IGF 2020 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - XIV

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 evening, afternoon and morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to MAG Virtual Meeting number 14.  Yes, number 14.  As usual, the meeting is being recorded.  There is also transcription.  And after the meeting there will be a summary report that will be made available to everybody.  We do have three absences that I have noted, and it's Hana, Gunela and Rose.  They said they cannot make it.  There may be more coming in, but I have not seen them.

With that, let me hand it over to the Chair, Anriette, to start the meeting.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you so much.  Welcome to the MAG members, to the captioner, to the Secretariat.  Welcome back those who have had short holidays and welcome to those of you who are still on holiday and are joining the MAG meeting, nevertheless.  And all of those of us in the southern hemisphere, I wish we had hotter days.  It's very frustrating to have a demanding year and no break.  Everyone, let's move on.  We have quite a full agenda tonight, so no further opening remarks from me.

We have had a fairly long break since our last call, and we are entering, I think I can say, the final phase of organising IGF 2020.  I want to thank you all again for working towards identifying the theme and finalizing the decisions about the phases and the dates and the overall structure of the IGF.  So we now have a fairly solid base and we have a theme, and that gives us a very good, good premise to start this final phase of organising.

So on that I will hand it back to the Secretariat so we can look at the report from the last call and check in on all of the action.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Has Anriette said, we have finalized a lot of things so we have made a great deal of progress.  We finalized the schedule when phase 1 and when phase 2 will take place.  So that's the 23rd of October to the 6th of November for phase one, and phase two ‑‑ I have lost my place now, oh, 9th of November to 17th of November.

So what the Secretariat now is doing is we have contacted all of the session organizers, asked them to fill in the agenda, and we are in the process of now placing those sessions and hopefully that will not take too long.  Once we have done that, we will publish it.

We will also publish the skeleton agenda timetable so that people at least know and can plan well in advance.  We did mention that the overarching theme is Internet for Human Resilience and Solidarity, and the motto, I think we call it, is Virtually Together.

We are also contacting all IGF, all of those people who have applied for an IGF Village booth and have been selected.  That information is also available on the IGF website.  As Anriette said, we are in the planning stage.  As we ask you to plan the main sessions, we are continuing to plan the high level sessions, et cetera.  So we are trying to get those finalized as soon as possible, including the parliamentarian track.

The other thing that I just wanted to highlight is just the reminder for the deadline for the MAG 20‑21.  We have to receive the nominations by the 25th of August.  And so far we have 64 submissions, but these are as well like the workshop proposals.  We only do get most of the submissions in the last 72 hours before the deadline.

I'll just ask the other members of the Secretariat if I have left anything out, Anja, Luis, have I left anything out?

>> Nothing to add, thank you.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thanks.  And I will also like to mention that we did have our WSIS session on the 3rd of August and I think that was very well attended.  So there was a great deal of information and I think it was done in a very succinct and clear manner and I would like to thank all of those MAG members and members of the Secretariat who also participated.  With that I will hand it back to the Chair.

>> CHAIR:  And thanks Chengetai.  I think we have thank the Secretariat and congratulate you for getting the newsletter out.  If you haven't looked at the newsletter yet, please do.  It's an easy way of forwarding people information about the design of IGF 2020 because everything that we have decided in the last few months or last few weeks is contained in the newsletter.

So and just to review the agenda, we are going to check on action items from the previous meeting.  If there are any outstanding, and we have done the updates and from the IGF Secretariat, then we are going to look for outcomes.

I put this on the agenda because I thought that as we are beginning to plan the main sessions and also the introductory and concluding sessions it's useful to think about the outcomes.  Part of our overall goal is to become outcome oriented or to have stronger more concrete outcomes emerging from the IGF.  We have had the input of the options paper which I hope all of you have had a look at and produced by the champions for recommendation 5A and B.

I think it's my proposal is that as a MAG you consider the outcomes sooner rather than later so that the planning of the main session.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Anriette, we have lost you.  We cannot hear you.

>> In the meantime there is a question from me, Rudolf, do you, Chengetai have been the invitations been sent out for the high level segment and the parliamentarian segment already?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  As far as I understand it we are waiting for the signatures to be put on the invitation letters, and we think that that is going to happen this week.

>> That would be great.  Thank you very much.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I think we have lost Anriette for a while, so I will continue, but I will not do the outcomes because I think Anriette has got a very specific ideas on that, and she will lead that discussion.  So we will just keep that for a little while.  Let's jump to the next Agenda Item if Markus is ready.  Would you be ready?

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, I would be ready, can you hear me.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we can hear you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  We have been asked as you recall to look at the BP Fs and we started the process doing so and the key actors have been involved in the past BPF said before asking for MAG feedback we ought to present to the MAG and report on our activities, and we have a report is already on the website, and here is a brief report with a slide deck which is also available on the website.  Can we have the next slide, please?  Yes.  Thank you.

These are the basic objectives of the exercise document on the past experience and the idea is mainly looking forward that we would inform the process for evaluating proposing and approving BPFs from next year onward.  And I think the point is BPFs, Best Practice Forums are no the a beauty contest, it's not about what really is best, but it should be what are we learning from what worked less well and learning from less successful experiences can actually provide equally if not more valuable lessons.  And the other part of the terms of reference is that we should develop a more systematic evaluation tool for proposals for metrics that would allow the MAG to have a more systemized style to evaluate past Best Practice Forums and also evaluate proposals for going forward.

This is the basic parameters for our work.  Next slide, please.  So this is an overview of what we have been doing.  We looked at what has been done and we reached out to key participants, coordinating teams of the 26 Best Practice Forums organized since 2014, and have to change and experience and how to dedicate the mailing list, three virtual meetings and have a draft report with an evolving document with feedback on an ongoing basis.

Here we will not miss thanking all of the people who have actively contributed to the report.  I will not read out the names.  These are essentially all of the key participants and they are on the slide deck, which is now available on the IGF website, and there definitely, I would like all of the people, all of the colleagues who contributed actively to this exercise.  This is very much a collective endeavor, and without their active participation, we would not have been able to produce anything.  Thank you at this stage.

And this is a structure of the report, which is very classical, it has an introduction, says where we come from and why we are here.  The second bit is it documents the experiences from 2014 to 2019.  And also documents the achievements and success, but also in the introduction, it recalls that we made a first experiment with BPFs already back in 2007, but there it really did not work out that well because it was not structured enough, and it did not benefit from sufficient Secretariat support.

The following section is organising BPFs on the observations, challenges, recommendations starting with definition of purpose and already there, definitions, it's extremely important on how you find issue a theme that is actually implementable and leading to the discussion of topics and modalities.  One of the key words we have found is an issue sufficiently mature.  It should not be a controversial issue where we not even agree on what we are talking about, but it should be an issue where we know what we are talking about which is mature, maybe we have solutions, but we are not quite sure yet what the solutions are.

