IGF 2021 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - I

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: We'll just give it the extra two minutes for people to come on.  So we'll start in two minutes.  Thanks.  

Hello.  Good afternoon again.  Good morning.  And evening, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to MAG virtual meeting number 1 for the 2021 cycle.  Just as you know that this meeting is being recorded.  There's going to be a report after this meeting, and it is also being transcribed.  With that, and without any further ado, let me give the floor to our Chair to start the meeting.  Thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai.  It's so good to see you early in the cycle of 2021.  My name is Anriette Esterhuysen.  I've just been reappointed, so starting my second term as chair of Internet governance forum.  Many of you know my background.  I've worked in Internet governance and Internet development for many years, working in civil society but also working in partnership of the stakeholder groups focused primarily on access and increasing access to infrastructure and ensuring that Internet access comes with the rights that are necessary for people to make full and effective use of the Internet.  Bull those of you that don't know me yet, you will get to know me, and you have lots of time for that.  I really am very happy to give the floor now and ask him to introduce himself, the co‑chair of IGF 2021, Krzysztof Szubert, and I will have to learn how to pronounce that from Poland, representing the Government of Poland for IGF 2021 on the MAG as co‑chair and who also happens to have been a MAG member in his own individual right earlier on a few years ago.  So Krzysztof, can you please introduce yourself and a very warm welcome to you, and it's a great pleasure to start another cycle with Poland as host country.  And this year I'm confident that it will actually turn out to be Poland.  So Krzysztof, over to you. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Yes.  Thank you very much.  I will start with a couple of points and introduce myself, former MAG member, I would like to extend my warmest thanks to you and for accepting me back in the group as MAG 2021 host country co‑chair.  So this is a privilege to be, again, among you, and I welcome especially all new colleagues who have just joined MAG for the very first time.  I hope you will enjoy your work within the group as much as I did in the past, and I'm truly convinced your contribution, advice and experience will be most appreciated.  And regarding, in addition we had a couple of weeks ago, we had over 6,000 participants representing almost all of the countries worldwide and approximately 250 sessions with more than 20,000 online connections.  The 15th IGF, at the same time first fully IGF virtual with big success from my perspective.  So I would like to at the moment the work and the great organization by the IGF for their effort they made and they spent on the organization.  Two years ago Poland was nominated to the 15th edition of the global IGF, and this nomination was especially important not only for Poland but also for entire region in Europe.  Unfortunately due to the pandemic, the on‑site meeting had to be postponed, so next year Poland will host the 16th IGF edition.  We hope it will take place in the traditional way, so we'll meet all of us there in the physical way.  Today I invite you all to come to Poland and to participate in this event.  We hope that the Polish edition, we'll get thousands of participants from all over the world, and we will get together under the common mode of Internet united which I think especially is extremely important, so open, free and undivided Internet where users can enjoy the rights without losing privacy.  This is the idea that guide us, so I would like to spend ‑‑ I would like to spend more time on that maybe later on as well.  Building up on the current very good experience, we welcome the continuation of the parliamentary's involvement in the IGF.  Also a great job done during the previous physical IGF in Germany last year, so we would like to continue that.  A few words on what you can expect in Poland, so we would like to really involve the youth community into the IGF process, particularly to their voice regarding the challenges they face.  For instance, concerning education, employment but also dealing with the psychological effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic which might be really, really important.  We have been thinking on bringing new communities into the IGF, too.  So we will be looking very much to the broader involvement of program and gamer communities into the IGF.  It might be something newer considering as well, the introduction of a new track to mark the high‑level leaders meeting to really have a discussion with the world's largest organization such as OECD or ITU to really be sure that we are on the right track and discussing together for all the most important subjects.  From my personal perspective last couple of years I spent in the investment, so I think that maybe investments and general discussion on the recovering economies after the COVID‑19 crisis using digital transformation and digital technologies might be very interesting to cover as well.  Also as a creative development of the United Nations secretary‑general speech at the IGF 2020, I think we should try to look at the very ambitious outcome of the 2021 event.  Poland stands ready to extend whatever coordination and input is needed.  So we would like to really be sure that we will deliver great conclusions after the meeting.  At this point I would like to express my hope for a very good cooperation with the entire MAG and communities it represents.  I would like to see a rebrand group and creative ideas and a mindful IGF in the end.  The exceptional city two years ago, the climate conference was hosted there.  I believe it's an excellent place to continue the discussion started in Berlin at the previous on‑site IGF and during this year's remote edition of the forum.  I'm happy to report as well that all necessary preparations go as they should.  So we are very much on track.  Just a few words maybe on myself.  So I spent most of my time of my life, actually, more than 25 years in ICT, business, 20 years in business, in general.  So I've been actually acting as a C‑level manager in quite a few ICT companies.  Later on I was invited with my background and also my experience to the government.  So a couple of years ago I've been acting as secretary of state at The Ministry of Digital Affairs, and the government plenty of potential for market so I've been coordinating the biggest digital European strategy.  Last year I worked in a number of places.  Back to business at Oxford University, now back as well to the government to help preparing IGF and also acting as a high representative of the prime minister for European digital policing.  So I have quite mixed experience.  I would say that I'm personally also very much a multistakeholder inside, so I think I can bring maybe some experience and also would be really, really happy to work with you.  I'm prepared for the 2021 edition of IGF in the best possible way.  Thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much for that, Krzysztof, and a warm welcome to you and welcome to your colleagues who are returning to our process.  Thank you very much also for all the support you provided last year, and everyone else from the Poland team. 


>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: To start our meeting today, we will welcome our new MAG members.  I'd like them all to introduce themselves very briefly, and then we'll have a short introductory interactive session.  But before that we need to adopt the agenda.  So if you can all just look at the screen in front of you and briefly review the agenda.  Chengetai, interrupt me or adjust me as needed.  So after the introductory sessions, we'll go on to item 3 which is a review of the draft time line for IGF 2021. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much for the offer to interrupt you. 


>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I forgot to put in the update from the Secretariat. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That's why I do need you to interrupt me.  We'll have an update from the Secretariat.  And Chengetai, that would also be a good opportunity for you to introduce new MAG members.  I think they have met, most of you, but maybe you could quickly spruce your team as well.  After the update from the Secretariat, we'll review the time line.  And most of you would have received that.  I think you would have seen that.  Chengetai did distribute that.  Then we'll discuss the call for input.  That's the first task that we are embarking on as the 2021 MAG.  The call for input taking stock of IGF2020 and call for improvements for planning.  Chengetai did circulate the draft call.  So if anyone has any comments or questions, that's the time when we'll discuss that.  Linked to that ‑‑ in fact, it's part of the same agenda item, in fact, is the discussion on call for issues.  That is kind of part of item number 4, it follows on to it.  Then we'll have a short discussion on MAG Working Groups.  We'll just provide you with some background, and we'll outline what the process is for reaching a decision on which MAG working groups we need for 2021.  Then item number 7, we'll discuss IGF intersessional work in particular best practice forums.  Best practice forums are part of the MAG's area of responsibility.  And we also have the dynamic coalitions.  And the reason that we've put dynamic coalitions on the agenda is to share with the MAG a proposal that emerged from last year's ‑‑ or this year's work, which is a proposal to look at also conducting a learning study on dynamic coalitions as we did with best practice forums in 2020.  Under that agenda item, we'll have very brief reports on the 2020 best practice forums.  And then we'll have a presentation on the criteria, the guidelines for best practice forum, proposal development, and for how the MAG can approach the selection of best practice forums for the coming cycle.  And then we'll just present the time line on how to reach that decision early in the next year, because best practice forums, the earlier we start, the better the results.  And that's really it.  And then item 8 is any other business.  And I want to urge not just the new MAG members, all MAG members to come up with any questions or suggestions that they want to bring up at that point if it hasn't been covered.  It's very important that we start our work together in a spirit of openness, of sharing, of being organized and result‑oriented, but also accommodating questions, uncertainty and suggestions because that, in fact, is the power of the MAG.  The power of the MAG is that you are a selection of diverse individuals with different experiences and different priorities, different lenses on the work of the IGF.  And I therefore really encourage you to be very open in making your contributions, in asking questions, in expressing uncertainty.  It's very difficult in a face‑to‑face environment sometimes to know whether people are on track with the discussion or not.  So please don't hesitate to raise your hands.  There are two ways of raising hands.  There is using the speaking queue, and the Secretariat will share the link to the speaking queue.  You have to visit a website and join the speaking queue.  But if that's difficult for you, myself and the Secretariat, and Krzysztof as our co‑chair, we'll keep an eye also on the hands, the Zoom hands.  So please, do feel free to participate.  Being on the MAG is hard work.  Not always at the same time ‑‑

[ Phone ringing ]

‑‑ I'm sorry, that was my phone.  The work tends to come in cycles.  There are periods of very intense work.  There are periods of less intense work, but it is hard work.  It's good that we start that with a spirit of collaboration and sharing.  So on that, any comments on the agenda?  Can we adopt the agenda?  Any questions?  Any additions?  I see no comments in the chat.  And I see no hands.  So we can, therefore, consider this agenda adopted.  So now I'm going to go back to introductions.  I want to ask the new MAG members to very briefly introduce yourself.  Really, we don't have a lot of time, so literally just say your name, which country you come from, and what your institutional affiliation is.  So I'm going to start with Amrita.  I see you are the first person on the list amongst our new MAG members.  Warm welcome, Amrita.  You have the floor. 

