IGF 2020 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - X

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. 


>> SECRETARIAT:  Good afternoon, morning, and evening, ladies and gentlemen.  This is MAG Meeting Number 10 and the usual, this meeting is being recorded and also being transcribed and a Summary Report will be posted a couple of days after this meeting.

We will be using the speaking queues, so if you can, please log in there and use the speaking queue if you want to take the floor.  Or if you're on the forum, you can also put it in the Chat, but we do prefer the speaking queue.  With that let me hand the meeting over to Anriette.

   >> CHAIR:  Thank you very much.  Welcome, everyone to the members, transcriber, Secretariat.  For me it's nice to have a meeting during the middle of the day and apologies to those who it's not a good time.  I won't delay the welcome.  I think we have a lot of work to get through.  This is our last call before our meeting last week and we have a lot of decisions to make and a lot of ground to come to.

The only thing I want to say at this point is to thank all the MAG Members for doing such an incredible job in the workshop evaluation.  They tell me that this is the highest rate of responses from MAG Members in a while, so just thank you very much.  I know for many of you, it was a stretch to complete the evaluation, so the fact that so many of you did, in fact, the majority, and it's really fantastic.  Over to you.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  Just that this year is actually the highest and we only have five MAG Members that did not complete the grading, so that is very, very good, so a big thank you to all the MAG Members and also a big thank you to the Chair for following up.  Right now for the Secretariat updates, as you know   

   >> CHAIR:  I'm sorry.  We should do the Action Item Check and also for the record we have quite a few apologies.  If we can just note those as well, please, and then a check in on action items.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Yes.  So, we have apology from Macella, unfortunately, she cannot come, and I can't find any other apologies.

   >> CHAIR:  I think Gee.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Okay, yes, and also from Gee, apologizing that they could not make it to this meeting.

Now, as far as the Action Items are concerned, we have the Action Item of MAG Members to comment on the agenda by June 5 and we've had a lot of comments and we've incorporated those into the Draft Agenda.

So, we hope that    well, it's not a hope.  We must finalize the Draft Agenda now in this meeting because it would be unfair to those people that are trying to plan the time for next week, so let's make it a goal for this meeting that after this meeting, the Draft Agenda is set and will have no more changes as such.

As I said, the deadline for the workshop evaluations has passed, the 31st of May, and we have also for the Secretariat's point of view, we have also distributed an Excel sheet with the gradings and also with the standard deviations, et cetera, and also with some statistics which would help you in your discussions in your thematic groups.  Luis has also distributed the different Excel sheets to the different thematic groups and made a shared document in Google Sheets for group work to be done on those, and so those will all be action items, and I think they've all been completed.

   >> CHAIR:  Thank you very much for that and just if you can even know or when you do the update, just report back to us on the responses to the survey that we sent around with regard to MAG Member's preferences for a collaboration platform.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Okay.  We'll do that.  Yeah.  Okay.

Now, for the Secretariat Updates, there has been one new Dynamic Coalition that has been recognized and that is the DC on Internet and Jobs so if some MAG Members want to join that, please feel free to join it.  I think the information is available on the IGF Dynamic Coalition website.

As I said, we did update the agenda items    I mean, the agenda for the second Open Consultation, and just of note, we did make room during the first week of June for the HLPDC roadmap sessions because we thought that it's not the majority but all of the people who do attend, will also be equally interested in the roadmap, so we decided to make a break there for the HLPDC roadmap presentation.

We also indicated on the agenda, the Open Consultation Agenda Items because since we had to make a break for the roadmap session, we had to shift some of the sessions for the Open Consultations to the other days and those have clearly been indicated on the agenda; and yes, they have agreed to take up the cost for the French interpretation so there will be French interpretation on the OC days and not, unfortunately, for the MAG days or sessions.

Also, Tuesday last week I sent out a message saying that for those MAG Members in developing countries who would want some assistance with the Internet costs, if they could please send a cost estimate to the Secretariat to Ema and CC myself and we have received five such cost estimates, so we will wait until the end of the day today.  But if you don't send in a cost estimate, we cannot come later on and say that you want to receive something because we will have to prepare and we have to seek approval for those, so we can only do it in one batch.  And so, if you have not yet already, please do send Ema or myself indicating that you want such report and also the estimated costs so that we can budget for it.

Again, this has not been finalized yet, and so it is still under discussion.  But all indications are that some assistance will be provided for those who do indicate so beforehand.

And then the final item is that we also have registration.  We only have 17 registrations for next week, so if you have not registered yet, please do register.  And also, please do tell your constituents to register as well for the Open Consultations and MAG Meeting because it really does help us to know how many people are coming, et cetera, do we have in the virtual rooms; and if not we can make alternative arrangements if not, so please do encourage everybody to register.

Thank you, Anriette.  For the results of the survey I'm still waiting for the email so I'll do that.

   >> CHAIR:  If I could, not a proper survey but Luis sent a list of options and some expressed some over the other, so if we give the floor then he can explain to MAG Members what he has set up.  Luis can just update everyone else.

   >> LUIS BOBO:   Thank you, Anriette.  It's going to be very easy.  There are basically three steps.  One is how to collaborate with documents online, and the second is how to publish the results of those collaborations.

Basically, there are two options to do both things and so you can do whatever is better for you.  It's not a survey, so if for one document, for example, in the case of results or evaluations, it's for the secretary that we publish it and we have published it with the results and given the permissions to different groups and then you can manage.

If, for example, within the groups we're already working out mostly and you have started online documents for you could work with, you are free to use those.  And then again, there are the two options to send the things for us to upload to the website and make available to everyone, or there is a fast method for you to make available the documents to MAG, even if you prefer me to upload, then please just send to me.  I hope that clarifies.

   >> CHAIR:  Thank you, Luis.  So, before we move on to give the floor back to the Secretariat for the results, does anyone have any questions about the platform or the methods we're going to use for sharing documents or any other questions so far?  I don't see anyone in the speaking queue, and I don't see any hands.

Is everyone clear on how to upload and share and access documents?  Okay.  It looks like everyone is.  If you're not, it doesn't matter because you can always ask for help.

Let's move on and give back the floor to the Secretariat who has done incredible work in analyzing and visualizing the results of the workshop evaluation.  Back to you.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  I'm sorry.  You have caught me flat footed again.  Just give me a second.

   >> CHAIR:  Don't worry.  I'm sorry about this.  Mary has asked for the floor so you have time.  Mary, you have the floor.

   >> MARY UDUMA:  Okay.  Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.  Please, can you hear me?

   >> CHAIR:  We can hear you.

   >> MARY UDUMA:  Can you hear me, please?

   >> CHAIR:  Yes.  We can hear you.

   >> MARY UDUMA:  Thank you very much.  I have a question for the Secretariat on interpretation of the meeting    the MAG Meeting in June    it was said it was open consultations that will give input, are we going to interpret that, is it again a marked principle for us    (Speaking off mic).

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Yes, Mary.  I'm sorry.  It was just a question of resources, and unfortunately, we only had enough resources and we had to choose what to interpret, so we had a choice between those ones with the Open Consultations or the MAG Meeting.  So, it was a hard choice but we decided to have interpretation for the Open Consultation sessions because those have the most interest and those are the ones that will reach the most people.

If we had more resources, of course, we would interpret all the sessions in all the languages.  But this is a start, and we hope to improve as time goes on.

