tulika. And I think there was somebody there at the back, yes, certainly, please join. Do you want the floor or do you want to join in the group? >>SENEGAL: Join the group. >>NITIN DESAI: Okay; join the group. Yes, Olga. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chair. What's mandate for the group? >>NITIN DESAI: What I am suggesting is I am going to try and see whether we can come to closure on this before 12:00. After that, I am going to request the three, four groups that we would have -- more than four. Probably five groups that we will have to meet here after 12:00, and we reassemble as a full meeting at 3:00 and we'll just go through the suggestions which come. The task of the people that get together is to identify people for moderators and any work that has to be done on themes, if it is possible to do that, and most important on the workshops. Which are the workshops which we will treat as being feed-in workshops and therefore have to be scheduled before the session, which are the other workshops which still look a good idea and we give a green light but with a certain openness in the timing. And which are the ones where we give an amber light in the sense that we want to find out more or encourage merger. That's what you have to come back with. And I think that would be sufficient for the present because we -- and that will -- it's good enough if we do of that. So the idea is it's 11:15, we still have a few more sessions to look at, and I will try to end before 12:00 here, and then you have about three hours to do this. So -- And then we come back with this. And you can meet here, you can meet in the coffee bar. You can meet wherever it is convenient. And we, all of us, reassemble at 3:00 for this purpose. That's on the access. On the "security, openness and privacy," there I think we -- security, openness and privacy we had already had a certain clearer understanding of what we want. I don't think there were too many issues about subthemes there. I would encourage that we simplify subthemes. We try and avoid subsubthemes so that the number of items is limited under the big heading. We can't change the major headings now because they have gone out in the invitations already. Are there any reflections, comments, further reconsiderations on the "security, openness and privacy" dimension?

11 Katitza, she was not there yesterday, so I'm sure she will have some. >>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: No, I will be very briefly. I really like the approach that you, Nitin, mentioned yesterday during the meeting. I read the transcripts, and I think this idea to link all the three areas are very productive. And this is how we have to handle, because we cannot work in silos. For example, within the cybercrime discussion and the security discussions, the issue of freedom of expression, due process and privacy are linked. So it's really interesting to have this exercise during this session. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you. Again, we need to identify people. In this particular case, we require two moderators; am I right? Two moderators. Lisa -- Somebody has looked into the workshops already? You have? Liesyl? Which of you. Come on, Liesyl. >>LIESYL FRANZ: Well, we looked at the workshops from the standpoint yesterday of which might go before the main session, and we also started to look at which might be candidates for mergers. So as we go forward today, I suppose that's what we will continue to do; is that right? But separately, I just would like to respond to the discussion earlier about moderators for the session, for the main session on security, openness and privacy. I am a little bit concerned about the experiment as you laid it out because of the -- with the suggestion that a privacy and openness expert would moderate the security piece and vice versa. Am I understanding that correctly? I guess my thought about that is in -- the three topics are very robust in and of themselves, and at least my view of the main session from last time, from last year was that there wasn't a very even split, shall we say, of the discussion amongst those three issues. And I just think we need to be careful that we don't impede that again this time. So if there's a way to have moderators work very closely together to make sure all three aspects are covered equally in the course of the main session, whether they embody that experiment or not, would be just something I'd want to try and make sure is infused. >>NITIN DESAI: Well, one advantage of this upside-down system I am suggesting is that the person -- the openness and privacy person who is moderating the security discussion will want it to end quickly so they can get on with openness and privacy, and vice versa. But look into this. >>LIESYL FRANZ: I suppose that might depend on who it is. >>NITIN DESAI: What I would then suggest is, again, let Liesyl, Colin and now that Katitza is here, she can join in this group also, do this same exercise of identifying people, and they should complete the tasks on the workshops that they have already begun, and the same process, which we have thought of for the others. >> Liesyl: And just another comment. Lisa Horner is not here today but she was here yesterday, so she might be online with us as well during the day. >>NITIN DESAI: I am just suggesting three or four because it's much easier for three or four people to get together. Everybody else, in any case, has a chance to contribute in the full session. But as I said, these are not rigidly set groups. These are the people whom are tasked, but if others join or if they want to call on others, please feel free to do so. There's nothing exclusive about any of these groups that are being set up. It's simply they are the ones charged with

