IGF 2020 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - VII

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, good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to MAG virtual meeting number VII.  I hope you are all well and healthy.  Just the legal stuff before we start, that the meeting is being recorded.  There is transcription.  And um ... also, we'll try and use the speaking queue.  The link is in the chat.  Okay.  And of course we are going to publish a summary report of the meeting a couple of days later. 

      With that, I would like to give the floor to our Chair, Anriette to start the meeting. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai.  [Echo]

I'm muting, I'm using two devices as usual.  So you don't hear me typing to reply to look at chat.  Welcome, everybody.  [Audio skipping]. 

Is going to pass quickly.  [Audio skipping].  Thank you to the Working Groups, I know you have been working hard in the interim.  Quickly our draft agenda for your approval.  First, we have the welcome from the Chair.  Then we'll have updates from the Secretariat.  We'll get a breakdown from the Secretariat on the session proposals that we have received, and we'll talk about ‑‑ because I would like us to talk about some responses to the letter from the Under‑Secretary‑General that you all I hope have received and had a chance to read this morning.  Any case, Chengetai can point us to highlights.  I would like us to discuss what we can do and can do in response to that.  Some of you have already suggested some ideas.  And also, we can have a brief update from Secretariat on the good news about the website, just so you know what that involves and what to expect.  And then thirdly, we'll not do another walk through, because we did that last week.  But we'll [audio skipping].

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Anriette, you are breaking in and out for some reason

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And after that, we'll ask questions.  MAG members don't be shy about asking anything, any MAG member, any uncertainty about how to go about the workshop evaluation.  This is the time to ask the questions.  Fourthly, we'll look at the June consultation and MAG meeting.  The Secretariat has looked at that draft, and meeting methodology we'll need your input on.  Finally, we'll have updates from Best Practice Forums and Working Groups and then we'll do any other business.  Any comments or questions, changes, requested to the agenda? 


I take that as a no.  In that case, let's [audio skipping].  Updates now from the Secretariat.

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Madam Chair.  Let me start off with the short items first.  [Echo]

As you know, the UK Government has given us a grant of 250,000 British pounds to update or redevelop the idea of the website.  So we are still working out the modalities of that, transfer of the funds, et cetera.  Once we have that all sorted out, rest assured that we will do a community consultation on the users of the website and we'll involve all relevant parties, including the DCAD group for accessibility, and language group for multilingualism.  We have a big list that we can do for the website, and we will try and work on that together as a community.  [Echo]

     The second thing I would like to also point out is that translations, we have finished the translation of the Chair's summary into the six U.N. languages.  I would like to thank everybody who was involved in that.  Unfortunately, I didn't have time to share it with the MAG.  I will share it with the MAG maybe this afternoon or tomorrow.  Then once there's no inconsistencies, et cetera, we will post them on to the website.  So thank you very much to the volunteers.  I mean, these are all volunteers who did it.  Some did it very, very quickly.  So thank you very much to that.  We will be having a ... a youth engagement webinar, which the host country is doing.  So it is a host country outreach.  It is for the youth track that they're doing.  They're doing a competition, et cetera.  That is going to be happening 11th May at 1400 hours UTC. 

      Now, to go to our ‑‑ I think the main subject of this call is, of course, the call for workshops.  As you know, it closed on the 22nd of April.  So all of them ‑‑ I mean, we did have one or two ‑‑ I think it was three in total, had a little bit of difficulty.  There was healthy amounts.  So the majority of them came on the 22nd.  And of course, we waited until the 23rd, just to fix those ones who had technical difficulties.  I think there were just three of those.  And those were fixed.  So we had a total of 240 proposals that were submitted.  On the system, there was 367 proposals created.  Only 240 proposals were submitted.  And 237 proposals made it to the ‑‑ through the initial check‑in by the Secretariat.  These were mainly just duplicate proposals.  Because sometimes people submit their proposals more than once.  We eliminated those.  The form is very good.  Luis did a good job making sure that ‑‑ that the form is checked before it is submitted.  So you can't submit until you have filled out all the requisite fields.  That of course has saved us a lot of trouble.  But we did go through all of them.  And 237 made it. 

      We did share the PowerPoint presentation or PDF of the breakdown of the workshop proposals.  I should ask?  Should I go through it quickly?  Yes, I think I will go through it quickly in case any of you have any questions on that. 

      So ... just going on to slide number ... sorry.  Let me go back to slide number two.  Number two.  Thank you.  So that is the breakdown of the thematic themes.  19 for environment, 49 for data or "dot‑a" 69 for inclusion and 100 proposals in the trust.  For the next slide, we have the session formats which is Roundtable, birds of a feather and others, debate format is 14% and panel format is 14%.  So I mean, that is all fine.  We have a wide variety of the formats.  And then the next slide. 

      Now, this is very good.  For the coorganizers by gender.  Female, 49%, male 50%, the other is 1%.  So as far as targets are, I think we have reached the gender parity.  That is very good.  In fact, we double and triple‑checked that figure, just to make sure it wasn't people just checking Mr. or Mrs. By mistake, but those are the correct figures, and double‑checked.  That is very good.  I think we should be very happy about that. 

      As far as the coorganizer ‑‑ I'm sorry.  Back to the last.  Yeah.  As far as coorganizers by stakeholder group, of course, Civil Society is the largest group.  Then we have technical community, private sector, IGOs and Governments.  We, again, shouldn't be too surprised that Civil Society is the largest group, because by just sheer numbers alone, Civil Society is the largest group.  And Governments or IGOs are the smallest.  So ... um, you should take that into consideration before you say, oh, there is too many Civil Society.  Well, compared to the numbers and compared to the percentages, that's ‑‑ I think that's fairly okay.  Of course, we could ‑‑ we could improve the Government figures as well. 

      I think the technical community is quite well represented.  So if the others could be increased a little bit for next year, I think that would be good. 

      Again, coorganizers by region.  WEOG, 37%.  Asia‑Pacific 16, 126 and 16 for the GRULAC region.  I would like ‑‑ the same thing I was saying about Civil Society.  Asian and Pacific is low.  And yes, it is a fact that the Asia‑Pacific are low, but we should also take into consideration that when we are looking at workshop submissions, we're looking at organizations as well that submit.  So as far as yes, the population of the Asia‑Pacific is a large population.  It is half, basically the world's population, but as far as organization goes, if you are looking at population centers, it does not necessarily hold that Asia‑Pacific should have half of all organizations in the world, right?  They just may have slightly more, et cetera, but with more numbers in them.  I don't know if that makes sense.  So we shouldn't look at those numbers being too bad.  But, yes, of course, they do ‑‑ they could do with some improvement.  I think Eastern Europe is very good.  And as well as the GRULAC representation is good as well.  Now, these are unique.  They're not that removed from the previous slides that we have had.  So the same thing goes. 

      And again, these are speakers overall.  And the same things I have been saying for the other three slides do come from this.  I'm not saying we don't need improvement in the other regions, but starting from the beginning, I think the representation is improving quite well.  We just need to work on a couple of them, but overall, I'm not that worried about the representations as such, but yes, they could all improve by a few percentages. 

      We also had a little bit of difficulty as well in how do you count somebody ‑‑ which group they come from?  I mean, somebody may come from, you know ‑‑ pick a random country ‑‑ Zimbabwe and may work in Switzerland.  So they submit a workshop proposal.  So are they from Africa?  Are they from WEOG?  Or is it the organization they come from?  If the organization is an international organization?  So those are some of the decisions that we had to make when assigning regions.  So we shouldn't treat them as absolute regions.  But this is just an approximation.  Next slide.

      Yeah, same goes for the speakers.  It more or less reflects whether it is multiple or whether it is unique.  Again, the gender is, of course perfect by any measure.  Next slide. 

