The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Open Consultations of the IGF, in Paris. 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.
Thursday, 03 SEP 2015
Paris, France
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Ladies and gentlemen, just a quick note for the best practice forum for IPv6, the room has changed to 5002. It was unfortunately double booked. So it's 5002.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Good afternoon to everyone. We'd like to resume discussion from where we started the morning session. So I'd like to offer the floor to those who had asked before. I have Cheryl and Juan. And we would like to have any further comments in regard to the categories that are being proposed. And immediately after that, Constance and Brian will project a revised version of trying to accommodate the comments that were made so far for your consideration.
So with this, I give the floor to Cheryl.
>>CHERYL MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to pick up where we left off with the conversation. I think the last comments were focused on the need to focus the paper more on infrastructure.
And I just want to say that, while I do -- I obviously agree with the importance of making sure we capture everything in the infrastructure bucket. I don't want to go down a road where we exclude some other important considerations regarding culture and what you may call possibly even barriers.
Because I think, in addition to making sure that we have our investment in line, we're doing what we need to do to roll out practically, there are some things, from a business perspective that businesses should be thinking about on the front end rather than the back end. So, for example, how we are able to better connect with the disability community is one issue that I think should definitely be focused on the front end. So I want to make sure that overall you may not focus the paper exclusively to focus on those buckets, that we don't completely forget the importance of these issues. Because they may -- we may be able to tee them up for the second tranche of intersessional work or other work that will come down in the future. Thank you.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. Juan, please.
>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Chairman. I was examining the blueprint for this document. I am concerned because this document seems to be very ambitious. And there's nothing wrong with being ambitious. But I was reflecting about that this document is not in a vacuum. There have been some other documents of more or less the same intentions. We have the 2020 Connect from ITU. We have the report from the broadband commission. Next year we're going to have a comprehensive report from the World Bank.
So I think that maybe we should focus in this document in those -- in that value that could be given by the IGF that it's unique of IGF. I was joking about talking about the IGFness. I don't know what that could be. But maybe we should have some sort of brainstorming and try to define this "IGFness." And this document should focus on that.
I'm not sure if I already have this definition of the essential thing of IGF. But to my mind comes the fact that IGF is whatever. It's not an institution. But whatever it is, that is comprehensive. Because you have all stakeholders, and it has all views. We were discussing this dynamic coalition. So all views. So this holistic approach, this completeness I think should be one of the marks of this document. Maybe not to go into the details of things that are being -- as I said before, are being addressed elsewhere in ITU documents or in broadband documents. Maybe this selection of what you are calling the buckets, it's okay. But we have to give -- I don't know -- this IGFness point of view in order that this is not one more document but a document that has the stamp from the IGF. And so maybe this holistic approach is the way of doing it.
Fortunately, as you know, this is the year of sustainable development. As many of you know, the sustainable development is a concept that also is holistic in nature. Because it includes not only economic sustainability, but also social inclusiveness and environmental sustainability or friendly. So I think that this way, that the way that an IGF, all aspects of the use of the Internet, being gender, being youth, being -- and also all the aspect that has to do with infrastructure that we discuss, IXPs and some of the things, I think we should find -- we should try to find a way to put that in a big picture that maybe, without going in the how-to details of each one, but it links all the pieces. Because I think that is one of the uniqueness of IGF in which you have the whole picture with all the pieces. Okay. I'll stop there.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you, Juan. I think you have touched on a point that we have been discussing before in some ways, which is, by focusing on the topic we have selected policy options to connect. And I think we really should not lose the focus, but at the same time also not lose the vision of the larger picture.
So maybe a way to address this would be to, even in introduction or some -- to provide for some conceptual framework negates the environment in which we are working, what are the concerns? What are the ultimate objectives that are aimed at the same time not to lose the focus on policy options for connecting.
But I think your point is well taken, and we'll try to reflect it in the draft. Yeah. I turn to Mark. And then I'd like to give the floor to Constance and Brian. Because, on the basis of the discussions we had before, an effort was made to adjust the framework, the initial framework that was proposed. And we'd like to offer it for your consideration to see if that duly reflects the state of discussion. Because, as we said before, it's very important for us to go out of this meeting with a very clear idea of these -- what we call the skeleton of the study.
But any comment? I offer the floor to Mark. And, if there are any other comments, we'll take, of course, be glad to hear. And then I'll turn to Constance.
So Mark, please, you have the floor.