12 the responsibility of coming up with an answer and that's the real point. So we have done the fourth substantive session. On "Taking Stock of Internet Governance and the Way Forward," here the main task is to identify two moderators. Now, in this particular case, I think the moderator we are looking for is basically a facilitator type. Not necessarily somebody with a lot of domain knowledge, but somebody who is just good at encouraging and stimulating broad discussion. This is -- Because, really, the theme is very broad, taking stock of Internet governance. It's very wide. We do need a process for getting the background document done, which we discussed this at some length yesterday, and the idea that we invite contributions. My suggestion to you is that the responsibility for preparing something like a summary review of the contributions be left to the Secretariat. They have done this in the past, and it probably is the most acceptable from -- And the past experience has been it has worked well. There have been no complaints about bias or anything. So I thought that we could do that. The two moderators for this, my suggestion is, would be basically facilitator types. We look for people who would be good at getting a debate going rather than necessarily look for people with domain knowledge, because it's rather difficult do it here. Is that okay? If that is the case, then I am not going to suggest any group -- There are no particular workshops here which we are to feed in. So I am not going to suggest the constitution of any group to go into this, because it's -- I think the Secretariat can probably look around and see who they can get who would be a good facilitator for this type of process. Yes, Ginger. Ginger, you are going to join that group also; right? The security and openness. >>GINGER PAQUE: No, no. I am working on access with Olga. Access with Olga. But I got the idea were you going to say we can -- before we go into breaks, Markus, can we deal with -- because it might be interesting if these groups can deal also with the remote moderation issues. Could we deal with that now or afterwards? >>NITIN DESAI: No, please come -- tell me what -- can we just complete this session and then go to that? Because this applies to all of them. >>GINGER PAQUE: All of them. Should we do that now or afterwards? >>NITIN DESAI: So we can spend end time on the remote moderation issue a little later because that cuts across all of the sessions. And I would then say that if you agree, we can -- any suggestions that people have, because there we will probably have to go by who is available at that time to come to Lithuania. I'm not sure that it makes much sense to go into names right now on that session. The final session on cloud computing. Now, this is a more technical session, and I think there was a clear sense that we do need a panel here. Maybe a small panel, not more than two or three people, but something which would make the technical dimension clearer, something that would make the governance dimension clearer, and something which would at least begin the process of bringing in a user perspective. Ultimately, the user perspective will come from the participants, the other ones, the other ones who are users. So they will give us the user perspective. But just to help matters, we may have one person or something. But I would suggest not more than three for this session, because -- and particularly because it's the last session, I think we should really leave enough space for the others.

13 Is this okay? But we do need to identify the panelists for this. And it's not easy. And if we agree, ways going to ask maybe Patrik, Daniel and somebody else to sit down and do the same exercise. There are, incidentally, some workshops proposed for cloud computing. You may want to look into that. So maybe Daniel, Patrik. Who else would join in on this exercise of -- yes, please. >> I would be happy to join. >>NITIN DESAI: Okay. So let's do that. And you come back to us with who are the -- But my recommendation is don't -- see whether you can keep it to three, the panel, just to make sure there's enough room for everybody to participate later. And it's important that the panelists not be as people who are necessarily speaking for one or the other version of the cloud computing protocol. Okay. Remote moderation. Would you like to tell something about it? >>GINGER PAQUE: I was talking with Lee and with Waudo and the Remote Participation Working Group. And we checked with Markus, because we do, of course, want to build on the experience that EuroDIG had, take the good example. They had some good ways of dealing with remote moderation. There is a statement from the Remote Participation Working Group, and to save time, I'm just going to read the last paragraph, which backs up what the IGF secretariat has been working at. That the hub organizers were very happy, and everyone appreciates the emphasis on remote participation. We've agreed yesterday theoretically that we all know we need remote participation, not just remote observation. And the new technique we want to implement with remote moderators addresses the point that the Remote Participation Working Group at the end of their statement says that "on the other hand, when remote hub organizers were asked if their questions were satisfactorily taken into account by panel moderators and panelists, their answers were not so positive and ranged from satisfactory to not satisfactory. This suggests that the quality of interaction needs to be improved. We believe that this conclusion is also true for the IGF. We would like to suggest that the IGF secretariat works to sensitize and raise the awareness of workshop organizers about the importance of remote participation. This could more efficiently be done early, on the phase of shaping the workshop proposals. Workshop organizers and moderators -- and the moderators of the discussions have to be clear about the role played by the remote moderator during the sessions. In the past IGFs, the importance and feasibility of remote participation has been proved. We urge the secretariat and the IG community to focus on how to improve the quality of interaction. We continue to offer the secretariat our support on this endeavor. This is from the Remote Participation Working Group. And I think that what Markus and I have been talking about and building on the experience at EuroDIG, if we build a requirement into the workshops the same way the workshops propose who is their moderator, who is their rapporteur, who are their speakers, we must know with the final workshop list by -- I believe Markus said by May 30th who the remote moderator on your panel will be and their contact details so that the Remote Participation Working Group can work with them on guides on the best way to facilitate. We will take their input, give our input, and do some training, some actual training with the platform and guidelines for interaction. This is not easy. I hope you perceived an improvement in my moderation remotely from the last planning meeting to now. We have to learn how to do it. We don't know how to do it. So we need to learn from the EuroDIG experience. We need to work with the moderators to make sure that we have remote participation, not just remote observation. So Markus has confirmed that that is a requirement for the workshop planning and the proposals. And I ask that anyone who has any questions contact me about it. But we need the remote moderator on each panel. This is a great opportunity, while it is an additional detail to take care of, it gives you an opportunity to include youth, to include gender balance, to find other ways to include more people in your panels. So if Markus will confirm that, did I miss anything on that? If Lee has any suggestions.