>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Good afternoon, morning and evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to MAG meeting number 14, and as usual, the meeting is being recorded.  There is transcription, which is going to be published afterward and the summary report will be published afterward as well.

Please, if you could use the speaking queue, it's very useful for us, but if you cannot use the speaking queue, then you can raise your hand, and then, of course, speak when the Chair calls your name.

With that, I will hand the meeting over to our Chair, to start the meeting,.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Welcome back to MAG members who have been unable to participate due to personal circumstances, so Gunela, special note to you, and to express our condolences to you with the loss of your mother.  And it's wonderful to have you back with us.

And welcome, everyone else, our captioner and our host country partners.  I'm just checking who is here.  Who is here from Poland, Chengetai?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'm just checking.  I think this is their holiday.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So they may not be with us.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  They may not be here because they have canceled all of our meetings with them with the Secretariat have been put off to the last week of August.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  That's fine, we will get a catch up from them next time.  Let me just review the agenda.  We will have updates from the Secretariat, and I would like us to start today before we proceed with the rest of the agenda to review the action items from last week's call, which I my might also help MAG members who are struggling to keep track of everything that has happened and that still needs to happen.

We will do an overview of the work that the issue teams have been doing, and in fact, some of them have been doing some work.  I realize it has been a challenge, but really kudos to those who have managed and those who haven't managed will spend time today.

So after the reports from the issue teams, we are going to breakout groups and then we will do what Adam Peake suggested in an email.  We haven't been able to complete the key tasks in preparatory calls we will give you time today to review work that you have done, and if you haven't done any work, you can do some during the breakout group.

We will try and make those breakout groups 45 minutes to an hour.  Then we will come back and we will get a report from the Secretariat on the issue mapping template that they have developed and suggestions on how it can be used, and also to give you an overview of how it will be done so that you don't feel that it all just rests on the MAG.  It will be a collective task but we do want you to feel comfortable with it.

We will look at next steps and other business.  So if we don't have updates from Poland, I would like us to start with the review of the action items from the last call, Sorina takes excellent notes for us, and you will find the meeting notes in the menu with the MAG, with all of the other MAG information.  So Sorina Teleanu, I don't know if you can display the action items so we can review them and take stock of what has been achieved and what has not been achieved.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  While she is doing that, I forgot to say about people who are not able ‑‑ apologies, yes,.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai Masango.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Anna, Maria Paz says she is in transit, and she will try to join but she may not be on all of the time and Courtney.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Cart any said she was in flight.  Thanks, Chengetai.  So let's note those in the minute.  We are noting participation in the minutes now so it's easy for you to check whether you were in a call or not.  You will find at the bottom of the meeting summary report a list of who were in attendance and who apologized and who weren't here.

Let's look at action items and next steps.  The Secretariat was to share the draft IGF 2021 schedule with the MAG and with the tentative timeline.  Congratulations for the Secretariat.  It's been exciting really, I have seen in the general Internet Governance space, people who have had their workshop proposals approved have been sharing their congratulations and sharing the schedule, and they are very excited to see their workshops on the schedule for great for having that up.

And the important thing I think is for us to also always communicate that there is a preparatory and engagement phase as well.  So I have asked the Secretariat to make that clear in the outreach on the schedule.

So that was done.  And then this action item here, Chengetai, you can actually respond to this, when finalizing the registration process and web schedule for IGF 2021, Secretariat to take into account comments previously made by MAG members and the community regarding the need to make these tools as user friendly as possible.

So I know that's ongoing, Chengetai, but if you or Louis want to make any comments there, could you do so now.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It's ongoing for the current and for the revamped website, but, Louis, if you want to say a few words, please go ahead.

>> LUIS BOBO:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Basically as usually we are using what worked previously.  There were things from the schedule that worked well, people could create their schedule, see who was attending, et cetera.  Have been taken, and things that we were aware of that people were having issues and those are being improved.  For example, not so many clicks, make it easy the process to get a link, getting the notification, the reminders of the sessions that they are put in my schedule.  I think that's all.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That is also going to be incorporated this year as well with a phone app available for Apple and also the Google phones, Android phones.  So I think that is going to increase usability as well.  And easy access to the schedule.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks Chengetai and Luis, I think it will make a difference.  Before you go public with these, with the app and the interactive schedule that you use the MAG to test to get feedback.  The MAG is the ideal focus group for testing how user friendly the interface is, but congrats with all of that.  Next we had on the preparatory and engagement phase, MAG members were to review the draft schedule for the preparatory and engagement phase and communicate further questions or suggestions by 19 July.

Now, I did not receive any further questions, so I think we are working with the draft schedule for the preparatory engagement phase that was presented by Anja to you during the last call.  We assume that that is is proved.  Some of the contents of it still has to be finalized and more detailed descriptions of the sessions, but we do have firm dates there, so, please, everyone, do make sure that you are diarizing those dates for the preparatory and engagement phase.  That's what the issue teams are working on as well.

Next, we have ‑‑ please, everyone, stop me or jump in if you have any questions.  Next we have when communicating about IGF 2021, MAG and Secretariat to make it clear that participation is not only about hosting a session.  So I think this has been taken into account.  We haven't produced any public communications yet, but I do think it is important ‑‑ I have felt that some of the Tweets that have come out from the Secretariat and that the initial announcement about the schedule did not include reference to the preparatory and engagement phase.  So I do think it is important for the Secretariat as well as MAG members to keep that into account.  But I have raised that with the Secretariat and they have already started addressing that.  I don't think we need to discuss that further.

Next we have the concept of issue mapping and that will be closed today.  So that matter arising from the last time call will be discussed today when the Secretariat presents the template that has been developed by Wim and Luis.  Here we get to MAG member tasks.  MAG members were asked to join an issue team by subscribing to the mailing list.  Now, there were a few issues with that.  I will, when we have the update from the Secretariat, I will ask Luis to update you on that.  So I think the process was a bit mixed.  Some MAG members did subscribe.  Some thought they subscribed but it didn't actually work, and some might not have yet done so.

So we really do need to make sure that you are all subscribed to the right issue team mailing lists.  And that is up to each individual MAG member to take responsibility for that.  We have a list of who has been subscribed and that can be shared.  It has been shared already by Luis on each mailing list, about the Luis it might be useful to compile that into a single document and shire it with the general MAG list.

Next, the issue teams were to open past MAG, to open to past MAG members to have at least one facilitator from 2021 MAG.  I think the progress there has been uneven.  It has happened, some past MAG members have joined.  Some issue teams have facilitators, some don't, but we will do a progress report shortly.

The task for the issue teams were to identify facilitators and to start work on planning the introductory sessions during the preparatory and engagement phase.  And then also to start thinking about the main sessions and we will get an update on that.  Sorina, what else do we have here?  Then the Wiki pages, that has not yet been launched so that is an open item that we can look at the next time, and inviting others to join the issue team.

