IGF 2021 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - II

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:  Just a reminder before we start, the meeting is being recorded., also transcribed and there will be a summary of the meeting published afterwards on the IGF website.

With that, I will hand over the floor to Anriette, our chair to start.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Chengetai.  Talking to you from Johannesburg. 

Welcome to everyone, our MAG members, to our Co Chair who you will hear from soon, also to the captioner, all of the observers that are joining us today.

Before I hand on to my Co Chair to make some remarks, let's quickly review the agenda.  I want to propose a few changes to the agenda.  You will find it on the screen in front of you.

The first item after this will be introductions from the Chairs and welcome, and next we'll have updates from the secretariate.  This will be a fairly substantial section because Chengetai and his team has quite a lot of information to share with us.  Next we'll look at review of the timeline, for this year's work.

Many of you have been asking me about what the plan is for the February meeting, and Chengetai will present a very initial outline of that.

Next we'll discuss the MAG Working Groups.  We won't go into those in any depth, not all the working groups are yet ready with their work plans for this year.  Some of the proposed working group MAG members are not able to be with us today.  We will see if they are at that point in the agenda.  You will hear what's on the table so far and we don't have to go into deep discussion, but I would like you to ask questions, particularly new MAG members.  If you have questions about what MAG Working Groups are, how they operate, why we have them, that would be a good opportunity.

Then we get to item number 6, that's going to be the bulk of our work today.  That's to look at the proposals that we see for Best Practice foras.  As many of you will remember, there was a best practice forum last year led by Marcus, and this study, which looked at how we can do BDFs better recommends that we start the cycle as early as possible in the year, therefore it is important for the MAG to read those proposal, to review them and for us to make a decision on which ones we want to improve.  If we're not able to do that today, then don't panic, we'll give you another few days.  Our goal is to have finalized the decision about which BDFs to work with in 2021 by the end of January.  That means then that the secretariate can put out the call for consultants that will work to support these BDFs.  There is limited resources available, that's important to keep in mind as well as the criteria.  The final item will be an update on the digital comprehension process, many of you know that the tech envoy has been appointed, so there is an opportunity to announce that and discuss that and for you to raise any questions that you have about the roadmap process and what that means for the IGF.

Any other matter, we can raise them at the end.

If there are no objections, can we consider this agenda adopted?  I'm looking forehands in the participant list.  There is also the speaking cues that you can use which is on the website.  I don't see any objections.

Chengetai, I think we can consider the agenda adopted.  Excuse me.

On that note, can I hand over to Krzysztof to make opening remarks for us?  Welcome and it is wonderful to have you.


 >> KRZYSTOF SZUBERT:  Fellow colleagues, on behalf of myself and the entire polish IGF 2021 team, I would like to start and extend our best wishes of the healthy, happy new year, may this year bring you hope for the quick ending of COVID pandemic, we just started the conversation of COVID before the official start of today's meeting and the promise that we'll have IGF 2021.  I wish to warmly congratulate His Excellency on the latest appointment of UN Secretary General's envoy for technology and I'm looking forward to the good cooperation with the new envoy on various topics of our mutual interests.  In my opinion, this is an important step in implementing the UN's roadmap for the digital cooperation.  I'm also confident that the decade of the digital transformation, the same was mentioned from the European perspective than from the European commission.  With this in mind, I want to inform you that Poland being this year's IGF Host Country will do its best to make this even    the multistakeholder gathering of all individuals and entities.

A very short update from the technical perspective, so currently we're in the process of selecting the logistics operator that will give us support in organizing this pre event.  Also we have launched consultations with other public and private institutions in order to present them the concept of the IGF and to invite them for the cooperation and we believe this vast promotion and cooperation will happen to be beneficial and thus attract new participants for the IGF 2021.  We're very active from bilateral promotion perspective, different stakeholders and different level, even today morning I have been mentioning the IGF concept and the IGF itself and the event in 2021 in Poland and inviting the participants of the ministerial of meetings, I'm spreading the message hopefully to bring much more maybe new participants from very different perspective. 

Basically we're on track.  Thank you again for your time and we'll see you in Poland in 2021.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that.  We look forward to working with you and your team.

I won't really make opening remarks.  I would like to make a few comments to guide us as we work together.  The first thing I think, it is just to urge everyone to always remember that while English is our working language in the MAG, the MAG is multi lingual and not only is the MAG multi lingual, we also are a group of people with different levels of connectivity, some of us hear very clearly, some of us are on bad phone lines.  It was really just a reminder to us, that when we talk, to speak slowly, clearly, this is helpful for the captioners, and this is also helpful for those of us that are not English speakers.

The second point is for us to be open, open in terms of listening to one another, being able to take input from one another and build an IGF that responds to the diversity of experiences diversity of stakeholder perspectives and political perspectives, but also to be open to change.  I think in the IGF we are often    we have a routine, we have a way of organizing the IGF, and we improve the IGF continuously, but we often do it very inning mentally and maybe in very small steps.

I think as Krzysztof say, we're in an era of new opportunities, the tech envoy and others to collaborate with, and as a MAG, we should be open and creative in looking at these opportunities, not undermining the traditions and achievements but in a way to lead to a more innovative, creative IGF.  Finally, I think just let's be very participative and eager to contribute.

I want to urge people to speak, to use the chat, but to also use your voice, to ask questions, to disagree and to say if something doesn't make sense to you.  You know, the crowd wisdom that we generate as a MAG can really only come into play if we speak, if we voice our concern, if we voice our uncertainty, and share our ideas.

Urging all of you to do it open together and creatively.  A lot of work still to come.  If we do it together, we can succeed.

If we can organize IGF 2020, I think we can do anything.

Over to you, Chengetai, for the next agenda item.


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much.

I'm just going to do a few updates from the secretariate.  Just before I start that, I would like to say that some have sent apologies, unable to join the meeting and Teresa will be leaving in a half hour.  She won't be able to take part in all of the meeting.

As far as the first update is concerned, I will start off with the policy network on the environment.  We have launched that.  This is going to be a secretariate led initiative.  We have set up the mailing list and we're working closely with the humidity and inviting other partners and anyone interested can also join the mailing list and we'll see what we can do this year on this policy network.  Maybe I'll just introduce David as well.

David, he's the representative from UNEP and we worked with him as well during the virtual IGF, and David, please.


 >> DAVID JENSON:  I'm with the UN environment program.  I'm based in Geneva.  I'm currently heading up our digital transformation taskforce and really trying to carve out the vision of how digital technologies can be used to drive forward environmental sustainability. 

I see an opportunity space within the IGF to start looking at this question more systematically and to start connecting this question to the broader Secretary General's roadmap on digital cooperation.  I'm happy to be here and look forward to the discussion on the proposal.


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

He will be our interlocker with us.  First policy network, it is not the BDF proposal, that proposal is of course going to be discussed shortly.  We're very willing to work with whichever way to integrate with work or collaborating or whatever.  We're here to collaborate, Sherry sources, et cetera.  We may be working on the same thing.  We'll see how that turns out.

We have also received interest for cofacilitation from Teresa and Joyce as MAG Co Facilitators.  They're welcome to join in as well.

The final IGF report, it is now being type set and once it is type set we'll publish a PDF.  We'll be distributing that to our sister organizations, UNESCO, ITU, also to outside of the UN of course, Council of Europe, OECD, all of those people and anybody else that's interested in our network and of course it will be published on our website.  The Under Secretary General will also provide a cover letter when we send it.  We'll be distributing it to the missions, both in Geneva and in New York as well.  That's for the outputs.  This is the first time we have done this, we have type set the report nicely and we're also making a concerted effort to make sure it reaches everybody who would be of interest, that it would be of interest to.

The third item on this is that we will be getting our Dynamic Coalition consultant soon, in the next week or so, for the other consultants for the perspective forums and also for the environment track, we have to wait until first of all that the perspectives forums are chartered and then we'll know the number and type of consultants that we need and we'll advertise those.  Those will be minimum in a month or so, they have to be advertised and when advertised, we take the applications and then they have to go through the process in New York for onboarding.

For the taking stock inputs, the deadline was on the 20th of January.  We received 49 contributions.  I would just like to remind people, we did have taking stock during the IGF 2020 I think it was, the week after it was closed.

We have those, we have recorded those and these are just additional contributions for the 49 contributions.

If you are interested in the spread, you see that there.