   >> CHAIR:  And Mary, I know that there are MAG Members whom English is a second or third language and they have to work in English which is the MAG Working language, so even if we could have official interpretation into the UN languages, we would still be excluding some MAG Members, so you know that is a challenge, and I know we are trying what we can to improve inclusion and linguistic diversity; but you know, we cannot get away from the fact that the MAG is a very multilingual group and that English is the working language then of the MAG.  

The meeting will have many sessions in breakout groups and therefore    and also, we want to run the sessions in different time zones, and even just with the open consultation days, it's kind of difficult because we have to start the sort the sessions into chunks of time that work for interprets and also in time zones that are friendly to the Geneva best interpreters, and so it is an advantage to be able to have interpretation for the Open Consultation, but it also creates constraints and scheduling the MAG Sessions will be much harder if we had to work with those constraints.  Okay.  Chengtai, back to you.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Okay.  Thank you.  We are ready now.  As I had mentioned, we just created some statistics just to give a feel and an idea of how the results are, so if we go to the second page, second slide.  It's just comparisons to the top 40 proposals compared to all proposals.  We just choose the top 40 proposals because that's what we've done traditionally in the past and it's just an arbitrary number, the top 40 proposals with kind of like an assumption that at least the top 40 proposals would get in and then the rest will be up to a way of how to balance the teams or the track, and so it's not a hard and fast rule, but it's just an arbitrary figure that we've traditionally used.

So, as you can see with the Top 40 Proposals, it's fairly consistent with all proposals, the proportion.  I mean, data is 21 and the other is 12, so if you look there is not that much difference as such, it's still recognizable, the proportions are recognizable.

And then if you go to those    the next two slides, these are just the topics for all proposals and the topics for the    for the Top 40 and they're still the same similarities.  Human rights is first, still the best ranked out of the first two, and then there is a difference after human rights.  Overall, it's freedom of expression and security factors.  For the Top 40, it's digital schools, digital divide, and inclusion; so, yes, as far as the topics are concerned, it does veer off the two.  They're not consistent with the overall proposal, but still that's okay.  It just means that some topics are more prominent this time around than in the overall.

Now, the ranking, we'll just go to the pie chart where I think it's much, much easier to see than the bar chart, at least for me.  We had a discussion of which is better here, which is better pie charts or bar charts, and it seems for me it's pie charts and for other people it's the bar charts, but still doesn't matter.

As you can see with the Top Ranked, it's still    it is different.  I think freedom of expression is the top, and the second is norms.  For the top ranking, so these are the top 10 proposals.  Cybersecurity is the top followed by platforms.  So, there is a difference, and it doesn't mean that we have to follow it.  It's just more information for us.

And if you go to the pie charts for inclusion, it's the same thing.  It's not really consistent.  Capacity building is the top ranked topic for Inclusion and overall thematic track, but in the Top 10 proposals, it's digital divide issues that are more prominent.  And then I think we are followed in a very close tie by connecting the unconnected, digital skills, economic development, and inclusion.  These all ranked.  And then in here we have overall in the thematic track, it's the digital schools, public policy making and inclusive regulatory framework, so it is a little bit different and the only thing that makes it a little different is basically the digital skills.

And for the data pie charts, the data sharing is the top for the Top 10 ranked, and overall in the thematic rank, it's data protection and but privacy is a second here, and but privacy is basically the same for the Top 10 so that's fine.  So, I'm not too sure how you're going to use this, but I still think it's just important to see whether or not the percentages track across from the top ranked ones to the most popular ones overall.

And with environment, as we can see here, I think it is ICT impact on the environment which is top here and it's also top in the top ranked, so that's good.  And then next is emerging technologies, and emerging technologies is also a second here.  And so with environment it does track and so, yes, the Top 10 are a reflection of the most popular tracks as far as the most popular topics as far as the environmental track is concerned.

Now, we've also included the Top 20 proposals with the highest variance, and we have traditionally looked at the proposals with the highest variance and it means there has been the most disagreement on whether or not this is a good proposal with some MAG Members scoring that proposal highly and some scoring it low, so we do consider that these are proposals worth looking into a little bit deeper because they do encourage debate and I think it is much more interesting to have a topic where there is a wide range of opinions on it instead of one where everybody agree, basically, on things.

So, these are for MAG Members to look at in your individual thematic tracks to see whether or not they're worth putting into those    into your final selections.  Usually they, of course, do not make it into the Top Ranked because some people marked them very low.  I think the highest ranked proposal here is a number of 43, so but I still think that is good to take a look at it.  So, that's just an overview of these statistics, and hopefully they'll be helpful when you are constructing your tracks.  Thank you, Anriette.

   >> CHAIR:  Thank you very much Chengtai.  Can you just go back to the pie charts for trust, please?  One of the things that struck me is that some of the subthemes are very similar or overlapping.  So, for example, if we take information and disinformation is one color and then each is 5% and they really    it's really the same topic, and so just remind us how are these the subthemes that proposers identified themselves?  How did you come up with these?

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Yes.  Can you hear me?  Yes.  Okay.  Good.  Yes.  Yes.  These are    we are taking how the proposals themselves classified.  Yeah.

   >> CHAIR:  So, this is just something that I think we need to consider and I think MAG Members should suggest whether you think it's useful for us to rationalize these or not to.  For example, human rights and freedom of expression as well, you know, it's a lot of these could be clustered into broader categories if you think that would be useful.

The next is to open the floor to any questions or reactions to this summary that Chengtai has presented.  Roberto, you have the floor.

   >> ROBERTO:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  Good morning and good afternoon, everyone.  About this budgetary evolution group leading by poll, we decided that it was better as you just said, then we could choose more inclusive topics.  We also have several identified just as Chengtai showed us and we think it was better to work with six as we identified six topics that including two of most or actually all of the different subthemes or topics that we identified during it; so, yes, I think that's a good practice and that is the thing we are following in order to have the best themes balance within all the final selected proposals.  That's it.  Thank you very much.

   >> CHAIR:  Thank you, Roberto.  So, this is something that could be done between today and next week if members feel that would be useful.  And if we were to do that, so you've already come up with the subthemes and let's hear if other groups have done the same or if this is something you would like the Secretariat to assist with?  I see no other requests for the floor.

>> BEN:  Hi, Anriette.  It's Ben.  I'm sorry just jumping between topics.  So, I with Sylvia in facilitating the Trust Group and just on that particular question of subthemes, I feel I'd explain what we did in the first stage of our work over the first couple of days of this.  We have    following the green, yellow, red basket approach, we took a preliminary approach of putting the first 30 of our 98 proposals    about 30% into a green basket and we looked at the subthemes    we looked at the proposals within those baskets and looked at how they would fit within the subthemes that the trust track had identified back in February, and we found that it was a quite good spread between four of the six subthemes we identified previously.  Only a couple of workshops that get into a fifth, and we had none really in the sixth.

So, we removed one of our subthemes and we also reviewed the type based on some of the comments from members our group and made a couple of small changes, so we're going into the second phase of our project with a slightly revised set of subthemes that cover various elements of the trust track.  If it helps to run through them, I'll just quickly speak them out.

   >> CHAIR:  I mean, I don't think you need to.  I think what we need to decide is whether it would be helpful for us to redo this analysis using those subthemes that you've assigned, that you've developed for the proposal.  Is that something that people would like us to do to instead of using the categories of the proposals identified, to use the subthemes that MAG Thematic Working Groups have developed.  Would you like us to do that?  Just raise your hands if you think that's a good idea.

I see Roberto   

>> I support that.

   >> SUSAN:  This is Susan.  Yeah.  Thanks.

