IGF 2020 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - II

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, morning, and evening, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to the MAG virtual meeting number 2 and I think it's the first one of this year.  Just before ‑‑

>> Just before we start, just to remind you all that this call is being recorded and we do have captioning.  I think you do have to click the captioning button at the bottom of the screen if you haven't.  And also, a summary report will be produced after this meeting.  So, with that, I would like to hand it over to our Chair, Anriette, to start the meeting. Anriette, can you hear us?  Oh, Okay. So, it seems like she got logged out and we'll just wait for her to come back in.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Hi, everyone.  Anriette here.  Can you hear me?

>> Yes, we can hear you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I seem to be having a few issues with Zoom.

>> Anriette, the meeting is yours.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Good.  So, I have audio.  Great.  Thanks.  Great.  Welcome, everyone, to our second MAG call.  I'm really pleased to see that so many people could make it.  Shall we start with just a quick roll call.

We can just start from the top, and using the participants window, to just go from the top.  I'll just call out people's names, actually, in case some of us see it a little differently so Luis, are you with us?

>> LUIS BOBO: Hello, everyone, yes, I am with you.  Your IT focal point at the IGF.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: He's not speaking.  IGF Secretariat.  Is that Chengetai.  Are you there?

>> Anriette, can you hear us?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I'm not getting any audio.  Can someone speak?  I just want to check if my audio is working.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. I'm speaking now.  I don't think you can hear us.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. Chengetai or ‑‑ can you just take over the Chairing.  I'm going to call in from my phone.  Let's just start by everyone saying hello and then we'll jump on from the agenda.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. So I'll just read from how my list is going so everyone can say a very quick hello because I think we do know who everybody is but you can say a very quick hello so the next person on my list is June.

>> JUNE PARRIS: Hello.  This is June Parris.  This is my third year in MAG.  Looking forward to working this year.  Can you hear me?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we can.  Just a quick hello would be fine because I think we do know each other as such.  Makane?  Next person?  Is

>> Hello.  This is Makane from the African IGF Secretariat.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Great and the next person is Espinosa.

>> Hello, everybody.  Good morning from Mexico.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Great.  Afia.

>> AFIA FAITH: Hi, everyone.  Afia.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Then we have Ananda.

>> ANANDA RAJ KHANAL: Hello.  This is Ananda from Nepal, second year in MAG.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Great, Anja.

>> Hi, everyone.  This is Anja from IGF Secretariat.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: (inaudible) Ben?


>> BEN WALLIS: Hi, this is Ben.  Good idea.  This gets people to practice going on and off mic.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: CA.  That's the captioner, that's Brittany.  You can say hi, too, if you want to?  Chenai?

>> Hi, everyone.  Calling in from South Africa.


>> CONCETTINA CASSA: Hi, everyone.  This is TT from Italy.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Great.  Deniz.

>> DENIZ SUSAR: Hi, every.  Deniz.


>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Hi, this is Flavio here.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.  Heiki?  Okay. Jennifer?


>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Hi, everyone.  It's Jennifer here.



>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Hi, Jeremy.  Jim?


>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Juliana?

>> JULIANA HARSIANTI: Hello, everybody.


>> JUTTA CROLL: Hello, this is Jutta, speaking here from Germany.


>> Hello, everybody.  This is Karim.


>> MARKUS KUMMER: Hello, this is Markus here from IGF support.


>> LIANNA GALSTYAN: Hello, everyone.


>> Hello, everyone, this is Lima from IGF Secretariat.



>> LUCIEN CASTEX: Hello, everyone.  Lucien.  My second year on the MAG, call in from France.


>> Hello, everyone, this is Natasa from Croatia

>> NEBOJSA REGOJE: Hello, everyone.  This is Nebojsa.

>> PAUL ROWNEY: Good afternoon, everyone.  This is Paul Rowney.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Przemek?  Can you ‑‑ yes.  You're unmuted then.  You'll get skipped.  Roberto.

>> Hi to everyone.  This is Roberto from Bolivia.


>> Hi, everyone.  This is Sorina.


>> TIMEA SUTO: Hi, everyone.  Timea here.


>> UCHA SETURI: Hello, I'm Ucha Seturi from Georgia.


>> WAI MIN KWOK: Hello, everybody.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Wang?  Okay. We'll give him a skip and Wim, last on my list.

>> Hi, everyone.  Wim Degezelle.  Following the conversation from sunny Bressels.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Anyone else I missed?

>> VENI MARKOVSKI: This is Veni, I'm on the phone.

>> This is ‑‑ on very unstable internet connection.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.  Anybody else?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think that's it.  Thank you very much.

>> Can you hear me?  Adama from Gambia?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Oh, Adama.  Well, thanks, everyone.  I know on my phones I can hear you and I think you can hear me.  Apologies for that.

As Ben said, it's good practice for people to check if they are okay with the audio.  We may be able to start skipping it.  Chengetai, are you able to put the email on screen?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: It's on screen, it's in the corner.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So, our agenda is essentially introduction and welcome from myself then to discuss the result of the call for validation of themes from tracks and issues, then to finalize intersession sectional work planning.  That will follow on the discussion of the revised proposals we received and then to discuss the WSIS forum and whether we're doing anything at the WSIS forum and any other business.

It's not explicitly there but we also would like to address how to follow up on the validation.

Of issues and teams.  So, we have, Chengetai, remind me.  We've got about two weeks before the call for workshop proposals go out.  Is that correct?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.  Beginning of March.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So, a little bit more than that.  That's our timeline and at the end of today's meeting, we need to agree on how to work to the point of putting that call out.  So, is that okay?  Any comments on the agenda?  Is everyone happy with the agenda?

>> Yeah.  Rajesh.  I am fine with the agenda.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. On that note, I don't have much more to say.  Just to thank everyone for being at the meeting.  Apology that we did not send the results of the call for validation out earlier.  I promised that it would go out in writing earlier so that people who are not able to be present today can respond but as you will see when the Secretariat presents their results, there was a lot of input and it just took them longer than planned to synthesize that.

Other than that, nothing more to say at this point.  I'll be in touch about something we're discussing with the Secretariat and the communication plans for the Secretariat and myself but nothing else to say at this point.  I was very pleased, this is one little bit of news.  Last week, I was at the freedom on line coalition meeting and it was very nice to find Afi and Nebojsa there so there were three of us from the MAG at the meeting.  It was good to see one another and catch up.

So, nothing more from me.  As you'll hear later, we've got some proposals so we'll get to that later.  Let's start with the response to the call for validation of issues.  So, Chengetai, or Anja, if you are ready to take us through that.  We have a b presentation.  I'm not sure if any of you already able to look at it but

>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you.  Hopefully, you can see the presentation Luis is sharing.  This call for validation followed actually the call for issues that we integrated into IGF 2019 taking stock call and analyzing during the first face‑to‑face meeting in Geneva with the 41 suggested issues received at that call so building on that, as you know, you've agreed to launch this call for validation of theme attic tracks and the call was up for two weeks until the sixth of February.

