You are here

2019 IGF - MAG - Virtual Meeting - VIII

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 

***

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Good evening, afternoon and morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.  This is MAG virtual meeting No. 8.  And just before we start, just a reminder as always everything is transcribed.  And the meeting is being recorded.  And the summary will be out a couple of days after this meeting.  
    And we are also using the speaking queue.  If you want to ask for the floor, please use the speaking queue because it records who asked for the floor and makes things easier for the Secretariat.  With that I'll pass the floor over to Lynn to start the meeting.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  The primary purpose of this meeting overall is to ensure that all the MAG members are ready and sort of understand the task ahead of them with respect to the workshop evaluation review.  
    So with that in mind I would like to call for adoption of the agenda and at the same time ask if there are any other AOB or any other items MAG members feel we should cover specifically to facilitate the workshop review.  We'll just wait for a short count to six to see if anybody asks for the floor.  
    I think there is ample room for any questions to come up in the reviews we have scheduled.  But again just to see if there are any other requests for AOB.  Seeing no requests for the floor or comments in the chat room then we will call the agenda approved and move to the first item.  
    So as I just said a moment ago the primary purpose of this meeting is to really ensure that we're all set, the MAG members have everything they need and understand, you know, the task and the process ahead of them with respect to the workshop evaluation and any other actions that are needed between now and our third physical MAG meeting.  
    I don't think there's anything else of any importance to note.  So with that I'll turn it over to Chengetai for updates from the Secretariat.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.  Just a few updates from the Secretariat.  MAG members who want to have travel support for the June meeting that's going to be happening in Berlin please could you inform the Secretariat that please send an e mail to Eleonora by next Monday and then we can get your travel sorted.  And we also request that you do process your visas early if you do want a visa.  Because it is slightly different now.  Since you are not asking for a Swiss visa we got very good communication with the Swiss.  You are going to go to the German Embassy if you are applying for a visa.  We haven't tried it yet.  You will be the first ones applying for the visa.  We want to do it early so that we can sort out any issues if there are any issues, but I doubt there is going to be very many issues this time around.  As you may all be aware, the IGF's call for travel support has been published on the website.  And this is travel support for people who are underrepresented or come from the Global South to come to the Berlin IGF meeting.  
    It is open until 30th of June.  And we decided on the 30th of June because we wanted people who have been accepted as panelists or workshop organizers to be also able to apply for travel support.  
    And I also ask the MAG to disseminate the call.  The MAG renewal as well, it is open and we would like to have all nominations by 30th of June.  So far we have had 15 nominations.  We also this year, this is the Secretariat's advice, I am just saying this because the Secretary General's office may have other ideas, but at the moment we are looking to replace I think it says eight MAG members for their 20    this is going to be the smallest turnover for this year.  Next year is going to be a rather large one.  And then the next year 2021 is going to be the largest one.  Unfortunately, we have tried to make it even but since this is just the way that the MAG came in that's very difficult to make it an even one third turnover every single year.  The guidelines are on website.  So it is there for everyone to see.  And I also asked the MAG to disseminate the call to their networks.  
As far as workshop evaluations are concerned, we have received 57 evaluations so far from six different people.  I would like to congratulate those six people for starting early.  We have also had 11 conflicts of interest.  I do encourage you all to start your evaluations as early as you can.  Four open Forums because all these closed at the    just after the second face to face MAG meeting.  For the open Forums we have had 45 proposals received.  32 Secretariat has deemed to be eligible for consideration.  So we are still going through these open Forums.  And we will share with the MAG soon, either this week or next week.  DC sessions we have had 18 requests received.  17 have passed the eligibility test.  And we will finalize the list and also share this information with the MAG.  
    Day Zero as I mentioned earlier we have had 52 requests received.  48 were eligible and we will review these requests and see how they fit in to the Day Zero events.  We also have to wait for the host country to see how many rooms they are using.  And then the Secretariat will make a determination how many slots or rooms are available and see whether or not we can    how many of these Day Zero 52 requests that we can fit in.  
    For the IGF village we had 82 requests come in.  There are 50 slots available.  So we do want to make sure that there is a fair distribution of these slots, regional as well as stakeholder.  And we also I mean are giving a fair consideration to the host country as well.  For the IGF village request we are also looking at maybe we can do some sort of hot seating as we call it.  So we have one group maybe going for one day and then the next for the second day, et cetera, just to see if we can fit in more than 50 organizations in the IGF village.  In the past years we have had    we have awarded booths to some organizations.  And then when we do a walk around these booths aren't manned.  So we do need some indication from the groups that there are    they do have the personnel there to be able to man the booths so the booths aren't empty and wasted.  
    And that's all for the Secretariat updates.  If anybody has any questions please let me know and I will try and answer them.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Chengetai, it is Jutta speaking here.  Can you hear me?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I can. 
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  A question with regard to Day Zero events.  When I went through the proposals that I got to assess, I saw that at least one proposal mentioned that they were not applying for a workshop in the IGF program but for a Day Zero event.  I just wanted to make sure that the Secretariat is aware of this.  And I do think if it is an application for Day Zero it is not our task to assess this proposal.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Exactly.  Can you just forward us that proposal just to make sure that we do have it?  But you are correct.  Yes.  Thanks.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Okay.  I will look it up and send it after the Web meeting to you.  Thank you.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Anybody else requesting the floor or has a question of the Secretariat?  
   >> This is Veni. 
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Hi.  You have the floor.  
   >> Thank you.  Chengetai, I understand it is good to finish everything as soon as we can with the evaluation.  Is it correct my understanding that we can test how it works and if we do something wrong we can go back and re enter our evaluation, correct?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, yes.  You can.  You can.  
   >> Thank you.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Veni or any other MAG members, I am sure if you need more specific help or detail that Luis Bobo would be very happy to help.  And just for the transcriber it is V e n i, not V i n n i.  So I don't see any other requests for the floor.  I would add one other Secretariat level update and that's that, of course, when the call for MAG members for 2020 was announced there was also a call for the MAG Chair.  The DESA and, you know, the UN have been trying to work on all these processes with respect to kind of involving the community and making the process a little more open and transparent.  I think you see that in the process this year.  I think if anybody has any questions or comments or needs further information on that they should reach out to the Secretariat and they can pass that on to DESA or whomever is appropriate in the    
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Exactly.  And I did send an e mail out to all of the stakeholder groupings in the MAG to ask them for their nominations as well.  
    I did get some bouncers from those e mails.  If anybody did not receive an e mail from me can you please just send me an e mail and tell them and we will correct your e mail addresses in their list that we have?  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Veni.  I'll call Ben to the floor.  Let me call Ben to the floor now.  Ben Wallis, you have the floor.  
   >> BEN WALLIS:  Thanks.  Just a quick question for clarification, I posted it by e mail about an hour ago as well.  Silvia had asked questions about the workshop evaluations and the documents and she noted that it wasn't indicated whether speakers were MAG members.  And so I'd asked whether if we could remind us and tell us what the guidance is about MAG members speaking during workshops.  I couldn't remember whether there was any guidance or norms.  It is possible that MAG members are not supposed to accept invitations or simply whether it was just that if a MAG member is a speaker of a session that's clearly a conflict of interest and they shouldn't be evaluating that session. 
