The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: It's three minutes past 11:00 so I think we should start. And it seems that the participants have leveled off.
As Carlos reminded me, good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the second day of the MAG meeting. And as usual, you know the meeting is being recorded. There is a live transcript. There is going to be the summary report that's going to be published after the meeting. The summary report for last week's meeting is available on the IGF website.
We would ask you to use the speaking queue and then the chair will call your name according to the order that is displayed on the speaking queue.
If you are not able to use the speaking queue, please you can send a message to the IGF secretariat or raise your hand and then your name will be put into the speaking queue, just so that we keep in order of who's going to be speaking next.
And, please, when the chair gives you the floor, please restate your name and organization, if you are speaking on behalf of an organization. And also could you please speak slowly, in a measured tone because there is -- it's good for the scribes, it's good for our own comprehension, and also there's some people whose native tongue is not English. So it's also important if you speak slowly, then they can understand you as there's no interpretation for this meeting.
So with that, I'll give the floor to Anriette Esterhuysen, the chair of the MAG, to start the meeting. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai. Anriette Esterhuysen here talking to you from Johannesburg on a very sunny winter's day.
Welcome, everyone, to the second day of our midyear MAG meeting, the meeting that always follows on the Open Consultation and is always a very key meeting for the MAG in its work to plan the annual IGF.
I will review the agenda. I just want to note some particular welcomes and apologies.
Special welcome to all of you who are joining us from a time zone that's really difficult for you. So Carlos Afonso, you are really appreciated. I see Roberto has also got up very early to join us.
Very warm welcome to Yu Ping -- not Yu Ping actually. It's Yu Chan, to all our observers, and to our captioner, and to our host country representatives and everyone in the secretariat.
I'd like us to review the agenda. It's a continuation of last week's work. And thanks to all the MAG working groups who have sent in their evaluation results.
But, Luis, if you can just display the agenda. It's the agenda that Anja shared with you yesterday, but we've made a few little tweaks. And I'd like MAG members to look at it very carefully because that will help you addressing or thinking about what we have to achieve today, what our outputs are going to be.
So our first plenary session will focus on an update that Chengetai promised last week on other aspects of the IGF beyond workshops. So he won't have a lot of detail to share, and we also don't want to allocate too much time to that today, but he will give you a brief update.
And then we will move into finalizing the decision on numbers of workshops. This was debated at length last week. We tried to explain the secretariat -- and I support them in this -- prefers you to do your initial evaluation on quality and content, not on numbers. But we now have reached the point where we can begin to decide on the overall size of the body of workshops, the number of workshops to include. The secretariat will give you a presentation with options, and we'll have to then discuss in plenary and make a decision. So I urge everyone to ask questions, to make proposals, to participate so that we can feel it's a collective decision of the MAG.
We will then move into breakout groups. And these breakout groups are only 45 minutes because you really will have a chance to revisit the decisions that you've already made.
Most of the groups, not all of the groups, most of the groups have shared their evaluation results.
You will then have a chance to review them, but we want you to not just focus on that because the assumption is that you have completed the evaluation. We would like you to begin to think in those breakout groups about the structure of the program, how to treat issue areas and cross-cutting areas, main focus areas, whether you need to use subthemes at all or not in the way the program is structured and conceptualized. And policy questions, initially the plan was to look at policy questions as a way of structuring the outputs of the IGF.
And I think in the first plenary session -- I don't see it here now, but I think we will also see a presentation from the secretariat on the current high-level plan for outputs of the IGF.
Then we'll have a short break. We'll then move on to plenary session II, and that is where we'll have the reports from the workshop evaluation groups. We'll endorse the final list of workshops that have been prepared by each of the groups. We don't need to go into the workshops in detail, but we'll highlight if there are requests for mergers that the secretariat need to follow up on.
And we'll also get your reports -- in your reports your initial ideas of how to approach program structure. So that's all there.
After that, we'll have plenary session III and that's when we now shift away from the workshops. So very important for us to feel that at the end of plenary session II we can draw a line under the decisions about workshops, number of workshops, number of workshops per issue area.
The only follow-ups that we should be left with at that point would be where the secretariat needs to contact organizers of sessions, for modifications, for moving from one area to another, or to look at a possible merger.
I hope that you've also had a chance to look at workshops that can go into the preparatory phase. If you have, then please highlight that in your reports.
But plenary session II, we then move away from specific workshops. We look at the implementation of the phase, the scheduling of the phase. We revisit the idea of the issue teams. I have different feedback from all of you after our last call on how to approach the issue teams. I think this was at the previous-to-last call and how to form them and how to involve members of the community.
This also relates to -- by the way, secretariat, this is not the correct agenda. I have to just highlight that. Sorry to do that to you. But this is not the same as the agenda we had prepared, which is in our working version.
We also would like you to look at -- a little bit of the main sessions. It's fine. Let's move on. Let's just go back to the end of the day. The changes are minor.
And then we want to also look there in plenary session III on the introductory sessions during the preparatory phase. I know that that's an area that still seems very open and uncertain, but it's important that at least today we agree on next steps for that. We'll look at the issue area which, as you might remember, the secretariat has prepared as a mechanism for us to involve the dynamic coalitions.
So it's a way where the MAG can create a space where NRIs, dynamic coalitions, best practice forums, policy networks can connect their work to the program of the 2021 IGF.
So quite a lot to take on. We'll have a short break then, unless we're running late. And then the closing really is just for us to make sure we have common understanding of next steps and when our next meeting will be.
Are there any questions on the agenda? Questions or comment on the agenda? I don't see any hands or anyone in the speaking queue. So I assume that this is the accepted agenda.
Chengetai, can we note apologies. As MAG members will know, I'm really urging MAG members to maximize their participation and if they can't participate to inform us.
I've received apologies from Gunela. I think she shared that with everyone. She's still dealing with a bereavement in her family, so she cannot participate today. But she will be joining us to participate in work.
And then I received an apology from Rashard who is currently on holiday and he has very poor connectivity. So he says that he's reading the documents and he's trying to follow, but he's not able to join the meeting.
Secretariat, have you got any notes of apologies?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry. I just received one from Adam who says he's going to be in and out because he does have some duties at EuroDIG as well. But that's the only one I can -- that I have seen.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. Thanks very much. And I know it's unfortunate that we are having to clash with EuroDIG today.
So on that note, can I hand over to the secretariat for our first input of today which is an update on the broader planning for the 2021 program, beyond workshops.
Chengetai, over to you.
Chengetai, are you muted by any chance?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Can you hear me now?
>>ANJA GENGO: Yes.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: You can hear me now, great.
So this is just going to be a presentation on just the other types of sessions and also the -- and also considering the numbers that we have to consider. So this is just a "food for thought." I'm going to separate the two presentations so you can keep some of it for further on.
But starting with the question that has -- people have been asking, is the number of workshops.
So the secretariat has been thinking about it, and we have just looked historically at how many workshops that we've had. And so as you can see in 2020, we had 86 workshops. In 2019, we had 64 and 2018, 71, and 2017, we had 99 workshops. So if we want to keep roughly to the numbers that we've had in 2020, I think we definitely do not want to expand the number of sessions that we have. We more want to consolidate, streamline; and it's up to the MAG if they want to cut the number of workshops that we have. But looking at the schedule, what we have found is that each room can accommodate 16 workshops throughout the meeting. That is from the Tuesday to Friday.
So if we have five rooms dedicated to workshops, that would equal to 80 workshops, given if we have 50 90-minute workshops and also 30 60-minute workshops. We may not get exactly those numbers, but these are the numbers that we are working with.
And, sorry, just to start off on top, the venue is quite large. The venue has been working on ten concurrent rooms at this present moment in time. And it can facilitate those ten concurrent rooms physically. I'm just talking about the physical attributes. So the venue can accommodate ten concurrent rooms. The venue, of course, is also going to have bilateral meeting rooms and the IGF village, et cetera. But for the session rooms, we can -- the venue can accommodate ten parallel rooms.
So -- sorry. So if we were to remove one room, of course, we would subtract 16 workshops. And if you would want to add one room, you would add 16 workshops, just for the total. So those are the numbers we're working on. Of course, they're not exactly exact, but we can work with those numbers. So that's for your thoughts when you go into your deliberations on exactly how to distribute the workshops and how many workshops that we are going to have. So five rooms equals 80 workshops. And then if you add a room or delete a room, you go by 16s.
Now, we also had the other workshop -- other session types, just random because I know some of you are not too familiar with them. But we just -- I'll just give you a rundown. We have the open forums. And the criteria for open forums are sessions organized by governments, treaty-based international organizations, and other global organizations with international scope and presence and operations across regions dealing with Internet governance issues. So governments, I think everybody is familiar with those.
Other organizations, we include ICANN and ISOC are the first ones that come to mind. And also the regular IGOs like OECD, it's a treaty-based organization, any of the U.N. family of organizations, Council of Europe, et cetera, Association of American States, those types of organizations.
We have these new sessions that we've had introduced this year, which we did have as such but they were not really formalized. So some of these -- so when we look at these, we're looking at more of a formalization of some of these sessions that we've had in the past. So we've had town halls. So we've got town halls, which are sessions organized by entities dealing with Internet governance issues of international scope and so they are different from these treaty-based organizations or other entities that are larger but these organizations with the backing of governments, et cetera.
Then we have launches and awards, and these are sessions to present and discuss Internet governance-related, you know, academic or research initiatives or outputs as, you know, research think tanks, people that have got books that have come up or awards like the ECOS awards. They give awards. These can be during lunchtime, afterwards, in the morning, or throughout, really depending on how we decide to factor the whole schedule.
And then we have lightning talks. So these are brief, to-the-point, prepared presentations on specific Internet governance issues. In Berlin, we did have the lightning talks; but they were at an open area so people would come and just watch and listen to these brief talks on any issues. But for Katowice, we don't have an open area that is suitable for that. So it will be in one of the rooms that we have.
Networking sessions, now these are totally new and been introduced this year as part of the push for the hybrid format. And these are gatherings of stakeholders interested in the same or similar issues or topics. And we have ice breaker sessions, social gatherings, regional gatherings, et cetera. So just to enhance the networking because people always say the value of the IGF is actually who you meet, the serendipitous meetings that make that connection that will improve your work and spark out new ideas or collaborations.
And then we also have the dynamic coalition sessions. These are sessions hosted by IGF dynamic coalitions. We don't give it to all the dynamic coalitions. You have to be in good standing. You have to have your meeting reports in order, et cetera, and then you can apply for a dynamic coalition session.
Now, these are the numbers that meet the requirements. And if you see the link here -- and I think somebody is going to paste this link into the chat. So these are the numbers that meet the requirements. So they've not been selected yet. They just meet the requirements, and they are available on the IGF website.
So we have 30 town halls of 60 minutes each. Lightning talks, 35 of them. Open forums, 60 minutes -- 33, sorry, of them.
Launches and awards, ten of them.
Networking sessions, seven. And we're still encouraging people to apply for networking sessions because we do believe that these are actually very, very important. So the application for networking sessions is still open.
Dynamic coalitions, we have 17 applications for the dynamic coalitions. And for the NRI sessions, these are five in total. So that's a total of 120 sessions.
As I said, we will not be -- we will not be able to -- I mean, it's just physically impossible. We have five rooms maximum to accommodate them. And it's impossible to accommodate 120 sessions.
And if you go into the website through the link, you know, we -- as I mentioned, organizations like Council of Europe, Cyberspace Administration of China, telecommunications organizations, NIC.br, government of New Zealand who are presenting. And these actually -- the open forums -- and we think it is very important to encourage governments to present. Government of Japan is there as well, and the German government is there as well.
We will also look at organizations who are -- who have proposed two or more sessions; and, of course, we'll give preference to one session. But there are some organizations who are not a contiguous, monolithic organization. I don't even want to put it in those words.
For instance, ICANN, if we have three applications from ICANN for a session, looking at them, they're not from the same user group, they're not from the same corpus, they're not -- you know, then we can treat them differently. And, of course, we will look at it and see whether or not we can accommodate them. So we don't want to make a strict rule that says one organization can only do one session because organizations are of different makeup and it's not that easy.
Yes. Also, to keep in mind, we have the opening ceremony which is for 60 minutes. And we do plan to have either the President or the prime minister of Poland there; and, hopefully, the Secretary-General as well will be able to make it.
We have the four high-level sessions, and these high-level sessions are still in development. And as soon as we have something that we can show you, we will. And our Polish colleagues will also make a presentation. But we -- we'll go deeper into that, not now but in a month or so's time.
And then we have the main sessions. We don't know how many main sessions that we are going to have. And we have one parliamentary session, which is for 60 minutes. And then we have the traditional open mic and closing ceremony. And then we have two best practice forums, and then we have the two policy networks.
I'd like just to point out again just so that everybody's on the same page, for the opening ceremony and the open mic and closing ceremony, nothing runs parallel to it. Those are the only sessions that run at that time.
For instance, as far as room allocation is concerned, for instance, for the main sessions, they're allocated its own room. But, again, it is depending on how many main sessions that we have this year, if there's not enough for its own room; but traditionally main sessions have their own room.
And we also try and keep each stream in its own room so that we have weighed overlap of two sessions of this -- of the same interest or of the same track, if you want to call it, happening at the same time so people don't know which one to good. So we try and make it as easy as we can for people to follow a particular stream by either staying in the same room. And then that will go on instead of trying to run from one end of the venue to the other end of the venue.
That's the end of my presentation.
If you have any questions, please -- I know it's very light, but, yes, we're here to answer questions, and we'll answer them to the best of our ability.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Chengetai. And very helpful.
I have one question, and apologies if you actually answered it. But if we go with 80 workshops, which you looked at in terms of rooms, that would be the five-room option. And the number of other sessions -- and I know they're not finite or fixed yet, but, roughly, how many parallel tracks are we talking about, if we go for the five-room, 80-workshop option, adding all the other sessions? Are we looking at six parallel tracks or seven parallel tracks? Just so we can get a sense of what the program will look like in terms of density for participants.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Then we'll still be looking at the 10 parallel tracks because, if you'll recall, for the workshops, we have 16 per room. So if we want to add the other, for the other tracks, they're not 90-minute. They're more 60. So let's call it 20. So, yes, we will be cutting a lot of the other applications from these sessions, but then we'll have 20 per room then.
