You are here

IGF 2020 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - XVII

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:  Okay.  Good afternoon, evening and morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.  Welcome to MAG virtual meeting No. 17.  And as usual this meeting is being recorded.  It is also being transcribed.  And a summary report will be out a couple of days after this meeting.  And fortunately I did not receive in my e mail any regrets of people not coming.  Maybe I didn't see them.  But I did not receive anything in my e mail.  If anybody knows of anybody, please say so now.  And we are going to be using the speaking queue today.  So please try and use the speaking queue.  If you cannot use the speaking queue, we can revert back to the chat.  You just put your name in there and then one of you will spot you and pass your name on to the Chair.  With that I will hand the meeting over to our Chair, Anriette, to start the meeting.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Chengetai.  Good evening, everyone.  Welcome to MAG members and observers and to our captioner, Tina.  I think, Chengetai, Sylvia Cadena did send a message a little while ago saying that she will be having surgery.  I think she did register in advance an apology for this call.  If we can just note that.  
    And nothing much from me.  I think 17 MAG meetings is a lot.  It is an impressive number to have gone through.  And we are nearing the end of the long haul this year.  Change of seasons for many of you.  And I hope that it is bringing positive things rather than challenging things.  
    Our agenda is looking at the items, the action items from the previous meeting.  So we will go through those.  The Secretariat will display them for us.  Then we will have updates from the IGF Secretariat that will include an update on the High Level Track for those that are interested.  Then we will look and this is a very important item, item No. 4, we will look at the outputs.  And we will have Sam Dickinson from the Secretariat to present the process for producing this year's outputs.  And this is important because it could influence how you finalize or complete arrangements for the introductory sessions.  And also for issues of wrapping up after the first phase and the concluding sessions for the second phase.  Then Anja will walk us through the schedule.  And so if you have questions about the schedule, you might want to raise them beforehand so that she can be sure to address those.  I will open that agenda item giving you the opportunity to ask questions.  And then we will revisit the proposal for online discussions that I shared with you.  And we don't have to spend much time on it.  It is just to check if anybody has any further comments or questions.  
    And then if we have time, and I hope that we do, it would be good to get some updates from you on main sessions.  It is also good for the main session facilitators to ask other MAG members for assistance if you need any assistance or the Secretariat.  
    And that is our agenda for tonight.  So on that, if there are no questions or suggestions on the agenda, I don't see any hands, let's move on to item No. 2 checking on action items from the previous meeting.  Chengetai, can I hand back to you?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.  Checking with the action items.  These are available in the summary report and the summary report is posted on the IGF website.  And Luis may be able to display them as well.  From the list of action items there are seven of them that are listed.  For the action item No. 1, Secretariat to organize additional one hour MAG call which was done last week, last Tuesday.  So that has been done.  
No. 2, MAG members to update the proposals from the main session organizing groups that they have joined as well as provide input for other main sessions where possible.  So that was also done last Tuesday.  And hopefully at the end of this meeting if there has been any other updates the Working Groups will be able to the main session groups will be able to share that with us.  
    The third action item is the design for the document of the introduction and concluding sessions.  And I think Paul did go    did give us a run through that.  And I think that was done.  And, of course, if we have further discussion for this meeting, the Chair will lead that discussion.  
Action item No. 4 was to send comments on the draft IGF 2020 online discussion series either directly to the MAG Chair or to the MAG mailing list.  I did see some discussion, I don't know if the MAG Chair also received some comments as well.  For item No. 5, Secretariat to send a copy of the draft flow chart of the IGF 2020 key inputs on outputs.  Sam did that today.  So that has been done.  And then we have MAG members to provide feedback on the BPFs.  And if I can ask when that has been done right and we have received feedback?  
   >> Hi all.  Markus is sending his apologies.  He couldn't join tonight.  We are still expecting feedback by the 15th of September.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Still got time.  
   >> We don't have time.  But..
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  A couple more days, yes.  
   >> We are still looking forward to receiving feedback on the document.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  MAG members you are still encouraged to feed back.  Your feedback is very important because there are still some things that people miss and some things that may be obvious to you and not obvious to either people.  So it is important that feedback is sent in.  How to improve outputs, we are going to continue that discussion today as well.  After we have presented the output plans, we are going to have your feedback with that.  
    MAG members still appoint facilitators, yes, I think that's one thing we need to publicize the facilitators and the Secretariat will send out a list of the facilitators for each of the groups.  The MAG Chair to send a draft document to the MAG mailing list, that has been put together to summarize the different types of IGF sessions and their goals.  I will just confirm with the Chair. 
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I did send the document today, Chengetai and with some covering notes.  It is more of a template for the future than it is for year.  It has been sent and soon a document will accompany it from the Secretariat.  And that also serves as guide or session organizers.  If MAG members can look at the document because the idea behind that document we generic guide that can be updated and modified every year.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Exactly, if you can make it a living document and it is very useful for MAG members, not just MAG members but everyone to look at to see what the different session types, the goals and also who drives them as well.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I just want to go back to reinforce what you said about MAG members commenting on the BPF of BPF document, because we have many outgoing MAG members this year and that document contains proposals for how to approach BPFs next year.  So it is really commenting on that document is, in fact, a way in which outcoming MAG members can document and share their knowledge and experience in BPF.  Back to you.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  And then for the last one, MAG members to capture the processes for organizing introductory and concluding sessions for thematic tracks used last year and Paul and Ben had volunteered to start this effort and I'm quite sure that it is quite advanced.  Ben, just confirm, please.  
   >> Ben:  Apologies.  I have a bit of a distraction with my dog here.  Yes, and Paul we are talking about the introductory sessions and Paul had circulated or presented last week's MAG meeting.  And so I don't think we    we generally heard support for the proposal.  I did wonder whether people were still digesting it but in terms of that initial presentation to the MAG meeting it seemed that there was satisfaction, that that's the route we should take.  And so I guess it is down to Paul and Ita to communicate that now to all of the thematic evaluation group leaders so that we can start to organize these introductory sessions.  Yeah.  When Paul is there in case there are any questions.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thanks.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Chengetai, Ben, sorry and Paul, yes, and my apologies that my connection dropped during the call when you discussed this.  My understanding is that you did finalize the decision at last week's MAG call.  I think before you finalize the document and share the thematic track organizers or facilitators, just look again at the output flow chart that Sam will present to us tonight.  Just to make sure that the approach to the intro sessions and I mean whether we have the concluding sessions or not, that it compliments and that it ties in well with how the Secretariat will be producing those outputs.  There is a slightly different step this year.  And I was hoping we can address or integrate that in to those introductory sessions.  I'm sure you can.  But I think that's just the one thing that still needs to be added.  So I think, Chengetai, let's just check if there are any open items here.  I think all these items are, in fact, addressed as far as I can make out.  Everyone has commented on draft documents.  I think the one that we still can leave open is MAG members to provide feedback on the BPF of BPFs document.  I think all the others are, in fact, addressed.  Even if not completely there have been addressed and we can convert them in to new action items if there is any feedback required.  Okay.  