If you want the geographic breakdown    is that right one?  Yes.  So regional breakdown, we have Africa, 35%, Asia Pacific, 14%, Eastern Europe, 9, and GRULAC, Latin America and the Caribbean, 26% and intergovernmental organizations are different, they're not representing a region as such and they are global in nature.  That's the regional distribution of inputs we received for the taking stock.  The deadline for the issues, because if you recall, we did also a separate call for issues for IGF 2021.  At the moment, we have 146 contributions to that, and that deadline is on the 31st of January.  For the distribution among stakeholders at the moment, we do have technical community with 14% of contributions, private sector, 17%, government, 13%, intergovernmental organizations, 5% and Civil Society 51%.  I also just would like to remind people that of course Civil Society is the biggest stakeholder group just by their very nature, everybody who doesn't fall into the other categories of course falls into Civil Society.  Don't think of them as being too much out of whack, but of course we still can do a lot more work to encourage for instance governments and the private sector to contribute to the issues.

As far as the regional breakdown is concerned, Africa has 25%, Asia Pacific, 27, Eastern Europe, 6, and I wouldn't say that there is no reason that it is being dominated and IGOs, 5%, that represents actually quite a large percentage for intergovernmental organizations for contributing to the core of issues.

As Anriette mentioned beforehand, just before, that we're going to have open consultations and MAG meeting in February.  The dates for that are 22nd to the 26th of February.  We decided to have them after the Chinese New Year, because if you recall beforehand I think we had it on the week of the 14th, and during that time, since we did have a break for Christmas, our New Year.  I think we should also respect that as well.  We're going to start on the 26th    the 22nd to the 26th.  Since it is going to be virtual, there is no way that we can have a face to face meeting of the current moment, especially with the situation that's happening in Europe and particularly in Geneva region.  It is going to be all virtual.  When we did talk to the chair, and one of the things that we're proposing that we do, it is that we would have a meeting first, we're proposing that this would be the next MAG meeting in two weeks time, that first of all on the 9th of February that we have a meeting to discuss the taking stock inputs and also to discuss the program and format without looking at the issues, but just the program of the format of the IGF 2021 on the 9th of February.  And then for the 22nd of February we can start by discussing the issues and what issues we'll be looking for in 2021.  The secretariate has made a draft program which we're going to be sharing.  I think I'll send it out tomorrow, we just have to tidy it up a little bit and we'll send it out tomorrow for comment.  Once we have commented, it will be published and we can have a discussion, of course, because as we discussed last year, we shouldn't really be just transposing a face to face meeting in the virtual format which will take advantage of some of the advantages of the virtual format and see how we can best utilize that medium to help us with our planning.

I may have forgotten to mention that for the 9th of February meeting, we would be inviting not just the MAG, but all stakeholders to come in and contribute and we may also have breakout groups on that.

I'll pause here for a moment to see if Anriette has is something to say about that, anyone else.


 >> CHAIR: Nothing from me.  At the end of the meeting, it would be good to update MAG members on what the next steps will be with regard to particularly working with the proposals that we received on format and design.

Are there any other questions?  Anyone with comments, questions for Chengetai?  Chengetai, there is an ask for a virtual social event during our virtual face to face meeting.  I don't know why not?  It is a very good idea.  Let's start sharing proposal on doing that.




 >> CHAIR: Any other questions for Chengetai?  Comments?  Courtney is asking will we get these dates and goals for various meetings in writing?  Courtney, the answer is yes, they'll be in the timeline.  The big picture, the broad brush stroke, and then we'll    and the timeline is always available on the website, and then we'll also share them on the list.


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: The timeline is available on the website and there is a link to the email, with the meeting note with the link to this meeting, and under documents, there is a link there and one of them, it is the timeline, the draft timeline.  Luis is showing that to us now.

That's the proposed timeline.


 >> CHAIR: I do have a question, Chengetai, about the dissemination of IGF 2020 outputs.  It is clear that there will be an overall report on IGF 2020 which you are going to be distributing with a letter from the Secretary General and if I understand it correctly  


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Under Secretary General, yes.


 >> CHAIR: Under Secretary General.  Quite widely to missions, to UN agencies, to intergovernmental organizations, et cetera.

Is there any effort at disseminating the thematic track key policy messages to institutions that deal with those themes?  In other words, is there at the moment any strategy for a more targeted dissemination of IGF outputs?


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.  I mean, we do plan to have a targeted distribution of outputs.  Just for this year, I think that the first thing, attending a meeting for security, I have forgotten which    if Wim is here, yell it out to me    I think he did have opportunity to say something about IGF work as far as the Best Practice forum on trust was concerned.

I'm just giving two seconds.


 >> WIM DEGEZELLE:  Yes, I'm here.

It was the    I forget the exact name.  The U.K. Government Project on Security Issues.  I'm looking for the    we'll take the exact name and put it in chat.


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: It doesn't really matter.  We're just saying we're taking every opportunity that we can and that we know of. 

One of the things we'll also be doing is that for instance, I just started a conversation with U.N. Women as well to make sure that they are involved, and that we can work with each other and Wim as well here, it is one of his goals as well to make sure that as far as mostly from the New York side, and also broadly speaking, last year I think it was very good for us that we had the opportunity to interact with the regional    with the regional commissions of the UN and we do intend to maintain those links and to strengthen those links as well.

I hope that kind of answers the question.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you, Chengetai.

I think that answers me in part and welcome, Wim.  Wim from New York, UNDESA is on the call as well.

I think with the opportunities as they arise, strengthening outcomes of IGF, such a prominent concern, particularly in the roadmap but also for the MAG, having a documented strategy that we can then look at following up on and get MAG members to support.  It would be useful.


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: We can write up something, either the whole MAG, working group can comment on it and we can have that discussion.


 >> CHAIR: That would be an idea.

Let's just check, I see no further hands.  If there are no further questions for the secretariate, let's move on to the next agenda item.

Chengetai, do you want to say anything more on the timeline?


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Me.  No.  I may have forgotten something, I will borrow the phrase    maybe it is old age catching up.

Let me ask Luis if there is anything to add that I may have forgotten.


 >> ANJA GENGO:  That's it.


 >> LUIS BOBO: Thank you, Chengetai.  Nothing from here as well.


 >> CHAIR: I think maybe the only thing to mention then, from my side, and I don't think we have consolidated this yet as part of our timeline, but in the discussions last year towards the end of the IGF the proposal to have a  mid  year virtual event, a  mid  cycle event came up.  We can come back to that.  One of the suggestions was particularly for the Best Practice forums, that they get together in some form of virtual gathering in the middle of the year to look at the draft reports, and that will enable them to get further with their outputs by the time the global IGF takes place.  I don't know if you want to say more about that, but thus far we have often found that with the Best Practice forum, the work really picks up speed closer to the global IGF and especially when those initial reports are presented at the global IGF that to the real input from the community is received, so when thinking about the idea of creating an event earlier in the year to get that level of feedback which will then    just to do more with the work.

I'm not sure if you want to elaborate on that idea if you're still with us.


 >> WIM DEGEZELLE:  I'm still here. 

It comes back on the observation that was mentioned earlier., in the last year BPFs, the work that Markus led, where we looked for experiences of past BPF coordinators.  An observation was that indeed only at the very last stage, the protocol community gets involved or gets interested or picks up the BPF work that's being done.  One of the suggestions is like what was mentioned, having BPFs start as early as possible.  If that works, so that BPFs can instead, for example, just before the summer holiday, that's happened sometimes in the past, already start in February, then probably somewhere by the next or the second MAG meeting there is a clearer idea or there may be some draft documents ready at that moment.  That could be an opportunity to have, especially an online event to really focus on the ongoing work and highlight the different opportunities for other community members to contribute and contribute at the earlier stage, not when the draft is ready and when they're just asked to give the final word.  This is an outline of the idea, the idea of    I think it looks    it shouldn't create extra work I think on the side of the secretariate or the side of the BPFs itself.  Just trying to involve people, more people in the work by looking for opportunities to highlight that work is being done during the year.

I hope that I explained it clearly.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you very much.  Thank you very much for that.

As we reach agreement from these additional initiatives, we will also add them to the timeline.

If there are no questions, I see no one in the speaking cues, I see no hands, then let's move on to the next agenda item which as I said at the beginning of the meeting is really the substance of our work.  We'll start with the MAG Working Group, not yet with Best Practice forums.

