You are connected to event: CFI-RPC6

Internet Governance Forum.

Internet Governance Forum. Room.

>> Do you think that technology advancement will take more steps is to
advance that approach as China and Russia are trying to do now?

>> Good question.  So,  mostly i'm approaching it -- it understand minds
this tremendous creativity and potential of global communication.  And
that, you know, we basically spread information to the entire world for
that period in which it was globalized.  And we altered communications,
regulation in many countries in a much more liberal connection, mostly
alignment, you see a authoritarian states and I see the internet that
should be considered as a whole.  You are a part of my community now, if
you are not internet, I can communicate with you, I can share information
with you, I want that unrestricted open  globalized access to be preserved
and maintained.  I see alignment as a huge threat to that.  Now, the
question whether technology makes it more likely or easier for alignment to
happen, it's kind of a mixed bag.  It's the technological progress sort of
puts so much information technology in people's hands so cheaply that it
does become harder to control in certain ways, but on the other hand, the
mechanisms of control become more sophisticated and powerful, too.  It's
like a erks measures and counter measures.  It's a cat and mouse game and
you really don't know I think how it goes is not by technology, but more by
economics and politics.  They want to become bigger players in the digital
economy will become more open and the economies that concerned about
protecting themselves will become more closed.  I think they will put an
economic and social price for that.

>> I think the issue  about -- the important part is also, it's a -- it
should be okay, it's like a private, try to put pressure, the problem is,
many countries, the judicial system is bad.  Like you live in the country
that had the really good legal system, that should be okay.  But I don't
know, does any comment on that issue?

>> Yeah, the arbitrary exercise of power where there is no independent
judiciary, that's -- you can say you have freedom of expression, and it
still doesn't work, because the government can intervene and even private
actors can kill you for saying something that they don't want you to say.
And if the court system doesn't punish that or stop  it, it really doesn't
matter what 'policy you have, are you thinking of a particular country?
Thailand?  Yeah.  Yeah.  I shouldn't laugh, but you do have some -- issues
regarding freedom of expression in Thailand.  Yeah.  Yeah.  It's just so --
it's not just the king, it's kind of people use the king to justify a more
repressive stance because there's a lot of political tensions, live coups
for many years.  So, yeah, practically, I have no idea what to tell people
in Thailand as to how to get out of this situation.  Really, it's so
fundamental to the political system there, it goes beyond the communication
policy issue.  It's an issue of political development and social movement,
really.   Yeah.

>> Yeah, please, go ahead.

>> The practice of -- to completely turn off internet or actually turn off
certain on-line services for a limited period of time, this is  becoming
more frequent.  I just read that this year  alone, there have been more
than 50 stances exercising  the -- reduction.  How does that measure in the
freedom of expression, and there are sometimes situations like elections,
public exams, in which say in India -- national level, for a few hours,
they have switched off all Web access.  Now, is this under any
circumstances justified?

>> That's a very interesting question.  So, in classicking freedom of
expression theory, the kill switch is almost never justified because it's a
disproportionate response.  It affects everybody, regardless, so, you may
be concerned about a few people, you know, insighting a riot, or creating
problems, but this is not a proportionate response.  Any court that was
dealing, that was objectively accessing a kill switch will find that it is
a disproportionate and therefore unjustified and illegal response to any
kind of a problem.  Now, there are forms of media regulations that are
designed to protect the integrity of elections or courts by sheltering
certain things from public discussion. I think that's an area in which
technology is making those kinds of things  obsolete, and it may be just
really kind of silly and counter productive to try to maintain those kinds
of  things, for example, with the elections in the State government of
India, you know, people have phones, people have all kinds of information
technologies and they are able to do things to communicate that you may or
may not be able to control, and if you are talking about just completely
shutting down every form of communication, simply to stop a few people from
shouting, you know, vote for so and so, I think that's very
disproportionate and probably a, you know, think of the various kinds of
bluetooth, wireless kinds of communication that might take place.  It just
seems like it's fool hardly kind of a strategy.

>> And I think the other question about it, do you want the government to
even have that power?  You know?  It's like if there is a legitimate
capability to simply flip a switch and turn off entire sections of the
internet in a country, then even if you think that power is  legitimate, it
would have to be extremely carefully guarded and regulated.  But it's
probably better for the government just to not have that kind of power.
And then again, that's a political view based on the idea that the
population is supreme, not the government.  Okay?  It's the government --
the government is there to protect the rights of the people, the people are
not there to kind of make life better for the government.   So, if you
believe that, you know, sort of popular sovereignty, which is what most
democracies are supposed to be based on, then you shouldn't want the
government to be able to essential disable all forms of communication at
the flick of a button.

>> It's a bit of clarity question as well.  So, what you were saying,
actually, we have for now private actors, we have people, we have companies
that have a quasi state actor power, so they are like states because they
have a power that is very big because of them being a Monopoly, like Google
or FaceBook.  And since they have this power, as far as -- I try to
understand where you are to lead, you seem to insinuate they should have
special obligations because they have this monopoly position?

>> I'm saying that's where things are going, I'm not saying I want that to
happen.  First of all, I think it's a mistake to -- no matter how powerful
Google or FaceBook becomes economically, to call them a state is a
misapplication of the  category.  They don't have policemen and guns and
Monopoly and violence in whatever are territories they operate in.  Of
course, it's great for TV shows and movies to pause at these evil corporate
actors that are manipulating everything behind the scenes, but
fundamentally in my world view, there is a very important distinction
between states and the power of the state and the company that even if it
has a lot of economic power, even if it's a monopoly, unless they are
hiring Armies and shooting people to get their way, you don't classify them
as a  state.  So, but what I'm saying is that people are using the market
power of the FaceBook and the Googles to say they should be subject to
regulations which kind of presumed that they are a state actor and there's
that merging of the -- so that these big corporations could become
instrumentalities of the state which is what I see as dangerous, you get
the worst of both worlds, you get the power of the state, the economic
capabilities of the big act or in a monopolies tic context and I think
that's a dangerous way to go.  You want these things to be clearly
separated tbr from the State, you want them to have this freedom of
expression orientation, which means that they can still exercise their
autonomy as a filterer or manipulator of expression.  That's what I would
like to see, but I see more and more pressure being placed with this
concept of, you know, intermediary responsibility.

>> The second part of the question, I see is the same search warrant many
types of regulations that they are attending right now to -- regulation
from the systematic and the public realm to sort of regulate governments
and they power and restrain  power -- you now being implied in the civil
sector.  So to regulate -- interactions between private actors, meaning
companies and meaning individuals.  But my second question to this is, I do
agree 'we have this situation, but what would be the  solution?  What would
the solution meaning sort of changing the monopoly precision at which I
think is difficult?  Or would it be the solution, trying to change the
systematic -- that we are using right now?  Because I don't see that trend.
I see for instance the right to go forgotten in Europe, leading Google to
regulate what is being visible and being made visible in the internet or
not, or as in Germany, for instance, the ministry of justice has not
decided that on hate speech, effect needs to do more, they have less work
because they don't have to sort of change the freedom of expression
regulation that we have in Germany, but just, they just give the
responsibility to FaceBook to create policies.

>> So, I think that's a bad trend and I think the way to push back against
it is to  reassert this distinction between the State actor and a private
actor and to point out the market discipline that still exists onsetter
forms of private actors and to also emphasize the dangers of continuing
down this path.  So a lot of -- maybe digital rights activists who they are
very pro expression, but they want to impose these form of regulation.  Via
the State.  I think they are very naive in the sense that -- they think the
State is just going to regulate Google and FaceBook to make them more open
and free.  That's not been the historical record of how states approach
large media operators.  And you can certainly see that they would be very
interested in maybe exploiting some of the surveillance power of the
entities, we saw that with the NSA, they were getting the information
through Prism  and -- they were getting the information from the
intermediaries and they would regulate encryption, they would say we have
to use an  inc encryption that we can break into.  The political system
will put the pressure on them to push the speech regulation or the content
regulation in any direction this they want.  If we live in Donald Trump's
America and they decide to regulate certain kinds of expression about
immigration, for  example, we might get that.  We have a very strong
protection in terms of the constitution, so it would be difficult, but in
Germany or other certain European countries, or many other countries, you
don't have that constitutional protection.  So it would be very easy, this
regulation to go in all kind of directions that you don't anticipate.

>> Hi.  So, I have specific question about Russia, as you certainly know,
Russian government is blocking international services, service by service.
So they started with -- right now they are blocking YouTube and obviously
the targets are FaceBook and Google.  So, I have a general question:  What
kind of strategy, what is the best way to protest this kind of huge --
society, what can Russians decide to do about that? MODERATOR:  Yeah, I
think it is good to be intellectually equipped, that's about the best I can
do for you, is to give you the principal wills, so in an advocacy context,
you can be prepared to mobilize public support for not having these kind of
regulations.   In terms of the political strategy, you know, that is so
local and specific and you need to understand how these societies operate.
So I would be a very bad person to ask how to transform Russian, the
Russian society or the Russian -- I do think that you can talk about
certain kinds of coalitions.  I think one of the essential parts, and this
is going to sound suspicious is to some people, but civil society on itself
can easily be defeated, right?  So where we see rights being gained is when
there is an alliance between civil society and business, the private
sector.  So with the encryption fights in the US, it wasn't just digital
rights advocates, people wanting privacy, it was the fact that businesses
knew that their products, if they included a back door, could not be sold
around the world.  And also they just didn't like being regulated in that
way.  They thought it constrained their innovation and so on.  If you can
get private sector civil society alliance going, I don't know if that would
work in Russia the way it does in the US, but most of the victory occur
when that align is present, most of the defeat is when it's the government
and business aligning against business society or society.  So, I think
that's -- I don't know what the private sector is like.  I read the Web and
it sounded like there was a systematic abandonment of kind of certain kinds
of principles and rights by the Russian private sector in the 2,000's, I
don't know how that works.  You would have to work that out for yourself.

>> I'm from the center for international -- think tank.  One of the things
I thought was interesting that you were talking about, how part of the
right of media organization is to not publish things as part of their
freedom of  expression.  And kind of along those lines, I'm wondering what
your thought is about what platforms like FaceBook and Google, do you think
that we should treat these as media companies?  I hear your push back, they
should be treated like states, but how to you feel about this issue that
seems to be a question for many people about whether or not social media,
platforms are media companies and should be regulated as such?

>> I'm totally against  that.  I think the, calling media companies is a
code work for -- regulated broadcasters, essentially.  And that's precisely
the road I don't want to go down.  So this thing about the, in effect, they
are saying that a platform that allows me to put up a bunch of pictures
about myself and comments about what I'm doing and share that information
with a bunch of other people is a media company.  Well, in a technical
sense, in terms of as a communication scholar who has a PhD from a
communications department, of course it's a media company.  It's an
intermediating platform.  It involves the use and dissemination of media.
This, when they call it a media company, what they are saying is all of the
regulations regarding content and market structure and so on should be
applied to FaceBook that we apply to broadcasters and cable companies, and
I think that's really a bad thing to do.