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you.  Hello, everyone.  My name is Amrita Choudhury.  I am from India and I represent the civil society and an organization called CCEUI.  Thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Amrita.  Ayazhan, you are next. 

>> AYAZHAN MUKANOVA: Hello, everyone.  I represent Kazakhstan.  I work in nation information communication technology company, and I represent the international development department. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot and welcome to you.  Joyce, you are next. 

>> JOYCE CHEN: Hello, everybody, I'm Joyce Chen, and I represent the technical community.  So happy to see everybody. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Joyce, and welcome to you.  Now we have (Indiscernible) and you have to introduce yourself and also tell us what we should call you. 

>> IOMBONANA ADRIAMAMPIONONA: Yes.  Good afternoon.  Iombonana from Madagascar.  I'm representing the technical community.  I'm called Iombonana, I‑o‑m‑b‑o‑n‑a‑n‑a. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So Iombonana.  Who is next?  I'm missing someone.  Karla.  Hang on a bit.  Who is next?  Chengetai, you can help me here.  Richard, why don't you go next. 

>> RYSZARD HORDYNSKI: Hi, hello, everybody.  My name is Ryszard Hordynski.  I'm from Poland.  I think that's it. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks and welcome to you.  Sophie. 

>> SOPHIE PERESSON: Hi, everyone.  Thank you for the opportunity.  It's great to be here.  My name is Sophie Peresson, I work at the international chamber of commerce based in Paris.  You can kind of see my Christmas tree behind me because I'm still working from home, and I'm very much looking it forward to this meeting.  Thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Sophie.  Who's next?  Anyone else?  Because my list of participants is jumping around a bit.  Anyone else that's with us from the new MAG members?  Please just take the floor. 

>> ADAM PEAKE: Hi.  Sorry.  It's Adam Peake.  I work for ICAM, I live in Amsterdam and technical community.  Hi, everybody. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Welcome, Adam.  The reason I didn't give Adam the floor earlier is because Adam is actually a returning MAG member and also worked as part of the Secretariat years ago.  So it's really great to have you back with us, Adam.  And who's next? 

>> KHALED KOUBAA: Khaled Koubaa. 


>> KHALED KOUBAA: I'm from Tunisia.  I work at Facebook based in Dubai, and I'm so happy to be part of this great team.  Looking forward to work with you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Khaled.  Who else do we have? 


>> Hello. 

>> DOFEL SOOK-JUNG: Hi.  I'm Dofel Sook-Jung from Germany.  I have some technical problems, so I have to use my iPhone, actually.  I'm from Germany, and I'm working for the German Technical Corporation. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Welcome, Sooki.  And next? 

>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: I can go.  My name is Tereza Horejsova from the Czech Republic representing the civil society, working with the foundation and the Geneva Internet platform.  Good to be here.  Thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Welcome, Tereza.  Anyone else?  Is there any other new MAG member that I've not yet given the floor?  No.  I don't think so.  I think we've covered everyone.  So thanks very much and welcome to the new MAG members and the returning MAG members.  And over time you'll get to know all the existing MAG members.  We will have time to get to know one another.  But to start just a little bit of that, we thought that for today we'll break MAG members ‑‑ everyone on the call ‑‑ observers are welcome to join as well ‑‑ into breakout rooms very briefly, around five people per room where you really can just introduce yourself to one another.  And this is not a comprehensive way of introducing one another, but it's a way of starting the MAG 2021 process, just getting to know one another a little bit.  So Luis Bobo who is from the Secretariat will break us up.  And you'll have time, about five minutes in your breakout rooms just to greet one another and introduce yourselves to one another.  And then we'll come back to plenary and move on to the update from the Secretariat.  So Luis, at this point can you divide us into breakout rooms?  So everyone, don't go away.  Just hang on.  You'll automatically randomly be assigned to a breakout room with a few other people. 

>> LUIS BOBO: That's correct.  Thank you.  Please hold for 30 seconds and you will be automatically moved to your breakout room.  And then put back here in this main room in 5 minutes.  Thank you. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: Hello?  Is anyone there? 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Hi.  Sorry.  I was so concentrated on typing, replying. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: It's so quiet.  It's so quiet.  I'm June Parris, by the way, I'm a former MAG member.  It's nice to meet the new members and start the process all over again. 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Well, and I've been working as consultant for a number of best practice forums this year, and the previous years. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: Anyone else?  Is it just the two of us? 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Apparently.  I don't know who's Karla.  Let me put on my ‑‑

>> JUNE PARRIS: I think maybe they're having trouble unmuting or on something, doing something.  It's very difficult in the beginning, isn't it, to get used to everything.  If you've never done it before, that is. 


>> JUNE PARRIS: Yeah.  Yeah. 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: (Indiscernible).

>> JUNE PARRIS: It's, like, shock, isn't it?  Oh, my gosh.  So how is everything on your end? 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: It's good.  I mean, every year, you think IGF is finished, but there's still some more work to be done.  Yesterday I finalized the BPF data report.  So cybersecurity is following later this week. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: Okay. 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Looking back, it's always nice to look back when the report is finally up.  Then you say, well, something has happened. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: Yeah.  Oh, my gosh.  The report, it was difficult.  I mean, it's like ‑‑ I was exhausted after the IGF.  I couldn't even concentrate on anything.  Just ‑‑ yeah.  It was tiring. 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: That's amazing.  I mean, every year it's heavy.  Everything worked perfectly. 


>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Given that this is an event that you all of a sudden have to organize.  Well, what, 6 months, 3 months, 4 months?  We need to ‑‑ we need to change it into something virtual.  And I think it was a great experiment because we have been both in ways, new ways, to address virtual meetings. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: Mm‑hmm. 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Reach out to people, and all the benefits that can bring. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: Of course. 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Also realizing just what you said, it's just not possible to have a full week meetings because you approach them differently or you're much more exhausted, and these are all practical things that probably would take in years, nobody would have come up during a meeting during the discussion on the line and outreach with these practical things, that it's just not possible to have, like, three or four meetings, one after the other in Zoom while at the face‑to‑face meeting that's perfectly doable. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: Yes.  Yeah.  It was nice.  It was good, though.  It really came off ‑‑ I was very worried about my Internet because it was the rainy season here.  I had to increase my thing, my plan.  I had to get more broad ‑‑ whatever ‑‑ what do you call it, bandwidth, so nothing crashes.  So I was lucky that nothing happened.  And I was able to not to have to crash anything.  So that's one, I can keep my fingers crossed for that.  I think we've only got 10 seconds! 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Enough time to say hi to Roberto. 

>> JUNE PARRIS: Oh, Roberto is here. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay, 5 minutes was too short. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Yeah, exactly. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: So we'll just wait for everybody to get back.  Oh, there's a co‑chair now, so I don't have to say that much. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Chengetai, how is life? 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: It's good.  It's the holiday season, so preparing for that.  Also it's the end of the year, so all of these end of the year reports that we have to do. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: We have the same.  So this week is probably the last where we are quite busy and starting for Monday, everything seems to be slowing down, and it will be really holiday time. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, yes.  Anriette, you are muted. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry, it took me a while to get back.  Welcome back, everyone.  My room was very exciting.  We could have carried on talking.  So hopefully we can do this again.  So now let's move on to item 2B, which is the update from the Secretariat.  Chengetai, back to you. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette.  These are all very quick updates.  First of all, we are finalizing all the reports, chair summary, prospectus forum reports as well.  I think most of them are in.  So we're just waiting for one, so they should be done by the end of this week.  And what we're also doing is that we are going to get all the reports typeset properly.  And then we can use that typesetted report package to distribute, and I think ‑‑ I don't want to distribute it during the holiday week, so I think we'll start distributing January, after January 7th.  I think that's much better.  Others will be forgotten or mixed in with other people's emails, et cetera.  So that's what we're going to do.  There is an NRI coordination meeting tomorrow.  So anybody involved with the NRI, please, if you could attend that.  And the third thing I wanted to talk about is that we've had our first real actionable commitment is being finalized.  If you all remember in the speech of the President of Switzerland during the IGF 2020 meeting, they made a commitment to forward environment, so they are putting up some seed funding together for a policy network on environment.  And we've just signed the agreement with the Swiss government.  And over the next ‑‑ again, we might have to ‑‑ we'll start now, but we might have to wait until January for a proper meeting on that.  We can discuss more about it on agenda item 7, or do you want us to conclude now, Anriette? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think that is actually fine.  Maybe if anyone has any questions about that.  I think it's better if we deal with that now.  Maybe you can just complete that (Indiscernible).