As I said, there are certain sessions that do have their own rooms, traditionally, like the main sessions, et cetera. Intersessional work would want their own room as well, if possible. And, if, of course, it clashes with something that is going on in another room because when we build the schedule, we try not to make similar topics clash so people don't have to make hard choices.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: So are you saying the only way for the MAG to reduce the number of parallel sessions would be to reduce the number of workshops?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if we reduce the number of workshops, of course we will also have to reduce the number of the other sessions.
Now I'm just moving to -- I'm using the word "I," not "we," as the secretariat, but I, as Chengetai, would think that if we're having a proportional reduction, then the proportional discussion should not just be for the workshops.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: It should be for everything across.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai.
Can I ask -- I'm opening the floor. So, please, MAG members. Remember, observers, you are welcome to also participate. I'll give the floor to MAG members first, but I welcome observers to join the queue. If there's time, we will definitely include your participation.
And, Chengetai, can you put your slide -- you know, the slide where you had the comparative number of workshops for different years? I think it was early on in your presentation. If you could just bring that up, I invite everyone to take the floor. We need to discuss this, and we need to come up with a proposal.
And, Chengetai, just one more question. Did you look -- you didn't look yet at percentages per issue areas, number of workshop per IGF 2021 focus areas. Is that something you've looked at yet?
I think you're muted.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Oh, I'm so sorry.
Yes, we did.
Can you hear me now?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we did. I will just ask somebody from the secretariat to just say those numbers because I didn't put them in my presentation.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: If we can have them and also put them in the chat? Because, from the MAG's perspective, the evaluation groups, that needs to be decided. And while the secretariat brings up the content, or finds the content, just to give you all a background, Roberto Zambrana with the workshop process working group had already prepared an outline of how to allocate the number of workshops per issue area. This was based on the broad MAG in-principle decision made earlier this year, that we would allocate I think -- Roberto, help me. We would have the 60% versus 40% allocation for main focus areas and cross-cutting areas, but the MAG does need that kind of guidance at this point.
So the secretariat, I ask them to work with Roberto's proposals and other MAG members sent proposals as well. I think that was Maria Paz. I'm not sure if she's with us yet. And based on that, they've come up with a guideline in terms of how to allocate numbers of workshops per issue area.
Secretariat, can you share that with us?
>>ANJA GENGO: Hi, Anriette. Sorry if Chengetai is muted, but do you see the slides on the screen?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: We do.
>>ANJA GENGO: So this is the balance of issue area for top 40, top 60, and here is the comparison for everything that was received and submitted for evaluation.
So top 203 versus top 60 and 40, and you can see the balance here.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. This is not really what I was asking for. So unless I misread this, what we need now is for each MAG evaluation group, when they do the final selection of sessions, to have an indication of how many.
So, secretariat, if you haven't done any more work on that, I will ask Roberto and Maria Paz to present their thinking on this topic so far.
Roberto, do you want to go first?
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Madam Chair, thank you so much.
Roberto Zambrana, second-year member from La Paz, Bolivia.
Well, I'm sorry I didn't prepare something more clear, but, as Maria said before, the main agreement about allocation when before we actually launched a call for proposals, was to have a 60% allocation for the main issue area, and the remaining 40% for the emerging and cross-cutting themes. That was an initial agreement.
The second agreement was to have flexibility in each of these groups, of these issue groups. So that flexibility meant, by that time, to first receive all the different proposals, as we did already, of course, and then to see which would be the density in each of the internal subthemes.
You know, we have two main issue areas, and we have four emergent and cross-cutting themes, and, of course, we have different proportions of proposals that were received. So an initial idea, also, that I shared with all of you in this guidance document for you to review, as you can see one of the considerations, was to initially separate these two groups, allocate the correspondents' proportion, 60% for one, 30% for the other. And inside each of those groups, also to have just as a reference, to have the proportions -- the same proportions of all the workshops received.
So if we go through that guidance and if we follow that idea, of course, we are not going to have the same numbers inside each of these two main groups.
So, yes, we can work a little bit more with the secretariat, Anriette, and perhaps for this initial idea, we also agree to hear what Maria Paz has to say. We can work with this approach, and it has an alternative also.
The other alternative is to forget a little bit about the initial agreement, which was 60 and 40, and to work only about the proportion that we have after receiving all the proposals for the six streams.
What I mean is that, as you know, because of the statistics, we have 50% more or less proposals received for the emerging and cross-cutting themes, and we have about 40%, remaining 45% for the main issue areas. As you know, we have a difference for the one agreed at the beginning. Of course it has to be like that.
But that's the second alternative. The second alternative is to forget about the 60/40 approach, to consider all the six streams with the proportion of the proposals that we received and, therefore, allocate the number of slots considering that proportions only.
So we have to -- I hope I was clear. I know I need something more graphic for you, but I think we can work on that very easily with the secretariat.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Roberto. That's perfect. And I think after the breakout groups, when you finalize your selection, we can also give the secretariat the numbers, and we can look at coming up with something.
What I would like you to do now, if you don't mind, is to post those proposals.
And, Maria Paz, your variation on that.
Just post it in the chat so that we can have it.
But let's revisit the primary purpose of this discussion, which is to look at the total number of workshops.
So we can finalize how we allocate proportionately the number-to-issue areas, using the guidelines that MAG members have already been thinking on.
But, you know, just think again of Chengetai's proposal, what he presented to us, in terms of the number of events. If we go for the 80-workshop option, we know we also have already 120 other proposals, then we know that we'll have a minimum of 200 sessions for the IGF this year.
And we know that last year, I think we had about 220, if I remember correctly. We have more days, maybe, and more time zones, but that is, you know, I would say, probably not one of the largest IGFs, but it would put us very much at a similar level to Berlin and 2020.
So, MAG members, how do you feel about the number of workshops? Do we go for 80, which means we have five rooms allocated to workshops for the duration of the IGF for the four days? Or do you feel we should accommodate more or fewer?
I don't see any hands. Oh, I see one.
Adam Peake, please you have the floor.
>>ADAM PEAKE: Hi, Anriette.
Good morning, everybody. It's Adam speaking -- Adam Peake speaking -- sorry -- for the record.
I don't know how others feel. I'm fine with using 80 as a target. We can, you know, work around the edges of that number, perhaps. That would be simple.
I put in the chat about, you know, the work that Roberto and Maria Paz has done. I'm grateful for this because this type of math is always way, way beyond me. And I do think it's important, but at this stage, we don't have very much time. So my suggestion is we look at the proposals as they fall from the evaluation groups, and if we have issues after we've done that, that simple evaluation of sort of the hierarchical ranking and the appreciation that people have given these over the past couple of weeks, then if we still have issues, that's when we come back to the balancing.
I'm aware that, you know, in January we listened to the community about the issues they thought were important, but, in many ways, asking people to submit proposals is actually repeating the process. We're asking people to submit proposals on issues that they told us were important, and if they don't submit proposals on them, then that is the sort of readjustment of their original opinion, in my view.
So I would stick with the 80. And I'm not wedded to that. I just think it seems like a logical number.
I have two comments, and the first one is only a comment. And if this is the largest IGF ever, that is an achievement in and of itself, and it would be good to see. However, I do remember that one of the pieces of feedback, quite a strong piece of feedback, I think we received, was that people were saying the IGF was actually too large, and it should be more focused. And one of the issues around focus was, of course, issue areas. The other issue was actually just the size and complexity of the schedule that people were faced with.
And this has been a long-standing issue with the IGF. I just wanted to mention that. I think it's fair to do so as I believe it came from the conversation. I'm not saying we should reduce the number. I'm just saying that perhaps it's not taking the advice we received.
I must admit I do have a bit of concern about the amount of this agenda that is not going through the MAG. The MAG was established and we joined it to assist the Secretary-General in convening the IGF. At the moment, we're helping convene about 33, 40% of it, which, I don't know, it's an issue of consideration. Perhaps not immediately at the moment but it's something to think about.
But your original question, 80 is fine with me, and let's work around that number. But I mean work around in the sense of plus-minus.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Adam, for that. And thanks for reminding us that the objective was that we keep the IGF more focused, that we're more output-oriented, and there was a decision back in MAG to use five parallel tracks as a guide.
At the same time, I think it's also important to remember that in terms of producing outputs, we do not treat all IGF sessions in the same way, and what the secretariat has done in the last few years is to really focus on the workshops and the high-level sessions and the parliamentary tracks for outputs.
I don't see anybody in the queue. And it was actually in the draft agenda. It would be good -- we don't have to do it right now, but I would like the secretariat to share with you their high-level plan for outputs in the course of today's meeting.
Anyone else with reactions or response to this?
Maria Paz, thanks for joining us. I know it's very early for you.
>>MARIA PAZ: Actually, I'm in the queue. I don't know if you can see my hand in the queue.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I can't see your hand, but please go -- now I can see it. Go ahead.
>>MARIA PAZ: Thank you very much. This is Maria Paz Canales. I'm a MAG member in my third year representing Civil Society from GRULAC.
I want to intervene just to agree with Adam in terms of this idea of, like, having a number of sessions that respond to the feedback received from the community of not making the IGF so huge that people finally get lost in following the different sessions and the different thematic issues. And I think that in this sense, the number of 80 is something that is consistent with what has been the number of sessions for allocation for workshops in the previous years, but I will strongly advise to keep the five-parallel track idea that originally I also was supporting at the beginning of the year precisely for this very same reason.
Because, again, to have so many things happening in parallel is some of the things that contribute greatly to the confusion of the participants of the IGF and create this feeling of discouragement because there is so much going on at the same time that they have the feeling that they cannot really follow what they are interested on.
So eliminating the sort of options that are running in parallel and providing them more opportunity to participate in a spread way during the day in these different activities. I definitely think that it's a better option in terms of really achieving the purpose, which is having a very active participation in each one of these workshops.
The proponents have put a lot of effort in putting together this proposal. We have developed effort in selecting the best suited for creating and drafting policy discussion, and I think that there is a need to organize that.
And, finally, regarding the percentage, so I put my brief exercise that I did only for the main issues. If we consider the 80 proposals for workshop allocation and we gave distribution between 60% for main issues and 40% for the rest, it will be 80 -- sorry -- 48 proposals for main issues. If we respect the percentage of proposals received, it will be 25% allocation -- sorry. Not 25 -- 75% allocation for the economic and social inclusion and human rights and 25% for universal access. This means from the universal, 48. It will be 36 for economic and social inclusion and human rights, and 12 for universal access.
And what I was mentioning in the previous meeting, in the workshop group, the discussion that we had in the breakout groups, the discussions that we had in that meeting, it was that we could, for example, apply some kind of correction we think that is too much leaning in one of the issues. And I think that's totally fine. But starting with that consideration, it will be a good point of reference for them applying any correction that we consider relevant.
I think that probably that will be particularly necessary for the emerging cross-cutting issues because if they have just 40% of allocation of the session, and some of them, as Roberto has put in the chat, it will have a really, really small number of sessions allocated.
So I will leave it there. I'm happy to collaborate with this process.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, very much, for that, Maria Paz.
I think that what we need to do, we'll take more input now, and we'll look at the initial -- we'll come back to proposals of numbers at a later stage. So I'd like you and Roberto to keep thinking about how that would be applied, but let's hear more people talking about this.
Amrita, you have the floor.
>>AMRITA CHOUDHURY: I'm Amrita Choudhury, for the record, MAG member, first year.
So if I understand that there would be 80 -- we are kind of agreeing to having 80 workshop proposals being selected. Apart from 80, there would be main sessions and other sessions. So my question is: If you are looking at 80 sessions spread across five days, it is about 16 sessions a day roughly. And if you are looking at five tracks -- or five rooms, it comes to about three or roughly four sessions per theme per day.
Now if it is on at the physical level, it makes sense. But when we talk about a hybrid meeting, we also must keep this in mind there will be a lot of people joining online for whom sitting for so long may be quite difficult for that long. There may be some Zoom fatigue or something.
Are we going to take those into consideration when we design the program length?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Amrita. I do think that has to be taken into account. And it would be good to also hear the working group on hybrid meetings reflect on that. I'm not sure yet if the secretariat has taken the extended hours into account as well. I know the extended hours are not enormous, but, yes, we do need to take that into account and also, in fact, that I think with the hybrid meeting, there are different forms of participation. And not everyone will participate in the annual forum in realtime. I think we also need to consider the fact that because it's still time-zone centered, many people will probably follow on YouTube. So that also needs to be taken into account.
Any other comments or reflections on this? It sounds to me that we are heading towards -- there's a general consensus on aiming for 80, maybe doing some tweaking. I think what's more of a concern for me is that we also want to limit the number of preparatory -- the number of parallel tracks which at this point we are not doing. And I think that we have to live with that and accept that. If we go for 80 workshops and if we add all the other sessions, even if we reduce the number of other sessions, they -- we will have more than five parallel tracks.
But, secretariat, just to -- maybe the host can also reflect on this. When we're looking at the other sessions, will some of them be slotted into breaks? Are we looking at a continuous schedule, for example, during lunch breaks? Or do you envision that breaks will be complete breaks?
You know, last year we worked quite effectively with having networking sessions, for example, slotted into the breaks when there were no workshops or other of the high-level or open forum-type sessions. Have you thought of that yet?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. First of all, checking if you can hear me. Yes, you can, right.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, we can.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.
Just from the secretariat's point of view, yes. For the networking sessions, I think it's important to also have these in the breaks because they can attract more people. And we also have had traditionally these book launches, some of them, during the breaks exactly for the same reason, that we can attract more people.
But we do have to liaise with the host country on this. And, also, we have to also put in mind the amount of time we do have because we are not too sure -- and we have discussed this with the host country, but we're not too sure what the sanitation requirements would be. Would it be like you can have one session, quick clean, another session, and then a more thorough clean? So we have to keep all this in mind. But, yes, we have put everything on the Board so that we can look at it.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Chengetai.
Roberto Zambrana, you have the floor.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Thank you very much, Anriette.