Then another important point is, which is summarized here in BPF cycle versus BPF active period, we have found that the cycle is in theory from year to year, but the active period is really once a BPF has approved until the time has to deliver which is maybe half a year.  And that is, I think, one of the key challenges we also feel needs addressing.

Participation and outreach is another key element.  I think we have found that without having the involvement of key actors in any given field, BPF will not succeed in delivering its mission, so one of the key elements of success for each BPF is to outreach to key potential participants to make sure they participate in the exercise.  And under expectations and goals.  The key word is it realistic.  Is it realistic for the BPF that's out.  Is it realistic that they will be able to achieve it in its time frame.  And then another key point is cooperation with other IGF activities and work streams, and there we have found when originally there was a notion of a trajectory of an IGF that maybe could pick up on an issue that was discussed in the main session, pick up on that and develop it and evolve in it and dig deeper into it.

This has somewhat got lost.  And we also realized that there are plenty of scope of cooperation with other work streams in IGF such as NRIs or the DCs.  And attempts have been made in the past, but there is clearly potential for improvement on this kind of cooperation.  And lastly on sharing and disseminating outputs, and enhancing the impact we have noticed there has been some success, but we have also noticed there is room for improvement and for enhancing this kind of impact.

And at the bottom of the slide there is a list of what this part of the report.  Can we have the next slide, please?  Here we have some sort of key reactions we collected essentially documenting the need for the work that we have been doing like there is no consolidated document.  That explains what BPFs are all about.  And on the second side, there is the need for targeted outreach.

And then, again, the short time frame has been seen as a key challenge and, again, below that the participation of relevant institutions again is part of the outreach, and also on the selection of themes, BPFs have proven to be successful when the focus coincides with relevant policy discussions.

So it's not up to BPF to define the policy discussion but it's more up for the BPF to capture what is happening.  And also that participants should be stimulated to take ownership of the BPF and also we recognized the importance of the ownership of the MAG of the process.  So we developed some key proposals on assessment and selection of BPF proposals.  There were discussions on quantitative key assessment factors and they are obviously some relatively simple check the box type of factors how many meetings have taken place, has there been a mailing list in place, but we also felt that maybe in the end, the qualitative assessment may be more important and there we found there are three main dimensions, is the topic relevant and suitable for a BPF?

Again, that's the maturity of the topic, and it's the, also the question is a topic controversial or not, is it mature enough?  Is it something we can build on?  The second key element is the community multistakeholder discussion realistic?  Is it possible to gather realistic and sufficient community interest and stakeholder involvement?  And lastly, can we predict the BPF's potential to contribute to enhancing the IGF's impact on Internet Governance and policy?  That is a realistic outage in place to provide key initiatives outside the traditional community?

And now here are the links, so the report is available on the website and we would like to invite you, the MAG, to provide input and feedback to the report.  Again, the report is not about assessing current BPFs, but it's providing a way forward to assessing and approving BPFs for next year onward.  And also, I think I would like to mention that the group involved in preparing this report we felt it would be important to have a session on this report during the IGF meeting this year, presumably phase 1 would be a logical place, but there we are agnostic, but we do think it will be good to have a slot where we can have, can discuss community input in the report, try to refine and improve on its outcomes.

With that, I thank you for your attention.  And I wonder whether Wim would have some comments as he was the Secretariat consultant who was holding the pen on this.  He may have additional comments or corrections of the elements that I may have missed.  With that, I thank you for your attention.

>> Thank you Markus, and high all, no further comments and thanking again all of the people that helped to put together this report with their input and sharing their experiences and coming up with examples of what happened during their BPFs, during the last six years, and then, yes, adding also I'm looking forward to further feedback from the report from the MAG.  That's all.  Thank you.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Markus.

>> CHAIR:  I'm back, Chengetai, thanks for taking over.  Does anyone have any questions for Markus or Wim?


>> CHAIR:  Go ahead, Carlos.

>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO:  Not a question for Markus.  Excellent report.  Thank you, Markus. 

I want to take advantage of the item and a comment on a seminar we had in, international seminar with the participation of people from Portugal and was promoted by the school of communication of the University of Sao Paulo.  And the theme was Preserving Web Content.  And the idea of the presentation or BPF, and they were quite interested because the focus of their discussion is usually how to preserve academic content.

And I think the ideas that are in our BPF open up to a broader discussion, and they were very interested in following.  We had more than 200 online visitors watching the discussion.  And there is an initiative by Portugal, academic initiative, but very broad which is called Arquivo.Pt, in Portuguese.  It is a spectacular example of web content presentation.  It was in this style of Internet archive, but much more systematic and much more well organized, I would say and focusing on sites, web sites, web portals in Portugal.

Even though they don't use the dot PT, but mostly they are dot PT sites and it is an incredible experience and I think I will be able to bring them to the discussion of our BPF.  That's it.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  And thanks, Carlos.  And anyone else with any questions or comments?

I don't see any hands.  I read the draft report and I find it extremely useful, and I really appreciate the fact that you are rooting it in the IGF practice of the past, but it's also responding to some of the issues that were raised in the options pamphlet, for example.  So I think it's a useful document and Markus and Wim, anything else that you need from us, from the MAG and what are the next steps and how would you like this document to be integrated or used in IGF 2020.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you Anriette for your kind words.  I think we definitely would like to have reactions and we will then be able to improve the document and finally have a document.  We would also like to discuss in the IGF 2020 session and then have a document to go forward.

As you said, I think we also think it fits in very neatly with the exercise currently on the way and reaction with the options paper on the high level panel and we feel we are very much in line with this, but this is a working document, a living document which is by no means a final version, but I think there is plenty of scope to improve on the document and to improve also on the process of selecting and running BPFs.  And I think one of also the key findings was meant on the duration of the BPFs and what we found is that just from year to year a decision may just not be good enough because it's not enough time, that it should be maybe a tentative two‑year mandate or a first year trial mandate, but that obviously needs further discussion on how to do it.

And also, the notion of a trajectory of a BPF that fits into the discussion so assuming we have a BPF2020 some interesting issues and how the IGF deals, handles with COVID‑19, maybe some issue may emerge from there that may be taken up with a BPF and that will then report to next year's meeting.

So in short to integrate the BPFs more into the mainstream activities, this would all be in line very much with the option, with the current option paper under way and the reflections on how to strengthen the overall impact of the IGF.

So these are very preliminary points of view, but obviously your collective wisdom and feedback would be very much welcome, and I think we can collectively improve on the BPF process on the way forward.  Thank you.

>> Anriette, if I may, I think there was a second part in your question on how the report could be or should be, could be used by the MAG.  Like it was mentioned by you and by Markus, BPF is an intersessional activities are being mentioned in the roadmap or the discussions around strengthening the IGFs.  It is important the BPF didn't really discuss these things as it was completely out in terms of references, but it focused on how to improve the working of BPFs so that BPFs can have a better impact and can help the IGF have a better impact.