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I would like to invite Livia to say a few words.  Sorry for putting you on the spot.  I know I said wait until agenda item 7, but if you want to say something.  For those of you who don't know, Livia is from the Swiss government, and we've worked very well together for since 2017, 2016 when we had the IGF.  So, yes.  Livia, please. 

>> LIVIA WALPEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai, and I hope you can all hear me.  Yes?  So, yeah.  I can gladly say something about this new policy network on environment digitization and why we from the Swiss government, why we decided to actually provide seed funding.  I think the background is really UNSG's roadmap on digital cooperation and that was presented in June this year.  I think you're all familiar with the roadmap.  And there one element is related to the IGF into an IGF plus and one particular aspect within this framework is also to enhance the IGF's intersessional policy work.  And, of course, building on the already‑existing best practice forums and the coalitions that already do great, great work.  The idea is really to go further from best practices also to recommendations and also, for example, have close links and also the high level and parliamentarian checks and so forth.  So that's one aspect that the Swiss side is important to us.  And then the other thing that also is stressed in the roadmap is really the importance of environmental issues and linkages with digitization.  Of course, you all know for the first time this year that the IGF had a track on this topic, and I'm really convinced that the IGF actually can make essential contribution in this regard with the interlinkages between digitization and the environment.  So, yeah.  That's just the background, and because of these two points, we from the Swiss government side, we've been working actually the last couple of weeks and months with the IGF Secretariat on this idea to develop a project proposal, and we decided to give some seed funding to such a pilot policy network, and our President, as Chengetai just said, at the IGF closing session.  And now I think the establishment of this pilot policy network is actually in the hands of the IGF and you as the MAG and the whole community ‑‑ I mean from the Swiss side, I think we would expect that the policy network is, of course, open to everybody that is interested and that they would convene all relevant and interested actors.  But it's really up to the policy network to decide on the specific priorities and activities.  So as it is with the bottom‑up character of the IGF, in general.  Yeah.  I think ‑‑ I hope I said enough, but I'm happy to ask ‑‑ or to answer any questions.  I'm looking forward to working with all of you in this regard.  Thank you. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Livia.  Back to you, Anriette.  I think that's all the updates we have. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot for that, Chengetai.  And we'll have more updates at the next MAG meeting.  And also ‑‑

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry again. 


>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: One of the most important.  We are state waiting for a few reports, especially main session organizers, so that's the MAG.  We will be contacting you individually, but please, please, please hand in the reports.  MAG is supposed to lead by example.  So thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for pointing that out, Chengetai.  And it's really important.  In fact, towards the end of this year, we still had some outstanding reports from 2019 main session.  So please, MAG members, thanks for your excellent work on organizing the main sessions this year and do send in your reports.  And Livia, and thanks very much for that input.  And it's a very exciting initiative.  And I think this policy network is, for me, a very concrete way in which we as the IGF community are responding to the secretary‑general's roadmap for digital cooperation.  And taking on the challenge of evolving the IGF into the IGF plus model that has been envisioned.  So I also look really forward to being part of that and working with the MAG and supporting that process and the rest of the community.  Any questions at this point from anyone in the room?  I don't see anyone in the speaking queue, and I'm checking for hands.  Any questions for Chengetai or questions for Livia about the Swiss commitment?  The environment policy network?  Okay.  No hands.  No questions.  If you have a question later on, that's fine.  You can just put it in the chat, and I will give you the floor.  And now we're moving on to item number 3.  And this is quite an important one.  And it will feel a little bit overwhelming for those that are new to the MAG.  But keep in mind that it's a framework timeline.  It's the timeline that will guide our work.  But it's not cast in stone.  We can still make changes to it, redact it, shift things around or add new elements.  But Chengetai, I'm going to present over now to you for presenting this to the MAG.  And please, everyone, do look at it carefully and let me know if you have any questions.  Chengetai, back to you. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much.  Yes, I'll present the timeline, and then Anya will present the issues, et cetera.  So for the draft timeline which I think I sent last Friday, if you all have a look at it, it's just to give us a general idea and to help us plan for next year.  Again, as with this year, it is a bit difficult to plan because especially for the physical meetings as such because we really do not know how the situation is going to be in June or September when we plan to have our open consultations and face‑to‑face meetings.  So we have to play it by ear, see how the situation is, and see whether or not we can have a full face‑to‑face meeting or whatever the MAG suggests, whether they want a hybrid meeting, et cetera.  That's up to the MAG.  We will have to make those decisions a month before the actual meeting because that's the amount that the U.N. requires for us to make the travel arrangements and et cetera.  As the Secretariat, we will (Indiscernible) cancel a booking then to make a booking quickly.  One most important thing I would like also for MAG members is to look at the dates as well to see that the dates do not clash with, for example, ICAN meetings or ISOC meetings or any other main meeting that may take away participants from the open consultations and MAG meetings or anything else that we do have here.  So that will be very helpful for the MAG.  So just going over it quickly, and then I'll just open it to questions.  I will not read everything.  I'll just do the main points.  Is that ‑‑ so to ‑‑ the start, of course, of the cycle is when the MAG was announced, and that's already been done.  It was announced on the 17th of November.  And then we are going to have an IGF community call for inputs.  And that's going to run from the 20th of December to the 20th of January, 2021.  So that's a month.  Yes, I know we did have an open mic session at the IGF, but institutions and also governments, they really like to have written submissions.  And these submissions, of course, have to be approved by their departments.  So that's one of the reasons why we get ‑‑ we have this as well.  But anybody else, you know, individuals can also submit written inputs.  We will be displaying these on the IGF website and have a summary report in time for the meeting for the first open consultations and face‑to‑face meeting, which we are envisioning having 8 to 12 of February, 2021.  I don't think there's any chance of this meeting being face to face.  Switzerland, especially the Geneva region, has got the highest incidence of the coronavirus within Europe, and I have not seen any plans for vaccinations, et cetera.  So let's just act that this is going to be a virtual meeting.  If you go down the ‑‑ where we say the first IGF 2021, that's agenda item 3, Luis, if you could just go down a little bit just to see what we've written.  These are just points for the agenda.  Number 3.  Yes.  Thank you.  These are just points for the agenda.  It's not the exact agenda, but these are the points of the agenda that we would ‑‑ that the Secretariat ‑‑ we've talked ‑‑ the Secretariat has talked to the chair and co‑chair, and they think it's fine.  But if any other MAG members think that we should add something or delete something, please let us know, and it's good if you can let us know now so that we can publish the agenda in good time.  So discussion of the thematic tracks based on the input that we've received in step 2.  That's the call for inputs, et cetera.  And, of course, discuss the program shaping, number of workshops, et cetera.  In light of all the input that we have received and also of the roadmap, et cetera.  So that's for number 3.  And then we also plan to launch the intersessional work.  We would try and do it beforehand.  We just had a talk with the MAG chair this morning as well.  And the suggestion is that we do try and launch the intersessional work in January, which will ‑‑ actually, because the earlier we start, the more time we have for developing.  We're also running out of time.  And it also takes a minimum, minimum of six weeks to get consultants and other help that we need on board.  So the earlier we start this process.  So this is basically the latest time I think we should actually start this process here.  And then, of course, we do have ‑‑ now I'm on 5 ‑‑ call for remote hubs.  That's what we usually do, there's nothing much to discuss there.  And then we have the call for workshops 2nd of March to 15th of April.  Again, we also have to talk about how we're going to do this call for workshops.  There's some new ideas being floated, and the MAG is going to get into those in due time.  But these are the standard points, you know, submission of proposals, 2nd of March through 15th of April.  And the Secretariat analysis, 16th of April.  So I'm on ‑‑ yes.  Exactly.  Thank you, Luis.  Submission of workshop proposals for MAG evaluation on the 20th of April.  And then the MAG evaluates from 20 April to 10 May.  Again, I hope there isn't a major conference or anything in the middle here between 20th of April and 10th May that will stop MAG being able to evaluate the workshops.  If there is, now is a good time to find out, and then we can make adjustments there.  We have the second open consultations and face‑to‑face meeting which is June 2021.  So this is the one where I said we're going to make parallel arrangements and see what the future holds as far as travel restrictions, et cetera, as far as June is concerned because that is six months out, and a lot can happen in six months.  So that's the selection of workshops.  The review of the other sessions, open forums, prospectus forums, DCs.  And then again, we are going to have the submission for open forums and other sessions coincide with the workshop submissions so that we don't have the shopping that we do if people failed to get a workshop, and they suddenly converted to an open forum or something.  So since the ‑‑ you have to submit your open forum proposal by the deadline of the workshop proposals.  We won't have ‑‑ we will minimize on that.  I mean, there's no way that ‑‑ I mean, there will always be those people who try and game the system, but we're just trying to minimize the gaming of this ‑‑ the system as such.  Schedule and village plan, I think that's fine.  Bilateral meeting request system, I think that's fine as well.  Then we open registration.  And then for number 13, step 13 there, we have third IGF open consultations and face‑to‑face meeting.  That's 15 to 17th of September.  I think it was suggested last year.  And I think we did have one the previous year as well.  So we can review the intersessional work and really come together for the main sessions, et cetera.  Yes, we were pretty good last year, but as always, the earlier, we can kind of finalize.  And especially since we do think that there's going to be a lot of travel involved, I think it's very good if we are able to finalize panelists and et cetera during this time period so that we know exactly who's coming, et cetera.  And then, of course, we have the IGF 2021 meeting in Poland, in Katowice.  I've been there several times.  It's a wonderful place and great food.  Everything there is excellent.  And the venue as well.  It's one of the best venues that I've seen.  So I really do look forward to that.  As our co‑chair has said, we have had advanced planning from last year that we froze in place.  So starting this year, this is one of the first times where we are very well advanced in the planning of the meeting as far as the site is concerned, the venue, the hotels and everything.  Everything is more or less already set.  So we are very well positioned to be ready on the 6th to 10th of December.  And then, of course, we have the (Indiscernible).  And this is more of a guide.  Nothing here is set in stone as well.  We will be adjusting as we go throughout the year.  So that's it.  Anriette, back to you if there's any questions or amendments, et cetera. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Chengetai.  I'm inviting people to ask questions or make comments.  What I will just adhere is that it's important when you look at this timeline to also remember that the IGF is not just an event.  So while the planning of the annual forum is a very large part of the MAG's responsibility, the IGF really is a process of many interconnected subprocesses and other events.  And as we move towards IGF plus, this actually becomes more and more important.  So integration with national and regional and youth IGF initiatives is very important.  Linking the best practice forums with the program of the IGF, connecting the national and regional IGF with the best practice forums.  Reaching out to the dynamic coalitions, which are independent communities of practice and interest, but at the same time, they add enormous value and thinking and preparatory work to the IGF itself.  So some of the activities that you might not see reflected specifically in this timeline will become more apparent as we start our work.  Collaborative meetings, development of documents, and so on.  And I think also we've already heard from Livia about the policy network.  And we are also waiting for the U.N. secretary‑general to come out with more information on how he envisions implementing the recommendations in the roadmap for digital cooperation.  All of that might have implications, which the MAG would have to respond to in one way or another.  It won't dramatically change our work, but it can affect it.  I think the other thing to keep in mind is that based on the experience of this year's IGF and when the 2020 MAG did its debrief on the 2020 process, one of the recommendations that stood out very strongly was that we really need to use the virtual platform more effectively.  And, in fact, many MAG members talked about the idea of a hybrid IGF.  In other words, even though we will have a face‑to‑face IGF in Katowice, how can we have virtual components?