>>MARK CARVELL: Thank you, Benedicto. Mark Carvell, U.K. government. Just to follow on from that important exchange about contextualizing the policy options document, a suggestion I have to help with that is to move the text which is currently at paragraph 29 with reference to the WSIS+10 review and the post-2015 sustainable development goals, to move that text up, actually, to the introduction. Because I think that's a valuable contextualizing paragraph which immediately resonates well with the agreements to be undertaken very shortly this month on the SDGs and the WSIS review.
I think that's one text proposal to help with this objective. Hope that's helpful. Thank you.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. I think this is a very helpful suggestion. And I turn then to Constance to indicate what we'll see as a way to follow up on what you had proposed before. Thank you.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you very much.
We're going to pull up the amended skeleton, draft skeleton in a minute. Before we do that or as we do that, maybe I'll -- we'll talk about the next steps, because I think you wanted to touch on that issue. So, after this MAG meeting and if we manage to have agreement on the skeleton, then we would issue a formal call to join the editorial group beyond the MAG community. And we already know that a lot of groups, individuals, institutions, universities are interested in joining that group.
We would have, on the basis of the draft skeleton, something to build upon. And we would target, perhaps, the 10th or 15th of September to have a complete draft to present to the editorial group for its consideration. The pen would be held by the IGF secretariat, Brian.
And the editorial group, members of the editorial group -- because you're all very busy with day jobs -- we would ask that group for guidance, comments, ideas on how to take the document one step further. Between now and the IGF we probably have time for two, perhaps three iterative processes to get the document where we'd like it to be. And we should also talk about the length -- the target length of the document.
Considering the amount of contributions, background contributions received to date and the ones that are going to come in in the next weeks through the IGF national regional IGFs, we would probably have a synthesis of the contributions in the annexes. And we would propose that the document would not exceed maybe 15 pages. As Juan said, we need to focus on the specificity of the IGF angle. And that would be the -- that would be the target length for the length.
Is it possible to pull up the draft skeleton? So maybe I'll start orally as we try to put it up on the screen, which will be easier for all of you to follow. But, based on the comments we received that were made this morning, the skeleton was reorganized in five distinct sections that you will see in a second. Hopefully.
In the first section there's a clear distinction made in the first section that covers issues, policies related to infrastructure. Then there's an A and a B that are distinct, the A being physical infrastructure. That covers under C fiber cables, broadband, et cetera. And then a distinct B that would be called other applications and services.
Before we go further, I'd just like to make sure you have the text in front of you.
Okay. I'll continue orally.
So that was the first bucket, the first section.
And then the second one being issues and policies related to creating an enabling environment for access and connectivity with, again, two separate subsections. One -- and the titles can be fine-tuned. But the first one, A, being government IGO frameworks and B being private sector-led nonprofit initiatives.
The third section -- and I think we're getting there. Okay. Here it is. So you see the difference AB, AB, both in the first and the second bucket of issues. The first one being infrastructure. And then the second one with regards to the policy frameworks.
The third section covering issues and policies related to digital capacity building -- this is where we talk about digital literacy, user literacy, et cetera.
The fourth one being content and usage. This is where we talk about multilingualism, local content among other issues. And, finally, issues related to affordability, cost, digital divide, income disparity.
So, hopefully, the new skeleton captures the comments and suggestions made this morning. With regards to Juan's comment and I think Mark's suggestions, I think that's clearly the way forward to contextualize the exercise and present this as a contribution immediately after the sustainable development summit and before WSIS+10 where we know that the link between sustainable development and ICTs, the Internet, will be at the heart of discussions. Maybe that's the way to do it. That's the prism we could adopt to make this document unique.
So, yes, you see the draft skeleton now. And, Ambassador, I would propose that we discuss it with a view to trying to have a stabilized version by the end of the day so we can add to it in the coming weeks. Thank you.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: So this is for your consideration. We understand this is the first time you'll see the text as it is. So you may wish to have some more time to consider it. But, in case there are some quick reactions, especially on the part of those who made interventions that led us to make those changes, we'd like to have a feeling whether that was adequately reflected -- if we could adequately what were reflect your concerns. But I -- I'll be in your hands. Sorry. Yes, Brian, please.
>>BRIAN GUTTERMAN: As you look at this, of course it's not exhaustive. We will -- as we continue to go through what we've received and we find more subsections, more As and Bs and Cs, we will add those. And then we can see if it makes sense during our next call the way we're organizing the content.