So I'm not sure to what extent that has happened.  You can share progress with us later when we do the reports.  The next item here was for issue teams to develop initial proposals for the introductory phase by today.  So we will see if you have done that.  And then for the MAG Chair and Secretariat to develop a detailed timeline with relevant milestones and deadliness related to the planning.  We did that and it was posted on the list and it's on the MAG dashboard.  And then where needed Secretariat to provided assistance in to issue teams in setting up and running online meetings.  That was done.  Anja responded to that working with the intern Farah Barber.  So there was some assistance to you.

If you need more assistance, we have two interns able to help the issue team.  So it's just a case for the facilitators to tell myself and the Secretariat what kind of assistance you need and we will make sure you get that.  And that's it.  And all of these tasks are also on the dashboard.

Any questions on this?  I don't see any hands.  So, Chengetai, let's move onto the next item which is an update from the Secretariat.  If you have anything further, and if you can also in your update give the opportunity to Luis to just talk again to the issues with mailing lists and to share with the MAG, you know, his analysis of it, and also what he has done to try and assist.  So over to you, Chengetai.

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

So just a few quick things, I think most of you know them but I will go through it again.  So we have opened the call for people who want to apply for travel support for the IGF 2021 meeting, so that's on the board, that's on the website.  And you have got until the end of August to apply, and, of course, this is for the Global South and we are also focusing on underrepresented groups and people who have got some sort of a role in whether it be planning a web, a workshop or a session, being a speaker, or doing something else that would be of benefit to the IGF 2021.

As Anriette has said when she was going through the points is that we did share the schedule, and we have now published it on our website, and we have informed the session organizers and asked them to report nip schedule conflicts, et cetera, and then we will take another look at the schedule and see if we can accommodate them.

And, of course, if we do swap a session, we do have to make sure that by swapping the session we don't make another conflict with a clash in the schedule.  So it is rather complex, but we will do that.  And then on Friday this week, the IGF Secretariat will be hosting a capacity development session at the West African IGF, and the agenda will be focused on access and environment.

So you are all invited to attend that as well.  That's for the West African IGF.  And as you know from our last meeting, we have opened up the registration.  So for we have had round about 260 registrations, and this is both for the, you know, this is both for the onsite and offsite.  So but the vast majority have said that they do intend to be in the Katowice so we will keep our fingers crossed and see how that goes.

As you also know, which I think I have mentioned a couple of meetings ago is that we do have the evaluation, the IGF, the five‑year evaluation going on, and our consultant, John Msthiason is contacting people and holding interviews with them about the IGF as part of the evaluation process.  And then the other thing I wanted to ‑‑ two last things.  So we have 13 hubs at the moment that have been registered for the IGF 2021 meeting, and we will, our intention is also to provide Internet connection costs to these hubs if they are from the Global South as well as a way to encourage these hubs, as we did last year.  This is a hybrid, so we are giving support to both sides, the online side and also the onsite side.

So we will be giving Internet connection costs, and also costs for rooms if people are going to congregate into rooms but there is going to be an application process for that.  For the travel, we have to do it much earlier because there is much more involved in it.  And then the last thing is that we did say that this year we are going to have a third open consultation and MAG meeting and we are thinking of hosting it in 29^th of September to the 1^st of October.

Now, we have been communicating with UNOG, our Conference services because we want to host at least in a hybrid fashion as well and with a portion of the face‑to‑face in Geneva.  The meeting rooms are fully booked, which is something, but we did manage to get a room for 56 people, with a cap of 56 people.  Because of the COVID, we have slashed our meeting space by half.

So there is room there, and we will be also, I will send an email out later on today or tomorrow for MAG members if you would want travel support as well.  And we will be able to provide that, provided, of course, that you can comply with the regulations which I think most of you would be able to.

And, of course, again, I would just lake to underscore that these regulations do change.  So we are keeping an eye on it, but as far as this moment is concerned, we are planning for a face‑to‑face meeting and we will be providing travel support for MAG members from the Global South to come to for the face to face meeting.  I think that's it.  I'm sorry, Luis, you were going to say something about our email communications.

>> LUIS BOBO:  Thank you, Chengetai.

I think, I sent an email to the MAG private list.  As with the two things apparently we are having issues.  One of them is this thing about emails being in the junk folders.  Previously we gave the information that the all issues have been solved on our side so this is well tested.  It's basically about the protocols about identity of the email origin.  So this was normal that some service could have discovered our message before.  But all of this is solved now.

I give just one suggestion that if you still have some junk or something, it's not necessarily because your domain come from the points emanated from before, from the content of the message so what I suggest is that you white list our domain in your junk folder and that should help.

The second thing was about the membership of the list.  So all of you are able to see at all times who is in the list.  I gave some short descriptions there.  My apologies if that was clear, but in any case, I sent those instructions.  And that's all.  You should be able to, at any time, some of you have already done with transparency as well.

I think that's all, Chengetai.  The last point is that the name of the list, there was some doubts.  We have the (Garbled audio).

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  You are breaking up, Luis.

>> LUIS BOBO:  I'm sorry.  I'm going to stop my video maybe.

I am just saying that there are six mailing lists, remember, one per issue team, and then there are two MAG lists.  One MAG list is being used publicly and it's for the full members, et cetera, and then there is a specific MAG private list only for 2021 MAG members that can be used for internal communications.  I know that you also have lists, it is preferred for official communications being written maybe you can use the MAG list, but, I mean, all channels are back.

And all of this is put in the MAG member dashboard.  I don't know if you want me to show it.  I can show it very quickly while you, Chengetai, take the floor.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I think it's fine, but if you go to that, as Luis said, if you go to the dashboard, you will see all of the mailing lists that we are using, and I would also like just to underscore what Luis was saying that as far as emails ending up in the junk mail folder, the issue can be from the sender side and from the receiver side.

Luis has done all he can from the sender side, from the server with the flags, et cetera, but also from the receiver side, from the recipient side.  As he said, you know, it takes ten minutes as well to go, to just go in your junk mail and also, and just white list the domain Internet forum.org or the mailing list names which I had the same issue as well that I found that a lot of emails were going into my junk email folder and then I just did that.

I had to do it, you know, like three times.  The first time was the big one and then the second time I think I may have missed a few of them, and then the last time I just checked and it was just one, but I don't have any problems, so we have to check in both sides, but it wasn't like a critical fault in the server or anything like that.  It was just the flags and also the sending of the emails into the junk mail folder.

>> JUTTA CROLL:  Thank you very much.  Just a short notice on that.  I had the same issue that the emails went into my junk folder.  Also I had the addresses white listed, but as of the end of May, I didn't even receive them into the junk folder, nothing came through.  And then I don't know what ‑‑ I know Luis has done a lot on the sender side, but I had to go to my IT colleagues and they had to white list not only in my email account, but in the account, in the outlook account of the whole organisation and when they did that, then the emails come through.  So it might probably not only be solved on people's individual local computer where they the junk folder, but also in the organisation settings.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Organizational wise.

