IGF 2021 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - XVI (RAW)

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. 


   >> ANJA GENGO:  Good afternoon from Geneva.  This is Anja from the Secretariat.  I think there are 20 participants on this call.  We expect the number to be higher.  If you are in agreement, although it is the start of the scheduled hour we will give up to two minutes for participants to connect.  In the meantime feel free to test the audio or chat function.  


   >> ANJA GENGO:  Once again good morning, good afternoon.  Transcription is under way.  There will be a summary report available a few days after the meeting ends and then by our colleague Sorina.  We will also be using the speaking queue and the link will be posted in the chat shortly after this announcement.  If you face technical issues using the speaking queue you can use await request through Zoom whether you raise your hand or use the chat function and ensure that you -- that your intervention is brought to the attention of the MAG Chair.  I hope the meeting inputs are visible for you on the screen.  I also pasted the link on the chat and the agenda is shared on the screen.  I would like to give the Chair to the multi-stakeholderor advisory group, Anriette Esterhuysen.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much.  It is a pleasure to be with you.  Chengetai is attending the Caribbean IGF, wishing him and everyone well.  Let me review the agenda and then we can proceed.  Today we will have updates from the host country.  And then have updates from the Secretariat.  We will also review the action items from the last call which was on 10 August.  And we will then item No. 4, delve in to what has been the work of the MAG and I'm really encouraged by how you have all come together, most of you, still not all, and to work on the preparatory engagement phase session outlines.  We'll -- we'll hear the updated session outlooins presented by the issue teams and we will discuss them.  And decide on what the next steps are to finalize them.  

    We will also look at the issue mapping, that is the platform that we are using to document the IGF process, which is the -- also the first iteration of the IGF 2021 outcome documentation.  And then finally we'll talk about the planning of the main sessions.  And how to proceed with that.  And any other matters, if anybody wants to put anything else on the agenda, please let me know.  Anja, can we please note apologies before we hand over to Charmac, who I welcome very warmly.  Can we record the apologies?  Let me hand over to you.  

   >> ANJA GENGO:  Yes.  We have apologies from Sooki and Roberto, Tereza and Gunela.  The apologies is to missing a few minutes of the meeting and to the extent missing the whole meeting.  If I missed someone, I promise I will update in the chat but I think that's everything we have received.    

I want to thank all the past MAG members for joining us.  It's always good to have your input and the benefit of your experience.  And also thank you to MAG members from priest years who have been participating in the issue teams.  Welcome to our captioner Tina, who one day I think will write a book about the IGF in her memoirs.  Let me hand over to Chairmak the representative from the host country to give us an update.  You have the floor. 

   >> Thank you.  Welcome, everyone.  It is good to be here with you.  (Typiak) after some holiday break.  I would like to give a slight update on what's going on with our -- on our preparatory phase.  

    We have put looking at and taking in to consideration all your requests and previous comments from our previous meetings regarding the actual COVID-19 pandemic information at the host country's website.  We have put all the information at our -- all the necessary and relevant information in one place.  So we don't need to look for it anywhere else, just please check with our IGF 2021 host country's website for any new information or updates regarding the COVID-19 restrictions and other regulations.  

    We have also and a huge thank you to Anja, to Chengetai and to the entire IGF Secretariat, we have been working very closely with our good colleagues on the visual guide for participants on how to register for the IGF 2021.  And it's already on the IGF website as a result of our very good joint cooperation.  So once again thank you very much for that, Anja and Chengetai and others.  

    So we can also familiarize yourselves with it and do distribute this information to other colleagues other MAG members and relevant environments and stakeholders so that everyone can look at this and be of the same side.  

    And also together with our good colleagues from the MAG Working Group on hybrid meetings, especially Tereza and Adam, we are working on tips and hints for onsite as well as session organizers.  We do hope that I'm not going to say anything from Tereza or on behalf of Tereza or Adam.  I will be just give them the possibility to say a few words on this if they are here with us.  

    Nevertheless, just to briefly inform you that we also working on the joint document to help you familiarize with this hybrid mode.  And I do hope that we will be able to present them to the MAG very shortly.  

    So that's all from my side, just to briefly inform you that we are also speeding up the vaccination process and more and more people are being vaccinated in Poland.  

    So we are looking also forward to having you in Katavitcha in December.  We hope the global situation will improve, COVID-19 situation will improve and that we will be able to see each other face to face in growing numbers in December.  

    Thank you very much for that, for giving me the floor.  Back to you Anriette.  I wish everyone a very fruitful and very good meeting.  The thank you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much for that Typiak.  And before we have the update from the Secretariat, can we please check on progress made in last time's action items.  So Anja, if you can please just display the action items from the previous meeting summary, we can quickly review them.  

    Thanks very much for that.  And MAG members, do look at the meeting summaries.  They are very helpful to recap the discussion.  And particularly helpful for those of you that were not able to attend the call.  

    So action items from our last call on 10 August was for the Secretariat to propose alternative dates for the introductory sessions.  Thank you very much to the people who responded to the poll.  We have new dates and Anja will share them shortly.  Issue teams were to submit their updated proposals by yesterday and I think all but one issue team did complete a proposal and even the one that did not submit its proposal has made progress and we can discuss it shortly.  

    And the deadline was 23 August.  So I do urge you in the future if we ask you to send these by e-mail to the Secretariat, please do so.  It made it much easier for them to compile the content.  And the MAG Chair was supposed to and did distribute a very simple session outline template.  And MAG members who have not yet contributed to the work of the issue teams are invited to do so as soon as possible.  

    And I think I would like the facilitators, when you present your proposals today if you can also just reflect on the extent to which MAG members have been participating in the process and whether we should be doing further galvanizing of MAG members and participation.  

    And then the issue mapping Wiki pages I won't dwell on that.  We are going to discuss that a little bit more today, one will give us an update and we just want to make sure that you don't feel overwhelmed by it and that we are keeping it simple.  And also just that you can see how these Wiki pages or how this document is actually part of the process of documenting IGF 2021 inputs and then also outcomes.  

    Something that I think has not happened but we want to pick that up again today is for each issue team to Designate one member to be responsible for contributing to the relevant Wiki page.  So we'll come back to that today and we have a proposal for how these people will work together.  And we ask MAG members to address the questions to Wim and Sorina.  Our action items were to continue with more in-depth discussions in upcoming MAG meetings.  We will touch on that today.  The deadline for main session proposals is -- finalized proposals is 5 October.  

    And then I think the final action item here was the finalized session deadlines is 2 October.  We will revisit that.  But we also ask MAG members to review the concept note for the IGF 2021 high level leader's track, a concept note that had been shared by the host country and Secretariat.  The deadline was 12 August.  So thank you to the MAG members who did contribute to that.  And I think the contributions were helpful.  And we'll get an update at a later stage.  

    So that's it on the action items.  Thank you very much, Anja.  Anja, can you proceed and give us the update from the Secretariat?  

   >> ANJA GENGO:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Anriette.  The first one is that the registration for the third open consultations MAG meeting upcoming in late September in hybrid format is open.  It's available on the IGF website and we encourage all magazine members to register regardless of if you will participate online or you will join us in Geneva in person.  And please do help us to distribute that call also across can your networks.  In addition to that another update would relate that you probably note this is that the call for renewal of the MAG for the next year's IGF planning, so IGF 2022 is now open.  The call accepts nominations for the members of the MAG and MAG Chair by until sorry, 10th of September.  You are mostly encouraged and we would be very grateful if you could help to distribute that call also across your networks.  

    As many of the currently serving MAG members or who did not serve three terms and not eligible to continue, asked whether they need to reapply.  I just wish to make clear that you do not need to reapply for you to be taken in to consideration for the continuation of your tenure for up to three years.  

    And I just also want to remind everyone that the call for travel support is still open until end of August, end of day and we would be also most grateful if you could help to reach out eligible candidates that could apply for the travel support to also join us in Katavitz for the hybrid IGF.  

