>> LIANNA GALSTYAN: Please take your seats. We are about to start. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you all to this workshop, IGF Initiatives Master Chef. Objective is to discuss and share objective of cooking IGF and work out a set of recommendations or recipes, which can be used on a voluntary basis to help the current IGF to evolve and the new initiatives to be formed.
Let me start by introducing myself. My name is Lianna Galstyan. I'm from Armenia. I'm the Public Relations Manager and Board Member of ISOC Armenia and also ISOC Ambassador. I'm the organizer of this workshop and co‑organizer is Oksana Prykhodko from Ukraine, representing European Media Platform. Unfortunately, Oksana could not come, but she will be participating remotely.
And now, let me introduce our participants. Our Chef is Markus Kummer, former Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat, currently Advisor to the Chair of the IGF MAG and also Member of the ICANN Board of Directors. And I will quote the ISOC, no one brings greater insight, energy and experience to the IGF than Markus.
And our Sous Chef is Marilyn Cade, and Marilyn is catalyzing engagement of National and Regional IGFs, and we appreciate so much your assistance in this. And here we have teams, grouped by the regions, and we do have team leaders.
I will go from North America, North and Central America, Team Leader is Mark Burrell from Canada, Coordinator of Canada Internet Forum.
We do have Asia‑Pacific Region, Team Leader is Edmond Chung, from the Secretariat of Asia‑Pacific Regional IGF and South Asia.
We do have Europe Team Leader is Sandra Hoferichter from Germany and representing the European on Internet Governance.
We have team from Africa and Team Leader is da Jane (sp) from Tunisia IGF.
The next team is Latin America, South America, and Team Leader is Olga Cavalli. She is the Advisor to the Government of Argentina and Academic Director of the South School on Internet Governance.
And we also have ‑‑ if I'm not mistaken, Youth IGF representatives? Yes. Great.
So, basically the repertoire for our workshop is Sylvia Cadena from IPINIC, and Remote Moderator is Siranush and she is also the Chair at ICANN.
I would now briefly discuss our menu we have for today. We have appetizers and introduction for five minutes, speeches by Chef and Sous Chef for 10 minutes each. We have main courses presentation for 10 minutes then team discussion and reporting for 15 minutes each. We have audience for 10 minutes and we will have notes, desert, by our repertoire and we have specials chef and Sous Chef for 10 minutes each and we will wrap up our workshop.
Now let me come to our Chef, Markus. Tell us a little about the creation of IGF. Were there any expectations at that point that the IGF would trigger similar initiatives on National and Regional level? And how such initiatives were perceived when they first started to appear? And how do you see such initiatives now in terms of the usefulness and also in terms of their relations of the IGF itself?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. It's a great pleasure for me to be here. Thank you again for organizing this workshop and for promoting me to Master Chef. I'm not a good cook. So I do my best. You asked very relevant questions. When we started the IGF back nine years, 2006 in Athens, indeed, we didn't think that one day we would have all over the world, we would have National and Regional IGF‑type meetings and initiatives.
But it was really fairly spontaneous and bottom up that they started emerging. One year, two years after the first IGF. And in my humble view, this is in many ways the biggest success story of the IGF. It was totally unplanned but at the same time very spontaneous. I participated in many of them. They are a big number of very positive impacts from these initiatives.
I do remember when I participated in a regional IGF in West Africa, the Minister showed up because he understood it was of closely linked ‑‑ or loosely‑linked to a U.N. initiative. Then the guys representing the local Internet Community said, full of surprise, this is actually the first time the minister has spoken to us. Before he didn't see any need but the link to the U.N., however loose, made him realize it might be important and he took the effort to actually turn up and to listen and to talk to the local Internet Community, to the people who make the or run the Internet and make it work. And that is obviously, we didn't plan that essentially but this is a very positive unintended consequence in a way it triggers off participatory democracy at the national level.
And let's also realize that much of the Internet Governance happens at the national level. It doesn't happen at the global level. And a lot depends do the Governments have the right policy in place and this happens usually only when they actually talk and consult in a bottom up way to the local community.
So, over the years, it really spread all over the world. I do remember when it was? I think five years back, in Hong Kong, I participated in the first Asia‑Pacific Regional IGF and it was tremendous to see the energy that went into the meeting and I saw the same in most of the meetings I attended.
And also, we obviously, we are not able to impose rules for these meetings as they are spontaneous, but we did say, if you want to be listed on the IGF website, you have to be and fulfill some very basic criteria that is to be open and inclusive and multistakeholder. This is the essential hallmark for the IGF and this also applies to the National, Regional IGFs.
What we have found over the years there is no one‑size‑fits‑all. Each region has, each country, they have different needs. They have different traditions. They work differently. Some regions are more shall we say used to have an open multistakeholder dialogue than others. There are cultural differences and we have to respect that. In some regions people have more, shall we say, respect towards Governments and are not used to shout or to challenge Governments, whereas in other regions, it is fairly normal, the people speak up and show disagreement with senior politicians and senior figures.
One question that came up fairly early on was, should Regional/National IGFs be type of threat-coms for the global meeting? when asked for advice, I always said, don't do that. Find your own Agenda. Address your own issues. Address your own problems. Each region, each country has different issues and different priorities and you saw that in Europe, for instance. Privacy is a very big issue whereas in Africa, access is maybe the Number 1 priority. So each region clearly has different priorities, have different concerns. It is important that you address your concerns that are important at the local level.
Now what is the cross‑fertilization between the two? I think we haven't yet found the right rhythm. This year, a call went out, can you respond to something that came from the MAG, to the region? My hope would be that we would do it in the future the other way around. That the regions come up with issues they like to be dealt with in the Global IGF, also in intercessional work. We think this is an important issue. Why don't we work on that in our intercessional work? But this is very much also the theme of this meeting here. So, with that, I think I feel I have already talked long enough and hand it directly to the other Sous Chef to say a few words. Marilyn Cade.