And we do also -- it was suggested to make sort of the bibliography or the annex more robust, dig a little deeper into the summaries of each input received. We will follow that suggestion, I think. Because the added value, as Juan was saying, could be one of the added values is that these are inputs from the community, diversity of views. Again, the topic is different to each stakeholder that is contributing to the project. Again, I think that's a very huge value of the IGF, among other things. But we can highlight that. And that can be a resource that lives on after this IGF. It's a resource of a living thing. What else?
So, yeah. Any immediate reactions to this?
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: I see Carolyn has a question from the floor.
You have the floor.
>>CAROLYN NGUYEN: Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much, Constance, for incorporating the discussion into the new revised outline.
I'm seeking a little bit of clarification as I look at the various section headers, in that policies appear in 1, 2, as well as 3, and whether the intention is to discuss policies related in each one of those sections, in which case there may be an overlap.
Perhaps for consideration, a -- it may be better -- well, here's a suggestion, which is, so we have 1 as issues related to infrastructure, and potentially swap -- the next one being issues related to digital capacity building, and then issues related to content and usage, followed by Section 4, which would then be policies relating to creating enabling environments.
So essentially, the contents of what the policies would be related to would be discussed and then potentially the policies. So just some clarification with respect to the focus of each of the sections, please. Thank you very much.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Okay.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: I think it makes a lot of sense. It's a good suggestion if it's agreeable by the group.
Are there any other comments or suggestions with regards to the skeleton?
Please, Virat.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: So I support the point that has just been made.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Are there any other points, comments on the draft skeleton?
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Yeah. I'll make one comment myself because I -- I think we are trying to be, in a way, economical about the categories, not to provide for a very lengthy structure, but in the light of the discussion we had before, I would seek your comments in regard to Item 2(b) in which we have put together private sector-led and nonprofit initiatives. I would suggest that those could be split for the sake of better clarity for the document.
So Number 2, the (a), (b), and (c), with nonprofit as a separate category.
Yes, Juan, please.
>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ: Yes. Well, I would like to comment. There are many ways, you know, as they say in Cuba, to skin a cat and maybe this is one way, but in order to capture the richness of the debate of the IGF, I think that we should include more things but that maybe they are a recent transversal to all, because for instance, from a developing country point of view, the issue of financing is very important, because how to finance the -- all those, the local content, how to finance that, how to finance capacity building, how to finance the physical thing -- because even that is -- the executors are the private sector but they need financing as well. And so that's one point. It always come back in all these things to financing.
And relating to that, because financing is not only money, it's the technology transfer, intellectual property rights, all that are transversal issues that I know that it's been discussed very richly in the IGF workshops throughout all these years, so I think that we have to put this because if we put it like that, it's like all the reports that are in -- that we've been reading from UNCTAD, from ITU, from that, we have to put the essential things, the richness that IGF brings to this.
And because as IGF product is not a negotiated document, it has to be inclusive in all these opinions and all these aspects that impacts all this. That could be a good way to organize it, but we have to put all the hurdles or all the concerns that the rich community that are the IGF community has mentioned or have stated throughout all these years.
And I only mention a few but I know that there's so many because the digital capacity building has a gender angle also, because in many countries the -- this training is not women, women are left out, and so are -- so I think this kind of -- this lens, this special lens I think is what gives the uniqueness to the IGF review and we should have it in the document.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Yeah. I'll turn to Brian, but just to very quickly address this, I think that by establishing those broad categories we are not losing sight that within each of those categories -- for example, when we discuss undersea fiber cables, there are tremendous challenges in regard to financing, to so many aspects related to this.
So when -- this is the intent: When we enunciate what are the policies, initiatives in that regard, we want to take into account this, because we asked for comments that would elicit the challenges that were faced, what were the unintended consequences, so there is a richness of detail that is maybe not here on screen but it is in our head and should be there.
I think the real challenge will be how to address it in a balanced way to bring on board the relevant information in the information we have, but from the point we have at least a skeleton, I think that will assist us in fleshing out it later.
Before turning to a lot of the comments, I'd like to give the floor to our chair, Janis, who requested for the floor.
Janis, please.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah. Thank you. Though I fully agree with Juan Alfonso on the sort of substance that this is a very important issue, we need to be also cognizant that this exercise should reflect the inputs we received from -- primarily from national and regional IGFs, and if in those inputs financing issues are not outlined, so then we should not put them in, simply because this is a direct reflection and direct compilation from inputs we receive.
So I think we need really to stick to this methodology and do a smart compilation of received inputs. Thank you.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. Yes, Brian.