In the web form, we asked the community to express their views on the proposed three tracks which are data, inclusion, and trust, and especially to advise on how to accommodate an issue theme that emerged from that mentioned call for issues that we agree to call sustainability, that theme is composed of environmental sustainability, climate change and digital economy.

So, specifically, the call also asked for each of these three tracks for the community to advise on issues, possible subthemes, policy questions, or policy solutions and the same goes for the proposed theme on accountability and we also gave space for the community to advise if there is any other theme attic.

So, the next, 200 unique submissions malware multiply but one person was submitting sometimes in personal capacity and another forum was submitted for his organization so we counted all inputs as individually.  So, all 225.

Inputs came from 84 different countries.  The biggest number of submissions from U.S., UK, Brazil, Germany, Nigeria and Algeria.  We do have a detailed, to see how this occurs.  Just very quickly on the statistics of total submissions you can see that stakeholder wise, civil associate submitted the largest number of inputs, 56 percent followed by the private sector with 19 percent, government and technical community with 10 percent and IGOs submitted 5 percent of the total number of inputs.  IGF, we had Europe group.  Countries 32 percent P. Asia‑pacific submitted 72 percent.  From eastern Europe, we've received 34 percent.

So, now, moving on analysis per track, so, let's look at the data track firstly to see how many submissions were received and what were the priorities issues, you'll see how we clustered them.  We've received 139 submissions for unique submissions on this particular track.  203 issues and subthemes were submitted and 65 policy questions were solutions.

So, there was quite a broad diversity among the submitted issues so we tried just for the purpose of this meet to go plaster him so that you have a kind of better overview of where is the priority for community.

So, in 19 clusters, we managed to kind of nest all the issues and the subthemes that were submitted so you can see the data governance, the data utilization received the biggest number of support, 32 inputs were specifically submitted on this.  Then data security and protection, followed by data privacy and data flow, transactional, jurisdictional received a lot of support and then less than window were received for the role of AI for data and the algorithms, content moderation.  Then five or less were the next seven clusters that emerged for the issues.  And flow to data standardizations, sustainability, big data.  There was a couple of inputs on children's ethics.  When it comes to specific data groups, health data were singled out and then we also had gender and youth publication implications for very specific inputs on this.

When we look on data, what were the policy questions that were received.  So, we try to show you here some that are kind of most common where they're the biggest priority so you'll see that legal and ethical considerations.  This was an interesting question that was repetitive across several inputs.  How to train a more diverse pool of software engineers.  Not impact artificial intelligence on data protection and privacy.  There war a few picture ‑‑ were a few inputs that singled out some groups like immigrants, refugees, but also, like transgender youth.  Hispanic how do we introduce, should we introduce law enforcement, for data protection and data access.


Impact of AI and machine learning on data practicing and utilization.  And then there were a couple of these, obviously, cross‑cutting also policy questions across the force, just the teams, especially referring to sustainability.  For example, how data can help climate change and environmental sustainability.  Can we build greener websites and applications?  How to save energy through server utilization.  How is data quality playing a role in the concept of internet commerce.  Then a few inputs came on data's impact on digital economy.  Data validation approaches.  How companies can build.  What's the competition.  GDPR.  Few inputs also came, just to see the assessments of the past two years, GDPR came into implementation.

How to protect children's rights, data online.  Market regulation and taxation.  What are the local and global approaches.  And then, yes.  Again, how automation and welfare systems can help refugees and migrant issues.

So, that would be on data.  If we move to the inclusion, so, to the next slide, now, Luis.  For inclusion, we received 139 individual submissions.  All these submissions, we managed to identify 183 individual issues and subthemes and 47 policy questions and solutions so we clustered these in 12 rows or clusters.  The biggest support was received for the inclusion of marginalized groups singling out their refugees, youth, women, people with disabilities, children, access and accessibility was also very highly ranked.  Followed by digital social.  Development was also seen as important by and then role of artificial intelligence, then the environmental sustainability was also discussed, digital commerce policy, security aspects and then with five and less, we're a digital economy market ethics and trust, internet information and policy.

When it comes about these 47 policies, inputs mostly focused on how to ensure meaningful access for all, what are the policies that we need.  What are the good practices or programs that could appear, if the landscape.  Then, a lot of ‑‑ how do address issues.  Then, what tools could be developed, internet access for marginalized groups, people living with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups.  New employment opportunities related to their transformation.  Digital entrepreneurship leading to more ‑‑ digital inclusion.  How to optimize other digital policy discussions.  How to ensure the internet discussion is open for everyone and how to develop capacity for all to use the internet informant so, those would be a few questions.  Finally, on the track of trust.  We received 136 individual submissions.  We identified 157 issues, subthemes, and 51 policy questions ‑‑

>> Sorry, Anja to interfere but the slide is not changing.

>> ANJA GENGO: For me, it's changing here.  Carlos, Luis is changing it.

>> Yes, for me too, it's changing.  We have the track on trust.

>> ANJA GENGO: Yes, now it's track on trust but maybe ‑‑

>> No, it's okay.  The

>> ANJA GENGO: Okay. I was thinking I'll just post the link in chat in case somebody has similar issue.  So, going back on trust.  I said 157 identified issues and subthemes, 51 policy questions or solutions so we managed to rank these into 11 broad clusters.  Sixty‑eight inputs came to this then followed by digital rights and ethics, emerging technologies and then responsibilities of digital platforms.  Digital Cooperation and stakeholder accountability received nine inputs.  Digital identity, eight.  The main name system received seven.  Digital economy, six.  And then, with five and less, there was the internet fragmentation, climate change and capacity development.

So moving on the next slide about the identified policy questions and solutions for, there were a lot of questions identified.  So we didn't have to identify a lot of these, let's say, diversified questions so here are a few that are most common.

How to develop a global framework with trust and integrity online.  How can we overcome increasing fragmentation in cyber space at the national, regional and global levels.  Which policy measures have to be taken of course protection, prevention and defense against cyber strengths?  Where is the middle ground between increasing demands to proactive content policy by digital platforms?  End the necessary neutrality and legal certainty for platforms then the role in democracy was also seen as important to several.

How to strengthen the existing cybersecurity norms and how can encryption help online safety.?

So, that would be for the trust.  Then, as un why, the form, as I said at the beginning, the form also asks about accommodating the additional team or teams including the ones that the MAG suggested call for issues called the sustainability.  Not everyone because of the nature of the forum, not everyone responded explicitly and directly to this question but we had 31 responses that were directly saying that this core team on sustainability should be integrated into the p tracks but others suggested either support of this team or suggested new teams as a separate track so in total, 149 individuals said they do support a separate thematic track so among those, 56 said they support the track on sustainability so that's the.

Then the second rank was the economic issues, 26 were received with economic issues.