>> MARILYN CADE: Thank you. It is fantastic to see all of you here and I'm going to first of all take credit for Oksana and Lianna using an analogy because I'm going to build on that analogy. You might or might not have noticed that I'm a girl. Sports analogies might not work so well for me. I don't always understand the rules. I get thrown out of the game. I don't cook much either. But, I'm a very creative cook. The nice thing about this analogy is that yes, you can have a recipe, but the quality of the meal is going to depend on the excellence of the ingredients and sometimes the perseverance and patience of the chef. And when you don't know how to make a particularly difficult dish, go out on the Internet or ask your neighbor. You can buy the instruments that make you a better chef and you can practice. I like this analogy for that reason because I think that what I have seen with the emergence of the national ‑‑ and I'm going to use a term just to kind of distinguish the National, Sub-Regional and Regional IGFs, is that there is great diversity. In 2006, I began convening in the United States with Becky Burr (?) what were prepatory sessions. We had been in a number of participants from the United States, had been very, very involved in the WSIS prepatory processes and walked out of Tunisia going, we are so lucky that the Greek Government has offered to host. Now what the hell is that thing going to be? And how do we prepare for it? So we held prepatory meetings. But we did that for three years, half day prepatory meetings. And we required that they be multistakeholder and we stumbled along for three years. We were able to learn from participating in the IGF and at the IGF, we encountered some situations where hey, other countries had already jumped ahead and they were creating national IGFs being of course, the highly competitive purpose I am, in 2009, I launched the IGF‑USA. We could not ‑‑ we had a Steering Group of 87 people. We could not agree on what the name of the organizational structure was going to be. We couldn't figure out ‑‑ we were not in agreement on electing a Executive Board. We went into the night before rehearsal of the IGF‑USA, three ministers were speaking there and a number of senior officials and NGOs and we didn't have a title for the person who was going to moderate the session, that was me.
So my title became chief catalyst. Just so we could all understand diversity. So I think one of the things I value the most here is, we are going to hear a lot about the diversity and the uniqueness and the importance of that.
I want to say a couple of words about what happened yesterday. Each year now, since I think around 2009, there has been a substantive dialogue between the National ‑‑ among the National and Regional IGFs and Markus and I co‑moderated the first. Chenatie (sp) the second. I have been involved since then. Anecho (sp) moderated one with me. We handled this year's session a little differently and the reason I am mentioning it to you is that we did a survey to ask the coordinators to help to guide us on what the themes were that they wanted to talk about. And yesterday we had a session that many of you in the room were able to participate, but not all. A certain number of, I'm going to call them, ideas, came up in one of the closing segments that I called, the reflection segment. And that is, the question of how should the IGF be reflected into the National and Regional IGFs? And how should the National and Regional IGFs reflect themselves into the IGF?
So I didn't use the word, linked. But among the among discussions that came up there, and I hope at the end of this, after we go through the rest of our session, perhaps we can have a few minutes to hear the similarities between the recommendations. We had Mark and Ellen Strickland from New Zealand as the co‑moderators of that segment and so perhaps we'll learn more today about the kinds of things that are good ideas, good practices, but also ideas about how the Secretariat of the IGF can continue to also provide the kind of support.
One of the other things that I think I would like to note is that, identity and recognition is important. And while I may know all of you, you don't all know each other. And you don't all know each other have a role in a different National and Regional IGF. And Ellen Strickland yesterday proposed, as perhaps an improvement coming out of the National and Regional IGFs, would be a pin that you could wear on your laniard when you come to the IGF so that you would recognize each other and could start a conversation. Those are little ideas but I hope we will talk more as we go through this about the kinds of things that you think will help to strengthen the identity and the activity of and the visibility.
I do want to say, when I go to New York to the U.N., my best resource is the map of the world that shows the growth of the National and Regional IGFs. And I was just there as was mark, in relation to the WSIS+10. And I was walking up to Ambassadors and introducing myself and handing them a larger version of the map that showed their country a little more predominantly, and congratulating them on their national initiative. What a icebreaker.
>> LIANNA GALSTYAN: Thank you very much. Now, let us go, I think, to our main courses. We have prepared a presentation on National and Regional IGFs grouped by regions. We included one Regional IGF and two National ones for each geographic region, and where it was applicable, we chose one Local IGF with experience and one new initiative. To highlight what a specific, usual, impressive, challenging, unique for them. North and Central America there are 23 countries, one Regional IGF
And six national ones which makes 26% of countries involved in Local IGF.
The interesting fact ‑‑ the interesting fact of Caribbean IGF is that this year, they held the 11th meeting on August, which means that it is actually older than the Global IGF, somehow. It is supported by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, the Secretariat of each with 11 members is the organizational body of Caribbean IGF. The working language is English. This year they had 45 participants out of which 12 were foreign. Traditional Sponsors have influence and decision‑making processes. And as you see over the years, the main ingredient capacity building issues for national multistakeholder attention, workshop and national IGFs. The spices for this year were Lianna's transition for 2018. And they considered linkages with the other IGFs as desert. They are still informal.
Then we come to Canada. Canada Internet form um is one‑day event. The main course for this year were connecting the next billion and supporting the development of National and Regional IGF initiatives. They had 125 participants of which 42% were female and 70% youth. And the challenge for them is the participation of Private Sector as they mentioned.
