IGF 2020 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - III

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. 


>> ANRIETTE:  Well, good evening/good morning, everyone.  I'm just getting us ready to start.  It's almost time to start. 

      Secretariat, are you ready?

>> ANRIETTE:  Ah, yes we are.  We're just waiting for the time. 

>> So on that night.  This is Anriette Esterhuysen.  I'm from Johannesburg, and it's 10:00 at night, but I want to start our meeting and ‑‑ with something pleasant, which is to say happy birthday to one of our MAG members.  Jennifer, a little bird told me that today is your birthday.  Was that a truthful bird?  Is it really your birthday?

>> JENNIFER:  Thank you, Anriette, yes, it is.  That's very nice, thank you.  Well, on that night.  It's amazing that you're here with us on your birthday.  I'm not sure what time it is for you, but it's great to have you and happy birthday and maybe all the MAG members ‑‑ maybe we can start the meeting with people switching on their mics and saying happy birthday to Jennifer. 

>> Happy birthday, Jen. 

(Everybody saying happy birthday to Jennifer.)


>> Happy birthday, Jennifer.

>> ANRIETTE:  Okay.  I'll start our meeting.  Thank you very much, people, for joining us.  The early risers and the people for whom it's late in the day.  We really appreciate this. 

      Our agenda is up in front of us on our screens. 

(Clicking sound.)

>> And you've all been working very hard, and so we'll be going through that work, and we're going to look at themes and the narratives that you worked on, and then we'll review the call, the text of the call for workshops and the other workshop‑supporting documents, the manual and the submission form and our timeline, and then our final agenda item is the secretariat will brief us on what the plans are for the activities and our activities at the internet forum and section 5 if there's any business that anyone wants to add.  Is that agenda okay?  Can we adopt the agenda?  Is anybody willing to move that we adopt the agenda? 

(Clicking noise.)

>> No objections.  No objections.  Okay.  I don't see any hands, and I don't hear any voices.  I don't see anything in the speaking cue so in that note the meeting is open, so everyone, thanks again for your work.  I kept trying to keep an eye on it, and I was really impressed for the data tracks.  Sorry, if I was confused.  My apologies I was the one who was confused.  I wasn't clear if you were working on email or on Google Doc, but I sorted that out. 

(Clicking sound.)

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks for that and let's start and the order in which we will listen to your short presentations on the narratives that you produce is on the screen.  We'll go through it in the order that it's been uploaded by the secretariat. 

      And secretariat, thanks for getting this ‑‑

>> And just a quick reminder that the meeting is being recorded and transcribed, so we just have to say that at the beginning of each meeting just in case, yeah.

>> Thanks very much for that reminder Chenentai, and there's also a transcription for people to look at. 

      So can I now give the floor to the working group on the data the thematic track and the facilitators are Chenai, Maria Paz Canales.  I don't know who's presenting, but you have the floor.

>> Hi, thank you very much, hi, everyone, evening it's late for us.


>> So I'm just trying to pull up the document from my site.

>> And it's opening ‑‑ so we will have it on the screen on the Zoom screen as well.

>> Yep, so, first of all, I think that we even had the case of the confusion with the mailing lists where some of us was responding to the previous mailing list on data and ‑‑ data governance at internet.gov and Ben was quite helpful in actually redirecting us back to the right mailing lists and that confusion was actually experienced by quite a few of us on the list, so then what we've been working on, on this is ‑‑ so firstly the facilitators are myself, Maria Paz and Lucien who joined as one of the cofacilitators for the working group.  We had quite a lot of input for people on the group especially Susan who's help with ‑‑

(Clicking sound.)

>> CHENAI, so what we've done is built on the narrative of 2019, and then added pictures that were included in the 2020 feedback so ‑‑ I mean, the first thing that's already gone is the data governance aspects, so you can see our focus remains the same in terms of discussions on the fundamental challenges of ensuring the benefits of the data revolution to contribute to inclusive economic development while protecting the rights of people, oh, yes, Susan already pointed out the consistency is also from Serina as well should I should note Serina who also pointed out the need for consistency, but we achieved a rough consist because we had a back and forth do we build on a unit ‑‑ because Maria Paz had also signature the thematic descriptions. 

      So back to the thematic descriptions if you can scroll down on the screen because I can't operate my screen from my side on the document, secretariat, thank you.  Just a little bit up, slightly up.  Okay.  Great. 

      Yeah, so ‑‑ yeah, so then the data track is going to be working on contributing to identifying the based approaches to ensure the development of human‑centric data governance frameworks at national, international level, and we do hope to get more issues around data governance built up from last year, and we've worked on narrowing down the tags special mention to Maria Paz to this so previously we had quite a number of tags on this and what we've done is sort of like narrowed them down and to group them, so you can see that the digital identity, data governance and the subthings under that data and jurisdiction, data‑driven emerging technologies, data‑driven business models, and I think the business models comment also arose from on the internet as well, and this is one of the things we put into it, and I do believe this speaks to the track ‑‑


>> CHENAI:  And then data access, quality, interoperability and competition and innovation, and it's well noted that these are guiding questions not necessarily what needs to be taken on by the community and the commissions is to actually group them so please if you could scroll down.  Cubic please scroll down on the document.  Secretariat? 

>> For some reason it's not been updated but ‑‑

>> CHENAI:  Let me keep using my screen because I keep getting overtaken by the Zoom screen.

     And then under the illustratives policy questions we categorized them on the different tags of the kinds of work to emerge and the work was to make the questions much more simple and much more clear in what we were trying to achieve, and one of the comments was issues around how some of the questions might end up resulting in crossing over to another track especially, like ‑‑


>> CHENAI:  So what we tried to do is focus our questions on ‑‑ on data, and these are the questions that everyone can see ‑‑ I think everyone can see from their side and the document is also on mine, but, yeah, so they're all grouped under the tags that we came up with and with some illustratives questions ‑‑ illustrative questions. 

      So yeah, that's it from our side.  I'm looking forward to hearing any comments and any suggestions for the data working group.

>> MARIA:  Hi, this is Marie.  I want to compliment the last point about the questions and some of the questions are some reframing of the previous question policy question that we have towards the last year but some of the viewers are coming precisely from the input in the code, of course, it's not ‑‑


>> MARIA:  Because there was a huge variety of questions in the submission in the call but everything that was possible to accommodate according to these different ‑‑ these 6 issues or text or whatever you want to call them ‑‑ it was accommodated here so in that way we combine the two main goals set by the group keep is poop possible the good things that were coming from the previous year but also to provide a space to provide the feedback what we see from the community.  That's all from my side.  Thank you. 

(Clicking sound.)

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Chenai and Maria Paz for keeping everything structured.  Opening up the floor does anyone have any comments or questions for ‑‑ for people who had worked on this ‑‑ on this narrative and questions on the structure or text? 

>> So Lucien.

>> LUCIEN:  I just want to make a big comment at the beginning of the comment to all of the tracks, which is the question of ‑‑ it's a question about the policy questions themselves, so ‑‑ the policy questions that we worked on last year were there for examples for workshop proposers, and I think if we look at the link to the narratives from last year, there are only 5 policy questions.  This exercise seemed to evolve into identifying subthemes and policy questions under those subthemes, so I think it would be helpful at some point during the call if we kind of figure out what the purpose of those policy questions is.  If it is to actually get people to submit proposals responding to these policy questions in particular, that is at cross purposes of the description of the ‑‑ of the call for workshops, so at present it's a little confusing, and I would just ask that maybe we try and arrive at a shared understanding of what these policy questions and tags are.  Thanks. 

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks Lucien, and I think that's very useful, and I think we should respond to that before we move on, but before I do let's just check ‑‑ Ben is asking what the link to the transcript ‑‑ so if secretariat, if you can help with that, and then also everyone please note ‑‑ note that Luis has posted the link for using the speaking cue in the chat, in the Zoom chat.  I will carry on keeping an eye on the hands as well in the participants window but do use the speaking cue if you can.  I'm going to answer Lucien's questions and my understanding is what we agreed * agreed to at the MAG meeting two weeks ago at the call we're trying to find a little way between making the workshop proposal process easier by giving more information about what our thinking is, about the tracks but at the same time we don't want to yet impose subthemes, but we're trying to ‑‑ so we're trying to find a middle way between developing the subthemes in a bottom‑up way but also giving proposing some clarity, but my proposal is we will share these policy questions, and these issuing as questions and issues that have been merged from the consultation so and from the MAG's own processing of input as we proceed for the community, but they're not finite, so if I submit a workshop proposal I can associate it with one of these policy questions, but I can also put in a brand‑new policy question, so that's ‑‑ that's really what my understanding of it is, but I don't think we have clarified that, not 100 percent so, secretariat, if you can give us an understanding, and then open this for a brief discussion and please if I misremember what we agreed, I stand to be corrected.

