IGF 2021 Second Open Consultations & MAG Meeting - Day 2

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It's two minutes past the hour.  Participant numbers have stabilized, so let's start.  Good morning, afternoon, and evening, ladies and gentlemen.  This is the first day of the IGF MAG meeting within the Second Open Consultations and MAG meetings schedule.

 Just a few things just to make sure you're all aware that this meeting is being recorded.  There is a transcript, and you can click on the live transcription.  It is also being Webcast through YouTube so people can view it there as well.  There is going to be a summary report later on this week of these two days.

 If you would like to speak, please put your name in the speaking queue.  If you're not able to do that, you can send a message to the IGF secretariat and they'll put in your name in the speaking queue.

 For today, there will be -- priorities are different from yesterday which was the Open Consultations.  So today MAG members have preference and the MAG chair can, of course, ask or choose, call on anybody else who wants to make an intervention.  But it is a MAG day.

 When you speak, could you please restate your name and organization and if you're not a MAG member, whether or not you're speaking in your personal capacity or on behalf of your institution.

 With that, I'd like to give the floor to Anriette Esterhuysen, our chair, to start the meeting.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And good day, everyone.  I'm going to switch off my camera soon.  Welcome back.  Anriette Esterhuysen here, MAG chair.  And welcome, everyone.  I hope you had some rest and some time to reflect after yesterday's Open Consultation.

 And, first of all, I'd like to thank all the MAG members for being in the session yesterday.  I think most MAG members were present.  Today we should note apologies.  And I want to review the agenda because we have changed the agenda today to align with the stage where MAG members are and the evaluation of the workshop and to give you sufficient time today to complete the next step in that process.

 But before I review the agenda, I want to ask if our host country chair, Mr. Przemyslaw Typiak who is representing Poland, any remarks from you, Mr. Typiak, to open the meeting?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Krzysztof is here.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Is Krzysztof with us?  Sorry.  I was looking at the participant list.

 >>KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT:  No problem.  Yes, we will do maybe a more advanced update later on.  But I will very shortly start.  Thank you, Anriette.  Thank you, Chengetai.  

 I will be very brief today.  And as was requested, I will be very slow as well.  

 Dear MAG members and colleagues, warm welcome to our today's MAG meeting.  First of all, let me thank you for your hard work and the thoughts regarding the evaluation of submissions for the IGF 2021 which is extremely important to us.  I'm aware it has not been an easy task, especially for the new MAG members.  But it also has been a good experience and knowledge-building experience for the future.

 The MAG chair and myself and the IGF secretariat are always here to support you.  Ahead of us there is still much to be done.  We need to endorse the final list of the workshops as well as to put other activities to shape the IGF 2021 agenda.  

 Poland as the host country will be working closely with various MAG working groups and listening very carefully to your suggestions and proposals.  You can count on our continuous commitment and support.  

 Just to mention that this is our joint work in an effort to make this year's IGF successful despite the current pandemic restrictions and limitations.

 I have a good feeling that we can make it.  From the response I'm receiving from the different angles and directions, I'm very positive.

 To sum up, I'm counting on your involvement and feedback during our today's and tomorrow's discussion on shaping the IGF 2021 agenda.  This is a unique opportunity to hear your voices and thoughts on these issues.  I wish to -- I wish you a very fruitful discussion and excellent meeting.  I do hope to see you all physically in Katowice in December this year.

 So I will stop at that moment.  So thank you again, and I would pass the voice back to the chair.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Krzysztof, thank you very, very much.  I think that was perfect calm, encouraging opening that we need to help us through today's work.  I am looking at the list of participants.  I had really -- (no audio).  It feels very good and supportive to have you in a room with us.  

 Welcome also to our captioner.

 As Chengetai has explained, today is a MAG working day.  We will be doing some sessions in MAG breakout groups.  So observers, I'm afraid you cannot join those.  But just keep an eye on the agenda and you can stay in the plenary.  You are very welcome to participate in all the plenary sessions.

 (No audio.) 

 I don't have any of this at hand at the moment.