>>BRIAN GUTTERMAN: Not much more to add. I agree with -- I think we're all on the same page, but again just reminding that the basis for all of this are the inputs received. It's a cliche but it's true. It's really bottom-up. We will be careful as secretariat not to add. If it's, "Oh, we're missing something," well, if it didn't come in, it wasn't submitted, that issue, that obstacle, we won't want to just put it in there because we think it fits.
There's some logic to this logical compilation, obviously, but -- and we also want to produce something that's easy to read and has a lot of entry points for people who are in different fields and not too complex that people only read the first page and then throw it away because they think it's too complicated.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you, Brian. Juan?
>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ: Yes, I want to react to that because well, of course, you can put the rules and then you stick to the rules, but I'm worried that this is the first time this kind of exercise to have this kind of document.
What about the legacy of the IGF, all the workshops that have been carried out and organized throughout all these years? Those workshops have some information and views about many of the things. And by starting here on zero, it's like saying, "Well, it's all, you know, reset. All that is lost."
I think that you should take into consideration that, in a way of -- or to distill that richness of all this 10 years of IGF, of nearly a thousand workshops. How many panelists, how many people have given their time and effort and thinking to all these problems with different perspectives, because the IGF has been in a different part of the world so the perspectives have been diverse. I think it's good to have rules and that we all continue that exercise and, well, you ask for inputs, but I don't think that those inputs should be the end of it because in the other hand, well, it's like that. Many could feel that it's reset.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: I think you make a very valid point. We already see in the draft agenda at least a list of workshops for this year. There are a number of sessions that have a contribution to make to this exercise, and one thing we could do is target the workshop organizers to have their input and make sure we have exhaustive contributions as we develop the document.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: I think what Constance said is very helpful and certainly we could, I think, take it on board easily.
But I also agree to some extent to what Juan has said, because we have a wealth of information and inputs that were developed throughout the years, and although some information might not be directly addressed while we're in process, it is there. It's something we can tap into. But the challenge is how to -- then to take into account a legacy of nine years of our experience.
One thing that maybe we could -- we should do is to -- the first draft to be fully consistent with what -- with the contributions, the actual contributions we receive, and we can have a look at it and see if there are any great gaps. We can try to fill into those gaps using, let's say, existing inputs that are -- were not addressed directly but are also available to the IGF on the basis of previous experience. Because I think if we try to start to tap into all those nine years, that will lead us to a very complex operation from the start. But I'll turn to Juan for --
>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ: Yeah, it's true, you know, because it will be impossible to distill all this information in -- you know, in text, but at least a way forward could be, for instance, if you have this, then you put in text what came from the contributions and maybe you can do a survey of -- well, to check which workshops in previous IGFs touched that topic and refer to the -- to the minutes that have been in the archives of IGF, something like that.
If that is already in the archives of IGF, I think that most workshops has -- has a final document from previous IGFs so you could put a link so people can go and see the diversity of views that come from there.
That, of course, it's work but it's a lot less work than to go into each of those summaries. Just to point out, "In IGF 2010, there was this workshop that touches this point."
I know I haven't been to many IGFs but in the ones that I've been, there have been workshops that touches many of those points. Thank you.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: I wasn't on the MAG 10 years ago, but it's my impression that at least all the main sessions were documented and we should be able to find, you know, not only the organizers of those main sessions but probably also the output of those main sessions. And I also understand the theme of access for the main sessions was repeated a number of times, and that's something we can do quite easily, in addition to reaching out to the organizers of this year's workshops on themes that relate to connecting the next billion.
So hopefully it will allow us to cover more or less the ground of the past 10 years.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. I see Marilyn lowered her flag. I think she was going to say something about that. Thank you.
I turn to Baher.
>>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chair.
One more thing. I think that Juan is raising an important point and maybe one -- at least my understanding of this process is that this is not going to be an exhaustive list and the document itself is not going to be a final document at the time we are in Brazil.
My understanding is that this is -- this is a living document that is going to be there for some time and we will continue as a MAG, as a community, to seek input from national/regional IGFs and other parties on its contents and maybe it's going to evolve over the next, you know, few years.
So I think having it with us for some time will allow more time and opportunity to capture some of the, you know, historical input and information that all the workshops and main sessions, et cetera, have collected over time. Thanks.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: This is the understanding that has been guiding us from the start that we are preparing a document that is intended to be updated regularly, and I fully concur with the notion that maybe we should not try to do everything now, but maybe indicate some other areas to be tackled.