You see these that are highlighted in green, I think, for MAG's intention, that would be very important.  If could be that there's been a bit of maybe confusion or an obvious overlap with the three existing teams that were already proposed by the MAG but in any case, there were 21 inputs that said we should have access and inclusion, but there were some that said they will want thematic inclusion.  Emerging technologies referred ten inputs as well.  Environmental sustainability also kind of emerged as an independent thematic tracks with inputs referred but then also an integrated part of the overall sustainability.  Then again, cybersecurity is also part of the thematic track which is one of three and data as well is among the three that MAG suggested and endorsed during the meeting.

We had also some other that we just clustered under others.  Though were suggested like words.  Not really some follow‑up context but it was very challenging for us to understand what are the possible implications from the digital policy so we decided that, so, on the fourth theme, we also asked community for potentially the fourth theme that the MAG suggested.  We saw there ‑‑ responded to this question.  The biggest issue came on this potential theme, 236 issues and 75 policy questions that we managed to rank under 15 broad clusters.  Climate ramping was most highly received followed by ICT's impact on environment, 36, then digital economy, 36 as well.  Then followed by capacity development, 28, then 15 and less was for taxation, job market, emerging technologies and environment, ICTs and sustainability, human rights and inclusion, trade, emerging technologies and digital economy, as one, green economy was also singled out.  Stakeholders for environmental protection, cybersecurity and then Digital Cooperation and digital policy that received inputs.

Also, for this possible track on sustainability so we managed to identify the common policy questions, mostly developed on how do we ensure that policy considerations were at most built around environment.  How can policy consideration help the sustainability.  How new technology can help reduce ‑‑ then how the urban environment, how can we get the data, how to become more sustainable with the help of digital technologies and then how to prepare for change in digital economy market.

So, all these, the next question that relate to digital economy, how to build trust for successful digital economy, what's the labor, how to build capacity for people to adapt to new job markets so that would be for this, what is for sustainability that the MAG specifically asked to respond.  End of this presentation for this meeting so if you have any questions, we'll be happy to respond before we start discussing.

>> CARLOS AFONSO: Carlos here, can I speak?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, Carlos, go ahead.  And everybody, please use the speaking queue but you can also use the hands function on Zoom, I'll keep an eye on T. thank you.

>> CARLOS AFONSO: Well, I was one of the ones that thought that the three main tracks were enough but reading all this on sustainability I almost agree that we should have a fourth track because there is excellent policy suggestions here and some of the them listed here.  Maybe we should consider this better.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Carlos and also some of the questions on sustainability could support that.  Lucien, you have the floor.

>> LUCIEN CASTEX: Hello, everyone.  I would agree.  In France, we have a lot of feedback on digital technologies.  So, digital track could be interesting.  All the ‑‑ from consumer about good practices and change, digital services, cost of manufacturing, removal of devices and so on, so, it could be interesting to have such a track and it's a growing topic.  Quite a lot in France.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Lucien.  Anyone else with any comments, questions, or any initial reactions?  Timea?

>> TIMEA SUTO: Sorry, was trying to get off mute.  Thanks, Anriette.  This is a very impressive analysis, so, thanks Anja and the Secretariat for that.  It's really, I'm just looking at it now, but it does have a will the of information so thanks for that.  I tend to agree with Carlos that I was also very adamant about having only three tracks.  I'm ‑‑ if we could cope with enough.  But, this seems that the community has a lot of interest in talking about environmental and climate change issues and their relations to ICT so if the community would like that and the MAG would support that, I wouldn't have anything against that.

I just have one question about how we define this fourth track because I can see two things emerging from this analysis that don't seem to go hand in hand and part of it seems to go better in the other tracks while part of it might be argued it could be a fourth track so I see climate change issues, green economy, emerging tech and environment, things like that, that might be hard to fit under the other tracks.

But, I don't quite see how we can talk about, for example, trade under the sustainability track or digital economy.  I don't know how we define this in this particular track.  I would rather see elements of this discussed in inclusion or security or data, how will proponents would actually know what the fourth track is about and not confuse them.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, Timea, I think you're absolutely right and I think that even if we introduce this fourth track, there would still be some of these questions that could probably be better addressed by the other tracks and as Carlos said, you know, we might also take some questions from the other tracks that would fit better here.

But, we will need to at some point narrow it down.  Any other comments?  Any other suggestions or input for this point?

I'm just going back to speaking queue.  I don't see ‑‑ yes, go ahead.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: You just one idea is that instead of saying sustainability, to narrow the focus a little bit more, we can just say environment and then, we can concentrate on, you know, green economy, renewables, and ICT effects on the environment and then the others can be merged into the other themes.  Also, making it environmental would give it that punch.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, so we would have a fourth track with a name to environment as opposed to sustainability.  So that's something for the MAG to consider do we have.  Sustainability might give us more flexibility.  Environment is narrower.

>> Just a first general reaction to your question, I think the track on sustainability should be giving.  I think the climate change is one of the ‑‑ thread to global security and stability, and of course, human prosperity and I I feel that in line with these very clear, give it much more flexibility, we can include very specific environmental related issues there but also gives us an opportunity to talk about, you know, skilled development, human rights, human centered approaches, I think that in broader terms, when we talk about the digital transformation and sustainable economy, sustainability becomes a cross‑cutting issue and we can expand and adjust and divide use, increase as needed.

Also, as it related to climate changes.  So, I just wanted to flag out that I think this is becoming much more substantive than one would have imagined and it's great to see this first structure in a questions and then the summary provide us with greater input for these reflections.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Maricela.  Agree completely.  Ben, you have the floor.

>> BEN WALLIS: Thank you.  So, I'd originally, yet hoped to find a way of having environment as a cross‑cutting theme, and we see that there are policy questions linking environment under trust and under data but I can't see quite how it works with inclusion but it does feel like it works better as a separate track.

But, I've also been keen to keep us focused and I think limiting it to environmental sustainability or with our desire to go with single words this year as a way of keeping us more focused, I think there are definitely other issues to do with sustainable economic development that are relevant but you either take the entirety of the sustainable development goals or I think there are examples like what skills are required to enable economies to reap the benefits of digitization.  Those kind of things about jobs and skills, inclusion of people with disabilities in the labor market and access to education, that they fit neatly within inclusion.

So, I think those economic sustainability issues can work well with inclusion and they don't need to be part of a broader fourth track.

So, I would go with Chengetai's suggestion as environment as a focused fourth track.  Thanks.  The

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Ben.  Chenai, you are next.

>> CHENAI CHAIR: Thanks, Anriette.  So, my comment actually is that I'm in support of the fourth track and the reason being is that I think since the IGF does come at the end of the year and environmental sustainability seems to be a topic in other spaces that are looking at b Internet Governance issues, for example, rights con, I do think IGF provides a nice issue for people to sum up what people have been talking about environmental sustainability and environmental rights b but I think keeping it as environmental sustainability as a fourth track would work.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Chenai.  Jutta, you have the floor and others, please join the queue or put up your hands in Zoom.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Anriette, for giving me the floor.  First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to community who have sent in so many issues for the ‑‑ and to the Secretariat for this very profound analysis of the results.  As said before by Ben and also the last speaker, sorry, I missed the name.  I do think that we would need to mention environment in the fourth track.  So, if it's only sustainability that would be, from my perspective, a bit too broad, there are issues under sustainability as we know from the SD Gs that fall into the other three checks as well.