    So I think that's that.  Back to you, Chengetai, for the update from the Secretariat.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  From the Secretariat.  Okay.  There is very little to update in this section.  You will receive updates when we go through the walk through of the schedule and outputs.  Just the general updates, not really much.  Except that the registration is open.  And we have almost 300 people registered.  So would like a little bit more to be registered and.  I think it would be better if people register early.  Yes, it is an online meeting, but we still like to know what to expect and how to    how do we arrange things because it will have an effect on how we configure the virtual rooms, et cetera.  
    Also the interactive schedule is only available to those people who have registered, then you can see the interactive schedule.  And you can also put your name down to which of the sessions that you will be attending.  And you will also be able to see who is attending those sessions as well, but you can only do that once you have registered.  
    Let me just ask the rest of the Secretariat if there is anybody who    if I have left anything out?  And, of course, Wim, Sam, Sorina, if you want to say anything, please this is your time.  
   >> No, I don't have anything else.  I think that Chengetai, you said everything.  Thank you.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Okay.  So I will give the six count and I don't hear anything.  So okay.  Back to you, Anriette.  Thank you.  Have we lost you?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry, I'm muted.  Thanks.  So just to introduce this agenda item, virtual IGF 2020 outputs, this follows very much on the success, but also the lessons learned from the Berlin IGF where the Secretariat produced messages of support from the community, from session organizers.  And    but from that, from the session reports and also from Secretariat monitoring the meetings, the sessions, they produce these key messages organized according to the main tracks of the Berlin IGF.  The process worked well, but it was very difficult and we wanted to improve it.  So I started a discussion.  And the Secretariat has basically taken that over.  And they have run with it.  The idea is that we link the outputs, the messages, the outcomes to the inputs.  The inputs being policy issues and questions that were identified by the MAG when you design the thematic structure for IGF 2020.  And those questions that session organizers put in their proposal.  The challenge with that is that it is a vast range of policy issues and policy questions.  And articulated in very different ways.  So it becomes quite difficult to link messages to those questions because there is so many.  So the step that will be different this year is some process of synthesis of those policy issues and questions in to a format that can be drawn on to develop the outcomes.  
So that's really the context, but I'm going to hand over to Sam who will tell you more and visualize or show you visually how this is intended to work.  That you grasp this, but the process of which the MAG has been driving.  That we once again can demonstrate that the MAG does distribute to constant improvement IGF.  Sam, over to you.  
   >> Good evening and good morning, and good day to everyone around the world.  I do apologize for the small font as it appears on screen.  But you do have a copy that you should have received via the MAG mailing list.  If you want to zoom in and make it readable, feel free to open that.  So thanks, Anriette, for that context.  So as you can tell by this flow chart there are a lot of moving parts.  In addition to generally trying to strengthen the outcomes one of the other complications has been this is an online meeting.  Because it is online it is going to be harder for participants to follow and also going to be more complex for us to document.  We are trying to both strengthen the outputs generally as well as find ways to make online meeting outputs more intelligible to the community.  So that's the two factors that we are trying to pull together in this.  
    So just to give you an overview of the chart, there was a simpler version of this two weeks ago at the end of the MAG meeting, but we expanded it here.  We want to build on what we did last year which seemed to go well which was to make it clear where the messaging is coming from.  So you can see in this chart that there is MAG created inputs or outputs.  There is community related activities.  There is Secretariat and then there is the Intersessional activities and right down the bottom of the page, there is the parliamentarians Round Table and High Level Track which has some outputs.  There is a whole bunch of different strings.  The one good thing about this year we don't have a separate local host that we have to worry about.  That's part of the UNDESA IGF Secretariat.  One track down.  If we go back up to the top of that chart, thank you, so I will leave the MAG line for the moment to explain first about where shall I start?  
Okay.  So the concept is that we have this guide to IGF 2020.  So we will be producing that.  We have a draft structure at the moment that I am still working on.  The point of that document will be not only to help people understand what is happening in the meeting, so that they have an easy, simplified way to know how to navigate all online program, but also to help provide a high level overview of some of the policy issues that are coming up across the various tracks.  So we have something like 200 sessions and like overextrapolated the number of policies, questions that we had from the workshop proposals.  It is over 200.  Even though the workshop proposal said a maximum of 3 and some people disregarded that and had 10 or more.  It is a lot of questions to cover.  The idea is that we will try and group policy questions by topic and see if we can find some general trends and then come up with a higher level policy question.  
    And then based on Anriette's initial outcome discussion document see if that might help shape some of the discussion in the various sessions.  So if we go back up to the    and we can see the MAG track, this is a possibility that that could feed in to the introductory sessions.  Originally had the concluding sessions but that's off.  There is a    I have got question marks around perhaps a wrapping up phase 1 session and a wrapping up phase 2 session.  That's open for discussion.  The general concept behind that was if we can't have some way of the community from a bottom up perspective of during a summary of what has happened during that week, it helps from the Secretariat get greater legitimacy from the outputs we are creating.  Otherwise we are doing it straight from 200 separate reports, but if we can have a more cohesive way of tieing those things together, it helps us pull things together at that higher level for the final outcome document.  
    Also to help us create that final outcome document, we are looking at strengthening the way that the session report form looks.  To date if you look at a lot of the reports, people clearly don't understand what the various fields are asking for.  People are often putting information in there for the sake of being able to submit the form.  They have no understanding of where it might go.  So part of what we need to do as a Secretariat is better document why we are asking this information and what it leads to.  So two of the key areas that we will be feeding in to the final outcome documents is that concept of policy recommendations and suggested ways forward.  That's already in the existing document.  The new concept is the concept of key take aways.  So that's kind of associated with the high level messages that we produced last year, but it allows each individual session to create their own messaging.  And from that we will distribute those daily instead of the key messages daily.  And then on a less frequent basis, we will put together high level thematic messages based on those key take aways and policy recommendations and ways forward.  
    So yes, that's the session reports.  So yes, we will send through a revised version of what we think the session report format should look like for your endorsement.  A lot of the stuff is related to making the fields a bit more tight and what they will accept.  So that we can have more fine grained information, higher quality information that we can then pull out and analyze which will help us with the final outcome document.  
    What are we doing as a Secretariat?  Yes.  So the key take aways we will distribute those.  One of the other things we are looking at is trying to find ways during the meeting of helping people to follow the four tracks, which of the four tracks that they want to follow.  Because there is so much information flying around, how can we stream that information in a similar way that we made it clear where outcomes, output documents were coming from last year.  We will see if we can stream information by thematic track as well.  So what I have done in this chart, if you are wondering about the green boxes, they are the kind of final outcome documents.  We have a few different final outcome documents that all laid in to the big final, final document which is the final outcome document which has a wider green box.  That one is okay.  If we go down to the next slide.  I'm sorry    
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sam?  Let's just hang on.  Let's just check if people have questions on the first slide before we move on to the next slide.  So if we can just go back, I only see Timea in the speaking queue and that's on the intro and concluding sessions.  Does anyone have any questions on this flow chart that Sam presented?  Okay.  I see no hands.  And I mean we don't just want questions.  We also want comments.  But Sam, please move on to the next page and hopefully MAG members, please note your questions for after the presentation.  