Now that I'm looking at the messages through the chat, I'm wondering -- and this will take our attention, if we go for the top 40 or top 60 proposals that we saw before, then you have to remember that we are actually not taking into account all the work that we've done during these last days inside each of our evaluation groups because those are totally different approaches.
In the case we go -- or we follow the top 40, top 60 approach, then we are just taking into account the rate that each proposal have, the score each proposal has.
What we did here in the last days was actually not only consider that but also consider balance as one of the other criterias that we used in order to provide our recommendation. So then we need to take into account that.
That was all. Thank you, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Roberto. So we need to move on. I think we are -- we have consensus on 80. Can we use 80 at least at the moment, 80 as a target number? We use Roberto and Maria Paz' proportional allocation as a target number. I think Roberto has taken some of the points in the chat into account.
But is everyone comfortable with the idea of using 80 workshops as our target? Can we consider that agreed?
>>CARLOS AFONSO: I am confident.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I see no objections to that. Are there any questions further on this? Nothing further on that.
So, Roberto, I think that -- you know, we can revisit this. I just -- I see a hand. Whose hand is that? Or has it been placed down? I'm kind of juggling between the speaking queue and the Zoom hands. I don't see any hands.
So let's consider that then our working target number is 80 workshops. We're using the guidelines, the proportional guidelines, as has been presented by Roberto and Maria Paz.
But we will revisit exactly how we apply that once the workshops have finalized their selection. So we're going a little bit two steps forward and maybe one step backwards but we're still getting there.
What I'd like us to do now before we close this first segment of the meeting is -- and the reason I want this is because I think it's important for the MAG members, especially newer MAG members, to be able to keep in mind what the plan is for gathering outputs from this IGF. That takes us back to Adam Peake's input earlier which is that we are also trying to achieve this goal of having a more focus, outcome-oriented, strategic, impactful IGF. So we want to be inclusive. We want to have a broad scope. We want to focus on our issue areas. We also want to be outcome-oriented. And different sessions are related or treated differently with regard to that.
So I wonder if Wim Degezelle, from the secretariat, if you are ready to just give us a very high-level idea of what the plan is for documentation, for gathering outcomes this year. You can say it yourself, but I will say that as an opening remark, this is building very much on the experience of 2019 and 2020. And it takes into account proposals from the MAG working group on strategy and strengthening of the IGF.
Wim, are you ready?
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Yes, I am there. And I will just share my screen. You should be able to see it.
As Anriette said, it's a very short and high-level overview of what we plan as reporting and output documents coming out of this year's work.
It's not for reports but the idea is really building from one report to the other so that by the end of the report after the meeting in December have really completed a report that covers as well the preparations of the meeting and what actually happened in the meeting program.
So let me start with the issues guide is already available online. It was produced to clarify how the IGF this year tries to work in a more issue-oriented approach.
It was published as a background for the call for session proposals, so it's already on the website. The plan is now that we take into account some of the comments, including some of the comments that came in on the policy questions -- and I think that's a topic that still needs to be addressed today -- to update the issues guide, see if it has to be made more concrete. Like I said, if the policies questions that were in the first version, if they still have to be that permanent, if they have to be approached differently, to produce by September an updated version of issues guide. Why by September? So that it is available as a background for the preparatory and engagement phase.
Also, this document is an opportunity for the MAG and the secretariat to explain again what exactly is introductory in the preparatory phase and why it is organized. So it's a document. I think we will try to do it throughout the process. It's a document as well on the content as well trying to address part of the changes to the process and the organization of the program. So that's the updated issues guide by September.
And then like last year, the idea is to come up with a premeeting guide that, of course, builds on the issues guide. So, again, explaining the issues-driven approach but then also coming up with an introduction to the IGF 2021 program. I think there are a number of very important topics the MAG is discussing today on how to organize the program, how to -- difference between main session and main session areas, et cetera. That should be -- or once that is done and the program is ready, we can also include it in the premeeting guide.
Also, as from -- well, probably the summer or the coming months, the work is starting on the issue areas wiki pages. The premeeting guide is also an opportunity to summarize, but probably the words pointing at those wiki areas is a good opportunity.
It is an opportunity to show in the premeeting guide, look, we have the IGF 2021 program but, as you can see on those issue areas -- those issue Wikis, an issue area is not only addressed at IGF 2021 those two weeks in December but on the same issues throughout the year. At different parts of the IGF community, work is going on, discussions are going on. So that's an opportunity to highlight that in the premeeting guide.
And then after the meeting, there's a traditional IGF 2021 report, very similar to previous years. Of course, we'll copy and paste the relevant parts from the premeeting guide to explain the background. But that included the traditional chair's summary report and also the IGF messages.
Of course, one of the priorities that's in red on top of our list is, of course, a comment we received last year that we have to pay attention on, to making sure there is no confusion, no different sets of messages. So that's definitely one of the points that comes -- well, that we will pay attention to.
But overall, I think the idea -- I think I can talk for Sorina and the rest of the secretariat as well, with regard to the reporting, I think two things are very important for the final report and then the whole process, to make it manageable so that we're able to get the right information and then clear information in the report by the end of the meeting but also to make it digestible and, for example, make sure that we have a clear explanation of what has happened with regard to the different issue areas, what the messages are, and not a report that goes in all kinds of different directions and maybe even scares people away.
That's a brief overview. I'm.
Just checking if, Sorina, you have anything to add.
>>SORINA TELEANU: Hi, everyone.
Thank you, Wim.
No, not really. Just to say a +1 about the need to be as clear as possible on session organizers when they report on the discussions they were having. Thanks.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Wim and Sorina.
And, everyone, Wim and Sorina, they are the team in the secretariat. They are not working on their own, but they lead the process of gathering the outcomes.
Just one question for you, Wim. As you said, the MAG still has to consider how they will deal with subthemes and policy questions. From your perspective, how important is it to have? If I interpret you correctly, it doesn't have to be the policy questions but you do need some kind of structure within the issue areas to help you document the outputs clearly? Or is that also not that important?
Just what is your perspective on how important it is for the MAG to break down the issue areas into either policy --
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: I think it should be reflective at that point. I would suggest to the MAG, is look into the overall program. The focus should not be the reporting, but the overall program should be clear. And that probably gets very close to the discussion earlier on that in the past, people have been criticizing that too much was going on and too many sessions.
So my suggestion would be to refocus on that, how can we make the program more, well, transparent or easier to digest and then the reporting will follow.
Strictly speaking, it's not necessary -- I mean, it's not really necessary for the report that there are policy questions. But it's important -- I mean, if it's relevant for the program that an issue area you can split up in parts, then the reporting will follow.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Wim.
Any additions from other members of the secretariat or any comments or questions on this topic from the MAG? I see no one in the speaking queue.
Are people clear on this approach to gathering and documenting IGF 2021 outcomes?
I'm giving it a little bit of time because this is important.
Do you feel that you want to come back and discuss this at another time?
Maria Paz, you have the floor.
>>MARIA PAZ CANALES: Thank you. Just for kind of a follow-up on what Wim was saying regarding the way in which we organize the input, I think it is very relevant that we find a way which makes more sense and more focused orientation to a policy recommendation that we want to provide on each one of the issues.
But I think as we discussed in one of the breakout sessions in the previous meeting in which Wim was present and I was making those comments particularly, it's not necessary that these have to be done through the policy questions.
I think particularly because the approach that we choose this year, that it was worth an experiment. But I don't think that was really successful in terms of the result in having the fixed policy questions.
And particularly for this year, organizing the outcome around those policy questions will not be a good option because at the end, many of the proposals kind of failed to understand how to connect with the policy questions that they were selecting. And many times the content of the session was good but at the end, they never did, like, a deep link with the policy question that they originally choose.
And I think that was a part of the result of this approach having them fix it, not being able to, as other years, choose and draft their own policy question.
And for that particularly reason, I will be more keen of trying to organize the input in a more thematic way in terms of, like, identifying thematic lines inside the workshop that are finally selected in the final selection for each one of the issues and try to create this cluster of topics for them to use for the report.
I am totally comfortable volunteer for doing that job in my group, if that is helpful. I think that it's good that someone to have a good understanding of the different proposals, each one of the issues can volunteer for doing something like this. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Maria Paz.
And, in fact, I think the groundwork for that has been done because in the premeeting guide, each policy question isn't, in fact, linked to a broader thematic subtheme. So it might not be that difficult. It might be possible to actually just keep with the broad subthemes that are there already, develop them a little bit.
So in other ways, it would almost be finding a middle ground between those very broad subthemes we have at the moment and the more detailed policy question without changing the whole structure completely.
Okay, everyone. Thanks for that. I don't see any other comments. And you can pick up on this discussion in your breakout groups.
But to give you a clearer guide in terms of numbers of sessions to use as the parameters for your final decisions, I'm going to call the break now. And then the secretariat can quickly work with the proposals that we have already and the discussion in the chat to give everyone a general guide on how they should look at the numbers of workshops per sessions. I think we reached agreement on our total target number, so congratulations with that. That's 80.
So let's have a 15-minute break now and come back at half past 10:00 UTC at which point we'll come back first in plenary and then go into workshop evaluation groups.
So thanks, everyone. And enjoy your break. See you in 15 minutes.
[ Break ]
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, everyone. Welcome back. And I hope everyone enjoyed the fact that we called an early break.
And Roberto and the secretariat have finalized the number allocation, taking into account the comments in the chat and the proposal from Maria Paz, and they will present back to us shortly so that you know what the target numbers are.
But before we do that, I have a request from some MAG members who might have missed the information that the secretariat shared last week, which was the overall scoring.
So, Luis, if you can just pull out that document and just pull it on screen so that the MAG members can be reminded of this and, also, just share the URL with them so that if they want to go and look at that.
So this is the ranking irrespective of issue area, and this was shared with you all last week and the MAG list. And each workshop evaluation group received the ranking for their issue area as well, or they received the spreadsheet that had that particular view.
But this was the overall ranking, and you have this document to look at if you feel that you need to refer to it.
What we need to do here, and this is the process that we have followed, is that people scored and they worked in workshop evaluation groups. These groups were linked to specific issue areas. You then worked in your issue areas to finalize your discussion, and you're going to go back into those issue area evaluation groups next.
But this overall ranking is available to you to look at if you need it. And what we've done this year and it's similar to past years, the overall ranking is considered but, also, the comprehensiveness and the scope of the program has to be considered.
So, therefore, the MAG looks not just at scores overall; they also look at scores per issue area because the issue areas and the number of sessions and the type of sessions per issue area is what gives us an IGF that responds to the input that was provided by the community in the bottom-up process when we called for issues earlier this year.
So we don't have to present this. I think this document is there, and the link has been shared by Luis. It's in the chat, if you want to look at that. And I think it really is important to look at the strategic approach that we have, and, therefore, the strategic approach is not just looking at overall ranking. It's looking at content and issue area focus.
So before we break into groups, to give each of the groups the target numbers that you have to work towards when you do your final assessment and final selection today, Roberto Zambrana, who is the facilitator of the MAG working group on workshop process, can you present for us what we should be looking at in terms of numbers per issue area.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Certainly, Anriette.
I will share my screen. I'm going to interrupt the other screen. Maybe you are looking at it now. And this is what was discussed in the chat, and we have the first initial alternative which it considers the initial agreement and the call for proposals. As you remember, we find 60% for the main focus area and the remaining 40% for the emerging and cross-cutting themes.
And the exercise was to, as you can see, we have a distribution for 48 sessions, 48 slots, in the main focus area, and 32 slots for the emerging and cross-cutting themes. But inside each of these two groups, we also have a respective proportion because inside it, we received 64.7% of proposals for economic and social inclusion and 25.3% of proposals for universal access and meaningful connectivity. That gives us 36 and 12 slots for each of these subgroups.
The same was done for the emerging and cross-cutting themes, considering 32 sessions. They are divided as follows, again taking into account the proportion of the proposals that were received in trust and security and stability, emerging regulations, et cetera.
So this is the alternative. And then we're going to the second alternative.
In the second alternative, we're not considering that initial approach of the 6.4 for these two groups, but we are just considering the proportion that we have in their received proposals. This is the overall proportion. This is the overall percentages. And if we use these percentages, then we will have this allocation.
The main difference you will see is in the initial one, we have more quantity of slots, more number of slots, for the economic and social inclusions. We have 36 assigned slots, but in this second alternative we have only 27.
And, of course, the difference are spread into the other topics, the other themes, which maybe provides more balance.
Those are the two alternatives that you can consider for your working groups.
Thank you, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Roberto.
There's a request in the chat. Can you put the two proposals side by side, if that's possible for you? Or just maybe just flip back to the first one and the second one.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: I will put them in one screen. Just a minute, please.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: If you can put them in one screen, that would be perfect.
So everyone understands the difference, the second alternative reflects the number of proposals received.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Well, I have them, but it's a little bit small. I hope you can see once I share. I'm going to share it again.
I'm not sure if you can see it well, Anriette. It's very small.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: It's small, but I think MAG members will be able to look at that.
I think the difference really here is just that we have -- alternative two is more reflective of the number of proposals that we received. It still respects the overall percentage breakdown, but the allocation of numbers is slightly different. I think the advantage of this proposal is that, you know, well, it reduces the number of main session focus areas, but that's also the limitation of it. And it respects the fact that, for example, in trust, security, and stability, there were a very large number of proposals.
So if MAG members have any concern or comments, now is the time.
We have the proposal from Roberto, which is to go with proposal alternative two. That's coming from the workshop evaluation process and their thinking.
So if I see no objections, I would suggest that we work with alternative two. This is still not finite. So, you know, we still can -- in your breakout groups now, if, for example, the working group on economic inclusion and social and human rights feel that 27 is too limiting for them, in terms of high-scoring, quality proposals, we can revisit this. You can reflect that in your reports.
So if we're happy with that, can we put the breakdown in the chat, please, Roberto, or the secretariat, so all the working group facilitators can copy it for use in their discussions.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Sorry to interrupt. I will put it in the shared presentation and I will send a link through here.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you. Send it to the list.
Roberto, thanks for that.
Luis, can you bring us back to the agenda so that we can prepare for the next segment?
Thanks very much.
Timing is a little bit out but not drastically because we had our break earlier.
So, MAG members, this is when we break into groups again.