>> That's my understanding as well that, yes, I mean ‑‑ I think you stated it quite well, Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thank you.

>> Thank you for giving me the floor, and I was wondering about the policy questions because when I was working on the trust track and as we band together, and I saw from the data as well as the inclusion narrative that we have now such ‑‑ for me it's an overwhelming request of policy questions, and I'm wondering a bit if this might reduce the creativity of workshop proposes to describe their own policy questions because from my experience somehow trying to phrase a policy question helps you to focus on the theme of your workshop proposal so if you take already policy questions that you find in the narrative that might reduce in which cases the quality of the workshop proposals ‑‑ so I'm not sure how we can achieve a balance between that but from my perspective what we have now have in the three thematic tracks is an overwhelming policy questions and workshop proposals might get confused for that, so I propose to reduce it to that what we might think is the most important but with a variety of questions ‑‑ but not such a long really overwhelming list, thank you. 

>> That's a really good point.  Let's hear a few more inputs, and then we can make a so where are you next?

>> Thank you for giving me the floor because I didn't attend the MAG meeting ‑‑ from my normal track I don't agree.


>> Sorry about that, so I think it's actually having a variety of policy questions that show a variety of experiences as was

>> Additional questions that we're very technical; right?  And I realized I haven't looked at the narratives of which policy questions are around the working groups.  My experience from last year was that we saw lots of people submitted proposals around similar questions to the ones that were provided in the narratives as examples, but I also ‑‑ and also I submitted the different questions but talking to people in Berlin people were saying, know no, we didn't submit a proposal because we didn't think it was going to fit; right?  So in what the MAG was going to pick and, you know ‑‑ why make the effort, et cetera, et cetera, so I think maybe a way of shortening the list or ‑‑ or maybe having a sample link with all the policy questions have the policy questions that are relevant to the different stakeholder groups or, otherwise, maybe it's too narrow and not inclusive enough that people have something to contribute to that particular track and ‑‑ and that is actually not the purpose of the event because it's to have a focus agenda but to capture all the ‑‑ all ‑‑ some themes and possible exceptions that are around that particular topic, so thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks.  Paul?

>> Good evening or good morning.  I just want to agree with much has actually been said.  The intent if I remember correctly last year was to try and get some guidance on how a policy question could be structured, but it was clear that people were looking at those policy questions as part of how they're supposed to respond.  There was a misunderstanding on the intent of the use of the subpolicy questions that we put forward.  I think there is value in us thinking about policy questions 'cause it does help us substantiate the narrative and other aspects of what we're working on right now, but, yeah, we definitely need to get some thought on how we use those in the core workshops, thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Paul.

>> PAUL:  Thank you, Anriette, yes, on the policy questions I think they're valuable for two reasons.  One to provide an example of what a policy question and demonstrate that you have to present an issue in a way that considers different perspectives, and it's not just about promoting a single solution, but it's about a discussion and an examination, so I think providing policy questions is already valuable for that reason. 

      And also I think it can be helpful to kind of give a bit more color what we mean by these tags because just single and one and two‑word descriptions gives a tag to click on but a policy question helps to give more of an impression what we mean by those particular issues, so I think it's good to include those policy questions, and I think it's good that they be clear and why they are there, and they were titled illustrative policy questions, and there's probably somewhere else in the call for workshop explains that there are examples, and they're designed to help demonstrate what we consider a policy question to be and the kind of issues that we're looking at, but they are not exclusive, and we invite other issues as well. 

      And finally, I ‑‑ I think ‑‑ I might ‑‑ personally, were to have 5 policy questions, but I think looking at some of the tracks and including the one on trust which I've led ‑‑ we've ended up with probably too many policy questions.  The challenge is how to agree amongst us which ones are the most important and useful and interesting examples, but I think it's probably some kind of effort to trim them back down to a more reasonable number.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thank you, Ben, and Maria Paz, and then sues.

>> MARIA:  Hi, thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor.  I just want to kind of go over my comment in this chat that it's ‑‑ I understand the concern about, like, providing too many policy questions can be confusing for the people in terms of the level of information that they need to process, but what I heard from the experience in the last year is precisely in many cases what Silvia was describing, is that people were not sure that the topics that they were interested fit really in some of the track, and they ended not spitting proposals or thinking that they were something that could be curved, and they were not in the track and not discussed on the track.  We can probably find probably a middle ground and the exercise that I particularly did in the track narrative, it was only with the purpose of trying to bring back in a discussion as much possible of the richness of the consultation process also and to provide also an illustration for ourselves as a working group in this track of what we were pointing out when we were talking about each one of these teams or issues of tracks, so not saying definitely what should be included, but I definitely think that just going with three or four general policy questions ‑‑ I think it can be leaving out a lot of the richness of the discussion that people want to insert in the tracks.  That's from my side, thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Maria Paz.  I just want to ‑‑ I can see the speaking tier is getting longer, and I'm concerned that we still have to go through all the tracks, and I want to draw a line if that's okay.  If there's anyone who wants to speak on this topic, add your name now, so that we can close this discussion and move on to the rest of the agenda.

     So I don't see anyone else

      So next we have Susan, and then Paul, and then Timea, and then Jennifer, and then Roberto.  Susan?

>> SUSAN:  Um, so I think it's ‑‑ oh, sorry, hi, this is Susan.  I think it's important to consider that we try and consider this discussion in the construct of the work evaluation process and also the call for workshop proposals.  So again, the purpose of ‑‑ and we're discussing the purpose of the policy questions, but they were there as examples of good policy questions kind of as a format, so people could use these and write their own policy questions into ‑‑ into the proposal.  Now ‑‑ and I think unless we're very clear, we risk the proposers glancing at them and kind of using the same policy questions which could write their own same workshop proposals on the policy questions, and I do think we need to be clear. 

      On a coms perspective I like Silvia's perspective of using ‑‑ linking out to all of the different policy questions ‑‑ you can link out to it ‑‑ to a separate document that will have much more examples ‑‑ many more examples.  That way folks will not miss out on the opportunity to as Maria Paz says ‑‑ like understand the richness and the diversity of all the different considerations of one theme.  I think if we include model policy questions ‑‑ I'd say four or five, which is what we did last year under the narrative from a proposer's point of view it's much easier to digest, much easier to understand.  Too much information can be overwhelming, so I think in order to acknowledge, Anriette, your description of what we're trying to do through this exercise and to also acknowledge community input but also not overwhelm the proposer, I would suggest that we offer a link that lists all the many types of policy questions in a separate document.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Susan. 


>> PAUL:  Is that we do need ‑‑ we do need a limited number of the policy questions that are illustrative that would sort of kick start the thinking of those who were looking at putting in workshop proposals and to me the important thing is the link with the narrative because we have in the various narratives a lot of details and a lot of examples, and I think we need to make clear to the ‑‑ to those who are interested in making proposals that they can draw ‑‑ they can draw on the narrative and the many aspects of the individual topic that are mentioned in the narrative in proposing their own questions, and I propose that the long questions that we have in some of the attached to some of the narratives right now ‑‑ while there certainly ‑‑ I have no problems with the questions themselves, but I agree one of those who say it looks a bit overwhelming.  I would be okay with Susan's suggestion as having them as an annex.  But again, my ‑‑ my 2 cents worth is that we need to have a limited number of illustrative questions and have a question that they're not definitive, and those are free to draw on the narratives and all the pictures in the narrative to create their own policy questions.

>> ANRIETTE:  Okay.  Thanks for that, Paul.  And Timea?

>> TIMEA:  Hello, and good evening just to add to the conversation from my point of view.  I think we're addressing different problems with the same conversation, so I'd like to, like, draw ‑‑ for me there's three different issues that we need to consider in different conversations, so I hear us having a complex problem or a topical problem, and I hear an information problem, and then I hear a training problem.  I think what is the narrative and in the narratives I talk about the first part of these documents be developed, so the description part, that is our general convex purview of the MAG, and that is what we are supposed to be doing.  To talk about the issue of ‑‑ from the various multistakeholders that the IGF how does the MAG see the issue, and that's what the committee need to hear for us to enjoyed them, you know, on what the conversation is going to be at the IGF on the specific tracks. 

