You are here

IGF 2020 Second Open Consultations & MAG Meeting - Day 5

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:  Okay.  Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to the third and final day of the MAG meeting, our second set of open consultations and MAG meeting.
 Just to start, the usual, the meeting is being recorded and also transcribed.  A summary report will be made available next week.
 This is also being Livestreamed at YouTube.  And, also, please make sure that your microphone is off at all times unless you are speaking.  In order to request a slot to make an intervention, please use the speaking queue.  If you are unable to use the speaking queue, you can put your name in the chat and then somebody from the secretariat will put your name in the speaking queue.  And you can easily see where you are in the queue by either looking at it displayed in Zoom, or you can go to the front page of the IGF website.
 When it's your turn to speak, the chair will call your name.  And once she's called your name, could you please state your name and your affiliation or the institution that you work for.  
 Please keep your interventions short because there is a lot of people who want to make interventions, and we're trying to keep time.
 Also, please could you speak in a measured pace, not too fast, not too slow, so that people can understand you better and the transcribers can also write down what you are saying better.  
 Once you are finished speaking, can you please switch off your microphone.  That's so we don't disturb any other people.
 The agenda is on the front page and we're following it.  There's been, I think, no changes today, I think.  But the chair will go through that when she opens the meeting.
 With that, let me hand over the floor to Anriette Esterhuysen who is our chair to start the meeting.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Chengetai.  Anriette here, Anriette Esterhuysen from Johannesburg.  Happy to report that it's a bit warmer today.  
 So welcome to all our MAG members.  And good morning, good afternoon, good evening.  And welcome to our captioners and to all our observers.  I'm happy to see that some have faded, but we still have quite a few of our loyal observers with us today.  Thank you for your commitment and your interest.
 And thanks to all the MAG members who worked hard on the groups that took place late yesterday or early today, depending on your time zone.  
 So today we don't have any changes to the agenda.  And I trust that we will be able to keep time.  I don't think we should feel under pressure to produce more decisions other than what we have set for ourselves to decide today.
 For the first half-hour -- hour and a half of the meeting -- and we've allocated quite a substantial amount of time -- we want to finalize the discussion on main sessions.  So we'll start with the report from the breakout groups and then we'll have further discussion on that.  And then we'll agree on basic, concrete next steps for taking main session decisions forward.
 Then we'll have a break after that.  And we really must have this short break today.  It's 15 minutes.  We could make it shorter.  And you could talk about work issues.  But I also thought you might want to just reflect on the meeting.
 I just looked at Chengetai and I noticed he isn't wearing a tie.  So I was -- one of the things that we maybe can talk about is what our dress code has been for this virtual meeting.  I know that for me, I've actually dressed up, and I hate dressing up.  But I have made an effort to dress up for this virtual meeting.
 And then after the short break, which we can -- which will be randomly assigned and we can use it as we want.  We can use it for informal social interaction, or we can use it to discuss issues of concern.
 Then we go into our final plenary, and that will really just be a summation.  We'll recap what we've achieved and what we still need to do to plan for a virtual IGF.
 If you have some more proposals at that time about how to approach the design of a virtual IGF, we can discuss those.  But we don't need to make a decision.  We want to give ourselves a little bit more time to reflect and possibly also to get feedback from the community before we finalize the design.
 And that is it.  We will set the time for our next call.  Excuse me.
 And the secretariat has prepared a revised time line for us so that we can look at this time line visually in front of us to give us a sense of the work ahead.
 So on that note, I'd like to hand over to the groups to give us their reports.
 And today can we start with -- yesterday, we started with data.  So today can we start with trust, please?  Not trust.  Sorry.  I'm getting completely confused.  Anja, are you with me?  You've got the breakout list in front of you.  Can I ask you to call the first breakout.  If you can put it on screen --
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Yes, hi, Anriette, everyone.  Just give me a second.  We'll putting it to screen.  I will give it to Luis to share.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  While Anja brings the breakout list on screen, did it work for you?  Just some random reactions.  Take the mic and talk.  Were these breakout groups assigned to different time slots, did it work?  Was it successful?
 >>ANANDA RAJ KHANAL:  It was really comfortable and it worked well.  We had a comfortable time.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  That's good, Ananda.  You had yours this morning, didn't you?
 >>ANANDA RAJ KHANAL:  Yeah, yeah, it was quarter to 10:00.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And the group from the Americas, how did yours work out?
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  It's Jutta speaking here.  It was the second group where we had the Americans with us.  So for them, I think it was quite convenient for Paul and me being late in the evening, about 10:00 in the evening.  Yes, it went okay.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>JUNE PARRIS:  Hi.  I agree with Jutta.  It was quite convenient for me as well.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  It was a bit late for the central -- European Central, African time people but good for the rest of you.  
 Okay.  Thanks very much, Anja, for helping with this.
 Can we start with group 1?  That is the group that was facilitated by Roberto and Timea sent in the report.  You have the floor.  
 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  Good morning, good afternoon, good night to everyone.  Yes, we were working in the first group.  Actually, we also have the help of Timea that did a very good job of putting all the discussion together and reflected in one document, the document that we send with you and share it.
 As you will see, I will go to some of the completions that we have in the meeting regarding first to the format and numbers of sessions.
 We are keeping below eight, not counting opening and closing sessions for the thematic tracks.  Main sessions should be timed between 90 and 120 minutes.  Main sessions should stand out from the program and no other session should run in parallel.  The MAG should have some responsibility of choosing topics of approving content, speakers, for as well as organizing the main sessions.
 There was general support in the group that there should be a main session per track, if MAG members can come up with relevant and timely ideas that complement the discussion in workshops and other sessions pertinent to that track.  
 NRIs and DCs should each organize their main session as long as it brings together their views on chosen topics.  
 Some creative ideas, NRIs or DCs could explore presessions or satellite events over different regions, time zones, or interest groups to get input and build momentum for their session.
 About the opening and closings session for thematic tracks, this is something interesting that came out from the group.
 These opening and closing sessions worked fine together during the last year, and we should keep them, but maybe make some adjustments, organizing, in particular, the open session, because we could -- this time, we could ask the people to prepare some -- I mean, we could prepare some videos, some interactive videos regarding the issues that are going to be discussed in each of the thematic tracks.  That's one of the things that we discussed.
 The other important thing that we could do about the closing session is that it will work fine, again, as I received feedback from the attendees and also to evaluate the overall sessions that we had during the discussions.
 And one other thing that we mentioned is that we could take advantage of the functionalities that Zoom have regarding evaluation, as we did during the last days.
 About the main session topics, proposal of having one main session per track was supported of having these four main sessions regarding to each of the tracks.  
 In case of the data track, the idea that was proposed by the Data Evaluation Group was to converting workshop 229 into a main session.  While the group agreed this is a good topic, the majority of those on the call raised concerns about conflicting workshop selection and main selection process and advised the workshop be retained as a workshop, but the idea be further explored for a the main session as well, with HL speakers and diversity ensured by the MAG organizers.
 Another potential idea was mentioned for a main session on data that could explore the topic of data protection in emergency situations, such as COVID-19.
 About the environment, the group supported the idea of having a main session for the track and looks forward to discussing a concrete proposal.  Because so far, we don't have any -- I mean, the group didn't have identified any particular one.
 Some noted that the proposal on definite/committed actions for connecting and enabling the remaining billions would fit well under this track regarding the inclusion track.
 And, finally, regarding trust, the group supported the idea of having a main session for the track and looks forward to discussing a concrete proposal.
 Proposals on session on definitive and committed actions for connecting and enabling the next billion, the group agreed that the session should be on the program, but noted that MAG members interested in the topic should still be allowed time to review and contribute to the session, the policy questions, and speaker selection.
 About the proposal on the IGF Plus-related aspects of the U.N. Sustainable Goals Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, the group agreed there should be plenary session to discuss this with the community instead of formal response from MAG to the Secretary-General about the roadmap.
 The group noted that the session should also discuss the options paper that is to be released later this summer.
 About the framework for the Internet can help address the emerging issues that was presented for ISOC, the group agreed that this is an interesting topic for the IGF, but perhaps this is not the right format.  So we are willing to speak, maybe some other members of MAG could speak and maybe analyze what will be the best approach, the best format for this proposal.
 The proposal on high-level session on COVID-19-related topics, the group took notes for this proposal, and there was some support for a session on this topic.  Group members also noted that the synergy between the proposals and support by the UN DESA and the proposal from dynamic coalitions.
 About these creative ideas, someone in the group expressed support for two, three short, prerecorded interventions, about three minutes, from relevant individuals, usually not attending IGF, answering a specific question to be addressed in the main session as a kick-starter or scene-setter.
 That's their report, Madam Chair.  Thank you very much.  Maybe someone of the group would like to perhaps add something else.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I see Nebojsa has his hand up.  But does anyone else from Group I want to say anything?
 I don't see any hands or see anyone.  I cannot see the speakers queue, but I trust that Luis will let me know.  I don't see any hands.
 So thank you very much for that report, Group I and for your work.
 I have one comment that I wanted to make.  But let me hear from Nebojsa first.
 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  It's one formal remark.  When it comes to the terminology, just to not confuse introductory and concluding session with opening and closing session.  So I noticed that in this support for Group I, they used "opening" and "closing session," which might cause a little bit of confusion without going into details about which sessions we are talking about.  So my suggestion is to keep this terminology, "opening" and "closing session," for really opening and closing of all IGF, and "introductory" and "concluding session" for the sessions that will start and finish thematic tracks.
 That's just my small objection, not just for Group I, but for all of us for the future reference.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Nebojsa.  That's a very useful clarification.
 So what we are talking about here are not the IGF opening and closing sessions.  Those ones we will come to at a later stage.  As the U.N. is, in effect, the host for the IGF this year, we'll be working with UN DESA and, hopefully, other U.N. agencies on organizing that.
 So that's a helpful clarification.
 What we're talking about here are the introductory and concluding sessions for the thematic tracks.
 So thanks for that clarification.
 And thanks for this group.  The only thing I wanted to comment on in your report is about using a workshop as a main session.  That's actually happened before.  You know, there had -- because -- firstly, the MAG doesn't have any hard-and-fast rules.  Every MAG develops its own practice and procedure.  And this year, I think we have MAG with many long-term or third-term members and new members, so maybe that's why we -- we have the benefit of a lot of practice that has evolved over the three-year term of those who have been around.  But it's happened before that workshops have been co-organized with MAG members to become main sessions.
 I think what's important is that the workshop organizers understand that they have to work with MAG if their workshop is going to be changed from a workshop to a main session.
 So, you know, we can listen to the other group reports, but there's nothing in principle to prevent a workshop from being converted to a main session, provided it meets the MAG's criteria and the organizers are willing to work under MAG leadership or, you know, closely with MAG members to take that idea and then organize it as a main session.
 And, in fact, I went to look last night at that workshop, workshop proposal.  And I'm not sure who proposed it, but it's got very high-level speakers.  And if I look at the content of that workshop proposal, that data track proposed as a main session, I actually think it's very suited as a main session.
 We still have to discuss this, and I will see what the other groups say.  But just in principle, I think what is important is that main sessions are organized by MAG members, with the leadership of MAG members.  But there's nothing in our history or our practice to prevent us from working with workshop proponents to turn it into a main session.