 Chengetai, are you there?  Are you muted?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I am.  I couldn't hear you.  I don't know whether it's my end or your end.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Is it my connectivity?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'm not too sure.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Actually, it could be my connectivity.  Can you hear me now?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I can hear you perfectly now, yes.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay, good.  I just wanted to ask you to note apologies.  I have on record apologies from Susan Chalmers and from Joyce Chen.  Is that correct?  Is there anyone else?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I have not received any other apologies from my end.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay, good.  I might need to move, so please do tell me if my Internet connection is not stable.  I'm sitting by the fire which means I'm further away from the router.

 But let me review the agenda.  So today if you look at the agenda on screen -- thanks, Luis, for presenting it for us -- it is different from the agenda that was shared in advance.  

 We'll start today by doing a short debrief on yesterday's Open Consultations.  So really that's where any MAG member wants to pick up on a point that came out of yesterday's session, maybe one of the inputs from partner institutions and reflecting on that.

 We will then have a presentation from the secretariat of the workshop evaluation process and the results.  They'll share with us a breakdown by region, by gender, developing country versus developed country and theme, issue areas, and so on.  So that will just give everyone a big-picture view of the outcome of the evaluation process.

 Then we will move into breakout groups.  These will be short breakout groups.  They'll really be social in one respect.  MAG members really haven't had much time just to talk to one another informally.  But we also will give you the opportunity in those half-hour-long breakout groups to share experiences of the evaluation process and to make suggestions for changing or improving this process in 2022.

 It's good to do this because it's fresh in your mind.  In fact, many of you have already shared very helpful suggestions on the MAG mailing list.  So this is where you can recap those, document them, and report.  And we'll capture them, and the workshop evaluation process will take note of them and make adjustments, as needed, in 2022.

 And after that, we will have a 75-minute breakout session where you will go into your workshop evaluation groups.  Some of you might have done part of this work already, part or all of it already, I'm not sure.  You can tell me.  But my sense is that you haven't all completed this process.

 Luis, if you can just scroll down a little bit to that 10:00 to 11:15 UTC session.  

 Thanks very much, Luis.

 We would like you then to in your evaluation just review the scores that have been shared, the combined scores.  You all know what your individual scores are.  And based on that, develop baskets of proposals, green basket, orange basket, and a red basket.  And we'll review that in more detail later on.  I won't go into the detail of that.

 We'll also -- when you start that breakout session before we go into groups, the secretariat will also share with you their experience and considerations that they would like you to keep in mind when you do this task of sorting proposals into baskets, which is based on their many years of experience of organizing IGFs.

 So after that 75-minute session -- Luis, if you can just scroll down a little bit.  

 In that session, by the way, we'll review it later but we also would like you, if you have time, to take a first look at the overall program thematic structure.  But the priority output for that session is to organize the workshop proposals in your issue area into baskets.

 You will then have a much-deserved break.  We have kept it short just in order to keep the overall meeting time as short as possible.  So a 15-minute break.

 After that break, we then move into reports of the breakout groups, the issue, evaluation -- workshop evaluation groups.  And we'd like you to just reflect on what you've done, share where there are proposals that you want feedback on.  Maybe suggestions for moving a proposal from one issue area to another and so on.  So that will really just be debriefs, reports from groups, and deciding what tasks and next steps need to be completed before our next meeting next week on 30 June.

 And then at 12:30, that's the end of that session.  And we will then move on to Plenary Session III, 12:30 UTC to 13:30 UTC.  And that's when MAG groups will present suggestions and share some of the work they have done.  But specifically, we are not asking for long reports or details of how many meetings they've had; what we need are recommendations that these working groups have for the MAG.  We will ask them to present those, and the MAG will discuss those recommendations and make decisions on how to proceed.

 And then we'll just move into the closing of the meeting.

 So it's quite a long meeting, but we hope it would be not too long or too intense.  And, yesterday, we kept very good time, so I hope we can do that again today.

 Any questions about the agenda?

 I see in the chat that Jim Prendergast is asking if the agenda is online.  Jim, the agenda was online.  We've changed it.  We really have literally changed it this morning.  So just give the secretariat a little bit of time and they will put this updated agenda into the meeting pages and then you'll be able to access it.

