IGF 2021 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - XII

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. 


>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: Okay.  Good afternoon, good morning, and evening, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to MAG meeting number XII and as usual, before we start, our meeting is being recorded.  And also being transcribed and the transcription will be made available and so will a summary report be made available by the end of this week on this meeting.

With that, let me please hand over to our Chair, Anriette Esterhuysen to start the meeting.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai.  Good afternoon, good morning, and good evening.  I'm not going to put my video on, because I have been having connectivity issues as usual.

Welcome, everyone.  It's really good to have this meeting.  I know that most of you are deep into evaluation of the workshop proposals and I look forward to hearing your perspectives on that.

Let me also welcome our host country, I think Typiak is representing Poland today and welcome to all of our observers and our captioner.

A quick overview of the agenda tonight, we'll do a very brief discussion on the workshop evaluation.  We can't allocate a lot of time but it's useful to share a few reflections, for example such that was shared in the MAG list with Hamad responding.  I think it's useful to have a little bit of discussion.  We can't allocate a lot of time and you are able to continue the discussion in your groups.

Then we will get to really what are our primary goal is for tonight.  And that is to prepare for the next round of work that the MAG has to start.  And that's the preparatory phase of our IGF 2021.  We have a two‑phase design.  It's primarily linked to having a more focused outcome oriented integrated IGF process.  So we'll look at an outline of that preparatory phase which Anja will present.

And then we'll talk about the issue teams very briefly, but we'll break you into groups because based on the last MAG call, there's much more discussion when you break into groups.  Non‑MAG members are welcome to join these groups.  These groups ‑‑ and Luis has already posted the questions that we'll ask you to consider in your groups on the screen, but we'll review them later.

After that, we'll have updates from MAG Working Groups and BPFs and NRIs and then if there's time left, we will do a debrief on the MHLB session that took place yesterday.  If we don't have time, then I promise, we will schedule that into another call or we can even organize a dedicated call to have that debrief.  Or if you choose, we can run the meeting a little bit later.  So please just we'll ask you when we get to end of meeting.  I know that's very difficult, and we also do like to keep to our time.

So if there are any comments or questions on the agenda, I will keep an eye on that in the chat, but in the meantime, let me hand over to Typiak.

>> TYPIAK PRZEMYSLAW:  Just a keep brief on the host country.  We are currently finalizing the procedure of the selecting the logistics operator.  So hopefully at next ‑‑ our next meeting, I will be able to tell you a bit more on that.  So I'm not going to dive deep into the details but just to kindly inform you that we are finalizing this procedure.

On the COVID‑19 perspective, the situation in Poland is improving.  We have reached 40% of people vaccinated with at least once dose of vaccine, and we are allowing ‑‑ we are lowering down restrictions.  Each passing week the situation is improving and hopefully it will get better and we will not have another COVID‑19 wave in late autumn and early spring ‑‑ and early winter.  We are having constant meeting with stakeholders.  We are inviting everyone to Katowice.  We are speaking to IGF and their potential engagement and Mr. Szubert is very actively engaged in numerous meetings and many different borders and so he's constantly presenting our initiative and the IGF process around different stakeholders and groups and meetings and so on.

Of course, we would like to very welcome your updates on the COVID‑19 perspective in your countries and regions.  We look forward to receiving those as well.  That's all for now from my side, if you have any questions or remarks, please do ask them, and put them in the chat and you can share them now.  We are fully open and I will be more than happy to answer them.  Have a very fruitful and very good meeting.  Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much for that Typiak.

Next, Chengetai, can I hand it over to you to give you updates from the Secretariat and an update on how the numbers look for the workshop evaluation.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: All right.  Thank you very much, Anriette.  From the Secretariat, just quickly, as you know, we have opened the registration, and at the moment we only have eight hubs that have registers, Italy, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire and two in Uganda.  We would like to encourage more hubs, because I think it is very important, particularly since some countries may not be able to travel.  So please, amongst your constituents encourage the formation of hubs and as you know that this year, we do have a focus on hubs in our capacity development plans.  So I think it would be very good for them to register for these hubs.

We have 34 booths as well that have been requested and, again, if I haven't said it to the MAG, this year we are going to have on‑site booths and also virtual booths.  So everybody with an on‑site booth will have a virtual booth as well, and ‑‑ and that is the plan that we are going to get somebody to build a virtual environment where people can go in and visit the booths, download PDFs, watch videos, et cetera, in this environment.

As far as the evaluations are concerned, I think we only have one‑third have been submitted since this ‑‑ one‑third of the evaluations have been submitted since this morning.  And if you remember, the dead line is on the 17th.  So I encourage ‑‑ first of all, I would like to thank those who have been early and have submitted their evaluations in first weeks.  Thank you very much for doing that.

And also those of you who are currently doing them, please just recall that we are on a very tight schedule this year and there will not be room for expanding the deadline for the evaluation.  So if you could all please try and complete your evaluations, that would be very helpful to us.

I do have an update for the coalitions, but I think that will come under agenda item number 7.  So Serena will give you that.  And ‑‑ oh, yes, we also do have the poll, the running poll that we have been doing about people who would attend on‑site or only online, and basically, 81% of those people who have answered the poll have said that ‑‑ that they would attend on‑site.  So let's hope that that trend continues because those are encouraging numbers that 81% of the people want to come would want to attend on‑site.

I think that's all.  Thank you very much, Anriette.  Back to you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai.  Chengetai, how many people have responded to that poll?  So 81% of how many?

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: Yes, it's not that much.  It's around 300 or so.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Around 300.  Okay.  Okay.  So it's ‑‑ it's still ‑‑ it still doesn't really give us a very accurate indication of how many people will.  But perhaps we can address that when registration opens.

Chengetai, just one comment that was in the chat from Amrita, is just to note that because of the pandemic situations hubs might not be possible.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: Oh, yes, that is very true.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes.  Keep that in mind.  I think one has to ‑‑ probably the response will be very much influenced by that.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: Yes.  Yes.  Thank you.  Yes.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Question also.  Well, let's just move on to the next agenda item, which is update on workshop evaluation.  I already see there's a question on the ‑‑ in the chat about when the actual deadline is.  And it is 23 hours 59 UTC.  So that really takes us to the end of all time zones.  But it has to be on 17 June.

Paul Charlton is asking a question.  Does submitted evaluations mean one‑third of MAG members have completed their evaluations or the ‑‑ or that one‑third of workshops have been evaluated?  Chengetai, Luis, can you clarify?

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: Well, let me put it on to Luis.  Luis, please.

>> LUIS BOBO:  It's 30% in total.  This is like maybe two‑thirds of MAG members have already started to put evaluations on the system, but all proposals have received at least one evaluation.  All proposals have already one.  Simply, the MAG members, like one‑thirds have not started and some others that were in the mid.  So this is the number.


And of those who have not started, or that haven't yet submitted any, I have been checking in with people one‑on‑one.  Most of them are actually doing the evaluations.  They are still working offline.  And then, you know, there are also a few we have had a MAG member that I found out has been very seriously ill with COVID.  You know, I'm not going no mention their name.  That's up to them.  And we have a MAG member that is dealing with, you know ‑‑ two MAG members that are dealing with serious illness in their close family.  So there are at least three MAG members I'm aware of that have circumstances out of their control that is impacting on their evaluation.  But my sense that everyone is working hard, and are trying to keep on track.  And I will continue to check in with those who have not submitted any yet.  Are there any questions.  We had Richard's question about how the proposals are responding to the request for elaborating how they will make the sessions active and participatory and I think that's worth discussing.  I'm opening the floor.  Does anyone have any comments or questions or reflections on the evaluation of the proposals or the quality of the proposals so far?