>> JUTTA CROLL:  That would be helpful probably.  It helped for me at least.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you for pointing that out, the system administrator from any organisation can flag and it stops the email coming through for the whole organisation, so that is true.  Thank you for pointing that out.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot of Chengetai and Luis.  I want to urge everyone to check and maybe, Luis you should send a text message to ‑‑ test message to confirm immediately after the call that everyone on the MAG is receiving the messages.  Because mailing lists are, until our new website has been launched, mailing list is the primary platform that we use to work in the MAG.  So it's really imperative that everyone can feel confident that all MAG members are receiving all relevant emails.  So I think all of the issues have been resolved, but it might be good to just run a test and ask everyone to confirm at some point after this call.

But thanks very much to everyone for your patience, and to the Secretariat for efforts in resolving this and making it easier.  And everyone just, I think the only reason we discovered these problems is because several MAG members raised concerns.  So if you are unsure, don't hesitate to ask.

Lucien, you have the floor.

>> Same issue as Jutta really.  I don't want to take too long.  My IT people sorted it, but I could not find my email in the folder on my side either.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Lucien.  So that's another example that it's not always predictable, the problems as we would like them to be.  Lucien, are you receiving the necessary email?

>> LUCIEN CASTEX:  That's fine, it's sorted and your email helped a lot because I wondered where are the emails really, so I did check, and it's all fine.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Good.  Well, thanks very much, everyone, Chengetai, I hope my connection is not breaking up, I am on quite a bad connection, so just let me know if it is.  If there are no further questions on this, let's move onto item number 4 which is the overview of the MAG led sessions during the prep phase.

I want to share my screen, so, Luis, I will go ahead if that's okay.  I just want to review, it won't take long.  I just want all of the MAG members to please note the specific dates that you are preparing.  The document in front of you, I hope you can all see it is the draft schedule for the prep for fore and engagement ‑‑ preparatory and engagement phase which we consider approved because no one sent further comments.  The color coding, the brown orange color is the MAG led sessions so I will jump straight to them.

The first date to look out for in terms of MAG preparation is 21 September.  Our proposed time is 12UTC.  So it's important that you take that into account when you plan the session, and if you need it changed, now is the time to let us know.  So this session on 21 September will be the official opening of the preparatory and engagement phase, and it will be a session where we present an overview of the IGF 2021 focus areas.

So the issue teams that are preparing for this would be particularly the two that are working on the main focus areas, universal access and meaningful connectivity, and economic and social inclusion and human rights.  So at the moment we have combined those.  So I think the session needs to be quite long or long enough.

So you can consider how long you want it to be so that we can schedule enough time for this Opening Session.  And the overall goal of this would be to just refine the scope of these issues.  And look at them from different perspectives, provide an overview with diversity from a stakeholder perspective and from a regional perspective.

I mean, this is obviously drawn out during issue teams and I'm glad to see that at least one of these, the universal access and meaningful connectivity issue team has done quite a lot of thinking.  So the next date is 22 September.  There are three days consecutive here.  The next session will be covering two cross cutting and emerging issue areas.  22 September we have the time here at 1500UTC.  So, again, if that time is not okay for you, you really need to tell the Secretariat as soon as possible.

On 22 September, emerging regulation, and environmental sustainability and climate change will be covered.  And on 23 September the day after at the moment scheduled for 1300 UTC will be the last two emerging and cross cutting areas, inclusive Internet Governance, ecosystems and digital cooperation and trust, security and stability.

So those are really the dates that the MAG have to prepare for.  MAG members should ideally participate in all of the other sessions or as many as you can, but you are only responsible for the preparation of those areas and then the final one is on a date yet to be confirmed and then we are wrap up the session.  And that is where you will pull together with the help of the Secretariat and myself key sessions which we will share in some way in quite a brief session, but hopefully interactive as well before the annual forum in Katowice.

So any questions?  Is there clarity for everyone that you need to prepare for in September?  Any questions?  I'm going to stop sharing so that I can see the chat, and look for hands.

I don't see any hands.  Rita is asking how long the sessions will be?  Rita.  That really is up to you.  I think at the moment we have scheduled a starting time, but how long the session will be depends on how you prepare for it, and I think what format you use.  If an issue team wants to have a keynote speaker or a panel or breakout groups, it really will affect the length of time.  I think you are all familiar with the fact that we can't keep sessions too long.

But those are the kinds of decisions that we still need to make and that will be made under guidance from the issue teams.  I'm just seeing if there are any other questions.  And there is no one in the speaking queue.  So if there is nothing further on the schedule and if you are all clear on the dates that you have to prepare for, then let's move on to item number 5, which is the reports for issue teams.

I'm going to share, I'm just checking what is this in the chat.  I'm going to share, again, a document which was developed by the Secretariat by Anja and Para because I think it's a useful thing to review and go issue team to issue team.  So everyone, this document which I hope you can all see now, it's a Google Doc called MAG issue teams.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Now we can.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  You got it, okay.  Thanks Chengetai.  This is prepared by Anja and Farah.  The first sub headings, now, these are the sub headings that emerged from the MAG‑developed policy questions.  It's in the guide to IGF 2021 issues and policy questions.

I have left out the policy questions because the MAG decided, I think, or the decision was most that you felt the policy questions weren't that helpful in terms of structuring the schedule.  So we have only included here the sub headings that are in the issues and themes document, and one of the things I think you need to do is to review the sub themes or sub headings and decide if you want to change them or use them or reduce them or add to them.

Then we have the documents, the facilitator.  So, Farah, thanks very much for creating this document.  So let's start with the two issue, main focus areas, economic and social inclusion and human rights, the sub themes are listed.  You can decide whether you want to use them or not, and I know you have also developed another document which looks at outcomes from previous IGFs but you can tell us more.

So let me give the floor now to the issue team on economic and social inclusion and human rights, and if you can just share with us any progress that you have made thus far.  Susan, are you reporting for us on this?

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  I can also report on that if you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Souki please go ahead.  I need to stop sharing.  Evelyn, are you going to share your screen?

>> No, because the thing is like just to give you a short update, we had two calls, and the first call, well, two calls that actually took place, so to say.  On the first call, we were quite a few members, but then the last call we had yesterday and there again, we were only a very limited number of members unfortunately.  So first of all, I would like to emphasize that it would be good that all members who subscribe to this issue group would participate when we have these calls because it's a bit difficult to organize or even for reporting I'm one of the co‑facilitators, bit I'm not the main facilitator and there has been lots of confusion a bit, like who is going to do what in a sense.  So yesterday when I was, I think it was.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Who is the second?  Who is the other facilitator?  

>> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ:  The main facilitator was Avia we agreed and the second facilitator is Lucia and Sooki.  We have Ava and Lucia and Sooki as co‑facilitators.