‑‑ three tracks as well.  It was raised in the inclusion track.  I think it would be either an option to see fourth track environmental sustainability or fourth track environment as a whole.  It just needs to be the signal to the community that we have understood that Internet Governance are the other way around, that environmental issues are part of Internet Governance and that could be a message that needs to be sent out.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much for that Jutta.  I see no other hands, no one else requesting the floor and it sounds to me as if there is clear support for the fourth track so before we move on, can I just check, is anyone not comfortable with the idea of having a fourth track because if you are not, now is the time to speak.  So, if seven happy with the idea of the fourth track, it sounds to me that I hear more voices speaking for having environment, going narrower, in other words.

Does anybody else want to add to this discussion or should we provisionally go with environment as opposed to sustainability.

Maricela felt we should go for sustainability.  We've heard Chengetai and then several MAG member goes for environment.  One thing I can say is that we're still not publishing the program, so, we can probably still play a little bit with words.  I do think that narrower is not a bad idea.  Inclusion is the ‑‑ of everything we do in the IGF.  I think we'll still have some flexibility.

Even if we do go for environment or environmental flexibility as the title, I think, Maricela, the points you made would still remain relevant, and we'd still find ways of achieving that kind of integration.

But, any other voices on this or shall we move ahead and go for environment?  Any wisdom or any opinions on this?  I don't see anyone speaking, so, there's no disagreement with going for environment.  Maricela, are you okay with that?

>> Thank you, Anriette.  As I said, I was just giving preliminary comments and of course, I'm completely open and flexible, and whatever the community, we decide, majority will be fine by me.  I just think that we need to keep in mind that we need to reach a balanced approach in terms of extreme flexibility or extreme narrowness.

And since this is a new track for us, as you just said, it seems like a second central adoption of a fourth track, I think we need to take the temperature of the broader community in terms of what best fits their needs and their perspective.

But, I think that an in between will be fine.  Maybe, we'll go for environmental sustainability.  I don't know.  I just think that balance is key in this regard, and not an extreme position.

Which I think is overall feeling of the group so thank you so much, Anriette, for giving me the floor again.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks.  Actually, when we do the next step and I'll ask Anja to present a little bit what we've had in mind.  Mary, I've noted your hand, I'll give you the floor in a minute.  Just give me a second.

I think our next step is to be to divide up into groups to develop the narratives.  And I think we should give the groups that develop the narratives for each of the four tracks, we should give them the opportunity to make proposals.  You know, if they want to come up with a different way of approaching the title or if they want to give it one single word title but make sure that the balance that Maricela is talking about is there, we certainly can do that.  Mary, you have the floor.  Mary and then Timea.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor.  I tend to agree ‑‑

>> I think Mary has just dropped off which I'm afraid happens to those of us living in Africa.  I'm sure she's join us.  Timea, why don't you go ahead or Mary, are you book?  You disappeared for a little bit so please just start again.

>> MARY UDUMA: Okay. I tend to agree for Maricela that we look at balance and also agree with you that maybe when we breakup into smaller groups because I feel that going from the broadest name to the narrowest name by just finding a balance.  If we can go for environmental sustainability, that's fine.  Relating it back to IGF so I tend to go with that position and I believe we should maybe when we maybe when we follow their proposal, what the track would be, maybe we'll get it right.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Mary.  Timea?

>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you, Chair and thank you for everyone who has written in chat.  There's a huge conversation there.  I don't know if everyone can see it.  I just want to go back to what I was saying earlier and also to go back to what Maricela was saying.  I'm afraid that if we have a basket which is a catch all basket, we are going to end up with a situation that their niche issues is only a sustainability track and they will forget to consider the other three tracks of human rights, of scales, of digital economy so actually, if we go back to 2019, to discuss inclusion of vulnerable groups, various human rights issues in the tracks that has their main idea either on security or data or inclusion and then we consider them to these cross‑cutting topics and I'm afraid this we do a sustainability track and indicate clearly that this is the place we need to discuss skills.  The other tracks had, I urge colleagues to think about ‑‑ that can be discussed.  With the p environment, we can bring in whatever topic we want to bear but I would really, really urge us to have a clear focus and clear message of what the main topic is for the four tracks and then what are the cross‑cutting issues under the four tracks and also want to urge us to go back to what we heard at IGF and also in our taking stock exercise, the focused agenda for the IGF and I am a bit wary about allowing catch all topics to emerge into the agenda of the IGF because I'm worried this will confuse the workshop proposals, it will confuse the agenda and it will give us an agenda that is hard to navigate.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Timea and I took the time to go through the chat and there's clearly, I think most supporters for environment and for narrow chat so let's go with that.

So, on that note, and I don't see any hands, I think we've got consensus, we're going to have four tracks at this point the name of the fourth track is going to be environment and let's move on to next steps.

You said, demand made one other point that I flagged here for us.  For our work process and that is to already know, begin to identify what the cross-cutting themes are that we'd like to use for capturing information and outputs around within each of the tracks such as capacity building, for example.

So, we'll get back to that.  So, at this point, Anja and I talked a little bit this morning about what our next steps should be and we've got a little plan to present to you so Anja, can I ask you to present to the MAG what we are proposing as next steps from now?

>> ANJA GENGO: Yes, thank you very much Anriette.  So, as Anriette said, we discussed earlier today quite extensively about the next steps with the timeline of the third meeting indicated in the domes so I'm going to share also with you that timeline but let me concretely tell you what we've discussed.  So, the idea would be, the MAG works within groups, the MAG is provided in groups of teams, this year we would have groups of MAG members where you would work on helping the community to understand.  So, narratives as you were developing last year would be also critical this year and concise, hopefully simple questions that could understand what could be submitted so I'm going to share with you the narratives on last year, you can see the narratives for all three we had last year, just included data governance and security stability.

So, we would follow a similar model for you to identify the narratives, short, concise policy questions and then, it's up to you, this ‑‑ of thematic tracks that are for each of these works topics and that would also of course give ‑‑ especially of course for potential things on sustainability, this cross‑cutting agreed for.  So, that would be the idea, back on the timeline.  The timeline for this would be.  For the association or issues or tags or subthemes up to you for each for thematic tracks, it would give the Secretariat just very few days, I believe, maybe, not even whole three working days to implement what you advised and at the same time we would need to work with the working proposals to see whether the workshop submission form, the web form we used last year would be enough for this year or we would need to make some improvements based on communities feedback.

So, we will share with you this timeline shortly after this call, after we hear your advice.  Anriette, I don't know if I was clear.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: No, I think, thanks, Anja, you were very clear.  I'll just repeat it so we will be asking MAG members to self‑select into four groups.  One group for each of the four tracks.  The task of this group will be to do a short narrative as you did last year for those you that were on the MAG last year that just outlines what the background is, what is the context that track is addressing.  To inform that narrative, you will draw on the input from the community.