Amrita is asking a question in the chat.  What are the next steps post the individual evaluations which ends on 17 June?

Amrita, those would be elaborated on in the ‑‑ the FAQ, and also in a document that the workshop evaluation Working Group has produced.  But essentially the test ‑‑ the task then is the Secretariat will compile the results.  They will then share the results with each group.  And the groups will then discuss any comments that they had.  We already had one group have made some suggestions about a proposal that they feel would belong better in another category.

In the groups, you can then also discuss variances and scores.  If you find that there's a proposal that some people scored very well, but others really didn't, then obviously that needs to be discussed.

So you will have some time to discuss that and we urge you to do that immediately, as soon as the Secretariat shares the result.  You will also discuss that in the ‑‑ in the MAG meeting next week.

That will be on 23 June, and in the course of that discussions, you then have to finalize the decisions about, you know, which proposals do you like?  Which stay in the green basket?  Which do you eliminate because there's consensus that they are not adequate and which ones do you feel should be maybes that need to be considered?

So we will share ‑‑ in fact, Roberto is on the call.  Maybe Roberto, you can ‑‑ you can update us a little bit on the document that you are working on, that goes quite a long way towards answering your question, Amrita.

And what I can undertake to do is to send, you know ‑‑ by 17 June, we will send an updated task list with that information, but, in fact, most of that is already in the MAG dashboard.  If you go to MAG dashboard, if you look at the FAQs, and if you look at the task list, you will probably find answers to your question there already.

Anyone else?

I don't see anyone in the speaking queue.  I'm just checking for hands.

>> SOOK‑JUNG DOFEL:  I have a question.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, go ahead, Sookie.

>> SOOK‑JUNG DOFEL:  It seems two proposals were similar topic‑wise and I was wondering if it would be possible to merge two proposals or to make a recommendation that the organizers might merge or ‑‑ or put ‑‑ or work on one session or is it something I shouldn't comment on that?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Sookie, you actually should.  Thank you absolutely for asking that.  I should have mentioned that.  Thank you for reminding me.  That is another decision that MAG members should discuss in their groups, whether they feel a request should be sent to the organizers, to merge their proposals.

The other task which we'll discuss further tonight is whether you feel that a proposal is suited to the preparatory phase rather than to the annual forum.

It might be a proposal that is very introductory or very ‑‑ like a scoping the issue.  So these are exactly the types of questions that you should discuss?  And to facilitate that, that field that Luis created for you in the evaluation form, where you can make notes for yourself, use that but you can also use the other notes field, the comments field.  So just note if you feel that this proposal should be merged, mention the number of the proposal that you think it could be merged with, and then after 17 June, you can take that up in the course of your group discussion.

>> SOOK‑JUNG DOFEL:  Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.  Tereza, I see your hand is up.

>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA:  I would like to provide some insight on evaluating, and the hybrid, that Richard raised on the mailing list.  We are starting this experiment.  We are starting the journey in which we will try to make the IGF, let's say having much more focus on interactivity on the hybrid element.  And I think we all would have loved to see more experiential approach of those some submitting workshop proposals and I also agree that I'm not seeing it yet, but at the same time, I really don't think that this is something that we expected to happen immediately.

So I would also encourage everybody to not be too harsh on this criteria.  I know it might sound odd coming from me as Working Group on hybrid meetings, but as long as the session organizers really reflect on how the online, on‑site interaction is going to work, as long as they acknowledge the online participants going beyond what we might have been used to earlier, such as within the last three minutes are there any comments from the online audience, if there is some kind of a shift from this approach, I think we are on a good track.

We do have to acknowledge that we are in a very uncertain situation.  Many were writing their session proposals when it wasn't clear whether anybody can travel to Poland.  So all of these uncertainties connecting with ‑‑ connected with how the sessions are going to work and whether there's only online speakers and the attendees on site, are a big, big uncertainty here.  That mess my perception.  That's how I look at it.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Tereza, Adam is not on the call.  I sent an apology.  Are you here, Adam?  I agree with you, Tereza.  I'm not sure if my message to the list, in response to the discussion between Halid and Richard and Madar I made similar comments.  I think it's premature to assume that if proposals are not very creative on that score, you know, on that count that they should be scored too harshly.

And I think it's up to the MAG to review proposals.  These are ‑‑ remember these are not the final, final versions.  Once the proposal has been approved, the organizers still have to confirm the speakers and they have a chance to update their proposals.  And MAG can, for example, if you feel particularly because this is such a challenging year and the hybrid format is challenging, you can even introduce a further step with successful proposals, where you give them the opportunity to add more detail on this aspect.  And I think that's something for the Working Group on hybrid meetings and the Working Group on workshop process to consider.

So thanks for that, Tereza.  I don't see anyone else asking for the floor.  So let's move on to the agenda.  I'm just checking the chat.

And I think Roberto is talking about the fact ‑‑ he says the proposals he has reviewed do mention that they will combine on‑site and online speakers.  So I think people have different experiences, but this clearly is an issue that we do need to discuss.

On that, let's move on to the next agenda item, and thank you, all of you, for your hard work.  I hope it's not too painful.  I know that it's also very interesting, so I look forward to us doing a further debrief next week.

Now, let's move on to item 5, and that's really getting to the ‑‑ to the ‑‑ you know, the core goals of tonight's call.  And that is to get your teeth into the preparatory phase.  So to start us on this, I'm going to ask, Anja, who has prepared a draft schedule, for you to look at.  And while Anja brings up her proposal, I will just recap a little bit the idea of this preparatory phase emerged from the experience of 2020 to some extent, but emerged from the Working Group strategy's proposals and from the roadmap on digital cooperation and, you know, the call for the IGF to discuss fewer issues in greater depth to be more impactful and more focused.

And the other reason why, you know, you as MAG members adopted this idea of the preparatory phase was to make the process inclusive.  The preparatory phase of the multi‑time zone opportunities and multilingual opportunities.  So it is part of the bigger version and strategy, the idea and I think the MAG was very explicit in its recommendations, that it shouldn't be too heavy.  It shouldn't be too demanding but it should feed into the global forum, the annual forum in Katowice in a way that strengthens the content and the discussion.

So Anja, over to you.

>> ANJA GENGO:  Thank you very much, Anriette, and greetings to everyone.  I just pasted into the chat, the Google Doc that hopefully you can see on your screens.  It contains an outline of the schedule of the preparatory phase.  So still a draft really pending your comments and our brainstorming activity hopefully to be concluded at the upcoming second IGF or 2021 open consultations and MAG meeting.

So Anriette mentioned what is the purpose of the preparatory phase.  So I will move straight into the concrete implementation steps and our schedule here.

So the first activity would be the areas and what they are are about and the introductory sessions organized by the MAG.  This year, these sessions would be primarily organized and facilitated by the issue teams or the MAG.  You can see the proposed schedule.  Basically, we would start in September, and then each week of September, we would have up to two sessions which are maybe an hour or up to an hour and a half long.  They would be focusing on introducing the IGF 2021 issue areas, followed then by ‑‑ by sessions dedicated to each issue area.  So we would have six of those.