   >> CHAIR:  Happy Birthday, Susan.

   >> SUSAN:  Oh, thanks, guys.

   >> CHAIR:  If anyone    if this doesn't make sense, then please just take the floor.  It would be easier    go ahead.  I see in the chat that it's clear repeated twice, is it total 8 person for that or for    accepted.  Thank you.  Chengtai, can you respond to that, it's the pie chart on the left where we have online 30 appearing twice each with 4%.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  I'm searching.  Oh, yes, that is true.  I think we need to    yes, we need to take another look at that.  I'm sorry.

   >> CHAIR:  It was done in a hurry, and I think it does give us a sense though.  I think no one is objecting to us reclusterring this analysis and using the categories that the groups have developed.  That means you need to make sure that the Secretariat has those groups and how you have assigned workshops to those groups or subthemes, and then we can do that.

Chengtai, anything else that you want to include in this section of the agenda, which is sharing the results of the workshop evaluation?  And if any of the Working Groups have anything to share at this point, any reflections, please, now is the time.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Please carry on.

>> Yes.  I just wanted to add in the proposals identified on one particular or some topics, but actually if you go through the proposal, sometimes it's not really close to that topic and it's closer to some other topics.  That's a suggestion that's important to have an alert.  That's it.  Thank you.

   >> MARIA PAZ:  I'm sorry.  Can I jump in with a comment?  This is Maria.  Yeah, that is precisely why I disagree of doing the retagging by the Secretariat because I think that is part of the analysis with the different groups that need to do in revising the selected workshops and the scoring.  I think that's as the track has already done, or some, and I think this is part of the task that we need to conduct in this stage review, precisely to look into the workshops high scoring and really see if they fit into the three subthemes originally identified but also flag as the trust track has done and if there is something more relevant or something.  So, I don't think at this stage it would be helpful to retag or resignal the workshop.  Think we should be doing that as part of the substantive analysis.  Thank you.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Maria Paz.  Sylvia, what do you have to say here, do you also want to speak to this?

   >> SYLVIA:  Yes.  I just want to support what Maria Paz was saying.  I was in the chat trying to follow the queue and it wasn't working, and so for the same reasons that Maria Paz mentioned and other mentioned that some people are the tags    the people tagged and that's why some occurs and so it's not an error of Secretariat, it's just how people use the tag, right.

And then the other thing is that on the spreadsheets that Luis    so, ultimately for us, we can do    you can copy the spreadsheets and do your own analysis of different amounts, or whatever top proposals are workable for your track.  And so in the trust track, it didn't really help us much because that was not our green basket, so Luis helped us to set up a couple of new tabs to run the same analysis that the Secretariat did but only for the Top 30, so it's easy to do and Luis can explain and I can help if anyone needs that assistance, but as Maria Paz said, I think it's much better to do that analysis as part of the Working Group because it's not coming that straightforward from the applications.  It's actually more.  Yeah.  Thanks.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Sylvia.  And I think that I'm very happy with that if that makes sense.  It sounds to me that some groups have already done analysis, but it would be premature for the Secretariat to do any change in the visualization if you haven't yet had had the discussion, so that is what we then need to bolt into the preparation.

Is there something that should be done    if I understand you correctly, the proposal is that this is what is to be done in preparation for next week's meeting, or is this work you see yourself doing during next week's meeting?  Sylvia and Maria Paz, if you can just clarify, please.

>> MARIA PAZ:  This is Maria Paz for the record.  From my point of view, it's something that needs to be done for the preparation as part of the review that we're doing right now, but of course can be done during the discussion during next week, but some kind of proposals should be completed during this initial screening.  Thank you.

   >> CHAIR:  My understanding also is that it's part of the preparatory work and part of the milestones to develop, and so I do think it needs to be done and so to do it as preparatory work for next week then we could do a visualization of it if that would help for the discussion of the meeting.

Okay.  So, I see there are no further hands.  Then I see you are posting something in the chat, Ben.  Did you want to share that?  

>> BEN WALLIS:  Thank you, no.  I was responding to a question from Mary.  She was asking what I was referring to when I said we had 30% in our green basket and how we came to that number, so I was explaining that we referred to the guidance from the Working Group on workshop process and the basic approach to take three baskets, green, yellow, and red, and we also looked at the scores they received and looked at what might be a good threshold cutoff pointed and divide them into three baskets, so I just shared that detail.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Ben.  You have the floor.  I saw your request.

   >> JEMIA:  Thank you, Chair.  Apologize to you and colleagues for coming in a bit late.  I'm a bit unprepared for the meeting and coming from another one and don't have everything lined up as usual.  Just quickly wanted to comment on the task that you and everybody is discussing now in terms of really branding the subtheme allocations.

I think that is something that we are saying that we can talk about in our respective tag groups during this week and we can put in some sort of proposal to go against the meeting that we all will have together next week, and then after that, once we all agree on what the subthemes should be and how each works so that we select them under the subthemes, I think that is the point where we have to make sure that we reflect those subthemes on the program.  That is just my two cents.

And I also want to give you a quick update on what we're doing in the environment track.  It might seem that we have a simpler task, but everybody else we're looking at    so I guess it would be easier to choose a few, but it would be harder because we're already familiar with what the 19 are, and I think we can at this point recite them by heart.  And so what we've done with fellow coordinators, we've just looked at the very helpful analysis by the Secretariat and helpful worksheets and thanks to everybody that worked on that.  And I think the process that we are taking is the same in the other tracks, and we are going to reach out today to the rest of the group to share our thinking about what we're appropriating and to have a cutoff point at the top and have a cutoff point at the bottom.  The top will basically be the green basket, the bottom will be the red basket, and then our thinking is to choose to put forward everything that is in the green basket as it is, and then discuss any gaps, possible mergers, or anything else that we wanted to bring on to the program is going to be in discussion for us later this week, either tomorrow or on Thursday with the full group to discuss how are we ranking really the middle section there to signal to the MAG what is our preference in populating further the environment track.

Our general thinking on subthemes is the community, I think, was really interested in two topics that are very high, and one is impact on environment you can see there, and also emerging technologies and their effect on the environment, and also how ICTs can be used to fuel climate action.  And so those are the three major things that we can see, but they're also very interesting proposals that talk about misinformation in climate change, for example, bringing youth into the discussion, and so we will need to think a little bit about that and how we bring in some of those interesting ideas that definitely are not mentioned that many times but they do bring in a different perspective.

In terms of diversity of speakers, that we also have to balance out our proposals for final workshop selection, and on the top we have a pretty good roster of stakeholders and a pretty good roster of geographical diversity and at the moment the two big gaps that we're seeing in terms of speakers is the African Group and the Government Stakeholder Group, and actually if we look at all 19 workshops, the speakers that are listed as governments, there is only one speaker in all of the 19 workshops that is listed as Government, so that gives us a little bit of a headache on what to do with that.  But I guess we can look also at the proposals and we can hopefully encourage some of the workshop proponents to think about also putting a government perspective to their speaking queues.  So those are our general questions, and as I said, we'll be reaching out to the full group with our thinking from the three of us to propose a way forward today, and then we already have an idea to meet either on Wednesday or Thursday this week, and we'll be ready with the full proposal including subthemes and the workshops by Friday as promised.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks very much, Jemia.