Item number five, discussion of MAG Working Groups:  There are different kinds of MAG Working Groups.  For new MAG member, we did brief you during the orientation.  They are working groups that are initiated by MAG members with a particular purpose, particular task, and that they're open to non MAG members.  It is important that they're facilitated and led by MAG members and active participation of MAG members.

Some of the working groups, for example, we have had a working groups on workshop process, thank you very much Luis for displaying that on the screen.  The working group on workshop process is one that we need probably every year, but we particularly need it if there is a change to how we put out the call for workshops, because then the evaluation process needs to be adapted and the MAG has to do that adaptation.  We haven't yet convened this working group this year and it may be premature.  Once we have looked at the design, format of the process of planning IGF 2021 I'm sure we will need such a working group.  The fact that we don't have too many MAG working groups on the table right now doesn't mean that they cannot be convened later on as needed.

Last year we also had the working group on language that made recommendations that I hope we'll implement this year.  The working group on the strengthening and strategy has indicated that they want to continue.

We will still need more time.  I'm Co Chair that have working group, to present our plan.  We want to consult working group members.  That's why I propose that we don't discuss the working groups in depth at the moment.  Maybe just a few words on that working group.

We have a new working group, it has been proposed in response to a MAG reflection on IGF 2020, and that's the working group on a hybrid format, on hybrid meetings.  Again, I don't expect you to do a full proposal on that right now, we need a little bit more time to finalize the decision, but we have received it, and we have Adam with us and he will give you just    you know, highlights of what this working group wants to do.  That will allow you to start expressing an interest on whether you would like to join or not.

Can we first go to Ada on a few words on this working group and then to Titi for a few words on the working group strategy and then we'll take questions.

Over to you.


 >> ADAMP PEAKE:  Thank you.

Yes, you should have all seen the draft that Teresa initiated and I have chatted with, thank you very much.  It has been sent around to the MAG list.  Take a look, it is your comments.  This is a draft outline of the basic thinking over the last MAG meeting.

The rational, the essential idea, it is that 2020 did an exceptional job on reacting to the situation last year with the inability for us all to meet face to face.  Remote access has always been a significant part of the IGF, it has been since 2006.  This really brought it home how well you as the MAG last year and the secretariate were able to pull things together.  We were seeing comments in the stock taking at the end of the IGF last year and also actually in the comments that are coming in now in stocktaking.  People are saying that we should continue with this and build off of this and the thought that is in the paper that really we want to build the idea that the IGF is of course based on the idea of being inclusive, peer to peer, multistakeholder dialogue and this should be the same for wherever the participant is from in that physical, online sense.  If you're in the meeting room, then you should have    somebody accessing online should have the same ability to interact and to discuss as peers, as anybody who is actually in the meeting.  This will be very difficult to achieve.  I think that's a goal that we're seeking, the equality of participation.

There are some ideas there about what are the issues to tackle, how do we review the success of 2020, what would we have done differently?  How do we look at different partner, the NRIs, organizations that are meeting online, have been meeting online for the past ten months exclusively online, how can we learn from them and perhaps even partner with them.  It is really a quite simple outline of why we need it, the rational, the objective, which is to improve on the legacy, the great work of 2020 and how do we do    you know, what are the issues we have to tackle.

That's it.  Please read the paper.  Would love to hear your comments.

Thank you very much.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Adam.

Any questions or comments for Adam on this working group proposal?  I don't see any.

I think all there is to say is that if you have comments, please send them.  If you want to join, let Adam, Teresa know that you want to join this working group and at this point, I think I'm looking for objections, if there are MAG members that feel this is important, it responds to a specific outcome from the stocktaking, I think it is a very valuable working group.  Please, everyone is free to object, to also suggest some modifications to the working group and we'll finalize the decision in the coming days but for now let's begin to also express interest if you want to be a part of this working group let Adam, Teresa know or just post to the MAG list.

I see you have asked for the floor, congratulations, you will be the first speaker using the speaking cues today.

You have the floor.


 >> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  I have a question as new MAG member. 

The working groups mentioned, the last one, it is for 2020.  Do we join the working groups now?  You know, I was confused, should I join it now or would there be new working groups for this year?


 >> CHAIR: I can respond to that.

We are starting in a sense with a combination of a blank slate and some continuity.  Of the working groups that were active last year, and so far, only working group strategy has talked about continuing their work and expressed that.  That's on the table already.  We have a new working group that was proposed this year and that's the one that Adam just presented.

There are working groups we had last year that haven't yet reconvened such as the working group on workshop process, and I'm predicting we will need it.  We may not need it right now because we still haven't decided how to design the IGF this year.  We definitely will need it at some point.  

To respond more directly to your question, at the moment, you should consider whether you should participate in the working group strategy which exists and will continue in the working group on hybrid meetings which we have just heard about and then we'll take it from there.  We'll hear if there are more working groups, MAG members may come forward and we may decide as a group that we need further working groups.  For the moment, we have those two that have put proposal forward and you should feel welcome to join any of them.  I hope that answers the question.  Anyone can add if I wasn't clear enough.


 >> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  That clarifies my question.


 >> CHAIR: There will definitely be a need for    as our work continues.  I think definitely, we'll definitely have the working group on workshop process, but other issues may arise as well that creates a need for MAG Working Group.

Titi, did you want to go ahead and say a few things on working group strategy?  That's the other existing working group.


 >> TITTI CASSA:  Can you hear me?  Okay.  Thank you.

Just a few words on the working group on IGF's strategy that has been established last year and with the purpose to develop proposal, preventable action on short and medium term on strengthening the IGF and positioning the IGF in the evolving digital cooperation landscape.  The working group during 2020 focused on three main points, from one side trying to reflect on the mandate of the IGF as indicating on the agenda and how this mandate could be best    better fulfilled.  Also considering that the IGF is halfway through the ten year renew WSIS+10 mandate, then another topic that was discussed last year, it is the roadmap for digital cooperation and there's lots of discussions on the table.

The working group considered also the work that's been done by the previous working group, by the commission of technology development and also the reflection that was issued during the 2016 IGF retreat.  Considering all of this work, the working group had discussed and produced several documents that were available on the IGF website, it is just to remember, to mention, the most important, delivered at the response of the option paper for the future of digital cooperation that includes also the three possible approaches of multistakeholder body as specified in the paragraph in the roadmap for digital cooperation.

The non paper draft on building    it was a discussion that was discussed in the working group and shared    last but not least, it was the document that the working group had submitted for the taking stock, the MAG, it is related to the MAG Working Group on IGF's strategy proposal for the IGF 2021.  What's going now?  Now we're discussing the proposal for the next year considering also the priorities that the working group has identified.  As said, this priority, the proposal for the next year, it is under discussion.  We're going to share it the next day after being consolidated with the last version to the participants to the meeting, to the working group.  We will share with you in the next days.

That's all from my side.  Thank you..


 >> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Titti for that.

I see some questions in the chat.

I see you asking about splitting our meeting in groups, I'm not sure I understood your question completely.

Thank you for your comment.

Do you want to ask your question?  Can we hear your voice about the splitting of the team into groups? 


 >> RYSZARD:  I wondered if we try to speak somehow, ourselves, into the group, to the groups, to say support them and it is not  


 >> CHAIR: I think that the idea, you know, you can join as many working groups as you want to. 

These MAG Working Groups are not compulsory, but they create an opportunity for MAG members to contribute to the work of the IGF and sometimes to more longer term multiyear activities as well and it is a way of addressing innovation, taking on new ideas such as the one of hybrid meetings.

Later on, as we start designing the program for IGF 2021 we'll have different types of teams and different types of groups where we have to for example split into different MAG members working on different issues, different themes.  These MAG working groups are not the only groups that we believe using to help organize our work this year.  They're just one particular dimension of that.  It also even it is a MAG member doesn't join one of the working groups that we have just heard about, it doesn't matter.  There will be other opportunities for MAG members to contribute and to work in groups with other MAG members.  I'm not sure I'm answering your questions, it is not compulsory, it is useful, it is a good way of learning, it is a good way of contributing as well.

I also see here that    that there is a question of comments and questions in the chat.

Can you respond to that?  It is recorded as far as I know, I will let the secretariate respond to that Luis, could you explain what we do with the chat?


 >> LUIS BOBO: I was trying to find out who would find the unmute button first!


 >> CHAIR: Okay!