How can we maximize inclusion and participation using the virtual platform?  This year we were forced to do it, and it actually worked extremely well.  And so part of our planning for 2021 needs to consider how we build on that experience and how we don't just move back to business as usual, but we actually maximize participation and inclusion using virtual participation.  Remote participation is not new in the IGF.  But what we've learned in 2020 is how we can make it much more egalitarian, you know, for want of a better word.  So I think that's it.  So I really want to open the floor.  I can't see the speaking queue, but I'm looking at the list of hands.  I don't see any.  But this is an opportunity for you to ask questions about anything about the process.  Not just about the time line specifically.  But anything that you're not sure about.  No questions.  Luis, can you the speaking queue? 

>> Yes, there's nothing at the moment. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Carlos, you have the floor.  And Carlos, this is also a good opportunity for you to introduce yourself. 

>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Okay.  Start your video.  Start my video. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We can hear you. 

>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Great.  I am Carlos Alberto Afonso if you know Portuguese.  I only have names.  No surnames.  Afonso is a name and a surname.  And I am with the IGF process since the beginning, since before the beginning of the IGF which shows that I am very old.  I would like to make two suggestions.  The first is to check on this feature which I think is fantastic of doing breakout groups with the Zoom functionality.  It's the second time I participate in a breakout room with Zoom, and it's great.  But there is one glitch which I don't know if Luis can solve or the Zoom people can solve.  You were in the breakout room, and you have no notion of the time that is running and when it will stop.  In our case right now, we had 5 minutes, and in the middle of several people speaking, the system just cut and threw us back to the main room.  It would be great to have in the screen a timer at least to have us notice that the breakout room is going to close.  The second thing is an observation regarding what Anriette just said of the importance of the intersessional process.  In the case of the best practice forums, we had a tremendous privilege of having very effective facilitators ‑‑ I mean, consultants from the Secretariat helping the co‑facilitators, and this was wonderful.  Otherwise we probably wouldn't be able to do what we did.  In the case of the dynamic coalitions, this is a more flexible, open and autonomous process.  And I think we need to think of ways to keep them stimulated along the year because they are so important.  And some of them lack some kind of stimulus to keep going.  And the Secretariat cannot, of course, do the same thing it does for the best practices forums.  In the case of all the many, many dynamic coalitions.  So this is a challenge that has to be tackled.  Make the dynamic coalitions dynamic throughout the year.  Thanks, Anriette. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Carlos.  And, in fact, I think we have to some extent a plan for that, which is during 2020, earlier this year, Markus Kummer and you'll hear more from him last, past MAG chair and executive secretary, led a study that looked at best practice forums.  And we called it the best practice forum or best practice forums.  And based on several discussions with dynamic coalition members and coordinators and support people, we've decided to do a similar study this year.  So to look at dynamic coalitions, to look at what has worked, what can work better.  And I'm not saying that that doesn't mean that we have to actively engage them already.  I'm just saying that this study will also give us a more systematic way of looking at that.  Anyone else?  I can't see the speaking queue at the moment.  So ‑‑ but I don't see any hands.  Go ahead.  Go ahead. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Just to ask to be sure what question to the IGF maybe Secretariat on the timeline.  So is there any plan to publish the timeline?  It will be published officially on the website, and also the following question, because I have a lot of questions from the market at the moment, when would be a good time to submit the proposal for workshop sessions, panels and stuff like this, just to be sure that from the IGF perspective it will be stimulated and we will try to do the same on our side, yeah, just to speed up the process or help people to be sure that they will be on time with all the applications. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Krzysztof, the answer is yes.  This time line, based on any changes or any input from the MAG in the meeting today, we're incorporating those changes, will be published almost immediately after this meeting.  So it will go online, and people will be able to have access to it.  And then in terms of the specific deadlines for workshop proposal and other session proposals, that will be there in sort of broad strokes as it is indicated in this timeline.  But the final process will be determined when the MAG meets next year.  So we already have guidelines here.  So if you look at the timeline, you'll see workshop evaluation starts from 20 April.  That means the call for workshops will go out ‑‑ Chengetai, do we have that? 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: 2nd of March. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: The first open consultation in MAG meeting.  But Krzysztof, what we will also do is as we come up with more fixed deadlines, we will also share that on the website.  But this is a public document. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Okay.  Great. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Oh, no.  That's correct.  And at the moment we have the 2nd of March to the 15th of April is when people submit.  But, of course, as Anriette says, that's the general time.  We may, you know, shift it a couple of days or et cetera.  In that ballpark, yes. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: And we can already announce that from the 2nd of March they can be ready to submit the proper results? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: You could announce it as a provisional date. 


>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Provisional date, yes. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think one of the challenges ‑‑ and I'm also a past MAG member, and I think probably many of you will identify with this ‑‑ I think one of the challenges with the IGF is how to be systematic, how to have a pattern, and how every year to have a cycle that resembles the previous cycle because that's a very user‑friendly way of working.  So that's good on the one hand.  But on the other hand, we also need to be creative.  And as you will all see when you read the input from the community that we get from the stop taking process, that we will also have suggestions for changing the format, changing the cycle.  And I think that is something that the MAG and only the MAG can really give leadership on.  How to find the right balance between being innovative and responding to new opportunities.  But at the same time, developing a system that is predictable and understandable for the broader IGF community.  So Krzysztof, I would say that's why you can share this as an indicative, provisional timeframe.  But also prepare people for the fact that the MAG might decide to change things around a little bit.  And that is the decision that we will make at our first meetings next year after we've had the opportunity to look at the input. 


>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Process.  But definitely provisionally, you can share those guidelines. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Yes.  Thank you very much. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Is there anyone else who have any questions?  Anything that's not clear to you before we move on to the next agenda item?  Okay.  I don't see any hands.  I can't see the speaking queue.  So let's move on to the next item, which is looking at the call for issues.  And I think Anja will take us through that.  But MAG members, please, if you have questions on this timeline or suggestions or if anything is not clear, please email that today because I know the Secretariat would like to make this public probably by the end of this week.  Is that correct, Chengetai? 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.  That is correct. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So, please, if you want to make any suggestions for changes, do that in the next 24 hours.  Anja, over to you. 