      Now, the thematic tracks.  Each proposal was asked to submit between one and three topics.  The proposer could choose among the existing tags or create their own.  So we had in total over 80 new tags or topics.  Next slide.  So for data, these are them.  And the data protection is, of course, the highest, followed by digital rights and data governance.  And ... that's that.  We have the top 10 there for you to read.  Next. 

      These are just the notes for the data topics.  And environment as well.  ICTs and impact on the environment was the top.  And then we have emerging teaks and the environment.  Technology development for action was the third, tie with responsible consumption.  So those are the top topics and the environment. 

      Inclusion had a lot more than ... any of them.  And yes, digital divide is still very, very important topic.  So is accessibility, capacity building, et cetera.  I mean, these are the traditional themes that we do have in the inclusion.  Next slide.  I just don't want to spend too much time on these slides because you all have them, you can all read them.  And if you have any questions, we're here to answer the questions. 

      And these two with trust, disinformation, freedom.  Sorry, it is jumping around.  Cybersecurity, human rights, et cetera.  And of course, all of these tie in with contemporary issues, reactions to COVID‑19, et cetera.  These are universal issues that can be tied to any topic that is going on at the moment. 

      So that's it for the workshops, just for the other sessions, we had 74 booth requests, we only have about 50 booth slots.  We will try to see if we can have some joint booths, instead of people having booths for the whole five days, some people can have for three days, two days, et cetera.  We have 47 Open Forums and 50 pre‑events that have been applied for.  And I read 17 NRI slots that have been applied for. 

      So we have not had a chance yet to go through them and vet them.  But we will.  And we will send you information about those either this week or early next week. 

      And as I said in my email as well, we have posted the workshop proposals that you're evaluating on the website so they're public.  So people can look at them to see whether or not we may have missed some.  I have no ‑‑ usually, that doesn't happen, but they're there for people to see. 

      I think that's all from me.  Let me ask the rest of the Secretariat, Anna, Luis or Lima if there is anything I missed out.

     >> Nothing to add.

     >> LUIS: Nothing to add from my side.  Thank you, Chengetai. 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Lima, do you have anything to add?  Okay.  I missed that.  Okay.  Okay.  Back to the Chair, Anriette.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that Chengetai.  Any questions on the statistics that Chengetai just presented?  Remember, we'll have an opportunity later on to talk about the actual evaluation process.  So only questions for clarification on what you have just seen.  I see no one in the speaking queue and I see no hands.  Correct? 

     >> CARLOS: My hand is up. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm sorry.  Carlos.  Carlos, you go ‑‑ Carlos and Veni.  Carlos, you go first.

     >> CARLOS:  First to thank the Secretariat for the review of the workshops.  Great, great.  That will help us a lot to make the evaluation. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Carlos, yes.  They did fantastic work in a short space of time.  Veni. 

     >> VENI:  Hi.  Sorry.  On mute.  Just wanted to see whether you guys have any ‑‑ whether you can tell us, compared to last year, how many workshops less or more we have.  I guess it is less, but my memory doesn't ‑‑

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  It is less.  Chengetai, as far as I know, it was 300 last year.  Is that correct? 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: The figure 288 ‑‑ 290.  Yeah, 290, basically.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  It is a drop, but not a dramatic drop.  I think that considering the circumstances, people's changed working environments, uncertainty about travel, I think we have really done very well.  So thanks to everyone who helped spread the word that people should apply for proposals.  I think my one comment on this, which I did make to the workshop evaluation Working Group is I don't think we should be two alarmed that environment has so many fewer proposals than the other tracks.  It is a new track.  And I think it will take time to mature.  Data trust and inclusion have been IGF themes for many years, maybe under slightly different names, but we're introducing a new theme.  I think it is quite important that that is taken into account and that we don't feel discouraged by the fact that there was so few workshop proposals. 

      But all in all, I think we have done really well.  Secretariat, thank you very much for the analysis.  I have one question to the Secretariat, based on your initial glancing at the proposals as you analyze them, do you think people did a good job at selecting which theme they fall under?  Or do you think some of them would fit better into different themes? 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: No, there are some of them that would clearly fit into ‑‑ not a lot.  But there is a couple that clearly would fit into another theme.  And we had a discussion about it.  So what we did with some of them, we actually contacted them and asked them whether or not we could shift it to another theme.  Because we don't want to do it for them, as such, but yes, there was a couple of them that we did see. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  Karim, you have the floor.

     >> KARIM:  Good morning, good evening to everybody.  I have a question about, how many workshop do we plan to have in total, regarding the capacity of the venue.  And in case we should move to online meeting, will this affect the selection process?  Because I mean, the number of workshop we will select rely on the capacity of the venue, is that correct, please? 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Chengetai, can you respond to that?  The answer is yes, but I will let Chengetai explain it to you.  It is not a simple yes or no answer. 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, exactly.  I mean, we have to look at all the sessions, and then also we have the topic entailing.  And another thing is that some of the workshops are one hour.  Some of the workshops are 90 minutes.  So that depends.  So off the top of my head, I'm thinking maybe 60.  We will give you a definite number by the time we get to the selection stage.  Because we have to take the schedule out and start planning.

      Last year, we did have, you know, an extra room, as such, because the place was huge and massive.  So we could actually shift some events to that room.  So this year, we will have to just sit with the host country and just see what the actual room situation is and we're thinking mostly in the number of 60.  But I don't want to say something, and then it ends up to be less or ends up to be more.  We have to sit down and fill out a dummy schedule.  Then we can tell you. 

      And as far as your other question goes, whether ‑‑ I mean, hypothetically speaking, if it is a remote meeting, I would still keep ‑‑ I would not expand the number of workshops, because remember, the call is for a concise schedule.  So we should still keep that concise schedule whether we are on‑site or off‑site or wherever we are.  That's my feeling.  But back to the Chair. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Chengetai.  I would support that.  I think we will get to it under item 3, when we look at evaluation.  But at this point, we don't need to worry about numbers.  We really need to focus on the equality and richness of the content of the proposals.  We don't ‑‑ you know, we don't ‑‑ don't keep in mind that you have to reduce it to 50 or 60.  Just focus at this point on the quality of the proposals. 

      If there are no further questions on this, let's move on to item 2B, which is the letter we received from the Under‑Secretary‑General, I see you are on the call, woman.  Chengetai I'm not sure if you or amen would like to touch the highlights of the letter and then I would like to discuss possible responses to the letter. 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I really don't want to put Wai Min on the spot, I will give him a small chance to say if he wants to or not.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Have people had a chance to look at the letter? 

     >> Not me, no.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I see some yeses, some nos.

     >> Yes.

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

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Since Wai Min hasn't responded, and we didn't prepare him beforehand ‑‑

     >> WAI MIN:  I'm here.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  It is very early in the morning for him.

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Do you want to do the highlights of the letter? 

     >> WAI MIN:  Since I now have the floor.

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Luis, can you put it on the screen, if you can.

     >> WAI MIN:  I think it would be helpful.  This is Wai Min, UNDESA.  I know the letter just come hours ago from Chengetai to you.  This is author the Secretary‑General.  This is how COVID‑19 has affected the work of everyone at U.N. and the MAG as well. 

The highlight is how COVID‑19 has reintigrated the role of Internet and digital tools.  And how much everyone, Governments and community alike is dependent on the Internet.  But at the same time, it also reveal a lot of the governance issues that the MAG members are familiar with, including the digital device, the security, and also even the spike in misinformation and security. 

      So the underlying message is actually there is a button for the IGF to highlight the important rule of Internet and related governance issues.  And to see how we can also come up with some concrete outcome.  I just view this generally.  The MAG can further discuss what has been done in the past and to do more in making use of this forthcoming IGF on Internet, digital governance in mitigating global and national crisis.  Both a portion of this and the risks. 