    Looking at my inputs, I think everything is covered.  But I do wish to ask my colleagues, Luis and Wim and Eleonora who are present on this call to add if I missed anything.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.  Any additions from anyone else?  If not I would like to open the floor to questions from the MAG and other participants.  Do you have any questions either for Typiak or for Anja?  

    At this point how many of you are planning to travel or feel you will be able to travel to the open consultation and MAG meeting at the end of September?  Just if anyone can, you know, respond in the chat or even take the mic.  


   >> Hi, Anriette.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Good morning, Carlos Afonso.  

   >> Carlos:  I have been talking to the Brazilians.  We in principle will not be going for the obvious reasons.  Probably not going as well to the main meeting in December.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's not good news.  That's also not surprising.  Anyone else?  Amrita, what about you?  Do you think you will be able to get a Visa in time?  

   >> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  I have Visa interview today.  So I'm hopeful and see if they can come up -- expectantly within two weeks they are supposed to inform whether I have got it or not.  So let's see.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's good.  I had mine last week.  So I'm also waiting.  Is there anyone else who already knows that they will not be able to attend?  

   >> Hi.  Can you hear me?  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, I can.  

   >> So for me -- 

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Introduce yourself for the record.  

   >> Oh, this is Arsene.  It is possible I won't be able to make because the local Swiss Embassy here said they are not still not allowed to do Visas until further notice.  So they advise are us to still check their website and see if they will be accepting applications again.  So as of now I don't think I will be able to travel to Geneva.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you.  And Courtney, I see you had your hand up.  

   >> Courtney:  Yes.  Thank you.  I am unfortunately also unable to travel to Geneva due to pre-existing commitments.  But am planning to be able to travel to Poland.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  I mean it is important for us to know this because we will be able to plan around this.  Ucha can we hear from you?  

   >> Ucha:  Hi.  I'm out of any opportunity to travel because we don't -- our situation is quite disastrous here.  We are in the I'd say in the red.  I have no opportunity to travel also.  Even for December, no travel in December.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much for that.  (Off microphone).  

   >> ANJA GENGO:  Anriette we can't hear you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you.  Ucha, thanks for that.  Just to say this is not all good news.  But I thank those of you that are making a real effort to be there.  For those of you that can't be there in person we'll plan the meeting in such a way.  In fact, it will be a very good opportunity for us to put in practice all the principles and mechanisms that we are developing for hybrid meetings.  

    So that we can make sure that MAG members participate fully.  And the sooner you inform the Secretariat and myself whether you will be there in person or not, please that's helpful.  But thanks very much, everyone, for that input and please continue to share information as you can.  

    And now, Anja, can I -- can we start with the next item?  I don't see any other hands.  I'm just double checking the Zoom list.  I think we've covered that.  Anja can you take us to start item No. 4, preparatory engaged phase, can you give us an update on the change of dates?  And on the program?  

   >> ANJA GENGO:  Yes, thank you very much, Anriette.  I will start with introducing the so far updates regarding the preparatory phase and give a heads up to Eleonora to be ready to speak to the dates because that's the part that Eleonora is helping us with.  On the preparatory and engagement phase to update the MAG on where the Secretariat stands with the logistics and implementation, we are currently building a page dedicated to the preparatory and engagement phase which will have kind of integrated maybe even static schedule of all the sessions that are planned.  The very first session that is upcoming for us is on 31st of August.  It is a session focused on youth engagement, and we'll be speaking mostly about the basics and essentials of Internet Governance including the IGF as an ecosystem and process.  And that session will -- details on that session will also be communicated to you.  

    But currently what we've seen, yes, what Luis is displaying in the PDF draft that we all agreed on, nothing much is changing except the dates that you are choosing for the introductory sessions which will be much later than planned.  Each session in the preparatory schedule will have basically an interactive calendar placement on the IGF website.  So that will mean that the participants that do register for IGF 2021 overall, so that's the link that's open and available on the IGF website, will be then able to access the page on preparatory and engagement phase, then click on each of the sessions that's available in that table schedule overview.  And then when they click they will be able to read more about the session in terms of the description to click on the registration link and also add the session in their calendar.  

    So we should be able to deliver on this very quickly, and sent to the MAG list for your review as well and, of course, advice to improve the design as always is most welcome.  

    With that, I think maybe Eleonora might be ready.  You can update through the new dates that you have chosen through the poll.  

   >> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Hi Anja.  Hi everyone.  Thank you for giving me the floor.  I mean I don't have very much to add to what Anja said because she was very thorough on the schedule.  Just to say that in the poll that the Secretariat conducted shortly after our last MAG meeting there were two tied options between the first and third of November and 15th and 17th of November for which to hold the issue introductory sessions.  So we have decided to go with 1 to 3 November for the new intro session dates to leave enough time before the annual meeting.  And space for all the other sessions in the preparatory phase and engagement calendar that are taking place.  

    Otherwise the schedule will remain more or less the same.  There may be some other changes related to the Intersessional sessions, but those will be finalized with the various focal points.  So the new dates would be 1 to 3 November based on the poll.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much for that.  Eleonora, if you can share with the MAG the decision that we are proposing with regard to the wrap-up of the preparatory and engagement phase, which is resulting from moving the focus area sessions to November.  

   >> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Sure.  Thank you.  Yes, we had discussed what to do about the wrap-up session on which there was some concern in the sense that it might be a little -- a little too much, given the intro sessions and given the fact that a recap session was already planned for the annual meeting.  So I think that we are in agreement that it would be best to simply no pun intended, wrap the wrap-up session in to the recap session that will take place at the beginning of the annual meeting.  And so the elements from that wrap-up session will be in the issues focused recap session, at the beginning of the program in December.  


   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Eleonora.  Any questions on this proposed change and the schedule and the new dates for the issue focus area introductory sessions?  So just to restate that, the sessions that were originally scheduled for late September have now been moved to the first week of November.  So that gives you more time.  And but in that time you also need to plan for the main sessions.  And I think that's one shift that you do need to take in to account.  So I don't see any hands.  I hope everyone is happy with the new dates.  I think it was a good decision to move these sessions closer to the annual Forum.  

    So before we start with the presentations of your proposals for these introductory and engagement phase issue sessions, I wanted to recap what the purpose of them is.  I think I get the sense in talking with MAG members and participating in the issue team, you are feeling less overwhelmed but there are still people who feel a little overwhelmed or confused by this.  And what I want to ask you is to please not, not be overwhelmed don't overthink these sessions and you are progressing really well.  And the purpose of the session is to prepare us and they are to engage the community.  They are to check in on the issue area and look back where relevant, where there is something pertinent to look back on in terms of previous IGF outcomes but an opportunity to look at what the priorities are in that issue area.  What has changed since the community sent their input in January which we used to develop these issue areas.  Are they new issues that have emerged.  And primarily these sessions are intended to engage stakeholders.  

    To get the perspectives on these issues from different regions from different stakeholder groups.  And to use the fact that these issue -- that these sessions are really intended to be interactive.  I'm not saying you shouldn't get speakers.  It is great to get speakers but don't lose the overall goal of the introductory preparatory engagement phase sessions which is to delve deeper and interactively in to the session areas.  Don't feel too intimidated by these sessions.  They really are an opportunity for us to engage the community.  

    And now I'd like to invite people to start presenting their sessions.  Anja and I have discussed a sequence to do this.  I think the -- because some people are joining us a little bit later.  So the first issue team to present will be economic and social inclusion and Human Rights.  And to assist you, the Secretariat can display your proposal.  

    But if there are any general questions in the meantime while the Secretariat brings that up, are there any background or general questions about the preparatory and engagement phase at this point?  Are you all feeling clear on why we are doing this and how we are going about it?  Okay.  

    Good.  I don't see any hands.  And we can bring up questions in the course of the discussion.  So issue team for economic, social inclusion and Human Rights you have the floor. 

   >> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ:  This is Evelyne.  I'm not sure if I should be presenting.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think, Evelyne.  I think you are because I don't see your cofacilitator with us yet.  So please go ahead.  