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Chengetai, you want to respond to that now?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Since it was asked I can respond to it now.  MAG members can participate in three sessions.  And yes, I think, yes, it is up to the MAG member if it is a conflict of interest.  If they are in the session and    I think it would be a conflict of interest.  So don't mark that session.  Just send it to us and we will note that, that you are not marking that session.  But it is three    MAG members can participate in three sessions.  But this determination as well is going to be made after the grading and selection process is complete, of course.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chengetai.  And we will come back almost immediately to further questions on the workshop review process.  I did just want to complete one additional date with respect to the Chair.  Some of you may have seen a note I sent out to the MAG list.  That was based on the sheer volume of e mails I was getting periodically that wanted to know various things.  What the status was, was I interested in running again and that sort of thing.  That's simply to clarify that I'm not in a position where I can continue in this role in the next year.  And, you know, the UN, the Secretariat was informed of that some time back.  So that call recognizes that there will be a new MAG Chair for the 2020 cycle.  And again the Secretariat and DESA have been working to try and kind of improve upon past year's processes.  If there are any questions, feel free to approach the Secretariat who will either answer or if necessary bring that in to the UN for answers.  And Chengetai, I don't know if there is anything else I want to say on that or I saw that Denis is on the call as well.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I mean the deadline is 30th of June as well.  For Denis wants to speak about it, he can.  I don't know if he has got anything to add.  Or just give the six count and see.  
   >> Yeah, you explained everything.  Thank you.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  All right.  Thanks.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Excellent.  It is always good when things are explained fully.  Okay.  Good.  So if anybody has any questions either on, you know, how to apply for the MAG Chair 2020 or suggested improvements for the process I know the Secretariat and DESA could be really glad to hear them.  
So with that let's move on to agenda item 4 which is questions on the workshop review process.  Following our last MAG meeting, the physical MAG meeting and the overall direction that was agreed there, there were several meetings held with the Secretariat and one with the Working Group on workshop evaluation to just flush out a few of the details.  That document was sent to the MAG this past Monday.  And we are going to walk through that in a little bit of detail just now so that we are all clear on the timetable and the expectations because it differs from past years.  I think these are all improvements but I want to make sure that everyone is familiar with that as well.  
    So I mean I think you are all clear on the reason this is to focus on a more key    to deliver a more focused and cohesive program, we decided to form    to agree on three main themes and to form three thematic evaluation Working Groups around those themes.  
    I think Chengetai covered earlier the number of submissions that came in against those three themes.  96, 107 and 86 were the relative distributions across the three which means they are fairly equal.  So there was no need to split those Working Groups out in to kind of multiple Working Groups per theme.  And I think that was a really good thing.  I think that will allow us to really build a cohesive program.  
    MAG members have been assigned obviously to the thematic Working Groups.  They were assigned randomly but paying attention to all the appropriate diversity criteria.  So regional stakeholder, gender, et cetera.  And I think the most specific timetable in front of us just now is for any MAG member to declare any conflicts of interest that you may have with any of the proposals you were assigned.  Again as we said at the MAG meeting it is unlikely that others will be assigned to cover that workshop because I think that then has kind of a one "outside" thematic Working Group review.  And it doesn't    if there are only one or two people that are expressing conflicts of interest in any one theme it doesn't affect the overall rating because it is determined by the number of people that actually rated them.  And, of course, this year with only three groups there is a significantly larger number of MAG members reviewing each one of the proposals than there was last year when we had I think eight or nine tags.  So the MAG members were split across various tags.  
    If there are any questions on that, we can come back later or put your hand up in the speaking queue.  Otherwise we will just keep working through.  I think that was pretty straightforward.  
    The    so the Secretariat is going to do some supporting analysis.  Once all the scores for proposals are received and we have the closing date for those reviews, the Secretariat is actually going to determine where to cut off the highest scoring proposals based on its assessments for the slots that are available for each theme.  They will consult with the MAG and the cutoff line will be drawn at 80% of the slots that are expected to be available to each theme.  This is in keeping with past practices, of course, where we obviously want to credit and recognize the highest scoring proposals.  And there's, you know, an assumption, a fairly strong assumption but not a given that those proposals would make the final cut.  The other 20% of the available slots would be used to flush out a theme, to focus on some gaps, gaps in diversities, gaps in topics or policy areas, that sort of thing.  
The MAG may also choose to combine or remove one of the top working slots if that theme is oversubscribed or upon further review it doesn't have appropriate diversity and viewpoints, for instance.  So it is up to the thematic Working Groups to pull together the full program theme and the 80% cutoff is a starting point.  So it is a strong starting point.  But the MAG is expected to use all of their kind of deliberations, if you will, to build the best possible program.  
    I'll come back in just a moment to the analysis that the Secretariat's proposing to do to see if that's clear.  This is an under 3A through G to see if each one is clear or if there are any other questions.  One of the questions I have to the Secretariat is whether or not it is possible and if it would be useful to share the information as you have pulled it together or if you think that really the period is so small that it doesn't make any difference because I suspect as soon as we go back out to the thematic Working Groups with the ranking proposals that they will want to start their own reviews as well and that's probably something that we can look at a little bit later.  The timetable we are working towards is that the Secretariat will conclude its analysis and share the results with each one of the MAG thematic Working Groups on Friday May 17th.  That's a little bit earlier than what the initial schedule called for and that was to allow a week where the MAG thematic Working Groups can then review the results of their collective reviews and work to build a recommended program which is subsequently going to be shared with the full MAG.  That should be sent to the MAG on the 24th of May.  And that's just to support a MAG review ahead of a virtual MAG meeting which would be scheduled on the 29th of May.  And this is all in preparation for the physical MAG meeting, the 5th, 6th, 7th of June.  And where we would finalize the program and that would include opening, closing sessions as well.  
One thing I would like to come back after the end is a discussion on which day we think should be the open consultation meeting.  One thought is that we could share a draft as of May 29th on where the individual programs sit publically.  And the MAG would, of course, come in on the first day of the MAG meeting, further review those and then on the second day we could actually engage the community both in discussions on what else is happening that they are aware of that we should pull in to the IGF.  Are there other efforts or activities or groups that we would want to outreach to to ensure they are aware of these programmatic activities within the IGF.  Anyway ways to sort of really extend community and engagement 
    So that was just one thought I had.  We can, of course, revert to the first day being the open consultation meeting day, if that actually suits the community and the MAG better.  But I think it is to think about how we really kind of use that day to really engage the community more deeply than what we have been able to.  And I think kind of recent meetings or recent years.  I think the community participation has been dropping off a little bit and I think we need to find a way to pull them in and really take advantage of their expertise and efforts.  
    So let me    I see that Mary is in the queue.  I will revert to Mary and Chengetai.  If I can ask the Secretariat to go back over the analysis that you are going prepare and see if there is anything else you want to add or anything you feel would be better served by further discussion with the MAG, then please do that then.  In the meantime, Mary, you have the floor.  
   >> Mary:  Can you hear me?  Is it very noisy?  
   >> No, it is fine.  Please continue.  
   >> Mary:  Okay.  All right.  Good evening, good afternoon, good morning, and good night, everyone.  This is Mary from Nigeria technical community.  I have two questions and clarifications I'm seeking.  I have started evaluating and I find out that there is no way I can confirm that proposals or organizers are first timers.  Can this be the    be    could this be commented as a feedback to the proposal?  Or the proposal is the organizers or can we just comment on    where we    internal comment, not the one that is given but to the proposal.  That's one.  
    Second is from the timetable, is there any point at the timetable that was put up now, that the proposals or the organizers would be given an opportunity to curb where there are deficiencies?  For instance, we have enough time this year that would give them an opportunity if they can correct some things because there are some mismatch, some not geographical spread, geographical diversity, right?  And all that.  So I am asking whether there will be an opportunity for them to cure it before we finalize the programs.  And again the one way we are proposing for margin, I know that we did it very well last year and we followed up.  I'm too bothered about that.  I am bothered about the fact that I don't know any organizer that is the first timer.  And an organizer, I mean speaker that is a first timer.  And then the last one is does seeing a MAG member as a speaker puts me in a COI position.  Thank you.    