      I will stop here.  Thanks.  Thanks, Chengetai.  Thanks, Anriette.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Wai Min.  We will have the opportunity to discuss how this is impacted, and we're looking at how the high‑level focus of the pandemic situation.  I wanted to propose and open the floor for proposals and suggestions of what we can do in the meantime.  I would like to propose that we start an IGF series of webinars where we discuss various aspect of how the pandemic impact on Internet Governance and policy and regulation.  So it becomes a preparatory track of online discussions leading up into the IGF

      So my idea is this is something we can organize together with the MAG, with some support from the Secretariat and also partner with other institutions.  But I do think we need to consider doing this seriously.  Many other institutions in the Internet governance space are using online tools to continue facilitating the discussion and debate, and to keep ‑‑ continue ‑‑ to achieve some kind of continuity of engagement and networking and collaboration.  And I feel strongly that we as the IGF should also be doing that.  So that is my suggestion that we come up with some topics and some partners and that we have maybe three to four webinars in the coming months on this topic.  And we can do some brainstorms in the MAG online on what to focus on.

      I want to open the floor to any other suggestions and reflections from the MAG on the USG's letter.  I see Rudolf and Sylvia have asked for the floor.  Rudolf, you have the floor.

     >> RUDOLF:  Thank you, Anriette and everybody.  Thank you, everybody.  First of all, Wai Min thank you so much and forward it to the Under‑Secretary‑General, for the letter.  It is a good letter.  It is showing that the IGF is aware of the role, and we're more than willing at least what comes from this country to engage in such an endeavor.  I think, Anriette, what you propose is a very good idea.  We would be more than happy to support this and to and to work with you on such a webinar series.  The MAG cannot stay silent on this global challenge.  It is good to know that we have the backing of the Under‑Secretary‑General and with our Chair, we will be able to give, I think, good input into this discussion. 

      I have a question to Wai Min on the parallel process going on.  There is one between the ITU and U.N. that is dealing with Internet governance or issues in time of COVID‑19, corona.  Do you see any interaction with what we are doing with this track. 

      Second question is much of the work that we're doing on digital cooperation in the broader sense and the future of this is heading towards the 75th anniversary of the United Nations and also our IGF will somehow follow‑up with whatever comes out of it. 

      Will there be a 75 years celebration of the United Nations in fall in New York?  That's the question to Wai Min or whoever is able to speak about this from the United Nations authorities.  Thank you so much. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you for that Rudolf.  As I said in the draft, we should draft a letter.  I will take a lead on that to respond to the USG and thank him for that.  Wai Min can you respond to the questions, please.

     >> WAI MIN:  Yes, Anriette, this is Wai Min.  I don't have the full answer to that, but nonetheless, I can share like a lot of organizations, the U.N. General Assembly, Secretariat, agencies are all thinking what will it be like.  So right now, it is quite clear that there will be no major events in July.  Typically where we have that consult.  The contemplation now is if there is some form of meeting towards the end of the year.  It is also likely that the General Assembly, the session with the focus on the 75th could be postponed, but also to do exactly what date?  So this has been still ‑‑ of course, the hit was big in New York.  It depends on the host country and city Governments on the plan.  Because right now, there is still no clear plan for the situation it is not exactly stable in New York or New York City as well.

      So this is the second part to Rudolf question.  For the first part, the follow‑up process, to the HRPDC reports, the HRPDC Secretariat, and I think both of you know they're organizing a number of webinars in response to COVID‑19, because I see that some of you have also joined this discussions.  But we are also internally within the U.N., we're also discussing on how this is actually coming out ‑‑ the Office of The U.N. is coming together.  I can share this is being discussed at CEB, the senior management level of the U.N., chaired by the Secretary‑General.  Because this has received high attention on the current issue with everything and the authorization. 

      So I do understand that the original plan for the HRPD Secretariats under the leadership of USG is to launch a follow‑up in spring.  I believe that is still the plan to do so.  I'm not sure whether it will be in spring or even in early summer.  This is what I can share, to the best of my ability.  Thank you Anriette. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And thank you very much, Wai Min.  I know we have Sylvia and Jutta.  I want to respond quickly to Rudolph's question. 

      Rudolf, I have been participating in the seminars as well.  I think there is still scope for the IGF to have their own webinars, not seminars to complement what the ITU and USG's office are doing.  I think we also have as the IGF, we have two other advantages which I think can inform and strengthen our initiative.  Firstly is our community.  That there is a large and diverse comment that follows and wants to contribute to the IGF.  Secondly, we can link these discussions to a bold‑up process, that can feed into the IGF itself.  So there is a kind of continuity and can serve as a preparation, perhaps for some of the sessions, some of those that have workshops proposals on the topic and participate.  It can actually complement and contribute to the eventual global IGF as well as include people from the NRI communities.

      I think, definitely, we would have to look at the topics that we want to focus on to make sure that we don't duplicate what others are doing.  But I still think there is definitely a gap and we can add value to the process. 

      But let me continue.  We have Sylvia and then next Jutta.  Sylvia, you have the floor.

     >> SYLVIA:  Thank you, Anriette, I hope you can hear me.  I just wanted to share a little bit about the email that I sent earlier also in response to the letter.  I am ware e that there are several workshops proposals from the community around COVID‑19 response.  So it will be good to take the opportunity when we do the workshops revisions and assessments to identify those so that whatever response we give that is incorporated into the program, actually has some anchors, let's say, on ‑‑ coming from the community, right?  It is the community input into the program.  There is one session proposal that is looking at proposing a main session and then workshops in different tracks.  I don't know in which group that one would be, but the people that were about to submit it share some of their ideas with me.  So I think there will be some of those workshops that we can use as inspiration as well.

      I think that with so many organizations turning their activities online and organizing webinars to engage with the community and keep some of the activities going.  One of the things ‑‑ one of the tools or the needs that the IGF community has is the need for some sort of centralized calendar of what is going on with the activity and the events that were happening that are not now, face‑to‑face but were chopped or split into different sessions or changed around. 

     It maybe could be something that the Secretariat can help to organize, to have a simple form where people can put the information on their event then once a week or something the list of events is updated with what the community is providing.  There is so much happening as in seminars and courses that people can take in conversations and webinars that are going to be very relevant for the program.  And it is also in the topics that we are working.  For example, on the environment one, even though it got a less workshops proposals, if you see the coverage from the media, one of the positive aspects of the world's, you know, coming to a standstill, sort of, is how the environment is recovering.  So that might be a perfect stone to throw in that direction. 

      But if we could identify those events that are happening, that would be the meat, let's say.  The content for many of those sessions and try to figure out what experts can be included or recordings, pointing people to recordings and things like that, to help them get engaged and prepare.  Thank you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that Sylvia.  And Secretariat, I hope you have taken note of that.  Let's look at how we can do that and draw on the MAG community and even the broader IGF community to populate that.

      Jutta, you are next. 

     >> JUTTA:  Thank you, Anriette, for giving me the floor.  I wanted to quickly take the opportunity to thank the Under‑Secretary‑General for that letter.  I do think it holds very important messages that go beyond the MAG.  And that is why I was wondering whether it would be possible to publish the letter also on the IGF website?  And if that's the case, we also want to translate it into national language to make it more available to people to better understand the impact.  Thank you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And thanks for that Jutta.  And I think Chengetai, you are already following up on that.  It is a very good suggestion.

      And I don't see anything else on this agenda item.  Chengetai, or Wai Min, did you want to add anything before we move on? 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Not from me, Anriette.

     >> WAI MIN:  Not from me.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And thank you Wai Min, sorry for putting you on the spot.  We are doing well on time.  It is before the hour, and we're moving to the next and possibly the bigger part of the agenda.  The update on the workshop evaluation system and process.  So I want to start here by giving the floor to the workshops evaluation group, because they have been working, continuing the discussion, picking up on some of the comments and questions that came out of the previous MAG call. 

      So workshop evaluation group, I'm going to give the floor to you and then I will hand over to the Secretariat to explain to us what they have done.  So workshop evaluation group.  I'm not sure who will be speaking for you.  Roberto, will that be you? 