And then we would conclude with session on just looking back now when we went to all of these areas in detail, where we are and how these issue areas will be incorporated and represented into the IGF 2021 program.  In addition to this, we will be working with the parliament track, if possible so the high level leaders track to understand how they can bring on their views on this the issue areas.  This is something that we need to wait for the involved party to advise once the parliamentary track is especially constructed.  I think for the time being, it's important to note that it's really on our minds and it's included into the exchanges happening among the cohosts of the parliament track for this year.

Then moving on, we would also allow for sessions to come in and be organized by the community.  So by different stakeholders.  So that really depends on you.  As you know, we did ask some of the ‑‑ well, all session organizers when they were proposing their sessions to advise if they would want to host their sessions concretely in the week of the 16th annual IGF meeting or if they would also think of hosting completely online sessions in the framework of the preparatory phase, which means before the 16th IGF meeting, 6 through 10th of September.  So depending when you score the sessions, then we will know where we stand and what is the record of those who requested those in the preparatory phase and how can we accommodate them.

So this is the tentative timeline and then depending on communication our with the communicate, we propose that in later September, we propose the schedule of these sessions and have them hosted in probably one dedicated week.

And then the third segment on this would create synergies between the issue areas and the intersessional work streams.  This means working closely with the Best Practice Forums, the Dynamic Coalitions and but also with the NRIs to invite them to help us also unpack the issue areas and bring in the understanding from their communities and the expert circles.  So there will be different ways to do this.  One could be that we just approach these networks and ask them openly, what is their view on the issue areas.

Another way is for these policy work streams to respond to a dedicated web form, about what the issue area is and it would update the current guide on issues and policy questions.

And, of course,ed third is if these networks would be with capacity and interested to host discussions on the issue area, and the MAG team could support these teams to ensure that we have good outputs coming out of the sessions and that we understand them and that they meaningfully feed into the guide open issues and policy questions.  So I will build on this third part shortly, when I come to the so‑called days of IGF intersessional work session.

And then finally, something that MAG chair was speaking with all of you for sometime, and that relates to the MAG issue teams taking the leadership and creating spaces, collaborative spaces for the community to track the discussion and the trends on the issue areas.  So our idea would be that to do this through a set of public wiki pages.  It's something technically that we need to discuss with Luis, but the idea is that the preparations ‑‑ the active preparations on this start very soon.  So in early July.  And then we invite the community to collaborate on this with you from September on, until the December meeting.  So it would be more like a written exchange of inputs on the issue areas through these possible set of wiki pages if we don't think of anything else to implement this work on.

The goal of this as well as the previous activities would be really to meaningfully update the current version of the guide on issue areas and policy questions, and hopefully help the session organizers to ‑‑ in implementing their sessions and facilitating their discussions to address concrete policy questions in a more clearer and more meaningful way.

And then the second section of this document relates to this proposal, relates to implying a so‑called ‑‑ well, day, not days.  So we would dedicate one day to just building capacity and informing the community on how can they effectively participate in the intersessional work of the IGF 2021 but also extending to the engagement with the NRIs.  The idea is to have up to two hour long session, possibly the 1st of September, and the meaningful engagement in the intersessional work streams.  The work would be happening through a plenary session firstly, and then we would break into the breakout groups where participants can choose whether they are interested in Best Practice Forums or policy networks or Dynamic Coalitions, join a dedicated workout group and have one‑on‑one meeting with the MAG facilitators in charge of these intersessional work streams including also the parties with the IGF Secretariat that are neutrally supporting the development of this work.

For the Dynamic Coalition and also the NRIs because we speak about larger groups, the proposal is that the Dynamic Coalition breakout group with be supported by the DC coordination group.  So it's something that we need to approach also Serena, Marcos and Adam, I believe, and other colleagues involved in the DC coordination group.

The same with the NRIs because it's a large number of NRIs, 137, depending on the agreement of the NRIs we would suggest maybe a task force, so a more focused group that could work with these participants.  And then we would conclude this day with advising on what are the next steps in terms of the concrete schedule of the development of the intersessional work towards the September meeting through concrete open consultation meetings and other means of consultation such as the surveys for instance.

So that means each facilitator would really need to prepare concrete to‑do list for those who are interested to be part of this work.

In addition to this one intersessional work day, we could also approach Dynamic Coalitions and NR Is to understand if they would be interested in hosting a session on a policy question that is of their interest, not necessarily related to the issue areas but I think it's somehow reasonable to expect that it would be, because of their broad spectrum of the issues and the issue areas but invite the Dynamic Coalitions and the NRIs to cooperate amongst themselves and a substantive manner and invite communities to join and exchange views.

The Secretariat and also I don't ‑‑ I don't have doubts that the MAG issue teams would also support these networks, primarily with the outreach and the communication attracting those that are traditionally unrepresented or underrepresented at the IGF in terms of their countries and the stakeholder groups.  And also just to support the traditional Secretariat's function such as providing the platform, helping through these networks to produce some concrete outputs and ‑‑ and whatever else would be requested and we can provide within our capacity.

Again, based on discussions, where relevant and where possible, the IGF 2021 guide on issues and policy questions will be updates and hopefully we will then come with a fully comprehensive robust document in the lead up to the 16th IGF in Katowice, which would also help the session organizers.

And finally concluding, we will also have a series of capacity development activities that are focusing also on a very unbasics of the involvement in the IGF, targeting especially those which are traditionally and historical underrepresented at the IGF, the Secretariat has its analysis on who are those, especially the profiles of countries, but also profiles of the stakeholder groups and disciplines.

So we are working on a targeted outreach for the stakeholders and in that regard, we really aim for strong cooperation for the MAG Working Group on outreach and communications to understand how can we attract long‑term maintain communication with these groups.

Another part that falls under the capacity development activities would relate to how effectively host in a hybrid IGF 2021.  We are very thankful for a very good cooperation already we have with the MAG Working Group on hybrid meetings.  They are, together with us working on developing a guide which will hopefully be a useful kind of navigation for the participants would wish to participate in the participatory phase to actually do so without spending much time on exploring the platform, exploring the program, the website and so on.

So the guide ‑‑ well, colleagues will be updating soon.  So I won't be speaking a lot about that, but the guide will be produced and based on that guide, we will see to also host some capacity development workshops to ensure that we have participants briefed on this.

And finally, just to announce that this is something that was already announced before, capacity development workshops under the title "Our Digital Future."  The Secretariat is implementing a series of workshops in cybersecurity, particularly for developing countries in close cooperation and collaboration with Microsoft and we are supportive to them to support a website to support this and substantive inputs for the workshop development.  It's thought that this will take place in September, November and then I believe the final workshop in December in Katowice with source materials to be prepared beforehand.

So, yes, this is a bit longer document and a longer monologue and I thank you for your attention and now I stand for your questions.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Before we introduce the issue teams, I see there's a hand from Carlos Afonso, Carlos, you have the floor.

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  Can you hear me?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, I can hear you and I can see you.

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  On page three, the document for the opening exchange, I see that there are four topics.  Welcome, capacity development, breakout groups, discussions and then the next steps.  I think that one and a half hour is too short for all of this, especially because of the breakout groups.  And it would be interesting to have between three and four.  The ‑‑ the time for a reporting from the breakout groups, a short report from their conclusions or outcomes from all of those six ‑‑ six breakout groups.  Yes.  Six breakout groups.  And maybe one and a half hours is not enough.  I don't know.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks.  Thanks, Carlos.  This is in response to the draft that Anja presented, correct?