 >> LUIS BOBO: Yes.  We do.

At the end of every meeting, the chat can be downloaded and kept.  That's what we do.  (Chengetai).


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that, Chengetai.

I think we're done.  I don't see anyone in the speaking cues.

I hope that it make it is clearer how these working groups are operating.  We'll hear more about the working group strategy in the coming weeks, coming days I hope.  You have heard about the working group on hybrid meetings.  At this point, I urge you to send in comments and express interest if you have any objections and also if you think there is some working group that we're missing, then you're welcome to propose a working group.

The one thing I think is important, it is to remember that MAG members are voluntary, that the secretariate has limited time and resources.  I think it is also important for MAG members when they form a working group to be able to carry the workload, to do the work themselves without too much reliance on the secretariate, but also to try and ensure that the working group adds value to the overall process.  I think sometimes we have had MAG Working Groups which have done work with just    work that's also done by the secretariate.  I think that's not the best use of our resources.  There are other ways for MAG members to also support the work of the secretariate.

I don't think we should be    in other words, I'm advocating for some cautious in creating working groups and they should be there to respond to specific needs.  I think we have achieved that thus far.

Let's move on to the next item which is the overview of received BPF proposal and criteria for approval.  I want to start by sharing a link with you which is the link, it is in the chat, to the report of the Best Practice forum on Best Practice forums.  It was done by Markus.  Markus is actually with us on the call.  Markus, you can intervene and, in fact, Markus    if you don't mind just giving in three sentences, just the history of BFs, just so that particularly our new MAG members all have common understanding of how this modality evolved, and then what I would like to do after that is review the criteria, which has been developed by the Best Practice forum on Best Practice forums and then we'll go on to the specific proposal.

Markus, if you don't mind just sharing a few words on how this modality evolved and for what reason?


 >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Hello, everybody.  I hope you can hear me.

We have had a first try with Best Practice forum right at the beginning, in the second IGF in Rio in 2007 and we repeated that in 2008 and we left it very much to proposers to come up with something and we did say encourage actually sharing also bad experiences so that we have lessons learned because you learn quite as much from unsuccessful experiences as you do from successful experiences.  That didn't really turn out well, and most Best Practice forums organized and they turned out more or less in a beauty contest.  Everybody tried to say how good they have been, there was no real learning experience and somehow that's slipped into oblivion and the IGF matured and back in 2014, it was then an ISOC proposal, I was working for ISOC and we suggested revitalizing the Best Practice forums and also to make them more streamlined and with secretariate support.  It is obvious that they would need some hefty, substantive support from the secretariate.

From then on, I think it has developed rather well.  I don't have all of the figures now in my head, but the paper we produced gives a history of the Best Practice forums and last year, when we had the discussion in the MAG meeting, there was a feeling that MAG members lacked the background and also lacked concrete criteria and they would like to have more objective criteria for assessing Best Practice forums and it came up, this paper, there are lessons learned in that and one of them was already mentioned and we found it is usually a slow start, it has a lot to do with the MAG process of approving them and then also once they're approved, there is a recruitment process that the secretariate has to recruit consultants to support the Best Practice forums and so quite often it is only in May or June of the year that they are actually operational.

As you already mentioned, there is very little time actually left for the Best Practice forums and then they're maybe in full swing by the time the annual meeting comes.

One of the proposals, it is just to really consider the Best Practice forums as a cycle and also to consider two year cycles for approving them to allow them to have a more continuation work stream so that they can build continuity.

Another lesson learned, it is important to have an outreach plan ready when making the proposal that we know who the organizations would like to work with and who has maybe agreed to work with them I think that's the proposal that's already connected to a large extent, that we have a better idea of the organizational part.  It is not just maybe the brainchild of one or two MAG members, but they have already found some    done some homework and found organizations, entities willing to work with them.  These are the main findings, and then at the end of it, and we have already touched on that it is the dissemination of the outcomes where up until now we have had some successful examples.  As you said, it is based on exploiting opportunities and maybe not based on a concrete thought through dissemination plan. 

These are in a nutshell my comments to that, maybe Wim who was holding the pen for the report has some additional comments to make thank you for your attention.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that, Markus.  Markus has been part of the IGF's collective intellectual development from the inception.  It is really an honor to still have it apply his experience and his mind.  A special thank you to you, Markus, you still are contributing in so many ways.

Wim, you want to add anything?  While you decide if you want to add, I will ask Luis Bobo to bring on to the screen the criteria that we put in the proposal template.


 >> WIM DEGEZELLE:  Thank you for letting me have time to decide.

I don't think I have anything in particular to add to what Markus said, the overview of the work of the BPF last year, but as Luis Bobo is putting up the overview of the criteria, I also wanted to clarify here that the discussion last year, on the BPF, it started from the idea that came from the MAG, oh, we should make a clear checklist with tic boxes to make it useful to analyze the proposal and quickly in the discussions we can of it became clear that that was problematic and that the proposal, that they can be assessed, they need more qualitative than quantitative analysis and therefore, if you would see the templates that we have with the criteria, it guides the discussion in that sense, what's in the proposal, and then the proposers expect that the proposal will contribute to either enlarging or helping the IGF to get a broader footprint or influence in other discussions or how do they expect that they will be able to get more people involved in the discussions.  It is a set of criteria that's clear ticking boxes.  That's only one point I wanted to add.  If there are other questions during the discussion, I'm happy to come back on it..

I have the link there, you go to the proposal template, that may be the easiest way to find the criteria.

Go down to the next page.  It should be there.  That's it.  Exactly.  Thank you very much.

So the reason why I wanted us to look at these criteria, it is because as Wim just said, this time a year ago, when the MAG was considering the Best Practice forum proposal for 2020 there was a feeling that we don't have a systematic enough approach.  Thanks to the work of the BPF on BPFs we have this set of criteria.  This is what you should keep in mind when you comment on a BPF proposal, when you develop the BPF proposal, when you decide on whether you think it is a good idea or not and also when you implement a BPF proposal.  I'll just run through the headings.  I'm not going through this in detail.  I want you to think actively as you listen to the proposal which will come soon, in one    we're one hour in our call, we don't have a lot of time left.

Firstly, is there relevance and suitability for the topic?  In other words, the topic, we cannot have a BPF on just any topic.  We need to be able to see the path of that topic and where it comes from and where we hope to see it going.  The community of interest, I think that's really, really important.  If    if BPFs cannot galvanize the collective wisdom of the huge multistakeholder community, they cannot really be effective.  Now, different topics may have different sizes of communities of interest.  That community of interest can be present and identified in the proposal, it is very important..

Metrics to evaluate the functioning of completed BPFs.  That's also    that's also very important.

I think some of the metrics, they're very output oriented such as having meetings and I think metrics that also helps us to understand the extent to which the BPF is reaching out to a wider community, it is very important as well.

Then we have expected output and contribution to an internet governance discussion that's linked to what I said.  That's extremely important.  It is also important to keep in mind when the BPF packages its report and its work so that it is done in such a way that it is easy to disseminate.

Excuse me.  I have something in my throat today.

Luis, I think that's it.  Is there another bullet point if you scroll down?  Is that  


 >> LUIS BOBO: That's it.


 >> CHAIR: That's the last one.  That's the last one.

On that note, if there are no questions at this point, let's start with listening to the proposal that we have on the table for BPFs in 2021.


 >> May I have the floor.


 >> CHAIR: Yes.  I see the hand now.  Go ahead.


 >> KHALED KOUBAA:  Thank you.  If we can go back to the previous document, if not, that's fine.  Having some thoughts on the community of interest, I think this is very important for evaluating the BPF and for me the most important element of it to show and to have metrics for me as a MAG member to see that there is a real test from the community and the question here, it is how we can make sure that there is enough evidence and there is a substantial support from the community either in forms of emails, in forms of letter of support, any kind of support that can be visible and clear to that BPF proposal.  This is something that we should probably as well add in the requirement.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that, Khaled.

That's an important point.    let's ask the presenter, you know, what they have been doing in that regard thus far.  I think it is also something that can be reported on in the course of the work of the BPF but definitely it is very, very important.

If there are no further comments, I also want to note in the chat that there was a comment from Adam Peake earlier.  Let us flag that for the minutes of the meeting.  It is a request that it is important for BPFs in order to better integrate and involve youth and new stakeholder groups, for the BPFs to promote its work in a simple way, to have short introductions that are accessible, what the mission, purposes and goals are.  I think Adam is commenting that some of the proposal were not clear enough in that regard.