     >> ROBERTO:  Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.  Again, we had our last meeting, mainly talking about evaluation process.  And we were particularly dealing to how we can come up with a common approach among the four tracks, among the four groups that are going to evaluate the four tracks.  And we discussed a lot about what we have experienced in the past, particularly last year.  And how we made the final selections and taken in consideration, in some cases, common aspects.  Some others, maybe different approach.  We still need to discuss on this.  I think we're going to have a deeper discussion in the meeting we have.  And we're trying to have some sort of guidelines in other to support the four new groups that are going to be formed.  I think that's a summary of what we discussed.  Perhaps some of my colleagues will also want to complement something.  Thank you very much.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Roberto.  Anyone else on the Working Group, did you want to add to the comments from Roberto? 

Okay.  I see no one is asking for the floor.  But there will be questions or if there are questions, then I invite you to respond to them later on. 

      I'm now going to hand over to the Secretariat who will show us what they have done, what they have prepared how they have divided us up, what the next steps are.  Then we'll have general questions and answers.  Chengetai, you have the floor. 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette.  First of all, let me just give the floor to Luis.  And Luis is ready to answer any immediate questions that you have at the moment.  You all did receive a link to the workshop evaluation form.  I hope most of you have clicked it and taken a look around.  If not, you can do so now, just to make sure everything is fine and you know how to start.

      Um ... if you don't have any questions now, of course, please feel free to approach us at any time.  Just send an email to Luis or to any of us.  And we'll answer you.  But, yes, we're here to answer your questions and Luis, if you have anything to say, please go ahead.  Over to you, please, Luis.

     >> LUIS:  Thank you, Chengetai.  That is the most important thing, I'm here to help you in this process of evaluation.  I'm the first focal point.  So feel free to contact me at any time in case of any doubt in the process.  I explain the system last week, there is nothing new.  Simply now you will have to read the proposals of the IGF 2020 in the middle.  You have the proposals there.  You have received the PDF.  You have here the proposals to evaluate.  For example, this for me, which is in the inclusion track.  I have here all the proposals of inclusion.  And also the PDF.  You can see the proposal here in its expanded format, which is additional information about the speakers and about the organizers, with outside organizers and information about ‑‑ invited, diversity information.  And of course, information of the proposal, and if there are any attachments as well. 

      So it works, as we explained last week.  I will not enter now on it, unless you have questions.  You select the proposal.  If you have a conflict, you say you have a conflict.  You explain the reason, and you submit.  And the proposal disappears from the menu.  So it is already counted as submitted.  And if you don't have any conflict of interest, you just mark the different aspects, they're automatically weighted.  And you put the comments as we discussed last year.  One is for the MAG discussion.  It is going to be public for the MAG discussion.  The other will be for the proposed organizer, it will be used for the feedback to the proposal.  This is only for you.  And that's all.  When you submit the proposal, it disappears from the menu of your pending proposals to evaluate. 

      And here's the county down of the time you have for the evaluation.  So when the time finishes, we close this and we get all the information and we do again the statistics in preparation for the MAG and for the June MAG meeting. 

      I'm happy to answer any questions now. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Luis.  Any questions?  I see the speaking queue is empty.  I'm looking for hands.  I don't see any hands.  Any questions?  So people understand that you don't ‑‑ when you log in, you will automatically see those workshop proposals that have been randomly assigned to you. 

      Perhaps one thing I can ask you Luis or the Working Group to explain is how we dealt with the fact that there are different numbers of proposals?  For the different thematic tracks?  Just so people know what to expect.  I know it has been in the list, but if you can just explain how you managed that, how you responded to that challenge. 

     >> LUIS:  Yes, thank you Anriette.  We thought about this possibility beforehand.  Last year they were really even numbers.  This year it has not been the case, as has been said.  Basically, what we have done is to put together in the groups of environment and data, that is together make more or less the same as inclusion.  And so there is a handful of MAG members in these two tracks, which are more or less the same proposals as the other group of inclusion.  And this track has double the numbers.  We have two groups of MAG members evaluating the track. 

     The four groups in total are perfectly balanced in gender and stakeholder, region group.  And we have put in each of them the facilitators or the heads of the tracks and for trust, we have Sylvia, the facilitator of the track.  So we put each of you in any of the two groups.  Then each group has almost the same MAG members because there is more or less the same number of proposals.  But there is a slight difference first because the MAG members have not exactly ‑‑ well, the visible and also because of the number of proposals being something different and looking for the possibility of points of interest and also because we're told that not all MAG members at the last minute evaluate all the proposals.  As a person who have adapted to put one more or two more MAG members into the group with a little more proposals.  Okay? 

     So more proposals, more high confidence.  We want the proposals to be evaluated by the same number of evaluators and the number of evaluators is as balanced as possible.  With that, we have that consultation.  I hope that answers that question, Anriette.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Luis.  To point out to everyone.  It is very important that every single MAG member evaluate all the proposals that are allocated to them.  And if you don't do that, it actually breaks the whole logic and integrity of the process.  So that's very, very important.  Jutta? 

     >> JUTTA:  Yes, hello, Anriette, thank you for giving me the floor.  I wanted to raise an issue that we discussed earlier this morning in the Working Group but not finished the discussion.  Sylvia has already put a comment on that into the chat.  That is ... last year when we thought a proposal might be sorted into a certain track, different, wrongly, and some belong to another track, we had only the opportunity to write that into our comments.  And that makes it difficult to follow up with whether several MAG members have suggested that a proposal maybe doesn't belong to data, but belongs to trust or the other way around. 

      Therefore, we were considering whether it would be possible to have that directly in the form, that when you go through your scoring and you get the impression, oh, this is more related to another track, you can mark that and say I don't think it belongs to inclusion, but it belongs to data maybe or the other way around.

     >> Excellent, excellent, Jutta. 

     >> JUTTA: So we can see okay, out of the 10 MAG members that scored this proposal, five or six think it belongs to another track.  Then it should be recategorized. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Jutta.  Chengetai mentioned that earlier.  They have already done some of that.  I think that is a good suggestion.  I was following that discussion.  Luis, and Chengetai, have you had a chance to reflect on that proposal? 

     >> LUIS:  Chengetai, I don't know if you want to speak?  Technically ‑‑ this is not a difficult point.  The only difficult thing is when the form is ready you have to start.  Sometimes the minimal thing it cannot impact.  But we want to keep the form stable.  But, if the MAG says that, we can make the change.  The other thing in practice.  In practice, if we have the evaluation, maybe the MAG member is evaluating in that track.  With a suggestion, maybe [shuffling]

check box to say if you think this should be in another track, mark them here.  And it will be just recorded in the evaluation.  I don't know.  Those are just suggestions. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think let's continue to hear more people on this.  But I think we can assume that no MAG member has started the process of evaluation yet.  So I think we can assume it is still possible to make minor changes to the form. 


     >> TIMEA:  Thank you everyone.  Sorry for the delay.  Had a problem getting up here.  I don't have anything to add to this discussion, but I have another question for Luis.  I am in the part of the group of melting both the environment and data workshops.  I was looking through the ones allocated to me.  I see they're listed by the number of the workshop.  I was wondering if it could be possible at all to know up‑front which workshop is in which track?  I would like to be able to go track by track to compare what I am grading.  It would be difficult to guess based on the title.  If there is anything the Secretariat could quickly do?  I don't know, just in the names say workshop E or workshop D for the two tracks?  Just for me to be able to distinguish between what I am grading, that would be very helpful.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I was thinking that as well.  Or color coding them. 

     >> TIMEA:  Any way, yes. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Luis, you hold on and record the responses.  And Carlos Alfonso. 