Then we go to South America. I'm sorry. We go to Mexico. It's North and Central America. The interesting fact in Mexico is the meeting program which included one introductory session, seven roundtables and four conferences. And the organizational body consists of 20 members. What is also interesting is that in kind support was provided by the President's of the republic, particularly they provided the venue. The national anthropology history museum and the Federal Communication Institute provided streaming services and access points.
Then we go to South America. There are 12 countries, one Regional and six National IGFs which makes 50% of participation. Now some words about the Agentinian IGF. The idea to have IGF in Argentina was discussed during the IGF this year in Mexico and the Internet Governance was carried out in October in Buenos Aires with 40 on 6830 remote participants. The working language was Spanish and the main ingredients and spices were access, Net Neutrality and law enforcement.
Then we go Brazilian Internet Forum. It is supported promoted and organized by CGI.PR. This year they had their fifth addition. It was a three‑day event with four plenary and five workshops and sessions where people cannot decide where to go. And I'd like to draw your attention to the number of participants. It is 585.
Let us move to Europe where we will find another picture with 51 countries. Here we have one Regional, one sub-Regional and 22 National IGFs, which makes 43% of participation. The percentage is not as big as in South America where it was 50%, but the number of local initiatives, the concentration is very high which speaks about how public interest and engagement.
The Regional IGF is EuroDIG, European Internet Governance. What is noteworthy is that it is an all year around participation process which culminates in annual of two‑day event organized in bottom‑up manner. The content is initiated and shaped by all participating stakeholders and every year Euro Event goes to another European country supported by the local host.
The number of participant various from year to year but it has tendency to grow. In 2008, it was 170 and in last year it was 770. This year in Bulgaria, this number was 493. And the outcome they have is messages from whatever country they organize the meeting, and those messages are distributed at IGF and within Europe.
Closely connected to EuroDIG, a sub-Regional IGF initiative emerged in southwestern Europe, CED, it has first meeting this year and the special connections between EuroDIG and CED are one particularity of EuroDIG. Then we go to Finland. They started in 2010 so this year they have ‑‑ they have main courses and also appreciate a specific topic. And for this year, those were distributed in services, on finished bank system and accordingly, digital society of vulnerability topics. And there is one aspect I'd like to draw your attention regarding Finland. It is the Committee for Future. It is a standing permanent committee in a Parliament of Finland which serves as a think tank for futures Science and Technology Policy in Finland. This year, finished Internet Forum was a part of hearings for this committee and it was held in a Parliament building.
And here we go to my country, Armenia. We are new initiative and our first meeting was hosted by ISOC Armenia and Minister of Transfer Communications and Internet Governance Council, IGC. I'd like to say a couple of words about this council. It is founded by the Government of Armenia in order to develop proposals and suggestions as well as contribute to the solutions for Internet Governance related issues in Armenia. So the idea of establishing IGC was to have a multistakeholder permanently‑functioning body and provide an open and transparent platform for discussion not once a year, but throughout the year. To react on emerging issues, just on time and of course consider the interest of all stakeholders. And I'd like to speculate about the event itself. It was a two‑day meeting with 10 plenary and five breakout sessions and one roundtable.
It was well attended. We had 170 participants. And the working languages were Armenian and English and Russian. ISOC helped us to live stream the event and IGF Secretariat provided remote participation platform.
Then we go on to the next region, Africa. Presently they have ‑‑ the clicker does not work. Presently they have five regional initiatives ongoing in Africa which includes the East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, South Africa IGFs. The regional initiatives are active in the operation in their respective regions and the African IGF supports and promotes the consolidation of the ongoing regional initiatives. There are 13 National IGFs which is 24% of participation. The Steering Group of 10 members half of which were female organized this year three‑day event of 40 Plenary Sessions at African IGF and it was attended by 150 participants. Half of which were female. They mainly discussed the access to information and knowledge, cybersecurity issues, Human Rights, and they also mentioned as a challenge engagement of government.
In Tunisia they have the support of the minister of ICT and Private Sector and active in Regional and Global IGF and the event is not regular which is to have organized IGF Program annually.
Then we have Malawi IGF can be considered new initiative. They held second IGF this year. They saw the new partnership for Africa's development. They have 20 local MAG members and 25 participants.
Now let us move to Asia‑Pacific Region which is the biggest territory and the number of countries. There are 64 countries, four Regional IGFs and 12 National IGFs which is 19%. If you are curious why Armenia is in this list too, I would say geographically Armenia is located in West Asia while politically, it is considered European country. Russia are TransContinental countries partially located in both Europe and Asia. Asia‑Pacific Regional IGF was initiated in 2010. It has growth from 100 participants to around 300, mostly from Technical Community and Civil Society. Workshop proposals are being submitted by the community and representatives from ICANN and ISOC members of this Steering Group. And a new initiative for Asia‑Pacific is synthesis document, which aims to document the input from participants at the APrIGF as well as the broader APrIGF community through remote participation and dissemination at the mailing places.
I will now speak about Russian IGF. This year, on April, they held their 6th meeting. The working language was Russian and it was translated into English. Among the main topics were cybersecurity, privacy, business communities voice in shaping public policy but for this year, the specific topics were Internet of Things and IDN. Russia is the largest country using this Cyrillic Script and use it by DN and universal acceptance is most importance for this community. Another prominent fact is the number of participation which is really very impressive for National IGF. It is Circa 800, local 720 and 80 foreign participants. And the another positive feature is the post‑event educational activity namely they sent foreign speakers to give a public talk at Moscow universities. And the last stop in our journey is New Zealand. Sponsored and coordinated by Internet New Zealand. Among the list of sponsors I noticed FACEBOOK. They had a three‑day event with four plenary and 35 breakout sessions. This is incredible number of sessions in fact. They had 505 participants and yet they considered community engagement as challenging. Among the main topics outlined connecting rural communities, privacy and education, and spices, barcamp, which it is a very interesting event, and e‑Mental Health. I wish all of us mental and e‑Mental Health!