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Chengetai, do you want to take those questions?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'll take the    sorry.  I'll take the second question.  I think    sorry.  I just lost my train of thought for some reason.  The COI question just threw me.  Remind me quickly the second question.  
   >> Mary:  (Cutting out).  That would be program    
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Exactly.  Thank you.  I understand it.  Yes, I understand it now.  In the past we have given people who have been on the cusp, so we have those people who in the top 80 who automatically come in and then the MAG comes together and then they receive a workshop or a couple of workshops that are very good, timely topic but it needs some work.  Those are the ones that we have given the opportunity to improve.  Those ones that are on the cusp that are given special consideration by the MAG for one reason or the    or another.  But the majority of them know because it will be fairly unfair if we    if people worked hard to have a complete proposal in time for the deadline.  And then we open it up again.  So those people who are on the cusp who are from, you know, underrepresented countries, and so this is what we call a conditional acceptance.  If they improve one or two features of that workshop proposal.  
    For the first question you asked. 
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Can I just add to that for a moment just to make sure that I    this year it won't be the full MAG that best has that opportunity.  It will be the thematic evaluation Working Groups who will see the proposals that are in their main theme.  And if they think that it is worthwhile pulling up whether it is because it is an important viewpoint that hasn't been captured adequately and the other proposals or because of, you know, some of the other geographic view and a new, but the reviewers think it is an important policy question, they will have those opportunities to look at those proposals and determine how they can be improved and put a plan in place.  Whether it is a merger or mentoring by the MAG.  
One of the side benefits of the new process that we will be able to look at them with a wholistic vision of what's happening in that theme and really work to pull up those workshops that are interested or important but perhaps weren't as well developed as they might be.  But that work will happen within these thematic Working Groups.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It works equally in the subset as the whole.  It is the same sort of procedure but just in the subset.  So I think that    I think that's a good plan.  For the first one, about the first time proposals, I'll just hand it over to Luis to explain where that information is available because it is available.  Luis, can you answer that one, please?  
   >> LUIS BOBO:  So thanks.  What we have is get to the proposals in the Forum.  So we ask the proposals if they have participated before in an IGF and how many times.  So this is the question, it will appear in the proposal when you are evaluating it.  If you don't see anything it means the team has not participated before.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Mary, did that answer your question?  
   >> Mary:  Thank you, Luis.  And thank you, Chengetai.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  For the conflicts of interest, I can't answer that.  That's with the individual MAG member, if they feel it is a conflict of interest or not.  We will leave it up to you.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  This would be a good opportunity to reflect that the Working Group on workshop evaluation and the Secretariat have really requested everyone to get any of their conflicts of interests in to the Secretariat and noted as quickly as possible so that if we do need to do some sort of adjustments we can do that.  So please do do that as early as you can.  
   >> Mary:  Excuse me, please.  I don't know whether you got my third question right.  The third question, I see Raquel, part of the speakers on a workshop that I am evaluating.  Can it be a conflict of interest?  Because I know Raquel or Leanna or Michael.  Should it form a conflict of interest for me because when I was evaluating and MAG members have been counting the number of times they appear and that one is not a problem to me, but the fact that I know, okay, it shouldn't influence my evaluation.  I should be as objective as possible.  I should not declare it as a conflict of interest. 
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Jutta, anything you want to add?  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes, I can.  We did not state as a conflict of interest.  That we see one MAG member is supposed to be a speaker in a proposal because then all other MAG members also couldn't score that proposal.  I do think MAG members need to state a conflict of interest when they themselves should evaluate a proposal where they are supposed to be a speaker.  That's the only case that is affected by the role of the MAG members.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Mary, did that better answer your question?  I think it did.  We will wait and give Mary a chance to come back in.  In the meantime let me just respond to    
   >> Mary:  (Cutting out).  Hello.  My question has been answered.  Thank you very much.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Mary.  I just want to come to something that's on the chat box where I think it was Raquel who said that she declared conflict of interest in three different workshop proposals and was offering to evaluate others instead.  I want to repeat something which I think we all agreed at the physical MAG meeting in Geneva and that's that if there is any reassignment that's done that would be done by the Secretariat.  Again respecting kind of appropriate diversity and randomness and I don't think we want people self declaring what workshops they might evaluate or kind of self assigning workshops to other MAG members is one point.  But two, I also think we are under the assumption that reassignment won't be necessary.  For each one of the three thematic Working Groups we have probably roughly 17 MAG members reviewing.  So if on some of these workshop proposals there is 16 MAG members reviewing them or 15 MAG members reviewing them it is not going to impact probably the diversity characteristics much at all.  And it absolutely will not impact the score because the score is actually rated against only those reviews that were submitted.  If that's    if that's clear.  
So I want to make it clear that if somebody has a conflict of interest, you signal that to the Secretariat.  The Secretariat will then determine whether or not any other sort of reassignment is necessary and they would perform that reassignment.  That's the only way to really keep them kind of independent, if you will, of the reviews.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  If it is three workshops I think it is fine.  If you declare a conflict of interest for two thirds of the workshops which I doubt will happen, then we have to look at it.  But since the marks are averaged out, three or four workshops weren't severely or won't or should not have any affect on the final grade as such.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Again just to emphasize there is only one path to declare your conflict of interest and that's the Secretariat.  And there is only one path for that to be fixed and that's via the Secretariat as well.  Paul Rowney, you have the floor. 
   >> PAUL ROWNEY:  Hi Lynn.  Paul Rowney here.  Just one thing that I have a concern about and I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Is where    when we read these things we    the submitters have self declared their diversity.  And in many cases what they have declared is not in line with reality.  So when we evaluate these things, we have really got to make sure we are cross checking what they have said to what the actual reality is.  And a good example is actually workshop 38 where you have got an organizer from Ghana and you have got four Ghanian speakers, one female and then they claim to meet all the diversity criteria which is gender diversity, geographical diversity, policy perspective diversity, et cetera, which is not possible.  So we can't take verbatim for what people have self declared on diversity.  We have really got to dig in to that a little bit.  Just as a comment that I wanted to make.    
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Paul.  I think that's a good comment.  And I mean I think it is the same for many other aspects as well.  I mean really thinking through diversity of viewpoint, for instance, and, you know, we will require some real thought and care.  
    So thank you for that.  Any other comments or questions at the moment?  Somebody was trying to come in.  
   >> Mary:  Hello.  It is Mary. 
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Hi Mary.  
   >> Mary:  I guess I am jumping in to what Paul said.  And I have been noting the fact that some of the claims on the diversity they don't    they don't represent what they declared from the organizers and the speakers.  So I was also highlighting what I have been doing, I think highlighting it would also help the group when we want to do the thematic meeting or consultation for each of the tracks.  So when we come to re evaluate, if we have highlighted all that in our evaluation then we can use it to be able to re evaluate what we have done.  Okay.  I hope you got what I said.  Thank you.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I am just reading the transcript.  I think it is clear to me.  Are there any other questions or anything people would like to add to or respond or question, re Mary's comment. 
   >> Mary:  Just echoing what Paul has said, but I'm also saying that should be highlighted in those boxes where we are asked to make comments.  So it will help us at the thematic session to be able to re evaluate what we have done.  That's what I am saying. 
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  That's an excellent point, Mary.  And again one of those comment boxes is visible only to MAG members.  So any kind of the reflections, questions, thoughts, concerns you have, that would be an excellent place to reflect it.  