 Chengetai, can you just clarify or do you want to add anything on that just so we all know what the parameters are?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  You are quite correct.  There's no rules as such.  There's no hard-and-fast rules.  Each MAG each year can adjust the operating procedures as they see fit for the formation of the main sessions.  
 In the past years, we have had nonMAG members, people from the community, helping with the main sessions.  So that's quite correct.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  I think what's really important is that -- and I think this is what you -- the place that you're coming from, that main sessions are organized by the MAG and the MAG feel a sense of accountability for the quality of those main sessions.  But it's common practice for MAG to work with nonMAG members on organizing main sessions.  But let's hear what the other groups have to say.  So thanks very much, group 1.
 Let's hear from group 2.  That's Paul Rowney and Jutta working with Ben and Jennifer as rapporteurs.  You have the floor.
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  Hi.  It's Jutta speaking here.  Jutta Croll, MAG member in my third year representing civil society.  I'm from Germany.
 I do think I hand directly over to Jen because she has prepared the document.  And we were working, as we said before, last evening on that.  
 So, Jen, would you like to go ahead, please.
 >>JENNIFER CHUNG:  Thank you, Jutta.  And Thank you, Chair.  Jennifer Chung, third-year MAG member, private sector, also the co-rapporteur for group 2.  
 First, I wanted to thank the entire group 2 for a really fulsome and engaging discussion.  Especially thanks to Jutta and Paul for their excellent facilitation and also Ben, of course, for assisting throughout for preparing the report and being a co-rapporteur.
 So we started off group 2 with talking a little bit about the impact of the virtual IGF on the main session scheduling.  We thought we had to start with that because we can't really look at numbers without looking at the impact of changing the format from physical to virtual.
 We discussed that it was probably ideal for us to have one a day but no more than two per day.  We didn't discuss a concrete number, but this is kind of the guideline that group 2 rallied around.
 The format we wanted to have it stand alone, meaning we don't want it to clash with any other sessions, any other open fora, any other workshop sessions and such.
 The length was also discussed, so we had group members who mentioned it was -- last year in Berlin, it was good to have a two-hour session.  But others did say that because now we're not looking at a physical meeting, we're looking at a virtual meeting, people's attention span may waver.  So our final recommendation would be anywhere from 90 to 120 minutes.  So anywhere from one hour and a half to two hours.
 The time zone we briefly talked about.  I think this also depends on the discussion afterwards.  But there was some general comments about having it in UTC time zone or the, quote-unquote, back-bone time zone that was brought up in the MAG mailing list.
 So moving on to the second part of the report, the main session topics, we took a presumption that there were three of the sessions that were guaranteed a main slot.  The first one is the proposal submitted by Roberto and Karim, the Definitive Committed Actions to Connecting and Enabling the Remaining Billions.  We discussed that it could be viewed as an inclusion main session.  I do note that we haven't really concluded, like group 1, that we wanted a main session per track.  But I think the conversation around most of our discussions did lead to general -- general support for this.
 The second -- the second session that we supported was the role of the Internet and emergency situations by the NRIs.  And we also supported the DC sessions.  
 There is some extra notes here, especially from our DC extraordinaire, Jutta, mentioning that the DCs will be sending their planning documents forward to the MAG to discuss further.
 So we've separated the remaining topics into three sections.  The first one is general support, the second one is no consensus and then the last one is no support.
 For the general support session, we have the digital cooperation proposal.  There is support for a main session on the digital cooperation architecture elements, for example, the IGF Plus of the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation.
 The second general-supported main session would be on environment.  There was some preliminary discussion to look at it as a standalone, and others also mentioned that they might want broader elements brought in, such as sustainable development.
 For the workshop 229, A-changin' Times for Data Governance, there were suggestions just like we did for the content governance main session from last year, this proposal can be used as inspiration and a basis for a main session to be created and organized by MAG members.  There were concerns that this might mean a highly rated workshop will not end up being used in its proposed form.  And there was some solutions proposed that the MAG to invite the proposers of 229 to be part of the group that takes responsibility for organizing this main session.
 Moving on to the no-consensus parts, we talked a little bit about the Emerging Issues ISOC proposal.  Group 2 members mentioned that we probably will need further discussion and it would need more focus.  And it could be taken up in a different format or modality, or the elements of this proposal could be considered for a MAG-driven emerging issues main session.  
 So part of what we discussed was -- in our group we actually brought up a good suggestion, suggesting that we leave space for an emerging issue main session.  But this would probably require us to identify and agree to the topic by late August because there would be inviting speakers and other logistic items that we have to consider as well.
 The last part is the no support.  Not that we don't support sessions on COVID-19 or the pandemic, but we noted that these have already been identified as topics from the NRIs, the DCs, different workshops, and most likely in the high-level sessions that we heard very briefly from Wai-Min yesterday.  So we don't really support yet another standalone session on COVID-19.
 On the introductory and concluding sessions, we are hoping that they should be treated as the opening sessions insofar as we don't have this clash with other sessions as well.  Since last year, it was really used for people as a capacity-building component.  We thought this was probably best, and it could even be done in advance of the main IGF.
 For the concluding session or sessions, we noted that it could form part of the closing plenary and/or a separate section -- session before the closing plenary to serve as a forum to capture the feedback.
 On the discussion on opening and closing plenaries, there was a good suggestion that these would probably be organized as Webinars given that we will have quite a large number of participation.  But it was also noted that there might be challenges enabling the open mic for comments at the end of plenaries, and this is considered as a very important part and an important instrument for community engagement at the IGF.
 Luis, if we can scroll down.  Thank you.
 We identified some next steps for the planning.  Including what our chair mentioned yesterday, we did feel that the working groups need to be established for each main session as was done in previous years, not including the NRI and DC main sessions, because those two groups already are quite advanced in planning.  And I'm sure they would be very happy to involve the MAG as well once they have something a little more -- more developed.
 And another note was that main session working groups should be volunteer-based with MAG members able to sign up and contribute to one or more of their choices so that we're not locked in our evaluations, per se.  
 So that's the report.  Jutta, Paul, Ben, and the rest of group 2, please feel free to jump in, if I've missed anything.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Jennifer, for that report and to everyone else who were in that group and who helped with that.
 Does anyone want to add to Jennifer's report?  Anyone from that group?
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  Hi, it's Jutta speaking here.  Since I have not seen whether Hana is with us today, I would like to just repeat that she suggested not only to reduce the main sessions to one hour or 90-minute -- sorry, to 90 minutes, she proposed as well to reduce the duration of all workshop sessions to 60 minutes.
 I do think that's a point that needs to be kept in mind when we discuss the format of a virtual IGF, whether we can have a consensus on the reduction of duration in this regard.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  I see Hana is with us.  Hana, did you want to speak to that?
 >>HANA ALHASHIMI:  Thanks so much, Anriette.  Thanks, Jutta.  I didn't want to disrupt at all.  I just thought this was something a few people have been saying in terms of the ability to keep kind of a concise schedule.  It's not -- to be able to keep attention sometimes online requires a more concise schedule.  
 So, yeah, not to prolong that.  But it was just a point that I did want to flag, and I think it could be considered.
 I think that Ben was also in support of looking at 90 minutes for main sessions.  And I'm very happy to hear other suggestions.  If people have seen longer sessions that have managed to remain engaging, that would be good to know.  But I personally haven't.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Hana.  It's a good point.  We need to come back to that.  I mean, I have got experiences with longer sessions that have worked very well.  The Missions Publiques consultations, for example.  But it depends.  It depends on how you facilitate them and whether you use breakouts or breaks.  We definitely need to give this serious thought.  We don't have to conclude on that today, but it's good you have tabled the issue of duration.
 Nebojsa.
 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  Thank you.  First, when it comes to reducing the overall workshops to 60 minutes' time, I'm against that as when we evaluated the workshop proposals, we took in account proposed format in evaluating the quality of the overall proposal, how the format fit into the content, policy issues.  And in that sense, we also gave our remarks.
 If we now force some of the proposals to be reduced to 60 minutes, I think it will influence the quality of workshop proposals and possibly -- if we reduce the proposed duration to 60 minutes, we would maybe give smaller marks.
 When it comes to the main sessions' duration, I think it will be mentioned when we come to the group full, I think two hours is the minimum.  As we are already now 40 minutes into this discussion and we are only warming up.  The other day we had a session that lasted longer than one hour and we were just discussing about the main sessions.  
 So I don't think 90 minutes would work.  And I propose it remain the minimum or, in my opinion, optimum of two hours.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm actually inclined to agree with Nebojsa.  But I'm the chair.  It's not my decision.  I just think we shouldn't -- we shouldn't pressure -- people will be under quite a lot of pressure in organizing these sessions as virtual sessions.  So I think we should be cautious about putting additional pressure on them to reduce the time.  Particularly as we have this very exciting opportunity to make the IGF more inclusive.  But we'll get to that later.  
 So I don't see any other questions.  So shall we go to group 3?  That's the group that was facilitated by Juliana working with Mary Rose.  Group 3, are you ready to report?  Or did I miss someone?  
 I'm so sorry.  June and Hana, you've requested the floor.  June, please go ahead.
 >>JUNE PARRIS:  Hello.  Thank you, Chair.  June Parris, MAG member.  I just wanted to add to what Hana suggested.  I'm thinking that, yes, we could reduce the time of the workshops because we're going to be virtual, which means there's less preparation time for speakers to sit down and get the room ready.  So I think we could reduce it by at least 15 minutes.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, June.  Good point.
 And, Hana, do you want to come back on this?
 >>HANA ALHASHIMI:  Thanks so much.  And thanks, June, that was precisely what I was going to raise.  But mainly on the format, so when I was evaluating the format -- and I can only speak for myself -- I mean, it was bearing in mind that these would be in-person sessions.  So I don't think it's unreasonable to reconsider what would be an engaging session online.
 On the contrary, I think that when you have less time, even as a speaker, you spend more time getting to the point of what you would like to contribute to the discussion.  And I think that our sessions are not scripted.  But the workshop sessions presumably you'd be asking speakers to share the wealth with less protocol, and that's one of the opportunities of having digital sessions.
 However, as I said, not to prolong, it's just an idea.  And appreciate it.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Hana.  Yes, I think it's good idea.  I think what also might make a difference on this is how we decide to deal with the networking component of the virtual IGF.  Do we rely on breakout sessions in workshops to create a networking dimension, or do we organize other features that will enable the networking?  So I think that might also make a difference.
 If we have other features that enables networking, hanging out and meeting in corridors, then we don't really -- then we can have very concise workshops.  Or if we want to ask workshops to build in a little breaks, but we need to -- these are the decisions we have to make in the next two weeks.
 So the speaking queue is now empty.  And let's go on to group 3 for your report.  Juliana.  Juliana and Mary Rose.
 >>MARY ROSE OFIANGA:  Hi, Madam Chair.  Thank you.  This is Mary Rose Ofianga, second year in the MAG, representing private sector.  And I am from the Philippines.  So I will be sharing the output of group 3 with regards to how we work this.  It is really convenient that we are all in Asia-Pacific region, so the time zone was really convenient for us.  And I think we had a productive discussion about this.  
 So I will just wait for secretariat to pull up my document for everyone to see.
 All right.  So we started with discussing about the proposals for the main session.  And based on that, we added two other additional columns to identify at least which thematic track it belongs.  So we identified some of them and then for convenience, we added on our remarks.  We added another column for our group remarks.