Now I'd like to invite teams to start discussion inside the groups within 15 minutes on three topics. What is specific to your National and Regional IGFs and can we recommend to others as good practice? What are the most challenging factors for your National and Regional IGFs? And how can the linkages be improved with other National and Regional IGFs and Global IGF?
>> MARILYN CADE: And just so it can be really participatory, I think people can feel free in the back to bring their Chairs up by sections. So could you point out again for the folks in the back where the sections are and then they can put a row of chairs behind, turn around and ‑‑
>> LIANNA GALSTYAN: North America, North and Central America. Asia‑Pacific. Here we have Europe.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can we make a clarification about regions? It's Latin America includes Mexico and Central America and Caribbean. So is Latin America and the Caribbean.
>> MARILYN CADE: This was a creative approach from our organizer, which I think it would be good to try because otherwise it is ‑‑ and I understand your point but you're talking about shared experiences. And otherwise, you got a problem with those two North American countries, right? They are all by themselves and they need a little diversity. So perhaps you could try this as a just a try.
>> LIANNA GALSTYAN: So we have Europe here, Africa, and Latin America or South America, and youth.
>> So folks in the back of the room, if you're from Europe, bring your chairs and come up here and join these folks.
>> MARILYN CADE: We will be reconvening in two minutes.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I can see you're having great discussions. We would like to hear from you. Can you regroup and report back from your breakout sessions. I can see you're so wrapped up in your sessions, you don't want to regroup and report back. We are keen to hear from you. Please come back to your seats behind the microphones so you can report back. Who would like to start? Reporting back from your breakout sessions? Shall we start with the biggest group? Olga? You had a dynamic discussion, I can tell. And I think you are the biggest group in numbers, yes? Are you ready Olga? Okay. Please.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much, Markus. Thank you for the invitation and thank you to the great team Latin‑American team! That is full of young and energetic people, which I love.
So, about best practices that we could recommend or share with you. Both the regional and Argentina IGF were born as an initiative of not Governments but Civil Society, Technical Community. And especially in Buenos Aires and Argentina, it was mainly the initiative of some individuals that belonged to Civil Society organizations and Academia and Technical Community. But then, they opened the doors to other stakeholders, to governments.
So for example, in Latin America, the steering committee including governments, was considered after a while and now there is a stable steering committee that includes governments, Civil Society and Private Sector, Academia and I'm forgetting something ‑‑ but all the stakeholders. The institutionalization has been growing up. So that started were really open‑minded to include and to invite all the rest and the rest were keen not to be feeling excluded but on the contrary to sum up their ideas.
Our colleague from Peru told us that he is a technician and there are some governance of very technical people and sometimes this is not understood perhaps by the whole community. So he thought that could be one starting point but other stakeholders should be included as having a more political orientee discussion.
And there are some issues related with revelations that the government is taken on and that should be discussed in a multistakeholder environment.
About Mexico, our colleague from Mexico gave us three advice ,which I think are very useful. Work on the Agenda and consider the relevant issues of the community. Think about financing.
That is important. If you don't have the money, you will not be able to organize it. This is an important thing to have in mind. Work with the government. Maybe they have room and you don't have to go to hotel to rent a room so that may help the budget. And you should have budge tote invite people. And also it could be good, and those involved in Argentina IGF were very successful in bringing representatives from the other cities of the country. Some countries in Latin America are very really geographically big. So that is extremely challenging to include of course have remote participation. Which are the challenges? In big countries, having balanced representation from all of the Provinces or counties or states. To have fellowship. To come to the IGF and also have budget to offer remote participation. I'm reading my typo graphic notes. It could be good, this was suggested by our Mexican colleagues. It could be good to have presentations in universities and other institutions to motivate people to participate actively in these spaces and could be organized in several different cities in the country every year.
How can we enhance? Some of us thought that this reports that the Regional IGF do in the Global IGF, doesn't bring a lot of value to the discussion. We also think that perhaps the Regional IGF should be organized earlier in the year. We usually not Latin America, we hold it in August. So it perhaps could be earlier so these discussions could come to the mark and global process, and the rational thing is it is more national oriented. So I will stop here. Thank you very much. And thank you very much to my team that was very, very good.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you and it's great to see your enthusiasm.
Who next? Edmond?
>> EDMOND CHUNG: From Asia‑Pacific Regional IGF. I just clicked something and I couldn't see my notes. So, I guess our recommended dishes, I guess that is it. We had three in particular. One that people actually like is a policy ping‑pong session. We try to have a session that people can bring up issues kind of emerging and spontaneously. The other is, I guess one of the innovations for this year, a synthesis document that we tried this year and we are hoping to bring it forward. That is something that we think is very good thing and it is very challenging as well but it helps to drive participation and drive people to think through issues that people can come to consensus with. And last but not least, I think one of the great innovation, that is we have contributed to is the Youth IGF.
I think we were, if not the first, one of the first that created a Youth IGF that started in 2010 and at every APrIGF, there has been a youth I go. F. At first it was somewhat more separate and role play and training kind of sessions up until now T is fully integrated into the program. There is still role playing aspects of it but also fully integrated with the youth participating directly at the sessions. So, this is one of the things. And in fact, this is one thing that our team from the Secretariat also is helping the youth at IGF here in Brazil as well. So seeing that grow from regional and to other regionals and also at the Global IGF, that is quite exciting.