      Now, for the community to understand what is it that we expect from them to do in proposing their workshop is that information and communication, but I don't think that will solve with 1 or 100 policy questions because even if we come up with all the questions that the 50 of us can have, we'll probably have a person that will have a 50 plus 1 question based on what needs to be discussed at the IGF and, so the committee needs to hear for us, and okay., what is it that we can do to propose our issues into the IGF?  That's a whole different discussion than the narrative.

     And then on the third point, it's a training issue and understanding issue of how is ‑‑ what is a policy question.  How is it formulated and how should that be considered in the context of the IGF, which is inherently a global discussion, so I think that we need to keep those three ideas in mind when we think about the narratives and also not forget that we have a description part, and we have an associated issues list, so we are setting out a global view of what we're trying to focus on.  We have talked about a series of issues ahead to help the committee ‑‑ you can discuss about these things perhaps or others under this track, and then here is what we think or how we think a question and the specific issues can be orchestrated, and then focus on the information and communication part of our problem to equip the community of the knowledge and the skills to, basically, the come up with their own issues they want to discuss and present them in a way that the MAG understands it, and then put it on their agenda, so I don't think we need to focus on, you know, carrying all the issues captured by the policy questions.  I think we need to focus them having understandable, concise, clear information for the community.  Thanks, and I'm sorry for being so long.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Timea.  Jennifer?

>> JENNIFER:  Thanks Madam Chair.  I think all the colleagues have El conveyed all the points that I want to highlight up but something I want to bring up, but as the MAG we do evaluate the proposals of the policy questions that's one aspect of the evaluation questions, so I think it's important for us to be very illustrative when we put this narrative out. 

      I agree with Susan and other colleagues that, you know, too many policy questions out there will be overwhelming an annex I could support, but the thing is we could never really fully contemplate every single policy question that they could come up with, and we run the risk of being too proscriptive.  If we have a very long list of questions people may assume, hey, this is all the MAG wants to see, which is definitely not what we want to project out there.  I think the most important part is I think what Timea did say to give them guidance and the focus that the MAG really wants to see at the IGF this year.  The communications issue and problem we can definitely highlight and solve with this and other aspects as well including perhaps even giving webinars to different communities if we ‑‑ if we so feel like it. 

      I think the IGF secretariat did do a few outreach events in the community how better workshop proposals, and I'll just stop here because I think there's a lot of people right now.

>> ANRIETTE:  Roberto?

>> Roberto:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  I also support what has been said by several members.  I think we get two groups of questions.  One that's going to be to the call as examples, and we need to select which one is going to be there and besides that that could be a good thing to have ‑‑ the annex or the parallelist that actually is going to be a response to all the concerns that people experienced during the call or validations and subteams.  Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thank you, and Jutta?

>> JUTTA:  Jutta speaking.  Thank you for giving me the floor.  I want to call us here how we came to the idea of policy questions last year, and that was more or less ‑‑ we thought it from the end of the process that we wanted to produce a real tangible outcome in the workshops and that we thought, and okay., if we have policy questions, then we might come up with some that helps to phrase recommendations for policy, so that was the idea, and then we came up with that example, illustrate tives policy questions to help people to phrase the questions that that workshop proposals should be addressing.  And what we have seen then in the evaluation of the workshop proposals was that some of the proposals use these illustrative examples, but most of them just had their own very long list of questions, some were research questions.  Only a few were policy questions so ‑‑ and that's the reason why I do think that we would all benefit from a reduction.  We need to give guidance to workshop proposals.  We should not limit their own creativity in phrasing questions, but we needles to see the situation that we might ‑‑ in addition to the already long lists that we've produced now, we will get longer and longer lists from workshop proposals and in the end I do think that will not help us to come to ‑‑ to tangible outcomes in the workshops but create a bit more confusion then.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  And thanks for that, Jutta.  This is quite difficult because there's not a natural or easy consensus here.  I think that what I've heard is that some people should include all the policy questions that we've received.  There's one proposal on the table to include them but separate document that one has to click through, and then there are proposals to reduce the number of questions.  I think where we are in agreement is that we want to make it very obvious to proposers to formulate their own question, and I just looked at that definition that was posted in the chat. 

      I also ‑‑ we shouldn't patronize our community.  There's actually people who propose workshop to the IGF that have far more expertise in formulating policy questions than we as MAG members do.  There are different ways of thinking about policy questions.  I would add that as another portion, but, you know ‑‑ my suggestion at this point ‑‑ I'll make a proposal, and then maybe we should continue with the tracks, and then think ‑‑ and then come back to this.  To me it sounds like the middle ground proposal here would be to ‑‑ to include some questions to make clear that they are not exhaustive.  They are examples of questions and to make it easy for people to access the full list of questions that have been ‑‑ have emerged so far but not necessarily on the same page so as to not make the page too cluttered, so we asked each track to come up with key questions that stand up quite clearly, so that we're not overwhelming, but that also make it ‑‑ we can ask them to click through to others or make it possible, and that we also give them the option of adding new questions, so that's kind of my proposal at the moment as a middle ground proposal.  I'm not sure if it will really work.

     Again, I think I would be ‑‑ I mean, I think we should provide an example of what we mean by policy question, but I think we should also ‑‑ we should be cautious about not being too proscriptive about that either frankly, I would say, but let's think about that as a compromised proposal, and I'm looking at Silvia's message here, and then continue with the tracks but thanks very much, everyone on your input on this because it's very important that we get this right, and I think what I would propose is that, secretariat, you give us a timeline that we can actually put this into practice, whatever we agree on tonight, and then we give the MAG members a couple of days to look at what it looks like and the workshop submission form before we make it live, so that we make it clear that ‑‑ make sure everyone is happy, so thanks very much for that, everyone.  We'll have to revisit and finalize this decision at the end of tonight's meeting, but let's continue now with the next track, which is ‑‑ remind me.  Who's next, thanks very much, secretariat. 

      Inclusion, you have the floor.

>> PAUL:  Paul Rowney speaking.  I'm open up the floor on inclusion and allow my fellow lead cofacilitators to jump in and also add some pep to this conversation, but on the inclusion working group we have 5 lead facilitators.  We tried to get some breadth in the facilitators, so that we got people from year 1, year 2, year 3 to try to provide some continuity in what the best practice and theme might continue in the future. 

      When we look at the narrative, we looked at the 2019 narrative, which is similar to some extent to the current narrative.  There is a movement away from just different inclusion what we say a bit more border topic inclusion, so we've restructured the narrative around inclusion and tried to accommodate some thoughts how we can actually broaden that narrative, so if we look at the narrative, you know, we actually clearly state that there as well that we're building on the 2019 additional inclusion track.  That this is a new inclusion track and that we want to engage the community on the issues, challenges and solutions for the achievement of an equitable and inclusive internet. 

      We then go in a little bit about what we does the inclusion being about where we stated inclusion is about ensuring those with limited or no access to the internet such as the unserved, underserved communities as well as those which the internet is not accessible, gender, affordability and for any other reason.  It's quite an exhaustive list.  We can't state every.  I now included equal opportunity to be meaningful connected to the internet and adding the meaningful, and then jumping a bit on the A1 connectivity discussions. 

      Inclusion is also about the activities related to the achievement of an inclusive information society by engaging all stakeholders and ensuring everyone's voice is heard and treated equally in the decision‑making process and ensuring everyone has the right access, skills and motivation to reap the social benefits of going online and participating in the additional economy, and then we close it in stating that inclusion is a key contributor towards a stronger economy and enhanced economic development through shared wealth, shared employment and equal opportunity for all and an enabler toward the fulfillment of the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development.  While it might not be the final ‑‑ I think we're quite close to how our narrative would be structured pending thoughts from the MAG group. 

      When we drop down to the policy questions, these so far just are indicative policy questions.  I think we do need to dig a little deeper into how we're going to use these in the corporate workshops.  We're just trying to capture across the different ‑‑ the possible subthemes of what of a sample policy question could be to help ‑‑ particularly the new proposals that will try to structure workshop missions that it can help strengthen their proposal particularly around the policy questions. 