 So from that, the workshop proposal that was suggested by Roberto and Karim on Definitive/committed Actions for Connecting and Enabling the Remaining Billions, we support that.  We thought it belongs to the inclusion track.  But we have a general suggestion that the title can be changed to include "business model" so that it will be more explicit on what this session is all about.
 And then for the digital cooperation and digital roadmap session, we also have -- we also give our support to this main session as long as there is inclusion of the MAG in the panel.  So this is a strong recommendation from our group.
 And then we also discussed a little bit about the recommendation from the ISOC on emerging issues.  And the group generally thought that we need more information on this.  Or if we can provide the proposal, then later on we can decide if this session is really for the main session or for an open forum.  So we did not have a decision whether we can support this for a main session or not yet.
 Of course, for the -- we have the full support for the NRI main session.  We trust they do a great job on this as well, Changin' Times for Data Governance.  We support this workshop session to be included in the main session.  We just want to have -- if anybody from the MAG member are going to organize this, they should communicate well with the workshop proposers and develop the speakers and scope of the session.  So if it would be okay for the proposers, then we support this one as part of the main session.  
 We need one session for the environment track.  And although we don't have the proposal for this one yet, but there's a general suggestion from the group to -- if they can have a session that would represent data on climate change or misinformation, that would be great.  That's just some of the suggestions from our group for the environment main session.
 And then for the trust, yes, we support this one.  And we would let the working group for the trust decide which topic to choose as the main session.
 And for the DCs, yeah, we -- we believe that we can come up with something to be the focus of the topic in the main session.  But we strongly suggest that there will be a coordination, close coordination, with the UN DESA, to -- and the secretariat, to avoid repetition with high-level leaders' meeting organized by UN DESA.
 And in terms of the numbers of the main session, we thought that it would -- not more than ten main sessions.  And we also are wondering if there is any submission from the BPFs for the main session, and it maybe could be added to the list.
 And in terms of the format and the length, we thought that it should not be more than two hours.  And I think other groups have also recommended that one.
 And if you can scroll down for the next part.
 So we also discussed about, yeah, the impact of the virtual IGF on the main session.  Again, we see that (indiscernible) for the main session, and the speakers, we don't put any limit to the speakers, as long as the organizers and it would be part of the guideline that the organizers would put an effort on the diversity of the panel as much as possible and as humanly as possible.
 And for the format, we do not recommend a one format for the main session, because it might depend on the platform that the secretariat will use, if they will use -- will use Zoom, then the breakout groups is possible for the main session.
 So for the next step on main session preparation, we think that there's -- we should list the possible themes for the main session and identify the MAG members who would volunteer to organize and facilitate, just like last year.
 So moving on to the introductory and concluding sessions, we also thought that it can be done same as last year for the introductory based on theme, thematic tracks, and then the concluding session as a wrap-up and a comment for each track.
 So I think the MAG members should again divide ourselves into based on the thematic tracks for the introductory and concluding sessions.
 And we also had a discussion on should be the format of the virtual IGF.  If you can scroll down a little bit.
 So there are -- we see that there are some -- there are advantages for the virtual IGF.  Of course, there's no location constraints, and speaker -- speakers and participants could join from anywhere.
 And the only constraints that we think is, of course, the timing and the time zone.  We thought that if we use central time zone, there might be participants that cannot join, especially from Asia.  And if possible, there would be a distribution of sessions on three time zones so that at least three or two sessions for each track.  That's an example.  And then there are concerns and questions that have been raised that we cannot answer yet.  So how many virtual rooms dedicated for each track?  Are there any virtual rooms dedicated for each track or a main session?
 And also, what are the social media platforms to be used?  And with regards to security, is there any security teams stand by to take care of the cybersecurity issues?
 And the last thing is that this one, we will ask if -- how's the newcomer session?  Is it happening?  And we suggest that it would -- Yes.  But there should be close coordination with the MAG and the secretariat on the plan so that what happened last year will not happen again.
 And there was a suggestion, if possible, we can ask the Internet governance schools or the academies to be the organizers of the newcomers' session.
 So that's it for Group III.
 And I will pass on to my other team members, Juliana, Sylvia.
 Juliana, if you want to add, there's something we need to add.
 Thanks, Madam Chair.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot for that, Mary Rose.
 Do you want to add, Juliana, or anyone else?
 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI:  Thank you.  This is Juliana, from Indonesia, MAG member, second year, from civil society.
 Actually, I don't have anything to add.
 But for the speakers, it is coming on my mind when I preparing the initial reporting, because it is virtual and will be -- there is maybe some suggestion to limit the speakers.  But it has come, suggested -- the group agree this is no -- there is no need for limitation for a speaker, as long as the group can have a strong moderator.  Because the (indiscernible), if they explore many things, many aspects, it will be another (indiscernible) for the organize main session if we put limitation on speakers.
 I think only -- Thank you, Rose, for the --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead.
 Thanks very much to that group and to Juliana and Mary Rose.
 Does anyone have any questions for this group?
 And thanks to this group for going into a little bit more depth about the virtual IGF.
 We will summarize all of this input, as well as the input on virtual IGF that's being shared on the list.  So all of this is going to be used, and all of the discussion as well.
 If there are no questions for Group III, can we please have the report from Group IV.  That's the group facilitated by Helani, working with by Natasa and Chenai as well.
 >>NATASA GLAVOR:  Hello, everyone.  My name is Natasa, coming from (indiscernible).  And I am a MAG member for third term.
 I would like to thank Helani and Chenai for taking over the role of facilitator and rapporteur for this group.
 Since Chenai is at a meeting at the moment, I will present conclusions for our group.
 So for the number of main sessions, we would like to have a clarification of the best practice forums and ISOC proposal to see whether they impact on the numbers and the scheduling of the program.
 So we would like to determine the influence of the thematic tracks on the main session.  Should we have a main session determined by thematic tracks?  In fact, we are in favor of that idea, to have thematic -- to have main session that would reflect thematic tracks of the program.
 And the value of those thematic track main sessions would advantage access to interpretation, which would allow for diversity in participation and provide the overview of the main tracks.
 And we would propose to design main sessions in a way to enhance the interactivity to breakout groups, which would combine topping and tailing part.
 And that topping and tailing are meant to support or replace the beginners, or newcomers' sessions, and had the breakout value.
 We would support for working on an asynchronous approach, enabling as much as needed offline approach to follow the information that is being done.  And we have tailing sessions to conclude, and has been covered in thematic track.
 So there's something that I hope Mary will come in afterwards, or if she would like to, I think that she emphasized during the discussion that we still need newcomers' main session and that it's important to stay.
 Concerning topics for the main sessions, as I said, we support having the thematic tracks covered by the main sessions.
 Concerning Roberto and Karim's proposals, maybe it could be a good candidate for representing the inclusion track.  But, of course, it should firstly be discussed inside the inclusion group to decide whether this represents the opinion of the whole track of inclusion.  And should it be presented that way as a representative of this track or consider that as a stand-alone main session candidate.
 There -- we concluded that there is a need for more context on this session, and content as well, as it may be focused more on business models and may need to stand alone rather than to be linked to the emerging issues panel.
 And I would think that for the inclusion group, we need to discuss should there be a broader conversation to decide does this workshop stand alone or -- okay.  That's something that was discussed by previous.
 Concerning the data track, we are in support for this proposal by the colleagues from data track relation group as they suggested that the workshop 229 could be candidate for the main session for the data track.  But also maybe to draw some insights and questions that design the session to be inclusive and draw in other topics as well.
 Concerning high-level panel roadmap, we see it as a valuable part for the main session, especially 5a and b part of the recommendations.
 There is only to look at the content of the emerging session issues, main session content as they may already be included in other main sessions.
 Okay.  We are in support for having a main session for the dynamic coalition and NRI as well.
 And considering introductory and concluding sessions, we are in support for continuation of these two sessions, with some innovations by facilitators in sense of enhancing interaction.  And we would advise trying not to have overlap in schedule of main sessions and other important sessions.  I think that was the case last year, when -- and I think it was -- it was more about the introductory and concluding sessions, that this overlap should be avoided, if possible.  Because I think someone mentioned that last year, we had overlap with the main session and some introductory session.
 And breakout discussion can be done in language groupings.  So -- if it's possible, of course.  Maybe it would enhance the participation.
 Then, concerning opening and closing, of course, U.N. is in charge for this part.  We would support, of course, to keep it as interesting as possible.  And if possible, we would appreciate if U.N. can share the agenda with MAG beforehand.
 And if possible, of course, that U.N. Secretary-General to appear live and not prerecorded to address the audience, if possible, of course.
 And we are in support for a continuation of the open mic session, sessions.  And maybe organize some kind of call for open mic questions or something like that to involve the audience as much as possible.
 And concerning next steps for working on main session planning, we think that we should be having as many groups for the preparatory work as there are main sessions to accommodate any problem.  And use the methodology we used previous years.  So invite volunteers for facilitators for each main session and colleagues who would like to join for further development.
 And we would stress importance maybe more than ever before to have all MAG members involved in facilitations and/or moderations of the main sessions.  We said at least one, but, of course, it depends on which MAG member (indiscernible).
 And also call for volunteers to facilitate each main session in the preparatory process.
 With a limit on the number of main sessions, each MAG member can effectively participate in facilitating.
 And we would -- we find important to advise all sessions to cover the part on responding to pandemics.  So all organizers to consider the pandemic in the way they plan the questions to be covered.
 And I mentioned that before, thinking -- we were thinking on how to enhance interactivity.  So having some open, online documents for gathering the inputs from the community, or prerecorded questions, input for questions or something like that.  And maybe prerecorded answers, if -- in any way try to enhance this interactivity.
 And we could not agree on the precise duration of the main sessions, as (indiscernible) and Titti, who were in our group, it was somewhere between 90 and 120 minutes.
 And this overlap between main sessions and introductory and concluding sessions was mentioned before.
 So that would be all for my part.  And I invite my colleagues to jump in and cover the parts that maybe I missed.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for your report, Natasa.
 And does anyone else from Natasa's group want to add?
 Are there any questions for this group?
 I cannot see the speakers queue right now.  But if you've requested the floor, please just go ahead.
 Mary, go ahead.
 >>MARY UDUMA:  Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.
 Natasa mentioned my name, that I'm going to speak on opening the newcomer session.  No.  I was just make a comment that the -- we should separate opening and closing from the topping and tailing session for the thematic groups.  So it wasn't -- has nothing to do with newcomer session.  It was just an information that last year, we didn't do it, and I'm not sure we want to do that this year, I think.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think, Mary, is that the same point Nebosja made earlier, that we need to be clear that opening and closing are sessions that apply to the IGF as a whole, whereas introductory and concluding or topping and tailing applies to a thematic track?
 >>MARY UDUMA:  That's right.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Jennifer.
 >>MARY UDUMA:  That's right.  It's just what I want to clear that -- that --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think Nebojsa made that point earlier.  I think we all understand the difference or I hope we all understand the difference.
 For new MAG members, let me just be very clear.  So -- especially, I know some of you haven't been to the global IGF.  There's usually a formal opening session for the whole IGF.  And then there's also a closing session.
 But for the thematic tracks, what the MAG did last year, which worked well, was to organize an introductory session on the theme, so on data, on trust, environment, inclusion.  And then also a concluding session on that theme.  So those are -- that's the difference.
 So we're not talking about opening and closing of the IGF.  We're talking about introduction and conclusion per thematic track.
 Jennifer, you have the floor.