 Any other questions?  Nothing.  Good.

 So if that is the case, we can move up.

 Luis, if you can display the first part of the agenda, please.  Thanks very much.

 And we now move into Plenary Session I.  And I'm opening the floor for any remarks, any questions, any comments based on the Open Consultations that we had yesterday.

 So, please, I know you might need a few minutes to gather your thoughts.  But you can join the speaking queue.  I will also look for hands in the participant list.

 Was there anything that came up yesterday that stood out for you, that you think we need to keep in mind?

 I think it's too early for him to have joined us, but Carlos Afonso did share a reflection.  I think some of the observers -- I think Mark Carvell who is with us today as well -- did share a reflection on the participation of national and regional initiatives in MAG meetings and in Open Consultations.  So I think that was an interesting reflection, and I think -- there were quite a large number of NRIs in the Open Consultation, and we did have an update session towards the end of yesterday's meeting on Open Consultations.

 But it's something that the MAG can discuss at another time, if not today, just whether we are effectively including NRIs in the work of the MAG.  I think that is -- it was an interesting and I think a significant observation, particularly as we have this goal to integrate the global IGF process more closely with the NRIs.

 The other thing that stood out for me -- and I open the floor for reactions from MAG members and the secretariat as well -- is that I felt that there was a good fit between the issue areas which the MAG developed based on community input and the priorities of the institutions that presented their work.

 Would people agree with that observation?  Anybody want to react on what they felt about the issue areas when they listened to the inputs yesterday?

 No reaction.

 Perhaps that means people have not yet reflected on that, or did you not listen to the inputs from the participants?  I don't want to put you on the spot, but I think it is important that MAG members do reflect on this.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Good morning, Anriette.  I have not used the speaking queue.  

 Adam Peake, MAG member.  I was just thinking that the contributions were very useful.  And you're right, there is a significant connection between what the organizations were saying and the issues that we've adopted this year.

 But in fairness, on one hand, that's probably because they were designing some comments for a session where those issues were front and foremost.

 But, yes, I think you're right.  And it's a good sign because these are the organizations that have been supporting the IGF often since its very beginning.  Yeah, it's an interesting point.

 On the NRIs, I think we have about -- it's about 90 national IGFs at the moment.  I can't remember how many regional IGFs there are.  I know there are subregional, so I would imagine there are about ten or so of those.  So there's about 100.  

 I don't know how many did participate.  But perhaps the MAG at a future point in this process, we could organize a meeting where the MAG actually has a session with the NRI group to ask about their priorities so that we can see how we can align with their interests because they will be holding their events, the national and regional IGFs, over the coming months.  So perhaps if we can do that, then we can work out, A, how to support them; B, to find out what they're talking about as we consider both our sort of preparatory sessions running into the global IGF but also how to reflect some of those issues into the IGF itself.

 And, of course, the NRIs will have some sessions themselves at the IGF in Katowice, so some alignment would be helpful.  

 So, yeah, building off that, perhaps we could as a MAG and an Open Consultation, of course, mix it with inviting the NRIs to join us, time zones allowing.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you so much, Adam.  I'm glad I kept the silence going because I really do want MAG members to speak.

 I think you're right, Adam.  Anja, maybe you can comment on how many NRIs were present.  It's not always easy to quantify that because there are also MAG members that are active participants in NRIs.

 But I do think the one reflection that I have had being involved in NRIs and in the global MAG is that I think sometimes there's a tension between NRIs prioritizing influencing the global agenda.  And I think that is definitely a priority for many NRIs.

 In fact, in our coffee-break discussion yesterday, Karim pointed this out.  But it can be difficult to get local issues on to the global agenda.  So I think that is a priority.

 And then, on the other hand, there is the need and expectation for NRIs to be very locally oriented and to respond to priorities in their region and in their countries.

 And I think it's worth from a strategic perspective to consider that balance as the IGF evolves because we do want NRIs to also -- not just have NRI spaces in the global IGF, which I think has evolved really effectively to have NRI-organized main sessions, but we also do want NRIs to influence the global agenda.  So I think this is something to consider for next year's MAG, how to ensure that that happens.