   >> Sam:  Okay.  And I'm sorry, there is a lot of information in these slides.  There is a lot of moving parts.  So I understand if people don't have questions right away, I understand that people are still digesting.  This is based on specifically the original document that Anriette put out as a discussion document.  The concept of creating that synthesis via the IGF 2020 guide and that helping inform the various sessions and leading in to the final outcome document.  
    So what have we got?  Okay.  So one of the new things, we start at the top left, thematic overview, we have seen that comes from you as the MAG workshop proposals.  New information that we are asking for before the meeting starts.  So in the past, sorry, to kind of deviate a little bit, but in the past the session form process has been the proposal.  Updated proposal, presession report, and its report 12 hours afterwards and then final report.  It has been in the way in the past of prefiling the report.  It is easier to create the 12 hours afterwards report.  But what we are trying to do this time to help inform both the IGF guide and to help participants better identify which sessions they want is to turn that in to a kind of sell your session version of the form.  So that it includes a description of the session that can also be the shared version of the session, and as well as to populate information about similar initiatives dealing with the topic of their session and other processes that we can include in that guide so we know what organizations we should be approaching to participate in sessions.  
    And that will also help ultimately at the end point because we have a wonderful long list of processes and organizations that are dealing with particular issues that will help start to generate a kind of knowledge database of IGF processes.  
    Okay.  Back to this flow chart.  Sorry.  I am just reading Anriette's comment and emerging issues.  If we go back to the second slide.  Yep, so with this guide that    the synthesis guide that we are going to produce before the IGF there will be a public comment process.  Just so that we can try and get some feedback because this isn't going to be the first time we have done.  We are not going to get things quite right in the first draft.  March, particularly the list of organizations and processes, that is not going to be completely filled out in the first draft.  We would encourage people to populate that for the second draft that's published before the IGF meeting starts.  So that all feeds in to the IGF sessions.  
I have talked about the elements of the reports that we are finding useful to help draft thematic messages.  Like last year the high level thematic messages will go out as public comment.  We will try that again and make the communication that people can send their feedback a bit more clear for people.  
    And then all that together we end up with hopefully some sort of synthesis on responses to the high level thematic policy questions.  That's still trying to develop that in my head.  So I don't have a structure for that yet.  That will also go out for public comment process and the final document is that final outcome document that is the capientium of all the final outcome documents.  Does that make sense?  Questions?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot for that, Sam.  I will go through the questions in the chat.  And others please add your names to the speaking queue.  So Jennifer asks about the wrap up, the possible, we haven't kind of fixed it yet, the idea of a wrapping up session of phase 1.  And she says it might be very convoluted because there is so many pre events.  And they aren't traditional IGF workshop type activities, but it is an interesting thought and certainly would make the Secretariat's life easier.  So Sam, maybe you can say a little bit more about why that idea of a wrapping up of the open Forums and dynamic coalition meetings and the pre events came up.  
   >> Sam:  Well, the initial impetus was Carlos who in one of the MAG meetings mentioned it would be good at the start of phase 2 to have some sort of summary that happened at the beginning of phase 1, but looking from a documentation point of view and trying to build on the sense of legitimacy of what we as a Secretariat are going to be putting out as the high level synthesis of these materials, would be good to have some sort of higher level community endorsement of the sorts of messages that have come out of the sessions.  And so I recognize there are lots of sessions.  But if we can use that high level guide that we are putting out as a way of helping frame discussions in that sort of wrapping up session, that would be useful.  Not all sessions are going to be able to do that.  I recognize that.  
    But I think for strengthening the legitimacy of the outputs that we are synthesizing it would be useful and useful for participants who perhaps haven't been able to follow everything.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Sam.  And then Carlos Afonso says that this is complex and needs a written explainer.  A written document that accompanies these charts.  And Carlos, I see later on you also ask why these charts are needed and for whom are they useful.  So Sam, I will let you respond to that but let's go through the other questions.  And Dalsie, is the second chart, what's the relationship of the second diagram to the first one.  I tried to explain it is in more detail, one element which is identifying those core underlying policy questions from the wide array of policy questions in the workshop proposals.  
    And the reason for doing it is so that it can become easier to link the key take aways and the key messages to those policy questions that were    that were in the minds of MAG members and of session organizers at the beginning of the process.  
    And I think that's it.  Are there any hands?  I am just checking the queue.  Sam, if you can respond to those questions from Carlos and then we will see if anyone else has any more comments or questions.  
   >> Sam:  In terms of why and how are these charts aimed at, first and foremost it was aimed at us as the Secretariat so we can map what's happening because there are so many moving parts and really would sharing this with you, to give you an overview of how many moving parts we are looking at.  So that's why it is there.  
The second flow chart as Anriette is saying is more about details, that policy process first.  Had asked if I could detail that in the first page, but it would have gotten really confusing.  So I made an assigned page.  In terms of documenting further, that will be part of the IGF premeeting guide that we are putting together.  Hang on.  I'm going to have a quick look in my tabs to see the structure.  So I can just give you a quick    there we go.  Okay.  
    Hang on.  I just opened the document.  And documents always open slowly when you are time critical.  Yes.  So the guide to IGF 2020 issues and things, there will be an introduction which talks about the first fully online IGF, how to use this guide, and then there is a section on how the thematic tracks are being coordinated at IGF 2020.  So it talks about how the thematic tracks were developed, the fact that there are introductory sessions for each track and all sessions are encouraged to identify with a particular track.  Policy questions have been used as a way of framing discussions, that each session will come up with take aways and policy recommendations and ways forward.  And that Secretariat will be creating additional documentation, high level thematic messages, et cetera.  So that will be the explanation that really links to that chart.  I'm not sure that we actually have to put that chart in the guide.  That's something we will think about later.  It is just an overview to help us as the Secretariat handles what we are doing on.    
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think just to add to that, I think this is also a way for MAG members to respond to the question about how the IGF is trying to develop a more focused agenda.  And this has been part of the work of the MAG, the multi year strategy, Working Group last year looked at this.  The IGF improvement Working Group of a few years ago, that ran for a few years, looked at this and this year the Working Group on strategy and strengthening is looking at this.  So I think it is something that you can    if anyone asks you as MAG members how the IGF is trying to produce more focused or more useable outcomes and developing more focused agenda, then this is something that you can use as a basis for discussion with them.  
    So it really is a tool for all of us.  It also makes it easier after the fact to reflect on what worked and what did not work.  Often when processes are not clearly documented it becomes harder to deconstruct and analyze them after the fact.  So I think that's it.  Are there any other questions at this point?  Jennifer, you have the floor.  