And in terms of the challenging factors, the many spices that are typical of Asian dishes, I guess, is the main challenge. The diversity and the vastness of the region makes it difficult in terms of participation in general. But especially from Governments and from the east and west would be basically the Arab region and the Pacific Islands. Those have presented more challenge. The higher travel costs for participants going every year to the event. The cultural diversity, cultural variety, some are less comfortable with speaking up and identifying controversial topics that can spark discussion that maybe more difficult, especially when you factor into language barriers. The Steering Group, multicycle Steering Group obviously even though at 60% is still not big enough. It's not very ‑‑ it is difficult for it to be fully representative of the region but as you get bigger and bigger, then the organization of that is also a pretty big challenge.
The direct impact might be the challenge like the Global IGF, where because it's not local jurisdiction ‑‑ not local legislation. Remote participation is also more difficult because of time zone differences. So and finally, the linkages or the fusion dishes that we would suggest, I think the synthesis document a very good starting point. I think for to link up the different initiatives, that's a good sharing between National and Regional IGFs. An Ambassador exchange to have people present at the different cross‑pollination, but also case studies and resources and innovation sharing like creating documents of practices or for example the Youth IGF. To work on some modules that other initiatives can use. And also perhaps a gathering of sorts or convening the secretariats of the different IGFs to meet intersessionally and share innovations and best practices.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that and for your great emphasis on the importance of youth, bringing youth in. That was very encouraging to see how many young people are at this meeting and I think CGI and ISOC made the great effort to bring young people in from the region. As we have the Youth IGF also here present, I think you didn't meet separately but nevertheless, I would be interested to hear from one of you guys. I'm not calling on you just now but maybe later if one of you would give impressions to see from your perspective. It is always good to hear from young people. Remote participation?
>> SIRANUSH VARDANYAN: We have remote intervention and one is Latin‑American Caribbean and Asia‑Pacific. So there are two interventional related to those regions.
One from Miguel Estrada talking about Argentina and IGF and he just okayed Olga to recommend fellowships for the people from the region to come there and this fellowship op opportunities and remote participation importance. But the remote participation for him, it would be good if the remote participant will be taken as attendees, something that is usually not happening, and so he said they are always the last intervention to be read and the challenge there is to make them feel as if they are really in the room.
So this is the comment from Miguel Estrada and I'd like to give the floor to Maureen and would like to intervene about Pacific IGF to give her ideas on that. If we can give the opportunity for Maureen to speak. She is remote connecting through video.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We seem to have a technical problem.
>> LIANNA GALSTYAN: We can hear you, please.
>> MAUREEN HILYARD: Thank you for your report on the Asia‑Pacific IGF. I wanted to mention the Pacific IGF. This is what has turned out to be a why not, so far. When we held an IGF in 2010, it was sandwiched over the weekend between an ICT Transport Energy Minister's meeting. Peter, Pacific Guidance Telecommunications Association meeting, all held one after each other. And we have't had another one since. Traveling within the Pacific for any of the Pacific countries to meet together is very expensive. And the idea that the time was to use an opportunity when there were two meetings when there was going to be a lot of participants f we held the IGF so we captured the ministers who might remain and new TeleCom people who might go to the PITA meeting, and we thought it could be multipurpose and be more cost‑efficient.
The reason we haven't held another IGF since then, the main reason is that for example this year, 2015, was the first time since 2010 that the ministers of IT met together. But this was a standalone meeting and the Internet Society, Pacific Islands, didn't get a cans to perhaps include an IGF as part of their proceedings. This is something that needs to be addressed and up until now, we have been very pleased to be included into the Asia‑Pacific Regional IGF. And have been able to bring up Pacific issues to add to the diversity of any Asia‑Pacific meeting and so we are very grateful for that. But it is something that we need to address because I think that the Pacific IGF would be really important. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. Who was next? Please.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. So, I will speak about the IGF initiatives of Africa. One of the main challenges of the African initiatives is the multistakeholder aspect of those initiatives. For some countries, the government didn't participate at all. For others, the government initiated the IGF and these organizing. And if for others, the government joined the initiative made by Civil Society and academia, so it is a problem of multistakeholder aspect of the initiatives. Another perhaps challenge or problem is since we don't have or don't want any part of the multistakeholder communities to dominate the initiative, who will convene the IGF? So issue was solved in two countries at least, in Binga and in Tunisia. We created multistakeholder committee for that. The big challenge is resources. Resources, financial resources is still there, and also Human Resources for some cases especially when you don't have the financial resources, people cannot pay for themselves so you have a problem of Human Resources, in this case also.
What can we ‑‑ what is the good thing that we can share with you? The African IGF had a very good experience, which is to hold summer school on Internet Governance just before the African IGF, and this enhanced a lot the level of discussion and made it more participatory. So I think it is a strength point very important.
The direction is between the Local and National and Regional and Global IGF. In Africa, we see that it is normal that the National IGFs feed the Regional IGFs and the Regional IGFs feed also the Global IGF as well as the National IGF. So, we think that the MAG of the Global IGF should have inputs from the regional and the National IGFs.
But also it is about direction. We also think that the National and Regional IGF need to have inputs and have perhaps the best practice et cetera from the Global IGF. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Who next? Europe? Sandra?
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Hello. It's Sandra speaking. My group we had the rush an IGF divided in two regions because it's a TransContinental IGF. We had Austrian IGF and ISOC Armenia and Southeastern Dial‑up on Internet Governance and the EuroDIG. What are the specifics to National and Regional IGF and can be recommended? We all recommend something else and I would all say we have another specific. What we could agree on is that each initiative for each country has to be interesting and educational on a national level. That's the most important thing. It has to be related to the national level. And it's a very good opportunity to bring a big number of stakeholders together, government, Civil Society, business sector. Bigger than those who are attending a Global IGF because on a national level you can't reach quite a bigger group.