 >>JENNIFER CHUNG:  Thank you, Chair.  Jennifer Chung, third-year MAG member, private sector.
 I want to thank Group IV and also all the groups, for presenting the reports.
 I want to pick up on one point that Group IV mentioned and I think the others did not, was regarding the breakout sessions.  I think possibly you were mentioning it was for the introductory sessions that breakout sessions could be done in language groupings.  If I recall correctly, I think last year in Berlin, this was not done.  I, unfortunately, could not attended them in person.
 But just to flag that if we do that, assuming we use Zoom and not other platforms, breakout sessions could -- breakout sessions are determined by host.  So it will either be random or it will be assigned.  And if we were to look at language groupings, we would have to ask attendees to indicate next to their name the language they speak.  And then we look at it that way.
 So I just wanted to flag this for us, the technical possibilities and logistic possibilities, if we are looking to do that.
 And then also, breakout sessions in Zoom are not recorded unless we have the host in that particular breakout room.  
 So I guess this is more for the dedicated group to look at when we're looking at the physical-to-virtual conversion.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot for that, Jennifer.  Anyone else with comments specifically on group 4's report before we go into a general discussion?  I don't see anyone.
 So thanks very much for the group.  These were really rich reports.  And we will be summarizing these reports because these reports contain input that we need not just for today but for the coming weeks.
 So just to conclude this or take us into our general discussion, we've got a few minutes left, 20 minutes left.  
 Can I ask Sam -- now, firstly, this is a good opportunity for me to thank Samantha Dickinson for having done daily summaries of the open consultation and the MAG meeting.  Sam is with us in the room.  She would really, by the way, like feedback from the MAG members.  If you have found her summaries -- the daily summaries useful, then please tell her.  And if you have comment on how that can be done better, please tell her.  Personally, I have found them extremely useful.  And so thanks very much for that, Sam.
 Sam, can you just put on screen, or secretariat, the Google Doc that we've been using to summarize this discussion?  I just want to highlight what I see as an emerging consensus and then where we have further issues to discuss.  Thanks.
 We're just waiting for that document.  If you want, should I share it?  It's coming.  Good.
 Thanks a lot.  If you can just scroll down to where it says "AE."  "AE" is right at the bottom.  Thanks.
 "AE's proposed synthesis," a little bit higher up.  Thanks.
 Okay.  I'm going to try and -- and I've got some paper notes as well.  But just have a look at this.
 So it seems to me that we have consensus on the idea of one track per theme, although not everyone might have said it in so many words.
 We have consensus definitely on environment.  And, generally, it seems to me most people feel there should be a track per theme.
 What should be discussed still is the idea of using workshop 229 as the basis for the data track main session.  So that's still -- there's not consensus on that.  That needs further thought.  But groups have made the proposal that can be done in collaboration with the organizers.  But there isn't consensus on that.  So I'm just flagging that for further discussion.
 Then it seemed to me there's consensus that we use Roberto and Karim's proposal as a basis for the inclusion track main session.  There's still a need and a desire amongst the MAG to talk more about the content and the framing of that -- that main session.  It seems there is consensus that we can use that as the basis for the inclusion main session.
 Then in terms of additional main sessions, I think we have consensus that we need a main session on the roadmap.  And then we also have consensus on the NRI main session on post-pandemic context and on -- sorry, on emergency situations and the dynamic coalition main session on the post-pandemic context.
 There was a question, which I'm now going to put to the BPF facilitators.  Do the BPFs -- are there any BPFs who at this point are wanting to propose a main session?  Sylvia, I have noted that you have asked for the floor.
 Can we just hear from the BPFs?  Ben, Titti, Maria Paz, Chenai, Carlos?  Go ahead.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  I think the BPF on cybersecurity had been expecting a whole-day discussion so it could discuss its report and then invite any feedback and raise visibility of their work done this year.  But we hadn't expected that to be a main session.  I don't know if that answers your question.  
 I think it would still be helpful to have some kind of session to the BPF, but I don't feel it needs to have the prominence or the additional length of being a main session.
 Separately, I'm happy to look for ways -- I think we talked back in January -- about how can you better integrate the work of the BPFs into the annual meeting.  And I'd be happy to look at ways in which it might work to integrate the work or have a representative of the work during the introductory session or the trust track or during a relevant main session.  But I haven't considered it being a main session at this time.  I hope that answers the question.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Carlos, go ahead.
 Thanks, Ben.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes, thank you.  I think that I agree with Ben on this.  In the Berlin IGF, we had a good session which was not a main session.  It worked very well.  Unless I am mistaken, I don't see a need for BPFs -- BPFs doing main sessions.  So I don't know.
 I agree with Ben that it might be but --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think you would have known.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Yeah, yeah.  If we do like we did in 2019, it would be fine.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yeah.
 So that's fine.  And Titti.
 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:  I have a question.  When you are talking about a BPF main session, are you talking about having one main session for all BPFs?  Because I quite agree with Ben and Carlos because we have done good discussion last year.  And the objective of the BPF is trying to collect the input.  For us, I think it's not so needed to have a main session.  Also because adding a main session, we should have maybe one for all BPFs and the number of main session we increase a lot.  So maybe it would be better trying to connect more the BPF with the other sessions that are dealing with the same theme but not to having a main session for all the BPFs.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes.  I agree with Titti.  Perhaps a main session which would do a report for each BPFs and all the four BPFs together.  That would be okay.  But, otherwise, I don't see --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think this was just a question from some of the breakout groups.  And I think you've answered it very clearly.
 And as Sylvia says, we need to add to our overall count of sessions one per BPF.  But these will not be main sessions.  So I'm going to give Sylvia and Maria Paz the floor just now.  I just want to give a count.
 So we've got at the moment from what I can see, one, two, three, four, five, six -- seven main session ideas on which we have consensus.  I think this matches well the ceiling.  I think some groups said no more than eight, and another group said ten maximum.
 So I think this gives us a very reasonable foundation to start with.  I think what we need to discuss or flagging for discussion, data needs bit of further discussion.  It doesn't have to be now.  It can happen subsequent to this meeting.  
 The inclusion track, we've got consensus but we'll discuss the content.
 The newcomers session, we might want to discuss that a bit more.  
 Good idea, I think, to work with the dynamic coalition on schools on Internet governance to work on that.
 And we also need to -- we need to think about -- I'm not sure what the plans are for youth -- for youth sessions.  What I felt there wasn't consensus on is the idea of an emerging issues main session.  I think there's consensus that people felt the ISOC proposal at the moment can work better in a different format.
 But there was one group that suggested maybe there should be an emerging issues main session organized by the MAG.  So that's still open for discussion.
 So I know we had a lot of other input about the virtual IGF, about length of sessions.  But what I'd like us to discuss now, so that we can actually make a decision, are just the number of main sessions and the basic topics of these main sessions.
 So I'm opening the floor.  Maria Paz asked quite a while ago, so, Maria Paz, you go first.  
 Sylvia, I assume you have removed yourself.  If not, tell me.
 We will have Maria Paz and then Timea and then Ben.
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  Thank you very much.  I'm sorry experiencing technical issues on my end.  My electricity just went off, so I am running on my phone now for keeping connected in the meeting.  
 My comment is directed to the question that you posed for the BPF.  I agree with my colleagues from the other BPFs, that the regular plan that we have so far is to have one session for the BPF in which we will address the work of the year and then the conclusion of our findings.
 But also I want to remind that in the first day of the open consultation, there was from the community a particular request that there was some specific instance to talk about women and gender issues in general in a more overall way in the IGF.  
 So only want to represent that if at some point the rest of the MAG agree that this could be a relevant topic for one of the remaining slots for main session, from what we heard in the open consultation, there is some appetite from the community to touch on that.
 Of course, we need to take care that is not duplicative with whatever we are discussing in the BPF session.  But I think that it's something that were to have into consideration as a potential topic for the main session.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that.  And thanks for pointing out that I forgot about that, and we didn't put that in the summary.  So thanks, Maria Paz.  And thanks to Sam for capturing that.  Yes, we do need to discuss that.
 So maybe -- yeah, we'll come back and just flag that for discussion.
 Timea, you have the floor next.
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you, Anriette.  Hello, everyone.  Just to be very brief, as you caution that we are talking about the number of sessions and not how to turn the IGF virtual, I wanted to just to make a point that, that leads to both topics, especially when we were discussing main sessions for BPFs and others.
 I want to keep all of us alert to the fact that going virtual also gives us a unique opportunity to preserve some of our work for the future and use this setting that everything is virtual and that we are hugely moving to video and online content as an opportunity to keep some of this for the future.  And I mean here if we are thinking about BPFs or others reporting back from their yearly work, if we are talking about having newcomer sessions, if we are talking about all this content that is very much already done and that needs to be discussed for Q&A, if we can have something engaging, more colorful, just viewable, I think that would be very helpful for all of us to then use for future promotion of the IGF and the great work that is being done here.
 So I would encourage all of you who are part of DCs, NRIs, BPFs, any other sessions where you feel that you want to report back to the community to all of us to put our heads together and think about how we can -- how we can do that in a format that can be prerecorded and put to the community but also that lives longer than just this year's IGF.
 The German hosts, I know they put a lot of resources into this last year.  And they did very nice promo videos for what the IGF is, how certain processes work, what can be found there.  If we can build on that model and think about these things for the future, I think that would be a really interesting idea.
 And that would give more time for the individual BPF sessions to really go into discussions and get feedback but not have to repeat the same thing over again.  So I'm just putting that out there in a way to save time away from having sessions for everything in live and also to preserve our work a little bit.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Timea.
 You make me think that when we are talking about the thematic track introductory and concluding sessions, maybe we need to think about preparatory sessions rather than introductory sessions.  It might even be possible for us to make them a little bit more because the virtual forum allows us to be more creative and interactive.  So thanks for that.  
 Ben, you're next.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Thank you.  So it's very helpful to have kind of draft ideas on the screen for us to respond to.  And thanks to you and to Sam for that.
 And so looking at the list of seven, as a preliminary list for discussion, I just wanted to say two things.  One, a main session about the roadmap, I think, should be focused specifically on Recommendations 5a and b about digital cooperation architecture and hopefully about IGF Plus as the route forward.
 There is so much in that roadmap that I don't think it makes sense to try and have a main session that covers AI and connectivity and human rights and et cetera, et cetera.  So I think the particular value and relevance for the IGF is to discuss what the IGF community thinks an IGF Plus could look like and how we get there.  So I wanted to narrate that just in case there was an idea that a main session of the roadmap would cover the roadmap as a whole.
 And my other question maybe, or point, was that I'm happy to see one main session per track.  I think that has consistency with the approach of the program this year.  But I also like the idea that people can sign up and volunteer to lead a main session so that it shouldn't necessarily fall to the coordinators of those four tracks to then produce the main sessions of those four tracks.  It should be for other members of the MAG to be able to step forward and take on a leadership role.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Ben.
 Yes, there was consensus, I saw, from all the groups on how to proceed.  Everyone agreed that there should be working groups.  And my sense is that most people felt that MAG members should be able to volunteer for working groups and could be in more than one working group.
 And I don't think we should decide on the facilitators now.  We can start the process after this meeting of getting the volunteers on track.  And then we can address the issue of who should facilitate them.
 Any other comments -- and, Ben, by the way, yes, you are absolutely right.  We should be more explicit.  The main session on the roadmap would not be on the entire roadmap but on those issues that are particularly relevant to the IGF.  Does anybody have any comments on that or reactions to Ben's input on that?  Or any other requests for the floor?