>> Well, we have already discussed that.  Once, you know, the whole --
media regulations, the classical, in a pre-digital analog age is predicated
on art ficialg scarcity, on centralized licensing, and on forms of
collective restriction on expression that are meant to make the licenseee
conform to the wishes of a politically defined public. And I think the
great thing about the internet, is that the public that was there dissolves
and becomes a multiplicity of publics and groups and individuals or
bilateral communication links that, you know, are different than the
traditional ones.  So for me, this whole media regulation push is an
extension of this alignment trend, which you lshed know I don't like in
which my new book is about.  So I think that's why, I don't know if I can
go on longer about that or you want?

>> No.  I think it was clear.  I just wanted to make this point clear for
everyone.  Because we have a lot of journalists here in the room, so I
think it's interesting for them to know these points.

>> That's an interesting distinction.  So when they say media company, so,
a newspaper is a classic media company, right?  A newspaper, in terms of
their content, because, again, of history and were highly unregulate.  If
you want to call them newspapers, yeah, do that.  That will be great.  That
will mean rt first amendment, at least in the US, applies across the board.
And they won't be confused with broadcasters who are highly regulated.

>> Well, we are already a bit over the time, if I'm not wrong.  Are there
any other questions?  If so, I would say please be brief.  Otherwise -- oh,
yes?  Okay.  The last one.

>> One more.  Why do you think, what do you think of the growing plr
algorithms  where -- basically -- information about what our likes and
dislikes and increasingly customizing that information and what is that
doing to our information -- and -- freedom of expression?

>> Pretty superficial view in the time we have.  Basically I think that the
filter bubble comes up that we are all going to be, like, floating around
in our bubbles is not really that valid.  I don't think there's that big of
a difference between what's happening now with the social media and what
started happening with direct mail marketing in the US, you know, 50 years
ago.  That is commercial entities have a very strong incentive to research
their markets and that's what they will do.  I don't see that it's a
fundamental departure -- I mean, the technology is more pervasive now, it's
true.  We are doing more on-line, so there's more information about us.
But I just think that compare this to somebody who sat down in 1962 and
turned  on, you know, ABC, CBS, or NBC in the US.  I don't know what
networks you had in India 50 years ago, probably had one or two.  You know,
so the question is sort of who does the filtering, and how multiple are the
sources of the filtering and the algorithmic -- if there was one company
doing this, I would be more concerned but this is happening with every
website you visit, with every service you subscribe to as well as these
broad platforms and ultimately you can opt  out, and the technology is
making it, you know, there are innovations in this market where people are
discovering new ways to remove ads or to filter things, I don't view this
-- this is not something that keeps me awake at night.  Let's put it that
way.

>> Well, there is those are helpful words, do not worry about the filter
bubble.  Milton, thank you very much for spending your time with us and for
the conversations  here.  I think it raised many thoughts, I think.  It's
still going to be in the heads of many today andy we will probable -- our
conversations when we talk about that on Friday and the, just what we did
the whole week. I think we could have -- couldn't have had anyone better to
talk about that, and it was a pleasure.  Wee don't keep you more busy.  I
guess you are having a lot of panels here.  What are you doing and is there
any panel that people should certainly come to visit you where you think it
might be interesting for them?

>> Well, I'm doing the internet governance project which -- and I work on,
is doing two -- pants, one of them is about TPP, the trance Pacific
partnership, it's about trade and information trade and information
services, and we are talking about the wreckage of that trade agreement,
what was gain and lost by that.  And basically since it's pretty much dead,
we will be talking about the broader concept of the freedom of trade and
information services and where that should go, and also about the
relationship to intellectual property, putting that into the trade
agreements, whether that makes sense or not.  And then we have another
panel on Friday, I think it is, on DNS fragmentation.  We are talking about
various ways in which  DNS and ultimate roots might form or certain kinds
of name collisions might take place and whether this is a real threat or a
fake threat and whether such fragmentation is maybe potentially a good
thing if it means technical innovations can take root that would require
people to my migrate to a new technology.

>> The last one is going to be a disputed session, internet fragmentation
is very much a -- this year, I think this is one highlight  probably.
Thank you very much for being here. (Applause).

>> So so we have a 15 minute break.  And at noon, we are, we will continue
with the newcomer session, thation the session where all the newcomers come
in, and that is facilitated by whom?

>> By --

>> By the.  Make sure you be back here.  Same room,  here, yeah. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/5/16. Internet Governance Forum. Newcomers
track. Room

>> Internet Governance Forum newcomers track. Room 6.

>> Hi, everyone.  Hi, I'm seeing a lot of familiar  faces, even though you
are the first time here at IGF, and my special thanks goes for that.  I
work for the IGF Secretariat and this is my dear colleague, I respectful --
our idea for the newcomers track was to explain to you what is the  IGF,
the IGF is not about the four days of meeting, but it's a whole process.
The process is -- 10 years ago.  I'm very happy today that today with us we
have the key people here within the IGF that were here from the very
beginning, that we can thank.  That we have this wonderful meeting.  Today
we have -- I'm not going to present them, they have many titles.  We have
Mr.-- from the Secretariat.  Very important people within the IGF, which --
consultants that are working on the  so-called -- work.  And before I give
the floor to the most busiest person, let me tell you what is the newcomers
track and what are the logistics, the background.  If you want to start,
what's the whole structure and what do we expect from the colleagues that
came here for the first time?

>> Sure.  Thank you.  Hi, everyone, I'm ssh -- so a newcomer idea was what
we discussed, and eventually rolled out to what we have here today.  Super
thankful.  There is the welcome, the -- I will do.  There's a history of
IGF, key, structure, and -- modalities, he has been here since the is
first, he is somebody who is very, very knowledgeable and you can
definitely reach out him  later, intersectional work  and -- meeting that
will be covered by -- and thereon there's diagnose  multistakeholder
advisory group.  I'm from Asia, Hong Kong, specifically, and I'm in civil
society.  So, there are a lot of people in the group which are super
interesting.  So, you get to know them about a bit mor later.  The final
one wore intercessional work and ways of engagement, that would include B
-- C neurofibromatosis B -- I know these sound like acronyms now, you will
know them by the end of day today, I promise.  And finally, it comes to Q
and A, focusing on what you guys  want.  I love the energy in the room, I
know we have a small one, but this is what makes the -- it changes much
more relevant.  So, other than today, which is a mentor session, there will
be knowledge cafes daily, we will have posters all around the the knowledge
cafe ares 1:30 to 2:15, in workshop four.  You can definitely get connected
with us.  We have a mailing list, we have a Twitter and the website.  Do
reach out to -- and I.  Finally, this is one pin that every newcomer can
get, pin it here so they know you are newcomers and they can reach out to
you, and we know that there are a lot of people from all over the world and
language is obviously a an issue when it comes to communication.  So, of
course it will be easier when you can communicate in your own natural
language.  So I do watch out for people who will have a similar tag, but
with the language.

>> Thank you for bringing us this cute gifts, which I will be, it will be
very  useful during these four days.  Let me announce that with maybe -- at
the beginning because he has a meeting after this, he is the program and
technology manager, which is based in Geneva, that is coordinating this
huge event, and then the, he is basically the head of the Secretariat, what
I want to ask, I think it will be very important for you to know, what is
the IGF and why is it useful for all of us to be here?

>> Thank you very much.  Unfortunately I can only be here for a few
minutes, but first of all I would just like to welcome you all, to the
IGF.  This is our 11th IGF, and how many of -- this is your first time
here?  Wow, that's wonderful.  So, you might find that it's a little bit
overwhelming with over 11 themes going on at the same time, but I am sure
that they will take you through them and show you how to slowly get
acquainted with the idea and also with the various acronyms and themes that
we have here. As you all know, with  the -- what I don't want to say
anything that Marcus is going to say, he is very knowledgeable and he knows
how to explain the idea from its very beginningses until now.  It's a
product of -- and we are here to discuss public policy issues dealing with
the internet in a multistakeholder manner where everybody has an equal
footing, and it's further unique in the UN kind of processes that we let
anyone speak in the world -- not order that they have the microphone or in
the order that they put up their hands, it doesn't matter if you are a big
country or a single individual or a big company, you all have a chance to
have your say, and comment and be involved in the discourse of any of the
various themes that are going on around the privacy, be it free basics, be
it whatever.  So we are very proud of that.  And for the present day and
the best practice forums and the dynamic coalitions that we have, going to
go through that with you, and tell you where we stand now and to the
future. So, again, thank you very much for being here.  And I will give the
floor back.

>> Thank you for coming.  And before you go, I'm going to ask you something
to confirm here.  Colleagues are more than welcome to approach the you
whenever they see you at the venue and ask whatever they want?

>> Oh, yes, totally approachable.  If you see me walking, please -- feel
free to stop me or walk with me if you can keep up, that's no problem.
Yes.  We can talk and discuss any issues that you want.  And yes, we fully
encourage you to come.  We have various ways that you can be involved
throughout the year, which mark yours and -- will and -- and they will go
through with you.  Again, welcome.  Thank you.

>> Thank you so much.  In the meantime, there's one person that joined us
that, even though you are -- I believe you know this, this is the person
that everybody knows and she knows everyone.  Ice Marilyn, our member that
has a lot of roles, I'm going to leave it to her to tell us what she is
doing for the IGF.  If you now agree, I would go a bit through history to
see how it was established and what did we do in the past 10 years and what
are the goals for the next 10 years?  So, Mr. Mark us, I'm going to ask you
just to introduce yourself, starting 23R from the beginning, when IGF was
created?