>> I'm sorry to interrupt.  This is June Parris.  I want to say, yes, you have got it correct.

>> Yes.

>> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ:  Thank you.  So yesterday I was like, Lucia was missing, Sooki was missing, so it was a bit ‑‑ like it would be great if you would be also joining next time, but I'm going to try to give a short overview what we have been talking yesterday as well, and the call before.  Like as you mentioned, Anriette, we came up with the idea of producing a table.  Basically it's describing our approach.  It's the methodology that we are thinking of adopting, which is like a work in progress, but the aim is really to build like a justification why we are going to focus on the topics that we are finally going to focus on.

So as you, I think as already was discussed a little bit, we should be like basing our ideas on the main messages of previous IGFs, so we are thinking of extracting these main messages particularly from last year, but also maybe other years that were relevant, and then also comparing with the current workshops that were submitted and that actually got selected.  There, by the way, we had a bit of an issue.

It wasn't clear or it's confusing that some group members from the issue teams now that we are maybe doing the evaluation of this group, but others that were in other evaluation groups including me, including Sooki also as we found out.  I agree with Sooki who mentioned it is complicated to extract from the workshops or related to the previous IGF messages if you haven't done the evaluation of these workshops.  Like so that would be helpful if some members could identify who actually also were in the evaluation of this group.

So because if not, it doesn't make much sense to go through all of the workshops again and try to link them to the main messages if you have not been in that evaluation group.  So I'm not sure if there are some members who are both in the issue groups and who also evaluated these also evaluated workshops, that would be helpful if members could come forward and also try to engage in the table which we are going to prepare, which is basically the methodology as we mentioned.

We want to extract main messages of previous IGFs that we have certain continuity and then look at the workshops this year are all about and try to based on that comparison try to identify trends to look which issues were discussed previously and are they still important, yes or no.

And maybe also there are completely new topics coming up that were not there in the previous year which could be due to the COVID crisis.  So it's about identifying certain trends or main topics that either have been relevant since several years and kind of try to trace them, how they have been developing, or it's also looking are there new topics emerging and trying to build some, using the base to build some new messages for the coming IGF, like trying to build on the past, but also looking for innovative and new findings or messages that we can then discuss.

So that's all about why we came up with this table which I don't know if other groups also find it useful or not.  That is open for discussion.  So so much for me at the moment.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Evelyne.  And just to remind that that we asked the MAG to make a decision on whether the issue teams should be a continuation of the evaluation groups or newly constituted, and the MAG decided that they should be newly constituted because the evaluation teams were randomly assigned.

The Secretariat randomly assigned MAG members to those evaluation teams, whereas with the issue teams, MAG members decided that they would like to join based on interest and also join more than one.  So that's really the rationale.  I know it's confusing, but there is a decision.  And I think my only comment here or I'm opening the floor to questions and comments, but you need to prepare for the introductory session and the main session during the annual forum, and you might want to just approach them differently as well, but great ideas and good progress.

Does anyone have questions for the group working on economic and social inclusion, and.  Jutta, I see you have raised your hand.  Please go ahead.

>> JUTTA CROLL:  Thank you so much, Anriette for giving me the floor.

I wanted to underline what Evelyne said.  We had discussed the approach not only in the economic and social inclusion and human rights group, but also in the emerging regulation group whether it would be a good idea to base the work or to give the structure for these preparatory and main session based on what we already know was discussed in previous IGFs just to address the criticism that is often uttered that the IGF doesn't work on tangible outcomes.  That it's reproducing something that was said a year before and a year before and a year before and where is the step forward.  That is sometimes said about the IGF, and that was the whole idea behind the procedure or the methodology that Evelyne has just described.

So have a look back to see what was already said in regard of a certain issue, and from my perspective as I'm now facilitating the regulation issue team, I think that is the perfect example to say regulation has been an issue over the years at the IGF, but, of course, it has developed over the years as well, and we can, we can see a trend over the last years, and we will focus then for the main session what will be the next step in this trend.

So the preparatory would maybe be a little more a look backwards, and then during the prep session, defining what's really to be discussed two months later in the main session at the IGF.  Thank you for listening.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Jutta.

I don't see any other hands so thanks very much to this group.  Let's move onto the next group.  Let's hear from universal access and meaningful connectivity.  That's facilitated by Susan.  Go ahead.  Who is that.

>>

>> It's Evelyne again, I'm on my phone and not seeing the hand button.  So I'm sorry for that.  I wanted to add something, what I was thinking when I was looking at the table, because like what it's really all about is Internet Governance, right, and I think just what Jutta said to discuss what is the next step ahead in this trend.  I think it would be useful to add one additional question there, like what can the IGF be doing in terms of strategies.  Like in terms of governance strategies maybe.

What kind of possibilities does the IGF have to shape this debate, for instance?

If you talk about trends, there is more of a passive element, like where are we heading to.  I think it would be useful to do an additional step like where do we want to go in terms of strategies or what the figure can be doing actively or what we can be doing as a MAG.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks Evelyne, I think that's a good point.  You are referring to a different template which I don't have on my screen and maybe we can look at that before we go into the breakout groups.  I think that's a really excellent approach because the Internet Governance ecosystem is becoming more complex, and I think giving special consideration to the specific role of the IGF in taking these issues forward is a very useful activity.  So thanks for adding that.

Okay.  Shall we move onto the next group, universal access and meaningful connectivity.  Facilitated by Susan Chalmers, and Souki.  You have the floor. chapel.

>> Souki:  Susan, do you want to start?  Can you hear me?

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes, I'm sorry, hi, can you hear me?

>> Yes.

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Apologies.  I have to double unmute on the phone.  The AMC.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Susan, I'm struggling to hear you.

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Is this better?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's better.

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, team.  So Sooki and I have decreed to co‑facilitate this session.  We have had one substantive call thus far during which we discussed the purpose of the prep session, some tasks that we need to do in order to prepare for both the prep and main session which would include understanding what has been discussed before in this issue area, which is really one of the original issue areas since 2006, but we are looking back at the previous virtual IGF to understand what the main messages were that emanated from this area just to be careful not to redouble them during the main session this year.

And to that extent, Sooki has prepared a table which can be used to collect those main messages and previous discussions so we can understand how to build upon those discussions from last year and the main session this year.  And we are working to schedule take call for next week to continue our work, and I see that Carlos Alphonso has sent an email to the issue team list with a strawman proposal as we say.  I'm sure we will be discussing that during our call next week.

But one question, Chair, that I wanted to ask is whether it is okay or when we should open up the issue team to non‑MAG members.  There are a number of them who were mentioned during our initial call, just individuals in the space, people who are active that we can certainly invite them to join, but I just wanted to confirm that we are now in a position to be able to do that.

So with that, I will see if Sooki would like to add anything else, and then turn back to you, Chair, for any questions.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks Susan.  Sooki.