   >> JENNIFER CHUNG:  Thank you for giving me the floor.  I hope I can be heard.  I see my words being typed out by the scribe.  So first of all, I would like to thank Sam and the Secretariat for preparing such a thorough chart that maps out a lot of areas that we already do work and how we can distill in to messaging or final outcomes or documentation.  This is extremely helpful.  
I guess a few things that I am currently still processing the chart, but a few things that came to my mind is the first thing that you already read out my comment in the chat.  I'm glad that was kind of noted.  And the second thing is if we can scroll down to the second slide, when I saw that there was some areas where we are looking for public comments in to whatever is being produced, I guess I'm trying to understand where it comes in the whole scheme of things.  There is a lot of different moving parts that feed in to this final outcome document that includes the Chair's summary and high level messaging and includes the parliamentarians and BPF final report.  So this possibly could be a little bit after the actual meeting.  
So at first I wanted to understand where in the process will we be asking for public comment or public    more public input.  And the second thing I want to know is because I also have experienced trying to get I guess comments from the community for similar processes, in the Asia Pacific Region of IGF, sometimes spending a little bit understanding how and what kind of comments we want from the community also helps us structure where we want input, how we want the input.  
And the last thing is I don't know if this is the same for all the other regions, but I'm only familiar with interacting with the community in my region, English is not our first language.  So we try to make it as easy as possible for people to put in input our comments.  So that's another thing we can consider or we should be considering.  I know that there was a discussion in the mailing lists about the responses for the BPF and BPFs just for the MAG members and a thing that we should consider that as well.  I'm sure this is going to be talked about within the Secretariat I goes at a later date.  I wanted to flag that where we want it, why we want and what the opportunities are for the community or public to give us additional input.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And the platform that we use to enable them.  Thanks, Jennifer.  Sam, do you want to respond?  
   >> Sam:  Yes.  So in terms of when it happens, if you go back up to the first flow chart, sorry, which is the more detailed time one, yep.  It is in post IGF.  So you can see that there is public comments for the thematic messages but I have got    it is open throughout the process.  As soon as we start publishing those high level thematic messages which we are starting to publish at the end of the phase 1, people can start commenting.  
    In terms of the final outcome document, did I miss the high level    okay.  So I have missed enough, that's first chart, the discussion about the high level thematic policy questions.  But yes, that would    the idea is that we would publish a draft that post IGF obviously and ask for comments on that section.  And that section will go in to the final outcome document.  I am hoping the regs    most of the final outcome document will be the compilation of things, Round Table reports, et cetera, so that those things are final outcomes in themselves so they won't need to have final comments.  So the high level policy question response section will go out for public comment as well as those high level thematic messages.  
    And it is a good point about non English speakers.  So we will have to consider how to do that.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I will just add to that, Jennifer, the reason that we are having this public comment process earlier on, at the end of the process of synthesizing the questions it is really just accountability because we are taking the policy issues and questions that the session proposers put in their proposals.  And we are interpreting them and synthesizing them and reducing them to smaller number of key questions.  So it is really just a way of giving people the opportunity to say yes, your synthesis represents my session proposal or no, your synthesis does not cover my session proposal.  
    So that's the purpose of that initial public consultation process.  And you are right, we will need to make it very, very clear.  
    Sorry.  
   >> Sam:  Sorry.  I realized I hadn't put in the comment process as part of the guide on that first slide.  So we will have to do that.  This is a work in progress.  On the first slide, too.  It should be on the first slide, but I don't have the public comment process there.  So this is a work in progress.  It is not finalized.  So if people notice things missing please let me know and we will update it.      
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Sam.  And Wai Min, welcome, it is good to have you in the call with us.  
   >> Thank.  This is Wai Min of UNDESA.  I would like to commend you and Sam and Chengetai and this great work done, myself being part of the Secretariat staff supporting the writing process past and previous.  I must say this is a very    it is a big step forward.  And, of course, this is a very extensive and illustrate and as Sam states the best    there will be some experimenting that we need to look at.  So I think the comments from all is very much good, but I would like to emphasize that this is    this put in context very well especially also like capturing the public comments earlier and getting the different sources.  I have two comments.  More to    more about to again to get advice from everyone.  One is that we always discuss about how we can actually link the current IGF in the past years.  And in that relation also what we can    when we put together the outcome document that will be unique of IGF 2020, that's next year or a few years down the road.  Remember, what is IGF 2020 versus IGF 2019.  And also that relationship how we can    how we can link to last year IGF, especially since three out of the four teams they    this is standard teams of IGF 2019.  So that's my first point.  
Second point, I would like to also just to put on the table to see who can help us with putting in a more actionable outcome document.  I think this is also part of the improvement and actionable outcome, also appear in the SG roadmap.  And then I did 3C.  So one of which, for example, like last year, one on the BPF we managed to link to the UN cybersecurity open ended Working Group that they did consider the BPF work.  So I think that would be one example.  I would like to see whether we can include more of these examples, not necessary to UN, to UN streams of work.  But to others both global regional and even national as well.  Those are my two points.  Thanks.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.  That adds more to the rationale for doing this.  Mary, you have the floor.  
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Can you hear me?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yeah, we can hear you clearly.  
   >> MARY UDUMA:  First I want to say thank you for the brains that put together this complex chart.  Though it is complex, I think as we ask questions, clarifications are given and we understand    I understand it more.  
    My first question has this chart been put up?  The way it has been put up because we have two weeks or more days to run the IGF, (cutting out).  If we are to do three days IGF, would this    would this chart stand    would it be sustainable in three days IGF?  And all these public comments that we are looking at because we only have the pre    pre    day zero and others are intertwined with the main session or other sessions are intertwined with main session.  And BPF.  So    
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Mary, just a quick response.  Sam can correct me or add.  I would say yes.  Because the first phase of public comment is the comment on the preIGF document.  The synthesis, the guide to IGF thematic policy issues and questions.  So produce that document we can start as soon as we have the selected session proposals.  So that can happen again next year and in future years.  And then the post IGF, public consultation is a short public consultation process that will happen after the IGF.  Sam, if you want to put a time frame to it, a week or two weeks, I'm not sure, but the idea is Mary, that we give people after the IGF the opportunity to look at what we have extracted from their reports as key take aways and key messages.  And then we give them a chance to reflect and to comment and to agree and disagree.  So it is really a validation exercise that takes place after the IGF.  So I think yes, it can still be built in to shorter face to face events.  
    Sam, do you want to add to that?  
   >> Sam:  Yes, I wanted to say that is pretty accurate.  Phase 1 and phase 2 would be squished in to the single event.  Since this is a long event with long days and three of us running the high level thematic messages we know that we need some sleep.  So instead of doing what we did last year which was daily thematic messages we have a place of thematic messages at the end of week two and probably a couple of times in phase 2.  Instead we will be distributing the daily key take aways.  For future meetings we might go back to that high level thematic messages on a daily basis but that's to be confirmed next year.  