   >> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ:  Okay.  Yes, I can do that.  So we were mostly interested in looking at like trends and -- that could possibly produce new insights for the IGF 2021.  And also what I maybe want to note is that the submissions of workshops received, they were really, really broad.  And so instead of -- so the bit of background behind it, it would be difficult to pick on one topic but still there are like -- there are like certain subgroups or certain new trends going on there.  But it would be really interesting to let the speakers and the audience discuss these -- like these new challenges or risks or opportunities also that are emerging.  

    And so we split that in long term trends or middle term trends, some of them are also outlined in the UN Secretary-General's roadmap for digital cooperation.  And others also might have emerged, more in the short term, like based on the pandemic which relates the first policy question.  

    So basically there's like a first big block which we want to ask both panelists but also the audience to discuss how we can possibly explain that this issue of economic and social inclusion of human rights has gained strength as compared to previous IGFs.  

    And then -- so this is a bit like what is happening.  Like in the sense of what is going on.  And then the next question would be like what can we do about it or what -- what governance strategies can be adopted, like be it by Governments, international organizations, business Civil Society, and they're also including the role of the IGF.  Like -- so it is a bit -- maybe if we can scroll down or -- I think up or down a bit under the agenda.  There I think it's most easiest to see.  

    I think that's a bit up maybe on the screen.  If that's possible.  Because -- down, sorry.  Sorry.  That's down.  Yeah.  The agenda I think we -- shows it clearly like an introduction.  But the first block would be about trends and opportunities and risks.  That is a bit summarizing also like the workshops that were -- that were received and selected.  Because as I said a topic is really broad but still it might be possible to group them somehow which might be useful for the main session later on.  Some of them due to long or middle term trends.  Others more related to the pandemic.  

    And then secondly, discuss what are possible governance strategies and also what the IGF can do to promote inclusion and Human Rights.  So we tried to make that as interactive as possible which resulted in a short input talk of four speakers from different stakeholder groups.  One from international organizations or Government.  And then also from business, academia and Civil Society.  Yeah.  So the idea is that each speaker can give a short input talk, like four minutes approximately.  Rather shorter than longer.  When each has done that we want to give them a short opportunity to respond to what other speakers said.  Then possibly doing a poll, asking the audience to rank the risks, opportunities, which were identified.  

    And then a question block, where the audience can participate as well.  Same goes for the -- I'm not 100% sure, it might be something to discuss, if you want to split it in two blocks.  The first trends opportunities and risks and other ones -- the first one is more like where we are heading to.  The second one is what do we want to do about it or we should mix them.  But if we keep it as it is that would be like a second block there again where possible governance strategies are discussed, again four minutes each.  And then respond to each other's inputs.  Then possibly a poll again.  And again questions from the audience.  And then like just to round it all up, a final discussion.  

    And maybe a short summary.  And outlook to the main session at IGF.  So that is a bit what we are thinking to do as it looks right now.  But yeah, the main idea behind it is really to try and -- try to get all these inputs together and be able to identify what are the main trends, opportunities and risks that are arising.  And then also discuss like what are possible strategies to promote inclusion, Human Rights, including the role of IGF in this task.  I don't know if I should go in to more detail with speakers, for instance, or if we want to leave it there, like..

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think this is good.  I think this is actually enough.  I mean you can maybe scroll back to, Luis, if you could skrol back to the speakers.  You looked at regional diversity.  You might need to look at regional diversity a bit more.  I felt that many of the sessions did need to recheck, that you do have stakeholder and regional and other forms of diversity.  But I already see you have a fair amount of that.  It might be just worth looking at a bit deeper.  

    But thanks very much for a really clear and well thought through proposal.  And I open the floor.  Does anyone have any comments or reactions?  And perhaps if anyone wants to respond to Evelyne's question about whether they should break the session in to two blocks or not.  The floor is open. 

   >> I have my hand up.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead Courtney. 

   >> Courtney:  This is Courtney a MAG member for the record.  Just to add to what Evelyne said, not look at trends as separate issues but to link social, economic and Human Rights in a way that I think is happening implicitly but do that a little more explicitly in this session.  And then one of the reasons that we designed this as a more interactive and the two blocks approach as well as the poll is trying to respond to the fact that people don't like to have listen to big chunks of speech.  It can be very tiring for people who are doing that remotely.  And we have experience now I think at the USA IGF we did a session that was kind of designed like this that worked really well.  And it allows you to bring in the audience throughout, which I think can be really beneficial.  So that was just some of the rationale for that.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Courtney.  And if you can -- I see Adam is asking how long your session is scheduled for.  If you can just respond to that please.  

   >> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ:  I think we scheduled 90 minutes.  

   >> Courtney:  I think so.  Yeah.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's what I recall as well.  I think that 90 minutes is a good time period for the structure of your session.  And the different components.  And I think given though it is quite long you have built interactive elements in to this throughout.  I don't think it will be too long.  

    So Adam, in response to your question, not all the sessions are the same.  We've really given the issue teams the space to decide how much time they need.  

    Any other reactions or suggestions or contributions to this issue team?  I don't see any hands.  I just want to say my reaction is that I think this sounds really good to me.  I think it sounds -- it is fulfilling the brief of what we want to achieve with these preparatory and engagement phase issues.  So I want to congratulate you.  I think you should look at the speaker diversity just to make sure you have got all regions covered.  And also think about how the outcomes, how the discussion will be documented.  Because that's a big part of it.  And the more that you think about capturing the outcomes, and as you plan the session, the easier it will be for the Secretariat to then -- for you to capture that and share it with the Secretariat which will then put it in to the revised update issues guide that will be issued.  This sounds really good.  So congratulations to this group.  We'll talk about deadlines a bit later.  You still have time to finalize your speaker list.  But what we really need at this point is the overall description and outline.  I think you have done that very well.  Congratulations.  

    Let's move on to the next issue team and that is environmental sustainability and climate change.  Juliana.  

   >> Juliana:  Hello.  Can you hear me?  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  We can hear you.  Welcome and you have the floor. 

   >> Juliana:  Okay.  Thank you.  I'm working with Tereza and Luis to prepare the preparatory session on the environmental issue.  We decided the preparatory -- the decision as introduction for the session itself since it is quite new, only announced two years ago.  

    And is this our place -- this is a place about the stakeholder, the IGF itself.  And also the Working Group to see the issue in the area of environment and digitalization.  And how connected among the decision and stakeholders which has impact on the policymakers.  Now and in the future of the IGF and beyond.  

    The purpose of the session is to give the participants a big picture of what the issue is itself.  And what is important since maybe in the last meeting Tereza mentioned that all the sessions on environmental is quite the focus and then we want to give the -- give the -- some helicopter issue on this.  So the participants could have the big picture on this issue itself.  

    The format will be the Plenary session and not -- not the room.  Because I think this will be interactive discussion in to big room.  We divide it in to the second -- in to two parts.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry to interrupt.  Luis, can you scroll down a little bit, please, to the form -- format.  

   >> Juliana:  Yeah, the format.  And the agenda.  The proposed agenda.  The first part is where the speaker and certain stakeholders.  And expertise, elaborate issue and different perspectives.  On the second part we expected the decision organizer to deliver the brief description about the session.  And have the discussion with the participants.  

    We already have some potential speakers who we link to invite who is from academia, from the (inaudible) and we hope from the -- some Government could attend as a speaker.  

    So this is it for me.  Luis or Tereza, want to add something?  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.  Luis, I think if you scroll down to below the tables, then the MAG can see the rough outline of the agenda.  A little bit, yeah.  That's more -- go to agenda.  A little bit lower down.  Yeah.  That's it.  Juliana is that correct?  Is that the right page for the -- 

   >> Juliana:  Yes, it is for our note from both preparatory and main decision.  So yes, this is the potential speaker comes from the PNE, from APC and UNEP and from government and NRI and some proposing from the EU and Sooki is willing to help connect.  And we will help.  90 minute Plenary discussion will be divided in to two parts.  The first part is the global perspective from the speaker and the second part will be discussion with the session proposers.  So yeah, if I remember the Secretariat will be inviting the session organizers to attend the -- this -- the interaction session.  I think it would be good for the participant to have the discussion with the session organizer who can give the brief -- short and brief introduction about the session.  Thank you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Juliana.  And Tereza, you want to add anything to this?  