 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  Madam Chair, speaking just briefly, Natasa mentioned in the group when we discussed the roadmap, that we specifically mentioned it should be about Article 5a and b.  Those are the most relevant for IGF and IG processes.  So I think what Ben also wanted to --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  It is, it is.  And, in fact, Sam, if you don't mind, if you can just put that next to main session 5 on the roadmap, just to make a note that we are talking here about the architecture for digital cooperation, not everything.  
 That's recommendation 5a and b.
 Jutta, go ahead, please.
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  Thank you, Anriette, for giving me the floor.
 I just wanted to come back to the question on these sessions for the four thematic tracks.
 I do think it would be very beneficial to have a consistent program that is also where these main sessions are somehow complementary to each other and also to the workshops and the issues and themes that are addressed in the sessions within the track.
 So as I said yesterday, I do think it's beneficial to encourage MAG members to have a look at those workshop proposals that are now provisionally accepted for the program in that themes that they have not been assessing in the first place.  So just to get -- for all MAG members to get a good overview on what these sessions that we have been discussing yesterday are really addressing.  Some have a title where you can assume or maybe I know what it's about.  Others have a title where you really need to look into the workshop proposal and description to better understand what it's dealing about.
 And then I do think if we have that in mind and then decide what these main sessions for the four thematic tracks will really address, that would be useful.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Jutta.
 Can we note that, secretariat?
 I mean, to me, it sounds as if you are making that as a proposal for a first activity for the working groups that will be working on -- on the main sessions, that they need to look at the workshop proposals in that track, for that track.
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  Yeah, I thought it -- if we can find the time.  And I do know that we all are very busy in these days.  But, still, I do think it's -- it helps better understand what the whole track is about if you have a look at -- at first a look at the proposals that are now suggested to be accepted into the program so that the main sessions reflect on the workshops, the workshops reflect on the main sessions, and it comes somehow together.  That is my suggestion.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Jutta.
 So to bring this to a close, -- I'm just checking the agenda.
 So am I -- can I assume or let me ask you, do we have consensus on these seven main session proposals?
 You can use your -- those of you that are in Zoom, you can use your "yes" function in your -- the list of participants, or people can just speak up.
 Or use the chat.
 Sylvia has a hand up.
 Sylvia, please speak.
 >>SYLVIA CADENA:  Thank you, Anriette.  I just wanted to refer to the guidelines.  Because at the risk of sounding as a broken record in noting that you have mentioned that every MAG has, you know, the opportunity to change processes and everything, I think that there was a very thorough effort in the last maybe three years to list, like, one of those requirements, is that some of the things that Jutta just said are on the guidelines, like, for example, that a main session should not take the attention or duplicate, let's say, what a workshop proposal is actually doing.
 So going back to the list of the sessions that are in a specific track, it's important to make sure that either those sessions are referenced as part of the document that puts together the proposal.  They don't have to be mentioned on the microphone; right?  But there are documents and reports that will come out of that.  If that's the case, to draw on speakers that were invited for other workshops to bring those issues to a main session, if that is appropriate, but, really, not to repeat or take the thunder, let's say, out of the sessions that were proposed.
 And there was also an effort to try and respond to the demands from the community and the consistent input that we have received about going into in-depth discussions to make sure that the topics that are chosen for main sessions actually facilitate that opportunity to deep dive into a particular issue of concern for the Internet as we live it nowadays.  So just to make sure that it's not a very generic overview thing where there is no chances to learn something new, for example, for people that have attended the IGF in previous opportunities.  And to use the previous session report format that the secretariat has also advanced over the years that the MAG has, you know, put some effort into it, to make sure that those mechanisms are used to reach out to the community and know we are not going to talk about everything under the sun.  It's this thing that will help us dive, deep dive, into the issues that are of concern.
 It's limited time, and even more so if we cut another half an hour or so, if we end up not two hours, but 90 minutes, for example.  If it is a very broad issue, then it will be very difficult to achieve that demand, that request from the community to give the opportunity to really go in-depth into discussions.
 On the introductory and the concluding sessions that we have discussed, I think it might be a good idea from the groups that have -- the workshop evaluation group, and there were a couple of other groups that worked on those documents, to bring some context into this also to avoid repetition.  And it is -- when you look at all of those sessions, there is a lot of work ahead.  So it's very important that the MAG also realizes the burden for the people that are volunteering for that.  And it's important to spread the load and get more actively involved, especially as all of these new demands for a virtual event will mean, for example, to be checking on video interventions and checking on the quality of one thing and the other and it's not just sending emails and figuring out we are going to get to 15 minutes earlier, as June mentioned before.
 So there's a lot more work that will be needed, and it will be good to just make sure that we are all putting our hand up and helping on the road ahead.
 Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Sylvia.
 And just so -- I think, clearly, we need -- the first task is for the -- not -- for the 2020 MAG, to look at the guidelines developed by the --
 (Multiple people speaking simultaneously.)
 -- and this -- whether you want to work with those and whether there are changes, and also whether they need to be changed in the light of it being a virtual IGF.  So I think that's an activity that the whole MAG needs to do over the next week.
 So if the secretariat can perhaps, you know, post a writable version of those guidelines so that we can all comment on them and then adopt them for our 2020 work, with changes where needed.
 And then I have a question.  Did the same groups last year that prepared all -- the main sessions per track -- because they were more or less -- did they also prepare the introductory and concluding sessions for the theme?
 So -- I think the configuration might be a little bit different.
 So my question is, do we need two sets of groups, one group per main session that will prepare that main session, and then do we also need people who will prepare the introductory and concluding sessions for the thematic tracks?  Or will the same groups do both main sessions and introductory and concluding sessions?
 So this is a question to the MAG.
 Sylvia and Maria Paz, can you respond?  First Maria Paz, then Sylvia.
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  Yeah, to the question.  Thank you, this is Maria Paz Canales, for the record, a MAG member from the GRULAC, civil society.
 Yes, the groups are different, as other colleagues pointed out in the list.  And also the groups are different between the list --
 (Multiple people speaking simultaneously.)
 Usually, what we have done in the past is, like, (indiscernible) a group of volunteers for organizing each specific thematic session.  Last year, we self-identified during the open consultation meeting in Berlin, which one of the main sessions, who will be interested to support in the organization.  
 And in the case of the topping and tailing or introductory and concluding session, we identified later, in general, what had been natural is that someone from the thematic track lead the organization of those, because those are linked with the thematic tracks.  But it's -- as has been mentioned in some of the reports, it's very intensive labor, the organization of the introductory and concluding session.  If we consider the breakout groups, we need more members.  Do we -- more MAG members to engage or recruit support from some of the organizers or other organization outside the MAG -- IGF.  But those are only different groups, at the end.  It's never exactly the same group.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for confirming that.  And thanks to everyone, June, Timea, and everyone who responded in the chat.
 So we need to, as a next step, convene two sets of working groups, one to work on main sessions, and one to work on concluding and introductory sessions for the four tracks.
 Ben, you have the floor.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Thank you.
 So, yeah, that was pretty much what I was going to say.
 For the tracks, in January, thematic working groups were set up that people could contribute to the development of the narrative.  So those were self-selecting, and MAG members could be in more than one.  And some MAG members, I guess, weren't in any.
 And then this last month, we've had the evaluation groups for each track, which were not self-selecting, and each MAG member was involved in one and only one.
 So we could revert back to the thematic working -- there are two -- so each track has had two different mailing lists.  And we could choose one or the other.
 What is helpful is that the facilitators for each of those tracks are the same, whether it's the groups back in January or the ones from last month.
 Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot for that, Ben.
 We -- just before we close -- we are running a little bit late.  But one of our observers has a proposal for how to approach the newcomers' session.
 So, Meri, can you take the floor, please.  And just make your proposal that you made in the chat so that everyone can hear it.
 >>MERI BAGHDASARYAN:  Yes, thank you a lot, Anriette.
 Hello, dear colleagues.
 On behalf of the Coalition on Internet Governance Dynamic Coalition, I would like to make this proposal of hosting the newcomer session ourselves and in collaboration with other youth organizations and maybe other (indiscernible) in making this session happen.
 We believe that the (indiscernible) community has already has enough experience and expertise, and we are youth, and we would like to have this chance to guide the newcomers with their first (indiscernible).
 And as virtual IGF is going to be online, we believe this can be not only in the form of one session, but it can be organized in a format of several sessions prior to the IGF so that everyone is already informed about what IGF is and how they can get more involved so it is not so overwhelming for people coming to the IGF for the first time.
 And also, we are in contact with the secretariat and the host country with regards to the youth track, the state of which is unknown at the moment.  But we have a meeting scheduled with them for next week.  And, hopefully, we can combine maybe the newcomer session with the youth track and make this happen.
 So this was my proposal.
 Thank you a lot for giving me the floor.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Meri.
 So we have two proposals for the newcomers session, one suggestion that it's organized by the schools on Internet governance, and another, that it's organized by the youth -- the youth coalition.
 So it's time for a break.  And I think we just need a short little break before we conclude our meeting.
 I think I'd like you to -- you'll break randomly.  But I think what would be useful in the breaks is if people can just confirm what we have got consensus on.  So please discuss this idea of the main sessions, the seven that we have on the table, and if there's any other types of main sessions.  We've got consensus also that we need a newcomer session.  Maybe you can discuss that a little bit, how you think we should approach the newcomers session.
 So I -- you probably are more in the mood for a work-oriented break than a social break.  But if anybody wants to have social interaction in the break, that's fine.  But I think what would be very useful for me is if the breakout groups can just consolidate, that we have a common understanding of what our decision is on main sessions and on what our next steps are.  And then we can come back and agree on that.
 So, Luis, please break us into our groups for 15 minutes.
 >>LUIS BOBO:  Sure, thank you, Anriette.  Will do.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot.
 See you all again soon.
 (Breakouts.)
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Welcome back, everyone.  Did you have good groups?
 >>HANA ALHASHIMI:  Yes, sure.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Very good.
 >>SYLVIA CADENA:  Always.
 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  Very good.  It was really interesting.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  In our group, some of us said that all our breakout groups have been good.  And that can only mean one thing, that everyone in this meeting is a very interesting person to interact with because you can never go wrong.  Whatever breakout group you are in, there are interesting people and nice people.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes, we are interesting persons.  I hope we don't turn out to be persons of interest.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Persons of the Internet.
 [ Laughter ]
 >> You are on Netflix then.
 [ Laughter ]
 That's a good one.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think what's so nice about the breakouts is it's Luis that does all the work.  We don't have to do any work.
 So welcome back, everyone.  We are very near the end of our meeting.  I have just asked Chengetai if he can -- because I think you are tired of my voice.  And I am tired of my voice.
 So, Chengetai --
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Anriette, sorry.  You have a wonderful way of speaking English.  I always told you that.  So please keep -- keep talking.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm not going to comment on that, but thank you.  Thank you, Carlos.
 I think we just really need to summarize what we've achieved, and then we can have a little bit of general discussion about next steps.  It seems that from what I can gather from this morning, we've got consensus on these seven main sessions.  There's still work to be done on what goes into those main sessions, what they focus on, and that will be done by the volunteer groups.
 We're going to look at the guidelines that were developed last year for main sessions.  We'll review them and adopt them with changes, if necessary.