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes, that's right.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: And I actually want more comments like that tonight during your breakout groups but I think remember this is still a very preliminary draft.

And that's exactly the kind of comment that we have.

So I'm just doing a time check here.  We have roughly 45 minutes left of our meeting tonight.  So I want to move a little bit, you know, more quickly because I want you to have discussion in groups tonight, even if it's not for a very long time.

So the next agenda item which is linked to the preparatory phase outline that Anja presented would be the issue teams, because these issue teams, they were a proposal from the Working Group strategy, but the MAG has already worked in thematic teams or issue teams to organize main sessions.  This year, the role is different, because of the preparatory phase.  So just ‑‑ we have discussed this already.  It's been presented.  But to give you a quick reminder of why issue team, what issue teams are and how this links to the preparatory phase and give us a recap on issue teams and then we will ask you to come up with more questions in discussion group.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE:  Hi, all.  I hope you can hear me.  I think I will keep it very, very short, by saying the issue teams are focused ‑‑ the focus of issue teams should be about inward looking, in the ICANN ‑‑ sorry, in the ‑‑ sorry.  Difficulty with having ICANN and IGF meeting at the same time.  Inward looking in the IGF community at large, meaning, what is going on in IGF?  What is going on in our eyes?  What is going on in intersessional activities?  And what is going on in previous meetings or in the workshop proposals and capture that and bring it as an input into the annual program.  I think that's something rather practical ‑‑ rather practical approach to think or keep in mind whether we discuss the issue teams.  And I said it's a different role than before, where you had the issue teams basically in charge of organizing the agenda of the main session, and we're about looking around in the ‑‑ and externally of the IGF and trying to involve external experts, other organizations.

Well, the main part of the work of the issue teams is really inward looking in the broader IGF community and look for synergies.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much.  Everyone, if you have questions, hang on to them, because we are going to break you randomly into three Working Groups, where you can discuss the preparatory phase, the draft schedule and the issue teams.  I want to review, Luis, if you can scroll up a little bit, the task for the groups.  Really, it's just there is ‑‑ it looks at the goal of the preparatory phase, and then if you can just in your groups remember to identify facilitator and rapporteur and what do you like about the idea of this prep phase, and what would you change, any other suggestions.

And try to be quick on that.  You will have the opportunity to document more detailed comments in writing.  What we need is just more strategic feedback from the MAG on whether the approach to this preparatory phase is in line with your thinking, whether it makes sense and how you think the community will feel about it.

And then secondly, to talk about the issue teams.  We have already introduced the idea, but we wanted to ask you what you think would be the best way for these issue teams to be formed, and do we use the teams that you worked in earlier when you developed the script, the draft texts for each of the main focus areas and the cross‑cutting areas.  Should it be a continuation of the evaluation groups or should we just start a process to constitute these groups and with people from the MAG signing up into the areas that they are most interested in.

And then also the decision has been that the issue teams are open to non‑MAG members but at what point do we bring them in?  Once you have had some time to do initial scoping and planning or right from the beginning.

So Luis, can you go ahead and randomly put our MAG members and other participants in the call.  Everyone is welcome to participate into three groups and we'll give you 30 minutes.  We cannot give you any more than that.  And then just come back with short reports that we can share and then follow up on.

>> LUIS BOBO:  Sure, thank you.  Groups, this will start almost simultaneously, they will be evenly and randomly assigned.  Thank you.  Have a good discussion.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: And we'll share the tasks in each group again.  Thanks, Luis.  Stay online, everyone.  You are going into your groups.

(Discussion Group One)

>> Can you hear me.  Anyone volunteering to lead the discussion?

Hi, Rose from the Philippines.  I will do my best to participate as much as I can.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: I would like to say, let's kick off the discussion.  I hope the others can join.

Well, you ‑‑ do you have to repost the tasks like the first question is trying to get some feedback from the group on the proposal for the prep phase that was presented by Anja.  Any changes?  Any suggestions or points you really like or less like in the preparatory phase?

Any thoughts?

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  I think it's a good idea to have a preparatory session so that people can start getting aligned to the ‑‑ you know, what to expect at IGF and build the momentum.  The only thing is there's a lot of Zoom fatigue going on?  How do we balance these things.  These topics are well‑aligned with the team and so I support it the only thing is how do we make it less taxing for people?

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: I think that's a great point.  Usually in September, the month of September is a very busy month for meetings, regardless of a pandemic or no pandemic.  So this will probably be the case.  Also it is September.  It's a good thing to think about.

I would like to react to one point you made about the ‑‑ preparing for the IGF meeting.  I think it would be good to think about the prep phase as presented as going a little bit broader than just preparing for the IGF meeting.  A name that could be used is preparatory and engagement phase.  I think it's more than just presenting what people can expect at the IGF in December.

Any other suggestions or feedback from the group.

>> ROSE:  I second the motion to Amrita's position.  I'm not sure if there's somewhere here where the amount of time ‑‑ I mean, the duration of the ‑‑ let's say the impacting session would be conducted.  Do you have any idea how many hours?

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: As I understand, the exact time and scope of the different events is still something that needs to be worked out.  But I think what has been presented today is more than your outlook.  This is what ‑‑ what can be done during such a preparatory phase, what kind of involvement and joust reach we want to organize.  The exact duration and also, for example, the question ‑‑ the remark that Carlos made.  It's something that still needs to be discussed and fine tuned.

>> ROSE:  I see.  Thank you for that, Wim.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Would anyone else like to comment on this?  Feel free to speak.  It's an open discussion.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Is there anything missing in the idea or the way the preparatory phase is set?  Missing in both concrete events or approach that can also be missing in the way it is explained?

>>> RYSZARD:  Are we discussing the workshop or the other thing?

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: The preparatory phase.  So the presentation that Anja gave just before the breaking ‑‑ the breaking up in groups.

>> ROSE:  Yes, I'm looking at the introductory sessions.  So I'm wondering what will be the structure of this one.  Who will present?  How are we going to engage the audience for the sessions?  Aside from the duration?

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  I think, Rose, those things as to who will present the format, et cetera, would have to be discussed further by the MAG, but I guess what Wim is suggesting is ‑‑ sorry for the noise ‑‑ we agree if the format is okay with us.  This just says the topics and the time, because they have a rotating time out here.  I think the details of the session who will speak, format, et cetera, is not discussed and in case we have some suggestions we could possibly state that, right, Wim?

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Yes, that's correct.  I think there's a lot of details that have to be filled in.  Maybe another question I would like to add, is the concept of the idea of the preparatory phase clear and ready to be presented to the broader IGF community or what should be added or specified?

I mean, for example, is it clear that it's really about getting more people involved in the IGF work, in the lead up to the ‑‑ in the lead‑up to the IGF meeting in December?  And secondly, that one of the ideas that goes behind this whole preparatory phase is to come to an IGF meeting in December, that is more focused, more focused on specific set of topics.  So that it is not just a number of sessions to announce what will come in December.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  So Wim, Amrita, I think the idea for us is clear, but if we want to make it clear to the community, we need to make it more explicit, the communication, which will go.  Because this is a document that is being worked on, but the communication needs to be explicit.

The communication formats need to be a bit more catchy.  Sorry for saying that because not every ‑‑ if you want youth and new people to go come into IGF, the document formats are not too attractive.  You know, we need to make it more attractive if you want to have more people, and this may not be how IGF does, it but I think we need to look at how we want the communication to go out also.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: I think that's a very valid point.

>> Rose:  I agree.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Any other comments or should we move to the second set of questions which really relate to the issue teams?