   >> Tereza:  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Tereza and Joyce, other members of this issue team?  

   >> Tereza:  I don't need to add.  I was away last week.  I'm happy about the progress that was made.  Thank you, Juliana.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  If no one else is adding to this, I can just maybe also emphasize that this issue team is in the process of working with the policy network on environment.  You will see that the policy network on environment is down as a potential speaker.  But they are in the process of trying to connect with the policy network to make sure that they collaborate on the session.  

    But thanks very much, Juliana for your work on this.  And everyone else.  I open the floor, any questions or suggestions or reactions to this?  The same point I made earlier applies, that -- you need to remember what the purpose is, which I think you have done.  And that to also just try and make sure that your speakers, if you have them, are representative of different stakeholder groups and regions.  And not to worry too much about having too many speakers because this is really about interaction.  

    So the floor is open.  Any questions?  Any suggestions or reactions?  Courtney, you have your hand up.  Please go ahead. 

   >> Courtney:  Thanks.  I think this looks really great.  And I just have a question I think applies to all of the sessions with -- because you mentioned the importance of regional diversity and other types of diversity.  When it comes to multilateral international organizations, like UN, does that count like as regional diversity because there are specific people in specific positions?  So how do we think about the UN representation with respect to regional diversity?  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Let me open the floor to others to respond to that.  I think that's -- that's an issue that others in the MAG and MAG members have been around for a while can help me respond to.  It is a good question.  It is an interesting question.  

    Anyone want to respond to Courtney's question?  

   >> Sure I will take a pass.  Thanks so much Courtney.  It is absolutely -- it is absolutely essential to have adequate geographical representation.  If I understand the speakers correctly here, there is a view at balancing regions and stakeholder groups.  So I do think there is definitely scope on this topic to get the right balance.  I think, you know, the Secretary-General has prioritized gender and geographical diversity in his appointment of senior posts within the United Nations.  I have been impressed by what he achieved.  The representation on the MAG is a good example of UN's juggling act in getting the right people and representing the right regions.  It is something that is certainly prioritized within the system, if that's the question.  And that I very much congratulate organizers in trying to achieve as well.  With that said I do think on the subject of representation, I did put in the chat there seems to be some support for it, that it would be gooed to have on this topic a youth representative on the panel as a speaker or as a discussant.  That's something that we looked at in other cases, that the panel is too packed, then you can give people discussant roles so they can speak in an interactive manner directly after the main speakers.  That's one idea.  

    And then we were flagging overlaps.  So both the original and the new dates for these preparatory sessions overlap with the UN climate process.  That might affect, you know, the availability of speakers.  However, Juliana rightly said that hybrid representation or hybrid modality allows for more people to participate.  For the record this is Hana Al Hashianti MAG member.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you.  It is a factor of content on the one hand.  You want your speakers to be able to include diversity in terms of content, different issues, different regions, different stakeholder groups.  But it's also at the voice.  It is also who they are.  You can have ideally a stakeholder from the Global South that talks about global issues.  You don't always have to assume that speakers who come from Civil Society or come from the developing world cannot give you a global perspective.  But having their voice adds diversity.  Having women's voices.  Having young people's voices adds diversity and then having business voices.  It is a mix of making sure that you have the scope in terms of the content, that's diverse, in terms of regions and stakeholders.  But also the diversity of voice.  And I think that's why it is good that in the chat people are talking about youth.  

    So it's quite a lot of boxes to tick with diversity but I think provided you keep it in mind, and also use moderation, you can achieve quite a lot of Dinaism and representativity in the diversity.  If there are no other questions, I think you made really good progress.  I would like to ask this issue team to use the template, to share it with the Secretariat because we need the descriptive areas as well for the schedule.  But congratulations.  And thanks very much to Juliana for stepping in to facilitate this.  Let's move on to the next issue team.  

    I see please note Juliana, the links that are shared in the chat.  The United Nations climate change conference and also there is Titti mentioned or Hana mentioned an event in Italy as well.  Which is a (inaudible) for that climate change conference.  Those are good to reference in your preparation.  Next we have the issue area for inclusive Internet Governance ecosystems and digital cooperation.  

    And is Sooki with us?  She was going to present this for us if she was able to join in time.  I don't see her.  Who is the backup presenter?  I'm one of the backups but Amrita was that you?  Who was the other backup person here?  Amrita, was that you?  

   >> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  No.  I'm not for this.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Not on this issue team.  I'm just looking for the -- through the list.  I'll run through it because Sooki did ask me to stand in for her if she couldn't be here.  

    And the idea of this -- this session I'm just going to open it in my screen because I'm finding that text a little bit small to read.  So firstly thanks very much to Sooki who is the person that has undertaken the labor of compiling this.  And thanks to those that have given input.  

    Issue areas inclusive Internet Governance, ecosystems and digital cooperation.  This session is looking at some of the key questions on governance and accountability, misuse and access, that still remain around the Internet.  And how to -- I don't want to read the whole thing.  But as the Internet cannot be dealt with from a one dimensional perspective, collaborative and inclusive Internet Governance is imperative and requires a well-structured coordination and consolidation that is challenging.  

    Discussions about the roles and responsibilities of Governments and international cooperations have raised issues relating to security, economic growth, and the governance structures of borderless picture.  This is a big picture background.  

    But then to move down to some of the questions that will be discussed at this session is what opportunities are provided by the roadmap for the current focus on the digital cooperation and the UN Secretary-General's roadmap?  Is the roadmap succeeding.  And can the capacities of policymakers and business and citizens to stay abreast of the rapid technological developments, and adequately engage in Internet Governance discussions and respond to the challenges, challenges these developments present.  So what is the future of multi-stakeholder Internet Governance and who will shape it and is the global debate become more focused or further fragmented.  What roles should the IGF play and how in advancing global digital cooperation.  

    So that is roughly the focus of this session.  And there is quite a long list of potential speakers that I won't go through.  They haven't been confirmed.  But you can certainly look at them and comment on them.  

    Sooki will be the Rapporteur.  The session will be 90 minutes long.  It will be a moderated panel discussion.  There will be introductory remarks that sets the scene, introduces the topic and the speakers.  And then there will be statements, short statements, we might even make them a bit shorter, from the main speakers on the topic of advancing global digital cooperation, what opportunities are provided by the current focus on digital cooperation from the roadmap.  So that's the main issue area.  And is the roadmap succeeding in consolidating cooperation.  And/or is the global debate on Internet Governance being further fragmented.  What role should the IGF play.  The intention is to have quite an interactive debate on the state of Internet Governance and cooperative Internet Governance but then to hone in on what role that IGF can play is playing and how to play on advancing global digital cooperation.  

    And then there will be moderated discussion on the statements, and interaction of the audience via questions and polls.  And then the Moderator will spend five minutes summarizing the main points.  

    So that's the outline as it stands at the moment.  And I now open the floor for comments and reactions.  

    Questions?  Is there anyone else who worked on this document that wanted to add or contribute?  I think Adam you had some suggestions or reactions.  I think that something that came up also how this relates to the main session, but please I open the floor for anyone who wants to respond to this.  Sooki is not with us at the moment.  In fact, I'm wondering if we shouldn't wait until she's back.  But please if you have any comments or reactions then make note of them.  

    I don't see any hands or requests for the floor.  So let's move on to the next issue area.  And that is trust, and security.  

   >> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  We had not had a meeting in the last two weeks unfortunately.  And most of what I would be speaking on is based on our last call.  And whatever is being shared here is not a consensus yet because members of the Working Group need to look at it.  For the preparatory session we are planning a 90 minute one where in the idea is to provide an overview of the topic on trust, security, define certain, you know, provide some definitions like what we mean by trust, security, cybernorms.  Also discuss some of the existing initiatives under way, the OEWG, ONGG, Paris call, et cetera, reflect on the learnings of the last IGF 2020 related to trust.  Also highlight some of the work that the BPF cybersecurity is doing.  Then discuss on the policy questions being framed this year, vis-a-vi the accepted proposals.  And explore issues which may be missed or important and have a community deliberation to take a feedback on what are the key issues or topics which needs to be discussed during the Plenary.  