And, the Secretariat has done a really excellent summary but I would suggest that each group actually goes back and looks at some of the raw material as well.

But, the summary of the Secretariat is really rich and you would need to look at the questions and the issues that were suggested not just for the track you are working on, but look at the other tracks as well because as you all pointed out earlier, there's quite a lot of overlap.

So, secondly, you'd need to identify some policy questions.  Sylvia earlier said at the earlier MAG meeting, we should also be looking at policy solutions, you can frame them as questions.  But, if there's text there on particular solutions and you want to encourage people to discuss solutions, that's also good.  So, that's the second aspect of your task.

And then, I think the third aspect is really to begin to think about subthemes.  We felt that it would be premature to finalize the subthemes.  We'll do that after we receive the workshop proposals but you might want to as part of your narrative along with the policy questions, just have a list that could even just be a bulleted list of the issues that were mentioned by the community and the issues that you feel fit specifically within that track, so, that's really the idea.  We felt that's the next step.  The Secretariat will create mailing lists for people to work.

And then, you can self‑assign to a track and the Secretariat will present us with the timeline.

So, that's our proposal.  And I now open the floor to people for comments and questions.

I'm just jumping back, sorry, I'm manipulating two devices here.  I don't see any hands in, the speaking queue is empty.  I see no hands, please, somebody has to ask a question.  Is it clear, what we are proposing?  Do you agree?  Even if you just want to say yes, please respond.

>> BEN WALLIS: Hi, Anriette, it's Ben.  If it helps to add a little comment.


>> BEN WALLIS: So, I think this is a good approach.  And I guess it's maybe a question or a point, but, with three of the things we've stayed with those he themes, and we developed a narrative last year so how far would you envisage the groups working on data, trust, and inclusion to develop or diverge from what was developed as a narrative last year?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I would ‑‑ let's think, what is the purpose p of this?  The purpose of this narrative is to help people submit workshop proposals so I would use that as my starting point and I would, I'm sure that much of last year's content will still be relevant.  But, I think it's good to start fresh, you know, fresh.  Have a fresh approach.  Look at the input from the community.  Draw on the previous narratives, draw on what came out of the Berlin IGF.

So I think it's fine to craw on that but I do think it's also good to show that it's a little bit different this year.  Also, keep in mind that the tracks have slightly different names this year so immediately, when you move from digital inclusion to social inclusion, it already opens up the theme of inclusion more.

So, something like social b inequality, for example.  Or gender, might fit a little more easily into inclusion than to digital inclusion of

I thought that was a very good suggestion that MAG members made in January at the meeting to open up those.

So, I think, I mean, maybe come up with very similar checks but maybe you won't.  I think what we don't need is very detailed ‑‑ at this point.  Because I'm not sure how much detail you had last year but this is still not the program.  This is the narrative we need to help people submit workshop proposals.  So I would make it fit that particular purpose.  We can always change later on for the program but at this point, the goal of that particular purpose is to simplify the workshop application process.  Does anyone else have anything to add in response to Ben's question?  Mary, I see your hand and Jutta.  First Mary, then Jutta.

>> MARY UDUMA: Thank you Ben for the comment and thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.  My first, mine is also a question.  I've been thinking, the narrative we did last year, did it help the workshop proposals, that it made it easier for them to be able to come up with their proposal or understand what our focus were last year.  Did they follow those narratives?  Submitting proposals, if not, did it help better than 2018 where they were, they did the proposal by themselves without us guiding, without us narrowing down, without us suggesting so organically, the proposals came from the community and not from MAG to the community.

Did we narrow down the ideas instead of allowing them to express themselves the way the community wanted to express themselves so that's what has been occurring in my mind.

If we go narratives again this year, did it help so much last year?  Did it help evaluation last year?  Those are my questions.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That's a very good question.  Thanks for that question, Mary.  I'm going to ask Jutta to speak next.  Jutta, if you are able to respond to that question, that would be good.  And I also invite Secretariat and other members from 2019 MAG team to help respond.  Jutta, you have the floor.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you for giving me the floor.  It's a bit difficult for me to answer the question because it was difficult to understand Mary, voice was breaking down so voice was breaking up.  So if you could repeat that question first.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I will.  I will repeat it.  So, Mary asked whether having narratives, so, firstly, did we have the narratives, I assume we had the narratives, I can't remember, when we called for workshop proposals last year and Mary can's question, Jutta was, did it help to have those little narratives?  Did it make the workshop application process easier for people.  Did we receive positive feedback?  In other words, do we have evidence to stick with that process?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, I would say so.  Especially when we look at those very short works that we choose for this year's tracks, I do think narratives are necessary to make people understand what we mean for this year's thematic tracks.  So, for example, trust last year, a big bucket was four different directions, at least two different.  That needs a bit of complication because people need to understand we now assume stability and safety.  I do think the narratives are necessary and I also think they have been helpful last year.

We have seen as you said before some overlaps between the three tracks and we will have those again I'm sure.  But we can help to avoid overlaps the more we have the narratives.

My suggestion would be that we take those narratives from last year as a starting point then check them against the input we got for the three thematic tracks for this year, whether there are new issues coming up that we had not addressed with the narratives from last year so they need to be built in.

We also have documents.  Still, the three tracks we will keep could be a good starting point for revision and reflection, how they need to develop further.  Then I have an idea, I don't know whether it's feasible within the very short timeframe but given the fact we now have a task force on language issues, I think it would be a good idea to have at least the narratives translated into maybe French language to make the call fork workshop proposals a bit more accessible for other language speaking communities.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Jutta.  I think it's an excellent question.  We had a meeting yesterday, by the way, and we'll report in due course.  We didn't want to report today because we have so much else opt agenda but Mary will be updating all of you on that group.

Ben, you have the floor next.  And I am reading the discussion on leadership of the groups.  I'll reflect on that later.  Ben, you have the floor.

>> BEN WALLIS: Thank you.  Just to follow on on Jutta.  So, I think the tracks are helpful for a variety of reasons.  It gets the MAG on to the same page by what we mean for the different tracks at the outset at the start of the year and it also helps to articulate what we mean by a track so if we're giving a single word, give a little bit more context and detail what we envisage being covered under the track.

I also thought one thing helpful about these one page narratives was articulating different stakeholder perspectives about these issues so we provided a balanced approach from the outset and also made an effort to include policy questions to demonstrate what we understood and were looking for in terms of policy questions not just what you want from a certain issue but asking a question in a way that looks at different perspectives and allows for a discussion from different perspectives so I think it definitely is worthwhile developing these narratives.  It's going to be a little different once you start out with a but as you said, we’ve got all these submissions and summary from the Secretariat so now I've got to go look at the chat to see what everyone was talking about.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So, Ben, what everybody was talking about, thanks for task Ben.  People were discussing whether we should keep the same track coordinator that's we had last year or whether we should have rotation.