      If we look at the list of related issues we've done a first dive into this but ‑‑ you know, this is a list that will either expand or contract based on the submissions that we receive, so it's not cast in stone and the same on the possible subthemes. 

      Looking at what happened last year, the actual building of the subthemes came out of the workshop proposals that were selected against the top 20, and it's possible this will also shake or change a little as we get the workshops coming in, but it gives a indication of any given tracker forward and how we feel the subthemes might begin to construct themselves. 

      So on that note, I just want to allow any other member of the working group and also thank everybody on the working group for their contributions because I think we've come far forward with this particular work, thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks very much, Paul, and everyone else. 

      Anyone else want to add?  I don't see any hands. 

      Any questions for the inclusion group or any suggestions?

>> Hello?

>> ANRIETTE:  Hello. 

>> Can I ‑‑ I'm ‑‑


>> ANRIETTE:  Now you can speak or sing.


>> I'm a very small comment in the list of issues you mentioned digital divide, and you in parenthesis you have kinds of digital device, and I think that's a bit restrictive because you can't have other looks at the digital divide question not only age, gender, disability and geographic ‑‑ it removed geographic ‑‑ sorry, maybe remove the "and," and put an "et cetera."  It's complicated because people might recess if it's not age, gender, disability or geographic, we are not dealing with digital divide, so this is limited; right?  Everybody understand?

>> PAUL:  Can I jump on that and thank you for that.

>> Yeah.

>> PAUL:  We didn't dive too deep into the issues yet.  Our main focus was on the narrative, and that's something we do need to shape up, and I totally support what you just said there, thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  It's a good point and also in those issues they are an additional divide, but they're also social divide and economic divide so, in fact, there's an inclusion issue if you take gender, for example, both at the memory of digital inclusion but social, economic inclusion, which, I think, what is nice about the narrative is that it does touch on the broader dimension but ‑‑

>> Yes.

>> ANRIETTE:  But I'm sure the group can go back and think about that.  Plus any other comments for them? 

      I don't see any so well done and also noting that you've got a slightly different format to the previous group, which is fine, you know, it's useful to see different ways of presenting the information, so thanks very much, inclusion group. 

      Next we have the trust thematic track group.  You have the floor.

>> Hello?  Hi, Anriette, this is Ben Wallis for the record and thank you to the secretariat for displaying the draft document on the screen, so let me just take you through also I can kind of review how I explain this by email to the MAG yesterday. 

      So as a basic principle with a narrative, I tried take the approach of having a balanced narrative that indicates opportunities and threats.  And, again, with the issues and the policy questions try to ensure that are presented as neutral and trying to not to pre‑judge the narrative on the issues. 

      The document group issues separates in 6 subthemes and describing the different topics that could fall into the track. 

      As Paul noted just now, last year the subthemes were created to reflect the workshop proposals.  This year we have the benefit of looking back at last year and at the Berlin messages to think about the various issues, how the various issues might be grouped.

     However, the groupings would, of course, need to be reviewed once it was cleared which workshops have been approved and the theme, so we can ensure there's a helpful organization of the actual sessions, which are going to take place under this theme and categories. 

      I want to thank ‑‑ thank colleagues for input what we had from Maria Paz, from Anriette, Jutta, Sylvia, Roberto and Lucien.  I've left some comments in two areas of the draft.  The first one right at the top of the document is a minor one, and it was reflected ‑‑ I haven't been able to close the loop with Jutta yet in the last few years we've been able to discuss and agreed our preference would be to replace that word "develop," with "unleash," for the internet to unleash its potential.  It's an edit I want to make after the call. 

      The more substantial question is about this final subtheme of fragmentation and sovereignty ‑‑ and, which is one that came up a lot in Berlin and ‑‑ including from both secretariat general of the UN and the German chancellor, and it came up to the responses from the corps of validation. 

      In this document it's identified as a set group of topics and Jutta pointed out you could see this as a cross‑cutting issue which relates not only to trust but to other tracks.  I wasn't sure how we accommodate that weren't four‑theme structure of the IGF and under which tracks or how we might invite the community to make proposals on this topic. 

      Roberto also suggested any question about jurisdictions and the impact of the trans‑territorial regulations under international sovereignty and to the jurisdiction trans territory should be part of a something title, so I wasn't sure confided how to resolve that issue. 

      And one solution might be to put these issues under the second subtheme on the security, stability and resilience structure because in terms of how ‑‑ that would be looking at it narrowly in terms of how internet shutdowns and assertions is of sovereignty could impact the internet structure, and it should be looking at these issues in relation to how the structure works and the strengthen of the structure. 

      Another approach or something could be done in tandem would be allowed for fragmentation issues where appear as relevant and other themes, so, for example, data track might look at impact of data flows of shutdowns or digital sovereignty initiatives, national, internet that kind of thing, so that was the one open question I'd been interested to hear from and, of course, comments on the rest of document as well and, yes, Sylvia, and I also wanted to be a cofacilitator and maybe the first thing I could do is ask if she wants to add anything before I pass back to you, thanks.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thank you.

>> SILVIA:  Nothing on my end.  Thanks for all your hard work, thanks.

>> ANRIETTE:  So thanks to Ben and everyone else.  Any comments or questions?  I see no one in the speaking cue ‑‑ oh, there is somebody.

>> Sorry.

>> ANRIETTE:  Go ahead.

>> I'm not in the speaking cue, but I did raise my hand in the chat room.

>> ANRIETTE:  Go ahead, Bennie.

>> The two questions ‑‑ where to put ‑‑ I mean, the ‑‑ whether it should be in the DNS or go with the second option?  I would go with the second option that you could not shut the internet down without the DNS at all.  We have examples of that.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks for that, Bennie, and Ben, I was just wondering because you raised the important question about how we deal with cross‑cuts or overlaps and ‑‑ and I'm not sure we don't have much time to talk about that now, but we can look at how that was done next year, but I want to just put it down for us to talk about because we can be creative in the same way that we've ‑‑ we've come up with key messages, and they were very effective in 19.  Maybe we can look at coming up with some outputs that pick up on some of the cross‑cutting issues.  I just last year they were cross‑cutting themes but maybe there are some substantive policy areas where there's overlap that we can also look at identifying.  Once we evaluate the workshop proposals ‑‑ I mean, once we start structuring our agenda, then maybe we can do it then and identify where these overlapping areas are, and we don't want to have too many because if there's too many we can't do anything useful for them, so that's my only thought, which is a partial response to some of the questions you raised. 

      Ben, do you want to react to Bennie's suggestion and all respond and my suggestion or shall we move on?

>> BEN:  I should react quickly.  Yeah, I appreciate ‑‑ I appreciate that comment from Bennie, and I'd also think Silvia, and I both appreciated ‑‑ we had a couple other inputs from the group which helped us from the technical community that help us understand in more department the technical aspects of this, and you say reflect, and I appreciate from Bennie's comment that it's not necessarily something that can just be parked under No. 2 in my document that kind of infrastructure and should, therefore, be kept separate at this point and I noted Silvia's comment in the chat that we should keep it ‑‑ allow for discussion under other themes but also keep it as part of the trust tracks, so it might be just a way to make sure that it's ‑‑ the way it's a expressed in this document is to is ‑‑ it's focused in terms of trust and not in relation to inclusion or data, and we other tracks consider picking it up if they think it's relevant.

     And then finally, yes, I think this is one of the areas ‑‑ I haven't counted them up, but this is one of the proposals with many illustrative policy questions, so we'll wait for the specific guidance from the secretariat and UN after the call, but I think we will make an effort to trim those down, so that the final document has fewer illustrative policy questions even if the decision is to have a more detailed ‑‑ a more lengthy list in a separate document, so I'll take on board that general aim to have fewer policy questions, but I'm waiting for the specific tasks to be set, thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Ben, and thanks to everyone else who worked with Ben.

     So we now move on to our new track and the last track for tonight, and that's environment.

>> KARIM:  Hey, everybody.  Karim for the record.  We'll go over together what we did along with our lead cofacilitators and June I'm honored to have a experienced colleague, and I also want to thing everyone for their ‑‑ to this track.  I'm not going to list everybody because we worked on Google Docs, and there's anonymous offpitches and whatnot but thank you all for your valuable comments. 