And how to organize those issue teams?

>> ROSE:  I have no further comments on the preparatory phase.

Me either but Mary or Sabira, or anyone else, if you want to make comments, feel free.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  I guess not Wim.  So we can move.


So the second set of questions, so really about the working and forming the issue groups, like it was said, these are the small groups that per issue actually should look and try to participate and try to organize the ‑‑ the organizer the program but also help to organize sessions relating to their ‑‑ their issue during the preparatory phase.

Is this clear?  Do you think ‑‑ what do you think is the best way to form those groups?

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY :  Could you repeat it?  I was trying to look at the document.  Sorry.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: No, one of the questions that's asked, what would be best way to form those issue teams based on the current evaluation groups.  The small groups that put together the issue descriptions or is it best to come up with a new group by the Secretariat to say, look these are the issues and based on people to volunteer based on their interests?

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Amrita here.  I think the issue‑based groups which were formed for evaluation could be considered, however the people who have been into these issue groups could be asked do you want to be in this group or do you want to, you know, move to some other group that could be asked so if someone would feel that they were more ‑‑ they could contribute more to another group, they could.

However, we also have to keep in mind that the groups are balanced.  There's not too much of people in one group, because the topic sounds more attractive than the other.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you.

>> ROSE:  For me, Rose here.  Better use the group on the initial issues.  I think they are more familiar and before we choose ‑‑ we choose to be in the team, we already like choose which group we will work on.  So I think that will be a faster process, yeah, to just make use of that group.  We can easily coordinate with each other.

>>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  I agree with you.  I think if someone wishes to change, they should be allowed.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: I think that makes sense.  And to all questions or at what point should these groups be open from people, participants outside of the MAG?  Should it be from the start or should it be after a certain moment?  Should that be open ‑‑ I would like to ask an additional question.  Should it be very open communication or open by invitation, for example, specialists could be invited to join those groups?  Any suggestions?

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  So since these are preparatory phase discussions and we want to engage people we could keep them open so that anyone can participate as an observer and the observers could perhaps give their suggestions, need not all the suggestions be accepted by the group.  As I do not see why we should close the group.  It could be open.

And people could participate as observers.

>> AYA:  How many issue teams will be there?  And I think the issue teams should be open so that more participants can be engaged in the discussions.

>> ROSE:  For me, I would choose the latter option which would open the group after MAG members to get feedback on that.  I think for me, that is more efficient since the outsider would have something to look into before they can join a group instead of just ‑‑ I think it would be helpful for them if you already have something to show to them to get feedback on.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Could we agree if we formulate the issue teams or should in principle be open or it would be good if first the MAG members only agree on the kind of outreach strategies so that they don't or outreach and so they don't really go with an open question to the group or to the community.  So that the community has something to provide input on?

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  So Wim, that could be an option.  Simultaneously, after you prepare the entire communication, you ask for feedback.  It takes you back and then you rework on it.  So would it not be more efficient to get the feedback at the outset, rather than taking it at the end and reworking?

I'm sure it will not be any drastic comments coming because, you know, certain things are standard and listen, until ‑‑ you know, the issue why I was raising is taking comments initially is many of the times when we plan outreach, we look at it from our perspective, but the community may look at the engagement issues and how the community needs to be engaged at a different level, and that's how gaps happen.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: I think what you are saying is linking it back to your previous point, and so we need to ‑‑ and probably the ‑‑ a more important question than whether or not at what point the community or the issue teams are open to community members to participate, that the key point is the community has to be clear.  If someone subscribes to a mailing list or joins as an observer, it's clear what they can expect and what type of input is needed.

So that is a more important question than whether or when to open up these issue teams.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  There should be clarity on what they can comment on and what they cannot do.  As in someone trying to re‑invent the wheel is not possible.  It can only be done based on the mandate of the group.

Or even less than the mandate, how to communicate effectively or make the communication more effective or get people to engage.

>> ROSE:  Right.  I agree with that.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: And to come back on a question that is to answer, the number of issue teams.  So that will be the same as the ‑‑ well, it will be the same as the focus areas and the cross‑cutting issue areas.

So the idea is that for each of them, there will be a separate ‑‑ a separate issue team.  Similar there was that there were those initiatives.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  I guess the six working teams is good in that they can focus specifically on their aspect.  However, at times there may be some areas where each overlap the other, but I guess that is not a concern out here now.

>> AYA:  Thank you so much, for the answer, Wim.


>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Hi, everyone.  Just jumping in quickly, we will close the rooms in about five minutes.  So I'm not sure how close you are to being done, but just keep that in mind.  So you have just under ‑‑ you have four minutes left.  Bye‑bye.

>> ROSE:  Anriette.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  Do we have any other questions or are we done?

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: I think we are more or less done.

Let me check again.

>> ROSE:  I think the last question, if we have other comments or questions about the space of the MAG's work and the draft TOR.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  I guess here, Rose your questions come, what is the timeline ‑‑ what is the time of these sessions, and you know who would be the ‑‑ I guess who would speak would be based upon the Working Group who is discussing, but I guess the time of the session ‑‑ and what would be the duration of each of these sessions, et cetera.  Also, for example, this is rotating back if someone is interested in trust and trust is happening at an hour which is not suitable for them, I presume there would be some recording the session, Wim?

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Yes.  Normally is.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  I guess we don't have any other questions.  Rose, any questions?

>> AYA:  Yes.

>> MARY:  Hello, my name is Mary.

>> Thank you for your comments.

>> MARY:  I wanted to know in the issue teams will have a point where they will present all that happened in their team in the plenary, is it the main session of the IGF that they will make a presentation?  I'm sorry.  I didn't follow the presentation of Anja.  I didn't get my device.  If you can verify that.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Well, the idea of the issue teams is not that much that they will issue a report meeting.  It's more that they are the organizing team that tries to feed in content from the community in the main sessions.

So it is more ongoing work as issue teams as organizing teams than really teams that have to report and really have to communicate the clear outcomes of their discussion.  Their output is that there is a program at the end of the year that is more focused.  I hope that is clear.

>> MARY:  It is more clear for me.  The organizing team for a particular issue.  That's fine.  Thanks.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Like I said with that different, in previous years they were organizing in main session.  Well now you have more ‑‑ those issue teams responsible for how the issue will be dealt with at the IGF.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  I think we are being pushed out from the room.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: We have 10 seconds to decide who will present to the MAG.

>>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  You will present.


>>> Rose:  Thanks, Wim.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Okay.  Bye.

(End of Group One discussion)

>> Recording in progress.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Welcome back, everyone.  Thanks very much Luis, Foy bringing us back.  And let's not waste any further time.  Let's have some feedback from the groups.  Group one, are you ready to share your discussion with us?

Group one.  Rapporteur for group one?

>> I'm sorry, Anriette, who was group one?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I'm not sure.  Let's just start.  Roberto, I know you volunteered to be a rapporteur for one of the group.

>> Group three.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.  Just go ahead, Roberto.

>> LUIS BOBO:  Amrita, you are in group one.  Then in group two is the one with Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Anja and Markus.  And then group three was Roberto and Roman., Paul and so on.  Thank you Luis.

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Let's say that we are so into the discussion and the topic that we didn't pay attention to the group number.