It seems to me there are more and stronger voices for rotation.  That doesn't mean, rotation doesn't rule out that that one has the same people but what I would suggest at this point, we also need to close on this agenda item because we do have other agenda items and I would suggest that we ask the Secretariat and I'll work with him on this to document the next step, weep set up the mailing list, enable people to sign up.  Self‑organize.  And I think you can within each group decide amongst one another who should coordinate it but I'll check in with you on that.

I might even just ask people to play that role but maybe we'll just give it a little bit of time.  See who comes forward, has the energy, time, if you have the interest to coordinate, put your name forward in the mailing list.

Let's see if we can self‑organize coordination.

If you don't succeed with the self‑organization, then the Secretariat and myself can step in to help you, but let's give people the opportunity to join a different track this year.

So, if there are no further questions on following up on tracks and themes, I think we should move on.  I see Arsene has an idea ‑‑ Okay. I'm going to let ‑‑ the chat has a life of its own.  Any other questions on comments on this agenda topic or should we move on to the next?

I see no hands.  I think we can move on to the next agenda item so just before we do that, I want to thank, again, the Secretariat for this excellent summary it they did under pressure and thanks to all of you for the outreach.  It was really good outreach.  Substantial number of people that we got in a relatively short space of time p and well done to all the African MAG members.  I was very happy to see that we had such excellent responses from Africa so congratulations to everyone Okay. Chengetai, can you or Anja introduce the next item for us which is the intersessional work?

>> ANJA GENGO: Anriette, thank you.  Chengetai just told me to go ahead.  We will prepare the steps shortly after this call, Anriette, discuss it with you and now it would be to finalize special work planning.  On the list of input documents, I'm sharing the link in the chat again, you will see that we reached two proposals that were updated compared to the versions submitted for the Geneva meeting.

So, those are the local content proposal for the BPF and another one is a BPF on data and new technologies and an internet context which is a configuration of our BPF from last year that was focusing on big data and IOT and AI.

For the gender and access and then cybersecurity, we did not receive the updated proposals, which we understand that the proposals that were submitted for the purposes of the meeting in Geneva weren't the final ones.

We did not receive, also, any updated proposals from the working groups, just going to double check that once again on my side.  And I believe that would be it from our side on these input documents.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Anja, so, at this point, I would like to open the floor if anyone has had time to read the new proposals.

If there are any comments or questions for the proposals, then, please, now is the time.

If you don't have comments or questions right now, we can give people a few days to send any further input they have by email.

Because, remember, we did, in principle, during our meeting in Geneva, we did in principle support these meetings during IGF but it's certainly still valuable to get input from the MAG.

I can also show you with support from IGF that we'll reinstate the practice of BPF coordinators and those who support them, having more regular meetings.

I think this was done in the past.  I don't think it was done last year but we thought it would be a good idea and provide some structure and some support to the BPFs to convene fairly regular meetings just to people can show regular progress.

So, any comments or questions on the BPF.

Karim, I am going to give you the floor to talk about your proposal on but let's just hear first if there are any questions on the updated proposals we received on local content data technologies.

Okay. I don't see any hands.  So, thank you to Carlos and to TT for your proposals and please, everyone, if you have any comments or questions for them, please do send it to them.  Karim, can you please update them.  Karim has worked very hard and been supported by several MAG members along with Roberto so we've taken the discussion forward on Karim a's proposal.  Finalize, Karim, would you like to just update MAG members on the status of your proposal?

>> Thank you, Madam Chair.  Yes, we had discussed the proposal.  We had strong discussion with other members of the working group to try to make a decision if will submit the proposal for reconsideration or we were going to consider the first recommendation from the last meeting and we had a formal reply from you, Madam Chair, for a couple days suggesting us to continue and try to make finish this decision, all work either done, implement the policy.  And are try to come for the IGF with a main session and we can, the lynches around might come back with a good proposal for next year.  So, I think I shared the reply to the people who work with us, and while we are waiting on update on some issues, some ‑‑ Madam Chair, you and we will definitely work for a main session and ask for mailing list and all processes that's required for work on this side.  Thank you, if Roberto or other colleagues would like to add something else, go ahead, please.  Thank you.

>> If I may, Madam Chair.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead, Roberto.

>> Thank you very much, Madam Chair and thank you, Karim.  To inform about had a we did, I just want to ask that immediately we're going to come back to the group.  That's what we stated before, and we are going to since we were working a different version, of course, with the new format in the case that we actually will be able to propose a main session and of course it's just a draft and we're going to use it as a base document in order to have all the input and recommendations for the other colleagues and hopefully, we'll arrange this new meeting in the following days and well, as soon as we have the results then we're going to come back to you Madam Chair and extend this proposal, according, of course, to what the proceedings are for I a main session.  Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot, Roberto and Karim.  So, I realize we are jumping the gun a little bit by already identifying a main session but this proposal was already made during the January meeting and it just seemed at this point in time that that's a better approach for this topic than to establish a best practice form and also when I started looking at the output of the four phases for policy outcomes for connecting the next billion, I noticed some of the issues were already address but of course times have changed and things have moved on so especially if there's a background paper that would help us to reflect but also new questions and we'll also have the benefit next year on Markus's reflection on BPFs that would help us understand them better but if our departure point is that BPFs are supposed to address a topic that's more mature then at this point, it felt it wasn't the right format so thank you very much to Karim and Roberto and thank you to all those who helped them so are there any further questions on the intersessional work or can we close this agenda item?

I've noted the remarks about translation, by the way and I think we should just refer the translation, the suggestions about how to deal with suggestions with how to deal with translation of the narratives to the Secretariat group and multilanguage group.

But, questions, MAG members, I see Ben and Paul, you have the floor.  First you, Ben.

>> BEN WALLIS: Thank you, Anriette and thank you, Karin for kind of pursuing this proposal and working through the different possibilities.  So, I'm part of the group that was formed to start looking at it and we've really only discussed the process so far and what would be the best format so we haven't actually got to the point yet of putting in writing a proposal for a main session so I just wanted to say it's not too late, I guess, if others wanted to join that work.  I think we'll probably now kick off a second stage now that you and Karim have got this decision point so I'm looking forward to that but I was just saying it's not too late for others to join because we haven't really started on the proposal yet.

>> ALEJANDRA BUILES: That's a good idea.  And when you do, others can join.  Paul and then Markus.

>> PAUL ROWNEY: Paul Rowney.  I wanted to bring us back to something discussed at the face‑to‑face.  W I understand there's gob a working group on this to stet new rules for the BPFs but shouldn't the BPF proposals we're getting now have a clear output now.  Shouldn't that be in as a minimum right now?  Thanks.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Let me, Paul, let's, I have a response, but let's hear Markus first and then I'll share what the status of my thinking and discussion of the Secretariat is at this point, Markus.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Quo yes, thank you, Secretariat.  I just wanted to share my thoughts about how we somewhat keenly drive the BPF.  I thought about how to do it, thought the best way would be to go about it in two.  Its first with those who have been more active, holding the pen, active participants, what they felt could be improved and once we have then done this fact finding phase which would hopefully be finished by end of April, then present a report on that which would be an input into the second MAG meeting and there we would ask, then, for feedback from MAG members and also broader community, have an open process where we could refine and take this feedback with the aim of having a report ready in time well before the annual so it will be consolidated understanding of what the BPF should look like.