 Timing of the main sessions, it seems there's a concern about not making them too long but they also can't be too short.  In my breakout group, we felt that 90 minutes was a good period.  But I think we can come back to that.  But we've got consensus, and I think most people seem to feel excited about these seven main sessions.
 We've also got agreed that coming out of this meeting, we need groups, volunteer groups, that will work on organizing the main sessions and we'll need groups that will organize the introductory and concluding sessions.
 We've got proposals on the table for how to deal with the newcomers session.  So if we have any more time, perhaps we can discuss that.
 So I think we've basically concluded our work at this point with regard to the main sessions.  There's a lot of work ahead, particularly if we follow the guidelines, in terms of preparing the input papers.  But that's what we'll do in the coming weeks.
 Can we close on this main session discussion?  Does anybody feel we need to do anything more?  The next step -- Chengetai, do you want to just reiterate what you think the next steps will be and perhaps explain to all the MAG members how the secretariat will go about convening these voluntary working groups to organize the main sessions and then the second set of groups to work on preparing the introductory and concluding sessions.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, hello.  Can you hear me?  Sorry, I'm having technical difficulties here so I won't switch on my camera.
 Okay, great.  So for the -- I'll start off with what you suggested, convening the two groupings.  So I think the best way of doing it is just to set up a Google Doc which the MAG can come in and just add their names to which group they want to be in.  And then we can see whether or not we have balanced groupings, because, of course, we don't want to have a group with two people and another group with 20 people.  So that will be done after this meeting.  If not today, definitely by Monday.  And we'll send that out to you.
 We have also said that we are going to have another virtual MAG meeting.  This is just to follow up, not next week, but the week after next.  And that's going to be on Tuesday.  And as far as the time line goes, I don't know, Luis, if you can put up the time line document.  Yes.  We've made changes to the time line.  So at the moment, we are here at the second open consultations and MAG meetings, 15th to 19th of June.  That's where we are.
 And then -- so after this, and I think according to the agenda items, we have completed the first selection of the workshops.  And we have had a review of the IGF 2020.  We did not review the day zero sessions, so that's fine.  And then we did have the discussion of the main sessions.
 So the next thing that we are going to do is this vetting process.  So the secretariat is going to contact the session organizers and ask them to resubmit their accepted session proposals with a plan on how to hold it online.
 We will consult with the workshop evaluation group just to make sure that we have all the elements that they think is pertinent, that will be required.  So hopefully we could send that out by -- this is hopefully if everything goes according to plan -- by the 24th of June and just give them two weeks to submit.  And then by the 8th of July, we will know which workshop organizers still want to hold a session.  Because, as you know, when the workshop proposals were submitted, it was with the idea that they would have a face-to-face meeting.  This also goes with the open forums and the village booths.  So basically everything.  So we're going to ask all the session organizers if they still want to hold their session virtually.  And then we suppose that not everybody will, and we'll have a reduction then of those sessions.  
 And then after the 8th of July, we propose that we will have another virtual meeting, a MAG call on Tuesday, 14th of July.  And that's at 11 UTC.  And that's a three-hour one.  I think the originator of the idea was Jennifer.  And we will discuss the results of this second vetting process and come to the final decision of the -- the final-final selection of the workshops and the sessions.  And then we can try and see how we're going to arrange them into a good virtual program.
 So between then and now, of course, we are still going to continue to collect the ideas and have the discussion on the virtual IGF and we can do this through the mailing list, have a document that collects all the good ideas.  And also with our next virtual call which we're going to have in two weeks' time, we can also touch upon that.
 So those are the next steps so far.  And, of course, these -- the MAG thematic working groups and the main session working groups are going to continue to work in their groups that have been set up.  
 And I think that's it.  I must be forgetting something, but I'm sure, Anriette, you'll fill that in.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Chengetai.
 So our next milestone, in fact, is by 24 June to send out the announcement to the provisionally accepted session proposers and to invite them to resubmit with an explanation of how they will organize virtually.
 And then -- I'm just making a note here.  So I know there are people in the floor.  So I'm just going to summarize what the work is that the MAG has to do in the short and medium term.  We need to look, number one -- secretariat, it you can just try to take note of this.
 We need to review the guidelines for main sessions from 2019.  
 Secondly, we need to come up with criteria for the vetting of session proposers when we ask them to resubmit.  We need to a little bit of a plan.  As you said, the workshop evaluation group can do this, if they're willing to.  They can speak for themselves.  Or we can all work on it, or we can have volunteers.
 Thirdly, we need to convene the main session organizing groups.  
 And, fourthly, we need to convene the working groups to do the introductory and concluding sessions.  
 And then, fifthly, that's just really a task that we'll undertake.  What the secretariat can do is to summarize all the suggestions that have been received for a virtual IGF, all the design and planning suggestions, those that are going on in the MAG mailing list, as well as those that emerged from the MAG meeting, open consultation, but also from your breakout groups.  You touched on suggestions for a virtual IGF.
 We'll summarize all of that and then try and compile that into some options for you to look at so that when we have our next call, we actually give you some design options to consider so that we can make sooner rather than later a decision about whether we're having a two-week-long IGF or a one-month IGF or, you know, et cetera.
 So that's where I really see us at the moment in terms of what needs to be done.  And thanks very much for updating the time line.
 Now, I'm opening the floor.
 Nebojsa, you are first.
 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  Okay.  Thank you.
 I have one remark, let's say.
 I don't think the (indiscernible) that seven is the final number of main session, but just that these seven are the ones that we agreed.  But if we feel that it's necessary, that number can be expanded, it can be enlarged.
 And the second thing is one question which just now, as I saw this document, 2020 time line, what about symbolism, the (indiscernible) of this year's IGF?  Are we going to use Polish host's?  Is that in a very way to be achieved or -- I mean, it's a -- formal, but still very important question how we are going to, in that sense, present this year's IGF.
 I believe there should be some kind of reference to current situation and the fact that this is the very first virtual IGF.  If nothing else, I would add a small "V" in front of this IGF 2020 that looks so nice on this --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  It's a good point, Nebojsa.  And also main theme.  Because I'm assuming that Poland wants to keep "Internet United" for 2021.  So we might want to come up with some branding and also main theme.
 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  Let me suggest that the main theme, "Internet United" seems such nice for this year, having in mind all of this complex situation that we have.  So I -- it says, if Przemyslaw agreed, I wouldn't change it.
 I think it really paints a picture of this year's situation.
 So thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The Polish government has said that we can use the logo that they have designed, because it is for IGF 2020.  I mean, as you can see, it takes the -- the round for what is zero, so it's 2020.  So they have graciously allowed us to use that.  We've just quickly just removed "Poland."  But we can do -- you know, put a "V" or do something that makes sure that it emphasized the digital nature of it.  They will --
 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  I would suggest that we just put a small "V" in front of the "IGF" and we'll keep this as a logo for this year's IGF.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sure.  Mm-hmm.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Nebojsa.  Those are great ideas.  And thanks for flagging that particular issue of branding and identity.
 Sylvia.
 >>SYLVIA CADENA:  Thank you, Anriette.
 I -- Well, thanks, Nebojsa, for your comment.  I think it is very relevant.  And I am happy to help with the modification of the design.  If I can get the final files, I can add for you the same way I did the postcards a couple of years ago.
 And when -- with -- the comment that I wanted to make was that I think it would be best to include some basic information for the proposers about what it is or what it means to host or organize their sessions online.  I don't think that they can go blindly to say, yes, we are good to go, without knowing what that actually means.
 So I think it might be -- although I understand that you -- Anriette, you want to collect input and have an idea of how to incorporate all of these innovations and all of these, I think that it is going to be quite hard to just raise your hand and say, yes, I'm going to do an online session that I have no idea what tool it is, at what time it's going to happen.
 So it's just very -- too many unknowns for proposers to confirm straightaway.
 I would really -- I mentioned it on the small group, the breakout group that we just had, that, honestly, I feel that it would be really good that the secretariat shares with us some of the progress that you guys have done with -- in regards to virtual event planning, what are the resources that are available.  And I think it would be more productive use of the MAG time to work on top of that what it is that we can do with what you guys have and the resources that you have been able to put together rather than just throwing ideas that might derail the whole conversation and not happen; right?  So I don't -- I don't think that that's a good use of our time, although I understand it is good to discuss how to be creative.  You know, you can be creative with a cake, but you still know that you have to have the eggs and the flour and the milk.  So, you know, that was my comment.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Sylvia.  And that is why we will give you some proposals.
 And I just want to clarify something about the session vet processing.
 In fact, looking at the time line, when we discuss it with the secretariat, I think the vetting that we can do quickly is to ask the open forum and Day Zero proposers if they want to continue or not.  I agree with you, actually, Sylvia, we can't rush the vetting of the workshops.
 So, Chengetai, I think we might want to segment this sessions vetting process into two parts, one where we ask the non-workshop sessions if they want to go ahead, just so that we have an idea of numbers, and then we can look at what we want to -- how we want to go about doing the second round of vetting, what method we want to use and what criteria, and also how much we tell people when we ask them to resubmit.
 So I agree with you, Sylvia, I don't think we can rush that.  So it's possible that that 8th July time line might need to be adjusted.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  We were going to go through the Working Group on Workshop Evaluations.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  But they haven't yet agreed --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, if they agreed, as we do it through the whole --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  So let's give them a chance.  I don't want to put them on the spot now.  They can talk amongst one another.  And if they can come back to us next week on whether they're willing to take this on or if they would like us to convene a new group to help with this.
 So those are important points.
 Thanks, Sylvia.
 Timea.
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you, Anriette.
 Sylvia has said most of what I wanted to say, so I just will be brief but bring in one element that I really want to underline here from what she said, is the fact that when we go to the organizers, be that for the workshops or the other sessions, we give them a bit of detail of what it means to organize a session online.  I know some of them might have really good experience with that, some might not.  And we just need to outline what that means, and also, what is it that we as the IGF, the MAG, or the secretariat can offer them as support.  What does it mean to have technical -- what is the technical platform we are going to use?  I assume it's going to be Zoom, but that needs to be communicated.
 Will they have moderators already?  Will they have technical support on hand?  Will they have backgrounds?  Will they need to have, you know -- will they have time to all get together with their speakers and be able to just check connections and see if things are working?  Who will be the rapporteur?  You know, all those things.  I think we just need to have a quick thing before we go to them and say, "Oh, do you want to do this?"  Because I assume everybody will say, "Sure.  Of course I want to.  I want to be on the program."  But I think we just need to be sure that they understand what this means and they don't assume also what is given to them if we are not able to give that.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Completely agree.  Very important.
 Paul, you are next.
 >>PAUL CHARLTON:  Thank you, Anriette.
 I just wanted to -- just to underline the value of lessons learned from other organizations.  And I was just wanting -- wondering if, through the secretariat or other MAG members, if there's an effort to look at what other organizations within the U.N. and outside the U.N. have done in terms of holding virtual meetings.  Because there are a number of examples.  I'm thinking, for example, of ICANN, which had their March meeting as a virtual meeting and will have their summer meeting as well.
 I think that the experience of other organizations could offer us a lot of lessons of things to do or things not to do in terms of pretty much everything: scheduling, time zones, length of sessions, maybe even what sort of criteria to put for organizers of sessions to ensure that they can put on a good virtual session.