>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much, Anriette, and I hope you can hear me well.  So thank you for sharing the form on the screen ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ in response to the question, every year, as you know, we are calling formally for feedback from all the participants of the IGF, and we are summarizing the inputs into one final kind of report or document that feeds into the first open consultations or MAG meeting, and after I finish this short presentation, I'll share the link for previous ones for the summaries in the chat so you can have as a reference.  So this year we are following similar approach.  Stakeholders are invited to submit their feedback in free text form if they want as a PDF, or they can respond to a dedicated form that's embedded in the IGF website, and that is sharing now.  Basically, the form has three major parts.  As you see in addition to the personal information at the very beginning, it takes stock of the IGF 2020 program, detailing on particular segments of the program such as the preparatory process, so starting from commenting on the timeline, call for workshop proposals, other sessions, MAG meetings, looking into the structure of the overall meeting.  So the thematic tracks, for instance.  And then it asks for a specific feedback on the community intersessional activities ranging from best practice forums and dynamic coalitions as well as the feedback on the work with the national, regional and youth IGFs.  Then the second part moves to the IGF 2020 program content.  It asks for specific comments on the types of sessions and their content, speakers, quality of discussions.  That includes, as I said, all types of sessions including the high‑level track, the intersessional work sessions as well as the pre‑events.  It also asks for comments on the networking sessions, so the social activities.  One specific question for us as well is very important is sharing feedback on the gender perspective overall from a participant's point of view, whether our strategic efforts to achieve as much as possible gender parity as well as the requirement for session proposals has been visible to the participants.  It also asks for feedback of overall participation about the IGF village and beyond that about the communication strategy, the overall logistics, for instance, how they see the website, the registration process, accessing the online platform, security‑wise, whether they have any comments.  And just an open field for any other type of comments that we couldn't pre‑assume here in this form.  And then the second block relates to suggesting improvements for the IGF 2021.  Again, it follows similar structure as the first section, asking for those particular questions on suggesting improvements for the preparatory process, then the community intersessional activities, the overall program, the program content, meaning the schedule, the participation, how can we improve the participation, and any other comments that they see as relevant, especially referencing the comments they may have, adding the improvements that the secretary‑general's roadmap for additional cooperation and visions for the IGF.  And then there is this last part, which is integrated into this form.  It relates to the call for thematic inputs.  That is ‑‑ I believe that's going to be our next agenda item.  But maybe, Anriette, I'll say it here because everything is in one form.  So the IGF 2021 call for thematic inputs is integrated into this taking stock form.  There are two very broad basically open‑ended questions.  The first one, do you think that there should be thematic tracks as there were in 2020?  And if not, if stakeholders think that these should be swapped out, then they are free to suggest with what.  And any other, of course, changes to the overall format and design of the IGF, for example, should we have different phases as we had this year especially for the online hosting, should we treat themes in any different way?  So it's quite broad, and it really welcomes any possible inputs that stakeholders can have.  The form technically allows for saving of the draft and revisiting the form before the final submission is made.  We will make sure that all the submissions, as received, are available publicly on the IGF website from the form but also those that will be emailed to us as PDF documents.  The deadline is 20th of January, as you'll see on the timeline.  Thank you, Anriette. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Anja.  And as all the MAG members will see, we've adapted it a little bit, and we've tried to make it, on the one hand, more specific, but on the other hand, also more open‑ended.  So any comments or questions from MAG members on this call for input and also on the timeline?  I'll just restate, as Anja said, the deadline for submission inputs is 20 January.  That gives the Secretariat enough time to synthesize the response for you to discuss and work with at the first MAG call, which is scheduled for 27 January.  So I open the floor.  Any comments or questions?  I cannot see the speaking queue.  So Luis will help me with that.  I don't see any hands.  Please do feel free to ask questions.  It's very important ‑‑

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Amrita is calling for the floor. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I'm sorry, who is that? 


>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: It's very important that MAG members distribute this call.  In fact, we really rely on MAG members to encourage people in their constituencies, in their countries and regions to respond to this call.  You are the primary disseminators of this call.  Amrita, you have the floor. 

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you, Anriette.  I was just wondering, you know, of course we have very less time for this.  Since the comment period is till 20th January, many people around the world may be on holidays.  Does that impact the inputs which come in as in what has been the history in the past? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think it does impact, particularly Latin America, which is generally on holiday, kind of into March.  I think less so other parts of the world.  But I do think it is a limitation.  I think on the other hand, I think that people in the IGF community are aware of this.  And they do plan for it.  But, I mean, if there are suggestions for shifting this, we could.  The problem with that is that it does mean that the work starts later.  But on the other hand, the IGF is also a bit later next year.  It's in early December as opposed to November.  So possibly we can look at extending that a little bit.  The problem is that if we go and extend it to accommodate the holiday in the southern hemisphere, we kind of need to extend it at least maybe by a week or two weeks.  But anyone else with any thoughts on this?  And Chengetai, you as well.  I still can't see the speaking queue, so I'm relying on you to help me with that. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: The speaking queue is empty at the moment.  Yes, Anriette, what you've just said is exactly that.  There is pros and cons.  The meeting is later.  The community does know about this, but it's up to the MAG.  But we are also trying to get new members to come in.  So, yes.  That's a decision for the MAG.  Yeah. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Our Latin America MAG members, how do you feel about this?  Would it be helpful for you to get more feedback if we extend the deadline to, let's say, the end of January?  Would it make a difference? 


>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead.  And this is a good opportunity for you to introduce yourself. 

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Hello, everyone.  I am Roberto Zambrana from Bolivia.  Actually, I'm a second year MAG member.  It's great to be with all of you.  And once again, welcome to the new MAG members.  It's great to work with you.  About the question, Anriette, I really think it will always help to have a little bit more of time.  And I think most of the people, no matter what happens with our holiday or other holidays, will be always encouraged to provide this kind of feedback.  So I think it ‑‑ I'm not sure if it's going to make a big difference, but also I'm sure that it will help a little to have a little bit more time for this.  Thank you, Anriette. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I'm sorry, one more observation I've made over the years.  Nobody really hands in anything in advance.  They always wait till the last 72‑hour period.  So that's also one thing that we should also take into consideration. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That's completely true.  They always submit it at the last minute.  Any other questions on the approach and on the timeline?  I don't see any other hands.  So Chengetai, I will leave this, then, to the Secretariat to decide.  I just want to note that when we developed this deadline, we did try to factor in that we give the Secretariat enough time to do the synthesis for the first MAG call.  So if we are going to move the deadline for the submissions to call to inputs, that probably means we also need to move that first MAG meeting, or at least the MAG meeting where we discuss the input by a few days.  So Chengetai, I'm going to ‑‑ you know, I'll leave this and put this in your hands, and you can decide whether it would work to give the community a few more days.  And then you can let us know. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay.  Will do. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Okay.  If there are no more questions on the call for input, again, it's important, we want to get this out soon.  So if you have any last‑minute suggestions, you have to let us know now or send it in the next 24 hours, because this, as with the timeline, the Secretariat wants to make this public by the end of this week.  So let's move on to the next agenda item.  And I'm not sure why I can't see the agenda.  I'm trying to ‑‑ I'm having view issues.  What is the next agenda item?  Please, Chengetai. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: So we've done discussion of colorful issues, so we're now at agenda item number 6, discussion on MAG working groups. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Good.  I have it again.  Sorry.  My screen is back.  So on MAG working groups.  So for those of you that are new to the MAG, if you were part of the orientation, which we held a few weeks ago, you would remember that we talked about MAG working groups.  And there are different types of MAG working groups.  There are MAG working groups that work for a dedicated period of time.  For example, MAG members would come together to organize a main session.  There are also MAG working groups that look at the process of the MAG such as workshop evaluation process.  And we've had a really hardworking MAG evaluation process working group that looks at the format of the call for proposals, the criteria for selected proposals.  And last year or this year, we've also had a MAG working group on strategy, on IGF strengthening and strategy as well as working groups on language, looking at linguistic diversity in the IGF and a working group on outreach and engagement.  But the practices that every year we revisit, which MAG working groups we need, existing working groups have the opportunity to plan and propose activities for the coming year.  And I will now open the floor to anyone who has any questions or comments on working groups.  Some of the existing working groups already have some plans that they want to share.  Please, I invite you to do that now.  And then I also want to share that the Secretariat and I have looked at the issue of MAG working groups, because one of the concerns that I have had since I came in as MAG chair this year is that sometimes the working groups, the MAG working groups, seem to work in relative isolation from the Secretariat.  Or if it's not isolation, sometimes it's duplication.  It's work that the MAG working group does, and there's also work that the Secretariat does.  And everyone is under pressure.  And so the effort is not always as ‑‑ it doesn't always add as much value as is needed.  And because the Secretariat is so constrained in terms of resources, there's such a small team, and they have so much to do.  I've asked the Secretariat to prepare for the MAG for review in next year in our first meeting, a proposal on the type of working groups that they would value, that would help them and support them in their work.  So we don't have that document yet.  We'll have it next year.  But I want to propose that the MAG looks at that document when they receive it and then use that as a guide in identifying which working groups we should have.  So we don't have to make any decisions today.  We will set a deadline for MAG members to propose working groups and submit work plans or outlines for those working groups.  But let me open the floor and invite any of the current working groups to share any of their plans, if they have them already, and also to open the floor to everyone, you know, who might have any question about working groups.  So anyone who would like to share their plans or experience or who have any questions?  I don't see anyone in the speaking queue.  I know T.T., are you still with us?  I know that you were going to share something from the working group strategy. 