     >> CARLOS ALFONSO:  Thank you for this.  We have proposals that are not fitting into a track.  We want to suggest they are considering another one.  This is perfect.  If this can be fitted into the form, still better.  The other thing is a practical question.  I remember when evaluating the proposals last year.  We had a PDF with all the proposals belonging, quotation marks" to us.  And we could do searches throughout the PDF when we had doubts in comparing one proposal to another.  That was radically very helpful.  I suggest to the Secretariat to prepare PDFs with the block of proposals that are assigned to each one, which is what, five or six PDFs, I think?  And send to us so we can better handle the evaluation.  I think ‑‑ I hope you understand what I am trying to say.  Thank you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Carlos.  I think those PDFs have been sent already.  But Luis can confirm later on. 

      Next, we have Paul Rowney.

     >> PAUL:  Good day.  Paul R. Here.  To go back to the workshops and evaluation process.  I wonder if we should try to identify the misplaced workshops as early as possible in the process and have them moved to the right thematic group.  Maybe if someone picks it up, there should be an internal discussion within the group on evaluating that thematic track.  And if there is consensus, the Secretariat can then have it moved. 

     What I'm trying to get to, if it gets scored by the wrong thematic evaluation group, then it might be underscored or if it is scored well, you know, the group that is being imposed on or pushed over to later, they haven't evaluated it and that might cause problems later in the final selection.  So the idea is that the workshops are evaluated and scored by the track that they are or should be allocated to.  Thank you. 

     >> CARLOS: Anriette, a question, quick.  I read now a message from Chengetai which arrived here in Brazil at 5:00 a.m. That the PDFs of the workshops by groups and all proposals will be made available by the end of the day.  Great.  This answered my question. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's good.  Thanks, Carlos.  And thanks, Paul, for that question.  I think the consideration here is that it's ‑‑ what Paul is saying, I agree.  It is important to ‑‑ if we are going to reassign, to do that before the grading takes place.  And I want to just flag something.  Chengetai said earlier, that we also need to consider informing or consulting the proposers if we are going to reassign.  I think that would be ‑‑ I know that is not absolutely essential, but I think it would be courteous way to approach this.  Let's hear responses from the Secretariat.  And if we cannot resolve this immediately now I want to give the Secretariat and Working Group, at least for the rest of today and tomorrow to resolve that.  Luis, do you have ‑‑

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Quick for Carlos.  Carlos, you should have PDFs now in your mailbox.  If not I will resend them to you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  He has. He said he received them.

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I thought he said he received ‑‑  okay.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Actually, Luis, before you respond, I see two other MAG members want to speak.  Let's hang on and listen to them first.  Maria Paz.

     >> MARIA:  My take is slightly different in the reallocation of the different proposal in the different track. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  Hang on to it.  I will give you the floor later.  Jutta is your comment on this issue or something else? 

     >> JUTTA:  Still on the allocation of the proposal.  I wanted to respond to Paul and say that I do think two difficulties.  The one thing is that it might be the case that one MAG member thinks this doesn't belong to data and suggests to put it into trust but all the other MAG members that assess the same proposal don't think that way.  That makes it a bit difficult to decide when one person raises the hand and says, okay, it might need to be reallocated to another track.  And others think otherwise.  So I don't think we can achieve that we change it ‑‑ put it into another track.  And that comes another MAG member and say no, it doesn't belong to trust.  So resort it back to data, so on, so on. 

      Last year, we did that considerations during our face‑to‑face meeting.  Of course, that would mean that we might end up with a situation that someone has to score proposal that doesn't belong to the track that he or she is scoring all the other proposals in.  But I don't think ‑‑ I don't know how we can solve that issue because it depends on your individual impression. 

      I don't assume that all MAG members ‑‑ I don't know, it may be eight, nine, ten people that grade the same proposal.  Some might think it doesn't belong here and others might think, okay, it fits in here better than in the other tracks.  So that makes it difficult to decide during our scoring of the proposals.  I do think that this needs a debate when we have finished the scoring of the proposals.  And then see ‑‑ have an overall impression on whether some might belong to another track.  Thank you. 

     >> PAUL: Can I respond to that quickly? 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead. 

     >> PAUL: When I was putting this forward ‑‑ what I was trying to suggest

is if someone in the evaluation Working Group feels they should be allocated somewhere else.  They should try to get consensus first with other people within that Working Group.  Because if there is a disagreement, you know, that has to be resolved first before it even gets suggested for posting to a different theme.  My thought is that, you know, if everyone in the Working Group goes through quickly, tries to identify what could be misalignments, then that can be discussed within the members of that evaluation Working Group and if there is consensus, then it is sent to the Secretariat rather than doing one by one.  Together consensus with those evaluating would give a strong argument to be reallocated.

     >> JUTTA:  Would we have mailing lists of all the members grading the same proposals in one group?  Then that could easily be done via the mailing list.  I didn't know that I would have a list of all the members of a certain group that is grading the same proposals.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Thanks for that.  Luis, let's come back and respond to this mailing list.  I think that can be done.  Sylvia, you are the last to come and speak to this topic then we can move on.

     >> SYLVIA:  Thanks Anriette, I agree with Paul.  I don't agree with the idea of extending this through lengthy debates and really complicated processes.  And I would like to suggest that maybe the coordinators of each track can have a first scan and identify the ones they think are not aligned with the particular track, and raise that with the mailing list of the group that is discussing that particular group so that we can quickly go through this step.  Last year, they were a couple of proposals that were stayed in the wrong track all the way until the end.  And those two proposals were in the safety, security and resilience track.  They make very life complicated for both the introductory and the concluding sessions planning.  Because they didn't fit anywhere.  So it was very difficult to find an area to make them fit.  Things that we don't resolve at this time will have problems later down the track.  So if we can just take a minute and deal with this, that will be really good.  Thank you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Sylvia.  And Luis, do you have responses? 

     >> LUIS:  I do.  I do.  Thank you, thank you, Anriette.  First question, on the fastest one, I think it was Timea, her suggestion, a very nice suggestion.  Yes, not a problem at all, I will implement it, and have it as soon as possible.  Second thing about this discussion, I understand this is important.  Just put on the table that ‑‑ I think you're completely right, it is important to support the track at the beginning to be evaluated by the same group of people.  The idea Sylvia said about first skim of the proposals by the facilitators could be a point and as Secretariat and as Anriette suggested check with the people if they should be ‑‑ if they're in the right track. 

     But in any case, about the mailing list.  Last year, we had this additional mailing list, that is specifically, the private mailing list for the discussion of the evaluation of a group.  And then we put the people in the bucket waiting for inclusion, we put them on the specific list of the evaluators.  Send an email to the mailing list to discuss about the track or this proposal is not in this track, what do you think.  I think that maybe raising that to the Secretariat as soon as possible, change the track.  Practically to do, if someone has started evaluations, I have not clear how that could be solved.  So ...

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Luis.  I think we can ‑‑ has anyone started their evaluations already?  Anyone that is on this call at the moment? 

     >> LUIS:  No one has started.  I can see that.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Then we ask you not to start until tonight.  Our central African European time zone and I suggest that we add a question immediately after the evaluator has read the proposal to ask if they want to propose a change theme.  Then maybe we can give the groups a week just to deal with this particular issue.  So that there is still time to reallocate workshop proposals.  I don't want to jump in and make decisions yet.  What I would like to propose is we give the Secretariat and workshop evaluation Working Group overnight to just resolve how best to deal with this, what changes need to be made to the form.  Then tomorrow morning our European central African time, we communicate to the MAG exactly what the steps are for dealing with this.  Is that acceptable?  Does anybody object to that proposal?  That doesn't mean you can't start reading proposals.  But just don't start evaluating until this has been resolved.  And yes, I think it is probably easiest to wait until tomorrow.  Is that acceptable, Luis?  And Roberto?  And Working Group?  Does that work for you? 

     >> ROBERTO:  Yes, we can ‑‑ I mean, we can have a meeting later, if our group have no problem with this.  And then discuss specifically this topic. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I don't think you have to have a meeting.  You have been discussing it.  I think it is a question of finalizing what the next steps are and liaising with Luis with regard to any changes, if any changes are needed. 

      So, I see Maria Paz is still there, Sylvia is there.  Before we move away from the issue of workshops and themes, anyone else on this topic?  Or shall we move on? 