I think that's the kind of comment that's useful for MAG members to give the proposers at this time and obviously there is still time to do that.  Once BPFs have their webpages, they can also make this type of information available online.  It is very important, the point.   .

On that note, let's start by listening to very short presentations from this year's BPFs.  I have given them four minutes.  It is not a lot of time.  I would like you to raise questions as you listen to the proposal, if you have written them already, please start inserting the questions in the chat or raise your hand.

I would like to welcome the presenter of the BPF cybersecurity proposal, Louise is bringing it up, she's connecting to us, she's in Madagascar from the mobile phone.

Are you with us?


 >> Iombonana:  This is a presentation from Madagascar.  (Poor audio quality).

Just to briefly recap on the work, to provide some context, it is one thing to get organizations to sign a cybersecurity agreement, but it is also important to think about how the good intentions of candidates can be emphasized.

The 2019 BPF explored Best Practices in relation to the implementation of international cybersecurity, such as the Paris call for trust and security and in diverse space and the other agreements.  In 2020, the BPF performed a deeper analysis of some of the agreements looking specifically at norms of behavior rather than any commitments which are generically enforceable.  The BPF expanded the examination of norms by looking at what can be learned, of how norms are developed and implemented in other areas.

This year, what's new, it is why the BPF would continue to look into the cybersecurity norms and frameworks.  The work will be developed by looking more deeply into the factors that help able or drive for norms in the areas of cybersecurity.  A new focus for this year will be on what we can learn for major historical cybersecurity students.  For example, the BPF would evaluate if existing norms were mitigating progress and would also look at how security events may have supported the implementation and expansion of norms.

An added dimension to this year's work would be to bring in the voice of cybersecurity and citizens and those of the people who responded to incidents.  This year, the BPF hopes to broaden thinking about how the trends and norms in cybersecurity are looking into examples of dealing with incidents in other areas, as environmental protections.

At the beginning of the process, the BPF would seek to expand the work by reaching out to members and organizations (poor audio quality).  Less developed countries and small island space.  The section 5 of this proposal sets out a process for the year, including which groups the BPF would engage with and at which point in the process of IGF, in terms of roadmap for digital    we have a link between this work and the statements by all of the Member States.  It is relevant to the cybersecurity exercises.

That's all from my side.  Thank you for your time.

Did you want to add something?


 >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Nothing to add.  You made the relevant points.

A word, it always has had this title, this BPF on cybersecurity, it was just a very broad heading, as a matter of fact, it was a different BPF every year building on what had been done before as you outlined in your presentation.  Just anticipating comments because it has been going on already since 2016.  It was a very, very broad heading and focused each time on a different set of issues.

Thank you.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you, Markus.  Thank you.

Any questions or comments on this proposal?  I don't see any hands.


 >> COURTNEY RADSCH: I don't know how to raise my hand on this system.


 >> CHAIR: You will get used to it.


 >> COURTNEY RADSCH:  There are a lot of buttons.  I want to say it is an undeniably a valuable contribution.  I think to the point around cybersecurity, the research that was done in the last Best Practices report about the development of norms could be useful far beyond just cybersecurity.  I'm very supportive of the Best Practice Forum, but also wondering how you could bring some of those findings to other efforts to establish norms for example I know we'll talk about the environment one next, but I think that to the point of what the name of it is, it seems to have a broad arena, throwing it out there, they may be interested in being involved in this one.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you.

Looking at the name as Markus said, it is definitely worth doing.

I really    I think one thing, that just immediately resonated for me with this proposal, it is the opportunity for the IGF to utilize the public awareness that there is, the solar winds, the most recent cyberattack that was globally discussed, to utilize that level of public awareness and interest, to bring people into the work of internet governance and into the policy context.

I think it is    it is a really interesting proposal.

Any other comments or questions?  I don't see any other hands.

I want to turn people to speak.  It is    if you don't want to speak today, then you need to send an email response.

It is very lonely for the BPF coachers of the proposal and the facilitators to not get reactions from the MAG.  The MAG, it is the body to which BPF is still accountable to.  The fact that    that you engage actively, it is very important.

If you don't know how to raise your hand, that's fine, I'm going to give you the floor.

Anyone else who wants to speak.

You take the floor in the meantime.


 >> HAZAR ALZAKI:  I want to reiterate what was put in the comments and support the cybersecurity proposal.  There is continuation Ryan Clough in the determination and suffocation of nation state cyber attacks and the growing privatization of the attacks through a new generation of private companies that came to 21st Century mercenaries, it is important for the IGF to enable this BPF on cybersecurity to continue the work this year with the new focus on learning lessons from cyberattacks.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that.  It is grit to have our new MAG members take the floor.

I don't see anyone else.  There are a couple of comments in the chat.

You want to speak?  Please about it ahead, speak.


 >> AYA MUKAN:  Can you hear me well.


 >> CHAIR: I should have reminded everyone earlier, remember to introduce yourself when you take the floor.


 >> AYA MUKAN:  My name is Aya Mukan.  I am a new member of MAG.

I would like to support the thematic of cybersecurity also.  Also I would like to suggest issues of cyberbullying because of the pandemic, most people move to digital space, this led to increase in cyberbullying, violation of rights and the linkage as highlighted in the United Nations roadmap for digital cooperation, the importance of digital trust and security must be recognized by all countries and we will protect the citizens, especially children, women, vulnerable groups from violations from their rights on the Internet and this thematic, it will be very relevant and I would like to comment that soon on the 5th of February we're launching a big event, digital forum with participation of Under Secretary General and you're all welcome to join the online event, it is going to be in hybrid.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you very much for sharing that.

I don't see any further comments.  I want to give the floor to Markus and    oh, Maria, please take the floor.


 >> MARIA PAZ:  I am a MAG member, in my third year representing society from GRULAC.

My question, I think I agree with the previous comment, on the approach that's been selected by the cybersecurity Best Practice Forum this year, it seems very engaging and with a lot of possibility for broadening the attention in the work, the excellent work already done by cybersecurity BPF of previous year.  I'm wondering if using the metrics that we have now for evaluating how do you think do you use this particularly engaging approach to reach broader community.  I know that you already have a system that's quite active rain with a lot of participation over the year and I would like to hear if already you have some kind of plan regarding these things that we were discussing before when the documents, the elements for the BPF, it was highlighted in terms of reach out, how to enlarge the community.  Only if you have something, but I think that's my question.  Thank you.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that, Maria.

I was going to suggest that we ask all of the proposers to respond in a very specific way to that question after the meeting.

For now, Markus, did you want to react to that comment, question from Maria, and also to any of the other comments.


 >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you for the comment.

We have taken note and we're grateful for the positive support.

In terms of concrete questions on organizations, they have been established contacts for instance on the global commission on cybersecurity, working closely together and the two UN bodies have already been mentioned, the open ended working group and the work of governmental experts.  We have in the past also thanks to UNDESA been able to input in the work and obviously we'll look into other ongoing efforts on how to improve that and one comment maybe on the naming issue, this is something that I would maybe also report back to the group, maybe we should also look at finding a more narrower name for the theme, like on norms and cybersecurity and whatever it is because the heading, as we have it now, it is very broad.  I also saw comments in the chat.  That's all from my end.  But maybe there are other comments.

Thank you.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that, Markus.  I think that the only comment I wanted to make, it is that cyberbullying, it is a broad area.  In fact, the IGF has looked at in some respect beforehand and I'll share information with you.

Also remember to share with us information about your event.

Let's move on to the next proposal.  I can see from the chat that people have more comments.  I'm going to suggest that we leave these proposal open for comment for at least the next day and then we'll facilitate the process online to finalize the decision.  We want to decide by the end of January, but I can see that people aren't quite ready to make final decision today but we'll do it online in the next day or two.

The next proposal that we had, it is gender and access BPF.  If I can give the floor to Chenai to present on this.


 >> CHENAI:  Thank you, welcome to a new year.  I will be presenting on the Best Practice Forum on Gender, previously known as the Best Practice Forum on Gender and Access.  This year we have decided to rename it the Best Practice Forum on Gender and Digital Rights.