And I think it would be, there is an opportunity for the other groups within the MAG or the other session at the IGFs discussing these topics.  There is an opportunity that they can refer back to the work that has been started already by the MAG on evaluating part of the intersessional activities so that there is an answer and you don't have to or you don't have to agree or have some work already done and pick up the report and move it there.

In a way, it is a similar thing as for the other BPFs, BPFs are working, trying to come up with ideas to feed into other discussions.  A similar thing can happen within the IGF discussion this year itself.  BFTs looked at BPFs, but the report itself even if it's in the draft version might be interesting and relevant, and provide some ideas to groups or meeting that's discussion the future of the IGF and strengthening the IGF.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  And thanks for that, Wim.  Please also look at the chat.  There are some very positive comments there as well, I see sill see Sylvia is asking are we discussing the recommendations to could come up with a plan.  And Sylvia, I think we need to look at the draft report, comment on the draft, MAG meeting to discuss that.  But there is one recommendation that I would like to bring up right now and ask Markus and Wim. 

If we are to address this issue that Markus, you described it as we kind of lost this connection that is supposed to be between the discussion at an annual IGF which then informs digging deeper into process, want to re‑establish that link in 2020.  What do we need to do in our planning for 2020 and how we are approaching the production of outcomes for 2020 if we are to use BPFs or feed into the BPF agenda for 2021 utilizing their potential for digging deeper and taking consensus and outcomes forward on these issues that are mature, that are ready for consensus concrete outcomes? 

So I think it just would be useful, and this feeds directly into the next Agenda Item as well which is looking at production of outcomes this year.  But so that's my question, I hope it was clear.  What do we need to do to build on that particular, to re‑establish that connection between the outcomes of the discussion at an annual Forum and the BPFs?

I'm sorry my connection is very bad and maybe Chengetai you should take over Chairing because I see people writing they can't hear me.  Markus, Wim, did you hear my question.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, I could hear your question, but maybe there was a fundamental problem right from the beginning.  There was no direct connection between the annual meeting and the BPFs and the selection.  So this may well be one issue to address, should we monitor the discussions at the annual meeting to see what are potential issues that could be deepened with a BPF.  And that's, again, is something, this would not be a high resourceful activity, but more an intellectual activity just to listen to discussions and to see what could be a potential issue that would benefit from a BPF type exercise.

But, again, I think in the past that was really maybe a weakness of past process.  It was not, never really done that well.  But, again, Wim devoted much thinking on this process, has been involved closely as you have.  You may have other ideas, but I think this may be a low hanging fruit, you know, that to actually monitor the discussions and see where are potential issues that would benefit from a BPF.  That's my take.  Thanks.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks Markus.

If I am still not clear, I think Chengetai, you should take over the Chairing.  What I propose though that we do is to have a discussion on the recommendations once they are final, once MAG members have had an opportunity to give feedback so we can schedule that, but I also think we do need to start looking at this link as we plan for IGF outcomes.  Chengetai, let me hand the Chairing to you because if I can't be heard, that makes it frustrating for everyone.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  At this current time, we are hearing you very well, but if you drop off, I will take over.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks Chengetai.

Thanks again, and let us know how much time we have got to give you feedback on the report.  Next what I have here is to talk about outcomes.  And at this point I really just want people to share some general reflections.  We still have time to look at this, and I'll just remind you what we had last year, and for 2019 we had the Berlin IGF messages.  Those were based on each theme and they were short, concise summaries of highlights of what came out of the discussion.

Then there was the longer Chair's summary.  And there were also other forms, other types of outcomes.  There were the high level session outcomes, and, for example, the parliamentary track, and there were also outcomes from IGF participants.  So there were different types of outcomes.  What I would like to invite MAG members to do is to look at these outcomes and to consider how we want to strengthen this process this year.

As we have mentioned already, we have the roadmap, we have the options paper and we have the general expectation that the IGF needs to generate more concrete outcomes without compromising its primary character as a discussion Forum and not a negotiation Forum.  My proposal is that we reflect on this and we come up with a process for identifying what outcomes we want to produce and how to produce them so that we can connect that to the planning of the event.

So I just really want to open the floor if anyone has any proposals or suggestions that we can use to initiate this discussion.  I sent some suggestions to the strategy Working Group which I can share with the rest of the MAG in the coming days, but is there anyone that has any reflection on what worked well last year in terms of outcomes and what they think we can do better this year?  I don't see anyone in the speaking queue or any hands.

Do you want more time to think about this and we can discuss this next week?  I mean, at the next call?

>> RUDOLF GRIDL:  This is Rudolf.  Perhaps just some ideas and some reflections from our experience also in the consultations in the run up to the options paper, I think there was quite a lot of consensus in the results or the outcomes we are having now.  Are not so bad and there are quite some good papers.  We will probably have to streamline them in a way to have the, that they build upon each other in a way so that there is a link, an intellectual link between these pieces of outcome to at the end be some kind of a mosaic picture.

And the second aspect about the outcomes was also the question of the communication of the outcomes because you have these great documents and then the sense was sometimes people say, yes, but they are not so well communicated, nobody knows what we are doing, nobody reads it.

So I think we would also have to together with the UN and people who know the UN system better try to promote these outcomes.  So that's not only the outcomes as such which need to have a stronger link amongst each other, but also the question of how to promote them.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks very much, Rudolf.  That's very helpful.  Carlos Afonso.  Carlos, we can't hear you.

>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO:  I'm sorry, I shouldn't be in the speaking queue, I'm sorry.

>> CHAIR:  That was from before.  Ben.

>> BEN WALLIS: That was a hand up to talk about the BPF report.  I put the comment in the chat instead because I feel like I missed my moment.  In terms of the outcomes, maybe one observational outcome is there were many outcomes.  So I was close to the work the Secretariat was doing during the meeting in Berlin, and they were working incredibly hard round the clock and including with the addition of Sam to produce the outcomes document, and they did produce something which I think was noted in the comments.

It's really nice and concise and crisp, and they did fine.  So I thought that was great.  And I guess the question and the observation is how does that relate to reporting done by I think the DiploFoundation.  And there a multiplicity reporting which parts of formal IGF reporting and which parts are just independent reporting by interested bodies.

So that's, I guess, an observation or question.  I will speak to the Secretariat.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Ben.  I think the Secretariat did try to reflect the differences in these outcomes in how they are organized on the website, but that definitely is something that I think we can look at strengthening.  So I don't see anyone else in the speaking queue, but based on Rudolf's comments and yours, Ben, and the comments in the chat, it seems to me we generally feel positive about the outcomes and the formats of the outcomes last year, but there is still some room for strengthening those, particularly when it comes to communicating them and disseminating them.

But I think that can also link to their format and how they are framed.  So what I suggest is that we document this a little bit more formally by having a discussion on the email list just so that we can develop a process for the production of the outcomes this year that builds on the achievements of last year, but that tries to take it further, and that also responds to the options paper and the digital cooperation process.