So let me kick off with the first question on the idea of the prep phase and the preparatory phase.  Overall, it's very positive.  It's good to build momentum, and to get more people involved and reach out to more people about the IGF.  But there were two very relevant points.  One, September is typically with or without COVID, it's typically a very busy meeting month for a lot of organizations.  It will be important to balance ‑‑ find a right balance of IGF meetings against probably a busy number ‑‑ a busy Zoom meeting schedule of ‑‑ by all of our organizations.

The second point is actually related.  It will be very important to clear on the purpose of this preparatory phase, and supported with the right communication.

Like for the MAG members, we got the presentation of what goes behind ‑‑ behind the preparatory phase.  But for the outsiders, that haven't been following this evolution, the communication will need to be clear and very catchy.  Especially if you want to involve new groups or young people in this phase.

Moving to the second question about the issue teams.  The general idea was that most logic is that the initial description ‑‑ that the teams that did the initial description of the issues continue, both it would be good to ask members or give the opportunity to members to switch teams if they want to move to a team that's more relevant to them.  Of course, the teams need to be ‑‑ remain balanced so that there's not one team or two people and other members move to another team.

And that's I think the main points but the other group members, please, if I forgot something.

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY  Yes, we also discussed that, you know, who all should be part of the discussions of the Working Group.  So it was felt that perhaps the discussions of the Working Group to prepare for the preparatory phase may be open for others to join as observers, however, if someone from outsider wants to give comments, that they should be clearly defined areas in which they could comment.  It could be related to engagement and getting more people involved, but not on everything.  So we are more effective in communicating to people at the end.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, group one for your report.  And Wim, if you can send these comments to the Secretariat so that they can include it in the minutes of tonight's ‑‑ of today's call.  Our next group is group two, and I think that was the group with Anja, and Markus ‑‑ no, no, am I right?  That's correct.  So please go ahead.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  I was asked to be the report.  We took advantage of Anja's presentation.  And so we didn't really engage too much in the discussion of the schedule.  There was a comment in the chat, that the schedule looked fine, but we did not deeply delve into that.  One question was what is being done to engage in ‑‑ and Anja could ensure us that the parliamentary tack was care of by the IGF Secretariat and the host country.  Most of the discussion or the questions related to how to involve the various constituent parts of the intersessional work, and the NRIs and the BPFs.  We said that we could provide feedback to the issue areas or join the issue teams or also maybe engage in hosting a seminar on the issues related to the issue areas.

One question was what does it mean the unpacking the issue areas and there I think was agreement that there may be need for more detailed wording to make that clear to everyone.  And lastly, I think we all agreed that it would be helpful to share this document with the DCs and the BPFs and the NRIs and invite them to review the document and give their feedback, also what is possible for them from their workload, from their perspective to contribute to the work?  But preliminary feedback we had from the DCs were very positive and I think also the NRI are very interested in this.

That's all I think I have to add, maybe Anja or others can jump in on things that I may have left out.  That's all for me.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Markus.

>> Nothing from my side.  Perfectly summarized.  Thank you, Markus.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: So thank you very much, group two and really important points are emerging from the feedback already.

So group three.  It's your turn.

And that's Roman and Roberto.

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you, Anriette, well, in our group for first question considering the regional perspective, what we needed to suggest, was to have ‑‑ to procure organizations by regions working at the same time zones and, of course the same language that could be something important and, of course, it's different from the last year, we had the pre‑events.  This time the idea is not to have longer bands and everything together in the program, but actually spread in terms of the sessions that we may organize.

Also, it was suggested that it could be good to make a personal experience for the people that are going to attend, and perhaps in social events such like some other organizations like ICANN, prepared in this way.

About the ‑‑ about the second question, it would be good to keep the groups that were already organized regarding the issue teams and also these groups could propose sessions reaching the other stakeholders or other communities that are related with the ‑‑ with the particular issues.  Let's say in the meaningful in the connectivity, for example, it will be good to these that are involved in this matter and the network and all of them together would consider which session could be prepared as a part of the preparatory stage.  And also another suggestion was to consider some of the proposals that could had fit only to the IGF, but perhaps consider and propose to the organizers to include them as part of the preparatory phase.

It could include some introductory subject that could fit in this preparatory phase.

And finally, another important thing was to also partner more strongly with NRIs with their continuing interest in order to also to see if we could actually joint efforts in order to organize these sessions and could be included in the different preparatory phase.  Those are the notes.  Thank you Anriette.  And I'm not sure if anyone would like add something of the group, maybe Roman?

>> Well, I think you amazingly summarized the outcomes for discussion and the same time, I think it was mentioned that it will take place in the preparatory phase should not be seen as those which didn't make it to the main forum but somehow we should think about how to promote them to be more relevant and more suitable for the preparatory phase and we should really do our best to ensure that those thematics and those formats for the workshops, which are better for the preparatory phase, they will take place exactly in this space.

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  Explained very well.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.  That was a brief discussion but it was very, very valuable.  And I think what really stands out for me, again, everyone please send your comments in writing to the Secretariat, but the issue of communication stands out, making the purpose of this preparatory phase very clear.  And I think one way of doing that could be for the MAG to do briefings with Dynamic Coalitions and BMS.  Maybe that's something we can look at as being part of this.  And I think the question that came from the group of Markus as the rapporteur, what does unpacking an issue really mean?  I think that's the kind of thing that we want the issue teams to look at.  I think that sometimes these concepts are taken for granted, but what does it mean to unpack an issue?  What does it mean to have preparatory discussion that will be documented and feed into the IGF.  So that's definitely a clear task.

I think the workshops in the last group, the discussion that they had about MAG identifying some workshops that would fit usefully and valuably into the preparatory phase, I think that's really an exciting opportunity to explore.  And then on the issue of issue teams it seems that there's consensus that we should build on those teams that develop the descriptions of the issues.

And earlier this year.

So thanks very much, everyone, and let's move on to the next agenda item.

And we will remind you to comment.  You can comment on the document that was sent and we will pick up on this discussion during the MAG meetings coming up soon.

So now to move on to the next agenda item, we had updates from the MAG Working Groups.  I checked in with Tereza, and with Titi, and they do not have reports.  They need to share those reports tonight.  They can share them during the MAG meeting which will take place next week.  And they will present recommendations during that meeting.  BPFs and NRIs, any updates from you.  And if people are willing we will stay on a debrief from the MHLB.

Any updates from the Best Practice Forums or NRIs?

Wim, do you have any reports?

>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Yes, but the coordinators are online.  I see tonight we'll give a brief update on the BPF channel.  So if the Secretariat could put up the slides.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: And if we can keep this quite brief, remember, we will have time during the long MAG meeting next week to look at the ‑‑ and actually, there will be an update on the open consultation.

>> CHENAI CHAIR:  Sure.  We are waiting for the slide to come up.  We still have the cybersecurity.  Yes, just to keep it short.  With things that are upcoming.  We have a meeting upcoming on the 25th of June and the 8th of synergy you will.  We have been working on agenda and gender disinformation.  This is a great information for the gender rights BPF.  We have the kickoff survey that I would ask for the MAG members to also respond to.  So far we have about ten responses and then thanks to Wim and all the other BPF coordinators we started compiling a list of gender disinformation which provides research, case studies best practices.  And so we are hoping to then draw in the wider people who are interested in this issue and actually have a resource list that is an outcome that be shared widely.  And that's an update for the BPF.


We will not do it when we have the MAG meeting, the next MAG meeting, we won't rush the BPFs.