>> Thank you, it's my pleasure to be here, great to see so many newcomers,
I was at the beginning, the first head of the Secretariat of the IGF.
Ending this meeting as a board member of I can, and I'm also the secretary
of the internet governance for support association and excuse myself --
general a a  assembly, but I would like to make use of this opportunity to
make a commercial for the IGF support association.  We have a booth in the
village, please pass by and we will be more than delighted if you joined us
to show your support to the IGF.  But they asked me to give a bit of the
history of the IGF, how it came about, and let me take a look back at the
beginning.  We had the summit on the information society and that was --
dealing with the new issue on the agenda of international cooperation, that
was the internet and the internet governance became a hotly debated issue.
Broadly speaking to -- those in support of the distributed prove nans
arrangement related to the internet.  I can -- the registries, all of these
technical bodies that make the internet work and also the internet
engineering task force and on the other hand their governments that knelt
was somewhat strange for every issue under the sun that was some UN agency
responsible for  , their argument was it would be only normal if the
internet was better taken care of by the UN and in particular by the UN
agency responsible for communications, that's the  ITU, international
telecommunications union.  This was almost a religious argument, those who
felt that the State -- grow with the technology groups responsible for
running the internet felt putting the internet under control of the UN
would stifle the technological development because the internet as fast
moving technology and the UN with its processes would be too cumbersome to
deal with such a fast moving technology. The compromise, then, in the end
was, yes, we agree, existing arrangements actually work well and there's
room for improvement, one element was indeed we find that there's a need
for finding a discussion in an open format on all the policy issues
pertaining to the internet and that was  okay, we asked the secretary
general to set up a new -- to convene a new forum for internet policy and
dialogue and that is the IGF. And that was carefully chosen, compromise,
because those who did not want the UN to takeover the internet were afraid
if the ITU was asked to convene the forum, that would be a first step
towards UN takeover.  And there are those who did not want the UN having a
say at all.  They wanted to argue that the internet society should convene
the forum, but that would be too far away from governments for the other
side.  And the compromise chosen was then, okay, we asked the secretary
general of the UN to convene the forum, that gives a link to the UN through
the secretary general, but it is not a UN body as such.  It is not a UN
organization, it's not an organization, it's just a very loose forum and
meeting where people come and -- go away.  That was also very clear that
would have been a very strong operation against creating a new
organization. So, this careful compromise was negotiated in 200, and in
early 2006, we had to figure out how to make this work.  The language is
very vague, but it is clear that it's not a government led organization,
but it should be a  multistakeholder forum.  And we built on what we had
done during the two phases of -- when we had the working group on internet
governance.  In between these meetings we had open consultations and we
continued on that.  We had the first consultation in 2006, on what we
should do, and it sort of emerged -- people, folks to appear at -- a
meeting of maybe a little bit less than a week, some people wanted it to be
longer than that and we ended up, okay, four days might work.  But now we
end  up, we have already a five day meeting because day 0 as we call it now
is not part of the official meeting, but it makes a week long meeting.  And
I notice that some people started meeting on Sunday and that was day minus
one.  The first meeting in Athens, we did not know what it was going to
look like, but we knew from the secretary we would need to have guidance
from  multistakeholders and we set up an advisory group in those days it
was called advisory group, but it was composed of many, of all 9
stakeholders and they came up with the ideas for the program of the meeting
, and well, we did not know whether it would work or not, but I did work.
Where the government or individual, they all had an equal say.  Governments
are not used to that.  Governments are used to sitting in front of the room
and in the back of the other stakeholders, that was clear during -- and we
had discussions that government spoke first, and right at the end, the last
five minutes before breaking out for lunch there was time for the other
stakeholders.  Clearly that was not what we wanted.  I do remember we had
discussions with colleagues if the UN, how do we set up the room?  Be the
UN colleagues who helped said it's clear, the governments sit in the front
at the others sit behind.  We said no, that really doesn't work.  We cannot
do that because this is a multistakeholder meeting and we have to give
equal time, we thought maybe the government on the left like you do in
weddings sometimes, the family of the bride is on the left and the family
of the groom is on the right.  And that didn't work either because we were
overrun with people.  So we were not able to organize it.  We had to plan
that maybe 600 people but it was less than a thousand for a room, can seat
for 600, there was free seating for all.  And to my amazement, it worked,
the government accepted there was a government representative sitting next
to a civil society representative and people spoke whenever they felt like
speaking.  So that was the first meeting.  Then and that leads us now back
to where we are.  There are those right at the beginning who said well, we
need to set up working group to take deeper in issues.  This was -- I would
call them the IGF maximalists, and the IGF minimalists, that would be like
setting up a new organization, this is just a meeting of once a year and
then we will see.  But then somebody said well, you know, let there be
dynamic  coalitions if people want to sit together and work  together,
let's call them dynamic coalitions a and we had them from the beginning.
There was no sort of rules, we did not discuss rules of procedure.  And I
do remember from -- we spent the very first meeting two weeks discussing
rulings of procedure. And there was one government representative who said
clear the first meeting in Athens should discuss the rule.  Procedure.  And
I said to him, if you do that, then there won't be a sectd second meeting
because nobody will come to a second meeting.  Nothing more tedious than
discussing rules of procedure.  So we went into it and had the meeting and
that worked amazingly well.  And the procedures actually developed and
evolved out of the discussion without g a top down discussion about how
they should be.  So, clearly we all decided at the very first meeting, yes,
we are not here to name and shame people, be that private companies or be
that governments, but we talk about the principles of -- we can talk about
the pros and cons of proprietary software or open software, but we will not
mention companies.  Obviously we can talk about freedom of expression on-
line between the and not point at governments and say you are the bad guys.
So these are sort of a very general, generic rules of behavior and
procedure. And as I said, we did not know what to expect from the first
meeting, but the meeting went well and people accepted each otherment there
were a bit nervous and the special advisor to the secretary general
internet is  governance.  On the -- he compared it to Indian weddings
arranged weddings, when first meeting, boy meets girl and a bit shy and
that wasn't his take from the Athens meeting when 'governments had to sit
next to civil society, or technology people that were a little bit shy that
didn't know each other that well.  But that's over the years, and I think
by the second meeting was in Rio, people were still a little bit nervous
meeting each other, the third meeting was in -- there, and it was coincided
with the terrorist attack in mum by and people canceled the -- nie. there
were afraid there would be a difficult situation and I think the European
-- they canceled their attendance, and that gist a sense of solidity to
those who why actually there.  They felt a sense of community of people who
go to the IGF, feel a sense of community, where they actually are
comfortable with each other being in the same room and having discussions
without negotiating anything. And that was also, I think, an important
thing to remember that the IGF was not set up to negotiate an outcome, but
it was here to have a discussion.  And the fact that there was no pressure
to come to a negotiation, to have a result in the end, allowed people to
speak more freely.  So many people said that's a weakness of the IGF,
there's no negotiated outcome.  But I always argue it's actually the
strength of the IGF, because people speak freer because they are not under
any pressure of coming to an agreement.  And also for governments, it may
be more difficult to be in a free weelg discussion, they usually used to go
to a meeting where they have instructions, but they also learned how to
adapt to that.  And by the time we concluded the first, we had a meeting in
-- and at venues and the mandate got renewed and there was -- the second
psyche ql, and it was also a working group on IGF improvement, where many
proposals were made, how to essentially address the frustrations of those
who said there should be more tangible outcomes to work towards those and
be gradually also, those I would call the IGF minimalists become less
concerned -- possible ways, and it would not necessarily need to
negotiations and here -- and they talk about the best practice forums come
in, these are essential activities that take place between the annual
meetings and they lead then to the outcome of the best practice at the
annual  meeting.  And also we took, tried to bring the dynamic coalitions
together a bit to develop common standards of procedure.  We great sort of
on minimal standards, that is the floor is open, open procedures, open
archives, open membership, and to be open and inclusive in work and also
agree to accept  dissenting opinions.  We have a joint session the second
time this year of the dynamic coalitions, where we present the work of the
dynamic coalitions that asked for community feedback.  And in the same
time, what happened very early on was at the national and regional level,
there was a need to duplicate on having a similar kind of dialogue yet the
in fact IGF's and they sproong up all over the place and we have them all
over and Marilyn I am sure will talk more about that.  I think that's was
an  important -- that was not planned.  That was an  unintended
consequences in a nice way, it just happened because people felt there was
a need to discuss these issues at the national and regional level.  And
this is a growth.  We see it growing every year, we have more and more
often.  This is sort of something, a lot of internet gonchts happens at the
national  level -- begins at home, I like to quote him on that. -- may have
talked to long, I would be happy to answer any questions is, I would have
to step out by 1:00, but I will hand over the mic to you.

>> Thank you, so much, Marcus, for this history, it was an emotional story
because there was a struggle to establish what we have today.  I have one
brief question from my side before we move to Marilyn and open the floor
for comments and then continue.  There's something that we call the IGF
Secretariat, can you just briefly explain us those terms and what are the
results of these entities?  Very briefly, I know it's almost impossible, we
do not have a lot of tiesm.

>> It may sound simple, but it's not.  It was, when the mandate came to the
secretary general, I was working then, coordinator of the working group on
internet governance, and it went to the offers of the secretary general and
they analyzed with what it meant and they thought while it makes sense to
establish a small Secretariat to support that process, they asked me to
have -- Secretariat and that Secretariat is now headed  by -- and it is
based in Geneva.  To begin with, I reported to the secretary general's
office, but then when the new secretary general came in, that was on the --
he delegated the responsibility for the IGF Secretariat to  UN -- that's
where we are now.  And the -- is what I said when we first started, we had
an advisory group made up of people representing civil  society, the
internet technical community and governments and the private sector.  And
there were,  later, thing, sort of renamed essentially we took on the name
they call themselves you multistakeholder advisory group, and that's MAG.
Have I answered the question?

>> (inaudible).

>> That's what I said.  It was -- the responsibility was handed to you and
-- UN -- is essentially the administrative basically stop of the IGF
Secretariat and has the overall responsibility for the process.

>> Thank you so much, mark us, Marilyn is one of our respectful MAG
members, many.  Them are with us in this room, I hope you will stay with
us, especially when the colleagues ask questions.  I'm going to ask Marilyn
briefly to tell us about the role MAG, and then I'm going to ask you to
move to something that is probably the closest to you within the MAG, which
are the national and region nam IGF's.

>> My name is Marilyn, that is the best tip as a role model that you will
ever get from anybody.  When you go to the microphone, say your name
clearly, slowly, and the same way every time.  Because the transcript
software is intelligence software and if you get it right, every time you
speak, your words will be attributed to you and not to woman speaking.
(Laughter.)