My concern is very practical, because we are thinking 10 days to issue a first draft, so this first draft I think as a minimum should contain a compilation, an intelligent compilation, as we have been consistently required by our chair on the basis of the inputs we have received.
I think the point raised by Juan is perfect and I fully concur, but my big concern is we've got the challenge to do in that time frame, so that's what I'm proposing.
Maybe the first draft should focus on the contributions themselves, if possible to try to incorporate this, but has as a primary task to do what we have established from the beginning.
But I'd like to seek your views, of course, and I see Virat and Juan, but before that, I'll give the floor to Constance.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Yes, because I'm receiving messages from people who are following the discussion remotely and who happen to not have access to this document, so Brian, I don't -- I don't know how we could make sure that they see the document.
>> (Off microphone.)
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you. And apologies for interrupting.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Do we have a remote moderator?
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO:
Virat? So I suggest we hear Virat and Juan and then we'll turn to remote participation.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I'm willing to wait. If the remote participants are waiting, I'm willing for them to come in first.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Juan?
>> (Off microphone.)
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: So we hear first the remote? Are we ready for -- to hear the remote participation?
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: Yes.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Yes, please. Yes, go ahead.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: (indiscernible) on the dais, so (indiscernible) for a while. Thank you for that excellent presentation, Brian, and that is very helpful. And great work, all of you.
Just completely agree and would like to echo support for what Juan is suggesting. I do not believe that this document exists in isolation. It has also been a response to paragraph (indiscernible) of the Tunis Agenda where folks consistently over the years suggestions have been made for (indiscernible) outcomes and best practices and things that people can relate to, take away and (indiscernible) their national and regional (indiscernible).
So because this is also the sum of a lot of years of work, it's -- I know it's difficult to track workshops, which Constance mentioned, and I want to echo support for that.
The idea of taking reports which all main session facilitators, organizers, and MAG members have (indiscernible) and also taking the relevant sections from the chair's summary, especially last year (indiscernible) to document how things have been taken from the IGF and they have been (indiscernible) challenges for (indiscernible) capacity building and bringing people on line. How is it that more support can happen? The policy (indiscernible) governments will look to solutions (indiscernible) build multistakeholder collaborations and partnerships and also taking the existing (indiscernible) from the past 10 years (indiscernible) has been (indiscernible) main sessions. We have a lot of work that has already taken place and I respect the fact that this is bottom-up but so is the IGF, so inputs that already exist to the chair's summary and the reports from the main sessions, it would be great if we see them reflected in this draft document.
Thank you.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you, Subi. I think that was Subi. I turn to Virat.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It sounded like an old treadmill in the back. I say I think there might be a mild media here given the 10-day target that you have of trying to get out the contributions. Would it be possible to get the first draft out with what you have as contributions and, to the extent possible, provide links to the material that exists suggesting that this information can be included over the next 60-day period. Well, 50-day period by then. And I think that mostly, as you're aware, access has been a main session almost every year with the exception of this year. And that certainly will have solid material if that's documented and it's going to have video available. To the extent possible, if somebody could quickly identify links which would be available and just list them along with what's going out in the next 10 days rather than go through the task of incorporated everything in the next 10 days, which is a real challenge for Brian. I think we might be able to then reach a conclusion where it is comprehensive in the sense that it's linked. And ten over the next 50 days find ways to see what of that can be included in a meaningful way. Probably requires some additional resources to structure the manner in which those comments came to place them in the five buckets that we have now agreed to. But I think that it seems like a mild media where we capture the history and the current.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. This is very helpful. Juan, please.
>>JUAN ALFONSO FERNANDEZ: I think what I proposed was now superbly explained by Virat. But I wish only to rest my case here. To mention that I know that everybody here has experience writing reports, writing documents for somebody else. And everybody here, when writing a document, we put also first what is the main idea we try to convey? You know, it's called the super idea, super objective in Spanish. I don't know if this word exists in English. This is also for plays, people who write plays and all that.
I think here our main objective of all is to sell the IGF, that IGF is a real useful policy dialogue forum that from that richness of discussion that we defend the plurality and the inclusiveness of that discussion can really come out. Important information for policy maker or anyone study on these topics. So I think that we should keep that in mind.
And in that sense to, as was said before, to put links to what has been done all these years. Maybe we will never put it in the document itself. But at least the links can give the people who read that there's a backlog of work being done that was done. And that is useful.