Okay.  I don't see any other hands and I think what we need to do now before we move on to the agenda is just to make it clear that this is exactly what I want.  Actually, thanks Luis, just what the next steps are.  You've just been talking about the next steps with regard to subthemes and baskets, and but can we just go through what the next steps are.  And we could easily look at this list here or go to the workshop evaluation process and document.  The evaluation process working group, what's do you feel these milestones    Luis, can you just move to the milestone section of the agenda, please.  Should we look the a these, but we can also look at the work that the Working Group has done.  This is not quite the same.

But let me just review these, actually, because these are our next steps and then I'll open the floor to the Working Group so that they can point you to the work they've done and present it.

So, here we have    this is on our agenda which we'll discuss shortly, but this is what we so far have identified needs to be done by Monday, and that is    or by the time we start the MAG Meeting, and so an in depth of review of workshops with a high degree of variance and Chengtai already gave me the list and just to add about what was said about why to highlight these.  I think it's also a good way of checking whether people misunderstood the proposal or understood it differently, or whether there are MAG Members that evaluated the proposals and they are issues that they need to vet.  So, it's just a way of testing whether there is something that needs more discussion or not, but it might not need if it's a workshop irrespective of the variance then maybe we don't need to discuss it further, but that's up to you to decide.

Then consensus on what workshop approval should be eliminated.  This is the red basket approach and it's really a way for you to simplify your discussion because if you can just agree that these are poor scoring proposals, we don't feel they have any potential, let's just take them off the table.  Then that reduces the number of proposals you need to discuss further.

And then the next one, the final ranking of workshops per thematic track, and that would be the ranking that you assign, that each thematic group assign based on your discussions of the scoring, but then also of how you feel the workshop scores in terms of what value they bring to the theme, and this is where I have writing or suggestion that you use the green basket approach and those are proposals where you unite and would like to see the theme.  And then the yellow basket approach would be proposals that need further discussion or you want to propose for mergers or whatever.

In the next one is to put up possible subthemes and this is what we've just discussed now, and then assess to which the high scoring proposals cover these things.  So you would look at your green basket based on how the thematic content of the proposal gives you the kind of holistic coverage for each theme that you would like to see on a strong, interesting, diverse program, and this is where you would possibly flag a lower scoring or yellow basket workshop proposal because you feel it brings content diversity which is needed.

And then the next milestone is really, should you feel it's necessary, and I know some of you last week or last fall felt it wasn't necessary, but should you feel that the thematic narrative should be updated based on your work doing the evaluations, then if you can do that, and in fact the deadline for that is tomorrow.

And the reason for that is really, remember for the Open Consultation purpose, we'll be presenting those thematic narratives, that's the material that the people who have participated in the consultation will refer to, and so if you want to make changes to that, we need it in time.

And then, finally, we'll start, if you can, and this is not    if it hasn't come up yet then a matter to review in the meeting, but if based on your discussion so far, main sessions stand out, then let's start noting that.  We have one main session that's already under discussion and that's the one that Karim and Roberto are working on but you might have based on how you discussed the themes have come up with ideas for the main session.

And I think if that's the complete list of the milestones, I now would like to give the floor to    I see Sylvia, you actually have asked for the floor because we realize that this might not harmonize completely within this just workshop evaluation and next steps to identify the workshop process working group but now is the time to highlight that.  Sylvia, you have the floor.

>> SYLVIA:  Thanks.  I just wanted to say the opposite and that actually Roberto and Members of the Working Group may incorporate these guidelines, these milestones into the workshop evaluation guidelines, so in there    it's so it's better to refer to that document because it has kind of the meeting between, before and after and does include all the milestones that you have mentioned there.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Sylvia.  I really appreciate that you've done and that it's been done well enough.  So, in fact, this document, the one that's on your screen now is the document that you should be referring to.  The milestones in the agenda are really for the purpose of the agenda, and but for you to do your preparatory work for next week, refer to General Guidance for Workshop Evaluation Process, and I think we have a queue now and we have Mary and then Maria Paz and then Mary, do you also want to ask for the floor here and then ask your question.  Mary, over to you.

   >> MARY UDUMA:  Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.

   >> CHAIR:  Mary, are you there?  We heard you and then you disappeared.

   >> MARY UDUMA:  (Laughing).  Okay.  Can you hear me now?  I think I'm back.  Just a question on the updating of the narrative.  When I saw that I posted in my Working Group what the essence is since workshop applicants had relied on a narrative    (Speaking off mic)    on narratives to submit their application and we have evaluated the applications based on the current narratives, and I wanted to know whether it is for future work or it is for the topic or for what we need to rewrite or update the narratives?  It wasn't clear in my sense what was    what we're trying to achieve here.  I'm sorry if I'm the only one that is speaking, so I need   

   >> CHAIR:  Mary, you're not the only one.  This was a question last week as well.  It's really optional.  It's purely, I think it's useful for you to go back and reflect on those narratives because remember, participants in the Open Consultation process are going to look at that, and so it's really just a check for each group to assess whether you want to make any changes to it or not.  You might not make any changes, but if you have your subthemes ready, then you could add your subthemes, for example.  So, really, it's optional and I don't feel it's obligatory, but I think it could be useful for you to do that check, just to check back on those because remember, you wrote those documents in January before you read all the workshop proposal, so it's just an optional check for each group to do should it be necessary.  It's not compulsory at all.

And Maria Paz?

>> MARIA PAZ:  Thank you.  My government is just very coincident with what Carlos informed in the chat and in case    (Speaking off mic)    I think that we have particularly the issue of many topics that are high ranked that are all related to COVID 19 and the privacy impact of COVID 19, and so I think we really need to do a thorough aspect managing the different proposals, considering that many of them have been high ranked but are all producing the very same issue and I don't think that is the goal for the program to have four sessions talking about the same topic.  So I think that this is very hard in the case of that track because at least 4 of the 12 initial 30 high scores in the track are related to COVID 19 and privacy issues, and I know that there is notes a preference for mergers in the proposal, but I think that people like (?), it would not be a better solution but here propose some kind of merger or just select some of the best ones, and as I say, that's very because several are very high.  That's one thing.

The other thing is following one of the action items, I think that talking into something similar of this COVID 19 proposal, there is one proposal that I personally, when I was doing the review myself, scoring the proposals as MAG Member, I found that it was a very good candidate for the main session and that's actually finally one of the high scorers in our track and so, again, I think it's really vent to identify by the group because that will finally the rest of the MAG agree in the session becoming a main session and it will free one spot in our Data track for with all the proposals from the yellow basket, and so just to highlight those things.  I'm notes sure if there are other groups in the same situation, but I think in the case of the Data track this is because of what I have already said, that means that at least five of the high scoring proposals now could be eventually moved and to be replaced by five that are at this moment in the yellow basket, and I think that's very appropriate and invite and encourage my colleagues from the Data track Working Group to do this assessment, and in our case we follow a slightly different approach than the Environment or Trust group that already responded because we    we used the work of the (?) on the first page only to signalize the referred basket according to the guidance of the process group, the working group, and we finalize the 30 highest scores, a proposal in the green basket, the 30 lowest in the red basket, and everything else is in between in the yellow basket, and we invite to do the assessment broader from the comment from yesterday until Wednesday.

So, I will be happy to collect any of those in the (?) and to prepare during the meeting the consolidated version for our group for any sort of discussion in the 11 and the 12 about initial proposal of the group.  Thank you very much.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Maria Paz.  And that's important because that's something else when you do your preparatory work for the meeting next week, the recommendations that each thematic group develops for the discussions by the whole MAG, this is something else that should be in the recommendations, so if you have workshop proposals that you feel would be better in the main session and so that's something else that you need to include in your reporting.  So thanks a lot for emphasizing that because we didn't    I certainly didn't put that in the milestones, but it was implied.