This takes into account the consideration that over the last couple of year, since 2014, one of the oldest BPFs our work has evolved to look at issues that affect women and gender diverse people as they come on the Internet and last year, in the 2020 Best Practice Forum we were taking into account how the gender is framed in the internet governance space, thinking about Best Practices to ensure.  Gender and women diverse people are able to fully participate and to move the conversations to think about consent and pleasure as well.  Now moving into digital rights, our 2021 topic focuses actually on gender disinformation, a timely topic given the current scenario that we're in, the space we're in, and also levels of misinformation that have a gender aspect which would stifle freedom of expression in particular for women and gender diverse people.  The purpose of our BPF is to understand how gender disinformation has been deployed as a strategy against women and gender diverse groups on the way that they participate in spaces and the way that they're able to raise issues of concern.  It is an aspect of digital rights, hence also lending itself to a focus of title.

Work has been done, the work has been done that shows how disinformation has negative effects on digital rights of women and gender diverse groups and this spills over to other right of political participants and the economic rights.  The main goals of the Best Practice Forum is to map the strategies and actions adopted by governments, the private sector to respond to the spread of gender disinformation and to build an environment for gender and women groups to participate in.  What we'll additionally do is this proposes to showcase positive initiators proposed by stakeholder, this is drawing on recommendations, and at the beginning of what can be a multistakeholder dialogue on gender misinformation.  Our output would include a final report addressing issues and part of being a Best Practice Forum highlight the Best Practices that emerge from mapping, from the mapping done, and also draft policy limitations.

So in thinking about engagement, it has been a critical issue that's been raised, what we'll actually do, it is continuing with the engagement with our virtual meetings that we have, but also improving engagement with Dynamic Coalitions such as continuing the relationship with the DC on gender, that we set up last year, and the Dynamic Coalition on platform responsibility, and we also want to engage in dialogue with the NRIs and other intersessional activities.  We also aim to present our preliminary findings in what we would call a verification workshop with identified actors working on the subject of gender and disinformation.  This would also include intermediaries such as social media company, non governmental organization, research centers and the feminist LGBTQ act Virginias and governments as well.

So lending itself into the IGF mandate and the UN Secretary General's roadmap for digital cooperation, again, it is coming    the work of the BPF on gender and    on gender and access, gender and digital rights if approved has been to actually place focus on women and gender diversity, allowing for increased participation and meaningfully shaping the way in which we engage on the internet governance space.  This also extends to the issues that have been touched on in the digital cooperation contributions and we believe we can contribute on the understanding of how Best Practices are on gender misinformation allowing for support of women and gender diverse people's digital rights in this particular case focusing on the freedom of expression and to close off, which I forgot do earlier, this Best Practice forum is cocoordinated internally from the MAG by myself, I'm a third year MAG member and this year I'm happy to have a first year MAG member who has been part of the coordinating of the Best Practice forum join and represent the MAG community, Maria will be stepping down but she will continue to support the Best Practice forum in her own capacity when she can.  We're thank.    For that.  Then Pruna is also on the call and others are part of the Steering Committee.  We'll be able to take any questions and proposal from the Committee.

Thank you.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that.

Any comments or questions on the Best Practice forum proposal.

Courtney, you have the floor.

Go ahead, Courtney.  This time, you can introduce yourself.


 >> COURTNEY RADSCH:  I'm the director of advocacy of the community to protect journalist and one of the coordinators of the Dynamic Coalition on Sustainability of Journalism in the News Media. 

I wanted to just suggest that would be another Dynamic Coalition to reach out to, and to contribute to this.  As a significant portion of online violence is experienced by journalists, especially journalists and women of color, there is a whole community work organization on that that's connected to this community, and we would be interested in bridging those divides and with the academic community where there is some academic work being done on this as well.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that.


 >> KHALED:  Thank you for the proposal, I extend my full support for this actually important subject and I'm happy that you have been able to touch the point on the diversity of the gender scope, including the rights of the LGBTQ activists and part of our society.

My only question here, it is probably the same for the rest, it is the level of support from the community, would you be able to speak on that, who are the supporters from the outside community?  Thank you.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you.

I don't see any other hands or comments.

Do you want to react to those inputs from the MAG?


 >> CHENAI:  Is it okay if Pruna or Deborah also reacts?


 >> CHAIR: Absolutely.  Let's do it quickly, we're into the last half hour of the meeting.


 >> CHENAI:  Thank you so much for the suggestions.

At the communities that we work with, it would be great.  We can also work in influencing the intersectional issues within this conversation and then in terms of support of external communities, external members, I think that's something that maybe, Bruna, do you want to respond to?  It is something that we would have to really take into consideration as well and plan as part of our engagement to reach out to the external communities as we would love to have them as part of the conversation.


 >> Bruna Santos:  Good afternoon, everyone.  We're replying to this question on supporting interests from the outside, from the outside community.  We have seen an ongoing interest from the digital rights community on this intersection between gender and misinformation over the years.  Moving on from those, debating this, relating to gender, explaining the object of this so that it can be as intersessional as we can and to consider new topics.  We're considering that Civil Society, LGBTQ activist, NGOs as well, we'll deaf    we plan on doing as much outreach as possible to lead to other groups with this proposal.  I don't know if Deborah has anything to add.  Thank you very much.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that, Bruna.  The important thing, it is also to just always remember that the Best Practice forums, they're not there to just explore a problem area.  They're actually there to gather examples of existing good practice or as Markus said earlier of practices that don't work, a failed practice.  I think that's something that's quite challenging to keep in mind.  It is important to bring to the Best Practice Forums those institutions and actors that have those experiences to share.

I think we should move on.

I think that this goes to the previous proposal as well, as we have done in the past, in previous years, we will give all of the proposers an opportunity to update the proposals and we'll have guidelines to help you with that.

You have a sense of where it is that MAG members would like you to elaborate on a bit more, with outreach, with the engagement, other IGF intersessional modalities and the community of interests.  I think those that    that's areas that it is important to put in your revised proposal and I think that Adam's point earlier in the chat, about having a very concise introduction and summarization of the group, it would be good to make sure that's at the top of all of your proposal.  We will send some guidelines.

Thank you very much to the gender BPF team for your proposal.  I'm afraid I have to move us on.  We don't have that much time.

Next we're going to hear from a new Best Practice forum and that's the Best Practice forum on environmental data.  I'm going to give the floor now to Joyce Chen, our new member, a new MAG member, she will introduce herself and shell introduce this proposal on the Best Practice forum, on the governance of environmental data.  Over to you..


 >> Joyce Chen:  I'm a new MAG member.  I'm based in sending power.  As our first meeting for 2021, I wanted to wish everyone on this call a very happy new year.  Before I pass the baton to David Jenson from the UN environmental program, he's a proposed lead expert for this Best Practice forum to bring us through this proposal and in a lot more detail, what I want to say, our proposed Best Practice forum on governance, on the environmental data, it is a timely one.  In the IGF 2020, last year, we saw a great interest, especially on sessions on Internet and the government, several have picked up on this topic in recent years and in our engagement to draft this proposal, we have received letters of support for this Best Practice forum.  I'll put the link to the letters in the chat that you can also have a look to go alongside the proposal.  If there is a lot of interest regarding the intersection between the Internet and environmental data governance, Best Practices, which this Best Practice forum works for, that's all from me for now.  We welcome questions on proposal and look forward to the discussions thereafter and if I may, let's pass the floor to David Jenson, please.


 >> CHAIR: Absolutely.  Thank you for that.  David, welcome.  You have the floor.


 >> DAVID JENSEN:  I will try to keep this brief.  First point, to highlight, it is that this is a multistakeholder proposal.  We have four proponents putting that forward, from APNIC, private sector, a colleague from UNIP and a MAG member.  This is a great example of a multistakeholder pitch. 

As Joyce mentioned, part of the stimulation or part of the catalyst for this proposal, it was the IGF this year, we have the massive interest in environment for the first time, we have had high level session, a main session, we had 12 side events and as far as I saw from the statistics, those were some of the most attended and most popular events in the IGF, especially the main panel and high level panel.  It was awesome, it was stupendous, we were surprised by that.  In many way, it makes a lot of sense.  The reason it makes sense, it is if you listen to the Secretary General at the moment, if you listen to his sort of, you know, prognosis about the world and the future, he sort of is bringing the future of humanity down to sort of two big mega trends, on one hand, how do we respond to climate change and how do we respond to global environmental degradation and on the other hand, how do we begin to govern digital technology?  He's basically saying, you know, the way we respond to both of these will determine the future of Human Rights.  There are two dimensions here.  Either we connect them together and we use digital technologies to begin to tackle climate change and environmental degradation or digital technologies will begin to amplify consumption and actually lead to more climate change and degradation.  There is a light size and a dark side here that we have to get under control and start to address.  That's kind of the impetus for this Best Practice Forum.