 So it's just to express the hope that we are -- we have the means to, I don't know, canvass these other organizations or we're in touch with them about their experiences and we can draw on that as we put together the virtual program.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Paul, thanks very much for mentioning that.
 And, in fact, Secretariat, let's add that to our list of follow-up actions.
 And, Paul, we are already doing that.  So we are in touch with these organizations.  And if the MAG wants, we could actually invite some of them to address the MAG.  Because I think you're really right, that it will make a big difference.  And I think it could be -- it could be good to hear them talk about, you know, to ask Rights Con, ask ICANN, ask CSTD to share some of their experiences.
 So very good question, and I think we'll follow up.  And possibly we can invite them to a MAG call to give us --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  Can I just add that, yes, we have spoken to ICANN, for instance, CSTD, definitely, and other UNCTAD processes.  And we have spoken to Diplo, amongst others.  And we are going to continue to talk to them and to other institutions.
 But as Anriette says, yeah, sure.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  We'll schedule Rights Con for next week.  And then we can also get feedback from the Internet & Jurisdiction Project.  I think this is a very, very useful thing to get their input.
 And MAG members, if you have -- I know, Sylvia, you've seen some experiences.  Other MAG members, if you've been at other events that you felt were really well managed, and then let us know.  
 And next, Amado, you have the floor.
 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  Thanks.  Thank you very much.
 Well, my recommendation, Anriette and Chengetai, is, of course, the people from ICANN, I think they have -- they have a certain level of skills in terms of managing technology.  And that's why I am -- I would like to suggest to the MAG if it will be possible to ask the participants of the workshops to prerecord their content and with one more thing in advance in which we can give them the proper technical support, let's say, four workshops every day, and they can upload the results of their discussion, and during the IGF, we can have, actually, just a summary of what they already discussed during the -- during the workshop and everybody can go to address the original material, and maybe we can also invite the open audience to attend these recorded sessions in order for them to learn what the participants are trying to do.  But it is -- I think it is very important to reduce the level of complexity in dealing with civil society, people who are not really skilled, who have some issues with the power, like today, or with the connectivity and so on.  And I think that will diminish the quality of the event.  And we can, I think, prevent that if we prerecord it.
 And my suggestion is also that instead of having the full load of workshops during the event, we just have panel of speakers representing each one of the workshops reporting to the audience what happened in a format of a (indiscernible) minutes participation, and then we can have in four days the host summary, executive summary, of the final discussions.  Then we can also intercollate these main sessions that we were discussing today about.  
 And through this, maybe we can improve the probability of a successful event, decrease the amount of technical work, because as Timea was mentioning, it is really complicated.  I have been in both similar global events.  It's really complicated, those technical issues.  And if we can see a way how to be less complex and improve quality and also allow everybody to participate in a reasonable way, I think we can have a successful meeting.
 Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Amado.  And please share -- I think you have already, but also share those suggestions on the mailing list so that we can capture them from there as well.
 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  I will.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry, Amado, did you want to respond?
 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  Yes.  No, I will.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.
 And Ben, do you have --
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Thank you.  Yes.  Ben Wallis, for the transcript.
 It's a question about next steps.  And, obviously, we understand there's a division of labor, with the MAG responsible for deciding which workshops should be approved and for working on most of the main sessions, and the secretariat dealing with the open forums and the Day Zero sessions.
 And I know there are slightly different approaches as well.  For Day Zero, it states on the website that they're allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, not taking into account space, which is irrelevant, regional stakeholder balance.
 So I wondered what process the secretariat's taking with the open forums and the Day Zero proposals.  Are they also going to be asked to resubmit with a confirmation that they will go virtual?  And are you expecting final decisions for Day Zeros and open forums in the same time frame?  Which is, I think, this kind of -- the MAG meeting will happen on the 14th of July.  So I'm just curious to understand a bit more about how those two strands of the program are looking.
 Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Ben, I can only answer part of that.  And that is that we will do two things.  First, we will ask them, do they still want to be considered in the light of the fact that it's a virtual IGF.
 And then once we know who still want to be considered, then we will also, as we are doing with other sessions, ask them to provide an explanation of how they would go about running it.  So that we'll do once we have a sense of what the criteria is that the MAG would like us to apply to the second vetting process.  So we won't rush that.  But we feel that what we want to do sooner rather than later is just to give them the opportunity to withdraw their requests in the light of the fact that it's a virtual IGF.
 So I can't answer that whole question at this point.  But we will be able to at least give you a confirmation of the numbers and how those have changed as a result of it being a virtual IGF.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Thank you, Anriette.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think from the point of view even though those aren't organized by the MAG, I think we still want to make sure that they are successful sessions and that they are organized and implemented and designed with the nature of the virtual medium taken into account.  So I think we also do want them to resubmit their methodology at the very least.
 Next, we have Roberto Zambrana.
 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  Just a quick response to your comment.  I think we -- about the embedding process, I think we can ask the group.  I will write a mail very soon.  
 So my first feeling is that we will not have problems with conducting that meeting -- the meeting process, of course, following what the secretariat criterias are.  
 That will be all.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Roberto.  
 Veni?
 >>VENI MARKOVSKI:  Hi, can you hear me?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, we can hear you.
 >>VENI MARKOVSKI:  Veni Markovski, ICANN, MAG member.  You mentioned several times the meetings that ICANN organized.  I just wanted to drive your attention to the fact that next week actually is the ICANN Kuala Lumpur meeting.  I call it Kuala Lumpur, but it will be virtual.  However, we'll be using the Kuala Lumpur time zone.  So it might be useful for the MAG members to just join.  And I'll put the link in the chat in a little bit.  And just see how it goes because it will be fully virtual with interpretation, multiple sessions, et cetera, et cetera.  So it might be helpful when you are discussing what to do and how to do it.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Veni.  Thanks for ICANN's willingness to be so supportive.  We have already been in touch with ICANN staff, and they have really been very helpful.  And thanks, of course, for the support for the captioning.
 I really do urge MAG members, if you haven't had a chance to participate in a big virtual event, next week's ICANN meeting is a very, very good opportunity for us.
 And I see that the floor is closed -- or not closed, but I don't see anyone in the queue.
 So, secretariat, if you can just take us back to our agenda.  
 My sense is that we've come to the end of the meeting.  Are there any other matters that any MAG member would like to put on the table at this point?  I see no hands, and I see nothing in the chat.
 So I think we can close our meeting.  We've prepared a little evaluation for you which Luis will put up.  And so maybe now is the time to do that.  And then we can fill in the poll, and then come back and we'll formally close the meeting.
 Wai-Min, if you are still with us, I would really like you to make some closing remarks.  And, Chengetai, you as well.  But let's fill in our poll now.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Anriette, may I speak?  Go ahead.  Go ahead.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  I was following what Veni said about the ICANN meeting which will be, of course, very interesting.  It will be interesting to see a meeting -- very large meeting with a lot of participants, a lot of sessions, et cetera, but in which the multiregional element is not dominant.  ICANN sessions do not require that there is multiregional participation in their diversity criteria, not even multisector.  They're flexible on that.  So despite this, it will be very interesting to follow, the technology used, the way they use the monitoring, the quality of the operation, et cetera.  It will be interesting.  But these elements have to be taken into account.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Thanks a lot for that.
 I would like to -- Luis, thanks very much.  You can end that one.  And if you could then just put the poll up about the general feedback on the meeting, the one that we did previously.  It just assesses whether people are positive or negative, how they felt about the overall meeting.
 So this is very useful.  I'm just going to go through --
 >> Hello?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Luis, are you there?
 >>LUIS BOBO:  I'm here.
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  Hello.  Hello.  This is Rudolf.  Hello?  Does anybody hear me?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Rudolf, go ahead.
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  For ten minutes I am trying to connect.  I'm sorry I only voice right now.
 I wanted just to -- just because we were at day zero -- sorry, that was the moment there I wanted to intervene.  
 Because we had last year on day zero this high-level meeting with ministers and CEOs and representatives of all stakeholders, just to be clear because I had a request from a minister's office that this year, there will be no such meeting on day zero.  No virtual high-level or whatever parliamentarians or so meeting.  Just to make it clear.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Rudolf.  I think I caught that.  If I understood that correctly, yes, it will be very different this year.  
 Chengetai, can you respond to that?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  I think we will have to look at day zero a little bit differently.  Do we want -- if the question is, is there going to be a parliamentary session as such within the IGF meeting, yes, I still think that there will be one.  It may not necessarily be on the day zero, but we will try and incorporate it with the high-level sessions because we still intend to have high-level sessions.
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  What do you mean by "high-level sessions"?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  High-level sessions as ministerial or high-level leader sessions that we've had in the past IGF meetings.
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  Okay.  Also, that's on the agenda.  But you don't know when?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  I need to block some date.  I mean, everybody probably needs to block the dates.  So we need to be quite quick about the possible date.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, exactly.  But everything hangs in balance how long will the IGF be.  If the IGF is still in the one-week period, then, of course, it's different than if the IGF is going to be held over a month period.  So that has to be settled first, once the length of the IGF, and then we can see where we're going to be inserting the high-level sessions.
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  And host of such a high-level leaders meeting will be somebody from the U.N.?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  It is going to be the U.N.  It's going to be basically the U.N. secretariat.
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  Okay.  Thank you.  Sorry for prolonging this.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, that's fine.  As long as it's clear.
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  Chengetai, do you -- can you announce in any way when the decision will be made, whether it's a one-week IGF or a two-week or three-week, whatsoever?  Just because as Rudolf said, it's really necessary early to block these dates in your schedule.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  As the secretariat, we are waiting for the advice of the MAG, what advice do you give what length it is.  And then we'll take it from there.
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  I would say two weeks.  We can do a poll.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Please, can I chair the meeting?
 Let me just reiterate, then you can ask questions.  
 So what I proposed is that we will summarize all the suggestions you made about design.  We will do that by the time our next MAG call takes place.  
 And then when we do that next MAG call, we want to give you very concrete options so that after that call -- and Chengetai will tell us what the date is -- that you then decide whether this is a two-week IGF or a three-day or a four-day IGF.
 Chengetai is correct.  The MAG still needs to decide.  You are still responsible for the overall design of the meeting.  What we want to do is try and make it easier for you to decide by summarizing all the suggestions that are being made and then putting them in the form of options for you to consider.
 So I'm hoping, Jutta, in response to your question and Rudolf's question that within two weeks we can publicize dates and data about how long and how this IGF will take place.
 Chengetai, you might correct me if you think I'm being overambitious.  But I'm hoping we can make the decision within two weeks.
 Would that -- Jutta, Rudolf, would that work if we make this decision within two weeks?
 >>JUTTA CROLL:  If I may, I do think also for the decision that the workshop proposers need to take, whether they will be able to run a virtual session at a virtual IGF, they might probably ask whether it will be in that week that was suggested to be in Katowice or whether it's extended before that time or afterwards.  
 So I do think it's really necessary to come to a decision as soon as possible, also to enable the workshop proposers to take their own decision whether they accept their proposal and feel up to run it during a virtual session.  Some people might just have made plans for the week before or the week after the traditional IGF would have taken place.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I agree.  We need to make it really soon.  
 But Chengetai and I discussed this, and we think that many of you will be involved in the ICANN meeting next week.  So we didn't want to force this decision to be made next week, which would have been nice.  We'd rather give you all the experience of the time to participate in that meeting, those of you that do.  I know not everyone does.  And then we'll make the decision in the week after that.  