Observers, seeing as we have discussion of individual proposals, you cannot participate in these sessions. These breakout groups are only for the workshop evaluation groups.
Luis from the secretariat will set them up, and then, MAG members, we'll move you and you can move yourself.
The task for these breakout groups -- (indiscernible).
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry. Asan (phonetic), can you just mute? I think there's noise there.
Your task is to finalize your selection. You've already finalized your basket approach. So you've all done the green baskets, the orange baskets, the red baskets. You've got your proposals for the issue areas. I assume you've resolved those with the other issue area groups, and where there are issues for mergers or workshops where you propose mergers, you've identified those.
What we want you to do now is just to come up with your final list, your final green basket, and that would include or add to that any sessions that you feel you would want to follow up with the proposals that you like, that you want to keep them, but you do need more feedback. And you've got your target numbers.
And once you've done that -- and I'm hoping you don't spend too much time on that because you've essentially completed that work -- if you can then also begin to look at this topic of subthemes, policy questions or subthemes but just how you would like to see these workshops included in the program of the IGF.
And this brings us back to the content focus and the strategic approach.
So we have issue areas. Is that enough? Do you want to break them into subthemes and how do you like to approach that?
You don't have to finalize that now, but I think if you can begin to talk about that, it would be very helpful.
And I think that's really essentially what we want you to do.
So if at the end of these sessions you've done your final selection of workshop proposals and highlighted any other topics for discussion on how to structure the program, how to approach the program, and if there are any workshops that you feel should be given the opportunity to merge or to include in the preparatory phase or receive any other follow-up treatment in any particular way.
Is that clear? Any questions on what you need to do in the groups?
I see no hands.
So we had originally allowed 45 minutes for that. So let's continue to allow 45 minutes for that, and we ask you -- maybe let's give you 45 minutes for that.
So please come back at 11:30 UTC. If you can do it earlier, that would be great. I will check in with the groups to see if you manage to do it earlier, but if you need 45 minutes, take it. And then you can present your reports in the session that follows that.
Any questions? Is everyone clear on what to do next?
I see no questions. I will check in with all the groups and so will the rest of the secretariat.
So, please, join your groups.
>>LUIS BOBO: Anriette, this is Luis. I'm just creating the groups. Everyone will be able to join directly. I, as usual, will help others by moving them to their room.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Luis.
Observers, you can stay in the plenary or you can take a break and join us when we reconvene later.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Sorry, Anriette, to jump in.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: I've just shared in the chat the link for the presentation with the two alternatives so you can use it in your groups.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Roberto.
So all the group facilitators and other members, copy that so you can use that when you have your group discussion. And the other documents that you will draw on are your current ranking, in terms of your evaluations.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Observers, the secretariat has created a breakout room for you. So you're very welcome to join it and talk to one another. Just look for the breakout room for observers.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Welcome back, everyone.
Are we fully reconvened?
Thanks very much, Luis, for so nicely and seamlessly navigating the breakout groups and coming back. I'm very happy that there was an observers' group that talked and interacted during the break.
So MAG members, are you ready with your reports?
To start, can I give the floor to the group that deals with the issue area of inclusion, human rights, and that is facilitated by Maria Paz Canales and Amado. Are you ready to report?
>>MARIA PAZ CANALES: Can you hear me clearly?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: We can hear you clearly. And Maria Paz, and this is for all the other rapporteurs as well, when you start your report, just remind everyone which issue area you're covering, or if you're covering issue area, which ones they are and if they are main focus areas or cross-cutting and emerging areas.
Back to you, Maria.
>>MARIA PAZ CANALES: I am sharing the wrong file. Sorry. This one. It's this one. No, I'm sorry.
Why -- I'm sorry.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Don't worry. Take your time. Everyone needs a bit of a breather.
>>MARIA PAZ CANALES: No, okay. I'm good now. I was confusing the two version of the file. Okay.
So I'm sharing my screen for showing you visually what we have so far as the determination of the different basket of our group which is the economic and social inclusion and human rights issue working group.
So in our case, the determination of going with the alternative number 2 of respecting the proportion of the proposal received for each one of the issues. We considered that it's an appropriate approach and that means that for our issue, it will provide the allocation for 27 workshop. So from the previous conversation that we had on this in the meeting last week, we already had identified 21 issues that were high scored in our -- sorry. 21 workshop that were high scored in our issue. We want to keep them as part of the green basket, with the only consideration that we have two -- sorry, one proposal in this green -- original green basket of moving one of the issues, the session 243, to a different issue, emerging regulation issue. I got a positive response from Adam in the MAG list about considering this in the group, so I will appreciate any kind of update about the final decision that they made regarding if they will take on the workshop or not for their issue. Because it's a high-scored issue in our bucket, and if it's not taken by them, I will definitely consider that we should keep it in ours. The worst thing that could happen is to lose this good proposal.
So moving on that, we also have one merging proposal in this session, 197, that we will propose to merge with the session 203 and 208 that have exactly the same issue, but those were proposed as regional discussions for Africa and Asia, and the 197, it was more like a general global discussion that could be enriched by this participation from this regional perspective that were proposed in the other two.
Finally, then, we move to the orange basket for selecting the additional six workshop that we will have space. We consider we had 21 identified already in the green basket, 22 if we don't remove the workshop 243, so we will have to select between six, five workshop additional from our orange basket. And the approach decided by the group, it was that we will respect the scoring of the proposal that we have. So we will promote to the green basket the higher-scored proposals currently in the orange basket, which are the one that, in my screen, you can see in a darker orange.
We'll take a quick look in the type of topics that they touch on, and it seems that it is well balanced but with the caveat that we can make that of course the title are not always fully representative of the content of the session, but to assess more deeply that, we will need more time for going and review the specific proposal. And we don't think at this point that we have enough time for doing it, so we will rely in the good scoring that they have that already was done by the group in the previous phase.
From this group, also the same for the green basket, there is one proposal we propose to remove for -- on a different issue, for emerging regulation issue, is proposal number 261. Again, I will appreciate any information about what were the consideration of the other group on that. If not, we can keep it, and it will increase the diversity of our basket.
So I will stop there, will take any question. Thanks very much. And if anyone from my group want to implement or correct what I shared, please go ahead.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Maria Paz.
Any comments? Any additions from other members of the group or questions from other MAG members?
>>JOYCE CHEN: Hi, this is Joyce speaking. Sorry.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, Joyce. I saw your message. I saw it too late. You say you need five more minutes.
>>JOYCE CHEN: Yes, but that wasn't what I was going to talk about.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay.
>>JOYCE CHEN: Yeah. Thanks very much, Maria Paz, for sharing your group's discussion. I looked at -- I don't know if you could go back to your dark-orange rows, your presentation, just to have a look again. And I was just wondering if rather than force the orange ones to go into green just to fill up the numbers and the slots, some of the other issues may need those extra slots because we have a few that are in green that we would have to cut out but that they rank, in terms of the scoring, higher than your orange ones. And if we could negotiate for those extra slots instead. Thanks.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Maria Paz, can you respond, please.
>>AMADO ESPINOSA: Sorry, Joyce, would you be so kind to repeat your question? I really didn't got it.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Amado, I can help with that, while if Maria Paz can bring back --
>>MARIA PAZ CANALES: I'm sorry. Sorry.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Amado, the question was really whether the moving from orange to green that this group did, if that's really necessary or if, rather, some of those slots can be allocated to another issue area where they had a different situation.
So in this first group, what we saw was that some groups that were -- some workshops that were in orange have been moved into green basket. And Joyce was asking whether, instead of doing that, can some of those slots not be given to another issue area where they had more in their green basket and they had to reduce.
But, Maria Paz, do you want to respond to that?
Amado, was that clear? Did that help to clarify?
>>AMADO ESPINOSA: Yeah, yeah. Thanks, Anriette.
>>MARIA PAZ CANALES: I think that's always a strategic decision from the MAG that we can do. It's the point of correction that we were talking before about the approach.
In general terms, I would not be so keen to do that because I think we have to honor the idea that the community was more interested to discuss these topics and these issue and they presented more proposal on this. In the initial in the green basket, we did it, it was arbitrary because we didn't have numbers last week. And because we were an issue that had many proposals, 68 proposals, we have to make the cut in some places.
So it's not that the orange basket proposal are less quality than the ones that were in the green proposal. They are as good quality. I mean, little less scoring was allocated for them, that is why they didn't make it to initial 20, but in the sense of quality, it's not like we are giving the space from proposal that are of questionable quality. They are all good. The instruction of the previous week was to identify orange basket had good-quality, high-quality proposal also, the same as the green, but the green was that had preference according the high score that they had from the group.
So in general terms, I would not be so favorable to what Joyce was asking, but I think that is a strategic decision to make in the -- in the group. If the MAG feels strongly, for example, that some of the proposal and other issue need to be accommodated, we could negotiate that, definitely. It's not closed at all.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Maria Paz.
Joyce, what I would propose is that rather than looking at this as a kind of swapping of slots between groups, I think if your group has identified specific proposals that you really think should be included because they're really good and they add value, and your numbers are not sufficient, then I think you need to make a case for them. And then we'll look at how we find a space for them. It might be by swapping slots. You know, it might be some other way.
So I think that's really what you need to do now, to say that you have proposals in addition to your allocated number that you really feel should be included.
And Joyce and Roman, I've noted that you need five more minutes, so if it's okay with you, let's listen to all the other groups that are ready to report, and then we can give you a short -- we can take a five-minute break and come back for you to do your report. Is that okay?
>>ROMAN CHUKOV: Thank you. Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay, good.
So let's move on to the next group that is ready to report. Roberto, is your group ready?
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Yes. Yes, we can do it, Anriette.
Well, we also decided to go to -- with the -- can I have the sharing screen access, please. And I was saying that we also decided to go with the single alternative in which we needed to allocate ten proposals for universal access and meaningful connectivity and 16 proposals for the one for trust, security and stability.
And we also, when we were reviewing the -- our last cut that we sent before, we realized that since we had these now final numbers, it was important to include some -- in some cases one important sessions that was before marked as green and now was going to be orange. So we had to reflect about that in both of the -- both of the groups that we are dealing with. And we had to make some changes, some final adjustment in order to become green one that was already as orange in terms of providing this balance of subjects. That's why we did that minor, I would say, adjustments, but we did it like that.
And we also, in the case of the meaning of the access -- meaningful connectivity, universal access and meaningful connectivity, we need to have ten slots. But since the quality and the importance of the last of the green basket proposals, then we are proposing to have 11 slots.
The idea is if we have room, then we will keep these 11 suggested, and if we don't have the room, then this last will be eliminated from the program.
And in the other one, we reach to the 16 -- to the 16 results.
That's what I had to inform, Anriette. Thanks very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Roberto. And your issue areas, just remind us, they were trust and security -- hang on. Have I now got the wrong one in front of me?
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Yes, that's correct. Trust, security and stability and the other one, universal access.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Universal access and meaningful connectivity.
Thanks, Roberto. Any additions from your group?
Any questions from MAG members?
I want to ask MAG members that are using the chat to please put up their hands or use the speaking queue because it's very difficult for us to keep track, and I think it's difficult for MAG members to keep track of the presentation and the chat.
So -- and there are some very important questions. Adam, I see you are asking about the mechanism for improvement.
Any other questions that people have?
Adam, do you mind just taking the mic and asking that question so everyone can hear it?
>>ADAM PEAKE: Yeah, so I actually have two questions. As you said, what we're seeing is proposals that are being scored in the mid three point something, 3.6 or so, being proposed as green. Remembering from our evaluation, if you gave a mark of three, it was because you felt that the proposal needed development. So something that's scoring in the 3.5, .6, .7 suggests quite strongly that a number of people think that proposal needs improvement.
So what mechanism do we have for improving scores -- or proposals in that range? I mean, we can only go on our independent evaluations which the scores reflect. So that is my first question. What mechanism do we have for improving workshops? Obviously, we think some are needed.
The second part -- and this is looking at the screen that is displayed right now, compared to others, we're seeing workshops that people have evaluated in 4s and high 3.9s, which is good and one would think acceptable. And we're also seeing workshops with scores over 4 in the orange, which means they wouldn't make it.
So is it fair to ask somebody to not have something on the program that MAG members have evaluated as good compared to workshop proposals that people have said needs improvement. And I think that's a fundamental question. Thanks.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Adam, I'll try to respond. Then I'm going to ask other MAG members to add to the response.
My understanding is, firstly, the scoring that you're talking about is done by the MAG members who've done the selection. And the selection is the outcome of the scores and the scoring and the discussion that each group has had about these individual proposals. And that discussion is linked to the scoring, the average scores -- remember, there are average scores -- but also to populating the program in a way that responds to the community's input for which issue areas, you know, they felt we should focus.
So, you know, if it was just a ranking-based system, then it wouldn't matter what issue areas are covered by the final selected workshops. But we cannot do that because what the MAG is doing is also creating a program that reflects the interests and the needs of the community, which is why we invest so much time and energy in that call for input, the call for issues that we received. So that's my response.
And in terms of the mechanism, I would assume that you have all made notes in your proposals and that you would have identified proposals that are in your green baskets that you feel need further work. The steps then, as we tried to clarify last week is that you, the group, through your facilitator, will let the secretariat know what improvement the proposal needs; and the secretariat will then follow up with the proposers.
Then you would have the prerogative -- if the proposal comes back and the MAG work evaluation group for this particular workshop feels that they've not addressed the issues you asked them to address, then obviously you can move them out of your green basket.
So, Roberto, do you want to add to this response? Or if the secretariat wants to add, or any other MAG member? Does that clarify?
>>J. AMADO ESPINO: I agree with you. I agree with you, that in the interest of the audience looks like be more directed to human rights. And probably the other issues are also very important, I mean, security -- or cybersecurity and communications and infrastructure. But human rights and economic development are -- look like -- seems to be very key issues this year for the audience. Thanks.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And nothing from the secretariat, Anriette. You encapsulated it perfectly. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry, Chengetai. I think my connection dropped. Just carry on.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I said nothing from the secretariat. You did a very good explanation and your reasoning was excellent. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai. Sorry my connection dropped there.
Adam, are you covered?