And, Jutta, you have the floor.  We're one hour into the meeting, so I'm just please add your name or type in the chat on this topic, and then we will move on to the agenda or close    by the time to finish speaking, if you haven't added your name, we'll move on.  Jutta, you have the floor.

>> JUTTA:  Thank you for giving me the floor.  I'll try to be brief.  I just wanted to reflect on the overall arching theme of COVID 19, and I just think that since it's obvious since COVID 19 and pandemic has affected all of our lives, it also affects the themes that are suggested in the proposals for the IGF this year; and nonetheless, I think I saw in the proposals that I was supposed to assess, quite a different approach to that issue and I do think that will help us also sort out the problem that we have maybe overlapping workshop proposals.  Even in different tracks, you might have some overlaps because when they put in COVID 19, you have another kind of attention to that proposal, and then in some cases I really got the feeling that some people just used COVID 19 as a segue to make that proposal more attractive, to let it look like it was something completely new in the normative, or so it wasn't if you really look into that, and so I do think that we will be able to find some criteria to solve that out, whether it's a proposal on a certain issue that COVID 19 has had a real impact on that specific issue and theme, and on the other hand, we may see that COVID 19 has only been added to a proposal that, my impression, was already there just to be sent out and someone wrote into it it's also somehow related to COVID 19, and we need to sort that out not only in one track but we need to have a common approach over all the groups in regard of sorting out whether it's really related to COVID 19 and already have an impact on Internet governance, and Internet governance will have an impact on the issue even further on after the pandemic, or whether it's just like a straw fire, we say in German, I don't know whether it's also in English language, something that's maybe now important but we're not having a longer standing impact on the situation.  Thank you.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Jutta.  Yes.  I see I think we need to    this will come up    so for example, if we decide that we're going to have a main session on COVID 19, then we will also be able to evaluate some of this, but thanks for flagging that.

And I think we need to move on.  I think that we really should for the sake of all the work for the workshop process working group has done, if we can just formally accept and adopt the guidance document that they've had for us.  It was just flagged for me that they would like us to complete that so they can make the document available to everyone.

As far as I can see, we can do that.  Does anyone object to that?  Thanking the Working Group for their hard work and formally adopting the document?  I don't see any objections.

I thank very much to Roberto and everyone in the group.  You have really done a lot of work and it's a very useful document.

So, let's move on to the agenda.  And our apologies if it hasn't been finalized, but thank you to those of you that met the deadline with comments, and but we've had to shuffle things around and some of it is out of our control, such as the implementation dialogues of the Secretary General's comments on the roadmap of digital architecture, and I'm actually going to hand it over to the Secretariat now because we've been really working on this agenda until the minute before the MAG Meeting started, so I'm not even sure which version we have up, but we've also prepared some polls to get some input from you on the agenda.

So, Secretariat, can I hand it back to you at this point, please.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Sure.  Since Ana was doing much of the writing, I'll give it over to her.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Thank you very much and thank you Anriette.  To respond to the latest question, so the versions on the list of documents are the ones you were commenting on, there is the version that was always following the changes that were adopted and also the Google Doc version.

I think maybe the best spot, let's say, perhaps the one display comments because there are some comments pending consensus from the MAG Group so I would like to go through that.  There is an alternative version.  I'll wait for Anriette to come to that, where we were thinking to reserve the Open Consultations for the first two days, just for the sake of consistency in time.  And so we prepared a version just to see how it would look like if we moved the Open Consultation sessions reserved for the 16 and 19 of June to the 16 of June; so technically, the Open Consultations would be 15 and 16 and then go into the MAG Meeting.

And then on the question, Anriette, maybe I'll keep asking for a quick clarification on the HLPD section, we don't have that many updates as compared to what has been received on this spot from 13 to 16 UTC when the implementation for regular education will be hosted, so we've put an indication on the agenda just to encourage the MAG Members to attend, plan to attend, and of course we expect the roadmap to be announced, but we're also very fortunate on the 16th in the agenda, you will see that we will have the USG speaking for, I believe, one hour about the roadmap directly and that would be a good opportunity to ask questions.  Yes, from 2:10 to 3:15 on the second day.

   >> CHAIR:  So, let me just clarify.  I'll just clarify on that particular issue.  If you can just go back to the Day 1, so and I mean many of you will be aware of this already, and I'm not sure if anyone how here can add, but basically, normally we would have had our Open Consultation and completed all the elements of the Open Consultation on Monday.  That was the original plan.  But at the same time, as we were scheduling our meeting after we scheduled our agenda, the Under Secretary General's office started planning the release, releasing the report or roadmap this week, and then they're commencing with a series of public implementation dialogues, and they had scheduled the implementation dialogue on recommendations 5A and B for Geneva time Monday afternoon, so it clashed with our Open Consultation time, and this is obviously a discussion that we'd like to be part of.  Many MAG Members are actively involved in that whole process.  So, Chengtai and I have been working with the office to try to find a way around it.

The only way we could find a way around this was to split our Open Consultation into more than one day and to start on Monday but to conclude at 12:00 UTC so that all of you can participate in the HLPDC Implementation Dialogue on Architecture of Digital Cooperation which will start at 13:00 UTC.  This would be on a different platform, different registration, and they're still trying to finalize the technical details of how to do this, and we'll probably hear later today.  But that's the rationale for that.  

And then this purpose of challenge and then we can fit in the remaining of the open consultation sessions later on in the week and this version of the agenda, it's actually the remaining Open Consultation component which is the DC work and slotted in for Friday, but I think it actually might be easier and something for us to set that in on Tuesday so that we can do what you normally do, which is for the MAG to complete the Open Consultation, to complete the public part of the meeting and then go into the second part of the meeting which is the MAG, but this is really open to you to give feedback on.

I'm going to give it back to you now, and maybe we should also do the polls that we've developed, but I'll ask you to take us forward first.

Are there any questions before maybe we go back to the agenda?  Does anyone have any questions on the process so far and on the HLPDC and statement on Monday afternoon?

I see Timea has posted the link.  They published a schedule but I don't think they have yet made it clear what platform they have used for the implementation dialogue, but if they have then please share that.  Thanks, Timea.  And so Dalsie we want to finalize the agenda today and we're very well in it and we have just a few more questions for you and then we can finalize it by the end of today.

>> I raised my hand.  Is there a chance to speak now?

   >> CHAIR:  I didn't see.  Go ahead.  I was hoping you would intervene.

   >> HANA:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  I heard a couple of times, you know, there was some questioning as to when and why the timing for the Secretary General's roadmap was decided, so I thought some context might be helpful.  This was originally planned as something to be launched in May at a mandated high level event on the impact of the technological change on sustainable development which was something that the General Assembly mandated last year and the Office of the President of the General Assembly decided on for this year, and that was of course delayed, obviously, and so the date that was set by the Office of the President of the General Assembly is now the 11th of June and so within that context as they were finalizing when and how it would happen, that's how then the launch ended up happening on that day.  So it wasn't that the consideration was tied to the touch point in the calendar, and that's how the day was decided.

From what I understand, though, you know, the consultations on and the events following in terms of the different recommendation tracks and roundtables, please are also public, so I wonder if there was a need to change our schedule.  I mean, I'm completely flexible, or you know if there is a way for us to point out maybe that there is an option for people to engage on those sessions too, if they so wish, and if the concern is that we want to make sure that there is engagement on these sessions, and otherwise, I think our program can go ahead and but I wanted to make it clear that I didn't see any attempt to kind of coincide.  They're seen I think as two separate things, and the roadmap and that would go beyond the IGF and how we as an international community engage on the topic.