    Let me come to Christoph's question in the chat room.  He is saying on diversity, to have stakeholder diversity, how many stakeholder groups are to be included as panelists and for geographical diversity, minimum regions to be included.  Jutta, is this something you want to respond to or the Secretariat?  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  I can try to give it a thought.  So the thing that we said in the Working Group was that at least three of the diversity subcriteria need to be addressed.  We did not define how many regions.  And we also did not define how many stakeholder groups need to be addressed.  So I do think it is up to the individual judgment of the MAG members to decide whether they think for such a theme workshop session it is justified to have maybe only two stakeholder groups given the issue that they are dealing with or whether it is justified to have or whether it is necessary to have all geographic reasons because it is a theme that you think it needs to be dealt with from all, from participants from all regions.  So that is up to the individual judgment of the MAG members to decide.  
    The bottom line is that a proposal needs to address at least three of the diversity subcriteria to score a medium    I do think a 3, 3 points for scoring the diversity.  And when it is less than three of the diversity subcriteria are addressed then it is less than three points.    
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jutta.  I'm hoping    let me see if that responded to Ana's question up above as well.  Saying workshops organizers are from one region, though from different countries.  How do we score this on diversity?  
   >> I do think that wouldn't address the geographic diversity criteria.  So that would not be fulfilled.  When they are all from the same region then it would not be diverse, even though have different countries.  That's why we have the regions.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I think that fits with past practice as well, Jutta.  It criteria to Christoph's question in the chat room, we also have guidance, the panels were just getting ever larger, eight, nine, ten, 11 panelists and now an hour, 90 minute session.  It doesn't allow appropriate time to engage with the audience.  And it comes with a series of individual speeches.  Everyone is trying to find a way to get diversity of viewpoint and some of the other diverse criterion as well in a format that facilitates half of the session being turned over for engagement with the community, with the people in attendance.  
    Let me see if there are any other questions.  I want to call out one or two other points.  I think the Working Group on evaluation, I know at least one of the Working Group members suggested that it might be a useful thing for the Working Group on evaluation to go away and think a little bit more about the process we would actually follow during the physical MAG meeting as well.  And I think that would be very useful.  I also think it might be useful to perhaps think about whether or not there is any additional guidance that might be given to the thematic Working Groups as they start in their own individual working groups.  
So once all the proposals have been scored and the Secretariat has given them back to the thematic Working Groups with the highest scoring proposals called out separately, as the thematic Working Groups actually work through those reviews, you know, we have said that they should build the program on the basis of overall thematic program issue coverage, diversity, obviously check for redundancy, those sorts of things.  But, you know, if there is any other    it might be useful to at least have a conversation with the Working Group on whether or not any additional guidance would be helpful.  
    So Jutta, I don't know if you have any thoughts on that now or you want to take it to the Working Group.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes, I can answer that quickly, Lynn.  Do I think we will try to squeeze in another meeting of the Working Group between    so after we have all scored our proposals and before we get the feedback from the Secretariat.  So if I have the calendar right in my mind it should be after the 17th of May, before we have the next virtual meeting.  So we tried to have a virtual meeting of the Working Group in that time frame.  And I got from now that we have two issues to address.  One thing is how the process will be continued within the three thematic groups.  So give some guidance.  How the assessment for these workshop proposals that will fill the space that is left open after we have the highest scoring proposals accepted.  And then also we will try to develop some guidance, how the process is going on to finally shape the program in the third face to face meeting.    
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  And I know we are asking a lot of the Working Group in the workshop evaluation.  If it is asking too much or it is just too compressed of a timetable, let us know and we will find other ways to support it with the Secretariat.  I think any advice or guidance that is deemed to be appropriate for the MAG thematic Working Groups reviews need to come in sort of well before the 17th of May because those thematic work reviews were meant to take place from the 18th of May to the 24th of May.  Ideally we would probably try and have something, the    I don't know.  Before maybe like the 2nd or 3rd of May in order to review that with the MAG members and get their support such that we can take it on board with the reviews which should be happening between the 18th and the 24th of May.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  So I do think before the 2rd or 3rd of May would be a little bit difficult but it could be at the beginning of the    the next week then.  Probably around the time that we finish our individual MAG assessment process.  So before the 9th or around the 9th of May and then probably we can have another meeting with the Working Group.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Maybe I will talk to the Secretariat and see if similar to last time if we can kick off some things on the basis of the discussions we have had with a full MAG and help support the work a little bit.  I know it is    as I said I know it is an awful lot in parallel to the Working Group reviews.  Maybe we can take that offline.  Jeremy had a good comment which is some regions though are huge.  So he has also been looking at the specific countries and that's again also a critical review point as well.  And then Ben is saying    trying to see if there is a question or    Ben, anything you want to add to your fairly extensive comment. 
   >> BEN WALLIS:  Sorry, I wasn't fairly succinct.  Christoph was asking how many Working Groups and regions to be considered a good diverse proposal and Jutta reviewed what the guidance had been.  And I was just pointing out that because there is several diversity criterion and you have to meet three of them to get a three and four of them to get a four it is still possible to have only one stakeholder group present on the panel and score quite well.  So I thought it was interesting that we could use our own judgment to consider whether something was truly a diverse proposal.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  And I think individual MAG members' judgment is critical.  Critical to all of this.  We have had a couple of examples already with respect to why it is critical to be thoughtful about it.  And any process which is kind of global is this in every aspect in terms of stakeholders and experience and background diversity.  I know, I think it is really necessary to be really quite thoughtful and use your judgment when reviewing all aspects of the submissions.  
    And I see your comment as well.  Are you sort of looking    okay.  So you are saying there is an issue.  Maybe not.  We log everywhere but then we are listing countries.  U.S. happens to not be WEOG and the U.S. is WEOG.  So maybe we can look at Arsene and if there is a question, give it to the Secretariat and they can help troubleshoot on the basis of guidance established by the Working Group.  
    Going back to the document, I think my only other comment there was to make sure that the MAG members are setting up their own thematic Working Group calls between the 18th and 24th of May.  There was a request from some of the Working Group members for the Secretariat to help establish those calls and set them up.  And I'm sure the Secretariat    
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, that's fine.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  And I also think we need to make sure that they happen.  So if, you know, if there is no natural leader coming up from the Working Group to establish those meetings then    
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  To take the lead.  Thank you, Chengetai.  Are there any thoughts on the open consultation meeting, Day One, Day Two?  While it may seem early to be making that call I think it is really important to give the community advance notice if we are going to move the days.  For 13, 14 years, the consultation day has been on Day One.  If we are going to move it to Day Two I would like to give appropriate advanced notice.  Any people get any feedback from the last time?  Are there any sort of thoughts?  Otherwise I guess we could work with the Secretariat and the Working Group on Working Group eval to think about, you know, what a reasonable process might be.  
One of the things that occurred to me was given the draft programs would be pretty well and probably very well advanced by the time of the MAG meeting because of this thematic Working Group approach.  It might be interesting to find a way to engage the community in terms of helping us reach out to other actors, other players who might be interested who would have a view.  And this is    we didn't get a seat on the panel because if we do drive each one of those sessions to have 50% of the time for engagement with the participants, then there is really a lot of room for, you know, good discussion and a lot of reason for other individuals, other actors, other players to come in and participate in those sessions.  
    So it might be a good opportunity to broaden our thinking a little bit and maybe do some specific invites with respect to pointing out some key components, key pieces of the program and pulling in some additional participants.  So it was just thinking about whether or not that would be a useful thing to engage the community in.  But would ask if there are any other thoughts, any other points.  And if not, we will work with the Secretariat and the Working Group to get some additional proposals out soon.  