    And we would like to have the discussion or feedback based upon not new things but things which are, you know -- would be directed to them.  If you look at the agenda and this is something the minutes I have put in it is not agreed upon, is we will divide it in to phases.  If you can go down a bit, Luis, the first part is the introduction scene setting with some high level presenters and define the scopes which is about 30 minutes.  The next part it would be the thematic approach, where in we discuss the policy questions, the accepted workshops, you know, what is being framed.  And then taking community engagement, you know, engaging with the community to have their feedback for 20 minutes.  And the second phase is about 55 minutes.  And five minutes would be the conclusion and summarizing the key messages.  

    Now we have a few names which have come in as suggested speakers.  We have not contacted anyone and we still wait more names.  We have not decided on the Moderator or we have not looked at who would be the Rapporteur.  But in case any of you have any suggestions, please feel free to add.  I can see Wim in the call and Joyce is there in case anyone wants or anyone else from the working ground, if you want to add anything please feel free.  Anriette, that's all from me.  I'm sorry we don't have much more detailed presentation as others because we have not gone to that level.  Next time we will get a better one.  Thank you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Amrita.  In fact, I thought it was a very clear proposal.  So thanks very much for that.  I open the floor.  Any additions or any comments or questions, suggestions for this issue team?  I don't see any hands.  And Amrita, the one thing that occurred to me, just, you know, more recently, it is -- it is implied in what you covered when you talked about the open-ended Working Group.  There seems to be specific discussion around on the Programme of Action that was proposed by Egypt and France.  And which is also being discussed by other stakeholder groups at the moment.  So I think that's a more specific program that's emerging from the report or the open-ended Working Group.  

    But because it's forward looking and it's multi-stakeholder I think it might actually be something quite interesting to focus on in the context of the IGF.  


   >> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Yes.  I forgot to mention it here but in the list, you know, you had mentioned it.  I had added it to that list but here I forgot to mention it.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I mean I think one of your speakers, I think is Shatal Kumar and she has done quite a lot of work on that.  I think you have got it covered.  I wanted to flag it.  Any other responses or suggestions for the trust security and stability group?  No hands.  

    And please MAG members if you have critical comments you should feel free to make them as well.  It is important for us to look at these carefully.  

    But I don't see any hands.  So thanks very much, Amrita, and everyone that contributed to this.  Let's move on to the next issue team, which is universal access and meaningful connectivity.  And I'm happy to see that Susan has joined us.  Susan Chalmers are you ready to present for us?  

   >> SUSAN CHALMERS:  I am.  Thanks.  Can folks hear me?  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yeah we can hear you clearly.  Thanks.  Go ahead.  

   >> SUSAN CHALMERS:  That's great.  Hi everybody.  I hope-e is doing well.  So on the screen you will see our template.  There is still some areas to fill in.  But this is where we have gotten to so far.  So as you can see for the laboratory session for universal access and meaningful connectivity, the point is to offer attendees an introduction to the policy issue area, which is one of the two main focus areas of the IGF 2021.  And to preview related IGF programming.  So that means workshops, or sessions open fora that are part of the UAMC scene which is represented in light blue on our draft schedule.  So what we did is basically we reviewed all of the relevant sessions to this theme.  And polled from -- pulled topics from those sessions that aligned with for the most part the policy questions for UAMC that were enunciated by the MAG.  

    The only policy question that did not attract any session proposals and therefore there is no relevant programming is -- are the questions of spectrum.  So that's why you do not see those included in the draft agenda.  Could somebody scroll down please?  Let's skip to the draft agenda.  There we go.  However this does not mean that the important and relevant question spectrum should not be addressed or cheated in the main session or perhaps included in the prep session.  

    But nobody -- the community didn't respond to that, that question.  So that's why we -- you don't see it here represented in the draft program.  But in any event I'm getting ahead of myself.  This is our plan for the prep session.  90-minute session, will be opened by a MAG member who will provide a brief orientation of the preparatory session.  Its purpose, the agenda and then introduce the keynote speaker.  That keynote speaker will deliver scene setting remarks of about eight minutes.  And those scene setting remarks, the keynote speaker will address the first two of the policy, six policy questions that the MAG again e nun see yeated for the UMAC theme.  We have reached out to Sonia -- I would say Jorge, but perhaps it is Jorge.  Okay.  

    Sorry.  There's -- there are other Jorge in this space.  So same spelling.  Jorge.  Apologies Sonia who is probably not on the call.  But she, you know, very expert in this area wonderful speaker will provide those scene setting remarks and has confirmed in principle pending the time and date of this session which is to be confirmed.  

    We then decided to split the kind of the framing of this introductory session in to two parts versus access to infrastructure.  And then the second part will be, you know, meaningful connectivity or accessibility of use.  How you can use the Internet once you have it.  

    Meaningful connectivity.  These two different aspects are very intertwined but for the purposes of our framing this is how the approach we decided to take.  

    The first subtopic of the access portion will be on business models that address access barriers.  Here Fatima who is the head of operations for Microsoft's air band initiative has been volunteered as a speaker and, of course, we need to confirm time and date.  And also I have not received any other suggested speakers.  So this is who we have listed for now.  

    The second topic is community networks and capacity building.  Here I had reached out through the IGF's resource person portal to Carlos Francisco Baka Feldman who is the organizer of one of the workshops that focuses specifically on this topic.  And then moving to accessibility, oh, that's great to know, Anriette.  Moving to accessibility and use, so we have the first I would say the first topic is kind of split in to two parts, universal acceptance which is as most folks will recognize is one of the fundamental Foundational components for a multilingual Internet.  And Amrita, thank you for your help.  Amrita and I have reached out to Edmond Chung who at DotAsia who knows this issue backwards and forwards.  He has confirmed that he is able to participate pending time and date.  We are still looking for somebody to introduce the topic of content in one's own language or local content.  So suggestions there would be great.  

    And then moving on to the digital skills section, we are still looking for a speaker, their digital skills.  Also if there's a compelling speaker we could probably also change this to digital divide or gender barriers, but digital skills is what I pulled from in the workshops that were submitted under this track.  So we need help with those speakers.  Amrita and I have done and Roberto also have made this -- have conducted the outreach.  We are looking for speakers.  So any help would be most appreciated.  

    And that's all I have.  Happy to answer any questions.  Thanks.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Susan.  And everyone in this issue team.  You've really been the flagship in the sense that you have progressed really quickly and used the template because I think it is very helpful.  It gives you an example of an almost completed session outline to look at.  So I think it's very helpful for everyone to look at this.  Any comments or questions?  I see one from Courtney which is important to everyone which is when do we reach out to people.  Courtney I would like you to ask that.  

    And Susan, noted Mark's comment about ISOC supporting many community networks.  The right person to contact is Jane Coffin from ISOC who is also on the policy network for universal access.  

    And in fact, Susan on this, on community networks there is an ITU Study Groups or two ITU Study Groups which last week produced very strong outputs on community networks.  So it might also be worth bringing that angle in.  But congratulations from me.  Any comments, questions, suggestions?  The floor is open.  

   >> Courtney:  Did you want me to ask my question?  


   >> Courtney:  This is Courtney, MAG member for the record.  My question was about outreach whether we should go ahead and do that now, two people so that we can confirm speakers.  And if so, what precisely we're -- can we confirm the dates for when that will be and if you can give us a timeline then on additional details, we can let them know.  Thank you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you.  I'm going to come back to that after we do the last issue team.  I will ask Eleonora so we can coordinate.  We do need to close that loop.  Thanks for raising it.  Any other comments or questions?  Or additions?  

   >> Carlos:  Hello.  As we -- December -- we are not touching the issue of the availability of spectrum and universal access.  And in the session which Susan just presented, we have very, very good experts, for instance, the people with info mat ka, they are experts in the regulation of spectrum for universal access.  And we are not including this as part of the themes to be discussed, because we did not have accepted workshops which deal with the theme.  I would like to advance and, of course, it's a proposal that you can consider, that we also include spectrum regulation as one of the topics to be presented in the preparatory section.  