I think that while I have the floor, if I may, it's a little bit challenging and I'm a little bit worried that   due to the sheer number of email threads and changes that I'm really worried that I'm just going to have entered a meeting time wrong and will miss something.  Is there a plan for having maybe one final, if I may, idiot guide to how to engage in the sessions for next week?  Because they are quite numerous and especially, et cetera, it's easy to get lost.  So, will there be maybe a part of the website to constantly check, or how can we have that sort of streamlined across?  That would be really, really, really helpful.  And if anyone has questions regarding the follow up for Information 5AB I'm very happy but basically the SG's roadmap is basically his response to the Report of the High Level Panel and the High Level Panel on digital Cooperation reported to the Secretary General and the Secretary General will now say something about what he thinks about the roadmap to Member States, and basically, how the agreement is structured, that will be the start of conversation, and it will be really interesting to see how the IGF can support that process and continue to remain a strong platform for all stakeholders.  Thank you.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks very much, Hana.  And my understanding from the office is that the roadmap is being presented this week, but then what takes place on Monday afternoon is an interactive discussion.  And that's why both the office and ourselves thought it would be important for the IGF Community to be able to participate in that, and remember the mandate is not of MAG, it's the Open Consultation day so we'll be competing with the IGF audience as large.  So, if it's not interactive, then maybe not but since we've gone through quite a lot of effort between the office and ourselves to try and facilitate that we don't clash with that, you know, I think it's really good for us to go ahead.

And then with regard to your question about information, absolutely.  We'll ask the Secretariat to update us, and then working on a web page and with different tabs as they normally would be for MAG Meetings, and with all the instructions and background documents.  The only thing that really delayed is the finalization of the agenda which is a bit more complex than usual because it's virtual.  Yeah.  Does anyone else have any questions at this point?  I don't see.  Let me just check the participant list.  I don't see hands.  Can I give it back to you    yeah, Susan, got your message that you need to go.  Thanks.  And Anya, can I give it back to you, please.

>> ANYA:  So, I posted into the chat the link to the alternative version of the agenda and just not to confuse anyone because we're getting a lot of comments for the draft in the digital commenting and so on.  This alternative agenda is saying in terms of the content and structure and the only things that has changed is the second day.  So the first day stays the same as you can see, but the second day has changed because we moved all the items that fall under Open Consultation day and were on other days than the 15th to the 16th of June and so on.  The 16th of June, we have a second day of Open Consultations, and as you can see as the section relates to the Plenary sessions for the reporting from the VPF and NRI and then we go into producing some addresses by the DG and there is going to be a short address by the USG and then after that it follows by Q&A on the roadmap with cooperation with the USG and we'll have a closing.  And so technically that's when closing and then all other sessions stay the same, it's just that of course they have to move one spot down, so but everything    I mean, I wouldn't go into details but as you know, we start the Plenary or the workshops or breakout group, and then the plenaries for the main sessions, they also conclude, and then the 19th of June would be reserved to finalize the discussions and main sessions.

There is a section on, again, reports from the DPS, it's a question for all of you, because the reporting from DPS is planned for the second day of the Open Consultations on the 17th of June, whether there is a need again to have reportings on the 19th of June, maybe there is another form, that's a question for you guys and that's it, and then after that it closes.  The hours are the same as you can see there, updating around different time zones every day.

I think I'll just stop here.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Anya and I really apologize if this is confusing.  I promise that once we finalize this we'll make it very clear.

So, based on your comments that you made on this Draft Agenda, a few issues came up.  So, Anya, if you can just take the screen to the first MAG Plenary and Breakout group.

Okay.  So, we just want to give a few seconds and use our Zoom features.  This is there from the discussion within for those of you Ben and Sylvia and others and so on commenting on the agenda, and when we have our first MAG Plenary Session, all the workshops, the thematic group workshop will make their report, make various recommendations based on your preparatory work.  And these presentations will go into plenary, and now we want to look at how to have the first set of breakout discussions after that plenary when you present all of your thematic working group reports.

We want to ask you a question about that, whether you want to have those breakout groups immediately in realtime after the plenary or whether you want to do it in different time zones that would be determined based on what you are in, and then also the two options for how to approach those breakout groups and then you present two of those options and we kind of open into a poll.

So, at this point I'm going to ask Luis to give you the polls that we've prepared just to give us a little bit of guidance about how to finalize the structure of the agenda.  There it is.  So, we'll just give you a couple of minutes to look at that and submit.

Oh, I'm sorry there is one about a coffee break.  I forgot about that, the coffee break, that's on the open consultation day.  This is really, on the open consultation day there is a 15 minute coffee break and this would normally be where MAG Members mingle with non MAG Members attending the Open Consultation so we want to try to replicate that virtually in one way or another, and so the first question about that.

>> I'm sorry    (Speaking off mic).

   >> CHAIR:  Are you okay?

>> Okay but when I show the back   

   >> CHAIR:  The first question is about coffee breaks on the Open Consultation Day, and then the second and the third questions are about the MAG day and the first set of breakout groups.

   >> CHAIR:  The second question might be a bit redundant based on the discussion that we've just had but let's hear what you say anyway.  Luis, how does it look?  Are we ready to show the results or do people still need more time?

>> LUIS:  I put it in there.  21 right now.

   >> CHAIR:  We'll give a little bit more time.  Luis, did you see Juliana's question?  Juliana, did you select all the questions, all three, did you respond to all three?

>> LUIS:  Yes, it would be that they are mandatory.

   >> CHAIR:  Yes, you have to scroll down in that little box.

Okay.  I think    let's close it now.  Luis says only 29.  Okay.  We'll give you another minute.

Okay.  I think we can close it now, Luis.  Thanks very much and thanks everyone for completing it.  Apologies if everything wasn't very clear.  There are word limits for polls, by the way.

We don't really need to discuss this unless anyone has any questions.  This is just useful guidance for us.  I think the only issue here maybe to discuss, I mean, the current evaluation track groups, the time zones, maybe then you want to explain why you made those proposals because you made a very strong argument for regional/time zone groups, and then I'm very pleased to see your response on the third question to have immediate breakout groups right after the MAG Meeting and I think that's quite good and will give us more of a sense of having a continuous MAG Meeting so that's really interesting.

Ben, did you want to explain why you probably voted for the time zone region option under Question 2?

>> BEN:  Thank you, Anriette.  So, in the end, I think    so, I made some comments because I wasn't clear on what we'd be doing in the breakout groups and I think as we kind of went through the Google Doc process, you explained or envisioned there being some feedback on the recommendations of each evaluation group and it would be worth those evaluation groups reconvening, and so I thought about ways in which that could be done.  I think the only suggestion at that point was that we meet asynchronously, and so each evaluation group pick a time, and my concern was that, and I've looked at my evaluation group (?), and it wouldn't be practical to come up with a time for us to meet and I was worried about disenfranchising those who wouldn't be able to turn out.

Now that I see the option to have synchronous meetings, and I'm going to be up in the middle of the night for the Plenary session, I think the easiest thing is to just kind of roll on and immediately do it right afterwards, so actually I voted for synchronous.