    Chengetai, do you have any thoughts or preferences or anything we should keep in mind as we think about Day One or Day Two for the open consultation?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  My only thing about that    the open consultation is that we should do it on a day that we get the most people.  I think it is going to be the Internet and jurisdiction meeting that's going to be happening at the beginning of the week, some people will be there.  If we can have it on Day One would be better so that as people from the Internet and jurisdiction can stay an extra day and can go.  Or we have it on Day Two.  But just to get the most people.  So people don't have to spend extra time in Berlin.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Check the    I think they might go sort of Wednesday.  Maybe just    
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  That's a good point in terms of doing that.  Okay.  We will keep that open.  I see you have a comment, keeping it on Day One.  I do think the Internet and jurisdiction is    I mean they do get a good draw of people as well.  And we could promote this to them as well in terms of staying on for the open consultation day, I think that would be a useful thing.  
    All right.  So let's keep    I appreciate the comments in the chat room.  Yeah.  
   >> I'm sorry.  It is Raquel.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Hi Raquel.  
   >> RAQUEL GATTO:  I had the hand up.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Yep.  Go ahead.  
   >> RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you so much, Lynn.  No, I was just wondering, confirming what is already in the chat, Internet and jurisdiction is going through the 5th of June.  So it is going to take the Day One for us.  But I was only going for your first question on the feedback around having it in the 1st or 2nd May.  My perspective let's say I think we had a fewer, fewer participation than other meetings even though we changed the day.  It might be because it was the first time or it might be for something else.  So my point would be that perhaps we need to    if there is time or to ask the community beyond the MAG what they prefer.  Those are the ones that need to choose if they prefer to go back and forth on Wednesday or to have a separate opportunity the next day on Thursday.  
    And my other comment would be perhaps we could have some flexibility in the agenda.  Because if we don't have much of the participation that we expected, we can advance some of the other topics perhaps with the MAG agenda and that would be helpful.  I mean I don't want to    I need to be clear on that.  I don't want to cloud the community participation on that.  But if we see it is low and it is    just    there is not much more, then we could use for some other pressing issues.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Raquel.  Those are all good points.  I would ask the Secretariat whether or not they think it is possible to do a quick survey and we will point out the Internet and jurisdiction conference is not kind of an open conference per se.  It is by invitation.  And they are sort of heavy working sessions, if you will.  It is not as though you might choose to sort of be in one or the other.  Unless you are a MAG member in which case the choice is clear.  But if you are invited for the Internet and jurisdiction conference you are probably likely to stay there.  
    Although having said that I think it might only be a half day and Day Three as well.  We can look at that and take that in to account.  Chengetai, do you think there's kind of a reasonable way to get us a survey out to understand whether or not it would be great to have participation one day or another?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If we want a simple, we can do a simple doodle poll and invite people to indicate which day they prefer.  We can do that.  And just publicize the link to the doodle poll and see what people say.  So it doesn't take that much time to do.  It is a two minute thing.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Right.  I would like to do that and I wouldn't make it a yes or no.  Maybe you can do the yes, maybe no sort of so it can get some gradation of responses.  But if we could do that, I don't know if we want them to indicate as well which stakeholder group or region, just give that a few moments thought and then set the doodle poll up.  But I think going out and asking the community would be a useful thing and we can hopefully try and close on that in the next week or two.  
    Okay.  So we leave that open.  We will keep working towards that as we build on the agenda overall and get some insight back from the community through the survey.  If there    and this is the last call for whether or not there are any more questions on the workshop review process.  Again the Secretariat has been excellent at responding to questions on the list and helping out as needed.  So if you think of something post this call, I am sure they will be able to help you.  
    Okay.  Paul Rowney, you have the floor.  
   >> PAUL ROWNEY:  Yeah.  Hi Lynn.  Just one thing that there seems to be some confusion by the workshop proposers, where is it?  Who the organizers are because the organizer was supposed to include    wasn't supposed to include the organizers and the Moderators and the facilitators?  And some of them only have one organizer.  Does that mean that they haven't identified any Moderators?  Or they just neglected to add them to that list of organizers?  Or am I misunderstanding it completely?  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you for the question, Paul.  Jutta, not wanting to put you on the spot but I think you are in the best position to respond.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  I'm not sure I can answer that question.  Because it also crossed my own mind when I had a look at the proposals.  So what I understood is that the first set of PDF files that we got did not represent all the information that is in the whole application.  So but from my knowledge it was the case that you needed to name a co organizer and that the co organizer was supposed to be in the role of the Moderator and then also on the online Moderator.  So there wasn't any possibility to name a Moderator other than a co organizer.  So I don't know how people could come up with a session proposal that names a Moderator that is not also named as a co organizer of the workshop.  
    So and if you look at the new sets of PDF files, and if you look also in the database for scoring the proposals, you should see that where a Moderator is named, the Moderator is also a person representing the co organizing organization.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Let me see if the Secretariat has anything to add.  And we will come back to Paul. 
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  As I understand it the fields were mandatory but let me just hand it over to Luis since he is the one who made the forms and made the fields.  Luis.  
   >> LUIS BOBO:  Yes, thanks.  So basically there is an organizing team which in this first stage of evaluation is not showing the names.  So as to avoid by set evaluations or possible conference of interest.  We invited the proposals to put in that group Moderators and Rapporteurs, et cetera, because this is typically the case.  I mean the organizers are usually the ones who made the reports of the meeting and act as Moderators.  But technically there was not (inaudible).  Anyone could put another name and could include it in the organizers or not.  And, of course, we could also create a group of one organizer.  There was not a limitation on that.  It could be the same Moderator and the same Rapporteur maybe.  And they could just repeat the names.  So technically and there was not requested any kind of limitation there.  But the point is that in this first stage all this is the organizing group.  So except for the speakers just organizing people.  And we are not seeing the names.  We are seeing the diversity information.  This is stakeholder group, regional group and for the MAG evaluators also the nationalities and the gender.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thanks, Luis.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Paul, did that answer your question or anything further?  
   >> PAUL ROWNEY:  Yes and no, I guess.  For me it creates a little challenge because you got some way you have got six organizers and that's where they have got Rapporteur, two Moderators, co organizer and organizer.  And then you have some that only have one.  If we are taking    if this is an impact on the scoring, it makes it a bit difficult because does it mean that it is the same person that's the Rapporteur and the Moderators which shouldn't be possible as the organizer.  Or have they not identified Moderators and Rapporteurs.  And they are going to add them later or did the system just allow them that it didn't happen because at the bottom of the form you identify who the Rapporteur is and who the Moderators are.  Two Moderators you choose and then you are    also on the form, as the co organizers.  And maybe that there isn't a link between the two.  They have put them but they are now reflecting because they didn't put them in to the other dialogue box.  I don't know how it happened but I am just looking at one now where there is one organizer and that should not be possible.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  I will try to answer that question, Paul.  So my understanding is that the form gave advice to proposals to have the Moderator as one of the organizers or co organizers.  And the online Moderator as well taken from the group of organizers and also the Rapporteur.  And it is, of course, it is possible that one person is the Moderator and the Rapporteur because the report is sent in afterwards.  So one person could do the moderation and also someone else takes the notes, but then still the person that has been the Moderator can send in the report for the proposal.  This is just due to the roles that are assigned to people when they take over responsibility as an organizer or co organizer.  And it was put in to the form like an advice to proposals to have a core organizer as Moderator or online Moderator.  I wasn't sure whether it is also possible to take just another name that was not listed as an organizer for the proposal but to summarize, I don't think this should have any further effect on the assessment or the scoring of the proposals.  