     >> SUSAN: Hi, Anriette, can you hear me? 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, I can. Is this Susan? 

     >> SUSAN:  Hi.  Apologies for not using the queue.  I think this has been a valuable discussion and I appreciate all the insights shared by my colleagues.  My only question is the extent to which we anticipate this being an issue.  I think this is kind of the exception to the rule last year.  So I'm just wondering if ‑‑ I think your proposal is a good one.  But I'm just wondering in past experience the volume of proposals that were submitted under the incorrect theme?  I don't think we had one.  I think it was maybe only a couple.  So I ‑‑ I just wanted to mention that.  I think we should probably maybe anticipate this is being the exception to the rule. 

      And then maybe respond in it proportion, I guess we could say.  So that was just my one comment that I wanted to ask.  Or contribute and ask for other people's prior experience. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Susan.  I think that is very wise input.  I would agree with you.  It probably doesn't affect many.  I think Sylvia's point was if it is not resolved, it becomes a problem that can be reflected in the program.  But I think your point is very valid as well.  We shouldn't have anxiety about this.  This is not as if it is going to involve large numbers of workshops. 

      I see Maria Paz.  Sylvia, you are still in the queue, did you want to speak to this issue ‑‑ oh, the speaking queue is empty.  Okay.  So let's move on.  Maria Paz.  You wanted to raise a different issue, please go ahead.

     >> MARIA:  It is a different issue, but very connected with what we are talking now.  It is mainly a concern regarding distribution of the proposal for the trust track in two different starts.  My concern mainly with that is regarding what I pointed out in the last call about my recommendation of the methodology for reviewing the proposals.  I think that for me was real important last year, and I think that a few other MAG members also mentioned that they did this general review of the different proposals in the track, in order to identify relevant topics and then score the proposals, mapping that all the different relevant topic can have good proposals that represent those topic in the program. 

     So my concern in this case is that for the trust track, as the stack of proposal will be divided into the members of the track will not have a full view of the different proposals and it might be many good proposal that talk about the same topic and the different ‑‑ the two different groups will score high and we could end with many good proposals but in the same topics.  And maybe missing more topics that are relevant.  So I'm not saying because I understand that in this case, in this year, it is different case from the last year in which we got balance of number of proposal from each one of the tracks. 

     So in this year, we're having much more proposal for that specific track.  And I understand that it is sensitive to divide the workload in a reasonable way.  But I am concerned about that fact, and I think that it could be mitigated in some way, maybe for the least that have been proposed for being able to discuss this issue of misallocation of tracks.  But I think that it would be really relevant, also, that maybe could start with this purpose of doing this more strategic overview in order to the first track doesn't end with many proposal of good quality but in concentrated in topics that can be repetitive in the program. 

      And also linked with this, I think that last year, again, it was very important for the evaluation and for doing this mapping out of the different relevant topic that should make to the program, scoring the proposals having that in mind, to have a real sense of how many proposals of each track we should accept.  And I recall from the last year, that we have been told that around 20 proposals for each one of the tracks should be determined.  So I don't know if that's the case for this year.  The fact that we have four tracks and not three.  And the different characteristic of the venue.  I think that is helpful also to have a mind in order to correctly map it out.  I still feel that is valuable.  So those are my reflect.  Thank you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Maria Paz.  That is important, at some point, the two groups working on trust would have to come together and possibly people would rerate proposals or reevaluate them.  There was some discussion about having a basket approach, even if that is based on scores.  A red basket, yellow basket, green basket.  And you know, that should theoretically make it possible to have the two groups, you know, combine their green baskets and maybe even the green and yellow and look at it.  All I really want to say ‑‑ most of you know this better, you know, because I'm a little bit out of touch from the MAG.  It is a long time since I was on the MAG.  I think we can't resolve everything at this point.  We will have to resolve some issues at the face‑to‑face meeting.  I think it is really important thing to do at this point is to look for quality, look for good proposals, not feel constrained by numbers.  We still have time to deal with that.  What I take away from this discussion is that we need to draw up ‑‑ the Secretariat and the workshop evaluation group, maybe just a fresh checklist of how to approach the evaluation. 

      And I think that checklist should address all the points of concern that were raised today.  Even if they're not going to be addressed until the June meeting, at least let's record them.  And document how we hope to address them.  So I think we need to draft something like that for tomorrow when people start the work.  These are all very legitimate points. 

      And I don't see any more hands or anyone in the speaker queue. 

      Is everyone clear on ‑‑ at least clear enough on what the next steps are?  Nobody else want to add to this?  Okay.  Well, you know, thanks very much to the workshop evaluation group.  They've worked very hard.  It is a complex process.  It throws out new complexity as you start getting into it.  Thanks very much, Luis, for your work on this.  It is a really very thorough and carefully designed system.  We will, tomorrow morning do any updates that are possible and relevant. 

      So let's move on to item number 4.  The discussion on timings and also its format of the June open consultation and MAG meeting.  And Chengetai? 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Anriette.  So during last week's meeting, we had a preliminary ‑‑ I can't say that word ‑‑ discussion about the timing of the June meeting.  And we did say a few things that the meeting should take place ‑‑ the first slide, please.  Next slide. 

      Will take place over five days.  And it won't be eight‑hour days.  And if we have statements or briefings, they can be recorded beforehand, but the people still in that section will still be there to answer questions, you know, for the Q&A.  The recordings are there because at times, we do have problems with the Internet connection, et cetera.  And people drop out.  So if we have the prerecorded, that minimizes those.  And also, we could make these recordings available, like the day before for people in different time zones to listen to.  And then they can also submit questions, which will be answered by the panel and comments on the day when it is supposed to be.  So that we'll be more fair to those people in difficult time zones. 

      We will have breakout groups, and then we will have to agree on the breakout group and methodology process before the meeting because we have like in the thematic evaluation groups, we have people from all sorts of time zones.  And then they have to come together and agree amongst themselves what times to meet, et cetera.  So we'll have a breakout group.  And then they'll meet the next day in plenary to discuss what may have discussed with the entire MAG.

      So let me just go through it to ‑‑ to the first slide.  Yeah.  So the open consultations, most of it will happen in the first day.  So we have the usual, the opening session.  The usual opening session, that is the adoption of the agenda by the MAG Chair.  Welcome by the host country, and also from UNDESA.  Those are the standard welcomes and statements.  And then we'll have, you know, right off the top discussion of the COVID‑19 and the IGF

      So then next module so to speak, is the briefing on preparations.  This is from the host country, logistics, high‑level leaders meeting, parliamentarian, youth track, et cetera.  And also from the IGF Secretariat we'll also give our briefing on the breakdown on the sessions, et cetera.  Now, these will be prerecorded as I said before, so if people have questions on Visas, stuff like that they could ask them by sending an email message.  Or they could ask ‑‑ they could ask them in person.  And we'll still all be there online to answer the questions.  It will just make it fair for the global audience. 

      Then we have again, the workshop review process.  This will be presentations by the different thematic groups and the workshop evaluation group.  To say, these are prerecorded again.  But we're all expected to be there to answer the questions that may arise. 

      The roadmap is supposed to come out in May for the HLPDC.  So we have set aside the space to discuss anything of whatever relevance this has on the IGF processes and how we can adapt, collaborate, et cetera.  So we put that in there.  And then we also have the briefings from other related and relevant initiatives or organizations that we usually have.  These, of course, again will be prerecorded.  And again we'll ask them to be there to answer any questions that people may have.  And then of course, the closing by the Chair. 

      Sorry to jump, but then, on the last day, we will also have the updates from the DCs and NRIs and ... update and review from the Best Practice Forums, et cetera.  This will be just a continuation of the plenary session.  But we're just breaking it up. 