Does anyone else, I see there is a question here for the BPF process which I think is quite important.  Karim, you ask would it be possible to set up new BPF process at the end of 2020, evaluate existing BPF and be able to call for new BPF thematics for the next round?

In general there is an assumption that we do need to look at BPF timelines.  We need to address that and we need to address that sooner rather than later so that it can be, so Secretariat, I think that's important for us to begin to look at.  If we want to implement the recommendations from the BPF or BPFs, how do we need to adjust the timeline?  I think it would be very helpful to get a reflection, a response from the Secretariat, not tonight, but in the coming weeks.  Timea, you have your hand up.

>> TIMEA SUTO:  I apologize for entering the speaking queue.  I was having trouble logging in.  I wanted to add my support to what Rudolf and Ben were saying, and also to what Jim put into the chat earlier.  I very much like the way the outputs were organized and the reporting was organized last year and thank you very much for everybody who worked so hard on that.

I think it was really exceptional from some of the IGFs that I have seen, the upward trajectory in capturing conversations and really giving back the multiplicity of sources and of people who work around the IGF and the messages that come from the discussions.

A couple of things that I'm thinking of in how to make this more impactful in the future, I'm wondering if there is, if the new IGF upside is being considered to sort of have a searchable background or tagged to report on issues of similarity, so say if we think a certain topic, I don't know, data protection, for example, how was that discussed throughout the year, years of the IGF and what were the outcomes for somebody to be able to look into all of that.

That's on one hand.  But on the other hand, I think we also need to keep in mind that IGF outputs are not only written text.  There are a lot of outputs that projects, networks that became I'm sorry.  Can you still hear me?

>> CHAIR:  Yes, Timea, we can.  You disappeared for a few seconds, but you are back.

>> Thank you.  There was something with the mute button.  So what I wanted to say was that the IGF does not only have written outputs but there is a lot of projects that were born of the IGF networks, connections, and perhaps we would want to think about how to best capture some of those processes that are still ongoing, projects that people can be inspired from.  That is also the value of the IGF, and I would wager that it's the uniqueness of the IGF that these things can happen.  And we need to do a better job, I think, at capturing and promoting those.  Thanks.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks, Timea.  Anyone else with any further comments on this?  I see no hands.  So thanks for these reflections.  I think what we can do is to continue the discussion online.  There is also a discussion of the strategy Working Group, and we can share the outcome of that discussion with the rest of the MAG, and then we should aim by the time we have our next call to have some action, some plan around how to approach the production of the outcomes, to look at what will change and what will not change.

And I think Timea, your comments are also connected to the website, and the capacity of the website to reflect the range and diversity of IGF outcomes.  So it would also be good, Secretariat, to get an update on how the process to redevelop the website is going I flow we shouldn't have unrealistic expectations, but it would be good to know early enough next year to use as a dissemination platform.  But you can tell us about during the next call.

On that note, while we will continue to reflect on the outcomes and how we need to plan to document them, let's move on to item number 7.  And just ‑‑ I'm sorry, item number 6, update from MAG Working Groups.  I also want to, you know, when we do have the discussion on outcomes on the list, I want to encourage the Secretariat to participate.  Because as many of you have noted, it was very hard work and very difficult to generate those key messages.  And also if you look at Sylvia's comments in response to my question about the introductory concluding sessions, it seems it was difficult to get the reporting from the session organizers that you needed to feed into the outcomes.  So I think we need to look at the mechanics of how we capture the discussion and in such a way to streamline the process of producing those outcomes that we agree we liked from last year.

Okay.  Let's move onto MAG Working Groups.  Which MAG Working Groups have updates to share tonight?  Language, do you have an update for us?  Timea, you are in the speaking queue, and Titti, are you with us?  Let me check who else has an update to share.  Let's start with the Language Working Group.  Is that going to be Lucien or Karim?

>> Good evening, good night for some of you.  Yes, we knew that we had to start implementing a survey, but we had last couple of days a call with Madame Chair Anriette and we received a couple of comments that will allow us to review the scope of our Working Group, and work again on the survey to be implemented at MAG portal before I share it with all MAG members.

So at this time we don't have something that we are going to share with all of you, but we will come up after review the work and implement the draft survey in the IGF portal for the MAG consideration.  I don't know if either colleagues have to add something on this.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks a lot, Karim.

Does anyone have anything to add?  No.  Good.  So next we have outreach and engagement.  Amado, are you ready?

>> AMADO ESPINOSA:  Yes.  Thanks Ms. Chairwoman.  I just want to make a report on the Outreach and Engaged Working Group.  We have presented the report to the WSIS session in order to let them know the priorities of the Working Group and what are we pursuing to accomplish regarding the mindset of the IGF and the new strategies we are proposing to the Secretariat.

I have already sent a personal letter to the Secretariat in the Chairmanship to propose myself for sharing the Working Group in looking at the new opportunities how to support the responsibility of the IGF, the IGF strategies as well as the roadmap for the collaboration already suggested by the high level panel on digital cooperation.  It would be my pleasure to collaborate with all of you, and certainly we can build together a fruitful and rigid network worldwide of professionals and institutions and organisations and society organisations as well to be part of the great outcomes from the IGF in the great talent all around at the MAG.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks, Amado.  And it would be useful if the group could look at recommendations on how we can strengthen the outcomes.  Thanks for the report. 

Titti you are next, and then we will take questions on all of the Working Groups.

>> Thanks, Anriette, for giving me the floor.  This is Titti.  As you know, the Working Group is focusing on development of proposal for action that could be implemented in a short and medium term, and how to strengthen the IGF and how to better position the IGF in the evolving digital cooperation landscape.  The Working Group at the last virtual meeting on the 6th of August and as the Working Group has defined activities that were Working Groups that have been activated on four key areas of activities that are improvement to the IGF, strengthening the IGF outcomes, the improvement of MAG terms of reference and also possible implementation for the roadmap for a high level body.

So about the first key air of activity, there was a lot of work that has been made by the MAG.  As we know, there was a previous Working Group on the improvement of the IGF.  So Favio tried to extract the main recommendations that have been defined in the past, trying to focus on an area that are planning a link to the Internet Governance, and also on the outcomes.  But there was a lot of discussion, so it was decided at the end to take as reference the input coming from the world digital cooperation and also from the option paper and to define the recommendation with this.

About the second key area of activities that was strengthen IGF outcomes, actually there was a lot of suggestions that were shared with Anriette.  Maybe, Anriette, you can give an update after me.  And the Working Group also decided to stop or postpone the activity related to the third key activity, refer to the improve of the table of reference of the MAG as the landscape of the IGF is not clear so far and then actually there was an update on the fourth key activity related to the possible implementation notice for the roadmap.  The Working Group is trying to collect the input and share ideas and also a new activity was started related to the working paper because the Working Group plans to draft a short at that point on the main point of the option paper chapter.