>>ADAM PEAKE: I heard what you said. Thank you very much, yeah.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: You heard, but you're not convinced.
>>ADAM PEAKE: No, I'm absolutely not; but I don't see any point in continuing the discussion because we've moved on and I think we need to move on.
But I did want to say that I disagree with -- it doesn't matter. Let's move on. I think it's more important we get this done.
>>AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Anriette, Amrita here. Could I just clarify why we put that one below and one above in our group with Roberto?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Roberto, can you respond?
>>AMRITA CHOUDHURY: No, no, I just wanted to add that we put the -- one of the -- if you look at our ranking, we put one which was ranked lower than one above primarily because it discussed a different issue than what was there in the other -- the one which was ranked 4 and brought out from the list.
Also, the variance out there was very high in terms of -- variance in terms of review of all the people who had reviewed it. And, you know, while it is merit-based, at times we wanted a larger coverage of issues. That's why we removed it from the top -- the selected top 16 to the 17th position.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Amrita.
Adam, I hope that hopes to illustrate or that helps -- Amrita's point helps to illustrate the process.
The scoring is just a starting point. And remember that each workshop evaluation group is not adjusting other MAG members' scores. You're working with your scores, and you are discussing your scores.
So, Amrita, thanks for that. I thought that illustrated the process very clearly.
Maria Paz, can you join and add?
>>MARIA PAZ CANALES: I put my hand down because at the same time, Adam, I would like to continue the discussion. But I totally agree with the explanation you provided. I just wanted to support that because is it a strategic determination, that it's not equal the way in which each one of the issues of the working group reviews their own proposals. There are different balances. It's not the same one when you have to evaluate ten and when you have to evaluate 68 and determine a specific topic inside that needs to be covered in the program. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Maria Paz.
Next, can we have the group, I think -- the group that has Tereza as the facilitator. Is that correct?
>>TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Actually Roman Chukov.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: And you need more time. So, everyone, I would like to suggest that, perhaps, we give this group -- so I think -- I suggest we continue having discussion in plenary but let's -- or people can take a break.
But, Luis, if you can just create a breakout room for this group so that they can have five more minutes.
>>LUIS BOBO: Anriette, thank you. What I'm going to is I'm going to create the same groups. Simply don't join them. This group can join them.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: This is a group that had multiple issues to discuss. So it's completely understandable that they need more time. That's Joyce and Roman. I think everyone else knows who's in that group. Please join that group.
Let's keep the discussion going in the plenary, if there are any more questions or comments of a general nature. There is a good opportunity for new MAG members as well and old MAG members to share their experience.
I see Jim has -- Jim who is a very regular -- Jim Prendergast, a regular observer. I'm reading your comment, perspective from an observer. Why don't you share it. Let's hear your voice while this other group is --
>>JIM PRENDERGAST: Sure. Can you hear me? I wasn't prepared to speak.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: So completing that process. We can hear you.
>>JIM PRENDERGAST: Can you hear me, Anriette?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, I can.
>>JIM PRENDERGAST: You know, I think there's always been editing around the edges. In the past, I think it was the top 50 automatically made the program and then there was -- using the following 20 or 25 to try to fill the balance. And I think everybody accepts that and knows that.
But I do think you do run into a problem if you do, as I say in my comments, start vaulting proposals that are significantly down the list over ones that have scored well. I think that will create a problem with the community who's working hard to submit these proposals and they see that even though they ranked high and scored well, it's all for naught because some of the dealings that happen outside of the public sessions.
Just be mindful of that as you're going forward on this. Just from my perspective. Thanks.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I think it's important consideration. And I think that is why working groups do need to take that into account.
I think as Amrita said, you will find that sometimes those are often proposals that have a high variance. I think that's also something to look at.
And then, I think, Jim, the challenge here is if we didn't also try and have an IGF that is strategic, that responds to the priority issue areas of the community, then it will be easier just to do ranking. But that has to be taken into account as well. And then there are other factors as well that the MAG takes into account, such as diversity.
I think that's why this process -- which I think you describe very aptly as editing around the edges, I think that's why it's very important. It does have to be transparent in the sense that it has criteria. But it's very important one, and I think it has to be in the conversation that the MAG members have in this workshop evaluation groups. And I think you are right. I think it is part of the accountability to be able to have a clear rationale for why workshops are not simply selected based on higher scores.
So I think it's an important consideration.
And I think for each working group, when you do your final selection, this is one of the questions you need to have in the back of your mind. If we've rejected or put high-scoring proposals, why? Do we understand why?
Maria Paz, why don't you respond?
>>MARIA PAZ CANALES: Sure. I was doing it in the chat, but yes.
I totally agree with what Jim was saying. The things -- at least, for example, for my issue, it's not the case. The ones that are being promoted are still good quality, over 3.5. In general, we saw that, for example, our group was very much severe in the evaluation of the proposals than maybe other groups were. We barely scored 4-point proposals. Maybe it is just related to the experience of the different MAG member. We don't have to forget -- sorry, we do not forget that we have members with different experience inside the MAG.
There's some people that are evaluating just for the first time. They don't have the perspective about the quality for previous years.
For example, in my case, that deal heavily in the way in which I scored the proposal because I think generally the quality of proposal this year is lower than previous years. That definitely impacted the way in which I scored because I am a human being. I cannot separate from that.
And I think that that's the case, also, with some of my colleagues and issues. So at the end, this means that the 3.9 or 3.8 scored session in our issue are less quality than the ones that were scored in 4 in other issues, I don't think so. That's exactly the purpose of each one of the working groups and each one of the issues evaluate the same topic because we do it comparatively.
We are not comparing outside our bucket but inside our bucket, and we have decided inside our bucket is best quality. And our bucket has an allocation of what represents the interest of the community in the topic. So I think to consider the score as an absolute number of quality, it's misleading appreciation of the quality of the session. That's only from my side. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Maria Paz.
And, Paul Charlton, you have the floor.
>>PAUL CHARLTON: Oh, thanks, Anriette. Paul Charlton, MAG member from the government of Canada for the record.
Yeah, just to respond to Jim's point. I mean, I agree in general. In our group, and I mean Courtney or Roberto or others in the group could correct me, but it's -- we did keep the very top-scoring ones and agreed that they had to be kept. But the discussions on whether some had to be moved up and moved down, it's just in the inevitable gray area where you have sort of the lower ranking of the top-scoring ones and the higher ranking of the orange category. And there's -- inevitably, there's -- sometimes there's not a huge difference. And as you and others mentioned, Anriette, there's also the question of sometimes, with top or higher-scoring ones, sometimes you will have a high variance, which should also be taken into account.
So I think that's kind of a compromise mechanism where we -- we are using the scores as our starting point and we have that accountability to the community, but we also have the accountability to have a well-rounded program and to make sure that there are -- it includes quality workshops that, you know, even if, you know, going by strictly mathematics on the initial scoring, they finish a little bit lower, that on a second look they deserve to be in. Otherwise, I mean, I think you wouldn't need a MAG. You could just have a machine just tally up who's the -- what are the top scores, and that would be it.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: That -- yeah, thanks, Paul. I think that -- that makes the point very clearly. And it points to the role of the MAG.
Courtney, you have the floor.
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: Thank you. I think I wanted to kind of reiterate what Paul said. The scores, you know, especially with the high variants, indicate that there were different assessments. And I think one of the value of having the MAG and our breakout sessions is we could discuss among ourselves why different rankings were given and then maybe also reassess.
So I definitely want to second the idea that if it's just about a numerical ranking and taking the top 50, we don't really need a MAG for that. You can just use a machine.
So I think the value comes in the discussion and also looking at, you know, the comments on why something was ranked very high. So maybe it was ranked very high on, you know, diversity and interaction but it was like a low-quality proposal or vice versa.
So I just think it's really important that we look at the rankings as one part of the process, but that these breakout groups are really important for coming to consensus.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Courtney. I think that's -- that's very clear. And I'm very sorry that Adam isn't in the room to hear all of this. He's in the -- in the breakout group. And Anja is just checking with them if they are ready.
But I think this also reflects how the IGF has evolved. Now, Adam was on the MAG previously, Adam worked in the secretariat. But it was a very different time, and some of you will remember that the IGF had some fixed themes. There were five fixed thematic areas. And scoring -- you know, ranking was done just by scoring. It was different much it was a different process.
And I think this is in the nature of the process. As successive MAGs, based on community input, constantly tries to think about how to best meet the mandate of the IGF in the Tunis Agenda. And on top of that, the growing expectations of the IGF, resulting from the digital cooperation process, for example. It is important that we think about this all the time.
I think it's up to the external evaluators of the IGF, and I think one of them is with us today, to then do big-picture thinking and reflection on how these adjustments in the process are actually achieving those goals of strengthening the IGF or not.
I'm just checking if the group is ready to come back.
Anyone else that has any reflections or questions, please jump in.
I'm sorry that we have to wait for them, but I think they needed the time because they really -- they deal with multiple cross-cutting and emerging issue areas. So they had several sorting processes to finalize.
Timea, why don't you take the mic to make the point you're taking in the chat.
>>TIMEA SUTO: Thank you, Anriette. Hello, everyone. Congratulations on the hard work. As a past MAG member, I have to say I don't miss the second MAG meeting as I miss the other one. It's always the hardest, so good job so far.
My point was really just to come back to what Jim has asked before, because I think we went into a discussion around why don't we make the selection on the top X percent. And I don't think that really is the issue. The issue is having a consistent narrative and a good explanation on why those few that were chosen -- there's always only a few that are chosen, because we do have a very engaged community, and try as you might, we can't afford to have everyone in the program. But why those few that were selected were selected, I think we need to be able to give a really good reasoning, especially when our decision at the beginning -- at the end is not consistent with the scoring purely based on numbers. Because that is where the legitimacy comes from, from this transparency and from this -- really providing a reasoning to those who didn't make it into the program as to why that happened. And I think -- and this can be because of diversity. This can be because we want more issues to be discussed. This can happen for a number of reasons. But I think we owe it to the community and to the proposers to explain as to why or why not. That's all.
And thank you for giving me the floor.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: It's a pleasure to give you the floor, Timea, and thank you to you and all the past MAG members for being part of the process. We need you.
I think my question in return is I agree completely with you and with Jim. I think what we need to -- what would be good for you to reflect on is are we making that clear? Are we making the process transparent and clear enough? And if not, then we do need to do that. So that's something we can't discuss further now, but I think it's definitely worth putting points in the chat, looking at whether we have adequate information on the website that we share with the community about the narrative that is used for finalizing selection.
So I see our working group is back and ready with their report.
Courtney, you have your hand up. Is your comment on this discussion or --
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: Yes, it is.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes?
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: I mean, just briefly that I think it's very important that we don't set the expectation or assumption that, you know, proposals are accepted or rejected solely on the basis of these scores because that is only part of the broader process of creating a program. And those proposals were scored in a relative vacuum, whereas now what we're trying to do is to create a whole program.
So I just think that needs to be part of the dialogue, so that we -- I don't think that trying to, like, explain -- First of all, the reason that we do this, I would assume, in the closed MAG groups is so that we don't create some sort of expectation that, hey, you were ranked at this number --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes.
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: -- oh, and you didn't get in. I think we need to be very careful about not creating the perception that somehow these numbers and rankings reflect what should have been. That is only one part of a broader process.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Excellent. Excellent point, Courtney.
So to close on this, can I ask Sorina to document an action item for us, that the workshop evaluation process, Roberto who has been doing incredible work, Roberto, that you just work with the secretariat to capture some of this discussion and add it to the section of the website which -- you know, where we share with the community the criteria, so that it's clear to them how the process works, that we're being transparent, but taking into account Courtney's point that we don't create the expectation that a high score is the be all and end all.
So thanks, everyone, for that discussion. And welcome back to Roman and his group, who I assume is ready to report.
>>ROMAN CHUKOV: Thank you, Anriette. I think that our group did a great job.
If I am allowed to share the screen, that will be awesome.
Can I see my screen?
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: Yes.
>>ROMAN CHUKOV: So dear colleagues, if we get to alternative 2, we had 13 for emerging regulation, 9 for inclusive workshops, and 5 or environment and climate change. So we basically had 12 for emerging regulation. Then we had 5 for environment, and a bit more for inclusive. So let me just comment.
So here is our choice for emerging regulation. Basically, almost all of them were in our green basket. So basically we included all of them. Only one proposal was moved from orange basket to the green basket because of high relevance of the topic and great speakers there. We are speaking about this one. At the same time, our internal comment is to improve diversity, which we are going to communicate to the workshop organizers.
So this is it in terms of our choice for emerging regulation.
Anything to be added by my colleagues before move to the next?
Or if not, here is our choice for environment and climate change. environment sustainability and climate change. Sorry.
So those were also the best and highest-scored workshop proposals. Basically first four were green, and the next after green and orange was this one, Big Data for environmental sustainability. So we filled our quota of five workshops with all of those. And all of them are quite interesting, as we see, and we didn't have any argument against. So basically, more or less, yeah, everything was on consensus.
And if I go to the third one, here is our choice of 13 proposals. At the same time, we were supposed to do only 9 as per this alternative, right? But we had one extra which we spared from emerging regulation. So these 10 are kind of hundred percent our choice. At the same time, we did want to include this workshop from civil society participation, and also, we wanted to encourage two workshops with participation of young people and initiated by young people. They might lack diversity -- in one case, regional diversity; in other case, stakeholder diversity -- but we considered it important to support those two. And to this regard, we would like to ask the whole group to consider give us extra three slots for these proposals.
This is it from my end. Dear colleagues, do you want to add something?
>>CAROL ROACH: The only thing I would like to add is that the group really want to give inclusion for youth. We think that it's very important to do so for the IGF and for the Internet going forward.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Carol. And that was Carol Roach, for the record. Carol, it's great to hear your voice.
Any other further comments from the members of that group?
Any questions from other MAG members on that group's report?
>>ROMAN CHUKOV: And basically what do you all think about letting us three more workshops.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I mean, you are -- if I understand you correctly, Roman, you're taking the case for three more workshops in the inclusive Internet governance and digital cooperation --
>>ROMAN CHUKOV: Correct.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: -- cross-cutting area. You know, my -- others need to respond. I think it's a very important area, so I would hope we can find a way of accommodating that.