      Quickly in the process there we had on getting to this document, we didn't have neither the constraint nor the help of constructing this track last year, so we really had the luxury of the openings up with a clean slate.  And writing our idea down, and I want we had original text for Maria Paz and a deep dive on the specific issues and how we can consider climate change, and we also used the notes and the analysis of the secretariat from the community input, so that where the background works. 

      And third we came up with a description that we very quickly lead on, basically, we wanted to highlight at the beginning of our description the urgent ‑‑ urgency of this problem that we are facing in terms of climate change and environmental issues and to know that this problem creates other solutions and how ICTs and the internet and new and emerging technologies can have a powerful impact in the face of this urgent challenge that the world is facing, so we also wanted to be transparent about the fact that this can have both a positive but also potential negative implications, so we started out with the positive noting how ICTs can be deployed to foster climate action and also to see what can be the possible challenges around the initial energy use of the developing of these technologies but also spillover effects on how they affect consumption and how pollution associated devices manufacturing from technologies, and then we, basically, have a mission statement of our track, which is:  How can we look at digital technologies ‑‑

>> Hi, this is Mary.

>> TIMEA:  Sorry, I have some feedback.  Can you hear me?

>> ANRIETTE:  Yes, we can hear you.  Go ahead.  Timea.

>> TIMEA:  Sorry, I didn't know if it was my phone or something going on apology it is for that, so we finished our description with a quick mission statement for the track, which is let's look at how can we foster the qual Tate tives and the and the policies for clean technology while engaging a negative impact, so this is the first part of our document. 

      The last part and if you can help me with scrolling down, there are other associated tags and issues, which are, basically, our brainstorming of our group on what potential issues we can think of that fall under this track.  And, again, here we got a lot of from the document that we will share from the secretariat on some of the community input, and we also listed the SGDs that led to the impact, which is fairly straightforward, and then we had a longer discussion on the policy questions whereby we started out like everybody else driving up all the questions that we could think of in relation to this, and then thinking about how we can make the amount of questions digestible and understandable by a workshop proponent so what we tried to do is to consolidate our question not to go too much into specifics but to demonstrate to the reader how the various area that I mentioned earlier could be ‑‑ could be formulated or looked at from various policy questions, so we have a question that deals with the potential of this technology to foster climate action both within the digital sector but also how technologies can have more traditional sectors of the economy to go green and also highway we can take stock of the existing narratives and how we can improve them. 

     The second question we wanted to highlight is really to look at the carbon footprint and the possible negative implications of the ‑‑ there will environment and how those can be mitigated, and then we talked about emerging technologies, and that's something that is on everybody's minority lately to look at how emerging technologies can play a role in relation to various facets of climate change and other environmental issues, and then lastly we wanted to have a question that is not necessarily on ‑‑ on the implementation but right on the actual policy process side and how we can make use of the technology to make sense of the enormous data that is out in the world on climate change and climate issues and how that can help in evidence‑based policy creation and how it can help understand and foster effective policy decisions.

     So that was our thinking, so I don't have a long list of policy questions here, but we do have them in the background, all our questions that we started out with, and this is to have a fuller list that we can definitely work on that.  Thanks everyone for your comments.  And, of course, over to my cofacilitators if you have anything to add that I might have forgotten.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Timea, and June, Karim, anything do you want to add anything?  No. 

      Anyone else any questions, any comments and how does this look to us?  How does this fourth track that we didn't necessarily want ‑‑ how does it look now that we actually see it on paper? 

>> Hello, can you hear me?

>> ANRIETTE:  Yes, go ahead.

>> Hi, I just want to thank Timea for putting the narrative, you know ‑‑ making it a bit more compact and at the same time she's done a really good job of including everything that I had


Everything that I had in mind.  Not that we have four policy questions.  She's not really doing too many of those, but she said everything that we need toast in those 4 policy questions, so I want to thank Timea for actually wrapping it up and turning it into a very positive document.  Thank you, Timea.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thank you, so any comments or questions for this group? 

>> Hello?

>> ANRIETTE:  Yes, go ahead.

>> PAUL:  It's Paul Rowney here.  I had my hand up in a queue somewhere.  I'd just like to commend the working group for the work done.  Just thinking back to last year that there's a lot of heavy lifting to build this from scratch.  The other working groups had the benefit of building from what was built last year.  And looking at this particular theme, environmental sustainability it's also a bit cross‑cutting as well, so I'm just thinking to myself how and if, you know, we would weave this into the other themes data inclusion and trust because there may be questions that arise from both tracks, and we've also got to make sure with this specific track it doesn't move away from what we're trying to achieve around the internet governance and that we keep the workshop proposers on address the internet‑related governance issues and how we present this when we for the corps for workshop proposals is critical.  That we make sure people don't start pug workshop proposals that are not related to internet governance.  We might need to think about how the corporate proposals might accommodate this particular ‑‑ it shouldn't be isolated or separated from the others, but we might want to address how in general we do that to make sure the proposals here are not just focusing on not internet governance‑related thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Paul, and Karim, I see your hand was up as well.  Do you want to go ahead?

>> KARIM:  Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.  I thank June and Timea for what you said I would like to highlight something just take a look on the ‑‑ on the IGF2020, and I saw that the IGF 2020 model is internet‑united, and I'd like to ask if ‑‑ regarding the IGF model ‑‑ if we need to orient ‑‑ we need to ‑‑ to take into account this ‑‑ this model in all ongoing activities.  I think that's, for example, in terms of ‑‑ we can ‑‑ we can see or we can orient our works in terms of internet infrastructure how we can unite it or ‑‑ and so as internet is considered today as in terms of globalization, in terms of connecting people around the world, how today we can unite the world by using internet.  I think that's ‑‑ we can give more sense on the IGF as a global forum if we can ‑‑ in own tracks and own activities we're trying to in doing we can link it with the real life that we have.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks for that Karim. 

      And ‑‑ I mean, we'll talk about that later, and I think that's a good suggestion, but I will also remind everyone that the model that was chosen by the host country is very high‑level.  It's fairly abstract, and it doesn't mean we can't work with the, but we also don't have to feel bound by it, the tracks can also have their own separate identities, but it's a nice idea.  It's a good idea to look at Linkages. 

      And next I see Ben.

>> BEN:  Yes it's Ben again, and I was going to respond to two ‑‑ the two points that Paul made, and I lost my ‑‑ one of them was the fact about issues in the environment cross‑cutting, and so is there a way to integrate them?  And, so I think we made the decision last time even though I wasn't a fan of integrating it horizontally we made a decision to have it as a separate track, but I think that provided us an opportunity to lighten the load from the other 3 tracks so, for example, in data, how can data be used to tackle environmental challenges?  That no longer needs to be added to the long list of issues looked at in the data tracker.  It could be an issue in the environment tract even if it could conceivably be relative with a data theme. 

      I can't remember what the other one was, but I think I was going to support it.  I'll leave it there.  Thanks.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Ben, and I think that that ‑‑ we should note that is a task actually and secretariat can help with that to ‑‑ to look through all the questions, whether they are the long list or the short list make sure that we do lighten those lists of questions by taking out questions that could fit into another track in particular these new tracks.  That's a really beneficial thing.  Jennifer?

>> JENNIFER:  I definitely want to highlight what Paul mentioned about bringing the narrative back towards internet governance.  I really want to commend Timea and June and Karim and the team for actually putting pen to paper.  It's actually heavy lifting to be able to create this from scratch and not having a framework from previous years.  I think we also had discussion about this in previous years how we can keep, you know, emerging issues like AI and IoT back into, you know, the main focus of our ‑‑ our IGF, which is the part is internet governance in relation to all these important topics. 

      One thing that I think that we can do, and I think we might have done this organically last year ‑‑ I'm looking forward to ‑‑ when we actually look at the proposals we get and when we're divided into the different themes ‑‑ when we evaluate ‑‑ this has been ‑‑ anything else between the MAG members recommendations between different themes to have workshops kind of cont6emplated or evaluated in a different track, so I want to kind of put a flag there. 

      I know when it comes the secretariat kindly already done a first cut of all the analysis, but I do want to mention because a lot of these things are cross‑cutting when we do the evaluations as a whole, we should definitely keep in mind at the end to allow us to kind of recommend workshops that do work better in other themes.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Jennifer. 

      Paul, are you back in the queue or not?

>> PAUL:  I don't know where that hand up came from to be honest.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Okay.  So thanks ‑‑ thanks for that and thanks for that that flag as well, Jennifer.