>> Titti: Okay.  Thanks, Anriette.  Sorry, I joined late because I had another meeting, an IGF meeting.  So I want to share the main point under discussion, the IGF strategy working group.  As you know, this working group has been activated to thank the IGF and the strategy and to propose a few concrete implementation plans in a short ‑‑ in medium term to improve the IGF and also to connect the discussion to the current roadmap on cooperation.  You know, all of these documents are trying to focus on how to improve the IGF, especially for the roadmap for digital cooperation.  In paragraph 93, there are several suggestions there on how to have a more focused agenda, on how to create stronger links about the forum and the NRIs, the forum and the other initiative worldwide in order not to have this.  So the working group, a lot of discussion in the last month, especially on the virtual meeting on the 3rd of December.  So to draft a proposal for the IGF 2021 design and process.  And the proposal would be finalized, I think, in a few days, but it's already at a good stage, and it includes several points that are related on how to reorganize some process in the IGF.  I want to mention just a few of them and then maybe in next days I will share the document, finalize the document.  So the main points are related to how to make a more focused agenda and how to interconnect the IGF agenda with the other initiatives.  And there are several suggestions on this summary related to a multiyear plan, and it should include a suggestion from community but also a suggestion from NRI, BFP and dynamic coalition.  And also there are several other points on this aspect.  I don't want to take too much time.  This is just one section of the proposal.  Then there are also proposal on how to include the additional topics in the agenda and allowed to improve communication and also a suggestion on how to include youth who have a more youth integration on the format on the IGF and also try to have a more interactive participation.  So I suggest the document will be shared when finalized with you so that you can have review and then try to consider this proposal.  That's all on my side, Anriette.  Thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Titti.  In fact, Titti's point ‑‑ she's reporting the discussion on the working group strategy, and that discussion touches on the point I was just catching up on in the chat, that Livia and Jim made in the chat about the call for issues.  And I noticed that Livia and Jim, you are both saying that we need to be careful in the form that Anja presented, that people who respond really see the call for issues, that they see that it is important.  So if anyone has any suggestions about how we can make that clearer, please do make that.  In fact, what happened with the 2019 and 2020 process is that some people responded to the call for issues at the end of 2019.  But not many people did.  So we then, what we did at the beginning of this year was to have a second call, which we referred to as the call for validation of issues.  So we could, in fact, do that again.  But, you know, we've noted that.  So if there are any suggestions for how we can make that clearer or do that differently, please do that.  And I think the working group strategy's proposals touches on this because I think they are proposing focusing first on the call for issues and really doing it maybe in more depth than we normally do.  Are there any other comments on working groups?  Do any of the other working groups have any plans yet?  If you don't, that's fine.  We will give you time.  But at the moment, I really would like particularly new MAG members to ask questions if they have any questions about working groups.  Adam, you have the floor. 

>> ADAM PEAKE: Thank you, Anriette.  Yeah.  An issue that came to mind or comes to mind particularly for this year is we're, of course, very hopeful that we will see vaccines.  We will see some return to the ability to travel and see each other again.  But I think it would be ‑‑ I don't know what the right word is.  I think it's highly unlikely even by December next year that we will have a global community that is all able to travel just because of the vaccination globally, unfortunately.  So an issue that I do think is particularly important for the MAG this year is consideration of how hybrid meetings would work.  I have no particular thoughts about it, although I'm aware that there have been discussions, you know, during and after the IGF of 2020.  It's something that if we get ahead of, then we do have a chance to make work well.  How much that overlaps with the work of the strategy group that Titti just discussed, I don't know, but it does seem that as the duty ‑‑ planned duty of the MAG is to help in convening the meeting, convening an effective meeting that is global and inclusive will require that consideration, I think.  So that's probably the main point I wanted to raise.  How can we ensure that we have a globally inclusive meeting given what we can anticipate about the state of COVID‑19 by next December, without trying to pretend that I know anything about how that particular virus works.  I suppose the other things are, again, from what Titti has mentioned, there are things ‑‑ that it sounds like the strategy working group is doing an enormous amount of excellent stuff.  But, again, it sounds to me as if some of it is something that should be coming back to the MAG, and it would be great to have a briefing on that to update us, particularly the new members.  Anriette, your question about call for issues and how to make people aware, the thought is, you know, there were a lot of people who registered.  Everybody had to register for the IGF in 2020.  Can people who register be sent email, or was it not something that was within the sign‑up sheet and you'd feel uncomfortable about the privacy and use of personal information to use their email addresses in that way.  But if we have the email addresses, then you'd anticipate that people who wanted to attend the 2020 IGF would like at least the opportunity to comment upon it.  That was really three issues.  Thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Adam.  Secretariat, you can respond to the question about the email.  As far as I know, we do distribute to the IGF list, but how we populate that list and whether it will include all the registrants of 2020 Chengetai, you can confirm that.  Based on what I see in the chat, so just to go back a bit on an agenda item, there seems to be strong support for separating the call for issues from the call for taking stock on IGF 2020.  So what I would propose is that unless anyone objects, that we ask the Secretariat to adapt the call and also the timeline so that we do separate those.  So I'm not going to put you on the spot now, Chengetai, because I think that will take a little bit of juggling.  But I do think it is probably the most sensible way, which is to separate the call for stock taking and the call for issues.  That doesn't mean that we cannot include in that call feedback on the format of the event.  So it would really be only the call for issues that we separate.  That's how I understand the input.  Secondly, on your suggestion, I think it's a brilliant suggestion, Adam, to have a MAG working group that looks at the hybrid format or that looks at using the virtual capacity more effectively and how to integrate that.  And I see Tereza from Diplo is interested in that as well.  I would like to ask the two of you to get together and talk about developing a proposal for a MAG working group to take that on.  Are you okay with that? 

>> ADAM PEAKE: Yeah, I'd be happy to, but does it need a new working group?  Would it fit within one of the current activities that we see that? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think it would need a new working group.  As Titti said when she introduced it, it's really looking at the IGF in the context of digital cooperation and the roadmap for digital cooperation.  It also looked at the IGF in the context of its mandate from the U.N. General Assembly.  So it's much more big picture.  This, I think, is a MAG working group that would have to look at nuts and bolts and look at how in quite a detailed way, one can have the best of both worlds.  The face to face as well as the virtual.  So I don't think anyone is doing that.  And Secretariat, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel this is a new area of work.  Chengetai, how would you react?  Are you there? 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.  I mean, if you agree, then sure.  We'll just follow the agreement. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: If they're willing to do that.  I think ‑‑ Adam, why don't you and Tereza get together, other MAG members, if you're interested in being part of this.  But the process would be that they would develop a proposal for this working group, and then it will come back to us as the MAG, and you'll have another chance to comment on that.  But I think it's really a perfect topic for a working group.  I don't see any other hands.  Are there any other questions or suggestions on MAG working groups?  If not, the timeline that the Secretariat and I discussed for MAG working group proposals for 2021 is 18 January.  So we might adapt this a little bit, but rather note that timeline down now.  So if by 18 January, existing working groups, and that includes the working group on strategy and strengthening as well as ideas for new working groups, if you could please share your proposals.  By then the Secretariat would also have shared their perspective on where they think working groups can be useful.  And that will give us a set of working groups to consider as we start the year.  But there might be a need, as we continue our work in planning IGF 2021, for new working groups to be formed on an as‑needed basis.  But I want to thank all the working groups in 2020 for their work.  I think you added a lot of value.  I think the MAG working group on linguistic diversity has come up with proposals and suggestions that will be implemented.  And the MAG working group on strategy has done a lot, a lot of work.  And the workshop on ‑‑ the working group on workshop process as well.  It's just been enormously valuable.  So thanks to everyone who was part of that, and I hope that we'll have a good mix of old and new MAG members in next year's working groups.  So now I don't see hands in the speaking queue.  We have just over 20 minutes left of this call, and I would like us to finish on time.  So now we're moving to quite an important agenda item, and that is the approach to IGF intersessional work.  And really there are only two issues.  The one I've already covered and that is that we have a proposal to launch a study into dynamic coalitions and how they can work best.  So I really ‑‑ we don't have a proposal yet.  So this is just flagging it for you.  We'll give you some more document to look at early in the new year.  But for today, I want to give the floor to Markus Kummer.  I had initially anticipated that we would have short reports on this current year's working groups.  So I want to keep that.  But please keep them very, very brief.  So Markus, can I hand it over to you.  And if we can just start this agenda item with Wanda and Sorena, the consultants who supported the BPFs this year, to give us very brief reports, and then Marcus, over to you to lead us through the process of looking at what the BPF modalities and guidelines and criteria are for this year.  So Marcus, over to you.  But if you could just give to Sorina to start. 