There it measures whether they achieve the diversity criteria, whether it is diverse enough coming from what diverse stakeholder groups from diverse regional groups.  But it doesn't affect the scoring in any other way whether they have named the Rapporteur and the Moderator and organizer with the same person.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jutta.  I think that my personal opinion I don't think that it should impact the overall scores.  If there is a concern it could perhaps be noted and noted as something specific that could go back to the organizers that, you know, looked for better coverage or more depth or something in the Rapporteurs.  But is that point clear now, Paul, from Jutta's response and the other discussion?  
   >> PAUL ROWNEY:  I understand what has been said.  But it can influence the diversity when you look at someone that's got the right number.  As you look to the people that have completed it correctly.  It is probably not a big problem.  
   >> Yeah.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Chengetai, anything you want to add?  Maybe you can respond at the same time to the question PDF versus the Web based form.  People are starting to believe that one of them is not "accurate".  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I think Jutta explained it quite well.  And I don't have anything else to add to the response.  I mean for the Web based    I mean for the forms, I mean the PDF is just a tool because some people prefer to mark offline.  They may prefer to mark when they are in a plane or on the train.  So that's why we produced the PDF.  So we produced two versions of the PDF.  So the one I sent today has got the complete information.  That being said, if I were to choose I would choose the Web form.  But at the moment you should    at the current moment you should still be able to derive all the information that you require to give an evaluation from the PDF as well.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Chengetai. 
   >> Yes, people should just bear in mind that Chengetai was talking about the PDF sent out today, not the PDF that was sent out last Thursday I think.  Because that was somehow for    to be published and it is not    it doesn't have the complete information.  The one you send out today that's complete and has the same information like the Web form.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, exactly because the one I sent out previously was, you know, was public for anybody to be able to download.  And we didn't want to publish that much information publically.  So that's why I sent it to    I sent the    the one I sent out today I sent out to the individual e mail addresses.  The MAG list is public.  Anybody can see.  Just to safeguard people's privacy.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Is it possible to use the rating page offline?  One final question.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No.  Yeah.  Let me just say no.  Unless you really have a problem and you can do it in the Excel.  But we would prefer it to be online.  Yes.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Let's move on to the next agenda item.  If people have questions, certainly the Secretariat will be available to help respond and they will move it on to someone else if they need to.  
    So Chengetai, the next item is 2019 overarching theme.  I don't see anybody on from the host country.  I don't know if you have anything to report from them.  If not    
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  No.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  We will bring it up in the next meeting.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It is Easter holiday these next two weeks.  We need to take this one up next meeting.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Thank you.  The next item is the main session discussion which we just sort of started to tap at the last face to face meeting.  I think what we did sort of assert last time just in terms of some general guidelines is the fact that the host country is not using UN interpreters gives us a little more flexibility.  Previously we had two three hour slots, even if we wanted to split one three hour slot in to several sessions we needed to stay within that three hours which doesn't leave you any time for emptying the room and re establishing and turning in to the new room.  So we have significantly more flexibility.  When we actually look at what that means in terms of eight three hour slots or a total of 24 hours that we might put to the main sessions, again the main sessions typically differ from the workshops.  And they are meant to be some of the most kind of consequential or important topics, they take place in the larger rooms, their main difference is that they have interpretation.  
    Because, of course, all the sessions are still streamed and transcribed.  So when we look at kind of the total time we have and the fact we can split and do two 90 minute sessions or one hour, we have a lot more flexibility.  So I say that just so that we    everyone kind of rests.  And we think sort of openly about what do we want to do with those main sessions.  We still need some additional information from the host country with respect to their opening session at the Opening Ceremony which is, of course, under UN control guidance.  But we have had a discussion as to whether or not it was kind of useful to what we were calling topping and tailing each one of the thematic main sessions.  
Sorry.  Each one of the thematic main themes.  And kind of the notion was that maybe we have an introductory session which would allow us to kind of take in to account the theme and the main policy questions, but bring in additional viewpoints, bring in some, you know, where they are substantive speakers as well.  And kind of use that as an introduction to the theme overall.  And then possibly at the end we would close that theme by either having anything from report outs from the various activity, not just workshops but open forums and that sort of thing on that theme.  Maybe even target it to kind of support direction to the future, future    to the MAG for the future work programs.  If we could look to try and draw conclusions and key messages from the sessions that took place that day, something to pull the sessions together.  I don't    there was some support for that in the MAG.  Even if we did that, that would still allow time for certainly DC session and NRI session, those requests come in.  It would also allow time for some other main sessions if there were some other activities that we thought were appropriate as well.  
    So I don't think that there is any specific proposal coming from the Secretariat or from myself or from MAG members yet with respect to the use overall of that    of those sessions, but I want everyone to understand sort of the overall lay of the land, if you will.  I'll just open it up to see if there are any other reflections, any thoughts from MAG members that we can take in to account as we actually work to prepare the overall agenda, scheduling and, of course, we will need to kick off the main session work in earnest just as soon as we have an indication of what workshop proposals are going to be pulled forward in to the program from the current review process.  
    The floor is open just to see if there is any thoughts.  Any    maybe the first thing is to    I was going to understand what the MAG thinks about topping and tailing the sessions.  
    And maybe this is just premature without really understanding what workshops have been selected or what sort of themes have come through.  What we have done in the past is for each one of the main tracks we have actually had kind of an open session.  So one level we are talking about something very similar.  I think we were just hoping that, in fact, it might actually focus more on kind of a thematic structure and a thematic view following the workshops that were actually approved.  Maybe there is not all that much difference.  Let me turn the floor to Jutta.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Thank you, Lynn, for giving me the floor.  I wanted to underline again what we already addressed during the face to face meeting in Geneva.  But I do think it would be a good way forward to reserve some main sessions at the end of probably on Day Three or Day Four of the IGF to summarize somehow the answers to the policy questions, the main policy questions for the three thematic areas.  I do think this would kind of feed in to a much more tangible outcome for all of the three themes.  If we can build on what was said before, during the workshop sessions and then feeding in to the main session on each of the three thematic areas.  
    Thank you.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Jutta.  I think that's a good point with respect to, you know, we focus so much on the policy questions, I think to try and pull out what we have heard would be helpful.  And it also serves as a good communication to the community and to the incoming MAG as well.  Ben Wallis, you have the floor.  
   >> BEN WALLIS:  Thank you.  Yeah, I talked a little bit about main sessions back in Geneva.  And I think you captured those discussions well.  That there was several people and some interest in the idea of topping and tailing.  And if I understood Jutta correctly, I think I would agree that probably more of that time should be devoted to the tailing at the end of the week to really be able to try and capture what's gone on during the week, possibly also to make it easier with the reporting as well.  
    And there was also a separate idea and as you summarized it there could be room for something beyond just those three themes, a separate idea of something a bit more horizontal.  Maybe looking at the outcomes of the high level panel on digital cooperation and other initiatives such as the OECD going digital framework which think about ways of approaching Internet Governance in a multi disciplinary way and involving stakeholder groups or regions or even Government ministries that are not traditionally involved in policy making in this area.  
    But I think I would agree with you, it is maybe just a little too early to have a deep discussion on this.  As you say we still need a bit more information maybe from the host country about exactly how many sessions we can have or how much time there is.  I also think that the MAG is just going to be focused for the next four weeks on the workshop evaluation.  Both evaluate the workshops and the following week to kind of get together in the groups and provide recommendations to the MAG.  
    So it could be    I think it would be great to be able to have some time to discuss the main sessions when we meet in Berlin and to kind of make some decisions so that the work can be kicked off after the June    after that meeting and get started in June.  Give us more time to organize the main sessions than we had last year.  Thanks.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Those are good points.  I suggest we pay attention to whether or not there are any cross cutting issues.  I think you called them horizontal.  It is one of the pieces of analysis the Secretariat is going to help us with as well.  So I think those are important pieces.  