    It is not possible, okay.  But we have experts like info mat ka that can do a very good presentation.  And ITU wishes to participate in this process and dealing with the regulation -- regulatory issues regarding universal access.  When we were discussing this in the DPF and local content and I think it would be very interesting to touch on.  I don't see any other place in the preparatory process where this would be discussed.  Thank you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Carlos.  And Susan, can I give it back to you to respond to that, please?  

   >> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes.  Thanks.  And thanks Carlos.  So the reason why that was -- that's not represented in the current schedule, is because there were no -- it's not reflected in the IGF 2021 programming.  With that said, it does not mean that's not an important issue.  So I see two possible ways to address your concern, Carlos.  The first would be to ask Sonia to weave this issue in in to her introductory remarks.  The second would be to add this as a topic but you I would ask that you please find the person to speak to it, because -- because you have raised it.  So if you are willing to do that, or I mean what are your initial reflections to those two possibilities, what are your initial thoughts?  

   >> Carlos:  Yes.  I'm very willing to do it.  Thank you, Susan.  Let's see how we can accommodate that.  Thank you.  

   >> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Okay.  We will wait to hear from you.  In the meantime Hana has suggested a speaker for digital skills, and if we are looking for a local content, that would also be a useful speaker there.  

   >> Carlos:  Susan about local content, UNESCO had a very good participation regarding that.  Maybe someone from UNESCO could be indicated to take up that task.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Can I ask you to follow up on that with UNESCO or with Jacamor?  Then you can pass that proposal on to -- or with the policy network on universal access and then you can pass that on to the issue team?  

   >> Carlos:  Yes, we'll do.  Okay.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks both of you for that.  And I also want to say to you that I agree with Carlos absolutely.  Spectrum and dynamic spectrum regulation is very important.  But also don't feel you have to cover everything.  You also have a main session that you are preparing.  And Susan I want to commend this group as well because I noticed that you started looking at how your main session will relate to this session.  So I think that is useful.  So MAG members you don't have to put everything in to these introductory preparatory phase sessions.  You also have the main sessions.  In fact, it could be quite helpful for you to as you plan them to think about how they will link to one another and how the main session can build on and also maybe cover some of the Gaps.  

    So if there are no other comments, thanks very much to this group for your excellent work and other groups, look at how they fold in their template.  Because in the way that they've approached it it's almost -- of course, there are speakers that are still to be confirmed.  But it's in a format that is ready for sharing, publically and for using for outreach.  So that makes the task of doing invitation and promotions easier.  It would be fantastic if all the issue teams could aim at a similar level of detail in their proposals.  We are now moving on to the last issue team and they have had constraints.  But they have put some thinking in to this.  They don't have a proposal to present.  But they will present their initial ideas and they would really like input from the MAG on how they can respond or build on this.  Is the issue team with emerging regulation.  And we have Roman and Jutta.  But the floor is yours.  

   >> Thanks.  Jutta, if you want you can start.  

   >> Jutta Croll:  I can take over but what you have written in your e-mail to Anriette, I think that's the perfect basis to explain why we haven't come up with a proposal because we have both been busy and I have been on holidays for the last few days.  I wasn't able to get any input to that work.  But what we would like to do more or less in this session is that we want to have a look backwards and then forward.  And maybe this approach needs a bit more explanation.  So when it -- the session is dealing with emerging regulation, then the idea was that regulation isn't just emerging right now.  Regulation has been an issue for the time that we have the Internet Governance Forum.  

    So in all Internet Governance Forum meetings, regulation has been an issue.  But we -- what we can see is a continuous development of the topic over the years.  So within this session, this preparatory session, we would have a like phase, first phase where we will have a stocktaking, looking how this topic has developed, evolved over the years and then also we will have a stocktaking of the current situation in regard of market structure, content date and consumer and user rights regulation.  And we thought in our initial debates that especially for this issue it is necessary to get people on track in a preparatory session.  So that we -- so that they can understand where the debate of regulation has come from.  

    And why we have arrived at the status quo that we have now.  And Roman, maybe you will be able to introduce the speakers you have already in mind that could be -- bring us forward in this session.  And then I can fill up.  Sorry.  

   >> Roman:  Thank you.  Dear colleagues, I'm very much happy that we have moved our preparatory session to November.  It still gives us a chance to make a great preparatory session on our issue team.  And I'm really happy that there is no rush anymore.  So we can finish our pending tasks and make it really a good one.  And hopefully by the time we gather in Geneva everything will be ready in super good shape.  With regard to speakers I remember from the initial proposal the group discussed Milton Miller to be moderated.  Who has this document kindly share it because it got lost.  Plus we thought it would be great to have their IGF Secretariat, UNDESA, WSIS to say how it all started, the Internet Governance Forum and stuff ICANN and parliamentarians from the host country, we have Parliament members Mark and I can invite Russian MP if needed.  At least one representative from the legislators or those most active in the parliamentarian track would be amazing.  The next one would be great to have a youth representative to share their relevant and importance of this topic for young users, for those who are just starting use Internet and why it is important.  The narrative could flow from the retrospective of the global digital governance to the actual situation when there are some decentralized attempts to regulate it with this or that level of success.  

    And to prepare the audience for the sessions which we have selected in this issue team.  It would be great to outline the main challenges which there are at the moment.  And yes, maybe also as we discussed to invite one like IT giant representatives, but again it's -- I don't know which criteria should we select.  Like could you invite Facebook or Google, I don't know.  So this is all from my side at the moment.  Again very much sorry that we were not as organized as other teams.  


   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Jutta.  Did you want to add anything, Jutta?  

   >> Jutta:  We just received a message in the chat from Mark, the in issue theme is very timely in the UK context as online safety bill is now progressing through the UK parliamentary process.  We have similar developments in other countries as well.  It would also be very interesting to have a look not only at Europe but to all the other regions in the world what regulatory processes are just right now going on or going on by the end of the year.  To get input from that development in to the main session that will follow the preparatory session.  One additional thought, it is really difficult like what Roman said about how to choose a big tech company representative, which company should we choose but I think we could also consider whether we have an organization that might be able to represent not only one company, and their approach and attitude towards regulation, but that could speak for more than one company.  And then also for this issue topic, the Internet and jurisdiction policy network might be able to give input to the session as well.  


   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Luis can I ask you to scroll down so that we can look at the subtopics that community proposed for this.  There were four -- hang on.  You were there.  Just go back.  There.  Yes.  So the policy questions that came out of this, I think this is the right one, yes.  Regulation competition and innovation, content moderation, data governance and trust.  Data transfer and straight corporation trust.  I'm opening the floor to anyone for comment and additions and suggestions to this group.  And I know there are lots in the chat.  But let's hear your voices.  

    Any reactions?  Who was that?  Amrita and Susan.  Susan you go first and then Amrita.  

   >> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yep.  Sorry I just want to note that Courtney also has her hand raised.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I have noted it.  

   >> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you.  I wanted to raise a few concerns here.  So Jutta, I know that you were on holiday.  Roman I know you were on holiday also.  There was a session scheduled to discuss this, there was a Zoom session scheduled to discuss this preparatory session and unfortunately I don't think either of you were able to join.  But a number of us did.  And while I might fault myself or some of my colleagues who were also on that call, to not have sent a summary around, some of our thoughts were captured in that working document which I think it would be grateful, I don't know if Farra has left or not, to have a link to that pasted in the chat, as Roman said, it would be helpful to have that as a reference.  

    But I have not -- unless I missed something, Roman, the approach that you have described, I don't believe has been shared with the Working Group.  

   >> Roman:  It has.  

   >> SUSAN CHALMERS:  It has.  I did not receive that e-mail.  And I don't see other folks have received it either.  

   >> Jutta:  It was discussed at our first meeting.  We have had one meeting before we went on holidays.  I'm pretty sure.  