    But generally yes, this would stay in place just a bit simplified.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Sam.  I see no further questions.  MAG members, if there is nothing else, no questions at this point, then we can move on to the next agenda item.  And Sam, I do think    go ahead.  
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Hello.  Sorry.  Sorry.  I went off.  I don't know whether you got my question.  Whether it has been answered.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Mary, we heard a question where you asked whether this process can work when we have a shorter three day IGF.  That was your question.  
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Yes, that was my first question.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  We answered that one.  I don't think we got your second question.  What was the second question?  
   >> MARY UDUMA:  My second question is related to the first.  The public comment process, will it be during the sessions in a week    we compose a list out of the comments that people make during the sessions, that would become the public comment or would it be after the IGF and then you would put up the    what the take aways and do the process of the public comments?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So the first    the public comment on the guide, on the synthesis of the policy questions, that will be prior to the IGF.  But I think we at one point thought that one could also use the introductory sessions to get feedback on that.  Sam, let me ask you to answer this in terms of time frame and whether you want to keep the public process open during the IGF or not.  
   >> Sam:  So are you talking, Mary, about the public comment period just on the guide or are you talking about the other parts of the content that's going out for public comment?  
   >> MARY UDUMA:  I'm sorry, I didn't get what you said.  
   >> Sam:  So are you asking about the public comment specifically related to the premeeting guide?  Or are you talking about one of the other public comment processes that we have?  
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Both.  Both.  If we are a shorter IGF, three days, so in the pre, will be before the IGF.  And would the public comment be the other    would be after the IGF or during the IGF that we compile the public comment, because there is a place one of the    am using my phone now.  So I can't see the chart properly where you said during the process would be during the IGF.  So I hope I'm not reading it wrongly.  Public comment period would be during the IGF period.  So I'm asking if you have a shorter IGF, three days, after the three IGF days then we do the public comment.  And would the second public comment be during the during IGF, and pre and during, those are the things that I want to understand.  I'm sorry if you didn't get what I said.  Do you understand my question now?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, I think your question is very clear.  Sam, do you want to answer?  
   >> Sam:  Okay.  So there are three public comment processes that we are looking at here.  So I will describe them one by one.  The first one is the public comment on the guide to IGF 2020.  That happens before IGF.  So we are hoping to get a first draft out mid October.  Well, early October.  And give people a week or so to comment on that and have the final version available just before IGF starts.  That ends.  
    I mean we can get feedback in the intersessions I suppose if people want, but that will really lead in to the final outcome document rather than that guide.  And that guide, part of that guide will become part of the final outcome document.  But in terms of public comment on the premeeting guide that ends when we publish that just before IGF.  
    The process that happens of public comments during the IGF itself is related to the high level thematic messages.  So last year that was available every day during the IGF.  We published the high level thematic messages in the morning.  And iteratively we are updating that every day.  I think we had one comment come in, but hopefully we can promote that a bit more this year.  So that can happen this year and it can happen again next year.  But    so this year we are not doing daily updates of the thematic messages because we don't have the bandwidth but we may go back to that next year.  That's something to decide next year.  
The third set of public comments is related to the outcomes for better word related to the high level policy questions that will go in to the final outcome document.  That will happen after the IGF.  That will be based on the key take aways that appeared in people's reports as well as policy recommendation and ways forward.  We will put together at the end of IGF a synthesis of those based on the high level policy questions we have had in the premeeting guide.  And then put that section out for public comment and based on that that will go in to the final, final outcome document.  That final outcome document we have to wait until the final BPF documents are produced.  So we are looking at probably that not coming out until a month that IGF ends.  If you look back at previous IGFs when there was a produce    when there was    was a call annual proceedings that took a month or two.  So we will try and be within that time frame because there will be a considerable output.  I hope that helps.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Just one more thing.  We also want to try and introduce that proposal that Jeremy Norcomb made which is to give co organizers, participants in the session the opportunity to comment on this session report that is uploaded by the session organizers.  So that's not a Secretariat task, but it is another form of comment that we want to facilitate.  So I think we need to move on.  And what Sam and colleagues have seen MAG members in the chat make two proposals that we should note as action items.  One is a need for the narrative explainer and the suggestion to have a more detailed timeline.  I think maybe not for    well, maybe for    I don't know which of the flow charts.  Probably for both but just a timeline.  And we can use the IGF 2020 dates.  So that it makes it clearer where    what part of the process takes place.  So I think we can move on.  And Sam, thanks very, very much for doing this work and for being up in the middle of your night to present this to us.  And MAG member Sam has sent this document to the list.  And please you can also send comments in writing.  
    So let's move on to the next item.  I promised to go back to Timea's question.  You have the floor.  Timea had a question.  I missed seeing her in the speaking queue.  Her question was about the introductory and concluding sessions that we discussed earlier.  So Timea.  
   >> TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you.  Sorry to interrupt the proceedings.  I will be brief.  I wanted to confirm our homework really as track facilitators and MAG members regarding concluding sessions.  If I understand right the proposal made by Paul which I supported in our last call, the introductory sessions would be half prerecorded sessions that would be composed of snippets from speakers, maybe session organizers that they themselves prerecord.  And then there is an Assembly process for the video editing process.  And that would be this one single video that will then be promoted.  Am I understanding this correctly?  This is my first question.  And if I    if I am understanding this correctly, what is the role and responsibility of the session organizers, the track facilitators?  What is it that we will need to do?  And by when and then on the other hand, what is the    what kind of support can we expect on this because I mean I hope somebody from the MAG might be, but I for sure I am not a video whiz.  I would not know the first thing of how to do something like that.  And then a third part of my questions was if I'm understanding right there is no concluding session per se.  But we are trying to get the messages in to this process that Sam just provided, right?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.  And, in fact, we have    we have a proposal, one idea around that which I will ask Chengetai to present on the concluding sessions.  Should we ask Paul to respond to your questions about the introductory sessions?  What I want to add to that Paul, how do you think we can connect these prerecorded introductory sessions to the synthesized policy questions that we will have in the guide?  Paul, over to you.  
   >> Paul:  Apologies, I joined the meeting five minutes late.  I missed the first discussion on the introductory and concluding.  But there was a meeting last week where I presented a consolidation of some thoughts that we had on the introductory and concluding sessions.  For those that missed, the general consensus is that we would have a prerecorded introductory session that would be quite short, concise to the point basically.  That would allow the four thematic areas or sessions to have a short video introduction of what that thematic session is about.  
    And what it is trying to achieve.  Then we also proposed to weave in short intros by the BPFs and DCs and NRIs on how their programs align to these thematic areas.  We haven't really gone much deeper than that.  