So the idea is to collect input and try to develop a form formal position to be the recommendation and final cooperation.  So then, Anriette, I think it would be better to give the floor back to you.  Maybe you can just share the suggestion that you shared with the Working Group related to the strengthened IGF outcomes in 2020.  How to better, have better outcomes in 2020.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks, Titti, I think I would rather share that online seeing that this is a new item for discussion.  And I don't want to take up too much time because the primary objective of tonight's meeting is to move forward with the main session.  But I will shire the message with the MAG and then people can comment there.  Are there any questions for the Working Groups?  Amado, I see you are in the speaking queue, that a new hand?

>> AMADO ESPINOSA:  My final comment is I would really appreciate to have proposals for co‑sharing the Working Group on outreach and engagement because I think there are a lot of things, a lot of exciting things to do and it would be great, as I mentioned people willing to contribute to the Working Group and working together with them for the successful accomplishment of the goals that we have proposed.  Thanks.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks, Amado.  Yes, I think it's important that people participate.  I think it is also very important for the outreach Working Group to work closely with the Secretariat.  I think the Secretariat does the bulk of the work and communications and engagement.  So I think it's important that we try and make sure that the Working Group and MAG members and their efforts supports and reinforces the efforts of the Secretariat.

>> JUNE PARRIS:  Hello, good evening, good night.  June Parris, and I want to react to what Anriette just said, and we have sent an email to the Secretariat asking to have a meeting with him to discuss what things we can do to assist the Secretariat since we know that they are so busy at this time.  I just wanted to mention that.  We hope to get a response soon.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks a lot, June, and thanks for taking that initiative.

If there are no other questions for the Working Groups, let's move on to Agenda Item number 7, which is the updates from the main session organising groups.  I want to ask people when they report to also just keep in mind that there are new MAG members.  I know there weren't many new MAG members this year, but there are new MAG members and I'm also new.  So it's good when you talk about last year just to provide a bit of background on how you did approach the organising of the main sessions, and other components of the IGF last year.  So let's move in alphabetical order.  Can we start with the data track main session?

Who is reporting for data?  I don't hear anyone or see anyone so environment, should we move onto environment.  Timea, are you ready to give us a report.

>> TIMEA SUTO:  Thanks for giving me the floor, Anriette.  It's going to be a short report because we didn't have much to do yet, but we are keen on progressing.  What we managed to do seeing the reminder that we are to report on this call and thank you for the Secretariat for that reminder in due time.  We suggested that the groups that are organising the main session on environment theme and on those who volunteered to work on the opening and closing session for the environment team to work together in defining who will focus on what and what the teams would be and to brainstorm on ideas.

Just because looking at the members who subscribed for these groups, there is quite a significant overlap.  So we did put a call on the agenda, but we ended up being only two of us on the call because some members had issues with the time zones, but what we were talking about is to get a Google document started for the main session following the template that has been used in previous years which also was circulated by the Secretariat on the list.

And to start thinking about ideas collaborative through for that main session.  So far we are considering the circular economy, and the digital technologies impact on carbon footprint and, but also the digital technologies potential for climate action.  So we are trying to look at how that happens in the whole supply chain of the digital economy.

These are some initial ideas.  So we are looking for members who have subscribed so far, but also anybody who is interested in the topic to join us.  Just feel free to send me an email and we will work with the Secretariat to send, to add you all to the mailing list and we will start the Google Doc and work from there.

In terms of opening and closing session, I feel that it's best if the MAG based on the discussions that we have been having on the mailing list it's best that we have a quick discussion here how are we approaching this year given that it's going to be an online format and what do we agree on in terms of guidelines and what exactly do we want to achieve with those sessions and then we will be happy to work on those moving forward.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks Timea.  It looks from the discussion in the chat that the other groups did meet.  I think Chengetai, you did that the week before last already if I remember correctly.  When Chengetai made the announcement that we would postpone last week's MAG call to this week, it was done with explicit intention to give the groups the opportunity to identify facilitators, and to have, to initiate their planning.  But it doesn't matter, I think the other groups clearly haven't had a chance, so we need to now agree on what the next steps should be.

So we need ‑‑ I think, Chengetai, can you just give the MAG an update?  My sense is, if I remember correctly, we have got volunteers for all of the main session organising groups.  What we don't have are facilitators.  So Chengetai, can you just update us on what the status is with regard to the main session organising groups?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, that's correct.  We had hoped to get at the very least the facilitators who would be the co‑facilitators for the main sessions.  I did send out, I did send out the list of all of the members from each group in an email.  I can send it out again if people did not receive it.  I will put it on the website, but it would be strange if people did not receive it.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks Chengetai.  So we have volunteers.  We don't have facilitators.

This is the first task.  We have to identify facilitators for these main session organising groups and then the second task is how to approach organising them.  I had asked on the mailing list how you did this last year because I wasn't very clear, and Sylvia and Ben both responded which was very helpful.  And, Ben, you started reflecting on how to do some of this a little bit differently this year.

So do you want to share some of your reflections?

>> BEN WALLIS:  Yes, Anriette, but I wanted to just, I shared reflections about the introductory and concluding session, and as you reminded us as MAG members last year you we shouldn't assume that everyone was there.  So in terms of the main sessions on the themes, the way that we began to organize those, we were fortunate enough to be able to meet in person, unlike this year in Berlin.  And there was several hours during that meeting where people suggested topics for the main sessions and then we broke out and wrote a first paragraph description of what that main session was.

And that exercise drew people who were interested to then lead the organisation.  We kind of came up with the topics first, and then people were, yes, okay, I will volunteer to lead on that topic because that's something I'm interested in, something I can add value on.  And so obviously we didn't have that ability or it wasn't so easy to do that this year, but that helps.

And I think probably the people who then suggested a topic, some of them were likely to put their hand up and say, well, I will agree to facilitate it and do the majority of the work as well.  So even though I was a facilitator for the data track last year, the main session themes were, the main sessions were about one aspect of each theme, but they weren't tied ‑‑ I'm not explaining this very well.  I didn't organize the main session that had a link to data.

I organized another main session on actually disciplinary, so the main session and the concluding sessions were done by the facilitators of those tracks.  The organisations of main sessions which related to the themes were not necessarily done by the same people.  They were led by volunteers who were interested in a particular topic that was being chosen.

So that was the way it was done last year, and that's why this year, for example, I volunteered to co‑facilitate the introductory and sessions which is the trust theme the tract that I have been co‑facilitating but I didn't put my hand up for any main session because I didn't want to take on too much because it wasn't clear what topic was going to be the main session, for trust or for data or inclusion.  I know inclusion is covered.