In that broader context, we have been having a lot of conversations with stakeholders and in particular during the IGF meeting about what are the priorities, effects the big context, how do we make this into something more concrete and how do we begin to consider the governance questions in this broader, in this broader context, especially, you know, how is environmental data going to flow across the Internet, across the digital architecture so that it can actually do good and lead to digital transformation for sustainability.  If that's the context, we or stakeholders have said there are four major priorities, and these are the priorities listed in the proposal, the first, it is really coming up with an architecture, an architecture framework for this digital space so what are the global standards that have to be agreed on, what's the architecture looking like, how do we begin to generate, finance the environmental data and analytics as digital public goods and how do we basically wrap a governance framework around that question, around data.  That's number one.  First objective of the Best Practice forum.  The second, in order to do number one, really we're going to have to do this in collaboration between public and private actors.  What are the public private partnerships looking like, how are those partnerships governed, how do we ensure that those partnerships produce open data, produce actual insights, that really are oriented towards propelling the SDGs forward and achieving different multilateral environmental agreements and how are those partnerships also considering issues like inclusion, quality, indigenous issue, minority groups, et cetera, et cetera.  So the second part, it is really all about these kind of multistakeholder    the private public partnerships. 

The third priority, it is looking at once we have the data, we have the partnerships, how do we begin to apply it into the digital economy so that it shapes markets, supply chains, consumer behaviors, so that it has real fundamental impact in terms of shaping the incentive structures and the behaviors of the real economy to drive forward sustainability and climate action at scale.  That's really the third part.  How do we link it in to the digital economy, how do we embed the metrics in the platforms, algorithm, filters, so that they can no longer be ignored.  So that all of the externalized costs can be internalized finally and decisions can take into account these factors.  The fourth and final issue that we need to think about, it is this dark side, it is the potential environmental impacts from accelerating digitalization of the economy.  If you look at the digital cooperation roadmap, that's calling to close the digital divide by 2030, that's going to require basically connecting half the population to the Internet and that's going to require a huge amount of ICT infrastructure and capacity.  How do we ensure that that capacity is green?  How do we ensure that it is renewable energy, the supply chain impacts are mitigated and how do we deal with the eWaste?  That's the third element of this Best Practice forum.

Those are the four ultimately thematics or objectives we would like to get out of it.  As mentioned, it is really about collecting Best Practice, sharing Best Practice, really stitching together a number of communities, environments, sustainability community together with the internet governance and digital community and really kind of bringing them together in this Best Practice Forum.

I will stop there, I hope it gives you a brief introduction and I'll take questions.  Thank you.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you for that.  You were almost on time!.

You have two people asking questions.  First I'm giving the floor to Carlos and then to Courtney and also note the discussion, Olivia from Switzerland is proposing that there is a discussion around the collaboration between the policy network on environment and this BPF, it is an excellent idea.  I see Sophie has requested the floor.

First, to you.

Introduce yourself, go ahead with your question or comment.


 >> CARLOS AFONSO:  I'm in my third year of MAG, from Brazil.  (Poor audio quality)..

(Poor audio quality).


 >> CHAIR: We're struggling to hear you.  Can you try and to be closer to the microphone?


 >> CARLOS AFONSO:  Is it better now?


 >> CHAIR: That's better.  Thank you.



As I was saying, as a Brazilian, I'm surprised there is no Brazilian participating in the proposal.  That's my fault as well.  I should have.

You know, the example of the Brazilian, it was 29% of people, it was born, that's about 26 times the area of the City of San Pablo, the largest city in the southern hemisphere.  The international, the environmental disasters here in Brazil, you probably don't know very clear that it is that the Brazilian government, they're trying to suppress the environmental data regarding those disasters.  This is crucial for the Best Practice forum, how to preserve, to mirror this information and by whatever means we can, we have efforts to build on websites at risk which should be environmental data at risk, it is the case of the Amazon now and (poor audio quality).


 >> CHAIR: Thank you, Carlos.

I hope you got that.  The importance of political, of environmental data being at risk of being inaccessible because of political intervention.  I hope you managed to catch that.  That's an important point.   .

Next we have Courtney.


 >> COURTNEY RADSCH:  I read this with great interest.  It is a very strong argument on why we need attention on this.  You have a great body of multistakeholder groups that support it.  I'm trying to understand, I'm also first time in the MAG, why would this be a Best Practice Forum which according to the criteria seems to be for    not for new things where I heard you say that this is the first time and we're beginning to understand, et cetera, I was wondering whether this makes more sense as a Dynamic Coalition or just more of an understanding, you know, according to the checklist, is the topic mature, does it allow for the collection of Best Practices, what I heard you saying, it is that this is a new, emerging field, I want a better understanding of whether    if you could explain that more, whether this is the right format, mechanism.


 >> DAVID JENSEN:  Am I the right person to explain it or are you  


 >> CHAIR: Let's take the last question and then come back to that..

Maybe we can both try to respond to it.

Sophie, you are next.


 >> SOPHIE PERESSON:  I'll tempt to take the floor.  I have some really loud works above my head.  They had stopped for a few minutes and they're starting again.  I apologize if you can't hear and I will type in the answer.  I work at the international chamber of commerce, I'm the head of the innovation department new MAG member.  The question I had, I think what struck me in the presentation, thank you so much, David, by the way, it was the very conscience effort in this multistakeholder, outreach approach, and I was wondering if we could look at the lessons learned that this Best Practice forum should it go forward inform us in terms of these very challenging issues which I find    they seem to be recurring issues that we're raising within the MAG, how to    if we look at the outcome document for the IGF 2020, other types of documents or outputs, and it is    I find a recurring theme, it is very much how to engage in the broader community.

Should there be any lessons learned, any Best Practices that emerge here from this Best Practice forum?  I wonder if we could look at them collectively in a few months’ time and see if there is anything we can build on in the work that the MAG is doing in general and that the IGF could benefit from.  I realize it is kind of maybe an unusual question.  I felt that in addition to the substantive presentation which was interesting, what caught my attention, it is the how the Best Practice forum would be achieving its goal.  Thank you for your attention.  I'm really happy I was able to deliver my question without being interrupted too much!


 >> CHAIR: Thank you!  You were very clear actually.  I think that your question is actually relevant to all of the Best Practice forums.

We're running out of time.  I don't think we can discuss this in more depth, I'll respond quickly to Courtney's question.  I think it is important.  The idea of maturity of a topic, it has to be approached in an open way.  I think that in the case of environmental data, they are good practices that have been discussed at the IGF in the past such as, for example, the Orous Convention, a European convention on making information available about social and environmental climate, for example, and air quality.  I think, Courtney, your question, it is relevant.  It should be addressed in the proposal, I don't think we should just because the IGF is relatively new at dealing with a particular topic, it doesn't mean that there isn't already good practices on that topic to gather together.

I would say that the way forward for this proposal, it is actually to respond to Olivia's proposal, it is really to look at the new policy network on environment and the institutions and the individuals making this proposal to get together and to come back to us with how they see their initiatives collaborating and complementing one another.  I think that would be the way forward.

David, you can add, if you want, we don't have much time, and I do think that Courtney's question is an important one to address in the proposal because that is such a key part of the Best Practice forum criteria.


 >> DAVID JENSEN:  I agree with what you said.  We have five years of practice.  I don't think it is Best Practice.  I think we have probably more mistakes than anything else.

I think that's good to document.  Right.  That's exactly what the Best Practice forum could do, it is to document what we have learned so far, where we have made mistake, where is the Best Practice emerging and how can we begin to share that and really scale that good practice and help people to avoid the bad practices that many of us have made so far.  I would agree that    I think it is    there is enough experience out there that this is timely and by virtue of the fact that this is just so popular right now, it is a theme in the IGF, as well as in the regional IGF, I should say that in the regional IGF this is also the most popular theme.  There is something going on here.  I think that's exactly why you have got the two converging proposal, these are converging evolution at its best.  For entities realizing there is a space that need to be filled and coming forward with ideas, but as you say, it makes a lot of sense to figure out how to best link them up and make sure that they're synergistic.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you, David.