It was said that it might be helpful in some occasions if specifically when you start with an IGF to have a sort of white paper where you can look at it and see how such an IGF could be organized, what are the specifics? What are basic rules? It should not be carved in stone. It should leave flexibility for specifics we have in each country.
What is challenging? I think on a national level and on a regional level, you face the same challenges as on the global level, that you have to raise awareness, awareness that Internet Governance is an issue which affects us all. We won't reach the people if you call it Internet Governance because it is too abstract. We have to sell this concept of governance differently. We have to break it down to the issues which are related to a national level. Let me give you an example. The IGF in Norway this year discussed how to police rearranging their work according to the needs of the digital society. How can they use the Internet? How should they fight crime in the Internet? This is something which will never brought up to the global level at least not for the specific country but it is something which is very, very much related on a national level.
So what we explored in our group was actually a multi‑level pyramid where the topics are defined bottom‑up, should also work on the Internet Governance Forum. This means actually the topics which are discussed on a Global IGF should come from the bottom, from the bottom of the pyramid, from the national level. It doesn't work on a national level to discuss how to connect next billions, at least not for Europe. It makes no sense if Finland or Norway is discussing the next billions. They are interested in their nation only. Though, it might be helpful to know the overarching team of the Global IGF well in advance, in order to think about how to contribute to the Global IGF.
It was also mentioned that it might be helpful for instance for Russia, they are doing it for a while. They have the same sort of categories every year. Within these categories, they are defining the specifics for each year. So it is always ‑ eye didn't take note of them but they are always the same categories. At the European level, we defined categories for the second year and we found it works out quite well. So if for instance, we could use a joint call for proposal within one region, where we define categories well in advance and every National IGF has the possibility to take topics out of these call for proposal, this would also create less work for each national or sub Regional IGF because the call is out anyway, they just to encourage community to participate and then they can take out topics which are of specific interest for this country, and we might also be able to easier define a topic which is represented or which is carried on by all national and sub-Regional IGFs and can then better or more easily fit in or feed into the Global IGF. That's what we discussed in our group. And I'm finished.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. I realized I have been running out of time. North America?
>> MARK BUELL: I'll make it quick. In our group we had representation from Canada, the United States and Mexico. So we really covered off that mainland North American piece. It was really interesting, we started talking about what makes our IGF, our initiatives unique but we very quickly transitioned from that discussion to the challenges discussion. And it was in a very interesting way.
What makes ‑‑ the U.S. IGF unique is that relatively speaking, com fired Mexico and Canada, there is very strong participation from the Private Sector and those actors that are in the Internet Ecosystem, the Internet Governance ecosystem. And that is in large part due to the fact that it is held in Washington and that is where a lot of these issues are discussed on a more day‑to‑day basis.
What is unique in Canada and I'm not so sure it's something that could be exported to existing IGFs but the Canadian IGF is hosted by sera, the registry for the Canadian country code top‑level domain. And as a not for profit organization, we really operate in the best interest of Canadians. We have a public interest mandate. So, that, coupled with the fact that we are an organization that is financially stable, we can be viewed as very neutral. We are not reliant ‑‑ or coming to the table with an Agenda for our IGF. Mexico, Canada and U.S., we talked about how we have large diverse countries in common. However, all of our IGFs are possibly not National IGFs, more capital city IGFs.
The US‑IGF like I said, what makes it unique is that there are a lot of Washington‑based people who are in the know who participate, so it is more of a DC‑IGF in Canada, we hold ours in Ottawa where these decisions take place and it doesn't necessarily address national issues. It addresses issues that are probably more specific to the policy crowd in Ottawa and the same in Mexico.
We tend to focus on those deep policy issues. However, there are probably large issues outside of the capital cities that we share in common, like connecting indigenous communities in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. And that is a real challenge for us is identifying how to do that, how to make our initiatives more open, how to be more inclusive of youth, how to be inclusive of indigenous peoples, how to ensure a better gender balance in our participation.
We talked about the idea of we don't have a North American Regional IGF, in part because we don't have a lot of countries in our region. Also, speaking as a Canadian, Regional IGF would involve the United States, which would be the elephant in the room, and we have a bit of fear that both Mexico and Canada express fear that we could have a Regional IGF which would likely be an American IGF with room in the back for the Mexicans and the Canadians somewhere. But we did ‑‑
>> PANEL MEMBER: Excuse me. I want to clarify. There will be room for the Mexicans and we'll talk about the Canadians.
>> MARK BUELL: A Canadian Prime Minister once said that it was living next to the Americans is like sleeping with an elephant. Every move it makes, you know about. Right? A mouse sleeping with an elephant. But we love the Americans.
We talked about how we could possibly link better together given a Regional IGF might be a challenge. We thought the idea of having remote hubs in the countries linking the meetings to talk about those areas that are not so deep policy focused. If we used the concept of remote hubs, it could open the discussion up to be outside of the capital cities. We could link indigenous communities in the Midwest with communities in Mexico and in northern Canada to talk about things like access issues and language issues and relevant content issues.
So, the idea of coordinating around a couple of issues, but without formalizing a Regional IGF, could be a good way for us to participate a little more closely together. We also talked about how our three countries are relatively speaking, with our IGFs, we have experience. We have been around for a few years.
We have resources, probably relatively more resources than a lot of other IGFs and we have a fair deal of expertise. And we could level to not necessarily bridge the Global IGF, but to bridge to the other National and Regional IGFs around the globe and perhaps, because of our specious, because of our expertise, play more of a mentoring role for newer IGFs in the developing world and create the linkages more IGF National IGF to National IGF as opposed to North American National IGF to the Global IGF.