     So I don't see anyone else in the queue and all hands on the participants list so thank you very much, everyone, for your work in this particularly this last group who all worked from scratch.  Thanks to Maria Paz and Timea and Karim and June and everyone who worked on that. 

      So on that note, and I really am very impressed with the work you've all done in the short space of time but let's now move on to Item No. 3 which we've started dealing with in part, and that's the review of call for workshops and content and design for ‑‑ and my proposal is we've got some suggestions on the table.  Susan thanks very much for sending some edits, and then we have this discussion about questions and how to deal with the policy questions, how to frame them. 

      What I want to suggest that we open the floor for more commenting on the current draft documents including the edits that Susan proposed to one of them and that we then note those comments and give secretariat some time to make those changes.  We post them for you tomorrow, and then we give you until Monday to comment. 

      Does that sound like an acceptable timeline, secretariat?  If we open it for more input now, and we make those changes, and then we give more people to comment on machine.

>> Yes, that's fine.

>> ANRIETTE:  Is that fine, and okay.  So I'm now opening the floor for input on the IGF 2020 call for workshop proposals and thanks, Louise for opening the document and secretariat and keep in mind that the text will change a little bit as we put in the finalized versions of the narrative tracks and questions. 

      So any comments, any ‑‑ and keep in mind the request ‑‑ while what I would like you to keep in mind is the report you're talking at the MAG me team on the updates of the survey and the workshop proposal process that the working group conducted, and then also the input that we got during the opening presentations that people did ask us to simplify the processes, so keep that in mind, so I'm opening the floor to comments.  On the call.  The first document we're looking at is the call.  Paul, you have the floor.

>> PAUL:  Yeah.  Hello, I don't know how my name keeps popping back up there.

>> ANRIETTE:  Okay.  Susan ‑‑

>> PAUL:  No that's fine.  I did have an area I wanted to comment.  It's the first time I've seen this, but my first impression is I like the way it's going, but, yeah, I just need a bit more time to dig into it a little deeper, thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Susan?

>> SUSAN:  Hi, folks, can you hear me?  Hello?

>> ANRIETTE:  Yes, yes, we can hear you.

>> SUSAN:  Great, my ‑‑ my ‑‑ my comments are that I think this is an excellent document the secretary's done a great job.  It is clear.  It's concise.  It's to the point.  I wouldn't change a thing unless, you know, there's some changes that need to be made as a result of the policy question discussion that we had earlier, which I don't think so, so I think that this is a ‑‑ this is as good as it's ‑‑

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Susan, and anyone else?

>> Hello, it's Jutta speaking here.  I have to put my name in the queue, but it has not refreshed yet.  Can you see me?

>> ANRIETTE:  Yes, we can hear you, go ahead.

>> JUTTA:  I also wanted to thank the secretariat for putting this up.  It's silent.  I do think it's really good, and it's structured, so that people will be invited to send in their workshop proposals. 

      There was one concern I have, and that is if we really should point out the weighting of the criteria at this point in time because I'm not sure whether we will ‑‑ whether we will shall stick the 20% content, 20% diversity, and so on.  I do think it needs more time on discussing the weighing of the criteria, and I don't know whether we can achieve to have that for Monday when the call shall go out, so I'm not sure whether we should ‑‑ we should put the weighing in the ‑‑ on the document but just maybe say we have these 6 criteria.  It was a different way without naming it yet.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks for that very good point, Jutta. 

      I saw Paul's name jump up again for a moment.

>> PAUL:  It's not me.  I'm stuck in a cycle there.

>> Sorry to jump in.  This is Luis ‑‑ there is a problem I think on my connection, my local connection because I'm at home for some reason it's not working.

>> ANRIETTE:  It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, Luis.  It's fine, and Jutta, I haven't looked at the hands in the participant list I think that's a very good point, and I would propose that we do what Jutta is saying.  We just list the criteria at this point.  We don't include the weighting and that give us more time to think about the weighting, and would anyone object to that? 

      I don't hear or see any objections.  I'm not looking at the chat, so that's fine.  We can wait and think about the weighting.  Thanks very much, secretariat, I hope you feel very happy about the positive response to this, and I agree.  It's really well done and quickly. 

      Shall we look at the next document, which is the submission form.  Secretariat, you decide at what we should look at next.

     So this is the workshop proposal form.  And, again, here we need to think about simplicity or simplifying the process, and Luis will scroll through it for us.

>> JUTTA:  It's one again Jutta speaking may I once again, jump in for the form.

>> ANRIETTE:  Jump?  In jump in.

>> JUTTA:  I have gone through it when you sent us the link and more or less from the experience of last year I do think it would work well as it is.  The only point that I would like to make is the questions around diversity.  My experience last year was with this ‑‑ it's a very long list of do you address with gender no/yes, and what we learned last year many workshop is attendees put, yes, yes, yes, but when you look at the details of the workshop proposal they just didn't, so they checked all the boxes, yes, there is diversity in regard to gender but if you looked at the list, and you had probably lists of only male speakers, maybe one woman but nothing else.  When you looked at geography, and you had the organizers, the mod rarity or speakers ‑‑ moderators or speakers from one region, I do think the exercise of checking these boxes saying yes or no that didn't work well last year, and I was wondering whether it would be better that we put in these diversity criteria like gender, geography, stakeholder group, policy perspective, disabilities, age, and so on saying these are all diversity criteria and please describe how you will address these issues of diversity, so that people need to consider and not only checking boxes and say, yes, I have this diversity criteria.  I fulfilled it.

>> ANRIETTE:  And Jutta I'm not sure if anybody else wants to jump in.  I don't see anybody in the queue.  I agree with that completely, and I also recall ‑‑ I think it was in the open consultation that someone said that not all topics require the same type of diversity, so the other thing we could do is to list those as important criteria, but we could also ask the proposer, you know, what are the diversity concerns that's relevant to this proposal and how are they going to plan to ‑‑ to address that or to make sure that's addressed.  Maybe that creates more open‑ended text, which is hard for us to evaluate, but I would certainly agree with you that just having those check boxes is not going to achieve much except to yeses without people really thinking about it. 

      Does anyone else have any other suggestions or comments on this?

>> MARIA:  I'm also in the speaking cue, but I don't know if you can see it.  I'm Maria Paz.

>> ANRIETTE:  And I see Timea's and ‑‑ and Paul's once again.

>> TIMEA:  I agree with, and I think it's a very interesting proposal which she made, and I think it's very efficient, for example, in this kind of narrative to allow diversity and the proposal will be the requestor they can better explain, for example, a particular circumstances why, for example, this is a regionalist discussion, which is why all the participants are from the same region but there are other criteria of diversity that is addressed or things like that, for example, particularly of anything that will be a good way to understand the nuances of the diversity and understanding of the proponents, and that's one thing and another thing that I totally agree that this checking of boxes doesn't make any sense in terms of the author forum because there's a lot of disagreement between what the participants say and what they see and the evaluation of the diversity is fill it or not in the level that we think it's appropriate for IGF it should be something that we should measure as a score, so I don't see any point for the proponents to elevate themselves in this regard checking all these boxes.  I think that should be an evaluation and maybe that should be something that we will have ‑‑ we should have afforded a conversation in the workshop evaluation process about how we want to create some rules for ourselves to apply when we are reviewing, and in that sense what you were saying and also as I mentioned it in the open consultation about some contemporaries, some UN contemporaries, but they might be too broad still for considering the evaluation of the diversity, for example, there's a lot of diversity in the western or European representation, so it's not the same like some specific countries that participate much less than others or it's not the same, the U.S. versus Europe, so I think than kind of nuances are relevant to be more fair in the evaluation because I think that with the current criteria sometimes we might be following in the other extremes that's deemed too hard in evaluating the diversity requirement and leaving things out because of that.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Maria Paz.  Timea I'm going to follow the queue now that's on screen in front of us, so we have Timea, Paul, Silvia and Susan.  Timea?