>> SOOK‑JUNG DOFEL:  Thank you, Anriette.  I developed the table and started filling in the table and I find it very, very interesting what came out.  As Jutta also summarized, we had a, we have an attention, to avoid duplication or to discuss the same as we did in the last years at IGF, and I extracted the relevant information from the key messages last year and I tried also to compare or relate them to the workshops that we were also touch upon the issues or aspects that have been already discussed last year.

So the next step would be then to see how we could further discuss or to have a new insight into this.  And unfortunately, I can't share my desktop with you now, but I, actually, I found it quite helpful to have this table and also to see, okay, which of the workshops for IGF 21 can be used in order to further develop the topics also coming from the IGF 2020.  Thanks very much Sooki ‑‑ we could share it now.  I think it would be interesting to share it, but I'm also concerned about time.

>> It's fine, Anriette.  It was just also as Evelyne said, it's just an instrument, right, to sort out the thoughts and so on, but I found it quite helpful.  And so you don't have to share it now, Anriette.  If you don't really know how to ‑‑

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I find it very ‑‑ I'm sorry.  My connection is a little bit delayed.  Very helpful as well.  My reflection which I want to share with all of the other MAG members is that I think with the first two reports that we have had so far, and if we look at the approach of these two groups, there might be a methodology in there which all of the issue teams can look at, which is for those introductory sessions, the sessions during the preparatory phase to include this component of looking back at what has emerged.

I think that would be actually a new and quite innovative approach to the preparatory engagement phase is to do that kind of backward looking and reflection on how the IGF has dealt with these issues.  So I think, yes, I think you might have struck a really useful method here.  Thanks to the group and Carlos Affonso for your document and all of the members in the group and Sooki and Susan.

And they only have had one meeting so very impressive.  Let's move onto the next issue area group, and that is issue team working on emerging regulation, market structure, and content and data.  So I'm not sure who is doing the report or who the facilitators or co‑facilitators are, so whoever it is, if there is anyone, please speak up.

>> JUTTA CROLL:  It's Jutta speaking again.  Thank you for giving me the floor.

I'm facilitating together with Roman the group emerging regulation.  We had two meetings, I think, one was only a few people and the second one then on Friday, and what we have already done with the help of Farah and Adam and me that we have produced a list with all of the workshops that are related to these issues for 2021.

The workshop proposals but also Adam had a look at the open forums.  We did understand that we have so far only a list of the open forums that were suggested, but not a list of those that are selected, but please Chengetai correct me if I'm wrong.  If the list that is on the IGF website are already selected open forums.

And we also had a look at the dynamic collision sessions that were confirmed, I think, the end of last year, and had a look which one are also related to the regulation issues.  So that step is already done, and I think we agreed in our meeting on Friday that we would follow the same approach like the groups that have reported right now that we would also have a look at the messages from previous IGFs looking what was said in regard of regulation as I have said before, we think that especially for regulation one could identify trends over the years that have, in some kind had underlying dramatic changes in regard to the attitudes towards regulation.

And we would like to build that up to see whether we can identify these trends, and then have a look how we can go forward with the workshops that are in the program for this year and what can be analyzed and identified for the most important issue in regard of emerging regulation for the main session this year.

Thank you.  And roam Roman will probably add something.

>> ROMAN CHUKOV:  Thank you so much, everyone.  Yes, Jutta has summarized very well.  I just want to underline that it would be amazing if each issue could produce some visible outcomes for each track.  So that's, the IGF is not just a set of workshops which repeat from year to year, but as was said several times that we come to some meaningful influence to this year.  And as the regulation issue is very hot at the moment, we all see worldwide really there should be maybe even some statement which we can further spread on the outcome of the IGF.

Because now even in the WSIS side event which we hosted during here, we have discussed that during the pandemic we should really urge all of the stakeholders to prevent the pandemic from happening online.  Now, every day, more and more news are coming about some hacking, about cyber threats, about global IT platforms crashes with governmental jurisdictions and stuff, so I think this is exactly the right moment when IGF can show that we are here to help to navigate this environment and I really call upon everyone to contribute to this process, because I think that it will really make a difference if this year we try to end up something different than the previous years.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Roman, and you remind me to Susan's question about opening up the issue teams.  Susan, if you look at the issue team terms of reference document which you will find on the MAG dashboard, absolutely, yes, the idea is that these issue teams are open to others, that they are led by MAG members and past MAG members have stepped in as well, so that's absolutely appropriate.

And you can open the issue team to whoever you want to.  So the idea in fact is that there are ways in which the community can participate.  So it's really up to each issue team how and to whom you want to open up.  So I hope that answers that question.  Thanks very much, Jutta and Roman.  Are there any questions for this group or any additions before we move on to the next one?

I don't see any hands.  And I know the Secretariat will alert me if there is anyone in the speaking queue.  Next we have the issue team for inclusive Internet Governance ecosystems and digital cooperation.  This includes the roadmap.  Do we have a report from this issue team.  I think this was one of the groups that might not have had a success, but I'm opening the floor for any updates on this issue team.  Do we have a facilitator or co‑facilitators?

Anja can you step in here?  Has there been no progress?

>> ANJA: Yes, Anriette, I didn't see any progress, but I could be wrong if something happened last week.  I was on leave.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Do we have any MAG member that's willing to step forward to be facilitators and co‑facilitators for this.  I can't see chat, I'm relying on people to speak.

  Let's move onto the next, but we have to come back and at least at the end of the call if we can have somebody step forward to facilitate this.

>>

>> I could facilitate this one or co‑facilitate this one, the last one on Internet Governance ecosystems and then I would then go out from the first issue team since there are already four people being facilitators.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's an excellent idea.  Thanks very much, you can still participate in the other one, but if you can take the responsibility for facilitating that, it would be excellent.  Thanks very much very much.

Next, security and stability.  Do we have ‑‑ I did see some interaction on the list of this one.  Do we have a facilitator and co‑facilitators for security and stability?  Anja, can you help?

>> ANJA: Let me check, Anriette, please.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  My MAG member, if you are in this group and if you are willing to facilitate.

>> We did have a call, a few of us were there, unfortunately at that point in time we were not too clear on what we had to do and how to go about, but there was some discussion as in Lucien, me, Susan, and not Jutta.  We were the four or five people were there, but we didn't come up with any facilitator or co‑facilitator through the call but there was some discussion over the email.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Amrita, would you be willing to be facilitator for this group.

>> I could support, I don't want to be the facilitator because I want to learn this time first.  I'm being very honest, so I can support if there is someone to lead.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  I will put you down as co‑facilitator.  Anyone else?  Stepping forward to facilitate this group?

>> LUCIEN CASTEX:  Lucien speaking.  I can co‑facilitate on this group.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Will you be the facilitator?

>> LUCIEN CASTEX:  I can try.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Adam, are you willing to be a co‑facilitator of this team?