 Jutta, I would like to make it sooner, but I don't think it's realistic for us to make it any earlier than that.
 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  I have one comment.  I think we would have to discuss at our next meeting for a little while if we really want to do this high-level segment virtually.  I am not so convinced if it really makes sense because the merit of this kind of high-level section was more than other formats of the IGF, the physical presence, the getting together, the mingling.  So I really don't know if it really makes sense to have this.  
 I would rather prefer to mainstream these high-level people into the actual program and try to allocate slots for parliamentarians, high-level people from ministerial or CEOs or whatever to the actual workshops or main sessions rather than having a dedicated session.  But I know that's not a discussion that we can have now.  But I just wanted to flag that I think we need to discuss this.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I agree with you, Rudolf.  And I think Wai-Min can say more in his closing remarks about that.  And I know there is planning for a U.N.-led high-level session.  But I agree with you, we need to look at it and how it would impact on the rest of the program.
 So I think the other important things -- thanks for tabling this here.  And I know this is putting pressure on UN DESA.  But I do think when the MAG has our next call, we would need to be able to look at a proposal for how the high-level sessions are intended to work.  To be able to understand in what way that's going to impact on the design of the IGF.
 So it can -- it can be -- it can become quite complex.  So I do think we need to be able to have a clearer understanding.
 I think, Wai-Min, if when you make your closing remarks, if you can say -- I know you spoke about this earlier this week, but it might be good for you to just refresh everyone's understanding of what your plans are for the high-level sessions at this point.
 So anyone else who wants to take the floor at this point?  We don't have these meeting too often, so now is a good time.  
 Chengetai, can you in the meantime remind us when our next call will be?
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  Madam Chair, I would like to share information with you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Please, go ahead.  Is that Attoumani speaking?
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  No, this is Mr. Eric.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Eric, please go ahead.  Please introduce yourself for the record.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  Only if I can speak in French.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Eric, I'm afraid we don't have interpretation on hand.  If you are going to be very brief, you can speak in French.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  Very brief.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And then maybe someone else can translate for you.  You have to keep it really very brief.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  (Speaking in French)
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Eric?  (Speaking in French)  
 It's Ben for the record.  I'm happy to have a go.  So Eric was saying he's been working on the Congo National IGF all week, which is why you haven't seen as much of him during the discussion.  And then he was about to say something about the discussions this week.
 Eric.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  (Speaking in French)
 >>BEN WALLIS:  So for the first time, they managed to get lots of government participants in the national IGF.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  (Speaking in French)
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Even lots of members of parliament and lots of VIPs in the high-level session.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:   (Speaking in French).
 >>BEN WALLIS:  And now those high-level speakers have understood the power of the Internet.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  (Speaking in French)
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Yeah, somebody else.
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  I was trying to help also.  They say that this situation provide them the opportunity to ask all the legislation related with cybersecurity, cybercrime, data protection, so all the relevant issues are connected with the Internet.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  (Speaking in French)
 >>BEN WALLIS:  And so all the laws have been voted -- Maria Paz?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Actually, could I ask?  We have several French speakers in our meeting.  So if I can ask Lucien or Adama --
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  I think it's basically that all the laws regarding have been voted and approved right now.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  (Speaking in French)
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Maria Paz, you go.
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  I'm sorry.  It was a little fast for me.  I don't know if Lucien can come to the rescue.
 >>Lucien Castex:   On my side, so far he said there is a number of laws in Africa that have been a number of laws in Africa that have votes fast enough.  The IGF, having -- (background noise) -- at a regional level.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Lucien.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  (Speaking in French)
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  He's saying he invite all the countries to make an opportunity of these emergency situation and make the governments aware of the relevance of passing all these laws.
 >>ERIC ARMEL N'DOUMBA:  (Speaking in French)
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  He's saying that this crisis of this pandemic has provide this unique opportunity to get these laws passed and have this conversation.  And this is what he wanted to share today with us.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Maria Paz.  And thanks very much, Eric.  
 Eric is a new MAG member, and Eric has had a difficult -- I've been in touch with Eric, and Eric has had a very challenging year.  
 So, Eric, thanks very much for participating in the meeting.
 And I think Eric's point speaks directly to this issue of high-level sessions.  Yes, it will be complex to organize high-level sessions.  But at the same time, there is an opportunity here that's generated as a result of the pandemic, that governments who normally might not be that engaged are now engaged.  So I think this is definitely something that needs to be considered.
 I see there's an observer -- who's in -- there's someone else in the speaking queue?  
 Attoumani, do you want to take the floor?
 >>KARIM ATTOUMANI:  Yes, of course, Madam Chair.
 First of all, I'd like also to thank you for the opportunity that you have given me to intervene at this time.
 Thank a lot for our colleagues, as it was easy for newcomers to be really involved on the works.  But most of you, most of the colleagues pay attention and can share experiences.  And that is something really valuable and really appreciated.
 So I'd like to add another point in the documentation of our processes, because we have a lot of thing that's usually used, but in my own opinion, is quite difficult to find in terms of processes well documented.  And you'd like to volunteer if we can work with others.
 For example, for newcomer, we might take one year and plus to be really involved if we'd like to really follow what is done, to learn, and to be really back on what others are doing.  And I'd like to apologize for the process on workshop evaluation the final step during the last couple of days because I could not really be involved, because, honestly, I was a little bit lost on the process.
 This is my final comments on the last couple of days.
 And thank you, all.  And thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me this opportunity.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Karim.  I see now it's you.
 Thanks very much for those comments, Karim.  And thanks for volunteering also for helping with that.
 So we are now going to close our meeting.  No one else is jumping in.
 Thanks, Luis, for bringing that poll up.  I think the feedback on this MAG meeting -- I think this was feedback on this virtual MAG meeting is really largely positive.  And so just thanks to all of you, I think the fact that you were willing to do this extraordinary thing of getting up early, staying up late, having working groups work in different times.  And I think the other thing that has made this a success is that you have prepared so well.  The working groups worked very well.  I know not every working group had as many people as others.  And, of course, there are some people who weren't as active as others.  But others stepped in and showed leadership.
 So thanks, really, very, very much for that.
 I think something that some MAG members have brought to my attention, which I think it's important for us to consider, is that this MAG is quite unique in the sense that there are so few new MAG members.
 So thank you to the old MAG members for supporting the new MAG members.  But also just a reminder to the older MAG members who have been here for a while, when we go forward, as we prepare IGF 2020, is to be sensitive, be sensitive to the fact that there are different languages, different levels of experience, and that we are still one MAG, even though some of us have been here for three years, and some of them are still very new -- some of us are still new.
 So I think you are managing that well.  Continue to manage it well and just manage it with generosity and sensitivity and hard work.
 So I want to give Wai Min Kwok from UN DESA an opportunity to say something, and then also Chengetai.  And then I'll give my final thank you to everyone.
 Wai Min.
 >>WAI MIN KWOK:  Thank you.  Thank you, Madam Chair.  Thanks, Anriette.
 This is Wai Min Kwok from UN DESA.
 I'm not actually going to give, like, closely remarks.  More, like, my personal comments or observation.
 First, I'd like to echo just what Anriette said, to congratulate the MAG.  I think it's a highly productive meeting, but that's not possible without very passionate and committed efforts of the MAG members and also the very effective chairing of Anriette as chair.  I enjoyed listening.  I was in and out other meetings.  But the way how the breakout groups discussed, came back together with very clear and concise recommendations, like, for the main sessions, I think this is actually very good.
 One observation, I see now that we still have 67 participants online, majority of the MAG members.
 Chengetai can correct me if I'm wrong.  I think this is, like, one of the highest number even for the last day of a MAG meeting compared to a physical meeting.  So I would say that this virtual meeting is equally, if not more produce, than a physical meeting.  And I hope we can actually see this positive outcome reflected in the upcoming annual meeting, the virtual meeting in November.
 The -- also, on the point that was discussed in the last 30 minutes or so about the high-level sessions, I think we are -- we have to end very fast.  Together with Chengetai, we will see how we can actually come up with a structure that's taking into consideration all the comments made.  The question whether we have a Day Zero, how we can look at the synthesis of the high-level sessions.  
 High-level sessions, if I may, just to respond to Anriette's comment to elaborate more.  If we -- Just to recall, the high-level sessions that we have in Berlin, that include the ministerial breakfast, then there's the high-level leaders' track, and the opening session, the official opening, then the parliamentary session, and the closing session.  So these are the high-level sessions, and in some form in the past -- in the past IGF meetings.  So this will remain, but the purpose is, of course, how we can get this best integrated into the full program.
 I'm certainly all for getting senior high-level participants in the main session.  I think that we can see in the past main sessions, those that have high-level participants normally are also more well attended.
 The -- Anriette mentioned that we have this plan to be announced in two weeks' time.  I think that is the most ideal.  We will aim for that.  If not, it will certainly be by end of July.  I think we have to send out the message to all the digital ministers, to all the high-level participants, including the head of U.N. agencies, intergovernmental and non-intergovernmental organizations that include civil society, the CEOs of industry.  So all that should actually be done well before the summer break of the -- of those countries in the northern hemisphere.
 The -- I would like to -- just to end here.  Again, I would like to congratulate the MAG and the MAG chair.  I think this is -- I look forward to see the report.  And I'm sure our director, Jwang Zhu, and Mr. Liu, the USG, will look forward to see the report.
 One comment I forgot.  There was a request about to see the notes from the USG to the Secretary-General.  The USG has not (indiscernible) about this, just that that is the interim notes.  So he is actually preparing a letter addressed to the MAG that will have the same content as the notes.  And that, actually, should come to the MAG very soon.
 Thank you.
 Thank you, Anriette.  Back to you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Wai Min.  And please convey our thanks to Mr. Liu for spending so much time with us during the second day of the open consultation.
 Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Anriette.  I'll be very quick.
 I think the meeting went very, very well.  And thanks to the chair, and also thanks to the MAG members and also members of the community, I think it was really interactive.  And I think we're on good footing, at least for preparations for the virtual IGF.  We did try a couple of new things, the polls and the breakout rooms.  And I think those worked very well.  So we're going to continue to improve on that.  And we're also going to continue to listen to people who are holding virtual meetings and try to incorporate the good things and also watch out for the things that they say we should watch out for.
 As for the next meeting, as next week is the ICANN meeting, we won't have the virtual meeting then.  But the following week, that Tuesday, that's the 30th of June, at 20:00 hours UTC, that's when we plan to have the next virtual meeting.
 The secretariat will start immediately with follow-up actions.  And we'll see you then.
 Thank you.  And have a good weekend.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Chengetai.
 And to the secretariat, a massive thank you.  They've really worked very hard.  So to Lima and Anja and Luis and Chengetai, to the consultants, to Wim and Sorina, and to Sam, thanks very much for all your work during and before the meeting.
 And thank you to the captioners.  I really appreciate all the effort that they -- the silent effort that they put into this.
 And, again, to the facilitators and the rapporteurs and all the MAG members.
 And I want to give a very special thank you to Luis.  You know, I think Luis has been navigating this so well and has been incredibly supportive.  And I have felt very -- as a chair, I have felt very supported by the secretariat and very supported by Luis's technical presence and expertise.
 So thanks very much, everyone.
 And now, let's give ourselves a very big applause.  We can wave or we can clap.  And then we can say good-bye to one another.
 So thanks.
 [ Applause ]
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Good-bye, and have a wonderful weekend.

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411