Any other comments on that?
>>ADAM PEAKE: And just to add, as colleagues have already mentioned, those were ones we were thinking about primarily from youth, and there was also a lot of consideration about the variants in our scores, so that if somebody scored high -- higher and someone lower, then we sort of tried to iron out that divergence, and that's how we ended up with the scores. And I think that was an important consideration that, of course, we all have different opinions, and this was the opportunity to discuss that and reach a conclusion.
So thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks for that, Adam.
So I think we now have a total. The total might be a little bit higher than the 80 that we proposed. I think, you know, we can work with that.
I just want to check now with MAG members. Are there proposals for mergers that you still would like the secretariat to process? That's one question to all groups. Are there proposals where you are seeking specific improvements? Are there proposals that you think would fit well into the preparatory phase?
And I'm opening this question to all the groups.
So I assume the answer is no, or the answer might be you want to reflect on this a little bit more and let the secretariat know in the next day or so. But I think that's important, because I do recall, with your initial evaluation, that there were some suggestions for mergers. Possibly those have now fallen away. If they haven't, then please just share that.
Did any groups have time to talk about program structure and subthemes, how to approach main focus areas? I assume you didn't. Did any group touch on that?
So I think the answer is no. I don't hear anyone. I don't see any hands.
Well, that means we still have to do that, but, you know, we'll find time for that.
So I think we can bring this session to a close now. I think you've done your initial selection. There are some requests to adjust numbers a little bit by some groups. We might have a few more than 80. I'm hoping we can deal with that by looking at proposals that could go into the preparatory phase, you know, where the organizers feel comfortable with that.
So I think I would like to close the session, but I would like to ask each of the group facilitators to, either on their own or in collaboration with their team members, just do that final check. I know it's been difficult to add that as a criteria because you've been -- you know, you've been evaluating and juggling so many other criteria, but to identify whether there are, perhaps, proposals that we could effectively -- not just because we want to reduce numbers but that would add value to the preparatory phase.
So congratulations, MAG members. I think you've completed, which is a key task and a very challenging task.
So can we do a cheer? Do we do a virtual cheer at this point or is it premature?
Any questions on this process? Can we move on to the next plenary, which is to discuss the preparatory phase? Is everyone comfortable with us moving on and with you sharing your results with the secretariat who will compile for us the final selection and numbers and identify? I think it would be good to have the secretariat also have a bird's eye view, an overall big-picture view to identify whether there are any further issues. And you'll let the secretariat know if there are any proposals that you feel require follow up.
Good. Let's document that for the action items and move on to plenary session 3. Plenary session 3, preparatory phase. And here we are now moving away from workshop evaluation. And this is really the process where we start thinking about main sessions, about main themes and the main focus areas and the cross-cutting areas and how are we going to treat them in 2021.
So just to recap for you briefly, in previous years, the MAG would organize a main session for each one of the thematic areas. This year we have two main focus areas and we have the four cross-cutting and emerging focus areas.
We also have the plan to have a virtual preparatory phase, which we want to keep very light, but we can use it to have introductory sessions, for example. The MAG has introduced the idea of introductory sessions for the different focus areas in the program. In Berlin it was done on-site; in 2020, it was done virtually.
We have a draft schedule for the preparatory phase. I think you will recall we've talked about how to integrate dynamic coalitions, youth IGF, national and regional IGFs, Best Practice Forums and policy networks into the preparatory phase, and we also have talked about the issue teams. These were the issue teams that will organize those introductory sessions during the preparatory phase, and they will organize the main sessions during the forum in December.
We discussed at a past MAG meeting how to form these issue areas, and there were different perspectives. I think if I look at the inputs, and thanks to those of you that responded to that, it seems to me we need to restart these issues teams and allow MAG members to sign up to areas that they are interested in and that they want to lead. And then we will open -- once these issue teams have been established, they can be opened to past MAG members and others in the community, including from the intersessional modalities to help plan these sessions.
And we've also talked about these issue area wikis which the secretariat is establishing which will allow the MAG to invite the broader community to map issues to the IGF program focus issue areas.
And I am really here just opening the floor for discussion. There's one input here which might be useful for us to have, and that is to look again at the draft terms of reference of the issue teams that was developed and presented to the MAG a few weeks ago. So I'm not sure if the secretariat is ready to present that, but I'm opening the floor.
Let's have this discussion in plenary. This is now moving into the next phase of your work, and I'm opening the floor for any comments or questions on preparatory phase, main sessions, and, in general, how we structure a program that responds to the community's input, which has been captured into the different issue areas, main focus and cross-cutting.
The floor is open.
The secretariat has posted the preparatory phase document. Would you like to see it on screen?
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: I think whatever, yeah, suits the group. I have it open, myself, in the browser, but perhaps it might be useful to put it on the screen. Thanks, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I don't want to overwhelm you all with inputs, because these are inputs which you've seen before. So I think maybe it's, you know, better just to have a broader discussion.
Courtney, are you saying yes, you want to see it?
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: Yes. That would be helpful. Thanks.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Anja, please, could you share the draft schedule. And please keep in mind here that the dates are still completely open, but the -- the components are ones that the MAG have discussed and more or less agreed to.
So, Anja, if you can display that document for us, please.
But in the meantime, MAG members, I do ask you to join the speaking queue. I'll just run through this document very briefly.
So there are these different components. They respond to the main focus areas, and the preparatory phase is intended to enable broader engagement. So in fact, the whole phase is called preparatory and engagement phase.
Keep in mind that this is planned also to accommodate sessions in other languages and sessions in other time zones. Also remember that these are sessions that are not supported by the host country, so there wouldn't be interpretation available. And formal documentation won't always be available, but key outputs can be gathered, documented and (indiscernible). So unpacking issue areas and scoping sessions, those are going to be organized by the MAG, working in collaboration with others in these issue teams. They are the same teams that would organize main sessions.
Three here, these are the multistakeholder community organized workshops. I would say that is -- if you could just pause there, Anja. That would be only if the MAG has identified proposals that they feel would work well and that can be linked to this phase, and only in cases where the organizers have ticked the box to say that they are willing to have their workshop treated as a feeder or a preparatory phase workshop.
And then, yes, whatever happens in the preparatory phase, we'll document it and it will feed into the IGF process. And the intersessional modalities have all been invited to be part of that. And one of the events that we will definitely convene as part of the preparatory phase is a one-day event where all the intersessional modalities can present their work and invite participation and debate on their work. And that would not be necessarily focused on the IGF issue areas. That's really just a space for the intersessional modalities to have this -- this kind of midterm moment to present their work.
So I'm opening the floor for questions and discussions on this.
Carlos Afonso, please, could you take the mic and ask your question? It's much easier for us because then we also have it in the transcript.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Yes, Anriette. Carlos Afonso here.
This is still related to the workshop process. Sorry.
I will just read what I put in the chat. Once the selected workshops are -- are published, is there a way to stimulate the ones which were not accepted to contact the accepted ones in the former -- if the former verify that a merge or some other way to contribute is possible? Like I have a workshop which is not accepted, but I know that there is one which was accepted and is very related to what we want to do. So we would like to contact them to see if it's possible to contribute, to merge, et cetera.
My idea is that this could be parallel process which doesn't need to get the MAG or the secretariat involved except for facilitating the contacts among the workshop proposers.
Am I clear? Clear understand?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I think you are clear. And I am opening the floor to anyone to -- from the MAG or secretariat to respond to your question.
Does anybody want to respond to that?
So Luis is saying that it's technically possible. We would simply --
>>LUIS BOBO: Yes.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Luis, why don't you speak. It's good to hear your voice.
>>LUIS BOBO: Thank you, Anriette, and all your voices as well. No, this is -- As soon as the evaluation is ended, we publish the name of the organizers. It's published. And the organizers have their profile, of course, and they can be contacted directly through the IGF website, if they wish so. If they don't wish to be contacted directly, then they have that disabled, but we can always get requests and reach each other.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Good. Very good, yes.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Luis.
I think one would have to be careful.
>>LUIS BOBO: Yeah.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I think the MAG would have to be cautious about -- about linking a proposal that did not make the final inclusion list with one that did. But I want to return this to the MAG as a question. Can we perhaps use these introductory, these scoping sessions for the issue areas as a way of inviting people who submitted proposals that are linked to those areas, proposals that were not selected but at least to reach out to them very directly and invite them to join in those sessions so that we still respond to their interest and contribution to a particular issue area in that way? Would that be an option?
>>CARLOS AFONSO: I think it should be.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I think it could be quite a creative. I see, Courtney, you like that as well. And we would add that to the work that the issues team do with the assistance of the secretariat, to just reach out to everyone who submitted a proposal, whether it was selected or not in a particular issue area to participate in the engagement and preparatory phase.
>>ADAM PEAKE: It's Adam, and I apologize for not raising my hand. I was going to put something in the chat. I might as well say it.
The only question that comes to mind really is: Will every proposer have the same and equal opportunity to do this? Will it be clear what is being proposed? Was there any indication in the application process that email addresses might be shared? Because it's not just a matter of I may know somebody and, therefore, I know their email address. There should be some equality in this process.
And equally important, perhaps even the most important, are we adding a significant workload to what the secretariat has already taken on?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Adam, I'll respond to that and I see Maria Paz is also asking about that.
I don't think this is adding a significant workload because I think for the secretariat, it's fairly simple to sort applications by issue area and then they can broadcast a message to the proposers to inform them that there will be an introductory session on the issue area on this date and they're invited to participate. So I actually think it can be done in a light way. I don't think it has to be -- and I think it can be done using the information and contact information that's already been disclosed to the secretariat, with the MAG members working collaboratively with the secretariat. I'm not sure if I'm answering you in full.
I see Maria Paz is also concerned about that.
I don't think -- I think it can be achieved, Maria Paz, without it being too demanding on the issue teams.
But, please, Maria Paz, you can take the floor, if you want to elaborate on that.
Susan has -- Adam, I can hear you want to return and speak again. And then after Adam, we'll have Susan.
>>ADAM PEAKE: Yeah, I'm sorry. It was just to respond to say yes, what you proposed, Anriette, it sounds fair. It's equal. It doesn't start involving sharing personal information and email addresses and all the rest of it. That's fine.
And I do have a follow-up, but it is follow-up, so I will defer to Susan and others. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Adam.
Susan, over to you.
And then, Adam, you can just add yourself to the queue again.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Anriette. Hi, everybody. I'm just taking a look at the prep phase document and trying to understand -- trying to focus on where the MAG will be engaged the most in the prep phase. And it seems that the MAG tasks are associated into the first -- the deep dive and the two IGF 2021 issue areas.
So I'm wondering if we could perhaps have a discussion that focuses exactly on what MAG members can do to contribute to this first part of the prep phase. It looks like parts 2 and parts 3 are kind of buttoned up. And then the MAG would focus on scoping sessions, feeder workshops -- scoping sessions and feeder workshops.
So if it's possible to really just kind of hone in on practically what the MAG members can do to organize this, I'd be appreciative of that. Thanks.
>>ANJA GENGO: Anriette, we cannot hear you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Anja.
Sorry, Susan. This time I was muted.
I've asked the secretariat to present for us the draft terms of reference of the issue teams, the MAG-led issue teams. We presented that a few weeks ago. I think you were not able to participate then. And that will begin to answer that question.
So, in fact, Wim, if you are happy to do that, if you can bring up the draft terms of reference for these MAG-led issue teams to undertake this work.
And, Adam, you had your hand up.
>>ADAM PEAKE: Yes, because it's related to something you were just talking about -- we were just talking about and also Roman mentioned briefly.
In our issue areas, we have, for example, you know -- there are people who -- we don't want to merge but we think it would be a good idea to make people aware that they're in the same issue area and perhaps they might want to have a discussion or the opportunity to have a discussion so that they can be begin to think about how their workshops fit together.
So if it's the topic on inclusive Internet governance, then that group of proposers would be offered the opportunity to have a discussion amongst each other and see if they can make sense of an inclusive mini track, as it were, not trying to use the word "track," trying to make sure there's collaboration across-- that opportunity for collaboration so that track of -- that issue area is sort of coherent. If that might be possible and reasonable?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Adam.
I don't know why I'm putting my camera on.
I just typed in the chat I can think of two ways in which that could be done.
If you look at the design so far -- and we can discuss it more after Wim has presented this. But remember the idea of mapping of issues, I think that's one way in which an invitation can be sent to everyone, an open invitation, to use the wiki issue mapping to reflect whether they are addressing issues that are on the IGF program and then also there's the open invitation to joining the issue teams. I think that would have to be handled a little bit with care because you can't also create an expectation that if your workshop proposal wasn't included, you can use the issue team process to get your workshop back on the agenda. I think we would have to make it clear.
But I think the idea is to encourage debate and sharing of information about the IGF's focus areas in ways other than just having a workshop.
But let's hear what Wim has to say about the draft terms of reference for these issue teams, and then we can continue with the discussion.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you, Anriette.
And thank you, Anja, for putting the link to the terms of reference in the chat.
I think it has been -- or this document has been discussed or presented at length, I think, probably two months ago or one and a half months ago.
So I suggest to really focus on the point 2.2 in the terms of reference, which you see on the screen. And the role of the issue teams, I think it has been said earlier today during the meeting, the most easy way to approach those issue teams is while they're actually similar to the teams that were formed in previous years to prepare a main session on a specific -- for a specific work stream, with that difference that this year the issue teams -- the task of the issue teams would be to look what is happening in the broader IGF community on their issue and to try to bring that information together as a start to prepare the IGF program. So that I think is summarized in the two points you see there on the 2.2. So it's actually looking in the community and try to collect -- try to service focal points, collecting information on how issues are being addressed.
So that information -- or based on that preparatory task, the issue teams should then help to organize the preparatory phase, also create documents to help to populate those wiki pages which, on one hand, are intended to be very helpful for the IGF process and program process itself, to build upon the information of those wiki pages the program and to build synergies but also for the broader community.
So I would like just to pause here to see if there are any questions or comments on the purpose because I think that's the most essential, that it's clear for everyone.
I see Susan, yes?