    So the general idea would be the prerecorded video session of weaved videos of maybe three minute interventions each as the introduction.  And on the concluding, it is generally decided that a concluding session similar to what we had last year would not work in this year's online format.  And that we would probably want to drop the concluding session from the thematic tracks in the sense of trying to follow last year.  Of course, we are open to have thoughts on that.  It is quite an exhausting process.  And it is not really going to add much value to the program by having a concluding session that had similar objectives to last year's objectives.  
    I don't know whether that clarifies that.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot for that, Paul.  Timea, does    do you have any further questions or responses or reactions to that?  
   >> TIMEA SUTO:  Thanks both.  I think it is just    I am not sure if my question was understood correctly.  So I get what Paul is saying.  And I support 100% the concept for the intersessions and the fact that a closing session would not work in the traditional way.  I'm completely okay with that.  My question is how are we operationalizing this concept?  So are we looking to have maybe in a week before the IGF some sort of a quick session with everyone who the track thinks that needs to be there.  We record that session as a one go.  Or are we identifying speakers asking them to prerecord messages and collating them in to one video?  What are the steps that we will need to take?  And because I'm a little fuzzy on the details and I am one of the cofacilitators on the tracks.  What's our homework and what's our deadline?  
   >> Paul:  Maybe I can quickly respond to that.  The answer is we haven't really got in to that detail yet.  There will be    this discussion will start happening.  To try and shape up how we see this going.  But it is quite in line with your pulse, but we need to concretize that across the whole video of the interventions.  
    So we just haven't got to that detail yet.  
   >> TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you, Paul.  Sorry for jumping the gun.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you.  Maybe Sam, you can add more.  Because I think    my understanding of the MAG introducing these sessions last year is that it was really tied to having stronger thematic cohesion in the program.  And stronger thematic cohesion helps to produce stronger outputs.  So I just wonder if not having any thematic concluding sessions might be a missed opportunity to support, contribute to the output generation process.  So I don't know how do you feel about the introductory and concluding sessions with regard to the output and outcome development process.  
   >> Sam:  Speaking purely from a document creation point of view, it is helpful in terms of although how you get people to attend the session I do recognize is problematic.  And how to get people to help organize those sessions.  Because with 200 plus sessions and 200 plus policy questions and even if we have this wonderful guide that we are going to be producing before the meeting people don't read any of that stuff.  So the concept of having that introductory session is worthwhile even if it is prerecorded.  If you can in half an hour get people's attention and get them to focus on the main points of what we are trying to achieve through IGF, that's useful.  Equally if there is some sort of wrap up, it doesn't have to be separate concluding, maybe it is a single session report type of thing that happened during the closing ceremony last year that is not going to be happening this year.  
One of my concerns when you have a 200 plus session, particularly in this online environment, there is very much the risk that we have more analysts than participants.  So be able to draw together in to a wider session and that hopefully more people are attending, it helps give us some legitimacy to the final outputs that we are creating.  It is no longer about individual sessions discussing in a small Zoom room.  Maybe amongst five to ten participants coming up with good policy idea.  If it can be reflected in to a wider session, it can be seen as a more legitimate community output because it has been aired in a wider community environment.  If that makes sense.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Sam.  And I think that does make sense.  But we do not have    maybe we should give Paul and others a chance to look at the document, to finalize this process.  To reflect how the outcome, output generation process will link to the intro and concluding sessions.  Then Chengetai and I just were talking about an alternative approach to those concluding sessions which might serve your purposes, Sam, but also address the max concern, that this will be too many sessions.  Chengetai, do you want to describe what we think might work or what we want you to think about as an option?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Hi.  Yes.  So we were thinking since it is online and people aren't meeting and they don't have to catch planes, over the past years there has been always this rush that Paul has mentioned.  People have been rushing to construct their summation and summary and not getting all the pieces together.  And then it is not a complete summation.  We do it maybe though    a couple of days later, even the following week where we have a session is looking back at the vIGF and has a proper summation of all the tracks.  That will be more valuable to people than rushing on the final day when, you know, things have been happening in the morning and you are rushing and leaving things out.  So I think that's one thing to look at.  And I would like to also underline what Anriette was saying about the    the introductory sessions that it shouldn't just be three minute videos of individual sessions as such.  There has to be some sort of bringing it together, some thematic arc that goes through that spans all these sessions that have been put together.  And this is the way that the sessions were also selected with the MAG groups were selecting the themes.  So I think it is    it will be also very important to explain that arc and get people to have an idea of that arc.  But yes.  Those are my comments.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  And that idea of the post IGF and thematic concluding session it would be primarily    it would be open to everyone, but it would be primarily a session for the MAG and session organizers.  
    So and it will give them an opportunity to be more actively involved in producing and generating the outcomes.  But that's an idea that we want to leave with you to think about, then we can come back to it.  Are there any questions or comments on this or can we move on to item No. 5?  I don't see hands.  No.  So thanks everyone.  And it is quite complex.  But thanks, Timea, for taking us back to this because it is quite an important discussion.  
Now we will move on to item No. 5.  And that is going to be Anja who is going to walk us through and this is    I like the word you use, Chengetai, the arc.  So the idea here is that you get a sense of what the arc of the IGF 2020 process or schedule is going to look like.  Anja, over to you.  
   >> ANJA GENGO:  Thank you.  Good evening to everyone.  I will briefly walk you through the schedule building on what's been our last conversation on these meetings.  And I will just tell you briefly what's new compared to the exchange we had.  
    So the schedule as Luis is showing on the screen is available on the IGF website and our dedicated page that's also linked to the IGF home page, to the main menu IGF 2020.  And it is available in the following formats as you can see as Excel files, PDF and also it is now available as an interactive schedule.  For the interactive schedule please note that it is available only upon registration.  So we kindly ask you to register yourself.  After you are registered, then you would see an e mail with a link to access the interactive schedule.  
    And thank you to Luis that this is guiding us through this process.  So yes, technically this is how you register.  When you click on register, you will receive an e mail.  And then the link to access the home build IGF schedule will be available as Luis is showing or trying to, Luis has done great work on the schedule.  Trying to link it to the IGF village as well, the different guides.  As you are probably used to the schedule it is searchable by the date, by the type of the session, by the thematic track, and so on.  
    On this note what I mention about searching the schedule, so in addition that the interactive schedule is searchable by the thematic track among other filters that you can see on the screen, and you also see the preview of each session, that these tactics, format of the schedule that I mention, such as the Excel file and PDFs, what's an update for you there is that all sessions now are nested under a corresponding thematic track.  So the latest update you've seen is that, for example, the Dynamic Coalitions had their own color.  And then the NRI sessions had a different color and form, third one.  
So now all those sessions in addition to workshops and the main sessions are marked with an appropriate color that corresponds to the thematic track.  Because we are marking these new sessions to fall under the thematic track we have built up a page that explains the type of each session.  For example, when you access any form of the schedule you can see the acronyms or full names of the types of sessions.  If it is the open Forum then you say OF number and title.  If somebody is not like you experienced familiar with the type of the session, then they can just go and access that page.  It is linked to this Web page of where the schedule that Luis has shown.  In addition what I wanted to tell you is that the high level sessions are scheduled.  I think we went through the draft the last time.  