Also look at Maria Paz' response in the chat.  That's important.  For this Best Practice forum, for Best Practice forums in general, if the practices are out there, they can gather them together, analyze them, articulate them, even if they have not been aired in the IGF as such.

Let's move on.

I assume that Joyce, that David, that Maria, others, that they will connect with Olivia and the secretariate, please queued me in that conversation, that we do have a conversation about how to get the most out of the collaboration between the policy network on environment and this BPF.

Let's move on.  Carlos, I hope you won't mind, I'll leave you until last.

I want to give the other new BPF proposer the floor, that's the proposal from Karim and G    excuse me.

It is on committed actions to make Internet sustainable affordable delivery.



 >> Carlos:  No problem.


 >> CHAIR: Go ahead.


 >> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: hello, everyone.  I'm from Bolivia, IGF, also second year MAG member.  Together with Karim, we're presenting this second version of proposal, it is important to mention that we presented this proposal, you had started    we had started the presentation in the beginning of last year, 2020, and I joined to him to prepare this work.

They said on previous work we were advised at that time to review what had been done, particularly with the work that had been done at that time, about the Policy Options of connecting the remaining billion and also the Dynamic Coalitions of rural connectivity and community connectivity, and another word that had been done by that time.  I think it was important, that advice, with that information we could prepare a better proposal by them and other advice was to prepare and to present the BPF not yet but to prepare a main session in that topic.  That's what we did.  That's how finally this main session became the main session for inclusion.

It was a very, very important work that we have done during this session.  We managed to involve very key actors about the subject, many of you know, and the results of the session, I think that those were the inputs for this new version, and I think it is very relevant topic as we are tackling, we're trying to face what was mentioned several times during the last IGF regarding to achieving universal connectivity by 2030 as we all know, it is the first one actually of the main objectives of the report of the Secretary General roadmap for digital cooperation.

Of course, it is a work that should be    that should be taken into account all of the different policies that were developed during the last year, during the last year, particularly from the different countries and different regions, but particularly perhaps in the Global South where we still have a very, very big lack of Internet penetration.  Some of the key indicators that we analyzed, almost 93% of the world's population lived within physical reach of broadband or Internet services but as we all know, only about half of the population is connected.

This is a situation by the cost of current services in all of the countries, and I think it is less the infrastructure information right now.

The idea, of this Best Practice Forum, it is to establish an intersessional work that will bring together the different stakeholders to discuss about the system policies and concrete actions that had been taken from their sector, to make Internet universal and affordable for all.

The idea is to map out a set of recommendations for carrying out policies that may be applied in all of these different countries.  It is important to use all of this work, the space of the policy incubator as you all know, it is part of the new proposal of the IGF Plus model and again it could be a very valuable work that could support the policy regarding these actions to make Internet universal.  We intend to have this work for three years period, in three phases, starting with this year, this space, we would like to have a map of regions and countries included in the study with metrics like conclusions about all the actions, the policies that were analyzed during this year and present this information also in one session in the IGF by the end of the year in point.   .

Also to come up with key indicators about the possibilities and policies that can be deployed in the future year, 2022, and also to validate them, apply most of them in the countries that may be allowed to do this and finally to review what were the results of the policies.

We have different focal points, and we were reaching several of the key actors that could join this effort so far, we have received the support of the faculty from Internet Society, we have the response from  


 >> CHAIR: Sorry to interrupt you.  Can you just please come to an end?  I'm sorry, we're running out of time.


 >> Roberto:  Thank you.  This is the last part.  Of.

That's the intention, you can see the proposal using the link that you already have been provided.  Thank you very much.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you.  Apologies for cutting you short.  I did give people 4 minutes though.

I think that can be difficult to keep to such a short time.  Thank you for that.

Are there any questions or comments?  People are having to leave.


 >> KOUBAA:  Quickly to understand, you said that you received support from other stakeholders, any other comments from them?  Thank you.


 >> ROBERTO:  Sure.  We can share with you all of the supports that we have.  We're receiving answers.  So far, we have responses from Google and from ISOC and we're expecting answers from African Union, and also from Sonya Horey from Alliance from internet.


 >> CHAIR:  Thank you very much.  Some MAG members, they'll send comments in writing.

What we'll do, I'll send an email message to summarize it all, let's ask all of the BPFs to address certain points that have come up as areas for further information.

Thank you for that.

I want to give Carlos the floor for a brief proposal on the local content Best Practice Forums.  My apologies, we're going to run late, but not very late.

Carlos, over to you.


 >> CARLOS ALBERTO ANON:  The BPF on local content, it is    are you hearing me okay.

I did the presentation, it is there, it is the 2014, the Internet, this is 2017, and now    we have been working on this since 2017.

It is quite I think relevant, the themes that we deal with regarding local language local idioms, culture, how to preserve, defend, provide information and good practices regarding creativity and preservation and et cetera of all aspects of local content developed.

What I want to stress very briefly, like the other BPFs, BPF on gender, the BPF that was just presented to us, there is an interface with Dynamic Coalitions as well, and we're proposing Best Practices for rural content for this year, that we have focus as well beside the other themes, the use of community networks, for developing    for local communities do things in their own language, being creative regarding the tool that they have, which is connected to the Internet using the community network.  This would be an interesting emphasis and there is a Dynamic Coalition on community connectivity, which works on that as well.  There is a good bridge, a good link between the BPF and this Dynamic Coalition.

I leave it to you.  There is not much time, the proposal, it is there.  The proposal, it is also innovation and the brief presentation, it tries to summarize.  Thank you.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you.  My apology, I see we're losing several members.

Are there any immediate questions or comments on this proposal?  I don't see hands, the time is up.

I propose to firstly thank you very much for everyone that's worked on a proposal and submitted it and thank you to all of those that have commented on those.

We will do a follow up by email to give the proposers some guidelines on where MAG members have asked questions so that they can update or maybe restructure the proposal a little bit.  That's one take away that I would like us to consider and we'll send guidelines.

Another action that's emerged, we would like the policy network on environment and the Best Practice Forum on environmental data to get together to talk about collaboration and to get back to us.

I think that is it.

We have not finalized the process of what BPFs to support this year but we're very close.

I will send an email tomorrow to finalize the steps that we need to take to get us to the final steps.

Thank you to everyone for your participation and involvement at this point.    I hope this is helping particularly the new MAG members to have a sense of what BPFs are.  You're asking when do we need to receive feedback on the proposal, I would say by the end of tomorrow and whatever the time zone is.  By the end of January 28, please send your remarks, comments, questions by email.  Then we'll give the BPFs time to update the proposal.

Everyone, thank you very much.  We are    we have one more agenda item.  I get the sense that we need to postpone and address that agenda item at another call, that's the updates on digital cooperation.  What I do suggest, in the meantime, if anyone has any question on digital cooperation, to share that on the list.  I want to share with Christof on the appointment as the envoy, and as I said in an email, I'll draft a letter on behalf of the MAG to congratulate him.

At this point, I'm going to hand back to Chengetai.


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry.  When I expand the screen, the mute button is underneath my start button.  I can't really reach it, and then I have to find that.

Thank you very much.

So the next meeting, it is for the 9th of February, so that is two weeks from now, minus a day.  We used to have it on Wednesday.  I think two weeks from now, in access we have it on Tuesday, I think it is better for everybody.

We'll send out that information by Monday.  Preferably by Friday, we'll tell you about the meeting terms as well.  It may be a longer meeting.  We will be discussing the format of the IGF 2021 meeting.  Thank you.


 >> CHAIR: Thank you, Chengetai.

Just to give you all a reminder, that meeting, on the 9th of February, by then you would have received the input on the stocktaking and I will really appreciate it if everyone could have read that and to have shared their questions and comments prior to the MAG call so that we can start the preparation for that meeting by working online.  We can also deal then with outstanding items.

Thank you very much, everybody.  I'm terribly sorry we have ran late.  We try not do that.  10 minutes is not good.  We hope not to have to do that again.  Thank you very much for the active participation.  I want to thank in particular the new MAG members for being so proactive in asking interesting and important questions and all of your contributions.

Thank you, everyone!  Good bye!  Talk to you online!  Thank you to our captioner and to everyone who joined us today.


 >> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much.  Good bye, all.  Thank you to everybody else as well.