Maybe, as Virat said -- I didn't suggest that, but I think it's a good idea that maybe in a later stage from those links maybe some key information could be put -- you know, textually in the document. But at least that's the idea. To sell that this is not a new thing, that this is a thing that has been going on for 10 years that has been useful, that a lot of work has been done. And one of the things that I really regret that many of those work and that discussion has not never been summarized in outcomes. I think that is one of the things that this new IGF is trying to remedy, to try to put -- have outcomes that reflect that richness of discussions and ideas.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.
Marilyn Cade speaking.
Constance, for you and for the Chair, we are presently in preparation for the substantive session for the national and regional IGFs. We're finalizing a survey. It is relatively lengthy. I will be the single most unpopular person in the entire world with the coordinators when they receive it. So I'll offer to insert a couple of questions on your behalf.
So we have 8-10, maybe more, that will be submitting contributions to the connecting the next billion. But we could add a question.
We have a question, for instance, which asks them how they are reflecting the main theme and the subthemes in 2015 from the IGF into their national or regional initiative. We could add maybe up to two historical questions, if you could work with us on that. Anja from the secretariat is supporting this. And she and I are trying to work toward finalization that we have a small group of coordinators reviewing it. And that could be helpful. We intend to have the information back because we'll be publishing the survey results and using them in a very small part of the session. But, if that would be helpful, happy to.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: We have a remote participation. Please go ahead.
>>REMOVE INTERVENTION: Hello, it's Sandra Hoferichter. Can you hear me?
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Yes, we can. Thank you. Go ahead.
>>SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Thank you. It's wonderful to follow from the remote and see you all there. It's Sandra Hoferichter from the EuroDIG.
Reading this paper and this process, which is quite impressive, I've had some questions and comments. And I raised these questions earlier today when we were talking about the regional session. I think this is a great paper so far.
What I'm missing is the categorization into regions. For me it would be interesting to know which issues are relevant for which region. And maybe it is possible to divide or -- I mean, at the moment it says this paper categorizes the submission into categories, which is somehow categorizing categories is a little bit double.
So maybe we can think about also categorization or division into regions so we can really see, okay, in Africa we have issues for connecting next billions which are X, Y, Z. And in America it might look differently.
So maybe this could enrich that paper if we start putting the submissions into or categorizing them into region. And then we definitely come to national regional IGFs. And, from the EuroDIG perspective, I can explain or share my experience with you that we had a multistakeholder discussion at EuroDIG about this issue. We took that very seriously. We had all the big European institutions like the Commission, the Council of Europe, and ISOC and others who have been involved into that discussion. And I think, when some of the submissions are coming out of a regional or national IGF, here as well they had a sort of same multistakeholder discussion already in the region. So I think those contributions are very valuable in order to map the issues for each region.
Maybe -- I know that Marilyn is driving the process about the interregional session. And this will be a topic there as well. Maybe we can really incorporate the effort which comes out of this session of this process, which is led by Marilyn, maybe we can really incorporate those results into the paper in order also to have those mapping into regions. Thank you very much.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for your comments. I would maybe very preliminarily say that this is, of course, a very important mission to be able to look at all the topics that are being proposed through a regional national perspective assessing what are the important issues for different regions.
But my feeling is that this will emerge in a way naturally from the point we have the categories. And inside each category we'll try to specify the contributions. And the important thing will be to -- for the attribution of the initiatives and policies there. And those would be linked to nations and regions.
I'm not sure if we should in this skeleton already insert that regional aspect. I think that would maybe insert a layer of complexity, an additional layer which can be further, later on elicited from the document you'll have. But I will, of course, like to hear the comments in that regard.
I understand we have another remote participant. Subi, would like to make a comment. Subi, please go ahead.
>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: I'm so sorry. But I think, given the time frame, it's important that we work with what we have. And, while it would be useful to categorize contributions, I don't think that in the space that we have we can do that. So some kind of info graphic representation that people can see where the contributions have come from, what are the thematic actors, and how is it that different stakeholders can work towards a collaborating with each other promoting access, and where is it that there are meeting points? So points to work where we can work with each other. How is it that we can help each other. That would be a very valuable contribution. And thank you so much for the work. Sorry about that.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. I see Virat would like to make a comment.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: I support that point about having a graphic representation on the source and the regions of contribution to be able to represent up in the sort of preface or whatever of this report the multistakeholderism. Because that will be -- just in two pages and five diagrams perhaps you could achieve more than you would if you had to list everything down in five pages and have it read everything. I think that is an interesting idea that the editing group might want to consider that right up front so that graphically it becomes quite obvious to those who are looking at this that the range of multistakeholder cooperation:
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. In case there are no further comments, I would like to indicate we have taken note of all the comments that were made.