 Are there any other comments or hands?  Any other reflections?  Observers, any observers?  I open the floor to observers if you want to comment on yesterday's Open Consultation before we move on to the next item.

 And, Anja, do you have anything to share on NRI participation, on Carlos Afonso's point that he made in the chat yesterday?

 >>ANJA GENGO:  Hi, good morning, Anriette and everyone.  Well, thank you very much.  And I want to thank everyone especially for yesterday's great ideas on improving our collaboration with the NRIs, which I'm gathering and will communicate to the NRIs as a specific output from the Open Consultation day on the reflections on the NRIs.

 I don't have a concrete response to the number of the NRIs that participated yesterday in the Open Consultations, just because it's a bit challenging to count that.  I can count, of course, the formal participation by the coordinators or alternatively members of the organizing committees.  Those are the names that we have in our files, and those are the colleagues mostly we work with on a daily basis.

 But the NRIs as a concept, of course, is much broader in terms of the community.  And it could be that a number of community members were also present.

 But last year, we did very good, I think, exercise between the facilitators of the intersessional work and the NRIs in terms of mapping and suggesting possible mechanisms to increase the effectiveness of the cooperation between intersessional work and the NRIs.

 And I think my suggestion as a focal point to here to the MAG for consideration and also will be to the NRI coordinators for consideration is to maybe do similar exercise for increasing the cooperation between the NRIs and the program development through cooperation with the MAG.

 So perhaps it doesn't also need to wait for next year.  We will, I assume, most probably have the third MAG meeting or there will be other opportunities -- or the third Open Consultations or MAG meeting or there will be other opportunities for the NRIs to take more active participation in terms of physical representation in our meetings until Katowice.  So perhaps that could be something to work on in the months to come.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Anja.  You are absolutely correct.  And there will be the issues teams.  The MAG will lead these issue teams, but they will also be open and NRIs can participate in them.  And those are the teams that will shape main sessions and other aspects of the agenda.  So very good suggestion, and I think we can tackle it this year already.

 Thanks very much, everyone, for the very dynamic, few but very welcome contributions on this topic.

 We can now move on to the presentation from the secretariat of the IGF 2021 workshop evaluation process.  And that will include an overview of the number of sessions and where from that were received.

 Handing over to you Anja and Luis.

 >>ANJA GENGO:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  Maybe I can share this presentation.  Probably it's going to be easier for me.

 Hopefully you can see it now on your screens, and I've also posted the link in the chat.  This is the presentation, short overview, of the results that's available in the MAG repository on the IGF website, repository of documents.

 So there's quite a lot of information in this.  And in the interest of time, I won't go through everything.  I just draw your attention to the most critical parts for your evaluation.  Of course, I think it's self-explanatory if you look a look at individuals and we can take questions on.

 So in general, the evaluation -- these results that reflect on the evaluation results of the 203 workshop proposals.  

 As you know, each MAG member was evaluating a multiple number of proposals, and overall 75% of members did evaluate everything that was assigned to them, which means that there were a few workshops which did not receive the final scoring.

 Then you will see in the full list of workshop proposals, they are ranked by the average score of all the individual scorings by MAG members. And we also, for your attention, did extract the deviations for each individual workshop evaluation results based on the overall average score.

 So, technically, that means that two visible differences between MAG members evaluating the same workshop proposal.

 In terms of the format, it's more than clear that even if we look at the top 40 or top 60 best ranked proposals, even compared to the overall proposals that were initially submitted, the roundtable, U shape, or circle format kind of dominates the selected format. Usually 90 minutes is the most preferred duration of the workshops.

 In terms of the stakeholder balance, the top 40 and top 60 do mirror the overall balance of the submitted workshop proposals with Civil Society having the biggest number of speakers followed by government and private sector and technical community, and the IGOs have the least number of speakers.

 And this is basically how it compares to the initial results of the submissions in terms of the balance. So you can see that to a good extent, a similar balance.

 The regional balance, the same WEOG again dominates the speakers' regions. Then followed by Asia Pacific, and that's actually good compared to previous years where we're seeing an increase in speakers coming from the Asia Pacific region. Then followed by the    it depends. If you look at the top 40, it's followed by the GRULAC region. But if you look at top 60 ranked proposals, then you will see that GRULAC and Africa have a similar number of speakers.