>> SILVIA:  I don't know how I managed to pass Paul's Omni presence.  I have two quick points to make.  Certainly I agree that diversity in general is ‑‑ is a very important point ‑‑ that is a very important criteria that we have to keep in mind especially because every year when we look at, you know, attendance, statistics from the IGF we always have one stakeholder in one region it's overwhelmingly dominating the attendee and also ‑‑


>> SILVIA:  Speaking population of the IGF, so we must make sure the public can do at least in the workshop process to try and rectify that situation and balance it out and on the technical side I agree with hut at that because we think we're supposed to definitely ‑‑ one issue that we faced last year, and we should think about how we can increase that, and without trying to ask too much of the secretariat, I'm wondering if there is any way that we can have an automatic process to which proponents can input the speaker list and organizer list and modularity's list and all those involved, and we already have the other information in the system.  Every person who's involved or asked to be involved in the workshop has to indicate their country and region of origin and their stakeholder group and all of that, and I think it's a pretty easy in my mind it would be a very easy analysis that can be automated to give a weak, good, excellent or whatever grade at the point where they're proposing the list and say, and okay., according for the information that we have in the database workshop of speakers and organizers, you are excellent on gender diversity, weak in geography, medium on stakeholder or something like that.  Here is a common dock for you to explain how that situation arises and is it a regional workshop or whatever it is, and the proponents will be prompted to explain that situation, and also I'm really, really hoping it prompts them to bring information for the profiles of their speakers and coproponents because I had quite a bit of trouble last year evaluating a workshop when I saw ‑‑ at least for the speaker that I knew that they were obviously put in the wrong category of other stakeholder or regional group and sometimes even gender, so people should make an effort to correct that.  Okay.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, and I want to say is flag one of the questions that came up whether we want them.  I think that was also raised in January and whether we want to ask them to ‑‑ to give the full list of speakers at this stage or not. 

      And Paul, you are next.

>> PAUL:  Yes, thank you.  To comment, basically, the person on the workshop format I'm thinking we should separate the format from the duration that, basically, they click twice one to set select the format workshop and one to select the duration because I think it would be important to navigate.

     The second it's about the diversity, and I agree with the speakers the way we've done it in the past hasn't worked either the proposals don't continued or choose to respond in a way they think that will benefit them, and they do tend to click, yes, yes, yes to everything, and it's clear a lot of these workshops do not meet a lot of the diversity criteria that they claim to through this check box.  I think we need to give this more thought.  Possibility, you know, part of how we evaluate this is by asking the proposer to explain how they're going to meet the diversity but also cross‑reference that with information that we can pull from the speaker and other bios that they're linking that we do ask them to present the speakers at that time we know, so that speakers change so, you know, the people they put forward, and we measure them against, that changes.  Yeah, thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  I'm sorry.  I was muted and Silvia?

>> SILVIA:  Thank you, Anriette.  Well, one comment that I wanted to make about the checklist on the diversity options is that it wasn't the checklist.  The idea was for people to select 3 of the topics that we were addressing and if you explain ‑‑ if you scroll down a little bit, please, then the text books were how they were going to remedy what they were not addressing understanding it's almost proposal ‑‑ it's impossible to have one word proposal in addressing them all.  Maybe the wording wasn't all that clear.  It was not a yes or no.  Maybe it would be better to say ‑‑ to have the check box next to the geography saying we are addressing this one, but we are not addressing the other one because it is impossible to have them in one proposal.  I think that one of the big challenges is that people don't read the proposals in the questions that they are being asked.  I don't know if it's the font size is too small on the website, and I don't really know how to explain it, but people are not really in many cases answering what the question asks of them kind of like copying and pasting sometimes from previous years. 

      With the geography definition, for example, we did last year the effort of not saying that this was referred to the ‑‑ to the original groupings that the UN uses but using the word geography of the UN term let's say it's the comment that Maria Paz made because it's diversity because it has people in Colombia even though Colombia has the European and maybe it's diverse because it isn't European people, but it is diverse according to how the applicant understands diversity, so I think it could be better worded maybe in a way ‑‑ and show it in the form that is a little bit more concise and not that long list so not having the a yes or no but asking people to clearly say:  Aspects of diversity they are addressing and how are they planning to recommend the other ones because sometimes you get diversity that is inclusive for the discussions from the people in the room; right?  And I think that will be important.

     So I'm happy to help to review how the diversity could be shared on the forum and the comments that Timea made I would absolutely love to have a platform that has more optimization on this process and gives people that option.  I'm not sure because this is all customized and coded for us if there's a way to have a lovely analysis topic to have, but I'm not sure it's possible, thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Silvia.  I think we'll give the secretariat until tomorrow to respond to that.  We'll note these suggestions but please, everyone, send more ‑‑ if you have more suggestions on the submission form, send it in tomorrow, so that we can work on this tomorrow and do a revision for you to look at, and Maria Paz?

>> Or did you speak earlier?

>> MARIA:  I did speak earlier I tried to update it, but it's still up.  I don't know why.

>> ANRIETTE:  So we have Susan, and we have Natasha.  Susan?

>> SUSAN:  Sorry there.  I had to unmuted twice, so just a quick suggestion.  I'll take the quick one first, and then adjust the diversity.  Questions so going down to section ‑‑ question number 16, session interaction and participation I don't think we need to include question 16B I would delete that.  The question asks ‑‑ I don't know if the secretariat can refresh his screen.  Are you aware that the IGF provides access and support for remote participants through an official online participation platform, I don't think we need that question there, but you could simply just say here's an official online participation platform.  We encourage you to review it and consider it how it can be used, so I would just delete that and replace it with information. 

      On 16C, I would ask yes and indicate which one if that would be useful and ask what platforms would be useful for the evaluators, and those are my suggestions with regard to question 16. 

      On question 9 in diversity, first of all, I completely agree with Jutta.  I saw a lot of conflicts and workshop proposals where there was all‑male panel, and they indicated there's diversity, and I do agree with Jutta's suggestion ‑‑ how she worded it earlier was perfect and, so I would support that. 

      On the diversity question, on what diversity is, how proposers understand it and how MAG members understand it, again, I would encourage us all to look at those documents as a package.  On the IGF ‑‑ the workshop evaluation process, which I sent edits into early earlier today there is a description of diversity there, so we should refer to that description of is diversity, express that description both to proposers and make sure that the MAG also has a shared understanding of that description so ‑‑ and if we want to change that description then we should ‑‑ I propose that we have that discussion on the workshop evaluation list as well just in the assist of time and moving forward.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Susan, and Natasha?

>> NATASHA:  Hello, everybody.  Natasha speaking.  What I wanted to say was said by my colleagues but maybe a quick maybe summary for the question of concerning diversity.  I also agree that it's a kind of self‑evaluation, and it's not always something that we could be sure that the proposal is according to those things concerning diversity, so I think that the proposals that were already made a suggest ‑‑ suggesting that we have some kind of explanation by the proposers about the criteria that ‑‑ they're not going to meet so to explain how they ‑‑ they would do some remedy for those criteria, but I think also it would be important for those criteria that they check that we'll be met with the proposals to explain how they will meet them, so I think it would be useful for our MAG members when evaluating the proposals.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks for that suggestion, so we are running late so ‑‑ and I'll take two more people.  We have Paul and Timea, and then we'll close on this and Paul, you're next.

>> PAUL:  Yes, thank you.  I want to add that we also need to consider the two views the one that we're representing in this forum that the workshop proposals to respond to and how it's interpreted to how we hear it when we do the workshop evaluations and just jumping back to the favorite topic of diversity it was very difficult in my opinion to adequately evaluate the workshops based on the information that was given to us, and that's because people responded to this yes/no yes/no.  There was so many that said yes to gender, geographic ‑‑ they said yes to everything, and you're doing 100 something workshops, so we did a lot of injustice I think to some very good workshops because this has a kind of a high weighting, and we really need to think about how we're going to present this to the proposers and how it's going to be presented to us to help us with that evaluation process.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE:  And thanks for that, Paul, and I think as Silvia said, that can be ‑‑ it's partly due to how it's structured, but I think we got various suggestions on the table about how to deal with this on the table, and so we need to just work with that and come up with something different.  Timea?

>> TIMEA:  Thanks I'm sorry for jumping back into queue here.  I would like to talk about different points in the workshop proposal forms and diversity, but I was wondering if on the question 5 and 6 in the explanatory text how we could move or copy paste the text of the call on the workshop.  On the policy questions on question 5, I would copy there again the definition what is a policy question and what the MAG is looking for but and under question 6 if we could have a prompt again for the workshop proponents to refer back to the narrative and here where you can find that and explain how the session will contribute to that, and I know we're supposed to think about before we start filling out the form, but it's nice just to have a form of there so ‑‑


>> TIMEA:  And thanks.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Timea, and maybe one might have relevance before policy questions.