And in terms of whether it's done by region, if it's synchronous, then it doesn't really matter.  If it's done by region or breakout group, now that you've explained that you envision the MAG could have some feedback on what comes out on the recommendation of each breakout group, I think having it by evaluation group is probably the better approach.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Ben.  I don't think it's really better either.  I think we are kind of trying to find a way of replicating your normal workflow in the form of a virtual meeting, and the way I understand it, what we'll be doing is that all of the thematic groups will be doing preparatory work and then we will have our first MAG Plenary and each group will present their report, and the report will include recommendations, those recommendations around what we've discussed, including recommendations for a possible admin session.

And then after all of those recommendations are presented, there will be discussion in Plenary on those recommendations, and then after that, we'll have another round of probably not very long breakout sessions and again in thematic groups where you discuss the recommendations and the comments on your recommendations, and then make more recommendations which we'll pick up on the next day, I think that's more or less what we'll be doing.

But based on that input, I think it gives us enough to finalize the agenda.  Anja, would you agree?

>> ANYA:  Yes, I fully agree.  This is very helpful.

   >> CHAIR:  Okay.  That gives us a key indication and we might even be able to reduce the meeting, if we have those breakout groups, it's a possibility that we might be able to reduce the number of days that we have for the meeting, but we'll work on that and we'll present the final agenda to you by the end of today.

So, let me open the floor to any more questions or comments on the agenda.  Ben, I see your hand is up.

>> BEN WALLIS:  Thank you.  I finally managed to use the speaking queue.  It was a clarification about terminology that I think is helpful that has kind of arisen as of last month as the Working Group on the Workshop Process produced guideline.  When you say breakout on thematic group, I think it's clear from the context here that each of the different groups that is working this week will break out and discuss how their recommendations were received and any changes, but there is a difference between the thematic groups which were set up in January and February that anyone could join and contribute to the development of those themes and the narratives, so I was a member of several if not all of those thematic groups, and then this month we set up four evaluation groups which, and remember only one evaluation group is responsible for evaluating the workshops in those themes, and so my understanding is those breakout groups are for those evaluation groups, and I know this is a new term that's just been introduced by these guidelines, and I thought it was designed, I think, to distinguish between the groups set up purely for the work for the evaluation versus the groups responsible for the themes as a whole and which we'll kind of reconvene in the next month to kind of further develop the themes and introductory themes and all of that, but I wanted to just explain that distinction in terminology for people.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Ben, that's actually very important.  And it seems to me that we need to make a decision about how to go forward, and also, there were actually two themes where we had an evaluation group that worked on the two themes, but how do we move forward?  Do you want for the purpose of finalizing the program, do you want to go back to the January thematic group and work in the evaluation group?  I don't expect everyone to have (?) and we can process this, but if anybody has more on this now, that would be useful for us because this is a very important distinction, Ben.  Does anybody else want to take the floor on this?

I'm trying to follow the chat.

   >> MARIA PAZ:  This is Maria Paz, can I   

   >> CHAIR:  Please, go ahead.

   >> MARIA PAZ:  I was reading the chat because in the case of the environment evaluation group because we're just one group for the evaluation purposes, and so now we're handling the themes and proposal for the MAG Meeting next week, trying to make everyone encouraged to participate in both discussions, but when we    when the time comes for breakout groups during the MAG Meeting, that will not be    and the idea of who is leading the group, which can be an opportunity, means that in Data and Environment, we will have much more less members, MAG Members, participating in the session than the other tracks, so I don't know how good is that in terms of diversity and everything, so I'm not saying that we should come back to the group because that also would create a problem in terms of the configuration of the other review groups, but I don't have decision, but purely here, I'm sorry.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Maria.  I'm glad we're picking up on the problem now, and the Secretariat and I will try to come up with a solution in the updated agenda.  But maybe Timea has the answers for us?

>> TIMEA SUTO:  I wish I did.  I just went to comment and support and me and Maria put our hands up at the same time, and I basically just wanted to share the same concerns or worries.  And I think Ben said in the chat that for the sake of the workshop selection, the groups should remain the same as the evaluation groups, that's a good suggestion, and so I think the people who    versus data and environment, should be working in those evaluation groups for the sake of directing the workshop.  I know this might not be possible if we all meet at the same time, so perhaps for the discussion there is on selecting the workshops, we need to find maybe some times in the environments to have tracks with separate discussions with as many people who wanted to participate in both.

For going forward after that, I am really not sure if we need to go back to the June    I'm sorry, the January setup or if we just need to, you know, have another call and say to people, okay, we're starting to work on these four tracks, start looking into the ones and contributing to the tracks that appeal to you and that may mean that you contribute to more than one, that might also be a solution.  I really don't have the answers but I just wanted to make sure that it's emphasized that I don't think that splitting the group of Data and Environment into two groups makes sense just because that means that the Working Group has half as many perspectives and half as many hands on deck, and I know that for Environment, it's a small track and not that many proposal, but I don't want to be unfair to my colleagues in Data either.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Timea.  And maybe you just also need more time that if you're not splitting, that you just need to take into account that you have more work and need more time and more chocolates when we eventually get together face to face.


I don't see anyone in the speaking queue, and I do want to allocate that we've got 20 minutes left.  I do want to allocate some time to the session work, to those who have provided reports to give them the floor, and so any further questions on this?

I don't see any hands, so thanks for your patience with this.  I know it's been quite a clunky and clumsy process.  We'll give you an updated agenda by the end of the day, and then please have a good look at it so that if we have to make any further changes, we can do that before the end of the week.  We also do need to circulate this agenda for people that have registered for the sessions and make it clear to, particularly to the observers and open consultation participants when they need to be available.

One thing I can say is that we've had really good response from the call for input from UN Agencies and other Internet governance institutions, and we have had had I think, Chengtai, you said 13, 13 people submitted to it.

Okay.  So, now to hand it back to the Secretariat and to brief us    has any of the working groups and MAG Working Groups, do you have any reports to share?

   >> SECRETARIAT:  One has on languages.  Mary.

   >> CHAIR:  Mary, you have the floor.

   >> MARY UDUMA:  Thank you very much for giving me the floor.  With Karim we decided in the group that we could be co coordinators and supporting so Karim, over to you.  Hello, Karim, are you not there?

>> KARIM:  Hello?

   >> MARY UDUMA:  Please with our report, please.  Okay.  This is not    we held a meeting on 6 of June 2020 and we viewed what we have done in India and also you can see review of the meeting and after that of the day.  And for us what was important was draft, prepared a draft for day on language and we shared it    okay, filling the drafts and to test it and whether there are issues with some of the questions that we have asked, and we did raise some issues and then were able to highlight some of the things we need updated while this other group this way and we have    you can see the group.  Okay.  Next.  Right, and so then after that we asked the geographic area and after that click on and next, so we asked about email is optional and we had a problem here where this is optional except you put in something and you can now go to the next question, so next.  And then we looked at the number of these and I think I want to say something about order.  We were looking at maybe    I'm sorry language repetition, but we talked about confidence and experience our severs and so can do it, can do that.

And then they fill in the answer to answer that, and then have you been appointed to serve in MAG, yes or no, and okay next.  And then how many years, 1, 2, 3, and have you experienced any language challenges during MAG meetings?  Because we want to serve MAG members as well as committee and should MAG meetings be translated?  Yes.  And from our figures, okay, all right.  Next.  And then we looked at which languages would you prefer in alphabetical order and so okay.