So, once again, what I would propose is a two‑phased work process.  First phase fact finding with active members and then the second phase, an open process where we would ask for feedback from the broader community.

I can, if you wish, circulate a written draft where it's outlined in more detail with a sent tiff timetable.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Markus and I think that would be good if you can share that document with the MAG.  Paul, to your point, we must remember that the BPFs do work more or less independently but with coordination.  Your question about the output is important.  The BPFs produce output, then to use these calls where we get the BPF coordinators and consultants that work with the lead BPFs if they have them to to get together to talk about outputs.

I think my sense of the meeting in January and also based on my own experience is that it is important to have fairly narrow and concrete outputs.  Not just produce fairly narrow reports that gather up data and not lose the focus on collecting good practices.

So, I think that is important so I would encourage MAG members that are interested in being part of this.  To send their comments in writing.  It can be general comments, it can also be comments which I think is useful in response to the specific BPF proposals but we cannot change the modality, not at this point, anyway, not until we've seen Markus's report which is that the BPFs are led by MAG members but they don't report to the MAG so that, I think, is part of the current modality and we don't really want to change that but I think your point is important.

That's one of the important points where all of the coordinators share progress and lessons where they will be useful.

Paul, is that okay?  Did you want to come back to me on that or does that address your question?

>> PAUL ROWNEY: That's fine.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So, thanks very much for that we are almost out of time.  We're actually doing not too badly so if there are no other questions or comments on the intersessional work, I want to give the floor to the Secretariat to talk to us about timelines, Secretariat, could you just put the agenda back, oh, there it is.  I've got it here.  So, now we've got to talk actually before we look at the timeline, should we talk about the WSIS forum.  Chengetai, can I give you the floor.  You did some work in finding out which MAG members would be there so if you can just give that feedback to the MAG and then we'll make a decision?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Chair.  So, you I sent out a doodle Poland I think we will have about 11 or 12 MAG members there during the WSIS forum who would be participating.  We do have a room for two days during the WSIS forum and another thing to note is that the with, SIS forum this day is a day ‑‑ than it was last year.

We are looking into having an event with the polish mission here in Geneva during the WSIS forum to publish the IGF in 2020.

One thing to note is that of course during the WSIS forum, there will be a lot of people there, especially from developing countries who will be there who we can sort of reach out to and inform them about the IGF and try and persuade them to come, especially the private sector, those key constituents that we are trying to increase their representation at the IGF meeting we also don't have to have just one event.  We could have two events. 

A lunchtime event.  We can have event ways what we can do to draw people in and that's another thing I just wanted to mention.  Is that in previous years, we have had events like a workshop but then it was like preaching to the choir because everybody in the room was basically an IGF poster so if we do it this year and when we look at what we should do this year, we should also keep in mind that we are trying to attract new people to come for a session that we're going to have so one suggestion is that we could come up with a group of MAG members who will be there and of course, MAG members who won't be there because a good idea is a good idea and they could help plan these session as well.

And of course, the host country will also be participating.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you for that, Chengetai.  Could you just discuss more because at the moment, o I'm not sure that's feasible.

>> CHAIR: I would not say it's not feasible.  It's just that the WSIS forum is between sixth and ninth of April.  The call for workshops has gone out.  We would need a good reason to have a MAG meeting and if we have a MAG meeting, the MAG meeting can only be for two days so the timing is not ideal to be at a point where you can make best use, and we can come up with something as well.

Just doing a cost‑benefit analysis as we see it, it may not be the best time but again, I'm not ruling anything out.  If there's a need or if we feel that there is a need to have a MAG meeting because people come to WSIS and they'll be in the room doing the MAG meeting or they're going to be coming in and out of the MAG meeting room attending other sessions.

So, these are all the things that we should look at.  But I think if we make a choice and then p Wai Min and Deniz are on the call and this can be discussed in New York as we go ahead but it depends on what the MAG recommends.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai so maybe we should look at the timeline and look at that again.

And theoretically, would it be possible to, on the Friday or I think H is the WSIS forum?  Is it from a Tuesday to a Friday or a Monday to a Thursday?  Monday to Thursday so theoretically up with could have a MAG meeting on Friday.  Would it be feasible to have a MAG meeting where you have only some MAG members face‑to‑face and others participate remotely.

We always have that to some extent but would it be worth doing that at least with those MAG members that are attending the WSIS forum in any case.

But, let me open the floor on this issue of the WSIS forum so we're asking for your input, any general input you have on the WSIS forum you, our activities, what we should be prioritizing.  What do you think is the most useful type of session for us to organize.

>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Anriette?  This is Veni.  I'm sorry, I can't raise my hand.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That's fine, Veni.  Go ahead.

>> VENI MARKOVSKI: I think that having a meeting on a Friday means that we're going to keep the people back home on Saturday.  We should keep that into consideration because some people may don't want to fly on a weekend so, if it's possible to do it on a Thursday, might be even better.

>> JUTTA CROLL: That Friday is a holiday in Switzerland, we won't be able to have that meeting on Friday.  Sorry to interrupt into the discussion.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for pointing that out, Jutta.  Still, any other b points on whether we should have a meeting.

>> JUNE PARRIS: Hello, this is June.  I can't find my button.  Chengetai did say he has a room for two days.  Which the two days is the room for?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: That is a very good question.  I'm trying to find out as we peek.  I'll interject as soon as I find out.

>> JUNE PARRIS: Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: While Chengetai is doing that, I think, maybe in the past, when the IGF has presented at the WSIS forum on the content of the program, did that also just produce participants that are from the IGF itself or is that where if we had greater success that's one question and the other question, anything that would present the outcomes of the Berlin IGF, do you feel that would also not attract new people, but even if it doesn't attract new people, isn't that important for us to do a session where we present the outcomes of the previous IGF?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: No, those are very good ideas and I think ‑‑ maybe it's a matter of looking at how we communicate its session and how we advertise the session.  Maybe that's where the deficiency was.  But yes, I mean, in the sessions that I do recall, it was basically a room full of IGF MAG members and people and the only people who were not familiar with the MAG were the two people doing the remote participation so yes, I think we should look at all the all the aspects.  Are we communicating it properly?  How do we more effectively draw people into the room?  Those are the things we should look at.  Yeah.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Timea, you have the floor.

>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you, Anriette.  Sorry for the delay.  I'm just wondering if you can look at this question from the other end and think about what the deliverables or output, what the desired insights of having a meeting at that time would be :  I'm wondering, I think it was a really good point that was raised just now by the Chair whether we could rather focus on having an information sharing or an open session or something like that where we would actually make sure that that audience that is there is well informed about the IGF, what happened there, what happened last year, what's going to be discussed this year, we will have a number of more prominent attendees hopefully if our rooms are during its mower high level forums, thinking about priming them so I'm wound igg if we is turn it into a more interim session rather than proper MAG meeting and forb those of us on the ground, I'm thinking about maybe having one of our virtual meetings, not a full day meeting but maybe two hour session where some of us are in the room, some of us are on the phone and pick one or two items that are really important for us to discuss or finalize and do that then.