So that was how it worked last year, and possibly why there has been a confusion about whether or not people are putting their hands up to volunteer to coordinate the main session.  So there was a discussion between what a main session was and what an introductory and concluding session was and who did what.  I'm happy to share, I should take a break there, but, yes, of course, I'm happening to talk about the introductory and concluding session as well.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Ben.

I raised that because I noticed that ‑‑ so I hope everyone read the discussion online, but also heard what Ben just said.  So where we are at the moment is that we have two types of groups, the idea is so far, unless it changes is that the workshop evaluation, the thematic workshop evaluation groups will organize the introductory and concluding sessions for each theme.  So that's what Ben was just referring to.

And then the new groups, the ones that we have volunteers for and Chengetai shared a document with members, that is the main session organising groups, and they are not necessarily the same people, although Timea in her report just shared that they actually think that for environment it could be the same people that organizes the main session and the introductory concluding sessions.

So that is the status.  And I think really the key point of this at this moment is to start and to get the groups going and to get the groups thinking about their methodology and how they are going to approach the main sessions and for that we also need the facilitators.  Roberto, you asked for the floor.

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Madame Chair.  I wanted to mention that actually the last thing we did was to decide that for, I mean, based on the suggestion of the group that we were evaluating our proposal come from Karim and I, we decided that this one could be the main session for inclusion.  And the other thing that we did was to invite Paul Rowney to co‑facilitate this section, but that's what we did so far.  I think we are going to move forward here in the next days in order to complete the preparation or coordination for this main session.

Thank You, Madame Chair.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that Roberto.  I see some discussion in the chat as well, and I think June is suggesting it could be the same people that organizes the main session and the introductory and concluding sessions, which would be a different approach, but what I want to suggest because we have those volunteers and the volunteers the list has been shared what I would like to suggest is we ask the Secretariat to organising calls for the main session organising groups and that will give you an opportunity to agree amongst yourselves who will be the facilitators for those main session organising groups.

And once we have the facilitators then you can begin to discuss if you want to change the way of approaching this and change the composition of the groups, but I think the key point is that we begin the process, and I can understand why it was difficult for those meetings to take place because there were no facilitators, so Secretariat, I suggest that we organize those initial discussions, and that will give MAG members to identify facilitators for the main session.  Timea, you wanted to speak.  Go ahead.

>> TIMEA SUTO:  I wanted to clarify what I said and support what others have said before me, I don't think it is absolutely necessary that the intro and closing sessions be organized by the same people who are organising the main sessions.  I took this approach for the environment because there is a direct overlap.  All of those who have volunteered in Chengetai's list, all of those who volunteered to organize intro and closing are also part of the main session organising group but there are a few extra names in the main session organising group.  So this is why I thought it's easier to at least get the work started if we talk to each other, but by no means do I want to suggest that everybody has to do it the same way or that these groups need to work together.

I think it's best if people, of course, work on what is it that they want to, that they have their best interest in.

>> CHAIR:  Thank is Timea.  There are two separate tasks.

I think it's useful to look at what are the goals of the different sessions and the goals of the main session is different from the goals of the introductory and concluding session, so it makes sense for different groups to work on that.

>> Indeed.

>> CHAIR:  I think on that if no one else has any suggestions, then I suggest that we move quite quickly with these calls that we try and have them maybe some this week and some next week so that we can have a call quite soon to begin to make progress.  Because as you all know, main sessions involve inviting speakers, busy, high profile speakers in many instances, and it's not a good idea to delay that type of invitation because people get so busy.

So I actually think Chengetai we should probably try and organize these discussions in the next week so that we have a call next week.  We missed a week, but I want to suggest that we actually have a call next week just to consolidate and that we have started the work and we know who the facilitators are, and begin to Chair initial ideas, but I'm open to having it in two weeks' time.  Chengetai, is that okay, and will the Secretariat be happy to help with setting up these initial meetings?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we will just send out very quick polls to everybody tomorrow the Februaries of the group to each group.

>> CHAIR:  If you can also check on the mailing list subscription because some MAG members in this meeting in the chat weren't sure about the subscription to the mailing list.  So let's just also follow up on that to make sure that everyone is subscribed to the group that they want to be part of or groups that they want to be part of because many people are part of more than one.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sure we can do that.  And if people want to swap groups, which is something that they can do, in the document that I shared, we do also have the link that people can sign up.  So if you want to switch your group, you just need to tell us.

>> CHAIR:  Good.  Good.  Thanks a lot.  And now, on the introductory and concluding sessions, does anyone want to share any ‑‑ Ben has already shared some reflections on that.  Those will be organized unless we change, but the plan at the moment is they will be organized by the evaluation, the workshop evaluation, the thematic workshop evaluation groups.

If there are any more thoughts on them, you can share them now.  What I am doing which I will share with you in the coming days just to document where we look at the different types of sessions that we have at the IGF, and we look at what their goals are, and also what type of approach we want to take to them considering that it's a virtual IGF.  So I can share that with you probably tomorrow morning already and that might also help when you have the discussions just to document what you want to get out of these different types of sessions.

But are there any other general suggestions for how to approach the introductory and concluding sessions in addition to what Ben has shared and what Sylvia has shared online?

>> PAUL ROWNEY:  Anriette, Paul Rowney here.  I wanted to comment on the intros and the closing.  I think we do need to rethink it from last year, because it's different format.  I'm just wondering whether just to create some alignment between the intros and the closing, whether those that are interested from the four different streams could have a chat between themselves just to get a sense of how we should structure this year.

Last year we actually had some good guidelines that were drawn up by two Working Groups, small Working Groups, on the key components that should be included in each of the intro and the closing sessions, and that was just to keep a similarity in the formatting of the three that were last year and four this year.

So following a similar thing, you know, let's take what we learned last year and maybe get the four groups together to have a, just a round Robin chat with each other just so that the good aspects are kept and the new aspects to use it on the new Forum are brought in.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Paul.  And, Paul, I'm wondering if you don't want to lead a discussion, I mean, and I'm happy to work with you, to update those guidelines?

>> PAUL ROWNEY:  It might be worthwhile bringing on board some of the teams that were working on those documents last year.  We did have some Working Groups last year.  So they could be refreshed, particularly to take into account the new format.  I think we have got a new opportunity to do something better this year taking also into account what we learned last year.  Because it was the first time we actually did this last year and I think it was quite a good learning curve for all of us.

But having those that participated last year and those participating this year I think it would be useful to get all of the different thoughts.

>> CHAIR:  That would be very helpful.  In fact, that's exactly why I started that discussion online.  So why don't we continue the discussion, Paul, and then maybe capture what people feel worked well, what they want to change, and then integrate that into a new set of guidelines.  I'm very happy to work with you on that.

Sylvia, I have noted that you have asked for the floor.  Please go ahead.

>> SYLVIA CADENA:  Thanks Anriette.  I just wanted to say that although it might be a good idea to review the guidelines knowing that the IGF this year is actually virtual and the guidelines were done for face‑to‑face event, I think it will probably be a good idea not to update them as guidelines for moving forward, let's say, to drop what stand for last year, because that guidelines, those guidelines might be used for next year again if we get face‑to‑face event in 2021.