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Yes. Hi, Wim. Perhaps if you used the term "main session," I'm confused if we're now talking about main session organization or if we're focusing on these sessions of the prep phase.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Actually both. But the idea is that instead of just forming a small group that organizes a main session, the MAG now forms groups on those issue areas. And once you have those groups, those groups will be responsible to help preparing the sessions in a preparatory phase within that issue area but then later on also preparing the main sessions on those topics.
And the idea behind is really that instead -- compared to previous years, where the focus was on organizing main sessions, the focus partly this year is trying to bottom-up bring activities and initiatives that are happening within the community up to the IGF meeting.
So that's the main reason.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: My only concern -- and I see Maria Paz has added something to the chat -- is that that might be a lot -- well, it seems that main session proposals should begin organizing now. And the prep phase is -- I guess I just wanted to clarify that there is not an expectation that the prep phase will inform the main session proposal because that's a very short window to develop a main session after the prep phase.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Wim, do you want to respond to that?
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Actually, my idea is that they should be in parallel. But the essential part is that it is the same -- they are the same people so that you don't have a small group that is really focusing on organizing a main session or a session during the IGF meeting in December without really taking into account -- or without giving an opportunity to initiatives, for example, discussions happening at an NRI; for example, discussions happening within a BPF or a DC, without taking those into account for organizing the main session.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Susan, if you can just add to that. And I'm hoping this also responds to Maria Paz's question.
The parallel would be here with in 2019, which was when Lynn was still chairing the MAG -- but I know some of you were on the MAG then. MAG members organized for each thematic track of the IGF, they organized an introductory session, a main session, and a concluding session.
Last year in 2020, the MAG organized an introductory session for each track and the main session.
This year we are asking the MAG to organize an introductory or preparatory or engagement session during the preparatory phase and a main session. And I think, as Wim says, the idea is that they are in parallel.
I don't tink -- I think it will probably evolve naturally and maybe different groups will approach the link between the preparatory session and the main session differently.
I think what's very important here is the message in the chat from Adam Peake which is how many main sessions are you considering. And I think that's important. Will there be a main session for every issue area? In which case, we are looking at six main sessions.
And then I just want to flag for the discussion that -- and as Maria Paz is saying, yes, one main session for each issue area, so that is six.
And I think Mark Carvell is asking about the inclusion of intersectional modalities. So that is very important. And maybe, Wim, if you can just highlight a little bit, or Sorina or Anja, just what the plans are for inviting the intersessional modalities to be part of the preparatory phase. If someone from the secretariat can highlight that a little bit. Wim, it would be good if you can do that. But if not, Anja.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Checking if no one else...
Well, the -- I think there are two things for the intersessional work. Of course, what I'm going to say is very focused on best practice forums as that's what I'm focusing on.
The idea here is this year, especially, in the way the whole -- the idea of the preparatory phase has come up and has developed, one the BPFs and the other intersessional activities are already kicked off, so it's important for this year that what is going on in those intersessional streams can continue what they were planning beforehand.
But that there is -- that one is looking for opportunities to still link it to the main issue areas of the IGF.
For that reason, early in September, I think there's a draft -- tentative date around the 15th of September, is the idea that the different BPFs have a day where they, on the one hand, or different intersessional activities, can present what they are doing and where they are. And that can also be an opportunity then to link themselves to the other issue areas.
And apart from that, I think -- apart from that, sorry, it's -- also underlying is the importance of the creation of those issue teams in the MAG because those issue teams, for example, the one on the trust and security should -- or I would expect that they are aware that there is a best practice forum. So a BPF on cybersecurity can flag to them, look, these are the issues we are working on.
A DC that's working on a relevant topic related to trust and security can also share that information with that issue team so that actually there is a clear, I would say, overview of baskets of things that are going on in the community. So based on that, we can try to focus the program in December, the final program of the IGF, focus, but on the other hand, trying to make it even broader and allowing a better bottom-up approach and taking into account other activities that are going on within the community.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Wim. Are there any follow-up questions?
Joyce, we will come to your question a little bit later.
I think Susan is asking: "I'd like to understand if we are no longer taking the approach of main session proposals, as we did in 2019," no, I think you are still exactly taking that approach but it's these issue teams. It's the MAG-led issue teams which are just the latest version of those MAG groups that were open to others. So you would still need to develop those proposals.
I just wanted confirm something here. Are we in agreement -- it seems so based on the chat -- that we will have a main session for each one of the six issue areas? Is everyone comfortable with that?
I will open the floor. And I don't see yeses or noes, but I think that's what we need to decide today. That's an important logistical decision. And if that is the case, does that mean that we need to have six sessions in the preparatory and engagement phase?
My response would be that yes, but that doesn't mean there have to be six discrete sessions. We can have, you know, one session that covers several of the cross-cutting areas at the same time or the two main sessions at the same time. So it doesn't have -- it doesn't mean that there have to be discrete, separate events. It just means that we do need to address them.
But can I hear voices on -- are we in agreement that we'll have a main session and some session that addresses the issues during the preparatory phase for each of the six issue areas? Is everyone comfortable with that?
>>CARLOS AFONSO: I am.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Carlos Afonso. Roberto, I'm not sure if you wanted to speak to that?
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Yes.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Please go ahead.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Thank you very much.
Yeah, if we follow what we did last year, Anriette and colleagues, one of the advantage to having a main session was actually to have a slot that was not going to compete with other and have some other facilities. That's another thing that we need to know now. I mean, if I understood correctly to what you just said, then if they are going to be, like, parallel main sessions, then perhaps they won't have any other -- some other facilities as they did in the last year. That's something that we will have to discuss.
Besides that, I think I agree that since now we are fewer members, MAG members, and as you know, Anriette, I agree with you totally, there is a lack of active participation for -- from all of them in the different previous task, I'm not sure if all of them are going to be committed to actively work in the following months in order to be involved in the organization of these issue sessions. But I totally support. I will also support that we will need to have six of those, for each issue team.
But what I also would like to suggest about that is to have flexibility. And that means that in one case, we could actually identify if there is a very interesting, good session that could actually be selected as the issue session or the main session for that issue, that will be an alternative, or if there is an interest of one group of MAG members that would like to organize, considering how hard the work is, but perhaps there would be some group that would like to organize a main session for one of the particular six issue groups.
So that will be my advice, to have a little bit of flexibility in order to follow with that, and also to have what will be the characteristics this year for these six issue sessions.
Thank you, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks for that, Roberto. And I think that's a very useful suggestion.
I think what remains important is that the -- that even if one practices that flexibility that the MAG curation and the MAG leadership, which also comes with MAG accountability, does remain clear.
Susan, I think you want to speak to this as well, and then we'll go on to Joyce who is asking the very important question about how do we form the issue teams. And I also would like MAG members to respond and share whether, in principle, they are in agreement with those -- the terms of reference for the issue teams or would you like time for us to put it up as a Google doc for you to respond? I know you've actually had that chance but you've also had other work. So we can still give you a little bit of time to respond to the issue terms of reference, but we do need to finalize that because that then becomes the guidelines for how these groups will work.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks so much, Anriette. I appreciate your patience as I seek to understand the process here. But it seems that we've agreed that there will be six issue teams to help organize the preparatory phase. Then there will be six parallel main sessions at the IGF 2021.
I guess my question is whether -- what the substance -- how the substance of the main sessions will be developed. In previous years, the -- the topics of the main sessions were not tied or did not have to kind of, let's see, closely track the themes themselves. I understand that we're moving towards a process whereby the themes of the main sessions, of which there will be six, are established. And then my question is the issue teams themselves, they work to develop -- do they work to develop a proposal for the MAG for a main session or are these issue teams -- is it already presumed that whatever the issue teams develop for the main session will be accepted? I think that's a question of process. And so just seeking some clarity there.
And then I think this will tie in to Joyce's very important question.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks, Susan.
Wim is in the queue, so he can also respond. My understanding is that the MAG did, in past years, tie the main session -- the main session proposals to the thematic track, but with a lot of flexibility. But I think there certainly was a match between the thematic tracks and the main sessions, with a few differences, such as I think digital cooperation in Berlin, for example, wasn't a theme. I think it was a theme last year.
But, yes, but there was broadly an overlap.
But I think definitely the MAG curation is important. As I said, it's linked to MAG accountability. So my understanding is that those groups will develop the proposals, present them to the MAG, and then after MAG input, only then are they finalized. That would be my understanding.
But, Adam, can we hear from you, and then Wim, and then we'll go on to Joyce's question.
>>ADAM PEAKE: Thank you very much, Anriette. I need to leave in a minute for another meeting I have to speak at.
I just wanted to say could this process around the issue teams please be written up and sent to the MAG and also to the public list so everybody is aware of it? But particularly to the MAG so we are aware of the opportunities to participate, and so what we're being asked to do, where we're being asked to do it in the different groups, and so on. Make sure that as many of us are aware of this as possible so we can contribute. And also making sure that there is actually coordination across these six issues so that we all know what we're doing, because this is really the heart of the program.
So, yeah, it's really just explain to us again, please invite us again. And try and participate.
And thank you. I must leave for another call.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Adam, and thanks for your participation. And, in fact, MAG members are not only intended to participate in these groups. They're intended to run these groups.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you, Anriette. While were you speaking, one idea came to my mind that maybe has not been mentioned already, is that one of the reasons why those preparatory sessions have been literally moved from the week before the IGF meeting where it is just presenting what is going to happen at the meeting itself to the (indiscernible) two months was just to allow additional input and the community to come up and flag from what we are working on, an issue that might be interesting or an initiative that might be interesting for that issue area. And in that way, also help the organizers of the main sessions to come up with a richer program. I think that was something that was discussed but very early on when developing this program.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, I think. And that was actually in the proposals from the MAG working group - strategy.
And I think, Wim, if we follow up on the action item that Adam asked for, which is to share again with the MAG the terms of reference and the process, you know, then we can add that rationale and see if it's feasible.
I think the other thing, and I know, Maria Paz, you keep reiterating, the concern about the feasibility of this. And I think that we do need to be open to -- to the challenges that this entails. And I think we can try and respond to that.
So I think it's very important that we do have this preparatory and engagement phase, but I think the MAG and the issue teams do have the flexibility and the opportunity to scale it back if they feel that, you know, what the goals are are not realistic.
I now want to give the floor to Joyce who asks the question about how do we form these issue teams. You know, and we've discussed this previously and I'll try to recap again, but, Joyce, let me give you the floor first to start this discussion for us.
>>JOYCE CHEN: Thanks very much, Anriette. Joyce Chen, MAG member.
So my question was how we plan to form the issue teams, whether we would remain in our current issue teams or form six issue teams now, which means there would be small groups, right? So that's the first question.
Actually, I have another question, which is I'm not sure about what is required for the preparatory phase in some of the sessions that need to be organized, just in terms of content-wise. What is the difference with the main sessions?
So for the preparatory sessions, is it more about introducing what is the main issue is? Something like that, or -- I don't think I really understand what exactly goes into that preparatory session that we need to form, to organize as an issue team.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks, Joyce. I think that is actually, you know, for the MAG to decide. The MAG has treated these introductory sessions differently in different years.
I think what the issue team terms of reference and the other documents we've developed includes is some of the outcomes we want to achieve with these introductory sessions, and that is to integrate with NRIs, to integrate with the intersessional modalities, with dynamic coalitions. And I think the issue teams can decide how they approach that. It could be scoping. It could be just inviting a policy network, for example, to -- or co-organize. For example, there's a policy network on universal access and meaningful connectivity that could contribute and work with the MAG on organizing that session.
So I think the goal, for me it's really more important that we try and achieve the objectives, and the objectives are more engagement, more inclusion, and more outcome and impact orientation. I think it's really for the MAG to decide how they achieve those.
As for the groups, forming the groups, let me open the floor to proposals from that. We asked the MAG this question previously, and you were given three options: Do you continue to work in the issue teams that develop the text and the policy questions earlier this year for each issue area? Do you work in your workshop evaluation groups? Or do we start from scratch and invite MAG members to sign up to groups that they are interested in? You know, to identify with an issue area amongst the six they are interested in, or more than one, because MAG members can also join more than one issue team. And that's the decision that we need to make.
My sense, listening to your responses in the MAG call where we discussed this and the email responses, that it's actually better to start a new process where MAG members identify which issue areas they want to work on, and then to open it up to others in the community to join that process.
But I would suggest that before you open it up to others that MAG members themselves first, you know, achieve consensus or reach consensus at least on the overall scope of work of that issue team and also the process. For example, as Susan was saying, do you still submit a proposal for main session.
So let me open the floor, and to start us off I'm giving the floor to Roberto Zambrana.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Thank you, Anriette. Yes, I agree with what you just said about starting the process again because we didn't have before the input about knowing which were the proposals. Now we do. And it will be difficult if we go using the same group because in the case of the cross-cutting and emerging themes, they do have several -- several issues to discuss.
So I think it would be better to continue with the approach of separating issue groups but starting the process again, so putting a link for the ones that want to join any one of these groups and also for the outside community, too.
That's it. Thank you, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Roberto.
Joyce, are you -- are you back in the queue?
>>JOYCE CHEN: Yes, I am, but I think Courtney and Susan had their hands up before me.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: So let's hear from Courtney and then Susan, and then again from Joyce.
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: Thank you.
I would support the idea of re- -- this is Courtney Radsch, MAG member. I would support the idea of redoing the issue teams so that we can self-select into those areas that we're most interested or expertise or want to contribute to.
And I had an associated question, which is for the cross-cutting themes, are we going to do that as one theme- -- like is that one group or will those be multiple groups based on the cross-cutting themes?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry, Courtney, can you just repeat that last part of the question?
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: Yes. So the issue teams, there will be one per cross-cutting issue or will there be one issue team for all cross-cutting issues? Does that clarify?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: What would be your preference? I think this is -- you know, this is one of the decisions we need to make. So perhaps before you leave the floor, what do you think?
>>COURTNEY RADSCH: I mean, it seems to me we should start with having individual teams for each cross-cutting issue, because some of them are quite different. So I think that would be better than having just one team across all of those various issues. And that will allow community members to focus in on those particular issues that they have expertise or interest in.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. I think that makes sense.