>> So, that's my tip.  Mark us left a little bit of the story out, that I'm
going to cover very quickly before I talk about the role of the  MAG.  I
was privileged in 19897 and 1998 to lead the private sector TransAtlantic
coormings of business and cooperation and the technical community to work
toward the creation of I can.  There were 371 million users on the
internet.  And they came primarily from 11 countries.  I effective
communication can name them all and so can you. Think how far we have come.
We did work together in a qiews I multistakeholder way in the creation of
the I can.  But it was different, we were focused on technical aspects.
And yet we did begin to learn about what working across the aisle, which is
what we called it then, meant and how important it was. I was privileged,
then, to participate on behalf of my employer and the business coalition in
the preparatory processes, the two, the four years.  Here is how it goes:
I work for AT&T.  Hi, I'm flying to the united nation in Geneva,
Switzerland for three weeks, an they are talking about taking over the
internet.  Okay, my boss says, what governments are you meeting with?  I
said  actually, I don't get to go to the meeting.  But you are going to
Geneva for three weeks?  I'm going to hang out in the coffee shop and see
who I can button hole.  That is literally where we started.  At one point
three people from business crept into a balcony and observed the
negotiations of the governments.  We sat on the floor. After that, we moved
to having three minute speaking interventions, once a day, per stakeholder
group, and then 15 minutes speaking intervegs interventionses and when the
negotiations went organization we got kicked out of the room.  When we got
to the crunch, we worked very closely with governments, different groups,
the civil society did, the technical group, the business community did.
When we got to the crunch, we were running out of time.  We were
negotiating until 2 and 3 a.m. at the play, right?  We went to -- without a
document and the heads of state were coming in two days.  All of a sudden,
get out of the way, everybody get around the table, your civil society, I
don't care, you have something smart to say?  We broke through the idea so
that the agenda which is what we base our work on, is actually much more
reflective of the input of all of us as different stakeholders, than it
started out to be four years earlier. And I think one of the things that I
would say to everyone is, I really commend to all of us to read the
paragraphs in the agendas, paragraph 72 through 80, you can look them on-
line, because it helps to be a guide and it is what we still base and rely
on. So, I'm going to talk about the MAG.  I have attended every MAG meeting
since the  MAG was first formed.  But it met in closed sessions up until
just a couple of years ago.  And I was pleased to be one of the outsiders
lobbying the members to open up their meetings to attendance.  There is a
day of open consultation where the MAG members listened to everyone else
and then there are two days of work.  But everyone else is in the room and
at this point during the day, we go back and check in with others.  The MAG
is advising the process, of planning the meeting and developing.  We are
supposed to come with a community of contacts from whatever stakeholder
group we come from and to reflect from that stakeholder group into the MAG
process and from 245 process back to our stakeholder group.  We asked an
individual capacity but we have a responsibility to reflect.  I use that
word purposely, because I think we do not have this hierarchy Al reporting
idea, we have the idea that we work together and here is another phrase
that mark us didn't use nearly often  enough:  We act in a
multistakeholder mannerrer on an equal footing.  We have to keep
reinforcing every time we talk about multistakeholder engagement that we
act on an equal footing.  And governments have struggled with this.  And I
will say that that's because the culture, I used to work in a government, a
state  government, that's because the culture is very different than it is
in the technical community or in civil society.  So we actually asking
career appointed or elected officials and other can stakeholders to learn
different modes of interaction. And I think that is really important for us
to keep thinking about.  Because in the MAG itself, we are also learning
the MAG, in the past, really restricted itself just to the planning of the
program.  And that is  actually it's ficial job.  But it is also inch
increasingly trying to understand how to fully support the evolution of the
IGF, to deepen it, to enhance the impact and to fulfill the rest of the job
in paragraph 72, not just to hold an annual event, but to be a yearlong
process.  We have 10 years and we have 10 years, we have renewed for 10
years, it was a huge, huge, huge outcome.  There were governments who
thought this was the opportunity to, okay, boys and girls, we are going to
go to the -- we are going to create a new UN organization, we are done
here, we have got 10 years, we have governments who wanted perpetual
renewal of the IGF, we had governments and others who wanted only five
years fn the fact that we got 10 years is because of the work, the success
of the IGF, and frankly, it's because of the creation of the NRi's and the
impact of the NRi's and the intery sessional work and the engagement of
governments in the UN, no matter how -- open it says it is, the -- there
are side meetings with stakeholders.  You are not in the negotiation.  But
governments listened to us, actively participating here, actively
participating at -- and bringing in the stakeholders to ensure the 10
years.  So the MAG is going to have toee solve its own role.  The MAG is
constituted roughly 150 percent governments and the past host countries
have a permanent observer seat.   IGO's have a permanent observer seat, and
the other 50 percent of the seats are divided roughly equally between the
technical community, the business community, which we call the private
sector for some  reason, small businesses from development countries think
of themselves as businesses, and the civil society.  We may have to start
thinking about evolution of the concept of stakeholder groups because we
have a huge population of young people who want to be actively ininvolved
and we are seeing with the addition on the focus of the goals that we need
to be bring more and different government agencies in, the developments
agencies in, the development represent tis in.  So the MAG is going to face
some growth and evolution opportunities. We have, we work virtually, we
meet three times a year, face to face, usually, anthropology at the annual
meeting and we work virtually.  Mark us had talked a little bit about the
evolution of the working approaches.  I'm just going to ask the other MAG
members in the room to raise their hand so you recognize them.  We have got
a number of MAG members here. We are also responsible to be an ambassadors
with the community.  So I hope you as a newcomer are going to become a best
friend with one of the  MAG members and help to make them your coach. I'm
going to talk about.   NRI's.  For three years, in the United States, I
held preparatory meetings, I convened preparatory meetings to prepare, we
couldn't agree on how to launch a national IGF for three years, we had to
educate people about what internet gonchts gonchts.  Everybody in the
United States thought it was a takeover of I can.  That was such a small
part of what we needed to be address goes, we launched the IGF in 2009, we
were a late comer.  Many countries have stated.  The NRI's are very
dynamically unique to the needs of their country, their sub region or their
region.  And can I see a show of hands of anything who is involved in a
national or regional IGF or one in formation? We have a booth and I hope
you will come and stop there, and we have a main session on day two in the
afternoon, where we have 41NRI coordinators speaking.  I hope you will plan
to come to that as well.  The NRI's are, you can talk about public policy
at a global level.  You can talk about it at a regional level.  And you can
talk about it at a sub regional level, but you can only implement it at a
national level.  And we have to remember that.  Because we can talk about
codes of conduct, protecting children on-line, improving cyber security, we
have got to go ohm and update that law, we have to go home and make sure
that the system engineers that are designing the systems are also using
standards.  We have to work locally.  And that is what the NRI's really are
about, reflecting what is going on in their country, back into the IGF, and
then reflecting from the IGF back into the NRI's.  We were very fortunate
last year at the substantive, the chair then, appointed me as the
coordinator.  I learned later that mostly meant cheap cheerleader.  We were
very fortunate that at the substantive meeting of the  NRI's, they called
for a dedicated focal point and that is -- she has turned around the
ability of new interested parties to launch an NRI because they have a
dedicated point of contact.  I hope any of you who are interested in
learning more about the MAG, you have got other MAG members here.  If you
are interested in learning more about NRI's you have a great group of
coordinators here as well  as --

>> Thank you so much, Marilyn, as we have Marilyn and mark us for less than
10 minutes here in this room, I'm going to give you an opportunity to ask
whatever would you like to ask to Marilyn and mark us and related to the
IGF and to their presentations.

>> Maybe I should give you two minutes to think about it.  While you are
thinking about it, Marilyn recognized, and thank you so much that you  did,
recognized many of the  MAG members that are here in this room.  What I
would like to -- Marilyn, just briefly tell us what I asked at the
beginning and then I could also ask other colleagues, MAG members, to
respond as well.  Concretely, what's the term of the MAG?

>> The MAG is nominated in a process -- a group of business community,
there's no single focal point that coordinates who gets  nominated.  But
they have the business community, the civil society have processes by which
they solicit names who want to be nominated and they go through a process
of trying to generate support to put a group of names forward.  Roughly a
third of the MAG rotates off, always newcomers coming in and more
experienced folks going off.  Of the MAG benchmarks we do the outreach to
the compt community to seek input 0, should the subjects be?  Are we
addressing emerging issues?  For  instance, need to, you have to deal with
the internet of things, and start thinking about Stan Stan assistive
development issues here.  We are the sort of overall perform committee.  We
do the concrete work as well of encouraging the compliant to submit
workshop proposals.  We have a limit on the number of MAG members
themselves, three years ago, I will say again, I led the charge on this,
mag members cannot submit workshop proposals.  I think that is an integrity
issue because we rate the workshop proposals.  And we need to have, if we
are going to run the program, we need to be opening the program up to the
community. The concrete work is, we debate what the issues should be, what
the priorities should be.  We evaluate the  workshops, we try to set
standards and provide them -- for the workshops and the  main -- we
organize the main events.  And probably the main concrete outpatient output
that you would see is trying to improve and developing the program but also
organizing the main sessions.  And then while we are here , acting as sort
of volunteer assistance within the community to reach out to the community,
to  staff, in addition to the great work of the Secretariat and the host,
be in the room with setting up the microphone or running around with the
mic and really extending the physical work.  We have a very small IGF
Secretariat.  It is hopefully going to expand in its numbers, but we are --
about we have moved from an annual meeting to an intercessional process
that works all yier long and we haven't actually substantively increased --
you would also see that we are integrately involved with members in the
work that -- and are going to talk B you see the members in the dynamic
coalition or in best practice forums, but they are there as equal
participants.

>> Thank you so much, Marilyn, thank you, mark us, we had one correction if
you can stay for two minutes?

>> Will you just say your name

>> I'm from -- my question is, do MAG members represent the countries?  We
have 55MAG members, so, one MAG member worpts different countries?  Or
doesn't work that way?

>> MAG members do not -- if you are represented as a country, if you are a
country member, coming from a geographic region, we have to make sure
there's geographic representation.  Countries don't have a dedicated seat,
and there's a rotation. Let's say, for instance, last year the Nigerian
government was on the MAG, and this year the government of Ghana, so, it's
a geographic representation.  But the overall, what they try to do is to
have broad representation from all across the map of the world.  So if
there's business from one country, there might not be government from that
country, right?  Because there's only a limited number of seats You are
supposed to ablght in your individual capacity, which means you --

>> Just starting voice  on -- governments are used to that in the UN
system, there.  Regional groups are represented and they sort it out among
themselves.  Let's say the African group has two seats in whatever body of
the UN, then they sort it out among themselves, for governments, this is
nothing new.  But as Marilyn said, they are not expected a push a national
position but to work in a multistakeholder setting.  But there was another
question.

>> My name is -- from  Ghana.  I'm just putting my shoes in -- newcomers, I
want to ask, as a newcomer, can how can I get involved in the regional and
national IGF, and how can I join some of the working groups?

>> Marilyn and mark us, briefly, but we are discuss to discuss this with --

>> So, he is cheating because he actually -- he is a coordinator of a
national IGF, but it's an excellent  question.  If there's no national IGF
in your country, you can get involved by helping to launch one.  And
central Asia has just held their first sub regional IGF this year and we
will be building on that.  If you are not family with whether or not
there's a national and renal natural IGF in your country, we do have an e-
mail lest, but I think it work best if you came to see me or -- and we will
help connect you.  All of the national and regional  IGF's are open and
inclusive.  If they are not, they don't get listed on the IGF website.  So,
I will just say, lots more information to come on that.  And I think that
is a key question that all of you should ask yourself.  Because you cannot
always participate on a global setting, but you can participate nationally.
And we do also have remote participation and remote hubs.  I think the
working groups are going to be addressed by --

>> Yes, we are going to discuss in the next half an hour, the so-called
intercessional work of the IGF and how can you engage with the IGF?