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes.  Hello.  Why don't we ask Sorina and Wim to give a short update on the last BPFs. 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Okay.  Thank you.  And happy to do that.  May I ask Luis just to pull up the page that has the overview of the BPF reports of this year.  That will help.  And then immediately it's a good way to show the MAG members where they can find the information.  If you just go a bit down on the screen to get the overview.  So hi, all.  As I was introduced, for those who don't know me, I have been working with the Secretariat as a consultant, supporting two of the BPFs this year.  I'll give you a brief introduction and then hand over to Sorina, the other consultant, to give an intro and to give an overview of the work that has been done this year.  As a background so that you know what happened in 2020 and then hopefully that inspires for 2021.  So the first BPF I was involved with was the BPF cybersecurity.  It focused this year on best practices in relation to international cybersecurity initiatives and agreements.  It took a two‑step approach.  On the one hand, it looked at what can be learned from processes in global governance.  It was a very interesting exercise to look for norms and norms initiatives that are not related to cybersecurity or to cyber.  To try to identify what was effective for success, risk or failure, lessons learned from those norm initiatives.

There are a number of case studies in the report.  For example, they looked ‑‑ or we looked at global nuclear norms, norms in the field of diplomatic relations, and another example were World Bank guidelines on the treatment of foreign direct investment.  Just look out of the normal environment and see what happens in terms of norms out in other parts of global governance.  That helped to build up some background for the second and main point ‑‑ or the second point or approach in the BPF that did an analysis of 22 different cybersecurity initiatives.

It looked for information ‑‑ it looked for each initiative which stakeholders are involved, the number of supporters and signatories, whether or not there was a Secretariat function or organization responsible for that.  Whether the UNGGE norms are reflected in the agreement.  Or if there are other norms reflected.  The report of the cybersecurity BPF, that combined, as can you see on the screen, there are currently two draft reports.  But the final report, that combines two elements into one report, it's almost ready and will be published in the following days.  Before going to the next BPF, I also wanted to mention that this year the BPF cybersecurity had a third workstream that specifically focused on trying to reach out and enhancing new participants, enhancing participation in the BPF.  I think it's worth mentioning because it's something that took some exercise but not necessarily reflected in the report.  Then I suggested I continue and give the overview of the BPF I was involved in.

The BPF in data and new technologies.  The BPF wanted to start a dialogue on how user status is collected and used.  And best practices to ensure that the data is used to bring benefit to people and not to harm.  Specific for this year, there was the COVID‑19 crisis, and the BPF also discussed and came to the conclusion that COVID‑19 was accelerating the suggestion of the concerns and challenges related to collecting and using data and people's data.  But the challenges and concerns not necessarily ‑‑ were not necessarily new, and many of them predate the COVID‑19 crisis.  So the BPF work I would like to summarize in three activities.  The first one focused on the importance of clear definitions and concepts.  That culminated in a roundtable discussion on models and different models and concepts that are frequently used in the discussion.  That culminated, I think, so Mike Nelson is on the call.  He helped the BPF with organizing a roundtable around this issue during the IGF meeting three weeks ago.  The output of this discussion is reflected in the report not as a list of new concepts but really to raise awareness and create caution about the different meanings those concepts can have, and also maybe the list and the overview can be used as a discussion starter for those needing to define and focus on those terms.  A second output I would ‑‑ I want to mention is the data new technologies issue course that was developed by the BPF.  It's a checklist or a tool that on the one hand wants to foster discussion and make sure that all different ‑‑ all elements are covered when stakeholders discuss data and new technology issues.  The second point is to help focus the discussion, to help focus the discussion and ask exact questions.  And the last part of the document is ‑‑ has a number of case studies, concrete examples, on how issues related to data and new technologies are covered.  I would like to ‑‑ well, before handing over to Sorina, I would like to also invite MAG members to help distributing these reports because making them and getting people involved is one thing.  Getting them in the right space where they are useful is the other thing.  And I think every one of us can help to do that.  I'm happy to answer some questions, but maybe we can do that afterward, and I can firsthand over to Sorina who will take us through the other two BPFs. 

>> SORINA TELEANU: Hello, everyone.  I'll be short because we do not have much time in the meeting.  The other two BPFs, one on gender and the other on local content.  The one on gender has been active for quite many years.  It actually started in 2015.  And this year we looked at four main issues.  Violence, and consent online from a gender diversity perspective.  And we ended up with doing an analysis of the IGF itself, the past four years of the IGF, in fact, and we looked at two pain points.  The first one was whether and how the four thematic issues have been brought up at the IGF itself and whether and how the IGF has fostered the participation of women and gender diverse people.  In general activities but also in discussions focused on violence and consent online.  And for this we did look at every single session that happened at the IGF over the past four years and the reports, transcripts, videos and whatever else.  We also ran a few interviews, and we conducted a public survey.  And the report has some interesting findings that I would kindly invite everyone to take a look at and also to take a look at the recommendations sections, especially as the MAG, we can start to see new call for workshop proposals and everything else.  We have some very concrete proposals including the call for issues and how to better integrate gender issues there.  And just as one example, we are inviting the MAG to consider including a question in the IGF workshop proposal forms, asking session organizers to indicate how they plan to approach the proposed topics from a gender diversity perspective.  So kindly invite everyone to please take a look at that report.  It has a shorter version also as the executive summary, which would be easier for you to go through it.  And the second BPF I worked with was the one on local content.  This one was initially launched in 2014 and relaunched in 2017.  This year we looked at local and indigenous content in the digital space with a focus on issues related to protection, preservation and sustainability of creative work and traditional knowledge.  For the methodology, we had a public survey.  We had private submissions from several organizations working on the issues, of course, online discussions and some additional research we conducted to find some more examples of good practices.  So the key areas we looked at, four of them.  One was the protection, preservation and promotion of local and indigenous languages and here are examples of good practices ranging from the work done by UNESCO to some very specific projects like the drops translation application, language projects and several others related to this topic.  Then we looked at the protection, promotion and preservation of cultural heritage with a specific focus on the work of WIPO but also some other organizations working on these issues.  Then we had a focus on the protection, preservation and promotion of some other forms of local content.  And we looked, for example, at the role of libraries as well as leaders of local content creation.  We looked at archives as a way to preserve access to local content and a few other topics.  And the last issue was related to local content production, and we analyzed issues of sustainability and funding.  For example, how digital tech has been used to power local producers, local artisans and other developers of forms of local content.  This report also has several recommendations.  So, again, we kindly invite everyone to do take a look.  The report will also be translated by the Brazilian steering committee.  So thank you, Carlos, for that.  And I will stop here, and if anyone from the BPFs would like to add anything, please do so.  Thank you. 

>> MARKUS KUMMER: In the interest of time as we're running out of time, let me say a few words on the BPFs, an exercise we conducted throughout the year.  It started in January at the very first MAG meeting, the MAG felt it would be helpful to have tools and metrics to help assess and evaluate existing BPFs and also help with the selection of new BPFs.  All the documents are available on the IGF website.  And I will not go through all of them, and maybe in a nutshell, one of the key findings ‑‑ and there's a two‑page overview document of recommendations.  Please take a look at it.  But what we found, the metrics one, difficult exercise, and it's not that easy to find quantitative metrics where you can just tick the box, but there are some.  And most of the metrics are qualitative.  One key element that came across was that outreach is of extreme utmost importance.  It's not good enough to have a good idea.  It's also important to find partners, institutions, organizations willing to work with you when you have a proposal.  And that is one of the key elements we would like to make sure that any proposal for a BPF includes a list of potential partners and organizations and also, if possible, already says whether you have the agreement of these potential partners.  And then obviously, there are other elements that are important such as having a realistic objectives that are actually implementable.  No point having ‑‑ being overambitious if you know in advance you will not be able to deliver.  Based on these studies, we must actually develop a template, and I will hand over to him.  But, again, with your indulgence, I would also like to say a few words on dynamic coalitions.  Anriette has already alluded to it.  We had some discussions and came to the conclusion it would also be helpful to have a similar paper on history of dynamic coalitions and to help the dynamic coalitions going forward.  And we actually have agreed on some draft terms of reference, and I can share them with the MAG for your consideration.  But we felt for the dynamic coalitions it would be helpful to have a paper that could provide guidance on the way forward for dynamic coalitions.  They are also an important element in the discussions on the secretary‑general's roadmap on an IGF plus.  And lastly, I would also ‑‑ I'm happy to inform you that as (Indiscernible) is no longer a MAG member.  We have been looking for a new MAG liaison and have found with Adam an experienced former MAG member and former Secretariat staff who is willing to help us with the DC coordination.  Back to the BPFs, and can I ask Wim to introduce his draft template he developed that would essentially summarize all the findings in the report on BPF, on BPFs and the recommendations we issued?  Wim, over to you. 