   >> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Yes, the meeting that we had scheduled and the approach that was just described is not reflective of where the group is now.  So I would suggest that it might be useful to take a stab at the template and to send it around to the mailing list.  And then we -- that will better enable us to find kind of firm up the prep session.  

    With that said, because it's important that we're all kind of engaged and kind of literally on the same page, if you were in this case.  

    Now with that said, Jutta, I think a lot of the suggestions that you have made, and Roman sound like a good idea from beginning from this, how has the presence of different regulation emerged?  And what have been the impacts.  I think it's probably also useful to -- for this prep not treat it as a main session.  So look at what the sessions that the community has submitted, and make sure to base the programming of the prep session on what community is submitted.  

    So I don't know if we have reviewed what has been submitted and what is the programming will be for IGF 2021.  But I would be happy to go ahead and review the content of all sessions under this theme.  And just kind of -- put that in to a Google doc.  Just hoping we can kind of get back on track in terms of multi-stakeholder kind of collaboration and the development of this track.  Thank you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Let's hear from Amrita and Courtney and then Jutta and Roman you can respond.  

   >> AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Thank you Anriette.  We did have a call.  And there I think you were there -- I was there.  Adam was also there and a few more.  We did discuss Milton and a few others that could speak.  I don't see it in the Google doc at this point in time.  I'm sure it is somewhere.  What is interesting here this was noted in the trust and security group also was that many of the regulations which would be discussed at interlinked with the other emerging issue areas or even the main themes.  So could we also look at if the -- there is a possibility of linking some of the issues or looking at some of the issues and bringing it here or something, this is just a vague idea.  I don't know how it could be done.  But something which came to my mind.  Thank you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Courtney.  

   >> Courtney:  Yes.  I just had a couple of suggestions in -- is this is Courtney from the MAG.  A couple of suggestions in response to the questions about maybe not necessarily bringing in just one tech company.  So there are some lobbying groups, I think that NetChoice could be an interesting one for that because they really are the lobbyists in Washington.  They represent a bunch of the big companies.  And they also track your pin things.  And then in terms of -- I like the idea that there could be something that presents, you know, just even a kind of quick global overview of where you see different types of regulatory efforts and how far along they are in different regions and countries because there has been an uptick over the past year.  And linking -- and also showing like where some of those are driven by the developments related to COVID because I think that is a really interesting dynamic where it has given some impetus to Governments as well as to tech platforms and others to move more quickly.  I think that some people would see that as good and others as bad but having an overview that would look at some of the areas, you know, again like I put in the chat, Indonesia, Pakistan, obviously we know about Europe, UK U.S.  But I mean this is really a global development.  

    So I would definitely support that idea.  Thank you.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, for that Courtney.  Any other responses or reactions?  I think looking at the comments in the chat as well, I think what is -- you have all said that there is so much national regulation.  So it is a big shift where there was an assumption that the Internet being global, and needs to -- but for regulation to be approached globally and to use international global commitments to Human Rights, do multi-stakeholder participation.  But we are now in a reality where there is national legislation being introduced around content, content regulation and other forms of regulation.  So I think it's very interesting to also reflect on the role that the IGF can play as a kind of public participation platform for looking at the implications of these national approaches.  

    And what the possible consequences can be.  Because what happens in one country could be very different in another country.  So regulation developed in one context can have different impacts in other contexts.  So I mean I think this is really a very, very topical area for us to look at.  

    I don't see other hands.  Jutta, Roman, do you want to respond?  It sounds like this team needs to share notes so you have a common record of what took place and to get together soon.  I posted the link to the working document in the chat.  It does exist.  I'm not sure if it includes all the call notes.  But that link is in the MAG central document.  That's where I found it.  Back to you Jutta and Roman and then we can move on.  

   >> Jutta:  Thank you for giving me the floor.  I apologize for not being on track on what has been going on in my absence in the Working Group.  If I made a false impression of what we are talking about, I apologize for that.  Picking up on your last comment, interdependence from national regulation and regional regulation is a very important issue in this session.  Because what we see, what Mark Carvell has mentioned with UK but what we see from other European countries is somehow also wrote in the digital services act on the European level.  And I do think we will find examples for similar developments where we have national regulation, and we have regulation for certain area in the world.  

    And the interdependence between those both developments and the question of whether we need global regulation, or regional or national regulation will be a very important issue in this session.  

    So thank you for reminding us of that.  And Roman, over to you.  

   >> Roman:  Yes.  I really do think that we should just take a good outline of what has been discussed now.  And have another call within our group.  Maybe next week to schedule it properly.  And yes.  Let's move on with this.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Roman and Jutta and everyone else.  You have your main sessions to prepare for as well.  You don't have to cover everything.  You can use these preparatory phase sessions to tease out the trends and issues and challenges and then try and address some of them in the main sessions during the annual Forum.  We need to move on.  We just have over 15 minutes left of the meeting.  

    So just to give you all a time check on where we are with these session outlines.  I checked in with the Secretariat on this.  So that we can be consistent with what their needs are as well.  So the Secretariat needs your finalized session outlines by the end of August.  And speakers can evolve.  So you absolutely can put to determined or to be confirmed in your speaker's lists.  But what is very important for this Secretariat to have is the overall conceptualizization of the session.  And the outline of session so that they can use that for the material.  Eleonra talked earlier about how they are creating a page for the preparatory and engagement phase.  And the sooner we can start reaching the community with this information the better will be the participation.  So the deadline for these session outlines end of August.  And based on what we have seen today I don't think it will be difficult for you to meet this deadline.  It is real lot -- it is next week.  If there is any particular issue team that needs an extension, please let me and the Secretariat know.  But if you can give us the basic session outline by the 31st, that then would be ideal and I think you can all do it.  Perhaps this last group needs a few more days.  If you do, then let us know.  But I think that everyone else is very much on track to meet that deadline.  

    Courtney, does that address your question?  

   >> Courtney:  Thank you.  Yes.  


   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Logistics of speaker invitations, the MAG members would send out the speaker invitations.  Once you finalized your speakers and session outlines, remember you also need a tidy session outline once you start inviting speakers.  So the Secretariat can support that and help you with access to e-mails.  But that is a responsibility of the MAG members to send those invitations.  

    So everyone, I think we can close on this agenda item.  And thanks very much to the MAG members.  And I urge those MAG members that have been quiet in this process to jump in because even if you were not that active in preparing the preparatory phase session outlines, but I just reading at the work and looking at what's been done you will be in a better position to take on the next item which is the main session preparation.  But before we get to the main session preparation, I item No. 6 which are these Wiki pages which I think many of you feel a bit overwhelmed by.  Some MAG members have contacted me to ask what it is about and what they need to do.  And as far as the Secretariat and myself is concerned, we really want to make it as simple as possible and as useful as possible.  

    And so just remind us on what the purpose of this is and what needs to be done by when I'm giving the floor to Wim from the Secretariat.  Wim recap of issue mapping pages, please.  

   >> Wim:  Thank you.  Hi all.  We'll try to keep it very short and focused.  Because there is a lot of questions around the topic, while I think it's pretty straightforward and easy and should take -- should help us collect a lot of information without putting an extra burden even the opposite finding a space or creating a space where to drop information.  So I would like to start with the beginning of the year, beginning of the year, the MAG decided to answer to the call for a more structural approach and agreed based on the community input on six issue areas.  

    Though the whole idea of the Wikis is actually based on that and tries to collect the information that is on everything that's going on within the IGF this year.  Tries to collect and find a space to structure that online.  That's actually is the basic idea.  So one, it's find a space to have the information and make the link.  It's also then after the IGF, once we -- once we get to mid December, we can archive those Wikis and then they really give a great overview of how within IGF the whole working of IGF 2021, the issue, specific issue has been addressed.  

    So that's the I think the most easy and straightforward part.  The Wikis are just a space to collect everything that's going on this here.  It stays very close with what actually has been done in terms of reporting in previous years.  And if you look at the Google documents for the issue pages, most of that information is there or will be added.  