>> ADAM PEAKE:  No.  I have got quite enough that I have picked up.  I think we are going to have a lot to do with the hybrid stuff.  I'm quite happy to join a lot of teams but I don't want to facilitate.  Sorry about that.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So Lucien, we have you here as the facilitator and Amrita.  I get the sense that this group still needs more input, so please others come forward.  And I think we have taken note that you have had one call, that you weren't that clear on what was needed but hopefully after listening to the other issue team reports today it will feel a bit clearer to you.  So let's move on.  You have your report next time.

>> Just to add, Anriette, there was another discussion that perhaps we would involve DBT of cybersecurity and possibly have Wim join in and share what the outcomes of the last years have been.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's a very good suggestion.  So I think go ahead and follow up on that, and then we will get a report from you at our next call.  Any other comment or questions or suggestions on trust, security and stability or can we move on?  I don't see hands.  So let's move on.  And really, everyone, don't feel discouraged.  I think progress is uneven, but there is progress, and we are getting closer to where we need to be.

The last group was environmental sustainability and climate change.  I'm not sure what the status is there.  Do we have facilitators?  Has there been any active planning.

I don't here anyone, so I think this was one of the issue teams that didn't have a call, but I wonder if here there is also opportunity to collaborate with the Policy Network on the environment.  I'm not sure if Irina is on the call.  Chengetai, how would you feel about that, if MAG members could collaborate with the Policy Network on organising the sessions for this issue area?  Chengetai was that you that spoke.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I said sure, sure.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  So I think we still need a MAG facilitator.  I'm not sure if Joyce or Tereza is on the call, but it actually worked well, because you are the Lee aids donees to the Policy Network, if either Joyce or Tereza could come forward to be facilitators.  I'm not sure if they are in the call today.

>> I hope you can hear me Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.

>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA:  Joyce and I are co‑facilitators and the role should be to make sure there is a bridge between the work of the Policy Network and MAG so that MAG as I see it is engaged, involved, aware with the Policy Network is up to.  We have not been communicating that much yet because it was very much in the planning phase, but now let's say the real work is starting as the Policy Network is going to write the report that should be available in a few weeks' time.

Regarding this idea, obviously there is a connection.  There should be some kind of liaison between any group planning the main session and the work of the Policy Network in my view, I would like that this feels disconnected on the work on the IGF.

When it goes to facilitating and being in charge of the main session, I just for myself, I have to be aware that as Adam already pointed out, I think we will be quite busy, Adam and I, for the MAG work for the hybrid elements.  We are starting to work on the guide for, and the Q and A that we have been in touch with, and I would like to focus more on being the bridge in this and contribute proactively, but also being the first year MAG member.

I would like somebody else to step out as well because I think the session would benefit from having more people involved, not just like saying, okay, Tereza, Joyce, that's environment because they are in the Policy Network.  So I need to be conscious and aware about what I can take up, but obviously there is nobody that will take up the task, which I hope won't be the case, I will not let you down.  I don't know if Joyce is around if she has different perspective on this, because we haven't coordinated on this answer.

Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Tereza.  Joyce, I don't think she is on the call.  I can't see the participant list while I'm sharing my screen, but I see there are more hands.  So who is next?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Joyce is there and her hand is raised.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Joyce, please go ahead.

>> JOYCE CHEN:  Hi, Anriette and hello, everyone.  I don't think I feel confident to lead this group because I'm confused what needs to be done for this.  I do have a suggestion, but I'm not sure how we would feel about this.  We didn't have a lot of proposals in total for this particular sub theme, and I wonder if because there also are not many members who have joined this issue team if we could simply combine this into another emerging issue that might be another way forward.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Joyce, I think that.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Anriette, we can't hear you anymore.  It seems like your mic has gone.  Let me text you.  She is not responding so maybe she has lost full Internet.  Joyce, can you repeat your question?

>> JOYCE CHEN:  Sure, Chengetai.  So my question was if we would not consider having this group just combine with another issue team, because I don't think that we received a lot of volunteered into this issue team as well, and there are not that many accepted proposals as well for this issue.  So, I mean, it's just a suggestion if nobody is willing to take on the presentation role?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry about this, everyone, my connection just dropped but I'm back.  I'm not sure what happened while I was away.  But, Joyce, let's take this up afterward.  We can find someone else to support this work area., but Chengetai, can you just update me, what did I miss?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That's it.  Joyce was just saying her question again and then you came in and answered it, so we can carry on.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, everyone.  I'm not sure what happened there.  My modem died and came back to life.  Let's take stock on what we have achieved.  Actually I think the progress is good considering that it has been challenging.  I want to put a acceptable question to all of the issue teams, I'm not sure we need breakout groups now, actually.  We don't have that much time left, but can everyone reflect on what they heard from the first two groups, universal access and economic and social inclusion.

These groups have, and I think trust and security as well, or, emerging regulation as well, I'm sorry, those groups.  They have decided to look back at outcomes from past IGFs and to use that as an input for planning the introductory sessions, and to also approach the main sessions from the perspective of more outcome oriented figure.

Now, there is a lot of flexibility in all of this, but does this approach sound like an approach which other issue teams might want to work with as well I'm opening the floor on how we approach the work of organising the introductory sessions and the main sessions.  Any comments?  Any reflections on this.

>> This is Amado.  I think that's an important issue because I think the perception of the audience, it would be more enriched when they learn that IGF is an ongoing process and that we are trying to take the former events and put the experience into action with the ongoing event.

Then I do agree strongly recommend to take advantage of it, and especially, for example, right now talking about environment issues.  I think that would be very interesting to learn from the conclusions of the IGF in Germany, and then to apply some experiences there.  If there is any way to have a summary from the different presentations, I don't know if Luis has a database from these kinds of summaries if we can collect the most important ideas and then put together a document.

I can volunteer to help you in this regard.  Thanks.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks very much, Amado.  Any other comments?

>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Anriette, Amrita for the record.  It would be good that we take the learnings of the three groups who have actually made some amount of progress in it, reflecting on what has happened, looking at what has been done, and how IGF can lead the discussion as well as Roman's point of if we can have some message, tangible message coming out from these teams, I think that would, that would be a quite an effective way.  Cybersecurity and trust perhaps apart from looking at what has been done earlier, what is happening, we can try to link it to the different cybersecurity discussions or papers which have come up this year and see how IGF can, you know, take these discussions ahead.  This is a wild card.  We need to discuss it in the group.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I agree with you, Amrita, and I think as I said in the group mailing list, this has been a pivotal here in that issue area with the report of the group of governmental experts, the open‑ended Working Group, and increased cyber attacks.  So I think there is a lot happening, which is very relevant to Internet Governance stakeholders this can be picked up on in the introductory engagement phase and in the main session.  So let's continue discussing in plenary, Lucien thanks for responding to my question, I don't think that there is any real purpose at this point in the issue teams to go into backout groups.  We have clearly a need for some of the issue teams to come together quite soon.  And the first step would be to finalize the facilitation which we can do after this call.