Just to confirm all the sessions are from 11th to 17th of November.  In addition to parliamentarians Round Table that is scheduled for the 10th.  The opening and closing, so that's highlighted in yellow just to get more    to attract more attention.  And they don't traditionally fall under the thematic tracks.  The concluding sessions are remote.  That's the understanding from the last MAG meeting.  And the change and update that also happens is that the Polish pre events are also added to the schedule.  They are available in the static versions of schedule as PDFs and Excel files.  It is a separate file just to make sure that it is easier to follow.  And we also added this short note that Luis is now showing to show that the community is called Polish pre events and are hosted in the rooms called Polish room 1, and 2 and so on.  These were requests that were submitted as pre events during the time while we all still thought the meeting would be hosted by the Government of Poland before this change.  
    And they are going to be in the first phase from the 2nd to 6th of November.  In addition so    I will conclude with this.  And I will leave up to you to ask me maybe questions and guide for further update.  But what would be helpful is if the MAG members would communicate at least working version titles for all the main sessions.  So we can add those in the schedule.  And it would be good that we add the descriptions for the main sessions in the schedule itself because we are having a growing number of participants that have registered which means they are accessing the interactive schedule.  They can access the main sessions that are shown in the schedule and for now are showing no content so far.  
    So I think that would be all from me.  But I'm happy to respond to any questions you would have.  Thank you.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot, Anja.  Any comments or questions?  
   >> Just a comment from me.  Nice work.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Carlos.  I want to really echo that.  Luis and Anja, you have done fantastic work.  It is really coming together well.  So if there are no    
   >> Hello?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead.  
   >> MARY UDUMA:  This is Mary.  Yes.  Okay.  Nice work as well.  I just wanted to ask whether we have    would the registration, whether there would be at the point it cannot be taken.  Do we have unlimited registration?  I am sorry to ask this.  Since we are going to be using Zoom, would it be limited registration?  Zoom limiting the number of participants?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Number of participants.  Thanks for asking that.  Luis, do you want to respond to that, to the room limitation and registration and how you will manage that?  
   >> LUIS BOBO:  Yes.  Happy to answer.  The limit to participate directly in Zoom is 500 people.  However, we will stream live the sessions, minimum to one channel and the main sessions to several channels.  And if someone tries to access and if it is already completed at that time they will be registered.  Possibility to chat and session Moderators will be able to check that in case there are any questions.  So we have limitations, but we try to pass to them as much as possible so we have as many participants to participate as possible.  
   >> Just to the point, may I jump in?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead.  
   >> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much.  Recently as much as I found out a Zoom upgrade limitation to 1,000.  Perhaps it is something that we can find about.  Thank you.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Roberto.  Luis, do you want to respond to that?  There are also concerns with regard to bandwidth usage, if too many people.  Are you aware of this 1,000 upgrade?  
   >> It could be 1,000, 3,000, 10,000.  The point is that based on the experiencing regular meetings in previous IGF there was 200 people online, this is a full online meeting.  But when you have maximum people and you cannot limit sessions.  500 is maybe a bit tight, but it is fine in general for big meetings.  And as there is this streaming, not 500 people need to participate.  So we will assure that remote hubs and panelists can have a place.  It is not all time in the meeting.  Yes.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Luis.  I think I agree.  The important thing is that people can follow a session.  So even if they cannot enter the Zoom room and we make it very easy for them to follow via Livestreaming and to still be able to ask questions if they want to and I think that's what we are going to do.  
    So any other questions?  Or comments for Luis and Anja?  I see no hands and I see no    Jennifer, yes.  You are in the speaking queue.  Please go ahead.  
   >> JENNIFER CHUNG:  Thanks.  I wanted to echo colleagues on thanking the Secretariat on doing a good job.  I do have a question.  And it is not exactly to do with this but it is related.  Regarding I guess the main sessions, what are we expected to be?  Like what kind of roles are the MAG organizers or MAG co facilitators expected to fill?  Because now that it is everything is online, we need to know if we need to find people to fill certain spots.  I'm not quite sure if I understand where we need to be and what part would be handled by either the Secretariat or people working on the tech support and logistic support as well.  So maybe this could be    I don't know, Luis or Chengetai or Anja would like to respond to that.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Luis, do you want to respond to that?  I can give you provisional, that we are not expecting the MAG members to play a technical support role.  And MAG members are organizing those main sessions.  You might have a Moderator role.  And remember every session needs a chat Moderator as well as a Moderator of the speaker inputs.  But the Secretariat will ensure that there are two technical support people available for every session.  That's the commitment that the Secretariat is making.  But Luis, could you add or elaborate a bit on that?  You or Anja.  
   >> That's perfectly right.  Two people, dedicated technical people and the first layer of support and we will be behind them.  They will be trained and take care of everything technical and also help you in the online moderation tasks.  Of course, there will be also a training in October.  Then we are expecting in any case at least as we said in e mail, two people as usual in the IGF, onsite Moderator and Moderator.  It should be the same more or less.  Online Moderator and chat Moderator and pure session Moderator.  This year is online and would use the features that Zoom provides to give the floor, et cetera.  But these two people, these two Moderators should not really take so much care about in the technical things because it is really, really intuitive.  Open questions like we are having this Zoom meeting here.  Then the details of who of the MAG members facilitators, maybe Anja can tell more.  Basically I understand that this should be like speakers and then dedicated Moderator, online Moderator, Rapporteur as it was in the template.  Maybe you can elaborate a bit more.  
   >> Nothing further to add.  What Luis said is nothing changes in terms of role of MAG members for facilitation and organization of the main sessions compared to last year or previous years.  Just the exception is that we    the Secretariat will take care of them, technical side of hosting the session, but I do understand that inviting speakers and assigning a Rapporteur, Moderators, everything that Luis noted is with the facilitators and Secretariat will support, Chengetai will confirm this.  
   >> Thank you.  That was very clear.  Thank you, Luis and Anja.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Jennifer, the only additional role that you already started is to plan in advance if you want to use Zoom meeting tools.  If you want to use polls, if you have poll questions and if you want to have breakout rooms.  It is important to finalize the content of those methods before hand.  So that your tech support team has it and has already prepared in advance for those.  So that's that.  But we are not expecting the MAG to create or to    create the polls.  You have to design them beforehand.  But your tech support team will bring them up when the Moderators ask them to.  
    Okay.  I think that is it.  I don't see any hands.  And thanks again to the Secretariat for all this preparation.  
    And I think next we have the online sessions that I have proposed and which many of you will be participating in.  I have had comments.  If there are any further comments, please send them.  The sessions were publicized in the newsletter and congratulations with getting the newsletter out to the Secretariat, particularly Sam.  And so if there are any more questions then just or comments on those discussion areas just get them to me.  We will start publicizing them later this week.  Because they are starting I think next week or the week after.  