So, and then next.  So, we looked at    go ahead.  Right.  So funding was an issue so we wanted the funding to get an idea of how to fund interpretation just like if you type on the survey, and then, yes, sure, you concerned.  And then are you interested in participating in the work of this group, yes or no.  Okay.  And then which of the following suggestions would improve IGF participation, and so everything that is listed there, but can look at others.  Next one.  Next can we go, please, so that we can finish.  Okay.  That's the end of it, so if you have suggestion, so we reviewed it and then some recommendations on how to update it, scroll down, scroll left.  Thank you.  So that was the business of the day and we reviewed also another and going to do that, and then the document    we don't have to    anyone can look into that because of timeframe, and so then the Working Document recommendation, we also looked at and reviewed it and some of the comments that we got there were to amend so I think the Working Document I want to showcase.  Can you click on that, please?  Open document.  Working Document.  Good.  Yeah.  

So, there is our initial recommendations.  Okay, so just read through and then UN languages and then the official working language of the IGF, however the working language of IGF is English but we're seeing in 2020, it's the 15th year of IGF, and we believe that we should    it should form to make it more inclusive, and that six UN languages should be introduced, and what is that    what is the essence similarly on entrusted stakeholder groups, countries, and communities.  Some of the suggestions for now adapting, and the idea of having meeting rooms with transcription and translation services, so we are thinking that that should continue, and then we should also look at where we put in or include of those that have one or two.

And then number two, I'm saying that the working group can recommend to MAG for funding activities when asking for funding activities issued include specific designations of translation or interpretation.  Apart from that change of infrastructure, I think there will be change much infrastructure as well so we're looking at what other things that would be expensive if that was going to be introduced before.  We're saying that whether we're having online meetings, especially for translation to include speech for original meetings on days of IGF so we're asking whether MAG would be able to, and then if it's one or that a short online    so we've sent this and that's what    okay.  Next.  Next.  Next.  Next.  That's it.

   >> CHAIR:  Are you nearly done because we're nearly at time.

   >> MARY UDUMA:  I'm nearly done., you know the COVID pandemic has forced most meetings, number 7, to hold online.  Each creates opportunities or more participate pants joining the IGF events and therefore we need for interpreting or interpretation of the IGF meetings and translation of the outcomes have become very critical and urgent.

MAG meetings should be held in at least two official UN languages, that's the final recommendation.  And finally, number nine, as a pilot, one or two sessions could be approved to hold in language other than English during 2020 IGF, and we do not open forums may be allowed to provide interpretation service if such region has the resources to do so.  Opportunities for such waiver should be published on the website, and so these are our initial recommendations and we're still working and these are our comments and you can get to the website and the comments and give us your comments or update.  Thank you.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks very much for that, Mary, and everyone, please comment on this document.  It's important that we comment on it before it goes out, and I think, Mary, I would just see some MAG members have commented on the platform that is being used for collecting data, so maybe just put those comments in email.

And Jutta, I know you have asked for the floor and but T wants to leave and has to give a quick update.  Is it okay if I give her the floor first?

>> JUTTA:  It's okay.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, Jutta.  So, do you want to update on your working group and BPS? 

>> Okay.  Thanks, Anriette.  I apologize but I have another IGF meeting starting in a few minutes, so about the first of all on the    we had the last meeting on 29 and actually we continued the discussion on the main focus of the IGF and focus on data is collected and analyzed and used, so what we discussed during the last meeting is the new idea that we enlarge the amount of issue cards and they're like your concerns and issues and probably relevant for the discussion on it in the context.  So, the issues card are intended to be a tool and can be used by stakeholders just to type what their question, and we actually are going to be using these new concept of cards to try to collect and discuss best practices.

The next was for the BPS will be on the 25th of June and of next we will publish the issues and we have to fit with and we also tried to collect best practice and (?), so this was the first update on BPS data reviews.

About the Working Group on IGF language strategy, the first meeting was held on June 4, and it was primarily focused on the charter and we actually tried to collect input on these.  And there were actually a lot of comments that came out, and just more important to bring these working group to discussion of digital cooperation architecture, and it was also observed, actually there is just taking of the last discussion, the people issued by the open ended working group, it was of time (?) is actually a little bit and connected and also that IGF becomes when it comes to share this because as more people are involved in the IGF, more of this really we'll get.

Also, there were some comments so we will try to make some practical texts and changes by the MAGs of the Secretariat and Chair just to try to implement in IGF.  Among the suggestion was a suggestion where we tried to focus more on some topics and also producing communication, and another one was just focusing on participation on websites and also on it, so there are so many other things input to this that are collected, but I'm not quite sure, I was just you have the priority and next steps that are revised, the charter, and tried to keep it in terms of basing it on the mandate and we're trying to reach an agreement and meeting in the next days, so we didn't decide yet what work will be the next call, but formerly asked for the open consultation MAG Meeting.  So, I don't know yet but actually now I have to leave and I apologize for this, but I actually have to open this or otherwise people cannot connect to the video conference.

>> Don't worry, I can answer questions if there are any.  You can go.

>> Thank you.  Bye.

   >> CHAIR:  And, Jutta, you have the floor.

>> JUTTA:  Thanks, Anriette for giving me the floor.  I just want to report back from the Dynamic Coalition meeting we had yesterday and not to stretch the patience of the colleagues that are tired because it's late in the meet, I think it's best to postpone to the next meeting we have and there is nothing so urgent to report today and so thank you for giving me the floor and we'll postpone that to the next meeting.

   >> CHAIR:  Thank you very much, Jutta.  Anyone else with BPS or working groups that have submitted reports or asked for a slot?  I see, thank you for posting the link for the content.  I don't see anyone else asking for the floor.  Secretariat, are you aware of anyone else that wants to make a report?

   >> JUNE:  Hello.  This is June.  I have some problems on using my mic.  We have already done a lot for the group outreach and engagement, but we've been keeping an eye on the website and we noticed some positive changes on the website and what we were asking is a flair but we will discuss that further and we will update you with an email.  Thank you. 

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks, June.  And also, in note she's on the call, Samantha Dickenson working with the Secretariat and Communication so proposals for communication output can also be discussed with the Secretariat, so do send your report.

And let's see    go ahead.

   >> JENAE:  I'm sorry I was not in queue.  Just a quick update by Virginia (?) and we have a call on Thursday as part of our process of developing our work for this year and it's open to everyone and we will be speaking about the challenges of online and balance within policies and processes and we have two guests and they'll be sharing their work on these issues within policy spaces and processes and that was my quick update, and I'll also share the links to the call in the chat.

   >> CHAIR:  Thanks very much, and send it to the list if you haven't.  Thanks, Jenae.

And Secretariat, it looks like we've come to the end of our meeting.  Do you have any other business or if anyone has anything else to raise?

   >> SECRETARIAT:  I don't have anything to raise, but let me just give a chance to other people from the Secretariat if they have anything?

>> Nothing.

>> Also nothing.  Thank you.

>> Nothing from my end.  Thank you. 

   >> CHAIR:  Well, thanks very much.  Thank you for your patience and for your patience of the agenda and all of your hard work.  Thanks to the transcribers and the Secretariat, thanks a lot for processing all of the workshop data in time for the meeting.  And just, everyone, please be patient with us.  We will get through this virtual meeting next week, and I think it's going to be a success and we'll learn a lot from the process.

Thanks, everyone, we're finishing almost on time and enjoy the rest of your day or night or morning wherever you are.

>> Thank you very much, Anriette.

>> Stay home.

   >> SECRETARIAT:  Thank you all.

   >> CHAIR:  Bye bye, everyone.