So the one thing that still concerns me is that some of the MAG members express that they still have some uncertainty about what the role and purpose is of the issue teams.  So I want to ask everyone, has everyone looked at the terms of reference for issue teams?  And do you have questions?  Is that document not clear enough.  Are you all familiar with that document?

>> If I may, Anriette, I don't think that everyone will say now that they are not familiar or that something is unclear, but I am sure that's something is unclear, so if we can very briefly outline what is expected from each issue team, I think that will be amazing and everyone will really appreciate it.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I agree, Roman.  Our next presenter is going to be Wim, because Wim will be presenting to us on the issue mapping, but he also worked on developing that.  So, Wim, maybe when you start your presentation, if you can just go to that document again.  The link, everyone, so that you know where to find it is on the MAG dashboard.  So you will find the link there, but in a nutshell, I will let Wim show you the document, but it really is, Joyce, and I'm responding specifically to you, because I know you were also not able to attend calls because of the timing of the calls, but really what the issue teams need to do is to organize the session for that issue and ‑‑

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We may have lost her again.  Wim, why don't you wait 30 seconds and if she didn't come back on, do your presentation.

>> Wim:  Maybe I can follow up on what Anriette was saying as she was referring to the document about issue teams and what is actually expected.  I don't have the document in front of me, but I remember what the task was described in there as the eyes of the MAG on a specific issue area.

And that means issue teams should try to be aware of, help to get an overview of what's going on on the specific issue area within and outside the IGF.  And that has two elements.  On the one hand, using that or moving that into preparing those introductory sessions where actually the issue teams say for this presented issue for the IGF why that issue was chosen and how it was defined, and then making the link in preparing it, making the link to the main session at IGF 2021 in December which the issue teams are preparing.

And I think ail of the other tasks are linked to that.

Really trying to get at one point of information where people can or that one point within the MAG that takes responsibility for a specific issue area in terms of providing information and also some guidance.

So I'm not sure that was entirely clear, but.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Well let people ask for clarification.  But I see that Amando's hand is up.  Do you have a question in connection with this?

>> AMADO ESPINOSA:  I'm sorry, I didn't lower that, thanks.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No problem.  Does anybody have any further questions or or is it clear for everybody, or as clear as can be and, of course, we had send the link around as well so people can read the thing.

>> I think what exactly Susan and Lucien noted, the key point is organising, putting together the preparatory and engagement sessions and the main sessions, but why are these not the teams like we had in previous years?  Especially because there is additional task of the IGF to try and provide some linkages between different activities and also trying to break down some silos and have more cooperation of what is going on outside IGF and within IGF.

So it is organising the preparatory and main sessions, but in the mean time trying to do that based on more information and more bottom up in a better bottom up way involving being better aware of what is going on within the broader IGF community.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thanks very much, Wim.  I do we have further questions?  I don't know if Anriette wants to add something onto that.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  No, I don't think so, Chengetai, and my connection is unstable, so please continue Chairing.  I think it is important that everyone has a look at that document, and I also think at the previous call we had past MAG member describe what is involved in organising the main sessions, and the introductory sessions, so not everyone were in that call, but really, it's very easy to reach out to past MAG members to get more information.

So we don't have that much time left today, but let's see.  If we have time at the end, then I will invite some of the past MAG members that are in the call just to share how they went about the work of organising these introductory sessions and the main sessions.

We will see if we have time.  I didn't see Susan's comment unfortunately, but Susan is a MAG member with years of experience.  So I'm sure that it was spot on.  So back to you, Chengetai.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Anriette.  If we have no further questions on that and the link is in the chat, so please feel free to read that document, and if you have any further questions, please, you can contact one of us either through email, Skype, or whatever medium that you are familiar with or you feel more at home with as Anriette says, we are not going into the breakout groups.

We are skipping the breakout groups today.  That's what I heard.  I just want her to confirm.  I'm sorry to keep on coming back to you, Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Chengetai, yes, because I think that we went as far as we could with the issue teams.  So I think, yes, let's continue now to look at the issue mapping.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We will look at the issue mapping now, and I am going to give it back.  Who is going to present with the issue mapping?  It's Luis and Wim or.

>> Yes, it's me again.  And if I can share my screen?

>> WIM DEGEZELLE:  What Luis, Sorina and I have been working on is a template for the issue area Wikis, and a template I think we developed or we worked on one for economic and social inclusion and human rights.  We wanted to present that first to the MAG for you to review and come up with some ideas for provide feedback before we prepare it for every team and then share it with the team leads so that we can further work on it.  So maybe it's related to the previous question, maybe just to remind what is the idea behind the Wiki for each issue area.

It's first of all to be able to show that activities and processes dialogues are ongoing at different places within and outside the IGF.  So just to show what's going on, give the general mapping.

Secondly, facilitate identifying synergies and opportunities to collaborate either ahead of the IGF itself, so provide help for groups that are looking for or session organizers, for example, looking for other initiatives to work with, but also, of course, afterward after IGF it would be great if the Wiki in a specific area can be a starting point for different organisations to work together.

And then probably really focused on IGF 2021 during the meeting, the issue Wikis should serve or could serve as one stop for an overview of what is going on within the issue area.  First on the progress or the technical side after some back and forth within the team, we decided to start working with Google Docs so create for each issue area a Google Doc and work on that template there for reasons, first of all, of flexibility, and it's also easier to work with for the different teams, and the Secretary.

And then secondly, as you all are well aware, there is a new website coming.  It's starting now in Google Docs, it gives us some freedom or more time to wait and see what possibilities there are on the new website.  To integrate or keep them as different documents and how to present it in the most useful way.

So in terms of timing, the idea would be to keep working on the Google Docs at least to, between now and September, and then in one way or another either find a website or as stand alone Google Docs having these Wikis available in support of the session, the series of sessions during the preparatory phase.

Then to the structure as you can see for the economic and social inclusion, this gives a brief overview of the issue area with the different sub teams for their, to give the general overview, that's information that's currently already available on the website, but it's good to have it all in one site.

And then the second part is the actual Wiki, which is structured in at this moment in three parts, one linked to the IGF program, a second one through a second section to community initiatives and the last section to stakeholder initiatives.  The IGF program, I think most of it is clear and the information that is intended to come there is also, is partly already available.  As you see, the idea is to have one, when it becomes available, I'm sorry, information on the main session, a short description, but then also the links to the main sessions, and then under that, and that's something that already can be done now, the links to the different workshops that are going to be organized during IGF 2021.

Similar, I'm sorry, for other initiatives, other sessions, it can be good to have that information, although there we would expect to also have the organizers of those sessions to help us with providing information and pointers to their sessions.  Second element is on the Wiki is where relevant for that particular issue area to also add the IGF intersessional work.  The idea is that the BPFs Policy Networks and Dynamic Coalitions themselves come up and with the information and provide the information or pointers to their work within a specific issue area relevant for them so that they can be included in the Wiki page.