>> Just a few words to follow up on Marilyn.  And my encouragement to knew
newcomers, do ask questions, there's no such thing as a stupid questions,
only the answers can be stupid.  Stand up, don't be shy, and  actually,
people actually quite like it when you say, you have been showing people,
MAG members, don't be shy, they will like it if they are asked for advice.
So, it's good to see new people around and we also have said we want more
young people and that it's great to see y'all faces here, so, get involved,
speak up, and ask questions and say what you think.  And please join in the
fun.  You are more than welcome.  Thanks.  And please apologize, we have to
move next door

>> Thank you so much, we have one intervention from our MAG member.

>> Thank you so much.  I have a few comments since most of your new -- you
are new, you are young.  And that reminds me of when I first -- in the
world -- information society, there was, that was 2003, and I was young --
the youth caucus -- taking it global, I went to Geneva and that was my
first international event related to technology, ICT and internet
governments:  And that's how I got involved.  That was my first
experienced, I was exposed to so many new ideas and I was lost at the
beginning. But I did not disconnect after I went back home.  Many times the
newcomers make a mistake, and that's when they go to an IGF, I can, or
another meeting on the IG shoes and they disconnect when they go back home.
That's wrong, you should not do that.  You have to be connected and be
involved. Number one, one of the local initiatives, as Marilyn said, that
you would need to implement policies on national level.  You can discuss it
at the global level, but you would need to implement it at the the national
level.  So, the first thing would be for you to get involved in one of the
national initiatives that could be -- local chapter, it could be a local
internet governance forum or it could be a national, initiative on internet
governments,  anything.  That way you would be involved.  And as Marilyn
said and some of the other speakers, then you would need to get connected
with a global initiative.  And that could be IGF global, you can become an
I can fellow and you can get involved in some of the -- international
meetings, and that way you will get involved on the global meetings.  The
benefit of being involved at a global level is that you will learn so much,
you know?  There's so much knowledge, hearing, experience hearing, people
coming from different parts of the world and discussing some really hot
topics, some really important and critical issues. So that's how you will
get involved on a global level.  My journey to the MAG was, this was 2003,
and I got involved in the -- forums after the, what's this, 2003, and 2012,
I participated in the first MAG that was in -- but IGF was born after the
-- was 2050.  I had, like, the global disconnect for some time, but I
reconnected in 2012, and then -- in 2013, then -- in 2015.  And in 2016, at
the end of the 15, they had this call for MAG membership, I nominated
myself and I was appointed as a msm AG number then.  Also I put spirit into
two I can's, in 2014, that was Los Angeles, and this year,  in -- where I
did not participate as an I can  fellow, but it was a community on --
program for the fellows to get involved more and help I can bring other
people, communities who are not involved in the I can process. So, my
advice to you would be to be present, get  involved, local and regional
initiatives.  Do not disconnect, disappear.  If you disappear, you will be
forgotten.  So you have to be present and be involved.

>> Thank you very much.  We also have a -- here, our respective MAG member
that is coordinating very important working group on communication and
outreach.  Something  that -- emphasized a couple of times.  Briefly before
we give them the floor, can you just tell us what are the ways to engage
with the IGF and how do we get new members and if you could make it a --
you come and -- it would be also good.

>> Thank you.  All I need to do is to recall -- IGF.  And the question on
the how to bring you into the internet governance committee is  quite --
one of the mandates that I have.  And what I probably would like to share
with you is that as long as you are using internet for one thing or the
other, it is a responsibility to know what is happening within the internet
governance space, and apart fund raiser that, just like the -- one of the
best ways to get connected and to be part of the system is to join the
national initiative.  I also want to challenge you here.  When you look at
the program that you have, you will discover that it program has virtually
everything on the internet governance.  And you are a good part of this
program for free.  And some of this program, the program when under any
circumstances, sometimes you pay for it to get a -- (inaudible).  I want to
challenge the youths in the house and the first timer in the house, that
the internet governance room is a -- space.  And it will be, for me, it
would be disappointing engagement if you should leave internet governance
forum without going about with something, something you can go about and
impact your community.  I want to em employ you, that you should get your
vote and get it -- and then walk with your peers.  Just in case you have
information or you have questions to ask, I'm available because one of my
mandates is to ensure that I communicate internet governance activities,
programs, and whatsoever, so that's you can be well aware have what we do
and how it can be part of it. Let me also talk on the issues of the youth
engagement.  In my country, what we have done -- I'm  sorry, I happen --
let me give you a little bit of my soul.  I find myself -- I'm the  co-
founder of the Nigeria internet gonchts and then I got involved as MAG
member and then also -- as their MAG member of their region and -- both --
it's not just about my engagement at the regional, it's about my.  The more
I try to -- I find myself in a  plane -- potential, so please for you, it's
a new house, you have a lifetime privilege to lend something.  And I either
wanted to go back.  What about you your land here?  You have government
land, the community that has to do with internet governance.  Things that
have to do with the internet.  We have a problem in communicate can the
importance of internet governance.  Mostly when you talk to people when you
go for a meeting for this, what they come to mind is they are -- so people
seem not to have a better understanding of what internet gonchts is all
about.  I want to challenge to you that, when you are going  about,
community with virtually everybody about what internets, governance is all
about.  Something I am going to bringing -- check out the curiosity of the
stakeholders.  What if you wake up one day and you discover the internet is
totally shut down?  How would it affect you?  Because in my country, if the
internet is shut down, I can tell you the whole system is shut down.  So if
you know that the shutting off the internet is going to affect you, it is
your responsibility to ask me -- internet space.  What about you -- please
go back and communicate it.  And we don't just want you to be communicate,
we want you to be part of the community.  Join the communicate, and let me
tell you this:  You know, the beauty of multistakeholder, the beauty.
Multistakeholder is to -- like you and me to be part of the governance
process.  I have looked at all the -- I have not found a single one that
give -- to a man on the street -- to be part of the policy making.  Now the
internet -- the  multistake stakeholders is the fantastic motor.  I won't
-- maybe mt nearest future, from the democratic point of view, I'm not a
stakeholder, it  whrb -- running national government.  Government is all
about stakeholders, right?  And about bringing everybody to get out to do a
-- agenda.  I want to leave that to you.  Do not lose what you have.  What
do you have?  You have an opportunity to be engaged in the process that
governance and shape our future.  Wiewd have to have a reason to -- a
ticket has been given to you free of charge, and you will also be held
accountable you know who who?  By the people coming behind you and they ask
you, you have lirnd about these things, up heard about it, and -- if they
complain about things not going well, what do you do?  Since you are a part
of it, so, you have got to be accountable.  If you are not taking part in
the  history -- not only your future, the future of your children, and the
new -- that came in.  So, let me stop  here, maybe by -- have time to ask
questions, we will be able to respond.  But please, this forum is about
community.  If you look at all the workshops, I know that, they have -- the
ability for you to, mafn, if you use it -- you can go back to your country,
more  engaging, empowered, and then you know what?  You have better
connectivity in terms of networking -- most em people -- maybe -- on the
TV, they are here.  That's the beauty of internet governance forum trk it's
about you, me, and everybody before us.

>> Thank you for those encourage ng words.  Let me give you clear concrete
examples, there's something that mark us mentioned, they are called the
best practice forums, and they are called intercessional work.  It's being
recommended to the IGF to work on producing some tangible outputs and this
is something being done for the past couple of years.  We have the key
persons on working at best practices forums, Andrea, if somebody is
interested in gender and the abuse of women on-line, how they can engage
and what is the BPF produces?

>> Thanks.  I'm the -- for the best practice forum on gender, which this
year is in the second year of running.  Last year it looked at abuse and
violence, speaskcally with women in mind and this year we are look at
gender digital divide, the fact that women are most less likely to benefit
from internet access.  In terms of how you can get involved, I think that's
what she wanted.  We are at the point where we have already produced a
draft outcome document.  So if you want, go and read it and comment on it,
it's on the IGF review platform and the IGF review platform you can find on
the website, there are links to all of the different reports on the
website. So you can comment on that.  Otherwise specifically for the BPF
agenda weesh looked at the barriers women face to access and the
initiatives that are used to overcome the barriers, when I talk about
barriers, it's the fact that devices are not affordable for women, lack of
skills and education, un-- abuse is a barrier and some of the initiatives
we have started mapping.  So, especially people coming from diverse
regions, we have  had -- using a survey and that sort of thing, but we will
always be welcoming more input on these initiatives wee. part nertd with
the women on mapping this on a nice website and that will remain running
which is a new outcome for the IGF.  So that's two ways in which you can
contribute to the agenda.  Comment on the draft, on the be review platform
and seeing the information about some of the initiatives that you are
running in your countries.  Thanks.

>> Thank you.  I'm doing basically the same work, but for other best
practice  forums, the one on IPV6 employment, that the necessary for the
internet to continue to grow.  How it's -- in countries and how that can be
further promoted.  The other one I'm working on is the one on internet
exchange points.  Focusing on the role that they have and how they can help
to deploy their local internet communities. The way you can get involved is
basically the  same, we have been working on a draft output, which is on-
line on the IGF website.  You can put comments examples on your own
countries in  there.  And also you can join our workshops we have this
week.  The best practice workshops.  But I would like to go back to the
basic idea behind the best practice forums. There was a lot of knowledge on
different topics in the community and that can be on gender issues, it can
be on more technical, or the other best practice forum is cyber security.
There's a lot of knowledge available flt community, either with specific
organizations, but with individual specialists or just Bayousers, people
that are on the internet and have certain experiences to share.  The best
practice forums are there, to bring that knowledge together, to bring that
at one point and try to put it in one document and give it back to the
community. So that people can find examples, knowledge that is available,
but maybe available in this side of the world or in this particular
community.  They have it -- it is presented in one document so that people
can learn from each other and find the example.  I think that is one of the
most important things to just to understand best practice forums, it's not
-- it's not about find ng the one best practice on something,  no.  It's
about bringing examples together from everywhere in the world from
different communities, different ethnic regions, dealing with a specific
topic, and bringing it together so we can learn from each other. And the
last point, I think our work, I want to say it's simple to understand, how
the process works.  You have first the MAG, who chooses three, four, five
topics.  Then there is the Secretariat, the work we are doing is just
providing the paper and the pen.  We are there to support the  community,
to support writing down and making a text from  it. But the content itself,
everything that comes in those documents has to come from the community.
And then it's clear where we can help, where we can get involved, where we
can bring on the examples, bring on what is happening in your country, what
is happening in your region, so that we can know and write it down at the
MAG is happy, the UN Secretariat is happy, because we know what to write
down.  And the community is happy because they have an interesting resource
of information they can look  into.