 Gender wise, I think we're doing well similar to the initial results of the submitted proposals. For example, if we look at the top 60 best ranked proposals, then you can see that we have almost half of the speakers from female or male classifications or those that classify themselves as others.

 In terms of the balance of developing and developed countries, I think it's important here to say the methodology that we took, so we looked at the human development index, having the highest HDI ranked as the developed countries. So those are the countries with the best economic income. And then the others are developing countries.

 That's why this resulted in having 90% of speakers coming from developing countries while 8% are coming from developed countries but note that the number of developed countries per the highest HDI is a very relatively short list.

 So I assume that the speakers' balance is probably the most important to the MAG, given the fact that the organizing themes may have, you know, less    there was less formal requirement in terms of diversity and for speakers. But, overall, again, the organizing themes do mirror stakeholder balance as well as regional balance of speakers.

 We have civil society again which dominates even for top 40 or top 60 best proposals.

 Regionally speaking again, we have the biggest number of organizing theme members coming from WEOG regions. Same for top 40 or top 60 best ranked proposals followed by GRULAC in this case. So that's a bit different, for example, than the speakers where you see that Asia Pacific follows WEOG.

 In terms of gender wise as well as the balance for developing and developed countries, very similar. As with speakers, we have a good gender balance as well as good balance in terms of the developed and developing countries, of course, taking into account the explanation I gave for the methodology.

 On thematic comparisons by the issue areas, yeah, this is very interesting to look, especially if you compare the overall balance of the thematic areas on the total number of proposals, so what's been initially submitted.

 So you will see that both in top 40 or top 60, we have the emerging and cross cutting issue area on trust, security, and stability which has the highest number of proposals. And then it's followed, for example, for top 60, by universal access and meaningful connectivity or for top 60 followed by economic and social inclusion and human rights.

 And I said that it's interesting to look just because here it's very much visible that if you look at total number of received proposals initially, the area that had the biggest number of proposals was really the economic and social inclusion and human rights.

 And then, finally, you have individual breakdowns of the policy questions within issue areas.

 For top 40 and top 60, compared to the overall number of initially submitted workshop proposals, I think it shows at least a good result that all the policy questions are, to a good extent, represented. But they are, for example, if you would look at top 40, then there will be policy questions which are not represented at all. And it's something for the breakout groups the issue    the evaluation groups to take into account.

 So I will not go into detail with these, but I think it's very much visible, if you take a look at these.

 In addition to this analysis, in the document reports, you have a complete list of all evaluated workshops. They're ranked from one to 203 by the average score. It's a priority list from the one that scored the highest being the first one.

 And then, as I said in the beginning, the proposals are also ordered by the highest variance for your consideration of where there was a bit of difference in evaluation results which are obviously different from the individual MAG members.

 And that's pretty much what I wanted to say.

 In terms of the SDGs, as you know, there were no limitations on which SDG or SDG targets could have be chosen, but it's definitely that SDG 16, 5, 4, 9 are also dominating the proposal. The SDG 10 is also very much well positioned.

 So with that, I will stop here.

 And thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Anja.

 I now open the floor for any comments or questions on this presentation.

 Tereza, you have the floor.

 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Thank you.

 Thank you very much, Anja and the secretariat, for this very comprehensive summary of the evaluation process. I was a little bit surprised and shocked by the very first slide, Anja, that you showed, which kind of confirmed that only 75 MAG members actually evaluated all workshops.

 And this is very disappointing. I might not make many friends by what I am going to say now, but I think we all knew that this would be very intense work. We were very well aware of the deadlines. We were reminded by the deadlines.

 And, Anriette, I know that you were reaching out to any MAG members who were lagging behind individually, to try to catch up.

 But, in very plain words, it's not fair, and I would be curious to know why this has happened, whether this is a trend that has been observed for previous IGFs as well, and just, you know, kind of encouraging MAG members that were not able to fulfill out the evaluations, to maybe step up the game for other tasks that will still be quite time intense and remain to be demanding preparations for the IGF.

 Thank you.