Susan, you're next.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Yes. Thanks. I think that makes sense as well. And also because, as Luis has just put in the chat, there are already six different lists. So it might be great to soon, just to see folks can raise their hands or clarify which group they want to be a part of, then we might be able to get started.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Susan.
And we have then Roberto and Joyce. I think, Joyce, you first and then Roberto.
>>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Sorry. My hand was down, sorry, in my case.
>>JOYCE CHEN: Thanks, Anriette. Joyce Chen again, MAG member.
Just repeating what I said in the chat, which is I think we should re-sign up for the issue teams. And I think the first time we signed up, it was really to help build the narrative around the issues, and so a few of us actually crossed many different teams. And then the next time we signed up for teams was for, you know, doing the workshop evaluations, and I think the system wouldn't work because now we have six groups.
I think we should just all re-sign up for whatever issue team works for us because the level of expertise required to put the content and the speakers together are slightly higher now than they were previously. And so I would support that option.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Joyce. I think there's consensus on that. So if I gather what has been said, if anyone objects, and you have to speak, we will recreate these issue groups. We'll reuse the lists that Luis says has already been set up, and we will have one for each of the issue areas, for the two main focus areas and the four cross-cutting areas.
Any other points? Any other questions?
I see no one asking for the floor, so I think we're beginning to get a sense of what our next steps are.
I wanted to, before we close the call, because we don't have that much longer, the issue -- these issue area wikis that we've been mentioning and that have come up and the idea of mapping issues, does everyone understand that? Is that something you'd like the secretariat to say more about, or is everyone on board with what that would be and how it would work? So I'm putting that question out.
And I'm also putting the other question out which is: When would you like to start the work? At the moment, we are planning -- initially we plan to start these preparatory sessions in September. Is that still a realistic target date? Do MAG members feel that these issue teams might need more time? We don't have to finalize all the decisions on that, but I'd like to hear your reflection on this process.
So I'm opening the floor for any further comments on the preparatory phase, on the issue area wikis, on the issue teams, and particularly on inviting other members of the community to join them. Any other comments or questions?
I see nothing. While you are reflecting, Luis, can you just take the floor and just tell MAG members what they need to do and how this process of rejoining an issue team is going to work.
>>LUIS BOBO: Thank you, Anriette. Happy to do that.
Actually, I'm thinking -- I mean, those six links that we have just put in the chat are the ones that you can use to directly subscribe to any of the groups.
But I think that we don't need to unsubscribe anyone because if you subscribed at the beginning, it's because you are interested in this group. You can always actually unsubscribe if you decide to do so.
So these are group lists to start working with. I don't think it's necessary unless you tell me that we remove everyone from the list and then they have to subscribe again. So everyone is free to go to the list, subscribe automatically or unsubscribe, if you want to do so. So there's six links, depending on the group.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: So can we then as an action item invite all MAG members to either unsubscribe or subscribe to an issue team list that they are interested in. If you find it difficult to subscribe to mailing lists, then just please write to Luis and he will help you.
And I think we need to do this in the next week, so give us a fairly tight deadline for that because these teams do need to start working.
But the first step is for MAG members to sign up. And, remember, you can join more than one. That doesn't mean that you will be the facilitator of more than one, and we will also need some facilitators for these groups. But if you are interested in more than one issue area, please just sign up to more than one. I think that's an action area for MAG members to sign up to those issue areas.
Any other comments or questions about the next step of the process?
The other action item I think that we've already captured is that the secretariat will share the document that outlines the terms of reference for these teams. And I think we need to update that and adapt that a little bit so it reflects everything that needs to be done and everyone is comfortable with it.
>>JOYCE CHEN: Anriette, if I may ask a question? Hello?
>>ANJA GENGO: Anriette, we cannot hear you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: But please go ahead while Anriette gets back online. Ask the question.
>>JOYCE CHEN: Okay, sure, Chengetai. And thanks very much. Joyce Chen, MAG member.
My question is if there's somewhere that we could --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Anja.
Maria Paz, I would -- we could --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry, Anriette. Joyce was asking a question.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: -- with people signed up to express --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Anriette, your voice is not sounding well.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: You've asked for the floor. Please go ahead.
>>JOYCE CHEN: I think Anriette was just lagging behind a bit.
My question was just whether we could have somewhere in the document who signed up for what --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I can't hear Joyce. Can others hear Joyce?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yeah, I can hear Joyce.
>>JOYCE CHEN: Because I -- I mean, personally for myself, I can't even remember what groups I signed up for already. I think I signed up for practically all of them, but I'm not very sure.
So if we had this information, it would also be easier for us to coordinate amongst our teams specifically which issues are the ones to organize. Thanks.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. Sure. We can do that. That's a good idea, yeah.
>>ANJA GENGO: Chengetai, maybe you can continue while Anriette reconnects.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. That's fine.
Do you have any other questions? Any other hands that are up? I don't see any hands. Or questions.
>>LUIS BOBO: Chengetai, if I may, with this thing about the groups --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>>LUIS BOBO: I mean, it's what the MAG prefers. We can remove everyone who is in the lists or we can just put in a document who is in the list now. The point is to create another document and synchronizing with the list is a manual thing, while the subscribers to the list --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: People are changing all the time?
>>LUIS BOBO: Yes, exactly. It doesn't make sense.
Basically the decision here is only if you want to remove everyone who is in the list now, which is also valid, and then everyone can sign again.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And re-sign. I think that's a good idea. Do we have anybody who is -- who does not think that that's a good idea? It also shows that you are actively interested in it and you're not just on the list because you didn't attend a meeting or you just have not taken any action. So it does show that there's an active component to it.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: That makes sense to me.
>>LUIS BOBO: Okay. I will remove everyone from the lists, and everyone is free to subscribe to any or several of the groups.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And for that person -- oh, sorry.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead, Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: For that person who's not here, because I think Carol just asked, we do have the meeting minutes and we can also send a reminder via email so that everyone knows.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Hi, Anriette. Can I say something?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead, Carlos.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: It would be good --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, please.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: -- to have a full list of the lists so we can remember which ones are which and resubscribe, et cetera.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, yes, we can do that. Yes. That's no problem. It doesn't change. We will just list the lists.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: So we can leave that with the secretariat. They will facilitate this process. They will remind MAG members. And then it's up to MAG members to identify facilitators for each of those issue areas and to review the terms of reference of the issue areas or the issue area teams and to decide exactly when to open it. And I urge you to open these to the community as soon as possible.
And apologies from me that I had to leave and come back. My Internet is strange. That could be a main session topic.
Any other hands? I had seen a hand from Susan, but I think it's done now.
Susan, do you still want to ask a question?
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: I was just sending out a simple suggestion about indicating -- it would be nice if we could see who is in each group.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I was thinking that, too, actually. I was busy -- I'm sorry, I'm multitasking like crazy. I was actually trying to ask Luis if we can do that now before the close of the meeting. You know, just to do a simple poll to get a sense, and not just from MAG members, from everyone, all our observers as well, just to get a sense at this point.
So, Luis, I am not sure if you can quickly do that. Just do a quick poll for us.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Just to answer, Susan -- sorry, Anriette, for butting in.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Just to answer your question fully about the simple poll, okay, we can do a simple poll. But I still think that MAG members should themselves add them to the list because of different email addresses, et cetera. It is much, much simpler and easier if MAG members join themselves to the list.
And we will be displaying -- as the suggestion was, we will be displaying the signup pages for all these lists. So it's just a click and then you add your own email address.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Absolutely, Chengetai. I think the idea of a poll is not that the secretariat uses that as input for further decisions. MAG members have to sign up. This is really just to give us a sense now of what the distribution of interest is. But it is not -- it's not formal, absolutely not. That still has to be done.
And while Luis does that distribution of interest poll for us, we have to still document all the follow-up actions and next steps for the MAG.
But how do MAG members feel about today's meeting? Is there more clarity about where we are in the process, what needs to be done. I'm not going to call a break because I think you are all probably desperate for this meeting to end and we are nearly end.
So really just any other comments? They can be comments or reflections, reminders of important issues we've not addressed. So I'm kind of emerging now from plenary session III into the closing session. We will document all the next steps, next steps with regard to workshops because, remember, also, we need to finalize that so we can share the decisions with the community; next steps with regard to issues teams; next steps with regards to the preparatory phase and the main sessions. We'll share all of that.
But any other comments or questions? Do you feel on track, MAG members? Are there any concerns? Or any reflections to share?
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Hi, Anriette. I just have a -- if that's okay, if I can jump in with a reflection.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Please.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Okay. Perfect.
On the wiki resource, just my initial thoughts are that it might be useful to have that content populated, or at least to know that the secretariat or the consultants will start inputting content into the wiki.
My concern is that MAG members might not be able to or might not be sufficiently enthusiastic, I hate to say that, but I will do my part to try to help to input content. But just to know that there will be kind of a push by the secretariat to organize the wiki and to populate it with content would be reassuring.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Susan. And maybe we can hear from Wim and Luis in response to do that. And also, I think it's a good moment to remember that during the Berlin IGF that members of the community in Germany had set up an IGF wiki, which was a fantastic resource. And I think many of them are still with us and, you know, that content is still there and that energy is also there.
So I think that we should also not underestimate, you know, the commitment that there is in the community to contribute content.
But Luis and Wim, did you want to just react to Susan's reflection on the wiki? Any thoughts?
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: A quick thought is, well, the practical -- how to deal with the practical and what technical tools to use, I think that's something that still needs to be discussed. But the main idea is to try and collect the information.
And I do agree that probably -- agree and then the secretariat and then -- but also some MAG members might have a pretty good idea of what to put or what to add to a wiki, just almost as a just you know what happened in -- or what's happened in the program over the previous years.
But I think one important thing is to also consider it as a living document so there can be initial content, but that it's also kept open between now and the -- and the IGF itself so that community members can just flag, well, we have a topic or we're working on something that's really relevant and can we add.
So that's -- two things that I think that we still need to reflect on practically is, one, the exact technical wiki, but then probably also, and then together with MAG members involved in that, in the topics, on an easy way for the community to flag what's -- or to add their content on the wiki.
So, but I really agree with what Susan says. It should not be like a great real burden on the MAG members already charged with preparing the issue, but MAG members could help flagging to the community: This wiki exists; if you have something relevant, send the information or flag it that at least we can add it to the wiki.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Wim.
And I see no further hands. So I think we can bring this meeting to a close.
I think just picking up on the discussion about the wiki. You know, it is an effort also to give youth IGF initiatives, NRIs, dynamic coalitions, and BPFs and the policy networks, part to -- you know, an opportunity to contribute their work and their context.
I think what we do need to keep in mind and also as a reality check is that there are many innovations this year. So the MAG, the secretariat, the intersessional modalities are all taking on an extra -- extra tasks and extra goals, you know, to help achieve this goal of a more focused, strategic IGF.
And I think that we need to be realistic about what we can achieve. We'll learn a lot from this process. I think the effort is worth it, but I respect the fact that it is an additional effort. And (indiscernible) is demanding on the MAG.
But I -- the MAG interfacing with the community, creating spaces for the community, really collaborating. I'm getting a message that my connection is unstable.
Really collaborating with the intersessional activities, I think we can achieve many of these goals.
So to bring our meeting to a close, thank you very much, everyone. I think you've achieved more today than you realize. Please do read the meeting minutes. The secretariat takes excellent minutes, and there are action items. Look at those, and we'll share those on the list.
And thanks, everyone, for getting us to this point. I think it's a very important milestone in the preparation.
So before we close, I'm going to first ask Przemyslaw Typiak, who is representing the host country, if he has any remarks to share before we close. And then Chengetai will brief us on our next meeting.
Przemyslaw, do you have anything to share? If you are (indiscernible).
>>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK: Thank you very much, Madam Chair Anriette, for giving me the floor.
Just to inform, just to kindly inform all MAG colleagues that I have been listening to our very vibrant and very good meeting today, and we are, of course, taking note of everything that has been said. And we will be working closely with you in the upcoming months to prepare ourselves for the IGF in Katowice. So you can count on our support and permanent assistance. And we are looking forward to further cooperating with you.
Thank you very much for all your current efforts, and all the best to you all.
Take care. Bye.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Przemyslaw.
And, Chengetai, last words to you. When is our next meeting? And then Luis is going to do the poll for us while Chengetai speaks.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette.
We are aware that -- I'm not using the royal "we," I'm using the "we" as the secretariat and also the MAG chair; that we are coming towards the northern summer period, which is basically July and August, but we do feel that it is important that we still at least meet during this period just to touch base and to further the work that we have on the main sessions, on the intersessional work, et cetera.
So we would be proposing that we have two meetings in July. That will be on the 13th and then also on the 27th of July. And we hope that the MAG can -- most of the MAG can attend these meetings.
And for August, we would keep it as the holiday month, because almost every calendar does have a holiday month. So -- And also, it's getting warmer in the southern hemisphere, so it feels kind of like a holiday (laughing).
So if there's any comments, any -- for yea or nay on that idea, please let us know now. If not, we will just keep those dates.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai.
If there are no comments, I think we'll work with that, and we'll share the dates in the -- in the list.
I think this also gives us time for the MAG to get going with the issue team work before this break, which also gives the secretariat a much needed breather.
Luis, are you ready to share the results of the poll? Are people still completing it?
And I invite everyone to respond to the poll, not just MAG members.
>>LUIS BOBO: Yes. We have half of the people have already answered, and numbers are not increasing so maybe we can just publish the results.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. Please do.
>>LUIS BOBO: Ten seconds. I'm running sunsetting now.
Okay. I'll share it.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Luis.
Well, that's good, because at first class, just visually, it represents quite a good distribution of interest, which is exactly what we are looking for.
So I look forward to that being reflected in the MAG members' sign-up to the list.
On that note, thank you very much, everyone. Thanks to our captioner, to our observers, and everyone from the intersessional community, dynamic coalitions, and NRIs, our policy network team members, and to the secretariat and the host country. And most of all, to the MAG members for bearing with this process and getting us to this point.
Thanks, everyone, and see you at our next call, which will be in two weeks' time, more or less. Meeting closed.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette, and thank you all.
>> Thank you very much, Anriette, Chengetai. Bye-bye.