I see Marilyn. You can have the floor.
And, in regard to the introduction language which is basically agreed language that was there before, but we'd like also to revisit it in the light of comments that were made and seek later revised version for your consideration.
I think we have here identified the nature of the challenge we have. We want to be able to produce a document that is relevant, that is IGF specific, as has been said by Juan and others. At the same time we have the challenge to do it in the time frame we have. But, to the extent possible, we'll try to bring on board as much information as possible.
And I think one very clear message we received from the MAG is that, besides the individual contributions we will receive, we will also want to tap into that legacy we have from previous years. I think this is a very important element for us at the editorial group and for Brian in particular to take into consideration. So, in light of the time frame, we'll try to address these as to the best extent we can in order to be able to produce a first draft by 10 or 15. I'll turn to Constance for that part.
>>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: So, I mean, based on the discussion we had this morning and this afternoon, I think we need to revisit a little bit the initial time frame. We can have, as suggested, the skeleton up immediately after the MAG meeting. We already have up on the IGF Web site the full list of contributions. Brian was showing the home page of the connecting the next billion earlier. You have the 35 existing contributions. We can add on that web page links to the relevant workshops and maybe links to the reports from previous main sessions on access.
And, in addition to that, we would, as agreed, contact the organizers of main sessions this year workshops, workshop organizers, themes -- on themes that relate to access. And we would do a special renewed outreach to the regional national IGFs just to make sure that all the contributions that were promised are actually received. We already have a good number of them, but more are expected.
I think that means that we need at least two weeks before we're able to put out a new draft out. And that will also give us the time to constitute the editorial group, to launch the call and make sure that everyone has the information and has a chance to join the editorial group.
So, if we agree on that, those steps, in a nutshell, it means we would put up the skeleton immediately, the new skeleton immediately up on the IGF Web site. And, in the two coming weeks, we would gather further contributions, as we said. And in two weeks we would have a new draft for the consideration of the editorial group.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Excellent. I see no requests for the floor except for Marilyn. You have the floor, Marilyn.
>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Marilyn Cade speaking. I just want to really reiterate that really happy to put maybe two to three questions in it. If we can do that before I leave, then I think, you know, just to say to Sandra, for instance, at least we'll have a very high-level snapshot of some reflection from the 8-10 regionals that respond to the survey. It will not be everything we look at.
But what I'm struck by -- I just want to say there are a number of engineers in this room. And I think it sounds to me very much like we are doing perhaps what I would think of as the beta version of our study on this.
And we really will, I think, have the opportunity to do a follow-on. I see a lot of interest in that. And I think we'll see if that's reinforced by how the connecting the next billion activities are received and responded to as we present them at the IGF. And, if this amount of interest continues, then we'll -- we will have fulfilled our original purpose.
Now, I'm just going to say one other thing. Not to reopen the idea that we're going to link just to the main sessions on access. I just merely want to note that in the past the section -- the main sessions on access may have been heavily limited to infrastructure. But that is merely a footnote to I still think that's the right way to go for now.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. I see Nigel requesting for the floor. You have the floor, sir.
>>ICANN: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I know you wanted to finish the session.
I just wanted to very briefly say what Marilyn has said, I think, that has really put us where we are. Picking up the point from Juan, what are we bringing to the table here? What unique selling point do we have? It seems to me that we have two threads. We have the strength of our IGF community. We have the ability of people to contribute things in almost in a realtime environment, not long studies or long surveys. But really coming together to contribute their ideas, their thoughts, their best practices, their links, et cetera.
And we have this dynamic behind it in that we're producing something in over -- in a short time that's going to be presented in Brazil and will hopefully be relevant. And the community will look at it, and the community will feed back. And the community will tell us in the session whether this is something live, something really that is useful to people and that's something that can be worked on further.
So I think this is a unique selling point of what the IGF can do and this is something that we've been asked, you know, before by ministers, by other people to demonstrate what the IGF brings to the table and this is one of the things it does. Sorry. Thank you.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. Thank you. It's noted.
Yes, Virat. Please.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just mentioned the access to main sessions because there's an assumption here that it's relevant here but I'm sure there are others on multilingualism and others I can't recall just yet. But even if you look at four main sessions over the last nine years, we're talking about a lot of main sessions, of which at least five or six would be relevant. Some workshops would be relevant.