With regard to the second point I wanted to make around linking to the Global IGF, is that echoing Sandra's point about our IGF has a fixed date. It's in June. The U.S. IGF has a fixed day. It's in July. We would need to know the themes of the IGF earlier to be able to include it in our national themes or subthemes. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. And I understand that Raul would like to say a few words and I take it both in your quality for VP as ISOC and President of IGF U.S.A.
>> RAUL KATZ: Thank you very much. When I was seeing the presentation about the IGF regional and National IGFs that are being held around the world, I was remembering when some of us under the leadership of Markus, were working in 2004 and 2005 trying to propose some things to be adopted by the summit, the summit in 2005. And one of the things that came up in that work, the idea of creating a forum that didn't have a name at the time. It was just the forum.
And it was incredible that time has happened and now we are seeing this presentation with all of those IGFs that are being organized around the world and during this huge meeting, that we are having for tenth time, is incredible, everything that we have built in those 10 years. And we, August of us should be very proud of that.
And we are proud, those who participate, to continue to participate. So that is Markus mentioned my two hats as VP of Internet Society and the Internet Society is supporting National and Regional areas by three different ways. One, as contributing with the IGF supporting association, second way that this is through our program that is name is beyond the net and we are providing funding support to our chapters when the chapters are involved in the organization of National IGFs and this is we are onboard with our chapters and onboard with more than half of them.
And the third way is through contributions from our regional that they are onboard with in all of the world that is being done in each region. But this is just one of my hats. The other hat, I think that is the one we started to do with the IGF supporting association last year is good start. We hope that we can do much more of what we have done in the last year. But we have supported a lot of National and Regional IGFs and we have the opportunity to contribute with more of them. And those are small grants and but those small grants are sometimes the organizers of the Local IGFs need for starting to work.
The chance for hiding a room in a hotel for having the meeting for ensuring that the meeting will happen. And so, they can so move to look for other contributions. But this Sea Capital (sp) is very important for make the meeting happen.
So, my call to you is that so my ask is that, we need your support to the IGF supporting association. Just yourself contributing, being members of the association but also bringing and spreading the info and trying other people onboard and organizations and individuals.
I'm sure that this year we could contribute just with 2000 dollars per Local IGF and 3000 for Regional IGFs but if we raise more money, we will be able to contribute with more money to more meetings. And this is the important thing. Here we have some brochures. That is available on the table. It is great work that has been done by Marilyn and Kyle, and please pick one when you leave before leaving the room.
So you have information and share information with others. My last personal note is that I was personally in many of the IGFs this year. That was a great experience. I expect to do the same in 2016. So, good luck. Have successful meetings. Count with us in IGF and we will count with you too.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you Raul. And I think you forgot to say that we have to invite all participants to join as members. We still have a booth outside. Some of you are members already.
>> RAUL KATZ: You have to say that. I always forget something.
>> MARILYN CADE: I need to make two clarifications. I'm the chief catalyst of the IGF‑USA so I'm very familiar with the details. And I understand that there are some people who like to call it the Washington DC‑IGF. Its name is IGF‑USA. Not IGF‑U.S. or U.S ‑‑ IGF. I says that to you but I want to give you statistics. 350 people attended IGF‑USA.
That year and 150 of them came from other states in the United States and other countries. So roughly a third of our participants, even though it is held in Washington, D.C., does come from outside of the region. But the main reason I wanted to say this is, it has never focused on domestic policy in the U.S.
And that does make it very different from the very beginning when we founded it, we founded it to take a national look at global issues and that was actually in the mission of that particular IGF. National initiatives. So I just wanted to clarify it is truly, very, very different from a lot of the others. The other thing I wanted to mention is, Simon made a comment. I wanted to respond to two comments because we did a survey of a Secretariat and a small team at the National and Regional coordinators, did a survey. We'll be polishing and publishing it. But facts show a very different perspective than what some of you have shared in your discussions. So I'm going to share a couple of those facts and then ask you to stay tuned for being sure that you follow the publication of the results. Based on a survey of 50% responses, we had 25 responses connecting the next billion was voluntarily chosen as the key theme to be discussed by the coordinators here at their substantive session. They didn't have to do that. They did. Many of them actually held sessions on connecting the next billion and five of the regionals and 10 of the nationals made contributions into the intersessional work.
The second thing is that on a voluntary basis, about eight of the National and Regional IGFs held sessions act y'all consultations, on WSIS+10. So I was thinking that it might be kind of helpful when we get the full survey, I will ‑‑ I think it would be really good for you to stay tuned. We are polishing it and in a month you'll see it on the website and it will be helpful in terms of seeing what in aggregate, the coordinators report in terms of what is going on.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. And I really see that we are over shooting our time limit and I suggest that we really wrap up. Would you have a few concluding remarks? Let me then try and wrap up. What I heard is very much confirmed what I said at the beginning. There is no one‑size‑fits‑all. They are different challenges in different regions. Of course financial challenges are common to everyone. One of the interesting points made by the African group is also partly related to cultural challenges, the difficulty of multistakeholder approach in areas where people are not used to it. But there I think the answers, some of the regional or National IGFs have found creating a multistakeholder committee seems an excellent way forward and I think this is what happened in many other regions as well. And to mark's point, the CCs are obviously kind of natural convenience and I think in Canada, that just happened but I think of course in many other regions the CCs are involved and I think as a recipe for looking for funding, in my mind, the local ccTLD would be the first address to go to.