    I also agree as well that there is a lot of work going on concurrently just now.  What it does mean we will need to make sure that we have adequate time, and I think that means a significant amount of time at the June meeting to advance the main sessions, which means we really need to rely on the thematic Working Groups to meet and come together with proposals.  We need MAG members to review the output of that work so that on our call on May 29th we can make a lot of progress as well.  And really in the MAG meeting, the face to face MAG meeting we are sort of dealing with exceptions or, you know, a small number of strategic issues and not a deep kind of individual workshop review process because I don't think that will allow us sufficient time for the other parts of the process.  If we had a significant amount of time at the face to face meeting in June we could kind of flush out what some of the main sessions ought to be.  Take advantage of the MAG, of being there to brainstorm both the focus, the questions, some possible participants and speakers and actually get the activities launched hopefully before the end of June because for a significant piece of the world July and August are difficult months to advance much and to come in September and advance something for a mere 8 to 10 weeks away is too little time.  
So I think we need to plan on June being a month when we really progress the main sessions.  And we put a lot of focus on getting to a strong thematic program set of activities between now and our June meeting.  Again so that the June meeting is just to deal with the really exceptional or small number of strategic issues.  
    So I'll wait and see if there are any more comments or reflections on that.  In the meantime in the background the Secretariat and I can work on some of the program agenda, the overall table with possible slots, et cetera, as mentioned in the chat room.  Not seeing any other requests for the floor.  
    Let's move on to update on the MAG Working Groups.  Let's see, Arsene, do you want to give us an update on the outreach and engagement Working Group?  Arsene, we can't hear you?  
   >> ARSENE TUNGALI:  Can you hear me?  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Very faint. 
   >> ARSENE TUNGALI:  How about this?  Can you hear me?  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  That's better.  It is okay for me.  I don't know if everyone else is okay.  
   >> ARSENE TUNGALI:  Sorry.  I hope that everyone can hear me or they can read with the transcript.  So I will be very quick.  Thanks again for this opportunity to present    to speak on behalf of the working group on artificial engagements.  We have had like a few calls, well, a few meetings, including one which was a call as well as discussions on (inaudible) another private channel.  So we have been able to come up with like a charter that would    that we presented to the MAG for sharing its mailing list.  So I don't know whether colleagues, fellow MAG members were able to go through the charter or suggested charter and we would appreciate receiving any comment or feedback on this.  And our aim or our objective is to have this approved during this meeting.  So this document is the first one and then if this is approved, then we are    we will be working on like a roadmap which details the specific actions or items or activities that will be conducting between now and the IGF in November.  So I think that's    that will be all I can say for now.  Thanks, Lynn.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Arsene.  And thank you for all the work to drive that Working Group forward.  I guess the first question is have MAG members had a chance to review the charter and in a position to comment and/or eventually approve it?  And I ask because it did just go out quite recently.  So are people ready to approve the charter or do you require more time?  People are typing things in the chat room.  So that's why it is quiet at the moment.  
    Have been a couple of comments but virtually everyone has said they need more time to review.  They haven't had a chance to do that.  So Arsene, if you don't mind, I do think it is appropriate to ensure the MAG has enough time to review it.  We can either give them sort of another week and follow up online or move it to a review in our next meeting in two weeks' time.  
   >> ARSENE TUNGALI:  Okay.  Thank you again.  Apologize for only being able to get this to you today my time and I agree that given everything that's going on now, evaluation and everything else in everyone's lives.  So I don't know whether two weeks would be    I don't know whether I need to consult with my Working Group members.  But I would think probably two weeks would be very long because we are running out of time.  And again apologize for this.  But if fellow MAG members would be able to come back to us within a week, that will give us some time to rework or to add to it based on comments we are able to receive during this second week so that by the next MAG meeting we are able to present to you the final work.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  That sounds like a good plan.  If we can get a reminder out to the MAG members that are not on the call and ask them to send their comments in by the middle of next week so they can be incorporated and take a final decision on the MAG meeting in two weeks' time which I think is what you just outlined.  I agree this is a busy time as well.  If the Working Group members have time to devote to this over the next two weeks I think continuing to work on your own timeline, your set of activities is useful work and, you know, not redundant, I think it would support any possible outcome of the recharting process.  
    So yeah, I mean I agree, it is busy with the workshop evaluation.  It is a relatively quick read.  Let's see if we can get enough MAG members to take a look at it.  It is basically a continuation of the Working Group in the past and continue on with some of that work.  So if we can advance it in the next two weeks, that would be excellent.  If not, you know, frankly I don't think the next month looks any better either.  So I don't think we have the luxury of continuing to push this out.  
    Jutta, is there anything else you would like to add on the Working Group on evaluation?  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  I don't think anything else is to be added on the Working Group.  We have said everything before.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Let me just thank you and all the Working Group members as well for all the excellent work you have done there.  I mean very helpful and obviously critical to everything we are doing here.  So thank you.  
    Working Group on improvements.  Not sure if that's Flavio I saw online earlier.  If he is able to speak to that or if there is a MAG member or someone else who can.  
   >> Flavio:  Hi.  I am here.  But I have not too much to add.  The proposed charter has been shared with MAG members a few weeks ago, but we are lack of a Chair and co Chair among the MAG members.  We had a few offers from MAG members willing to help in the Working Group but not really an offer to Chair the Working Group.  So we are a little bit stuck waiting on volunteers to lead the work.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Flavio.  By way of background for this particular Working Group, this is the third or the fourth year the Working Group has been chartered.  And they have looked at all the various efforts to understand where the IGF needed improvements, whether that was the CSD or the annual stocktaking activities or DESA retreat, WSIS+10 process and categorized all those efforts.  So it is kind of, if you will, drawing off of past pieces of work to move things forward.  Flavio has said he will continue as well as Julian.  Working Group are to be chaired by at least one MAG member.  If there are no MAG members to stand up for that, then I would    and we can do another run, see if there are any MAG members that would stand up to it.  If not, maybe we go ahead with Flavio and Julian's support because I think they are very well connected to this process.  And we continue to make sure that through the Secretariat or the Chair it continues to move forward.  
The one thing we shouldn't do is let this work stop or fall fallow.  If there are no MAG members that will step up to support it we need to find sort of an exception process or something to move that forward.  So let me go.  I think Chenai Chair, maybe it was Raquel, but Chenai, you have the floor.  
   >> Chenai:  Hello.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Yes.  Hello.  
   >> Chenai:  I wanted to send an update that I think June and I had also volunteered for this Working Group.  But in the e mail communication that we had had said that we would    I had    I think both opted to be Vice Chairs stating that we actually needed more    we were meant to identify other people who would be willing to volunteer for this Working Group at the face to face meeting.  So that didn't work out as planned but we had also volunteered and I had asked to have a more experienced MAG member on board to assist in guiding with the procedure and how it is all meant to be done given that I'm a first year MAG member interested in the Working Group but would like to at least have support on and that no    know that Flavio and Julian had volunteered to support us but needed to find another MAG member to Chair the Working Group.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Let me get to Raquel.  Raquel, you have the floor.  
   >> RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you very much, Lynn.  And I'm happy to step in if needed for chairing, cochairing the group as part of the MAG members.  And as Chenai was saying this is my last turn and I'm happy also to transition to longer term MAG member.  So Chenai and June also to be on board.  I think we have worked together pretty well in the past.  I was in the group as one of the members.  And I'm sure I will have not much work as co Chair with Julian and Flavio doing the great job that they do.  But the    just to formally say I can step in and help.  The only caveat would be the geographical diversity but considering the circumstances I think it is okay to have all lack from lack.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Raquel and Chenai.  So it seems as though I mean if Chenai    so normally what happens is the Working Group members, MAG members and community members declare their interest in supporting and being part of a Working Group.  That Working Group then chooses their Chair or Chairs.  There is an expectation that at least one of the Chairs is a MAG member.  And that some diversity is respected in the choice of, you know, a second or a third Chair.  