>> Thank you so much, if you have any questions please be free to raise
your hand.  In the meantime I'm going to ask a question, next year we will
probably have best practice forums on different topics.  What I'm most
interested and I think you are interested in, if the next year, someone
from this room will be interested to discuss the topic that will be the
subject of the best practice forum, how does the process  go?  There's the
so-called inputs and what's the role  in -- so that the meetings, the best
practice forums have, what's the role of public consultations, on some
practical level, if somebody is from government, civil society or if
somebody is a free-lancer, how can they join and, part of the team in order
to produce something?

>> I want her later to connect this to the project that we continued from
the last year, which is called be connecting and enabling the next billion.
There will be a dedicated session, and it has similar logistic working
modalities.  So practically, how they can be involved.

>> So, maybe I should start with that before we go into the methodology,
they are all similar.  Connecting and enabling the next billion, I know
it's a mouthful, but that's the full title, this is in the second year.  It
looks at the challenge rawnders access more generally.  As a best practice
forum on gender and access, but this one looks at it broadly.  Last year an
outcome document was published on that focusing more on the technical side
of it, to some extent, some of the softer issues.  This year the scope has
been extended somewhat at focusing on how we can get meaningful access for
people, not just access.  And the focus this year is on two things.  It's
how access contributes to the sustain blg development goals which was
agreed upon the end of last year, that's one of the  focuses, and the other
one is how we should adapt these policy options for connecting and enabling
the next billion to national and regional contexts.  So, we have -- and
just to, what she was saying about methodology, all of the intercessional
activities, free to use their own methodology.  So you will see that each
of the BPF's have used different methodologies, so you can jump from and
say if this is different from what you have done.  In general, for the best
practice forums, if you want to join the  first -- join the mailing  list,
every best practice group has a a mailing list and that's where all the
notifications about meetings are sent.  And on the IGF website, you will
see that each -- and other  intercessional activities have a page so all
nfltses about meetings and reports are published on that page.  That's
another place that you can go to. As far as the best practice forums on
gender, goes, we  had, and the same process was followed this year and last
year, we had meetings every two weeks that lasted about an hour, and open
to anyone as is usual for IGF things, and would be also used some other
methods of gaining input.  We realized that coming to a meeting every week
doesn't come to oneee schedule.  We had a survey in which we distributed
quite widely and we got input from I think 40 odd countries.  So we tried
to really get input from different regions and that sort of thing. And we
ask for things like case studies and we approach people dprectly or we get
them to volunteer for it.  Really, I think he has done the same to some
extent, we really try to encourage community involvement as much as
possible and we try to have different methods where people can join.
Depending on your time are availability, if you can join for a meeting
every two weeks, great.  If you can't, fill in the survey or send us the
report that you have done.  And we try to use one of our -- to draft the
outcome documents and you will see outcome document was mixed of prime
primary and secondary sources.  We do have -- about we had a call for input
and people sent in their sort of studies that they have done or they send
responses, to a list of questions, it's still on the intielt, that list of
questions is on the website. And all of these processes remain open until
after the IGF and people can continue giving input until we finalize the
output document.  We have updated the report from last year on abuse and
violence this year.  We also consider these documents living documents
because the field changes often and for  instance, on-line abuse and --
what happened year ago -- in short, I think that's, or  long, that's the
approach that we have adopted on some of these things.

>> Excuse me.  How -- (

>> The topics, how are they chosen?

>> Basically I wanted to -- the question you asked weave two different
parts in it.  One is the moment you decide or the IGF decides what are we
focusing on the second part, how can people get involved?  The first part,
it's like with everything, with the IGF, the general theme, topics -- it
also comes from the community.  And very important in that process is to
come up with ideas and make sure that they are -- it can be possibility can
be start talking about potential topics here with MAG members, but as
important  as -- the IGF, there's always the process where the Secretariat
puts an evaluation on the website and asks for public input.  And I think
first open consultation meeting, Marilyn was referring to that.  These are
there,  too, that the community, so everybody can come up with ideas.  It's
not to say this was good, this was bad, but I always say, in an evaluation,
you have what was good, what was bad.  The most important part of the
evaluation is what can -- what new things can we do.  And there, I think,
after this meeting and starting to prepare the next meeting, it's important
if you have ideas, look, I think this is a topic we should focus on next
year to bring that on, make sure -- MAG members know about it. And then the
second part is how can you get involved cofn Cretely in one of the topics,
and I think there's -- the baseline is very similar for all BPF egos,
thereon even open mailing list so everybody that want to get involved can
subscribe and they are  regular -- conference calls, everybody can join
them.  And it's on that mailing list and in that calls are people that are
joining, decide on what they want to focus on, and also decide how they are
going to work., two BPF's discuss, we want to look at case studies, in that
specific topiccor came up with the idea to send out a survey.  Last year we
did the longer survey, this year a shorter survey.  So, but the most
important is make sure if you have ideas that they are heard.  The moment
the BPF's kick off next year, make sure that you are subscribed to the
mailing list of the ones that you are interested.

>> The BFF agenda, there was a -- had we needed to study how the -- divide,
they did a literature of the reports around in the field and dietedded
decided it wanted to focus on barriers.  That's one example of how that's
done.

>> Thank you so much.  We have one question from -- also our respected MAG
member and then I want to hear from you, your feedback after this

>> I'm a MAG member from Indonesia.  I have been using the BPF document for
discussion within the national IGF as part of our reference points of -- I
would like to know from your experience and also the fellow on the use of
outcome documents, because I believe in the IGF -- the things that we
discuss is also the use of outcome documents and UN processes, whether it
is also being -- and if I will read it so I would like to know your point
of view on that.  Thank you.

>> Thank you.  Now, mentioning IGF, the new terms are just coming, I don't
have time to explain, but let me leave that for a knowledge cafe session
and different her the floor because I want to a hear from cletion

>> Maybe you should come to the session on Friday because that's going to
be the focus of it, is how, the outcomes of last year and this year have
been used and how we are trying to take these outcomes forward.  I think
that's maybe a better place to talk about this.  I think if you want to
talk about the other things --

>> Thank you so much.  Exactly, that was will my recommendation. Yes, is it
a question or feedback?  Briefly.

>> So, my question was, actually I want -- best practice I heard the
conversation to say if you want to get involved more you have to -- and
then the regional and then global.  What I wanted to find out was, is there
a best practice sort of on, which one can use to follow the -- isk, I hear
if you are not following some of the standards and you don't get to be
listed on the IGF website, there is a working group come you go up with a
best practice on into one?

>> Thank you, excellent question.

>> So, in any case, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding at the
beginning that was created here, you don't have to start from your national
or regional IGF's, if there's not one in your country only because the
NRI's are coming from the community, they are the result of the need of the
community, not the result of the IGF wanting something on their website.
So I think we need to clarify there.  If there's not the national regional,
sub regional IGF in your country or even if it is, that doesn't mean that
you need to be involved through them.  It somehow a logical process because
then the IGF, but let's assume there isn't one in your country, then of
course there are plenty of opportunities to enroll with the global isk in
the ways that Andrea now mentioned.  But there's no best practice in that
sense, yes. Yes, briefly.

>> I will be brief.  I think the issue you raised is actually very
important  issues.  We -- I'm tbr  Nigeria, internet governance, the -- at
that national level.  At this point in time we had a little bit of a
challenge on how best can we draw our  multistakeholders framework.  Way is
pushing for the global standard, that should be the way it's been done, but
then look at the clarities, things that probably not allow to do it
exactly.  So, I think, that question, we probably have to look into it,
maybe perhaps we can come up with best practice on how to set -- a national
-- I think initially -- very good input.  You really need to --  it's very
important for us to do that.  It's a greater challenge going in at the
national level.  Thank you.

>> Thank you.  Andrea, anything to add?

>> No, just, I think that's a suggestion you can take to the MAG next year,
have a best practice forum on establishing your own NRI

>> But there is something that we are doing now within the IGF, so the NR
it's as a community, a network are trying to develop a settle of guidelines
on how to establish and run an NRI.  It doesn't mean it's been dictated,
it's just a set of guidelines as a compromise between the currently 79 and
the new  IGF's.  That's that's that you are more than welcome to join us on
our cause and to subscribe to the mailing list, all of the links are on the
website.  So you can look into the draft that we have now.  After this IGF,
the draft will be subject for public consultations on the wider
communities.  Currently the -- I know we are over time, but again, it's
lunch time.  Let me just take maximum of five minutes.  And ask what do you
think about this?  I know it's too much information probably that is your
feedback, but why would you recommend for the next year to do?  We are
going to talk about this on Friday, but I just want an input from myself,
starting from this gentleman, I'm sorry.

>> I didn't understand very well

>> What do you think about this session?

>> Oh, I think it was nice.  It was open for everyone to participate.  And
with little advice about how young people are being incentivized, and --
mainly in the -- process because it's very expensive to come to other
countries.  In general, I think it's very open.  I'm from -- and I am a law
student.  I participate in other forums, and many -- they are very closed
and very hierarchy, and I'm older than you, I know more than you, so don't
talk to me.  But it's very open here

>> Thank you so much.

>> Can I interrupt your activity?  Can you tell me what you think about the
session?  I saw you taking a lot of notes

>> I think it's very  useful.  I think young and oldest, because we have
heard, done a good job at explaining the his train putting themselves in
the shoes of newcomers.  The one point about how can we do better or
something different, I would like us, the newcomers, to have a chance to
pass the mic around more actively and I'm hoping that the cafe will be an
opportunity for that kind of newcomer led discussion.

>> Thank you so much.  This is the recommendation that I needed.  The
knowledge cafes that we are going to have every day starting from tomorrow
are only 45 minutes long, you will see a lot of IGF friends that are going
to be there.  The idea was to bring you closer to some of the key
stakeholders within the IGF, for them to get to know you, for you to get to
know them and to ask them whatever you would like to ask them.  The concept
of the knowledge cafes would be to give them very briefly, the opportunity
to open the floor to tell what's their role within the isk, but then to
give you most of the time to ask whatever you would like to ask.  I think
tomorrow is starting with private sector and technical community.  So
colleagues from FaceBook, yahoo, Microsoft, Google, they are going to be
there, and -- also helped us a lot, I probably forgot somebody, did I?
Yes, I can, yeah, they are going to be with us, those are all colleagues
that are with the IGF from the beginning, so you are going to have another
opportunity to ask them.  I would also like for you to send us an e-mail or
feedback, we need to improve this for next year and I want to see if
there's a need to continue the tradition.  Thank you so much for being
here.