Similar for NRIs, although the, the idea is not to add a full list of NRIs on the Wiki page, but to have the request going out to NRIs to come up with links to sessions, session reports or session report that have been organized or that they plan to organize this year, later this year that are relevant for a specific topic.

So I think it came up also during the discussions we had today.  It would be good to also collect some information, information, I'm sorry, on sessions going on in different NRIs and even sessions that have been organized maybe last year but NRIs as well, but that would be a question that goes out to NRIs.

Last, but I think not least are stakeholder initiatives.  I think this is really challenging, but probably also the most interesting, one of the most interesting parts.  If we are able to or if we can manage to come up with stakeholder initiatives, that can be national, regional, local initiatives, or even relevant UN or IGO dialogues and initiatives and have those, that information linked in that one Wiki, just, I mean, just to be aware.  As I look at, as I have been working with BPFs, sometimes I miss that it would have been great to know that within the UN or within any other organisations, there have been or there are relevant topics there.  They still have that information there.

This is for the structure, so I would like to conclude, again, the idea is that we make a similar structure, basic structure for each of the areas.  So if you have comments, suggestions, we would be happy to hear them.  Maybe by the end of the week so that we can reach out to with early next week with the finalized documents.

For the other issue areas, I heard some other interesting ideas.  I think Susan made a comment in the chat a while ago that issue area or issue team, sorry, that look to last year's IGF and start to collect information of what has been done on a specific area that it would be good to, or that it would be great if they use the Wiki to make that information also available.  So if there is support for that, I think it would be great to add that on the Wiki.

So like I said, the idea is to have this information at least public by September so that it can serve as a background for the sessions, introductory and engagement sessions being organized, but keep them open so continue to build on them during the months ahead of the IGF meeting.  So by then we will also think of a process to interest in which external organisation or external people can suggest additions.

That's ‑‑

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Wim, I just want to give a chance for the rest of the team if you have anymore comments before we open it up to the MAG.  Luis, Sorina, anything to add?  Wim did present it comprehensively, but in case you have something else to add?  Six count.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Chengetai, if I may, to add I think it's interesting, I have looked at this document, obviously and thanks very much, Wim, but it struck me listening to the issue team reports that if an issue team would like to map some of the past messages and past sessions, that you are documenting, that would also actually be very useful in this template.  So, Wim, I'm not sure how you feel about that or if we could add that, but I thought it could be useful, you know, seeing as some of the issue teams are actually doing this background research.

I think it would contribute usefully to this document.  And then just I see there is a question in the chat, Chengetai from Adam asking if the technical invoice office is mapping activities across the UN.  So if someone can respond to that, and also it might be useful for the Working Group strategy just to report on what the mapping is that they are doing.  Back to you.

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

For Adam's question, we will ask them.  I think Jason is on leave at the moment, so he is not on, but well ask them exactly what they are doing and to see if there are any synergies that can be produced between what we are going to be doing here and also what the technical envoy is doing.

So I'm opening up the floor, and then I'm also asking Wim, you asked for comments and you state that the comments should be in by the end of the week in what format?  You want it emailed?  You want comments on the document?  Please let us know how MAG members can give you comments.  And also I'm opening up the floor, sorry, if you have any comments right now, please raise your hand.

>>

>> WIM DEGEZELLE:  The easiest way is the comments really focus on the structure of the document at this moment, the structure of the document, and if something is missing, so I suggest the easiest way is to send a link to the mailing list of the document and people can comment on there.  And then we take it from there, and by early next week we can reach out to a final template.  I think, I mean, the issue teams are also, I mean, there is some flexibility for the issue teams to work or to add elements to the structure that are particularly relevant, for example, if they would make a mapping of last year's work, but ideally there is still some similarity in the structure across the different issue areas.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Wim, for that.  And we will ask one last time if there are immediate comments.  I know this is the first time you have seen the document so you may want time to go through it, reflect, and then also put your comments as Wim said that he is going to send the link to the MAG list and you can make your comments then.  I'll pause for a second before I carry on to the next Agenda Item, which is our next steps okay.  So we know the next steps what we are going to be doing with issue mapping.  We do know that we are going to continue with the meetings of the issue teams.

And also there is that outstanding question for Joyce which she is going to talk with Anriette about.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  The facilitation.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The facilitation.

>> TITI CASA:  This is Titi.  I just shared the link to the table of the mapping exercise that the Working Group strategy started a few weeks ago, the mapping exercise is related to the activity, tried to map the activity between the roadmap and the activities.  So we are going to further discuss this table during next meeting, next Thursday.  And for sure we will try to collect the input from the dynamic collision BPF as we discussed last time.  Maybe it will be useful so include also the other activity the issue teams are discussing are doing in this time.  Thank you, just a few, a short update.  Thanks.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.  Titi.  Anything else I have missed in the next steps.  Underline facilitators, we needs to know who the facilitators are, and I think this needs to be communicated as well to the Secretariat so we can list them on the dashboard and in our records as well.

And if this could be done by the end of this week, I think that would be great.  Anriette, please.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.

I just want to get a sense from yourself and from MAG members when we should set the next deadline.  We do have the preparatory and engagement phase sessions starting on 21 September.  We need to ensure enough time to invite speakers and to promote these sessions.  So we really cannot ‑‑ we need finalized session proposals by late August.  So I just want to get an indication from the issue teams, MAG members and from the Secretariat whether we should have a call in a week or a call in two weeks' time.  We were going to take a break in August, but I'm afraid that I think it's not realistic for us to take a break.

So my proposal would be that we give the issue teams time to do their work and that we have a call in two weeks' time during which we review the final session session proposals.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, so the proposal is to have a call on the 10^th of August.  Do we have any objections to a call on the 10^th of August?  We will give it a six count.  If there are no objections to the call on the 10^th of August, that will be when our call will be.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That will be the call where we review reports on the sessions from the issue teams and these would be not the main sessions in December, but the preparatory and engagement phase sessions.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Any other business?  Does anybody have anything to say or to present?  I think that's where we are.  We have got seven minutes left, so I think we are going to end right on time if there is any other business.  And I will also count slowly to 6.  Okay.  Well, thank you very much, and thank you very much for your participation.  I know it's just difficult for some especially when it's very early or very late for some people.  And your attendance is really appreciated.

We will have the meeting on the 10^th, the Secretariat will send out the promised email so that you can comment, et cetera, and also for the travel support.  We will send that out either end of today or tomorrow, and I think that's it.  Thank you very much to the scribes, and thank you very much to Anriette, and thank you to all of you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  I just wanted to adjust one action item which just occurred to me, and that's just for those issue teams that have developed templates and that have showed their methodology today, if you can send those to the MAG list as well so that everyone can have a look at them.  Thanks, Chengetai and thanks everyone, bye‑bye.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Bye.