     But I think we now have quite a lot of proposals on how to revise the submission form and secretariat, we have the transcript, but I'm sure you've also taken some notes so by the end of tomorrow we'll post a revised one, and then ask you to look at it but if there are more suggestions that people have, please send them in by ours European time, central African European time morning, and we have still have the panel, but I think the panel is too long, and we don't have time to look at that, and I know the workshop evaluation working group has been too busy to look at that so rather than us discuss the manual now, and I think we should give ourselves and the working group time and if other people want to join the working group we can look at whether we want to make changes to that so unless I am forgetting something, I think we can close on item 3 now, and then we can move on to item 4 and ask the secretariat to update us on the plans for the IGF, and then we can be able to let everyone go.  Secretariat? 

>> Thank you very much, Anriette.  I will try and be as short as I can.  I'll take maybe just half hour.  No, I'll take 10 minutes, and as far as the IGF and concerned and as you know we want to do some IGF outreach during the forum.  The host country ‑‑ that's the polish mission in Geneva is going to hold a reception Oz Monday.  Now, this reception is not purely focused ‑‑ it's not going to be focused on the IGF but one of the cochairs is going to be there, and I'm sure ‑‑

(Clears Throat.)

>> That Anriette Esterhuysen is going to be there and MAG members in Geneva will be there as well and host cochair will give a speech and is going to say something about the IGF, and I would encourage the MAG members who are there in the crowd just to go around the crowd and, you know, engage people in discussion with the IGF.  It's a low‑key and make sure people who are there know what the IGF is, et cetera.  This is very low‑key doing that. 

      Just to confirm, so that it won't give people a shock one day it still has to be confirmed, but I'm sure she's going to be there. 

      Then on Thursday, which is already on schedule of the forum so Thursday will be the last day of the forum for 2020.  We do have another outreach session, which will take place between 9:00 and 1030 at the ITU, and this session we've got about an hour and a half, and we are proposing that in the session we do our outreach, which will include telling the participants about the IGF2019 outcomes and outputs and also what the IGF 2020 intersectional activities are.  I'm giving them an overview and how they can participate if they want to participate also for the IGF22 giving an overview of the thematic focus and streams and also the particle men him why stream and the Youthsteam we're going to have, et cetera, and then at the end as always I think it's important just to give a trust fund push at the end, so this is just a draft proposal.  

      I would invite other MAG members especially those MAG members who are going to be there if they've got any ideas they can contact me, and then we can do just a small working group just to finalize and make sure we have a nice agenda, and then we can send it out. 

      As far as panelists are concerned I think it's important to have the cochairs there and also to have a fairly representative groups, you know, so we should have, you know, just like the IGF ‑‑ the IGF has to be a representative to have a few people from the different stakeholder groups and also from the different regions either taking up one of these things.  I think if the German hosts are there, they can report on the articles of the 2019 I think it's important that we have a good output for the idea for the others.  We can also invite other people from other regions of the stakeholder groups to say something on that. 

      Now, the final thing is that we've been talking about having some sort of a session during the forum and as I said previously we do have a room booked, and we can have this session on Tuesday or on Wednesdays, but we need to come up with agenda for that session.  It can either be a virtual meeting one of those MAG members who are there ‑‑


>> Participating together soon ‑‑ it can place one of the virtual calls we have every single second week or it can be something more in depth.  Unfortunately 6th to 9th April the workshop will still be going, so we can discuss that, but if we can think of an agenda that will be worth having and worth drawing people from the other activities, MAG members from the other activities that are happening during the forum we do have the facilities, and we are there to support it as well.  I'll stop there and give it back to the chair.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks.  I would add one thing.  We also applied to speak during the high‑level session of the premium, so we'll be making a short statement of the IGF ‑‑


>> I think we ‑‑ the meeting has been going on for quite long, so we can do some of this in email, but it looks to me in terms of timeline it will work to have a face‑to‑face on the workshop review process that a useful thing for us to do for a group that can work face‑to‑face to maybe just go through it.  By then it'll be finalized, but we can do a test run of doing a workshop evaluation to see if it actually works.  That's one thing we can talk about, but there'll be other things as well actually the language issues that have come up. 

      So let's propose an agenda.  We don't have to do it right now.  We can do that over the coming weeks, but if we can firm up the time slot, and that would be good because MAG members who are attending the forum and their schedules ‑‑

>> Yes, I propose Tuesday.  That Tuesday where it's going to be the whole day or half a day depends on the agenda.

>> ANRIETTE:  And I would suggest it's no more than half a day because it would clash with so many other sessions.

     So I don't see any hands and does anybody have any questions or comments on the forum?  I would also like to suggest if we are a small group they will have the social function so ‑‑ we will have all the MAG members there.  Can we be confidential about that? 

>> Not all the MAG members ‑‑

>> ANRIETTE:  But all MAG members will be invited to the polish reception.

>> I will coordinate that with the polish mission and see what they say.  I'm sure ‑‑ I'm sure it's not going to be an issue for that to happen, but I'll just have to ‑‑

>> ANRIETTE:  Okay.  And let's ‑‑ if that doesn't happen, we can make another plan maybe meet after the session for a drink one day. 

      Well, I think on that I should thank everyone ‑‑ the early risers and the ones who have stayed up late and the lucky ones that are in between.  Thank you very much for being in the meeting, for staying in the meeting.  Thank you very much for all the work that you've done and in advance thank you for the work you'll be doing over the next few days, so that, hopefully, on Monday we can go live with our call for session proposals. 

      We have a little margin ‑‑ you know we checked with the secretariat.  I've spoken to them.  If we need a few more days, we can send ‑‑ pull out a little bit later and maybe one or two days later or three days later ‑‑ but let's try and make that Monday agenda, that Monday deadline before we can.

>> Yes, exactly.  I'm sorry.

>> ANRIETTE:  Go ahead.

>> No, no.  Exactly we do have a buffer.  I mean, we have a buffer of one week, but we shouldn't use it or at the beginning of the process because maybe at the end in the grading ‑‑ you may even want to extend the call, so it's important to keep to only use it if we really to have, so as you said we can extend it ONE or two days whatever, yes.

>> ANRIETTE:  And thanks, and then I just want to check in with the workshop evaluation group.  Are you ready to have a close look.  And, again, at the workshop review process and the workshop manual and Susan has already put some comments on the table and are you willing to do that and how much time do you need for that?  Or secretariat how much time do they have?  Are you still ‑‑

>> Yes, I'm flag around for my documents because there are too many documents open here.

>> ANRIETTE:  While he's working on the timeline, Jutta, Silvia, Susan ‑‑ others who were part of that group and are you ‑‑ are you okay to go ahead and work on this?

>> JUTTA:  Yes, of course.  Silvia already put in the chat I do think we should start with the mailing list, and then see we will work around that, and I really would like to Nashville also new MAG members to join that workshop evaluation group.  It will help you in the process of evaluating the workshop proposals afterwards, and we need to have some successes because I do think Silvia and me ‑‑ it's our last year on the MAG.  I'm not sure for Susan but for Silvia and me it's our third year.  We need newcomers keeping things going for the next year.

>> ANRIETTE:  Thanks, Jutta, so please newcomers you need to join the group, so just reach ‑‑ join the list or reach out to Jutta or Silvia or Susan if you want to join. 

      So Chennetae.

>> Is two days okay or do you need more time than that?

>> JUTTA:  Two days for what task?  We can have a look within the next two days on the form but ‑‑

>> Yes on the form.

>> JUTTA:  Yes that will be okay but for the evaluation process I do think we need more time.

>> No, no, for the evaluation process you can have more time than that because that's not going to be necessary.  We can even do that and implement it, you know, in two weeks or whatever or 3 weeks.  How much ‑‑

>> ANRIETTE:  That process can take more time.

>> Yeah you can have a month to do that if you want.

>> ANRIETTE:  The manual is the one that we want to try and get up and as close ‑‑

>> Yeah, I do think that can be finished by Friday.

>> Okay.  Then that's fine.  For the ‑‑ for the other subject you can have the end of the month not this month but next month.

>> Wonderful

>> ANRIETTE:  Wonderful, thanks pretty much everyone and have a good night or a good day.

>> Bye‑bye.

>> Thank you very much.