>> I just --

>> Yes, you can also send any questions, any  suggestions.  Thank you so
much and see you around.

12/5/16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12/5/16. Internet Governance Forum

>> IG academy.

>> It is very hard for people who are regularly volunteers in their
countries, trying to set up an gonch governance our approach is to develop
with the fellows road mapsz, road maps consist of a strategy tool kit that
includes a SWOT analysis where people assess the strengths and weaknesses,
the opportunities and threats in their respective countries and out of
that, develop a funding strategy, a communication strategy, and what our
aim was to really document all this, document all the work that the academy
of fellows did in the last couple of months for two reasons, fawferl first
of all, these can be fl developed further.  Funding provided, we will keep
on working on these different tool kits and refine them next year, you
know, when some people have lshed had experiences with running a local IGF,
they can share the experience with other people from other fellows from
other countries, at the same time, we want to be really open about this and
share this knowledge.  This is why we put out a first iteration of that
tool kit today and you can also find this on IGF.academy.  First of all,
it's a brief introduction in the different tools that we have been using,
the SWOT analysis, the  funtding strategy, the communication strategy, and
the road map itself.  And secondly, already a condensed version of the
experiences that people have made this year working towards creating or
enhancing their national and local IGF structures.  So if you go to that
website, you can download these as a PDF, and we will publish by the
beginning of next year, hopefully end of January or beginning of February,
what we call a transfer guide, which gives a little more detail on the
processes and the procedures, give a little background on this, and
hopefully will enable people in other countries to use this tool kit to
start their own initiatives or if they already have an initiative, to
enhance that initiative, to make it better than it is right now. Okay.
Let's do a quick second round, and what we would like to do is talk a
little about the challenges and the opportunities or we can call it the
tops and flops of what we have experienced in the past six months since we
have been working on that.  This time we will go the other way around.  So,
would you like to start with that?

>> Yes.  So, some of the tops for both will be, for example, for the first
one, they see positive activity of the government being interested in
involving in the future internet governance process because when looking at
the fellows, we have, one of them is a journalist, one of them is from the
ministry of communications of -- so we can see the government interest in
becoming involved in that.  And for the second one, one of our partners is
another fellow from -- a consultant working with the government, working
for the advisory.  So there are a wide range of stakeholders that could
come from these backgrounds.  So the stakeholders involvement might be a
positive, but on the other hand it, when thinking of the flops, it will
also be one of the most challenges we see in the both countries,  aeven
though they are interested, there has to be a lot of things to be done in
the sense for capacity building.  Because in the first one, I have heard
there isn't any organizations that are working on issues around internet
focusing just on internet.  And without society stakeholders like this, we
will be letting a voice, as well, but in -- in capacity building, we do
have some civil societies that are becoming much more interested in
internet issues.  But when looking at the other civil societies like, for
example, human rights organizations, the lawyers association, so, there are
a lot of stakeholders that are still needed to be built up capacity to
actually to involve in the conversation.  So capacity building of the
stakeholders is a very big challenge.  That both of us is facing.

>> Okay.  Thank you.

>> Again -- already had local ideas, so that because of that, we have
common backgrounds or our flops and tops are -- will be same.  The
challenge, the main challenge, I believe is the knowledge and the human
resource, then the finances.  And the media -- regarding the internet
governance.  These are the three main challenges that we have.  The human
resource -- things happen, the people who, with the knowledge in internet
governance are very rare, it happens, the organize is -- problems.  The --
may not know what it is, even though they participated, they expect some
result out of the ideas.  So normally this is not a -- project of IGF,
internet governance forum, it's a  forum, we are open for discussions
regarding the internet issues. So the -- what we have to do, there are,
after the challenges we have to always think what we can do and what we
have to do.  The -- part, the --  kind of thing I have participated -- is
here who conducted that part of it,  and -- also going to have school of
internet governance internet governance, so it helps to challenge in old
age and the regional people have to the local community.  So, the finances,
we -- really good responses.  Some sponsors have some tag lines, so it is a
challenge to act very balancely with the finances.  Finances means they
will give the money, but they have to advertise and they have the -- so the
idea of a balance  place, no biases to be making the -- so we have to be
careful and it's a challenge.  And the media, we need media advocacy and --
for special groups, we have to make special groups to make things happen,
because this is not -- it is not a thing that we are gaining any product
output from the idea.  To make something happen, to make policies happen,
we need strong media advocacy.  So I have -- with me, fellow, he is a very
good -- and he will be there now.  And the things, the positive way we can
handle those challenges for the next internet governance, because we had
more discussions with the academy.  Regarding the -- what we have, after --
IG, we have a community.  We have a mailing list of around a thousand plus,
so, it's a  big -- and which already exceeded a thousand, we have a big
community there for internet issues.  So, internet governance, we have
introduced internet governance to them, so almost we have a community.
Then we have -- what we have to do, we have to begin from the scratches.
So it will be a -- point for us.  Again, we have some money lest from the
first IG, it will be  another -- point.  Not  totally -- government civil
societies -- so the next time there will possibly be more positive than
last time because still the community, they are communicating with  us, we
are hopeful that they will help us and we can move on from there.  Thank
you  much.

>> Okay.  Thank you very much, and just as another bit of information about
how IGF academy works, what we also do is we have regional meetings of the
fellows where people meet in person, which is really important, because
most of the time, most of the year the process is completely on-line,
meaning that they are teleconferences, there's collaborative work in
different work spaces, but it's really, really important to just meet in
person, and we have basically two opportunities to do that here.  I mean,
I'm just talking about this year, this was the first year, but we are
hoping to continue with that and that is the regional meeting, one in Asia
and one in Africa, and of course the global IGF where we can exchanges of
the experiences pan what he alluded to, how to get governments involved and
find be then funding.  So, please, over to you.

>> Okay.  So, I will start with my country, Togo.  So  far, this year -- I
think since -- parts of the of the IGF academy, and -- is design, the road
map, this analysis we have, the communication strategy and the fund raising
strategy we had, I think you really help us, or help me to bring new ideas
in the national IGF community.  I will start with the flops and end up with
the tops. So, as challenged, we had this -- government.  So, our new
strategy is that we are -- the government, we are able to approach them
another way, unofficial ways, meeting them, talking to them as --
explaining the process to  them.  Because in Togo and most of the African
countries, they don't understand what's the IGF means, so, when you invite
them to meeting, they don't want to get involved, they don't want to put
them self in trouble, so they don't come.  This year we try to explain all
the process to them ahead of the IGF so we get them involved.  And we did
this on several other ways, especially this year we include some topic that
have interest of the government.  I mean, we give them the opportunity to
come, and explain the project.  I mean, the -- in the internet sector to
come and talk about it, so it was actually a platform for them to come and
talk to  the -- and all the stakeholders and listen to the other
stakeholders, too.  So we have persuasion from the government, we have --
ministry, and -- participate.  So very good involvement of the government.
So, we also have a -- iewth participation.  When I take my country, for
example, the population, it's a a representation of the population and --
35 years  old.  We have the very strong young population.  Those young
people, they are internet users, they are the -- but in the past, I mean,
the technical community was organized, the IGF did not -- this side of the
population, the youth.  This year we give the opportunity to the youth to
come and explain their problem, to express them self see we include some
topics that interest the youth.  How to start your business in the IT
sector.  Those kind of topics that we include in our national agenda,
having -- of the young people.  We have almost 400 people that -- IGF
compared to the other years where we have 70 people, a hundred people.  So
it's been a very good opportunity for  us.  So, we also have people who are
-- on-line, which was very good opportunity to express them self.  We have
the media -- because we forgot on the media, in the past, when the, we
organized the  IGF, we don't focus on this side of stakeholders, we don't
see the media that something that can boost the IGF in  Togo.  So, this
idea -- ahead of the IGF, we have a very strong media advocacy.  Every
program -- we talk about the IGF, so people don't get exactly what it
means, what will they gain by participating in the IGF process, it was very
good observation.  And also we tried to not rely on the -- because that has
been one of the challenges, they always rely on -- the US dollars and
sometimes the moan doesn't come on time and -- really affects the process.
So what we did this year is, we had  a -- observation of the business in
the private  sector, we give them the opportunity to participate, sponsor
us as donors so they come, we give the opportunity to showcase what we are
doing, and also participate in the debates.  That was a very good
experience, too. So, also -- we don't have workshops ahead of the IGF to
let people understand the -- so when they come to the IGF, they find a way
of.  And also I was looking -- the government, for example, we give -- the
opportunity to come and talk about the love issues -- policy in the
country, so it was a very strong participation, too, which is kind of
government stakeholders.  And I think all those tops I just mentioned come
from the different meetings we have during our monthly meetings with the
IGF staff, bring in our  strategies, trying to make it very clear so all
those meetings have passed to -- strategies and apply them.  Basically
that's what we did in Togo.  And in Congo, too, I think it's the same
thing.  They are trying to put up the communication strategy, the fund
racing in general, when they organize the national  IGF, ift will be a very
successful participation of the government and -- thank you.

>> Thank you very much.  And before you start, just reminder here that
after her tops and flops, I will open up for question and answer, so if
would have anything that you would like to ask, unfortunately be invited.

>> Thanks.  I think for both -- I think it's a global issue.  The
challenges that we need to provide, media information -- people need to
understand the power of media and how it can be used, but we need to add IG
literacy to it as well, ensuring that the users also understand what their
rights, freedoms and responsibilities are.  We are always focusing on
rights and freedoms, but do we actually talk about the responsibilities
that we have in regard to freedom of expression? Another challenge that we
have in both Mumbai and South Africa is between our governments, verbal and
public statements around freedom of expression and the policies that are
developing and implement.  So there is, lucky for us in both Mumbai and
South Africa, we have strong vibrant civil society sectors that is
consistently pushing back.  And I always say to my colleagues that we just
have to accept that governments naturally would always want to have more
power.  So that is why it is important that we have strong and vibrant
civil society and media sectors.  The media sector, what is happening and
what they can do to be involved and participate in the process, and a civil
society sector that -- the public and engages with government and
advocating and lobbying.  That's what we do at civil society a lot in
Mumbai and South Africa, holding government  accountable, lobbying and
advocating for the removal of problem attic clauses in our laws and
policies, and that's why you will find that we have a lot of bills that
have been on the shelves for a couple of years because it's a constant back
and forth between civil and society -- civil society and our governments on
issues related to freedom of expression. For us in -- we just started our
organization around IG two months ago.  So for us right now, it is
critically important to build our capacity.  And understanding internet
governance issues and for us, a self society, making the linkage between
the internet and human rights. So building our capacity and I'm always
challenging and motivating my colleagues and saying that we cannot just
build our capacity on the IG issues and because in the -- our government is
just as  clueless on IG as we are.  So I insist that we exas Tate our
government as well, so that we are all on the same page and  'we all
understand what is important and what we need as a country in terms of IG.
We also have a  conversation -- I just want to note that I will prb speak
more about this country, but the IG process, I have my colleague here.  He
is the edit tore of a magazine and he wears many hats. so our, what we
would  want, we are members of the actual coalition, which is actually a
grouping of civil society and media organizations and individuals
interested in FOE issues,  and -- information issues.  We have been working
together since 2013, so we are very cohesive, well working group, and I
think that is why it's so easy for us to take on the IG issue and to push
it further, we have been doing this around FOE and -- information foreign
the past three years.  As the actual  it's important that we as civil
society, before we establish and are -- to formulate a position.  What is
it that we in a self society would want in regard to IG and what is it that
we need for that on to happen?  It's very important for us that we
formulate the position early on.  If government a and the business sector
wants to do that, they are welcome to do that as well. Yeah, I think that's
it.