Also what I heard is cost is an issue but then Governments might be helpful or also universities to find meeting rooms at no cost. And that also gives a link, a institutional link to Governments and local authorities. In terms of information flow and feeding into and learning from both ways, I think there is a great appetite for improving that and what I heard is the sooner you know what the theme for the meeting, the better it is for the National and Regional; although the theme for the global meeting is usually a bit of motherhood and Apple pie. It is a nice title but you can read into it quite a bit. So, but I also heard from Sandra that Internet Governance as a term, is not necessarily what attracts users. They are not used to these debates and I do remember my friends and mentor used to say, when you talk to someone and their eyes glaze over when you used the term, Internet Governance, and when asked if you break it down to real issues of concern, related to privacy or Net Neutrality on Zero‑Rating, whatever it may be, then you get much more traction with the everyday person. And also what I said in my initial remarks was actually echoed by Sandra that bottom‑up Agenda defining is preferable to a top‑down agenda defining, that the MAG gives a title or gives a theme to the national Regional IGFs as it happened this year.
There was also a time issue relate the to that. But in the future, there may be a better way of looking the other way around and having a theme bubble up from the bottom, from the National IGFs to the Global IGF. There are many good suggestions and many I think spices for the menu came in and well, we are losing people because they have to go for lunch. I would have loved to hear a bit from the youth participants as well but I think that is ‑‑ if they are still in the room and willing to say a few words, I will be definitely most interested. Please go to the microphone and introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: So, my name is Diego from Media –
>> PANEL MEMBER: Is your microphone on?
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Diego (Indiscernible)
My question is just between the relationship between the committee and the Global IGF because from all the talking I saw, most of the topics, they are issuing for Developed Countries. There are whole issues for Developing Countries some of the issues, but most of the issues are focusing on Developed Nations because we don't have Internet access like such topics or workshop issues or like are they recommended from Developing Countries like Regional IGFs?
So, any recommendation of topics from those? And the other question is, related to organizational structure. I don't know because it is my first IGF participation, is there any organizational structure IGF like Global IGFs into regionals in the regionals to nationals and nationals to sub-regional? So any organizational structure at the level related to this? The other thing also, I know that one of the problems for example, if (Indiscernible) will face problem from the development because government in Developing Country government especially those in democracy system, they don't want to hear about topics about privacy, about security and the like. So, is there any plan from U.N. Secretariat to inform for the Developing Country development, this kind of IGF should be facilitated by different multistakeholder groups?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. It's quite a rich menu there. Thank you for coming to the microphone, but very brief. Please.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello. I'm Felix from Net Mission from Asia and we will be organizing a youth APrIGF in the coming July. And I would like to know how do you push for youth participation when a lot of youth are unaware of the issue of Internet Governance given the scope of the issue and a lot of concepts remain unknown such as neutrality or security that they might not be aware of this. And then, another question is, how do you address regional differences among the Regional IGFs such as for instance, Taiwan may be more concerned of a Monopoly of TeleCom markets while in southeast Asia that might be access problems or cybercrime. So how do you address these different national issues within the Regional IGF? Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. But that is really the last speaker now.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: There has been like years organizing IGF, and also like Regional IGF and a part from here, in the IGF, also like might be some website of sharing some best practices from the particular region, is there any like platform which can increase the sharing of the best practices in a regional level or in a local level? And which is in a continued and proactive way? And then if we organize the Youth IGF in July next year, then we can like learn more like best practices from other countries. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Just briefly let me address some of the points. The first question was there any structure? The answer is no. It's all very loose as it happens organically. And I think it will continue that way. But the only way to strengthen the cooperation is by having meetings like this where you exchange information and that brings me right to the last question. Right now, the only link is to the IGF website.
We at the IGF‑FSA, are committed to strengthens this cooperation but nothing prevents you when for instance one possibility in the IGF complex and, to create a Dynamic Coalition that has a certain status. You can set up mailing list and there can be a structure where you keep in touch for precisely that. If there is an appetite to continue this discussion to share good or best practices, whatever you want to call them, to learn from each other, you have this opportunity. And I think that will be a great initiative that clearly seems to be an appetite for having this exchange from learning from each other. Other questions on the U.N. has in no way ‑‑ because these are not the link of National and Regional IGFs is extremely loose to the Global IGF.
So you have to find your way of working within the local constraints you have. But, there is a kind of halo affect because you are linked to the IGF and is there a very loose link to the U.N. and that might actually have an influence also on local Governments to listen to you. As I said in my introductory remarks, I found that some Governments where impressed when they saw this as an event linked to the U.N., however loose it is. And the last question, how to promote youth participants? I think you need to find a champion and I think Edmond from north Asia was one of those champions creating Youth IGF and participated in some events where capacity building, summer schools for young people.
They usually are very interested and very keen to learn that it needs somebody who sets it up. So, you have to find the champion. Universities can be obviously, technical colleges can be these champions but again it may also be the national country code, top‑level domain could be a champion. But, I think everybody says we are really keen to see young people participate and I think this IGF we also made that a step forward with a number and also the quality of youth participants. I think we have been victims of our own success. People were very interested to participate in these discussions. Greatly overshot our allotted time. I would like to thank you very, very much for your participation, for your contribution, and with that, thank you again for organizing this session Lianna. I conclude this workshop. Thank you very much.
>> MARILYN CADE: I want to also recognize Oksana who worked very closely and you might want to thank her yourself.
>> LIANNA GALSTYAN: I would like to thank you for participating and on behalf of Oksana and me, she is very sorry she couldn't be here but I hope for the next IGF maybe that will be the improvement, finding the funding for organizers and coordinators and to be present to the workshop on Global IGF. Thank you very much.
>> MARILYN CADE: Please take one of our brochures. They are at our booth as well. For young people who have questions of what is going on, if you want to find me at the booth over lunchtime, I'm happy to talk to you about the ideas that are going on right now about launching some new initiatives.