So that is, that might be something to take into consideration.  I think it's also important that as Paul mentioned to have a conversation about the different tracks in the introductory and concluding sessions.  Amado also wanted to mention that you knew commerce sessions in the past were the ones that were taking care of describing what tracks, how to navigate the program, what issues were to be discussed.  So this is, to a certain extent, it was true that this was the first time it was done as a separate type of session to have an introductory session for each one of the tracks, but I don't think it was the first time that the same discussion let's say was done.

I am honestly very concerned about the length of the proposed virtual IGF in not knowing yet or not having clear yet the, what are the interactivity options and what platform we are going to be used makes it very hard to think about the planning for that space to happen and see what can be pre‑recorded, what cannot, what additional documentation can be added, surveys or other tools can be used.

It is quite daunting and I hope that there is some chances to get clear information on that regard as soon as possible.  As many of you know, attending large online events or organising those, trying to make them interactive is very, very difficult and I don't think that it will be that simple and we are getting way too close to that and not enough time to come around with ideas in our heads.  So I think that we could get some clarifications on that regard as soon as possible.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks, Sylvia.  I will do a bit of an update on platforms, but let's just first finish this discussion.  So to try and summarize where we are, we are going to initiate, the Secretariat will initiate meetings for the main session organising groups and at those meetings, you will identify facilitators, and then start the work.  So that when we have our next MAG meeting, we have feedback reports from each of the main session organising groups, at least with a basic concept for your main session, and some indication that you have started planning.

And we will also, with regard to the opening of the introductory and concluding sessions, we will have a subgroup working just on the guidelines and reflecting on the lessons from last year in terms of how to strengthen it.  And we need to also add as Sylvia has just pointed out the newcomers session, and also just reflect how that might be done differently this year.

So I think that's our immediate next steps.  And we already have Paul, you have got volunteers, you have got, Ben has also volunteered, and as Paul suggests, all of the other organizers of introductory and concluding sessions from last year, please join this activity of reflecting and updating the guidelines.

Okay.  So to update Sylvia on platforms, I mean, I want to turn the question around.  I think that the question is not what can the platform deliver.  I think main session organizers need to decide what they want, and what features they want, and then that can be built into the technical support platform.

So but I can update you.  Chengetai and I have met with the organisation that tech change, and we have also had a proposal from Diplo.  So at the moment we are talking to two different institutions who are making offers for providing us with technical support.  Both of them are using Zoom.  And in terms of the in‑house capacity that we have in the IGF, we also have substantive capacity on Zoom.

So I think you can assume that we will be using Zoom, whether we will be using our own version and own design based on Zoom or whether we are working with an external support provider, we will be using Zoom.  And that doesn't mean that there are certain facilities that we have at our disposal.  Obviously it will depend on the size of the session and the design of the session, but I think ‑‑ I don't think you should feel constrained by the platform at this point.  I think if you want to have breakout groups in your introductory session, then just say that so that we can plan around that.

But Chengetai, do you want to add anything to the status on the possible platform?  

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, I think you have covered it.  Whatever we do it will be in addition to Zoom at the present time.  We are still looking at the other platforms because there is a great deal of competition amongst them, but there isn't one yet that has all of the features of Zoom that we want so, yes, concentrate on Zoom and we will add stuff around that.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Chengetai.  And also there are cost implications, but there are implications of security, there are security implications that we are looking into and functionalities depends a little bit in Zoom on what format whether you use meeting or webinar format.  But I urge MAG members not to worry about that.  At this point focus on the design of the session, how you want it to be interactive, in what way you want to be interactive and then we can work to accommodate that.

>> I'm sorry, Anriette, can I make a quick comment?

>> I'm sorry, I'm having problems loading the speaking queue, my apologies.  I'm very sorry, Anriette, but I don't think that it is a good idea.  I think it is very important to know what the technical specs are to be able to plan ahead.  Organising breaking groups when it requires a lot of support on the back end and not knowing what support is going to be available it's very difficult.  If someone makes a proposal for the main session or for introductory session about the use of a particular functionality and there is no technical support for that, it will be very difficult because you have to make it work, and honestly that would be very unfair for MAG members.

So even though I understand that you want us to be with these sort of constraints, if you let me finish, Chengetai.  I understand that you want us to be free of any constraints and be creative, and I do appreciate that effort, but from our point of view after organising several events in the last few months, that has severe implications of what sort of interactivities that you can expect, especially the security bit.  And people come prepared with whatever statements or comments that they are approved to say.  It is recorded, it's public.

So it is a lot easier to attribute those comments to a particular person.  So all of those have implications on how people will interact.  I shared an Article that one of my colleagues, Jois Chen about her experience of attending different events and how difficult it is difficult to come to discussion, proper discussion.  And for those of you that attended RightsCon, you may have seen that it was one side of the discussion, not a lot of discussion honestly.

It was one side of presentations with not all questions being read or not clear methodology about how those questions were answered or not by the panelists.  So all of those things have implications on how you design a session.

So I would really appreciate to know more about what functionalities are going to be available, because otherwise we my put the Secretariat on the spot and ask for things that are not possible to deliver or put us on a very big burden in trying to organize things that will not be possible.

And that is some serious thing especially if MAG members are not technically experts on organising sessions.  It's a very different thing.  So I do appreciate the idea, but, you know, open mind to organize things, but unfortunately, the platforms do really have constraints of what you can do.

So thanks for that.

>> CHAIR:  Chengetai, do you want to respond?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Thank you, Sylvia, yes, you do bring up some very good points.  For the main sessions, those, I mean, okay, one of our most important sessions, we will be focusing a great deal of resources on those main sessions.  So for the, I mean if we are talking about technical support, those sessions will have the most technical support.  As far as the facility, I mean, the technical aspects of what is possible and what is not possible within the thing, yes, we have to be careful about that.

But if you come up with a plan and you talk to our team, Luis, et cetera, and if he says that is possible and then he has highlighted that in the plan that this is what they require, resources can be shifted for that session.  But, yes, it was very, it's very important if you are doing something that is not the usual to talk to the technical, and we can have back and forth and Luis is very, very attentive and will respond to see what is possible and what is not possible.

We do want to make the IGF very interesting, so if we do need to shift resources to a particular session to make it better, more resources than to another session, especially which is a main session, yes.  So we will not be doing this for all sessions.

>> Thanks, Chengetai.  Yes, Sylvia, I'm not going to back down on this, actually.  I think that most of you, all of you have experiences of online meetings.  The possibilities are not endless, but there are certain possibilities such as having breakout groups, for example.  And if you want that for a session, if you feel that's important for your session, then we can accommodate that.