But, I'm also thinking about not having a meeting for a meeting's sake and waste some of the IGF's precious resources but rather, use them wisely.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I like that proposal a lot.  I'm not sure if anyone is not happy with that proposal so to mistake sure I understood the proposal and Timea's input as and Chengetai's proposal.  We'll organize a session, then we have a MAG meeting, some face‑to‑face participants and we would identify a very specific topic or one or two topics that we would be ready to discuss at that time.  Based on our timeline and work program.  So, not a full MAG meeting.  But, still a meeting of MAG members, some who will be present remotely, some will be presented physically and we'll discuss topics that we are yet to identify and agree on.

I think that's a good suggestion so maybe we're running out of time yet and we can't discuss it too much, we can ask the Secretariat to document it.  Does anyone have any suggestions on that, Jutta?

>> JUTTA CROLL: yes, I wanted to support that suggestion.  When I put up my hand, I didn't know.  Take that as an opportunity to promote the three thematic tracks that we already had last year, transferring theming to the IGF 2020 and also, advocate for the fourth track that we now have provided on.

So, I do think that would be a perfect opportunity and a good program for that open session, and I'll also support very much to have that combined session like we have now the, virtual meeting.  Thank you.  You

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much.  Lucien, I see you suggested the floor.

>> LUCIEN CASTEX: Yes, I also support that.  I see on the funding part, a the lo of eye level stakeholders and with Poland, IGF, a number of ‑‑ might be a great opportunity.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Lucien, and I see there are communities in the chat that support this idea as well so Secretariat I think we have a clear mandate from the MAG on how to move forward on the WSIS forum.  We now just have to put some proposals in writing for them.

So, p we have eight minutes left.  (laughter)

As you can see, I like to finish on time for all your sakes in particular.

So, I think we are no further comments on the WSIS forum.  We have item 6, any other business, and I also wanted the Secretariat, if they have a timeline, do you have an updated timeline to share or would you rather send that by email, Secretariat.  Anja and Chengetai, are you ready to share?  I don't want to put you on the spot.  You can also just send us an email and by that I mean the time with the working groups.  Oh, there it is.  So if you just open that, it brings up the dependent and it's very clear so our next deadline is 26 February and we are building up to the call for workshops that will go out on the second of March.  And this timeline at the moment doesn't include the WSIS forum.  We've now decided it definitely will include the WSIS forum so I think that's enough on the timeline.

So, I'll open the floor now to the last agenda item, which is any other business and then we need to schedule our next call.

Does anybody have anything they want to bring up under any other business.  I see no one in the speaking queue.  I don't see any hands.  Sigh that Adama, that's a good suggestion.  That means that the working group on workshop proposals will need to give us a result of some kind.  Okay. I'm just looking at the chat so all of those are very good suggestions so let's look at how we can follow up on that, we still have time so I would suggest we set a date for the next call.  Secretariat, do you want to propose a time for the next call?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: So, last year, we usually had calls every second week so this is February 27th, so, two weeks from now will be February the 26th.  Is that okay and as we are rotating the time, that would be 2,000 hours on that day, 2000 hours UTC on the 26th.  We're rotating the time so that it's fair for everybody.

>> Okay. With me.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Chengetai so that would be 2000 UTC on 20th of February which also happens to be the day ‑‑ it's our next deadline, actually.  So, it would be important for the working groups to have their work done before the meeting.

Okay. I think if there are no other comments, if nobody has anything to add, then we can close the meeting.

I see that Timea is suggesting that we create a calendar of all the upcoming calls as we had last year so that people can plan ahead.

So, I think that is being planned, Timea.  I'm sure that will be made available.

>> CHAIR: Yes, we do have a calendar, we'll publish it.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: And it will be on the principle of a call every second week and with alternating time zones.


>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So, I think that's it.  I don't see any further hands.  Secretariat, any comments from yourselves?

Oh, I see Karim and Mary have their hands up.  Karim, you go first.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair.  Just a comment on the chat, regarding any, I think if we'll have some kind of introduction how we'll face such work.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Exactly.  We do have webinars planned.

>> Okay. Thank you, Chengetai.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Karim and I also would like to request the working group on workshop process.  Would you be able to present us with a report of some kind at the next call?  Is that possible for you?  You can communicate with me by email.  You don't have to answer me directly but I think it would be good if we can have some feedback from you at our next call.  Mary, yes, Jutta.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Working course led by Sylvia, Susan and me so I do think I'm the only one on the call and it done what you expect is us to present.  I don't think we will be able to revise the procedure that we had last year for this year within the next two weeks especially because I do think we are all interested in working on the timeframe at all and that would be a very short discussion.

Especially because we can ‑‑ but anything we can revise and the evaluation process would need to take place after that meeting.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think you're absolutely right, Jutta so Karim, I think it's not realistic to expect anything more on workshop process.

I think it would be useful, what I suggest for the new MAG members like Karim, if you can just suggest, just so that the new MAG members have a sense of what the process is, and Secretariat, maybe you can also share something on the list that gives the new MAG members a little bit of a sense of how it works but Jutta is absolutely right, the timing for any kind of substantive report won't work because we all have to focus on the track narratives.  Mary, you have the floor.

>> MARY UDUMA: Thank you for giving me the floor, Madam Chair.  I was temporarily out of communication so I didn't get what was concluded regarding meeting during the WSIS and again, I can see that just like Karim has said, it's always very, very effective when you do face‑to‑face in training, doing the training for evaluation of the proposal.  Maybe when the timing of the MAG meeting.

We cannot have evaluation, reduce it to two days and also take those work processes that would need, actually, face‑to‑face activity and take it during the period and I do support what Timea has said.

Again, I know that the high-level panel, they used to invite the Chair and the Chair maybe to talk about the IGF so those are also the opportunity for us to get outreach and reach out to high level participants as well as those that could be help as well.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Mary.  I think we'll share the outcome of this meeting.  We did make a decision around the WSIS forum.  I'll brief you.  I'll send you a little email around that because we will have some meeting.  We won't have a full meeting and we will try and utilize the platform as a strategic meeting for the IGF.

So, on that note, I think I don't see any other hands.  I am going to ask the Secretariat, give you the final, before I close the meeting.  Any other, any comments or inputs from the Secretariat?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: No.  None from us.  We will share the, those documents that we said we're going to share online through the mailing list.  That's it.  Yes.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So, thanks very much, everyone.  We had really good participation.  And talk to you in two weeks.  And working groups, I'll be available in any one of you need my help or my involvement.  I'll join all the mailing lists and I'll be available if you need me and wishing you lots of strength with the work.  We only have two weeks.

So, thanks very much.  And thanks to the Secretariat.  And good‑bye, and talk to you in two weeks' time.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette.  And thank you.

>> Bye‑bye all.