I don't see ‑‑ is Aya still with us?  I think she dropped off.  Markus Kummer:  She may have dropped ox it's an awkward time for her.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: It's not too bad for her.  She's an hour ‑‑ I mean, it's 7:30 in the evening.  So it's not an ideal time.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Anyhow, the slide is fairly clear.  We have three parallel work streams, one on measuring ‑‑ or mapping the existing cybersecurity agreement which is building on last year's work.  The second is testing the norms and the concepts against actual Internet events.

And the third work stream is outreach in cooperation with other IGF and other Internet Governance initiatives in the UN.  So just the working ‑‑ the open‑ended Working Group.

And the work is underway.  And it's all open and transparent.  The first meetings have taken place, and three work streams are working independently in parallel and report back to the occasional plenary discussion.  And you are all welcome to join the calls and the lists and it's all open and I think we are in good shape.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Markus and thanks, Chenai.  And Markus has just reminded us all that the BPFs are open and that MAG members are encouraged to participate.  But Markus and Chenai, are there any particular requests that you have for MAG members at this point in your work cycle?

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  At this stage, I don't think we have particular requests but the work stream three, which will be the outreach will essentially be the work stream which we'll be connecting with the MA good.

And also looking into how to hook up with the intersessional work that we have just been discussing.  But at this stage, I don't think there's any ask to MAG members, any particular ask, but we can deepen this discussion next week's meeting.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We will.  And thanks, and Chenai from gender.

>> CHENAI CHAIR:  I think the particular ask is for the MAG members to attend any sessions and also contribute and learn things.  But also the list that we have, thinking about research in case that is not best practices so we can also build up that resource that they make use of.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, send the request to the MAG list and share them with their networks.

Thank you very much, BPFs for that.  Anja, do you have anything on NRIs or can we defer it so that we can have a bit of a debrief on the MHLB?

>> ANJA GENGO:  Yes, yes, I will save it for next week, for the bigger ‑‑ for the MAG meeting, if you agree.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that.  In fact, I know there's a lot to say about NRIs, but it's good that we can actually do it next week and allocate more time.

Everyone, we are seven minutes past ‑‑ we have how much time left?  We've got I think sufficient time left.

So for the MHLB debrief.

So I will hand over to Chengetai to give us a bit of a recap.  I know many of you were in the session.  And from what I could see, we had 230 people at least would participated.  So there's a great degree of interest in this.

And there are also many questions.  Chengetai, did you want to open this discussion for us?  And then in the meantime, I will continue looking for hands if anybody wants to comment or have questions about yesterday's public briefing on the multi‑stakeholder high level body, please start raising your hands.  Chengetai, what you are your reflections on yesterday's discussion?

I'm not sure ‑‑ Chengetai, are you muted or have you stepped away?

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: I think I'm muted.  Can you hear me now?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Now we can hear you.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: No, thank you, Anriette.  I don't have very much to say, apart from what went on.  I did present the model or the proposed model, and I think we got some very good and useful feedback from the community.  I think you all have the slides.  And we thank you very much for that feedback.  I think personally, I feel that it is very good to go back to the community and see what ideas or what, you know, when you have a plan whether it be, you know anything open source, requests for comments, you know, we will use these tools.

So I think that was very good and we did note down all the ‑‑ the comments.  We are still going through them because there was a lot of comments put in the chat and also a lot of interventions that was said so we do have the transcript and we do have the chat transcript as well.

So we are just going through it, compiling them and seeing how we can update what we have done and yes, that is all I have to say.  I can't really say that much, because it's not my document, but it's ‑‑ you know, it's between the UN DESA and the IGF Secretariat of course reports to UN DESA.  So we are involved, but it's ‑‑ I mean, we're not the decision makers as such and the ultimate people that are responsible are, of course ‑‑ and the Secretariat general, Mr. Lu and the officer in charge of the office, the ASG, I will not say her name, because I don't want to mangle it.  So apologies for that.

Yeah, that's all I have to say.  Yes, we will go through it and we will ‑‑ and, yes, there is going to be some modifications.  That's it at the moment.  It's still a work in progress.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai?  Do you have any idea on the timelines?  Quite a few people were asking me about timelines.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: The idea was to do something this year.  That was definitely the idea.  Because we have to.  It's no use to wait.  And so that was the timeline that we were thinking of doing something it year, and acting as quickly as possible to the roadmap as has been said quite often is that there has been a great deal of discussion that has gone on around this topic.  So it's ‑‑ it's now, time to take some action and this year is supposed to be the action year.  Yeah.


>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that.  So we have Carlos and Paul Charlton and I see Jason is here as well.  Jason, if you wanted to add, please just let me know and you can take the floor.  Carlos Afonso, over to you.

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  It was a very lively discussion.

And people didn't talk about it, but and in the discussion, both in the short discussion, one of the ‑‑ obviously, it was clear that there is no consensus about what the multi‑stakeholder group is, how it will fit into the grand scream of the IGF teams and so on.  So it so it's not clear for many people, it's within the MAG.  It's outside of the mag.  It's a function of the MAG and it's something which is ‑‑ the place is not clear.  The purpose ‑‑ there are lots of questions about the purpose.  Why create this body with so many other bodies in the groups and the ‑‑ et cetera.  Still going on and that could interact with the MAG and so on.  The constitution, what is the process to constitute the multistakeholder?  There are lots of questions about it.

And the models is open ended as we say in legalese, how will it operate?  And there are questions also about the multi‑stakeholder ‑‑ the true multi‑stakeholder nature of this body.  So that's how I would summarize the question, from the chat and from the speech.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Carlos.  Paul you have the floor.

>> PAUL CHARLTON:  I wanted to echo what Carlos said.

Some high level and some very detailed, and I just wanted to clarify, I think I heard Chengetai that you said at the end of your remarks that there would revisions to the document that was presented, at least that's how I understood.  I do think that it's important that we continue this discussion.  I know the UN, the UN DESA and the office of the tech envoy, have had consultations before on the concept of the multistakeholder high level body.  The presentation yesterday was the first time that the stakeholders have been able to comment on the specific ‑‑ the specific concept and the specific plans for implementing it.  And it was ‑‑ it was interesting to see, I mean, Canada doesn't favor the creation of a body like this but even some of those yesterday who were not opposed to creating the body, even they had a lot of comments about how to do it or how not to do it.  So I certainly hope that there will be revisions and I hope there will be a further opportunity for stakeholders to comment.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks.  Thanks, Paul.  And I think, for example, the one thing that stood out for me is that there are many civil society organizations who were opposing the MHLB because they see it as a policy making body.  They see it as a nonrepresentative small group that will make decisions on actual policy implementation, and that was not my understanding of what the MHLB was intended to do.  But clearly, there's a need to clarify quite a bit about the role and the purpose and the relationships of MHLB.

Amado, you have the floor.

>> AMADO ESPINOSA:  I agree with you that I learned very important support expressions like the representative of the German government, and I also realize that the different ‑‑ the different participants of the discussion were really interested in trying to have a more influential IGF who can really take the lead in terms of how to move the ball as some of them were mentioning yesterday, and I think like Jorge from the Swiss government saying if we see the glass half full, I think we can come back with very interesting conclusions provided the IGF the necessary means to become a more influential body, as it is needed right now for these digital cooperation all that we have and also the need from different decision makers to have an organization would can provide this ‑‑ this kind of recommendations for public policies and best practices.