      Now, on the first day, again, sorry.  These times are what we have suggested.  And these times are unfortunately Geneva times because that's what I'm working in.  But when we publish the final agenda, we can use UTC, like we normally do.  These are just suggested.  If anybody has got any other ideas on how we can do the timings, at the end of the presentation, please let me know.  And we can have a discussion.  This is just to start off the discussion and see if people will take or have any ideas.  I mean, for the open consultation, that is more global.  So we have to be more considerate to the global audience.  And for the MAG meeting, yes, we will have observers, but it is a MAG meeting, so your input here is very important because this is when you will actually be working at these times. 

      So for the second day, it is the opening.  Which is the traditional opening.  And then we have discussion on the workshop selection and thematic tracks, topic entailing sessions, et cetera, we'll have the discussion there.  And then we will have a discussion before we break out into the ‑‑ into our breakout groups.  So this ‑‑ I've just put in 30 minutes.  Then we break out.  And then during this time and the following morning at 10:00, you have the time to choose your times within the groups to meet to finalize your workshop selections within each thematic groups.  And then the next day, that's the day 2 of the MAG meeting we have a plenary which is 120 minutes, which each group reports in and have a discussion with the whole MAG to see if we agree and whether there are any suggestions from anybody with that.  So that's for the morning.

      Then from noon until 1:00, we have the ‑‑ basically the beginning session for the main sessions.  So that would be 60 Minutes.  Now, if this year, we thought that just having observed from the previous years, where the MAG Chair would have asked for set proposals, we have observed that people are less likely to let go of the set proposals because if they spent a lot of time constructing a proposal for a main session and then presenting it to the MAG and of course we only have ‑‑ we're only able to choose eight or six, they are very reluctant to let that go.  So what we want to do this year is that when we discuss the main sessions, we discuss it all within a group. 

     So nobody spends hours doing their own proposals and then they come up, all of the main sessions will come up from us ‑‑ this is also after we reflected on the workshops, the themes, the themes that are reflected on the workshops.  We have heard what the host country as well is doing in the high‑level leaders meeting, et cetera.  And then so then we can come up together, you know, as a unit, collectively come up with the topics.  Then we break out into the groups.  And as the previous day, we have until the next day, which is the day 3 of the MAG meeting, going to the next slide, please. 

      Where we have another plenary session.  And we discuss the main sessions and we also discuss the main steps ‑‑ the next steps for the main sessions.  And you notice on day 3, we're beginning at 3:00 p.m.  So the first session is from 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. And then in the afternoon, that is from 5:00 until 6:00 p.m.  This is just a discussion on the Best Practice Forums and also the Dynamic Coalitions, how they fit into the programs, the progress of the intercessional activities, et cetera.  This is for the 60 Minutes. 

      So day 4 is more of an open consultation format.  And here, we are starting quite late at 19:30, and we have the updates from the DCs and NRIs and also question and answer session and the same goes for the Best Practice Forums.  So this is more towards the general public, not in the MAG meeting setting.  Again, I would suggest that these would also be prerecorded.  So people that can't make it at that time can also listen in and send in their questions and later on, they can listen to their questions because all of this is going to be recorded and uploaded to our YouTube channel.  So they can always come back and listen to the answers of the questions and of course, the transcripts will also be available for easy searching.  And then we have the final plenary session from 9:00 to 10:00.  Again, this is Central European time here.  Which will be converted to UTC when this is done.

      So in summary, open consultations, so that is the total duration is 7.5 hours.  For day one, we have the MAG meeting.  And that total duration is two hours.  Day two, again, 17 June, that is the second day, total duration 3.5 hours.  We have the plenary 1 and 2 and the breakout groups meeting in the next day.  Day 3 of the MAG meeting, total duration is three hours.  This is 1500 hours ending at 1800 hours.  That is total of three hours.  And day 4 of the MAG meeting ‑‑ you can say MAG meeting slash open consultations, if you want.  Total duration, 2.5 hours.  And it is at a different time, which will be easier for those people, basically, on the West Coast.  And I would propose also in Australia or et cetera.  I mean, they'll have ‑‑ instead of waking up late, maybe ‑‑ staying up late, maybe they're waking up early, et cetera.  So this is just for you to comment and please let me know what you think. 

      Back to you, Chair. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Chengetai.  So some initial reactions, I'm opening the floor to that.  I see Ben is in the queue.  Do take some time to reflect on this.  And we will give you ‑‑ you know, we will send you to the list.  It will be on the site as a draft so people can reflect and comment on it.  So this is a creative response.  We took all the considerations from last ‑‑ the previous MAG call into account, the fact that we shouldn't have too much working time in one day.  And the idea is also to give flexibility to people to work in their own time zones.  People have to commitment sometimes for a difficult time for the plenary sessions, but for the breakout sessions, we make it possible for you to work in time zones that are realistic for you. 

      So I'm opening the floor.  Ben, let's hear from you. 

     >> BEN:  Thank you.  And hi, everybody.  So firstly, just to appreciate the efforts of the Secretariat to approach this.  It is obviously very tricky.  We're working in new conditions and they're making every effort to try and accommodate lots of different people.  I appreciate that effort. 

      May questions really were about how to envisage the breakout groups would work.  Specifically if we think mainly about the workshops, my understanding, my memory of last year is that each of the three themes had different Working Groups and those Working Groups completed their work before they went to the MAG meeting in Berlin so that the proposals of that Working Group reached theme can be discussed by the floor MAG and decisions taken by the floor MAG.  So I wonder what the idea is for these breakout groups on workshops?  Are they thematic Working Groups going to still be making final decisions on day one in breakout groups?  And then presenting them on day 2? 

     I do see a challenge with that because I think for example, the trust Working Group that Sylvia and I will co‑lead will presumably contain MAG members from many different time zones.  So if we are expected as a thematic Working Group to take final decisions to present to the floor MAG, there isn't really going to be a convenient time zone for anyone in particular. 

      So I wasn't clear what was envisaged for the breakout groups.  Maybe separately for the breakout groups, a main session is the idea that I wonder how that would work as well.  Is it that there would be particular ‑‑ I think last year, we were broken up into groups to come up with proposals for main sessions.  So you can volunteer to go with a topic that you were particularly interested in.  So maybe that's the idea here.  So those are some questions from me just about how the breakout sessions are going to work.  Otherwise, I appreciate the efforts to kind of have a variety of time zones accommodated and it is a challenging week.  I'm totally up for that.  Thank you.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Ben.  The assumption is ‑‑ I'm proposing even more preparation prior to the meeting than there was for the Berlin meeting last week. 

      So because ‑‑ you are absolutely right.  I think those thematic track groups would have had to have had their preparatory meetings beforehand.  I think even main session proposals, you know, we should at least have some on the table already.  As Chengetai said, we don't want very fixed proposals, but I think the more preparatory work we have done before this online meeting, the more feasible it is to get good results out of it.  So yes, this is just a first draft.  We really ‑‑ there is still a lot of detail to factor in.  And build into this.  But definitely to respond to your initial question, the assumption is that as in the case was in Berlin, that the groups would have made most of their decisions already by the time they come to this meeting.  Secretariat, did you want to add to that? 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Anriette, you are quite right.  As in the first slide, second actual slide.  Yes, there.  The breakout group methodology and process will be pre‑agreed on before the meeting.  We're still figuring it out.  We're still working on it.  Yes, we do want your input in it as well.  That is part of it here. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Absolutely.  We wanted to give you something to start thinking about so we can all understand and collectively own the design of this meeting.  Anyone else?  So the speaking queue is empty.  Clearly we need to reflect on this.  Chengetai will circulate this to you.  Please, think about it carefully.

Come up with suggestions, and we'll pick up on this during our next call

      So I'll close now item number 4.  And move on to item number 5.  Updates from Best Practice Forums and Working Groups.  [Coughing]

Excuse me.  Thanks very much Luis for that.  Can you just bring up our BPF page for us?  I can't remember who is first on the list.  Data and new technologies in an Internet context. 

     >> CONCETTINA: Okay, hi, everyone can you hear me? 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, Titi clearly.