 Sorry for the unpopular opinion.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: No. Thanks, Tereza. I'm very glad you said that. I will let Chengetai add, and Anja, but I will just share what I know. And that is, in fact, the percentage of MAG members that evaluate workshops has increased overall.

 Last year, I think a peak was reached. I think this year, it's also not been bad. Remember, that doesn't mean that only 75% of MAG members evaluated workshops. It just means that there were some workshop proposals which were not evaluated by all MAG members.

 So, in other words, not all MAG members completed their tasks, but I think, if I understand correctly, the percentage of MAG members that, you know, did very well in completing their tasks is actually quite good.

 And also keep in mind that the MAG is small this year. We've gone down from 50 plus to around 40. And there are    I know of three MAG members who had personal health or family health circumstances which made it impossible for them to do any evaluations at all.

 So I don't think that's as negative as it looks, but you're absolutely correct in emphasizing the importance for MAG members in performing this task. But I think that 75% is a little bit deceptive.

 Luis and Chengetai, do you want to clarify further?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: No, Anriette. I think you said it quite well.

 Yes, it is quite deceptive, and we do have some MAG members with special circumstances, and all workshops did get a reasonable number of evaluations. And, yes, there has been an upward trend in the number of MAG members completing their evaluation.

 I would also like to say that if there is    sometimes we do get those one or two MAG members who actually show no interest in fulfilling their duties as a MAG member. Then, of course, when it comes time for renewal of the MAG and usually we say that, you know, it's renewable for one year, but MAG members get three years. So if that MAG member has shown no interest during that year of being a MAG member, then, of course, we would replace them in the next year. But what we found out is that most    98% of MAG members do want to fulfill their duties. And, yes, some MAG members do have special circumstances, especially during this time.

 I think we will find that there's a higher number of MAG members with special circumstances.

 So, yes, I think that's all I have to say.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes. But thanks for that, Tereza.

 I also want to commend MAG members for doing their work. That figure, for example, would include, for example, if a MAG member had 60 proposals to evaluate and they evaluated 57, then that would become part of that 75%. You know, they would have been represented as a MAG member that did not complete the evaluation, but that does not mean that they did not do a substantial amount of work.

 I checked in individually with all the MAG members who had not progressed well. And, you know, what I learned is that MAG members had COVID, for example, and were still recovering. You know, all had had family members with very serious illnesses.

 So I must say overall I share your sentiments. It is very important. And I agree with Chengetai. MAG members who do not contribute will be replaced, but I think overall the contribution has been actually substantial.

 Any other questions or comments?

 Chengetai, I don't know if you have the figures at hand, but I think it would be interesting just to share, more or less, how the numbers of session proposals this year compare with that of 2020. And keep in mind that there are more session types this year.

 But if you have the numbers available, how many session proposals did you receive in total, including for sessions other than workshops?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I will just ask Luis to provide those figures, if he has. Maybe it will take him, you know, like, five minutes to dig everything up. If you can come back?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: That's fine. He can just share it in the chat. The reason I'm raising it is because I think that, on the one hand, there was concern that uncertainty would affect the number of sessions for IGF 2021, and it probably has.

 But, on the other hand, if you look at the overall number of session proposals that were received, the numbers are good. They're not bad. And so I think that is reassuring for the host. It's reassuring for the MAG.

 So there's possibly    Luis can confirm it later. And the reduction.  

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. I would say.  

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:    is not a dramatic reduction.

 Chengetai, what would you.  

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I would also say that we have more than enough for the good functioning and to have a good IGF as such. It's something that I'm also struggling with. I mean, we are    we do want more and more people to apply, but if we can only have 200 sessions in total, is it really good to have 400, 600, 700 submissions? Or should we, you know, just aim at having    you know, if we have 200 sessions, then let's aim to have 300 or 400 as a mark so that other people who put in the efforts can be put into more concrete.

 But I think the number for this year is about 400. But Luis will confirm. And, yes, I mean, it's all to do with metrics. Large numbers look good, but there's really also the other side of it. Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Chengetai.

 And thanks to Anja and Luis for working with the statistics and doing the compilations in a very short space of time.