In addition to that, I think there would be about seven or eight main sessions on access. I remember at least three of them since I've been engaged. But as I said, Marilyn knows the history reasonably well, and so I would think that we could get about eight or 10 main sessions between access and other related issues which can be provided as links in the interim period so that Brian can get on with the 10-day sort of first draft.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. Thank you for the suggestion. It is duly noted.
Yes, I will give the floor to Janis, please.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Thank you very much.
Again, I would like -- I would like to come back to the origin of this exercise, and once again caution -- or remind ourselves while we're doing this.
The working group on improvements of the IGF suggested that we need to look, among other things, to two issues.
One is to link -- or to improve linkage between national/regional IGF initiatives and global IGF. And secondly, to ensure that there are more tangible outputs coming out from IGF.
With this exercise, we're trying to address primarily the first issue, to link national/regional IGFs with this one -- with a global IGF, and to contribute to an increased number of outputs.
So this is not to present a fully fledged document on access or policies that need to be put in place with access. We don't have time for that. We don't have resources for that.
And I would like really to caution ourselves that let's better take smaller steps addressing issues that we have identified at the beginning of this exercise, not try to save the world and to expand our mandate during the journey.
So please try to keep that in mind.
We need to also have a good marketing strategy, if I may use this word, or communications strategy to explain why we're spending time, why we're spending resources on this exercise.
And so we have a good story behind it, but if we are trying to achieve or expand the mandate of this exercise, we are putting ourselves in -- a little bit in trouble.
We will not be able to explain everything. And that's the problem. So just a word of caution.
>>BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you. It is always important for us to maintain the focus and, as it has been mentioned, to the extent possible to make the document as relevant as we can, tap into information that has been developed but not losing the focus. I think it's very well taken.
I see Virat requesting the floor. No? Thank you.
So is there any other commenting in regard to this?
As we said in the beginning, our intention is to go out with this skeleton which will be fleshed out, and I think in the course of the discussion it is well understood that in this skeleton there are many dimensions that to the extent possible we'll try to address and that have merit in themselves.
We also -- and I think this is basically what we have been doing so far -- I thank you for that -- beginning to do the draft composition of the editorial group. We also want to confirm, as Constance has said, the next steps in that regard and -- in regard to the time frame we'll be working.
So I think we have established at least the procedure and a firm road for this to be done.
We will certainly encourage the secretariat -- we know they have so many competing activities the secretariat will have to perform before now and the IGF, but we trust that with maintaining the focus of this exercise, it will be able to do it and the editorial group will be ready to support, to the extent possible. So I understand we'll be circulating the summary of our discussions for your further consideration but I'll say for the moment unless there are any further interventions we can consider that our main task was accomplished and I thank you all for this.
Would you like to make any comments in that regard?
No. So thank you. Thank you for that. I'll turn to our chair. We -- I think we are a bit ahead of time, so with -- Mr. Chair, you can maybe guide us on the next steps, please.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much, Benedicto, for this, and then Constance and Brian.
So we will continue, then, this exercise tomorrow morning, in the morning session, from 10:00 to 1:00. We'll be looking also already in the substance of contributions and formulations. Maybe Brian will circulate a document later today or in the evening, the one we will be looking at tomorrow -- tomorrow morning.
So now we are breaking to work on main sessions. The secretariat circulated a list of rooms where these meetings will take place. Please go straight to those rooms. They are at our disposal until 6:00 in the evening. And please come back tomorrow -- please come back tomorrow at 10:00, where we will resume the open-ended editorial group meeting on the text.
If there is a need for further sort of work in smaller groups on either main sessions or best practice forums or something else, please let the secretariat know and we will arrange rooms for that purpose tomorrow in the morning from 10:00 to 1:00. Because in the afternoon, we will be wrapping up our work. We will be hearing feedback from these breakout groups, where we are in terms of preparations for main sessions.
Please, coordinators, be prepared to give a brief update on progress that has been made during this meeting in the -- on substance of preparations. And so that will be our topic for the afternoon.
And then we will be discussing next steps before sort of bidding farewell. So thank you very much, so see you then in the breakout rooms now and tomorrow morning in this room at 10:00.
Yes, please, Virat.
>>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chair, I was just going to say that the NETmundial meeting yesterday was a very successful one. They have circulated the note already for comments, so I think -- I know we are caught up with a lot of work but those who can comment back on it, at least that working group is off the ground with revisions already in the note. Thank you.
>>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you very much, and congratulations. That apparently was a very successful meeting.
So thank you.