     >> CONCETTINA: Okay.  We have two meetings so far. During the first call we shared with the participants, main objectives and the draft work plan.  The second meeting, the Best Practice Forums discussed and able to cover some of the issues.  Noted the BPF tends to cover everything a little bit.  After the second discussion, after going how COVID‑19 development can be addressed within the scope of this year works.  You know there are many development that include the use of data in the track [audio skipping].  

     So as you know, BPF address to the volume of use of data in provide the network in the application.  Because they can use for goal, but also can be used and abused by user and for them in a weak or powerless position.  So we actually decided to include COVID‑19 in had the BPF, but as you know, the COVID‑19 and there are multiple initiatives in the crisis, the application of new technology and the lives and user data.  So there is a push in this concern and to put them in the agenda.  And we have also shared presentation with the members of the BPF that you can find on the BPF website.  Last, just a few words on the BPF work plan.  There are classes of activities that are identifying issues that we discuss now.  Then identify the call in the next dialogue that we also discuss and try to collect and share practices.  Thank you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Titi.  Any questions for Titi?  Okay.

Move on.  Thanks very much.  That's really interesting.  I'm pleased to hear you are focusing on the current pandemic situation.  Next is the BPF on Cybersecurity. 

     >> BEN: Hi, Anriette, the BPF on Cybersecurity has decided to work in three different work streams this year.  We been soliciting volunteers for each of the three work streams and leaders for each of the three work streams, I think we almost have a final list now of volunteers and we're going to get the work stream groups together in the next week or two to decide how to progress the work.  On the pandemic, we did have one suggestion about whether we have focused our work to think about how you protect critical infrastructure.  Given the importance of that in the COVID‑19 responses.  And so we're going to discuss whether that is something we can easily accommodate within the existing work plan or whether that is too drastic a change and would need to come back to the MAG as a new proposals.  [Barking]

I think ideally we see how it can fit into the current proposal rather than having to start with a new proposal to the MAG.  That is where we got in the last few weeks. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, thanks a lot for that Ben.  Good progress on that.  Next we have the Best Practice Forums on gender and access. 

     >> MARIA:  Hi, this is Maria Paz.  I think Chenei had to leave early.  I will touch base.  We have had work in the last two weeks we have had during this time, two coordinating calls from the core group of the BPF, that it is organizing in the way we want to ask for input and participation for the list and mainly for the center of the work on the two calls is to try to refine a little bit the focus of the proposal that we submitted during this year for working, having into consideration the same thing my colleagues have put out for the other Best Practice Forums or current situation, the impact of COVID‑19 also from a gender perspective.  So we are in this point, trying to refine the description that we provide regionally.  We'll be sharing with the MAG for consideration again. 

      But we are keeping the link that we originally announced regarding to look at the policy processes.  And policy spaces.  But with a particular focus in issues that we consider that are the most important or some of the most relevant in the current context.  In that way, we keep the focus that we announced regionally.  But we narrow it down.  We make it more connected with the current reality. 

      The other thing that is relevant to report is that according what we intended, we have finally have been able to better connect with the gender situation.  So we are planning to work closer this year than what have been the case in the past.  So one of the DC coordinators will be working with us in the core coordinating group of the gender and accessibility BPF.  And finally, we have the amazing contribution of our recently appointed consultant, Serena, that allow us to clarify and being the right track in making in all of the decisions.  We will be sharing with you in the coming days the revised decision for the working plan for this year.  If you have any comments on that, let me know.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you for that Maria Paz.  I haven't opened to questions.  Let's hear all the reports and I will then open for questions.  Next is the BPF for local content.

     >> CARLOS:  Yes, Carlos here.  We had a very interesting meeting yesterday with our facilitator Serena with the participation of Anriette, and we came to the conclusion that we need more focus on the things that the BPF is going to handle.  And we are proposing that the focus is on intellectual ownership rights.  Community intellectual property rights, the ownership of national or community identifiers or natural resource, professional creative works at the international or community level, so on. 

     This seems to be a narrow focus.  But it opens up many, many things, many issues that are worth discussing.  And trying to capture good practices about it.  And of course, we are going to submit this new approach to the BPF to the list and to the participants, and receive suggestions on how to proceed.  That's the point we are now.  Thank you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Carlos.  And last, but not least, the BPF on BPFs.  Markus, are you ready to give us an update? 

     >> MARKUS:  Yes, Anriette, thank you.  You were part of the key people involved in the BPFs over the past years, just to look where we are, and also look at previous documents.  I think we had a good call establishing a basis with our consultant Win, who is also on the call.  We had a good visit on the paper.  We will visit that with a first draft with the same group.  We updated a special mailing list for that purpose in the second half of May.  A paper will then be produced for the MAG meeting in June.  I think at this stage, that's all I can say.  Unless someone else is willing to chip in.  I think we realized some thought needs to be given to actually how to define the BPFs conceptually, what is best suited for a BPF, and also there was some talk on how to take the outcome further.  But this is all in a very early stage of the discussion.  But I'm hopeful that we will be able to come up with a decent paper for the next MAG meeting where we really then would like to have the input of the entire MAG.  Thank you. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Markus, any questions or comments on the BPF reports?  I see not.  The speaking queue is empty. 

      We have the agenda Working Group reports but as we're out of time and I don't want to rush the Working Group reports, I would like to invite the Working Group coordinators to send us short reports and updates on the mailing list.  And then we can discuss those and get back to that during our next call. 

      So on that, let's move on to the final agenda item, any other matters, any other business.  Does anyone have anything else they wanted to raise or share with us?  Secretariat, anything else from you? 

     >> MARY: Hello?  Hello?  This is Mary.  Can you hear me.


     >> MARY:  Good afternoon, good morning, good evening everyone.  Thank‑you it has been a productive meeting.  In my community, I got a call today to ask whether the issue of high‑level participants like the National Assembly ‑‑ I mean, the parliamentarians and the ministers would ask ‑‑ nominations could still be made after the deadline which was 22nd?  That promise I will raise it when I meet today because I know the deadline has elapsed.  Maybe Chengetai, if you would extend a time of grace for submission of names.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you for asking that Mary.  Chengetai.

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: For the names, we set the deadline for April 30th.  That's not a hard deadline.  If you submit names after the deadline, we will still look at them.  It will make life easier for us if you submit them before April 30th.  If you submit them a day or so after, sure.  That's fine.  It's only when we have to send the letters out that is the issue.  Then it becomes a little bit difficult, you know, to have the polish minister or our USG sign them.  We can't make three or four trips.  We have to make one trip and they sign it.  And we also have to send them out in good time.  So please, go ahead and please send us that information. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Chengetai.  I see no other hands and we are just about at the end of our meeting.  So let's bring the meeting to a close.  Chengetai, I forgot to record arc apologies at the beginning.  Did we have any apologies from the MAG members? 

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: We did not have any.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you that the MAG members.  Thank you to the observers who joined us, big welcome to our consultant, I think this is the first time you formally joined the call.  Or second time?  Welcome to Serena and them for joining us.  And thanks to everyone who has worked and contributed to this productive meeting.  And wishing you all very well with the workshop evaluation process that is coming.  That is ahead.  It is exciting process.  It is hard work.  You know, it can be really exhausting mentally and visually for one's eyes.  But it is also very exciting because it is such a close connection with the community and the issues that people care about.  I always enjoyed workshop evaluation, I have to confess.  So thanks very much.  And thanks to the Secretariat for your excellent preparation for the meeting. 

      And Chengetai, just remind us when our next call will be, please.

     >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: The next call is on the 12th of May, 2000 hours, UTC.  12th May. 

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Good.  Talk to everyone again.  Look after yourselves.  And be patient with the situation.  It won't last forever. 

     >> We are getting more and more used to online meetings. 


     >> Thank you, Anriette. 

[Many farewells]

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Bye, everyone.  Take care.

     >> Bye‑bye, thank you very much.