 We are a little bit early, but seeing that there are no hands and no one is in the speaking queue, we can now move into the next session of today's meeting, which is MAG members working in groups.

 These are not your evaluation groups. We'll just cluster you randomly. And that's really for you to just check in with one another, remind one another of who you are, where you are, and what you do, and then to share and document some of those experiences and lessons that you feel we've learned from this evaluation process, from the way we've approached it, the way in which the form was structured, and the criteria and how it felt applying those criteria.

 So you can build on those comments that were already made in the list.

 And all that we ask you is, in your breakout groups, just for one person to document some of those suggestions for the future. And then we can share them with the secretariat and the workshop process group for consideration next year.

 So we're a little bit early, which means we'll come back a little bit early. This session was intended to be from 9:00 to 10:00 UTC but only for the first half hour to be in groups, so 9:00 to 9:30. We're starting 10 minutes early, so we'll come back 10 minutes early.

 So at 9:20 UTC, we will bring you back into plenary. So enjoy your discussion, everyone.

 I will hop around, and so will the secretariat. And we'll see you back in plenary at 20 past 9:00 UTC.

 Luis, over to you to do the sorting of MAG members into groups.

 And, observers, you're welcome to hang around, and we'll be back soon.

 >>LUIS BOBO: Okay. Thank you, Anriette.

 I understand these are random groups. I will create four groups, maybe three    three or four. There's 41 people here. Maybe four groups?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I think that's fine. Four groups is fine. In fact, I think if you're doing random groups, it might be easy to    is it difficult for you to exclude observers?

 >>LUIS BOBO: We can create three or four groups, and people can join to any of the groups.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Let's create three groups, then. I think if you subtract the observers and the scribes and stuff like that, it will be less numbers. So.  

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I think that's a good suggestion.

 >>LUIS BOBO: Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: So, Luis, just to confirm, we are asking MAG members to join one of the groups; is that correct?

 >>LUIS BOBO: That is correct, but I am joining some MAG members.  

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. Great.

 >>LUIS BOBO:    randomly.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay.

 >>LUIS BOBO: Yes.

 So I could say MAG members are already in the groups. Now everyone else can join any of the groups directly.

 I am not sure if this works in some systems in Zoom yet, depending on the version. Otherwise, please write in the chat, and they can join you or move you to any of the groups. There are groups one, two, and three. 

 [Breakout session]

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Welcome back, everyone.  Welcome back to plenary.  And I notice that observers did join the breakout groups, which is fine.  It's difficult to avoid that.  And I hope you all had some good discussion.

 To move into the report-back, are there MAG members who can share some suggestions that you have based on the experience of doing the evaluation this year?  And I'm just going to call randomly on MAG members who I saw in groups.  

 Amrita, can you start, please?

 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Thank you, Anriette.  We discussed about this year's proposals.  There was a discussion on the quality of proposals.  A few MAG members who have been here earlier found that the numbers were not high, but the quality was also not so great.  And many of the proposers did not know what a hybrid proposal means.  And there were no plans on how people can participate both online and offline.  However, diversity in the proposals was much higher than in the past.

 There was an observation that there were no new significant proposals, new as in topic in the proposals.  And in terms of suggestions, some of the suggestions for the next year was that there should be something more specific on the critical areas which needs to be discussed, as in the proposals need to be more specific.  Like, for example, if med-tech and pandemic needs to be related, show the responsibility gap in terms of human rights, digital rights, the governance aspects on these need to be discussed more.  

 More youth-related topics or youth should be encouraged to participate in submissions.

 The new issues should be discussed and not repeat issues which were already established in countries.  However, opinions were a little bit divided in this point.  

 So there was another suggestion that people should come up and suggest, you know, issues they want to be discussed even within MAG meetings.  And they could argue on why that needs to be decided.

 And based on contributions, the agenda should be set.  There should be diversity in language.  It should be encouraged.

 There was a suggestion by an observer that people should be allowed to write proposals in their own language and translate it.  However, we understand the limitations of finances.  And this is our wish list, if ever finances are available, if this could be provided.

 And there was another suggestion that since this year is going to be the first hybrid meeting, so perhaps next year there would be more examples and explanations which could be shared with people on how it goes about.