    I mean in this case if    I'm not sure, Flavio or Julian, I think one of them might have volunteered to be a Chair.  We have three MAG members that are volunteering, I think, to be a Chair.  And Chenai specifically said you are looking for some support given this was your first year as a Chair.  Frankly with Julian and Flavio I think you have excellent support.  They have both been involved with the IGF and the MAG for many, many years and are both just recently off the MAG and then, of course, with Raquel's engagement as well.  So, you know, at this point I would say we probably turn it back to the    those individuals that have expressed interest in supporting the Working Group to make a final determination of Chair and co Chairs or Vice Chairs.  And then proceed with the work.  I think the charter is all    the charter has already been approved.  So I think it is just a matter of getting a little bit of the kind of supporting structure in place.  Flavio, would you be willing to sort of drive that process forward?  
   >> Hi Lynn.  Yes, I and Julian can talk to Raquel and Chenai and June and see among us how we go forward and decide who would steps in as Chair and Vice Chair.  But I'm sure that we together can take the work forward.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Great.  Thank you.  And certainly from a list of folks that were named there interested as Chair and Vice Chair there is kind of reasonable diversity.  
    Okay.  So that was Working Group improvements.  The remaining Working Group is the Working Group on fundraising.  Again the charter for the Working Groups have been approved.  We have yet to hold the first formal meeting.  We are still looking for additional members and another Chair as well.  But what I'm planning to do in the background here over the next couple of weeks is hopefully get a batch of follow up memos or new approaches to memos out so that we can work on those over the next two to three months.  And I can do that in the background as I'm not actually tied up reviewing workshop proposals.  So, you know, the work slowed down here a little bit in the last month or so given the other activities in front of us, but I think it is a good time now to pick it up.  Any questions from any of the Working Group members on    sorry, any MAG members on any of the Working Group activities?  
    All right.  Not seeing any requests from the floor, are there any other questions on AOB?  I do think the Secretariat has put out a new meeting calendar as well.  So everyone should pay attention to that and ensure it is in your calendars.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Lynn, I was just going to ask for the meeting calendar since some of the MAG meetings    members, sorry, so late for me, some of the MAG members have asked for an extension of the deadline for scoring the proposals, and I was wondering whether we should discuss this.  The questions were put in to the chat.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Let's see.  Chengetai, do you have any kind of views on the extension?  I'm trying to look through the chat and see if I missed the questions earlier.  I think we did have a discussion in Geneva.  And I think part of that discussion was with respect to leaving the workshop submission process open.  I will point out if we actually extend this workshop review it is only going to shorten the other intervening steps for the Working Groups.  When we come to our face to face meeting we need to have accomplished everything that is laid out in the timeline.  So for me the kind of hard date is MAG thematic Working Groups have to send their proposed thematic programs to the MAG no later than the 24th of May.  
   >> Uh huh.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  So I don't know what that says for the Secretariat or any of the other reviews in terms of    
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I'm generally against extending the deadline.  Because we had the schedule from the beginning of the year.  And we have revised it several times.  And, of course, it will have a knock on effect.  If we extend it this time around it will affect I think the critical analysis because we have to get the analysis right.  And we also have to get a proper review of the grading.  That being said if we really, really must must, then we can take a look at it.  But those are just my feelings.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Thank you, Chengetai.  I agree with you, absolutely.  I don't think that we can afford to extend the deadline.  I was just referring to some remarks and comments in the chat.  But still I do want some clarification on the schedule for the next virtual meetings.  The calendar you showed says we have a meeting in two weeks' time, that would be the 8th of May and then on the 22nd of May, but the other schedule you had had previously on the screen says we have a virtual meeting on the 29th of May.  That would mean on the 22nd and then on the 29th.  Exactly that table says 29th of May.  So would that mean that we have two meetings in this    on the 22nd and on the 29th?  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I think we can think about it but maybe the 22nd meeting gets pushed to the 29th.  Also the    or the 8th meeting gets pushed out a little bit.  The 8th right now is the last day for workshop submissions.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  For the scoring, yes.  So that might be a bit difficult to spend another two    two hours for virtual meeting.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Right.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  And we could probably push that to the 15th.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah. 
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  And then go to the 29th.  So have the two weeks' interval.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I guess.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  I think it works with respect to the MAG meeting.  If the MAG members are able to complete and meet the deadline of the 8th of the May that also means on the 15th we might have kind of an early view of some of the key analysis.  Again, you know, we are trying to focus this year much more on supporting the main themes, supporting the policy questions.  We want to make sure that we have got diversity of viewpoints and diversity and speakers and that sort of thing, but I think of the very, very detailed analytical work that we have done in the past is not a critical component of this exercise this year.  So people should be looking at the overall themes, policy questions again.  Make sure we have appropriate diversity, but I don't think we are going to go through and try and hit all the appropriately proportioned criteria like we did in the past years.  I'm not saying that very well.  So I'm trying to read Ben's point in the background.  Maybe the thematic Working Groups are the previous week.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  That's a question whether we could have the next meeting on the 15th of May.  And then the next week around the 22nd we could have the thematic Working Group meetings.  And then on the 29th we have the next virtual MAG meeting.  That fits in to the schedule, that would be more or less suitable.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  If people are okay, Chengetai, I know it is late for an awful number of people there and doing this on the fly is not usually the best thing.  Could we let the Secretariat go away and look at this and maybe think carefully through both of the MAG virtual meetings are scheduled and also what information would be available through their reviews and what time frame in order to support the thematic meeting?  And see if we can get a new schedule out to the MAG tomorrow?  Is that possible, Chengetai?  Tomorrow or Friday I guess?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah, tomorrow is fine.  I think we can do it tomorrow.  Yeah.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  But I do think that the 8th of May is probably going to be difficult for people to make.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I concur.  I think the 15th of May is a much better date for that meeting.  We can push it back.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Okay.  Then why don't we operate on kind of the 15th and the 29th as the next two MAG virtual meetings.  And we will take another look at the schedule that was set up with this process document and see whether or not we can support different dates for the thematic meetings.  I need to think a little bit more over Ben's comment.  Thank you, Jutta.  Raquel, you have the floor.  
   >> RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you very much, Lynn and everyone.  Just it is a quick advertisement that tomorrow we are going to have the BPF gender meeting.  That's 13 UTC.  So I have my co Chair, Chenai, Maria Passe, but she is also the co Chair from the MAG and Jack used to be in the MAG.  And is also cochairing the BPF.  So everyone is invited to join.  If you are not in the list yet, just drop me a message and we can work this.  Thank you.  
   >> LYNN ST. AMOUR:  Thank you, Raquel.  All right.  So if everyone's okay, we will plan on the next two virtual meetings being May 15th and May 29th.  We will revisit the calendar and get a new calendar out tomorrow.  Thank you for supporting this call and I know it is very late in Europe and other parts of the world.  We rotate these calls so it kind of makes it fair for MAG members from across the globe.  Appreciate those who stayed on so late or got up early for the call.  We will talk to everyone soon.  Thank you.  Thank you, Chengetai.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thanks, Lynn. 
   >> Thank you.  Bye bye. 
   >> Thank you, Lynn.  Bye bye. 
   >> Thank you, Lynn.  Thank you, everyone.  Thank you.

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 678