    Second, or on top of that the Wikis or the ideas of the Wiki have a second level and that is trying to answer also to the call for better integration or looking for a linkages between what is happening at IGF, and what is happening outside IGF, try to find synergies and linkages with discussions, platforms, forms, organizations, that actually discuss -- have similar discussions or related discussions that fit within the issue areas, things that can be interesting for people who are working on the issues.  But also afterwards it is a help to note or reach out to those organizations.  

    And that's I think particularly the part where we would like to ask the MAG issue teams but also the community to help us just identifying what is relevant.  So to come up with ideas or drop information of what is very useful.  

    I know it's a lot to digest.  But I hope that this is clear before I go to the concrete next steps.  I don't know if there are any immediate questions.  

    Because the concrete next step, the proposal would be that every issue area team has already identified one or two volunteers to help populating the issue Wiki.  That would be -- I mean that's just I think a practical.  Because if you have a page open and there are 10,000 -- 100 people adding comments, then it's become very difficult.  So that's just an organizational thing.  And the plan would be to sit together with the -- that small group of people, probably the first or second week of September to really discuss and how to approach and how to deal with the issue pages.  So that would be immediately the next step.  But I hope that the idea is a bit more clear for the people that had questions.  

    It is really trying to collect information on what is going on within IGF.  Also linking that with what's going on in the broader community.  But can be linked to the IGF trying to put it in one spot or in one basket.  Because that can be useful during the IGF, even for main sessions or preparatory sessions to refer to the Wiki.  But probably the second and ES valuable is then having the end result, the outcome, having that as an output of what actually a picture of what has been happening within IGF and around.  

    I would like to keep it on with that.  I don't know if there are any questions?  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Any questions, any questions for Wim about this?  The concrete action step here is that each issue teams identifies one or two people that can be part of this meeting in early September to look at what needs to be done by whom.  And this will also link to some of the Rapporteuring work that you will be doing on your sessions.  So if you have already identified a Rapporteur, you might want to propose that person.  But that's the action step that we ask all of you to identify one or two people per issue team to come forward so that we can work with them.  

    Any other questions?  Or comments or reactions?  

   >> It is me Tereza.  I'm joining from the phone.  Some reality check, I think we've noticed in the reports of many of the issue teams that several of them are very small.  So there have been calls of issue teams which were composed of two people, three people.  I just cannot imagine that, for instance, in the environment sessions where environment sessions were, you know, there are members with several other commitments, that we can like find a volunteer among ourselves to do an additional task.  I just want to be a little bit realistic because unfortunately it doesn't seem that all MAG members are involved in a team very actively.  So I just -- I just cannot imagine how we would take this additional task up, for instance, in our environment.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  It is a space where you perform a task that you are already performing in the Google docs on the session outlines that you are developing.  So it's actually try doing create a space where you can put all those notes and discussions and linkages that you are identifying.  So we not asking MAG members to map additional issues or put in new content.  We really just asking you to plug the content that you are creating as you organize and plan your sessions for the issues.  To plug that in to this document.  

    So I really don't want you to think of it like an additional task.  It is really a way of trying to harmonize activity and centralize it in one space and which can then form part of what the record of IGF 2021 is and the outcome documentation of IGF 2021.  But Wim do you want to try and respond to Tereza as well?  

   >> Wim:  Very similar to what you just said.  The aim is really to get the information that is out there already and find a way to structure it in the way that -- I mean if we start organizing a more focused IGF around six specific areas, then at the end of the journey, we should -- I mean it is kind of logic that we present an output of everything that has happened.  Also organized or structured around the issue area.  Very specific, I think the call beginning of October would be very useful because it is also a way how to assess what actually issue teams can do.  How it can contribute or also get suggestions on how to get a call, for example, to contribute out to other parts of the IGF or community.  If your session is relevant or your work is relevant, please let us know.  It is more a collaborative effort than creating an additional task.  Even if you want to report and bring the information together, we have to find a way that at least we are aware that the information is there or fit it in because otherwise the reporting will be as -- very focused on just the core IGF and core IGF activities.  


   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  And we are running out of time.  I just want to flag some of the comments that are made in the chat.  Which is that there is still a concern about this document and whether it's for internal consumption or external consumption.  And what I want to propose is that at this meeting in the beginning of September MAG members can come to that meeting.  And if you are sending your issue team person or representative, then share those issues.  There are different ways of doing this.  One way would be to use it as an internal document and then the Secretariat draws on the content for the updated guide to IGF 2021 issues and theme.  So I want you to feel sure that we are listening to you.  We are hearing the concerns from MAG members about this.  But I think as one says we also need to remember that this is not a new idea.  This is a proposal that emerged from the digital cooperation roadmap process.  It was discussed at length by the MAG Working Group strategy which presented details proposals which the MAG approved.  So I know it feels overwhelming but it is also part of the process of each MAG contributing to responding to the strategic growth of the IGF.  

    Along with planning the program of this year.  But Wim, I think we do need to hear the concerns amongst MAG members.  So I ask this group that will meet early September on the issue teams to come back to the MAG with a concrete recommendation so that we can settle what is involved and expected.  There was question in the chat as well about opening this to outsiders.  The original idea was to open it.  My concern is when there is still ambivalence within the MAG and the Secretariat about what exactly this is it would not be appropriate to open it to the public IGF community.  So I think we first need to be clear what we are putting in to this, to what extent we are able to commit to it.  And who can commit what as far as the MAG and Secretariat is concerned, then we can make the decision.  I ask you for the meeting that takes place in early September to also take this in to account.  And propose to open it.  Everyone I'm very sorry, we are a minute over time.  

    I don't see any other hands or questions.  Tereza your hand is still up.  Is that an old hand?  And we need to close the meeting but just quickly before we do that, I'd like Anja to update you on the letter from Civil Society which we discussed from the last call.  To tell you what we have done and where we are on that.  If you can quickly update the MAG we can close the meeting.  

   >> ANJA GENGO:  Thank you.  I just shared the very brief update.  You probably are aware that the IGF Secretariat the MAG Chair, the host country received a letter from the APC and a number of Civil Society organizations that cosigned the letter.  The letter refers to the need for ensuring that the hybrid meeting treats everyone in the same way, meaning participants participating online and those participating from the venue in Katavitz.  The IGF Secretariat met with the MAG Working Group and meeting, the host country, government of Poland as well as colleagues from UNDESA and we've discussed in very detail this letter which raises very important questions and we came up with a response and also invitation to the colleagues that sent the letter for a dedicated call.  So that response will be sent in this week, I believe, very soon.  

    That's -- yeah, that would be the update.  But respond to any questions we may have.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Any questions on this?  If not, I think we can close our meeting.  So thank you very much MAG members, a lot of work has been done.  And remember our deadlines, completed issue outlines with outcome from speakers, end of the month.  Identifying somebody to participate in this call about the issue Wiki in early September.  Those are your two main outputs.  On main sessions, I wanted to share with you the timelines.  I checked in with the Secretariat, from their perspective what we need for the main session outlines are completed proposals by the end of September.  Again speaker lists can evolve as with the preparatory and engagement phase sessions.  These also why it would be good if you can get your preparatory phase session outlines done by the end of August.  That gives us a month to work on your main session outlines.  We will come back to that at the next MAG call.  Thanks everyone for your contributions.  And the Secretariat thanks for all your hard work.  And all of the facilitators who have taken lead in taking this preparation forward and to our captioner and all the observers in the meeting.  Thanks for joining us.  Sorry we ran late today.  

   >> ANJA GENGO:  Thank you very much Anriette.  Thank you to everyone.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Can you just remind us when our next meeting will be?  

   >> ANJA GENGO:  Yes, our next meeting according to the calendar would be in two weeks' time, 7th of September at 11 UTC.  

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Please note that.  We will send a calendar invite.  I hope you have noted that the Secretariat has put a lot of work in to the IGF calendar.  It is now more populated and we hope you find that helpful.  Good-bye everyone.  And thanks and have a good two weeks until we meet again.  

   >> Bye everyone.  

   >> Bye-bye.  

   >> Thank you.  

   >> Good-bye.  

   >> Thank you.  

   >> Take care. 

   >> Bye-bye.  Thank you