    So we will start promoting them.  And I would appreciate your participation in them.  And also your contribution and sharing the notices of those sessions in your own networks.  
    But if there are any comments or questions on those sessions, now is the time.  I don't see any further hands here.  So we can move on to the next agenda item which is any other business.  And let's also use this final agenda item, are there any main session organizers that have updates or that need assistance or support in any way?  Any updates from main session organizers?  Nothing.  No one with any    and anyone that needs help, how's it going?  Are people feeling    are you beginning to get positive responses from speakers?  And how is your general    this is an open question to all of you.  Do you feel confident with how the organizing of the main sessions are proceeding?  Any worries or any need for assistance?  Shall we go just check in and do a quick check in?  So data, how's it going with the data track?  Is it going well?  Do you need any help or support?  
   >> Hello.  Can you hear me?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes Natasa, we can hear you.  
   >> Concerning data session, it has been consolidated.  So now our template is pretty much improved in part of the narrative of the description our main session.  And now we have ma    Maria has offered to kindly offer herself to be a facilitator and to June and myself would be facilitators.  We are still looking for a Rapporteur.  And we still need within our group to think of the possible speakers.  Sam connected us with the person that could help us find the potential speakers.  But within our group we need to think of the way further.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot, Natasa.  So you still need a Rapporteur and some speaker suggestions.  So please if any MAG member wants to volunteer or have names, just share that with them.  
    Environment, and Timea, do have you any updates and do you need any support?  
   >> TIMEA SUTO:  Thanks.  Nothing significant to since last Tuesday.  It is on to us now and it is on to me to encourage the group members to come up with a roster of speakers.  And then we will have to organize a call to select the speaker and Moderator.  All the other functions are filled.  And we seem to be in agreement on the session description.  So the really    the task I    this is now to identify the speakers and the Moderator and then work with them in finalizing the session, the agenda questions and all those things.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  Thanks.  Thanks, Timea.  It sounds good.  Karim and Roberto, any updates or need for support for your inclusion main session?  
   >> Thank you, Chair.  Actually we had very good support from the group.  Paul, Ben, Timea, June, several colleagues were supporting us during the last week but we couldn't make a second call.  We agreed with Karim that we are going to make this call during the following days.  We are busy in my case about our last IGF and hopefully we will arrange the meeting for the next week.  Not hopefully.  I think we are going to arrange the next meeting for the next week.  We receive it from the people that I already mentioned and also from Carlos, nice suggestions about some other speakers.  I think we have up to nine or ten potential speakers.  But we will    I also ask her to, Chengetai, last week was to support us, actually to contact them, I mean the ones that we didn't contact yet because some of them were already contacted and most of them they already said that they would be interested to participate.  But the others, the new ones we will like perhaps the Secretariat, Chengetai will help us contact them and ask them if they will be willing to participate.  And once we have all potential confirmations, then we will be deciding with the rest of the group which will be the group of panelists, final panelists.  Yes, we are going to receive this help from the Secretariat.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot.  Trust, how is it going with the trust main session?  
   >> JENNIFER CHUNG:  This is Jennifer.  So actually some good news to share.  We have already had two confirmations from the speakers we have invited.  We have received confirmation from Stefan Schnorr from the German Government and he has agreed to one of the speakers for the trust main session.  And we received a confirmation from Paul Mitchell from Microsoft.  We have high level speakers from the government and private sector.  And we have sent out some invitations as well to other speakers and also about to send some more.  So hopefully we will receive more confirmation back.  The content of the main session proposal hasn't changed too much.  We have refined some of the policy questions but it is pretty much coming together now.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Digital cooperation, any updates from you?  I don't see Hanna in the call.  Anyone else in the group that can update us?  
   >> TITI CASSA:  This is Titi.  Can you hear me?  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.  
   >> TITI CASSA:  There is not too much on this session.  I see Hanna asked Rudolph to moderate this session.  So we have    we should have Rudolph as Moderator.  And maybe we can have some other speaker because I think there is not much confirmation from the high level speakers that we are trying to invite.  So maybe we can give a more update or by e mail or during the next week because the situation is the same as we referred last week.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Titi.  Any updates from the Dynamic Coalitions and NRI main sessions?  Is that all on track?  
   >> If nobody will take the floor for the DC main session, actually maybe Sam will, but since I already took the floor, NRI main session it is going quite well.  Policy questions and description of the session is to a good extent finalized.  We are working, investing a lot of efforts as quite a large group on deciding what could be the final format given the challenges of online hosting this year and at the same time the NRI colleagues are confirming their speakers.  The deadline is mid of September with appropriate substantive inputs to confirm the position of those speakers on the topic.  So and we are confirming the Moderator.  I am hoping by the end of this month we would be close to a finalized proposal.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Hello.  This is Jutta speaking for the Dynamic Coalitions.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead.  
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Dynamic coalitions will hopefully have a call by next week.  Sam has just set up the Doodle for organizing that call.  We already started earlier this year working on a Google document for the main session.  And I do think when we have our next call by next week at the latest we will also be able to set up the whole agenda for the session and speakers by the end of this month.  Thank you.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot, Jutta.  Thanks, everyone.  It is good to see progress and things are moving faster now.  Secretariat, do you want to give MAG members a rough deadline for when you think that speakers should be confirmed?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The sooner the better.  But let's say Jutta just said the end of the month, which I will leave it there but I still think it is a bit far.  But let's put it the end of the month then.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  You feel it is a bit far but at the latest the end of the month?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think that sounds reasonable and that gives people still time.  And I get the sense there is a need for a little bit more time for the confirmations.  We have done the update on the main sessions.  Do anyone have any other issues to raise tonight or questions or announcements?  I see no one at the speaking queue.  And no hands.  I feel as if we should be hearing from the BPFs, but rather than give them too little time let's dedicate time in our next call to get updates from the BPFs and from the DC coordinators.  So on that I think thanks very much everyone, and for a productive meeting.  And keep up the hard work.  And thanks to the Secretariat for all the progress that you have made and beginning to build this online platform.  And MAG members will receive a guide from the Secretariat in the next few days as well that has more detail on four session organizers including yourselves and some discussion of tonight will build in to that as well.  The Secretariat has prepared a document and it will be sent to you in the next day or so.  So thanks, everybody.  And Chengetai, can I hand over to you to tell us when our next meeting will be?  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.  The next meeting is keeping to a schedule would be the 22nd of September at 1100 hours UTC.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And we will send an announcement as always.  So thanks.  Good night.  Good morning.  Good afternoon, everyone.  And thanks to our captioner.  And thanks to the Secretariat.  
    And keep well, everyone.  
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.  Thank you very much everyone.  Bye. 
   >> Thank you very much.  Good bye.  Stay safe.  Bye bye. 
   >> Thank you all.  And bye bye.

Контактная информация

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