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you, Markus and also Luis for putting it on the screen.  I can only agree with Markus.  Like, please go and look ‑‑ no need to read the full BPF report, but at least go to the two‑page document that's on the website that summarizes the key ‑‑ or lists the key recommendations and findings.  Based on that, we developed a template.  I mean, it was also one of the recommendations or findings of the BPF was, for example, that it should be a clear template for proposals and then clear indications.  So this is the draft template currently put together.  It is based on, like I said, the main findings.  But one point ‑‑ and it was already mentioned by Markus is key to focus on ‑‑ or one of the things that came out of the BPF work was the importance of having or built as soon as possible for a BPF a kind of network of stakeholders, relevant organizations, key people working on the topic, on the topic, sorry.  People that can form like a coordinating group or take ownership of the process and help to develop the work plan.  And I think that is one of the key elements that is reflected in the draft template, that we ask proposers to really come up with examples of who is involved, who they address, and who they plan to address but also make clear who they already reached out for.  I would ‑‑ in looking at the time, I will keep it short.  So in the proposal, there is also a list of criteria for assessments that is copied from the BPF report.  I think it's great for transparency if the criteria already shares at the moment when people have to put together their proposal.  But, of course, it is something, I think, the MAG should look at because the MAG should agree or at least commit to using the criteria before they can send out the template.  In terms of timing, but I think Anriette will ‑‑ or Markus will come back on that ‑‑ in terms of timing, it's relatively strict.  The current idea is to have BPF start ‑‑ already starting at the first MAG ‑‑ major MAG meeting in February.  So that means that proposals should be in by mid‑January.  So that the MAG can take a decision on BPF proposals or select BPF proposals by the end of January.  Because that was one ‑‑ another major concern of the BPF ‑‑ finding of the BPF report.  An intersessional program.  It's a full year, but if you wait too long before you kick off, there's only a few months left, minus also the summer holidays in parts of the world.  So it's important to kick off early.  With this, I would like to hand it over I think to Anriette to discuss how we will move further with the draft documents.  And I see Anriette posted in the chat already. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that.  And Markus, thanks for leading your work on BPFs.  Yeah, so at the moment ‑‑ and the Secretariat, you can just confirm if I'm wrong ‑‑ but we have one new proposal for a BPF on the table which was submitted by a group of organizations and a MAG member.  I don't think she's in the call.  That's Maria Paz Canales.  And this is a BPF on the governance of environmental data.  And it also follows on some of the discussions that took place during this year's IGF.  So we have that proposal already.  And we are inviting MAG members, including those that are involved in some of the existing BPFs, to submit proposals by 18 January.  And it's very important that, you know, in the past, sometimes a BPF would start its life as an idea amongst one or two MAG members.  And then it would take time to flesh it out into a more fully ‑‑ fully‑fledged BPF proposal.  And what we want to do is avoid that.  And that's why Markus and Wim have developed this more detailed set of criteria and guidelines for the development of BPF proposals.  And that will also make it much easier for you as MAG members to analyze and review those proposals.  But so that is the process.  And so you are all invited to talk to the community, and don't feel obliged.  We cannot accommodate lots of BPFs.  So BPFs really ‑‑ they only come into play when there's a topic where there is some convergence on how to come up with policy solutions to a particular problem.  But you have until 18 January.  And if anybody wants any help of understanding how to use this modality or how to develop a proposal, how to form the partnerships that are necessary, please let us know.  So 18 January is the proposed deadline.  Markus, did you want to add anything?  The name of the proposed best practice forum, Khaled is asking, I don't have the proposal open in front of me.  But I know that the topic is looking at the governance of environmental data.  And it's a proposal that has been developed by the United Nations environmental program.  The person who's focusing on data, and A.P. net, the Asia‑Pacific information network center, and it's been endorsed by various other stakeholders and institutions.  So that has been shared with the old MAG.  But Secretariat, can we just repost that to the MAG so that those new MAG members who were not on the list when the proposal was distributed by Sylvia Cardena can have access to it?  So we have one proposal already that we want you to review, which we need to approve at our next meeting.  Anything else on BPFs?  Any other questions?  I don't see any.  There's no one in the speaking queue.  Thank you very much to Adam for stepping in to work with Markus on coordinating dynamic coalitions.  And are you still on the call?  I want to really thank you to Kroell who is an outgoing MAG member for fantastic work over a very long period of time in supporting D.C.  Did you want to say anything? 

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think she had to leave early.  Are you still on the call, Jutta?  She's gone.  She had to leave early, but I'm happy to report that she's agreed to continue working on it. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think we've reached the end of our call.  Are there any other matters?  Decisions or proposals or announcements? 

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Anriette, may I circle back to the dynamic coalitions?  If you agree, then, I would share the template for the terms of reference for the proposed paper with the MAG list for consideration. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Good.  Please do that.  Thanks very much. 

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: And then MAG members can respond and make changes, and then we'll start that process early in the new year.  So I think on that, we have come to the end of our call.  As is usually the case with online calls, there's a parallel process going on in the chat.  So for those of you who were not able to follow that, there's now a revised proposal that's been ‑‑ MAG members have been discussing on how to approach the taking stock and a call for issues.  So we will summarize that in an email to you.  But in essence, what I see MAG members proposing is that we separate the taking stock from the call for issues for 2021.  That we keep the deadline for the taking stock as 20 January, which means you do need to really help us to disseminate that.  But that we give more time for the call for issues.  And I think at that point ‑‑ I mean, the time ‑‑ the deadline would be our first MAG meeting, of 12 February, whenever that is.  So we will have to adjust the time line to keep that meeting in mind.  And so Secretariat, I'll give you some time, and we can work on a revised timeline and share it with everyone.  But basically, the idea is that we'll separate those calls for input.  And I think the other decision that we've made is that you are more or less happy with the timeline, and the Secretariat will publish that timeline probably on Thursday.  So, please, in the next 24 hours, if you have any or comments or suggestions, please send them.  Otherwise this will go up.  I think that is it from me.  If I've missed anything, I apologize.  Now is the time to add.  So I want to give the floor first to Krzysztof to make some closing remarks for us, and then Chengetai, you will have the last word. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Yeah.  So everything is pretty clear.  So thank you very much for the first meeting.  And I think that we are going according to the plan.  There will be any questions, any ideas, so I'm really open to address them as well together with my team.  We have a very good team which was prepared to organize the IGF this year.  So we are up to date.  We have a number of people responsible for the IGF 2021 in our prime minister office right now.  So I'm just, yeah.  So I'm just asking you for any support, any help, any ideas, please do not hesitate to contact us, and we will try our best to address them and be sure that they will be present or visualize on the IGF in Katowice next year.  Thank you very much. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Krzysztof.  And Chengetai, anything from you? 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette.  Nothing much.  I think you covered it all very well.  Just that the next meeting we envision is going to be on the 27th of January at 1400 UTC.  I'm just waiting for you to confirm. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That sounds fine.  And MAG members, if the current way in which we convene the meetings, we shift for those of you that are new, we moved the time of the meeting.  It's usually on a Tuesday or a Wednesday.  But we try and accommodate as many people as we can with the time zones.  But it's still difficult for some.  So we apologize in advance, and we are open to different proposals.  But yes, the next call will be on 27 January.  And I think that is it.  I mean, I think ‑‑ yes, Anja has just posted, thanks so much, 27 January at 14 UTC.  And I just want to say to new MAG members, because you were very quiet today, but please, it's hard to be thrown in the deep end like this.  But you have access to myself, to fellow MAG members, and to the Secretariat.  So don't hesitate to ask any questions if anything is not clear.  I wish you all a really good holiday.  I hope people get rest.  And thanks to everyone for all the hard work during 2020.  Particularly the Secretariat but also to all the MAG members and to our partial host for 2020 Poland and our full host for 2021, Poland.  So thanks very much, everyone.  Good‑bye and take care of yourselves. 

>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Thank you.  Thank you.  Bye. 

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Anriette.  And thank you, Krzysztof, of course. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Bye, everyone. 

>> Bye, everyone.  Thank you.

>> Thank you very much. Happy holidays. Bye-bye.