>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Amado.  I don't see any other hands.  But just, you know, a few reflections from me.  First, I want to introduce you to someone would is on the call with us tonight.  You might have seen her name on the list, Molly Hammond.  Molly is an intern that has just joined the Secretariat.  She's based in the UK and she will be ‑‑ one of her contributions to the Secretariat will be to work with me, and help me with my work, which I'm looking forward to.

When I was doing Molly's orientation on Monday and she can introduce herself, I went over the MAG terms of reference and it really stood out for me that the MAG terms of reference need to be ‑‑ to be clarified, need to be updated, maybe, you know, revisit it.  And this was very clear to me when we look at the MHLB.  And I know the intention was to make it clear what the differences are between the roles.  I think IGF's strengthening also needs us to look at the role of the MAG.  And look at the evolving role of the MAG and the fact that the MAG's role has changed over time as there's intersessional modalities.  It's a process that's more than just an annual event.  So that's just a reflection that I had listening to yesterday's proceedings.  We are investing a lot of time and resources into the MHLB.  I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the MAG is a very important body as well.  That it needs resources.  It needs support and it also needs its terms of reference and roles to grow and be clarified and updated to reflect what the MAG is doing.  So that was just a comment I made.

And I think the institutional capacity is very important, but perhaps this person ‑‑ in fact this is a question that I have Chengetai.  The staff member that will be ‑‑ or that is envisions to support the MHLB, will they also be able to play a role in doing sustained outreach with other institutions, information sharing, you know, facilitating exchange of information and ensuring participation in IGF processes with other ‑‑ you know, of those other institutions?  Will that be done by the Secretariat staffperson in support of the MHLB, or do you expect the MHLB and individual MHLB members who have their own staff to undertake that activity?  Is that something that you have discussed yet or not?

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: No, we have not gone down to that level of detail yet and we have not, in terms of reference for the support staff just yet.  So once we have the core model, more or less agreed upon, we can look at the supporting structures, et cetera, and the functions, but, yes, we are not at that stage yet.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai.  I think if we are going to build Secretariat capacity, I would be really disappointed if we build in Secretariat capacity just to support an additional high level body when, in fact, the needs for more capacity at Secretariat level is actually, you know ‑‑ is more comprehensive than that.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: No, we are looking at a whole range of how to increase the Secretariat support from fund‑raising for somebody who is a consultant and there for fund‑raising and a whole lot of communication, et cetera.

So we do have just how we move into the future.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: And perhaps the MHLB can play a role in that regard.

Anyway, any other questions or comments?  We have a few minutes left.  And this is an important opportunity for MAG members to share.  I don't see any other hands.  And Jason, if you are still with us, do you have any reflections or updates to share?

>> JASON MUNYAN:  I think Chengetai has done an excellent job of summarizing the briefing and the discussion yesterday.  You know, we have the comments.  We will carefully review them, and consider them as we look at the next steps.  I think Anriette, that it's great to look at the evolving role of the MAG and how the IGF has evolved over time and just make sure that the ‑‑ you know that we have the right TOR and the MAG is fit for purpose to best support the IGF.  And so I mean, these things can happen parallel.  So, you know, while we pursue the ‑‑ you know, when you look at how to take on board the comments that we received in implementing the multilevel stakeholder body, that doesn't stop or prevent actions in looking at the MAG and looking at the TORs and so on.  So, I mean, you know, these things are all commentary, and continue in parallel.  So definitely, like Chengetai side, we will carefully take into account the input that's been received throughout this process.  So, you know the inputs that we were given in the high level panel for that report, the inputs for the roadmap, the consultations convened by Germany and the UAE and then we shared that yesterday as well.  All of this feedback we will consider as we look to the next steps and how to operationalize this.

And we appreciate all of you that have been engaged and give careful thought to this process.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Jason and I think we should look at the MAG as well, just one reflection that I have had this year is that reducing the size of the MAG from 50 or 50, sometimes 50 plus to 40 has actually been challenging.  You know, it's interesting to reflect on the size of the MAG and 50 might sound like a large number, but once the MAG breaks into Working Groups, and it becomes quite challenging.  So that's a particular reflection on one decision that was made this year by UN DESA to reduce the size of the MAG.

Thanks, everyone, for your input and Jason and Chengetai and we wish you all the best.  I think one rely on critical perspectives as well as very constructive support and advice, from the MAG as you continue this process.

And we are nearing the end of our meeting.  We have next week.  We have the open consultation.  We will get more input on the preparatory phase and the issues and we have the MAG meeting and you all have to complete your evaluations this week.  I'm very happy to close the meeting and wish you all well for the rest of your work with the evaluation process.

If there's any other comments or any other matters, please bring them up now, and Roberto, I see you have your hand up.  You have the floor.

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  We did a workshop process Working Group used to have meetings on Wednesday, by 12 UTC but, again, tomorrow, we will have it because we are in the final stage of evaluation and I will propose to have the meeting the same ‑‑ at the same time this Friday, because this Friday, the 18th because it's important to ‑‑ to think about this document that I think is going to be a very good input for the evaluation, the Working Groups that are going to have the main task during the open station about finishing the collection of the proposals.  So that's the main subject we are going to discuss this Friday.  That's all.  Thank you very much, Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Roberto.  Anyone else?

Any other announcements or any other issues to bring up?

I don't see anything else.  Thank you, Roberto for that.  And that is the end of our meeting.  Chengetai, can I hand it over to you for the registration and meeting times and dates next week.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette.

Luis, can you say a little bit about the registration for next week's meeting.

>> LUIS BOBO:  It is on our front page and with any registration, you can one click.  So basically ‑‑ just go here, and open consultations and MAG meeting and there register for the whole event here.  Okay?  That's all.

The agenda is here and you have access to all the material that will be uploaded and everything, to get the links and everything.

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  We assume that all MAG members are registered, right?

>> LUIS BOBO:  You have to register yourself.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: Yes, because not all MAG members are able to attend, for instance, as Anriette, some are sick and some are caring for sick loved ones.  So we would like to have an idea of how many actual MAG members will be attending or will be able to attend.  And then I would like to remind people that we have the open consultations on the 22nd and then we have the first day of the MAG meeting on the 23rd and then we have a break and of the last day of the MAG meeting will be on the 30th.

And then one thing that you can also consider because we generally stopped scheduling the MAG meetings after the June meeting.  So we have to actually consider are we going to have any MAG meetings during July and August, because I do know that at least in Europe, August is definitely ‑‑ nothing happens and very little happens in July, but, you know, this is the IGF.  It is ‑‑ on the one hand, this is the IGF and it is international, but then on the other hand, if a quarter of the members are unable to attend, then it is an issue.

So I will leave that with the MAG chair and with you just to see what ‑‑ how we would schedule the meetings for July and August, and if we can have those finalized next week, that would be great.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai.  The MAG chair comes from the southern hemisphere.  It's the middle of winter here.  I think it's a valid point and I think the Secretariat is an important consideration here and if you are planning breaks and holidays, we should take that into account.  I will suggest we do a Google doodle poll on that and we can assess that once we have completed our work.

So thanks, everyone.  Thanks for your participation.  Thank you for your hard work and your evaluations.  And keep it up.  We are almost at the end of this important milestone.  So on that, let's close the meeting.  Good night, everyone.  Or good afternoon, if you are still on that side of the planet.

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  Thank you all.

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO: Thank you, Anriette.

>> Thank you, everyone.  Bye‑bye.

>> Thanks, everyone, bye‑bye.

>> Bye‑bye.  Thanks a lot to everyone.

>> Thank you everyone, good‑bye.

>> Bye‑bye.