>> Yeah?  Okay.  Thank you very much.  And now, is there anyone who already
has a question in the room, to our fellows here and the way  they -- in the
back?

>> We have a microphone, please -- can someone pass on the microphone?
Thank you very much.

>> Thanks for the very insightful presentations from both fellows. So, I
just wanted, before I ask the question, I just wanted to say that maybe I
think what you guys are doing is a very good approach to actually helping
the -- this morning when we had the newcomer session in this very same
room, we had somebody -- members, I also raised an important issue to say
that I think there is a challenge -- I mean, you can go to IGF schools, but
at the end of the day, you go back to your country and you have to
obviously contribute to your society.  There's no specific document that
actually helps you to build capacity and actually establish an IGF.  What I
wanted to find out, I have seen that there are some documents that you are
working on and also in this meeting, maybe the members should look at
having this document as well as the best practices, with an exchange point
-- I don't know whether you would want -- or you guys would want to work
with the MAG members in terms of coming up with this document.  Thanks.

>> Thank you very much for the comment.  And -- yeah, yeah.  But -- there
was a question.  So I would like to ask the other fellows to answer that.,
from the IGF's academy's point of view, of course, if you would be
interested in cooperating there.  And we are also working in the remainder
of the process and hopefully next year, to end up producing  such -- we
usually don't, we don't want to call them best practices, but, you know,
like good examples of how you can deal with the challenges in your
respective countries.  Okay.

>> Thank you.

>> Just keep talking, I think it's on.

>> It works.  First of all thank you, I would like to thank Lorena for this
wonderful work.  I don't know how many of you were -- I  mean, today, but
let me just say, a lot, probably, let me just say I work for the
Secretariat and I have a pleasure to work with many of the national --
IGF's which is my core responsibility, there are 79 now, NRI's, and also --
what I wanted to tell you is that you are completely right, the things that
you are identifying here are being identified through the IGF and through
many of the virtual calls that the IGF is coordinating with many of the
initiatives for many, many years. What we are trying to do now with the IGF
Secretariat first of all, to develop a tool kit.  But what we were trying
to do was establish a core document that will explain what are the key
principles and how to organize IGF initiatives.  As you know, the IGF, as a
global IGF, they have five keys that they follow, and -- that tool kit kind
of aims too explain what does it mean to be a standard of care, what does
it mean to be open, transparent.  You are more than welcome to join us
after this.  The second document that we want to do, we are going to to be
kind of case study document, and this is something that the colleagues were
referring to previously, which is I think very important.  We are going to
gather the best practices and see how do you cope with certain issues
within your respective community so we have one unique -- if funding is
your big issue, you open the book and see this is what this country does,
this is what they do.  And maybe land from other countries.  That's the
idea.  I would use this opportunity to invite you.  I think it's wonderful
that you organized this session and that you can establish this discussion
and I believe the rapport that we will have from this session will be a
very useful input to that publication.  Let me just say that currently we
are working with 79 national regional  IGF's, which is equal footing.  No
hierarchy between the global and the national and the regional IGF's.  We
kind of look at it as a partnership and we are very happy that we have so
many colleagues and friends.  And as you know, I think this side IGF is so
critically important, for the very first time, we have the main session.  I
think many of the stakeholders within the IGF still don't know about the
others.  This will be a unique opportunity to make us  visible.  We are
giving a lot to the global IGF.  As you know, the work, the, thesh the
biggest contributor when it comes to sending inputs from the field.  You
ask for the inputs, that means you are getting information that are credit
cl because the team are operating on five key principles and basically
collecting the interest from the compliant.  In that sense, isk is really
aware of the fact that we are taking a lot from you, but maybe not giving
enough.  We want to change that practice.  I'm going to invite you to
attend the main session, to actively participate, to listen to the
colleagues, what they need to say.  And on Friday cls the coordination
session which is probably more important for us than the N gmplet I, they
will show us as being visible to the community so the community goes aware
of us.  But the froo session will have the key stakeholders within the
global IGF there.  It will be a unique opportunity for us to say what do we
want and how can them and the community can help us in what we need.  Thank
you so much, I took a lot of your time, but I wanted to use this
opportunity.  There's not a lot of these opportunities where I can speak to
them and I think this is something we need to change and Lorena and the
team recognized this.  Thank you so much for changing and making the G --
visible.

>> I think you for all of the important points, especially mentioning the
main session and Friday session.  So, please look it up on the schedule and
all the people who are interested in the work of the Secretariat with the
-- that would be good opportunities to talk about  it.  For us at the
academy, it's really important that all of what we are doing is in line
with criteria as the IGF Secretariat.  First of all, we agree with that and
secondly, when it comes to legitimacy, it's important that all of these
local and nacialg IGF's are recognized, because that's what we want to
achieve. Anyone else of having questions for our fellows  here?  I have one
because I think we need to -- we don't need to, but it's a good opportunity
to just give a couple of examples of how you can creatively come up with
ideas to include more people, more stakeholders, but also just plainly more
people in the process.  Please tell us about the situation in your country
and your IGF, you already said you had an attendance of 400 people which is
enormous, but also you had a good idea of how to include younger people who
entrepreneurs, and not at all interested about IGF internet governance, how
did you make them interested in that?

>> So, in my country, back home, young people are not really interested
about this or this -- properties going  on.  Because the -- that doesn't
mean dmsh what we do is, they are more -- they are looking for job, they
are there, nobody is listening to them.  So we think that the IGF -- can
help us, that we can highlight all of those problems that the young people
are having  entrepreneur, and we have funding opportunities across the
continent.  We try to put -- in our agenda, the IGF agenda, so the young
people basically are, they come to listen to that.  And also listen to --
what is going on in the IGF sector.  What we did is, when -- the government
sometime, they don't really know the real challenges, those young end
entrepreneurs are facing.  So when I give the example, they kind of -- in
Togo today, but because we are not listed, so the cons lieutenant and the
government, they don't know those challenges. the young people -- they
don't know the cons late.  But we include those subjects, we bring aspects
to talk about it and all of this -- they are able to see or to listen to
all those challenges and we put in our recommendation, how the government
can help those young people fix those challenges. So as I said -- it come,
mostly come to participate, to listen, to, you know, all those things.  But
also see what is the idea, what's our contribution, what are we -- so it
was a strategy to also bring them.  For the business sector, for example,
the -- we are about to bring them on board to come and showcase whear they
are doing.  For example, in Togo, most of our internet providers and --
belong to the government.  But we also have only one ce that belonged to a
private  business.  So what we do is, we approach them and tell them that's
every kind of product that we are being, you know -- circuit on TV, bring
it to  the -- for example, if you have a Wi-Fi box, bring it to the IGF,
share it -- to participate.  They share those gifts -- participate and talk
about this.  So is it very good to advertise what in fact they are doing,
and also -- because the gosm is there.  When you are talking about public
policy, they are talking about the government's project, all -- to ask
questions, to extend the debates.  So it was a kind of strategy we use to
bring all those different stakeholders on board.  Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.  I see there is a question from the remote parti

>> Okay.  We have a question.  It says the problem of awareness and
capacity building is not just a question of one awareness campaign.  I
think it requires more collaborative and  sustainable approach.  What would
be the correct approach in terms of political leadership in your
perspective countries.  This is a remote question from --

>> Okay.  Yeah, thank you very much.  That is a big question.  We are
running out of time, we only have five more minutes.  So of course we want
to answer it.  But please be as brief as possible.  Would you like to take
a shot at it and then we go around the table as the last round with this
question?

>> So, definitely the involvement of political leadership is important.
And so we have to, you know, think about, creatively how we can get this
stakeholders to involve, particularly the government, the ministries, and
one of the, our IGF fellow had pointed out that focusing on issues that are
interests of them.  For example, the government will be very interested in
open detail and those sort of things, so we have to get them involved by
using these types of, kind of topics that would be very important and
interest this them as well.

>> Thank you very much.  Do you have a brief comment on that?

>> It can be best practice, but making them -- internet governance is one
thing.  And again, we need relationship with them to get them into the IGF.
What -- IGF was IGF -- we appointed two persons from government and let
them scam the department and government ministries to get them involved.

>> Okay.  Thank you.

>> Okay.  Not really -- comments on the question, but I will just be brave.
I think when we organize our national IGF, it depends on the countries, in
our country, I think it's very lard to explain this into the government off
line, bring them to the IGF, because when you just organize the IGF and you
also hold them  accountable, most of them -- never come.  It's better to
explain it to them off line and bring them to the IGF to open the debate.
Thank you.

>> Okay.

>> I agree with everything that was said.  But again, I just want to
repeat, emphasize what I said earlier.  I'm a democrat, so for me, it's
about ensuring that as many people are involved in whatever process, and
basic quality and equal participation.  And that civil society is strong
and vibrant and the media is diverse  and -- independent.  And these
sectors hold government accountable.  I think if these thee sectors are
working together, consultation and parts participation, and the mind is
empowered, then the media information, literacy, campaigns will be a
success, but campaigns -- I want to turn it over to the -- but campaigns
that are relevant, that are response si to the environment.  Thank you.

>> Okay.  Thank you very much.  I think that was a great last round.  So if
you need more information on IGF academy go to our  website,.academy.
Also, this is a founder of IGF, we will still be around as well as all of
the fellows that are here at IGF 2016.  So if you have any more questions
to ask, please approach us and for the rest of the day, have fun, and fofer
the rest of the IGF, have a very good conversation, good conversations,
good networking and -- what was that?

>> Yes, please, hands up.  Yeah, thank you.  That's a very good point.
Show them who the internet governance fellows are.  Hands up,  people.
Okay.  Okay.  Thank you very much.  And, yeah, have a good rest of the IGF
that hasn't seen started yet officially. (Applause). Copyright © 2016
Show/Hide Header