We are going to need additional technical support.  There is no doubt about it.  And we are working on achieving that and securing that technical support.  So within the limitations, but also within the opportunities that the online medium provides us with.  I still do want to encourage MAG members to try and make these sessions as participative as possible.

I think that there are certain security limitations.  We know already that the webinar format in Zoom gives us much more control over who enters the room and who doesn't.  So there is certain considerations like that and we will be sharing these guidelines.

The reason we haven't done that yet is because we are still reviewing the idea of getting external support.  If we get external support, we need to raise a lot of additional funding.  So that's why, in fact, if there are any MAG members that have suggestions on how we can secure that additional funding, let us know.  But I don't think you should be discouraged from using more participative methodologies than RightsCon, for example.  And for those who participated in RightsCon, I think that you as the MAG made such a good decision to have few parallel tracks for the IGF.  I think one of the reasons why RightsCon was so difficult to participate in is because there were so many sessions taking place at the same time.

But we really are, we have learned a lot as well, and I think you have all seen this as well.  It's very important to have more than one moderator in an online session.  You need somebody that moderates the verbal discussion, but you also need somebody that moderates the chat and the text‑based participation.

So what I think we need to do is to document what we feel is needed in terms of technical support, what is needed in terms of mechanisms to ensure participation for all of the different types of sessions that we have.  So there will be constraints and we will need additional technical support, but I don't want you to feel too constrained yet at this point.  As the Secretariat and myself, we have been participating in multiple events, and as you have as well, and I do think that that gives us a sense of how we can do a really successful IGF.

But let's discuss this further in the main session organising groups.  I think if it would help, Sylvia, if it's going to be reassuring and helpful, what we can do in the meantime is to ask Luis just to document what the different options are within Zoom for the main sessions which are large sessions.  And at what capacity we can deliver for participative modalities.

So that will help a little bit.  So we can do it from both sides.  You can decide what you want, but we can also begin to share what we think the possibilities are.  Are there any other hands that are up?  I think Jennifer there is a lot going on in the chat.  Adama and June and so does anybody want to speak?  Or shall we just capture what is in the chat?

>> Carlos is not on the line.  I am just in the chat.

>> I think we can just capture what is in the chat because we don't have more time, we have less time, but I think I should also emphasize on having a good moderation on the chat.  Usually it's very interactive, people ask questions.  So all of the questions and the statement, the people, are contributions that people are putting, and it's very important to have people from the MAG that are really looking at the chat and the question and answers to make sure all of those things are touched.

That's just something I wanted to add to your statement, Chair.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you, Adama.  Jennifer, you are in the queue, go ahead.

>> JENNIFER CHUNG:  Apologies, typing mostly on chat.  My connection was unstable before.  I guess to actually further slightly the discussion on the platforms and how we can learn from the virtual meeting we have already participated in, is basically I understand you are encouraging us to be as creative and inventive as possible, of course, given the limits.  Noting that, I guess it is a little bit of reflection on this, we are not really talking specifically about the organisation, the visual organisation of the platform yet.  We will be using Zoom as you mentioned, but I do want to note that another aspect I found very difficult to navigate was the user interface, like the landing page on where you can see all of the different tracks, where you can see the schedule, where you can see a main page.  That was extremely confusing for me for some aspects.  One of them was RightsCon.

So I think for us to think about and maybe this website reconfiguration doesn't really apply to the virtual IGF meeting and it applies really to the main IGF website, but when we create the landing page or an organisation of how people can go to the different tracks when we come to the virtual meeting is extremely important, because if it's ‑‑ that's the only place people could kind of navigate.  So I think that's something we should definitely flag and keep in mind depending on whether or not this is going to be done in‑house or if it's going to be something that the provider is going to give us or another third party solution, et cetera, but this is something very important I wanted to flag.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks, Jennifer.  I agree completely.

It was really, really badly done.  It was very hard to navigate the agenda, the program of RightsCon, and I think what we should do, our time is nearly up that we should document all of these reflections because they are helpful.  I agree with Maria Paz that the 60‑minute sessions are too short.  That's within the reasons I was discouraging the idea to ask all of the IGF session organizers to reduce the length of their sessions.  So what I suggest we do is to capture all of this, Maria Paz, everyone else who went to RightsCon, if you can share your reflections on the MAG list that's going to be very helpful.

>> ADAMA JALLOW:  Can I come in? I just wanted to point out a little aspect on the interface for the participants.  Visual usually we have the panelists interface and the participant interface, and usually the other meetings that I have seen and I have been through there is a lot of restriction with the participant interface.  Visually you cannot have access to see the people participating.  It's just for you to listen and question and answer.

So this makes a little bit too limited, and not too interactive.  I think it's important for the participant to see the people that are, the panelists that are online and the other people that are also participating at least gives you a kind of be included or seeing other people and then you are motivated to ask questions and direct your questions et cetera.  So I think it's important to not restrict too much.  Being a participant you cannot have access to speaking unless you are given.  That's okay, but it's good to at least see who is online and who is participating and all of that.  I just wanted to add that from experience and from other meetings that I have attended.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Adama.  Chengetai and I have been discussing that issue and the limitations of the Zoom format.  There are work‑arounds, but that is definitely a consideration.

Sylvia is commenting on this and Roberto.  I think this is a big deal, we are going to have a very big event in a new why, and it's good that we are being too anxious about it in a way because I think it will force us to be really well prepared.

I actually, based on my own experience, I think we can really make this work, and that the IGF is benefiting from the experience of everyone else.  And I think we can do better.  Because we have had the benefit of everyone's experience.  So we will be ‑‑ I can see that you would like clarity, and a decision on the platform sooner rather than later.  Chengetai, I'm sure you are getting that message.  But just give us a little more time while we are exploring these other options.

And continue to share your ideas.  And let's share all of these lessons that we have learned from other events so that we can integrate them into our planning.  Sylvia is saying ten people supporting a two‑hour session.  I think it's good to think about the type of support.  We know that we need more than one moderator, we need to look at other types of support as well.  There are also differences.  Chengetai and I have met with the RightsCon organizers and they, for example, did not have a common registration platform.  And that already made a big difference to how they facilitated interaction.

Speakers, for example, didn't have to register.  But we will get back to that.  So I think it's time to close the meeting.  And I think our actions are clear.  We are going to initiate the main session organising groups.  We are going to update the guidelines for introductory and concluding session groups.  We are going to reflect on outcomes and how to approach them this year.  And we are going to speed up the process of deciding how to, what technical  platform to use.

So everyone, unless there are any other comments, our meeting is closed.  Chengetai, anything to add?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just next meeting, so we have agreed next meeting is going to be the 25th, I'm sorry, I made a mistake, I said 24th instead of 25th, not next Tuesday, but the following Tuesday.

>> CHAIR:  So 25 August is our next call.  And it's quite important that we have made concrete progress by then on the main session organising.  So thanks, everyone, and we promise to update you on the tech platform by then.  Thanks, everyone.  Keep well.

>> Thank you.