 And another suggestion was, you know, when we have these forms, we explain a bit, you know, on what the questions mean, especially for newcomers because there is a gap between the kind of proposals which are submitted by people who are experienced, submitted proposals three, four, times, and newcomers.

 So that's all for now, Anriette.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Amrita.  And we will record these suggestions in the record of the meeting and in the workshop evaluation process.  The working group on workshop evaluation process can take this forward.

 Next, can I call on the group that had Maria Paz in it, Maria Paz Canales?  I'm not sure who's doing the report, but I saw you were in a group.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  I was in the group but maybe someone else can make the report.  

 Maybe, Adam, do you want to do it?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think Adam has stepped out for a cigarette, probably knowing Adam.  So why don't you go ahead.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  Okay.  I can try.  I spoke a lot in my group as usual in my group.

 So I think that in general there were different approaches in the comments of the members of our group that were very much depending on the level of experience the different members had with this process.  We had some first-year members in the group and others like me who were in our third year.  So the point of cooperation differed for each one because they don't have the previous experience of seeing the workshop evaluation process.  

 So from the perspective of the less experienced MAG members, they considered that it was good quality and good representation of good sessions in the proposals.  And they were happy to see the composition of the diversity item in many of these processes.  Some of them were engaged previously with the work of the MAG some years ago, and they compared this experience with that recall that they have of how things were ten years ago.  And definitely for them, there was a clear improvement in terms of diversity, in gender diversity, in geographic representation.  They value very much.

 One element of criticism that it was kind of agreement between the less experienced MAG and the more experienced MAG member, it was about the policy question maybe didn't fulfill their purpose -- intended purpose in this round of the process.  There was some kind of disconnection between the policy questions that were selected and the content of the session.  So, finally, that rendered the policy question not very useful for the assessment of the quality of the session.

 And we were discussing a little bit -- Wim encouraged us to reflect how this could be improved in the next round.  And he was posing some question about if the policy question required to be more general or abstract to fulfill better their purpose.

 Some of us were reacting in the sense that maybe we are asking a policy question to fulfill a role that was not the original role.  I was explaining a little bit to the other MAG members that were new to the process what was the original purpose of the policy question, that it was to try to provide a guidance to organizers of the session for making the session more outcome-oriented, more policy outcome-oriented.  

 And at the end, the secondary utility of this policy question also it's organize the input that came from the IGF discussion in order to build some kind of instrument for further dissemination of the work of IGF.  

 But I was personally suggesting that, for example, maybe that work of organizing the outcome could be achieved through looking into the more subthemes or tag criterion that before in some part of the work of the MAG we used to do.  I'm not trying to read through the policy question because it's different from what happened in the previous two years that I have opportunity to take part of this evaluation process.

 In this year, the policy questions were not really connected with the content of the session but rather more fulfilling the requirement of the form of making the choice of connecting the policy question identified by the MAG with the session but not very useful for organizing the unfolding of the session itself.

 But all of that, I think that we reflected also about the need of -- to provide more clarity in the instruction that accompanied the instruction for the submission on the form because there's still -- it might be the feeling that you need, like, some kind of insider knowledge to understand better how these different elements.  And there's a little bit of a sense that could be like overengineering of the process that make people confused about these elements.

 I know that we have talked before about these, that the secretariat and the MAG members have made an honest effort for clarifying and providing more information.  But the result of the content of the proposal shows that still there's room for improvement on that.

 But the final reflection, leaving with some more positive note that also was shared, was that maybe also this confusion about how to build the proposal or how to fulfill each one of these criteria, I echo what was said by the previous group about the confusion about the hybrid format and the interaction between onsite and online participants.  

 These are problems that we are also reflecting that we are connecting with a new audience.  There are new proponents for the sessions, and this is a good problem to have because that means there is some kind of rotation and there is increased interest of new audience to engage with the IGF.  And it's just a learning process that we need to continue improving and fostering.  So I will stop there.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Maria Paz and everyone else.  

 Does anyone else in the group want to add?  Also in the previous group?

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Hi.  It's Adam.  Thank you, Anriette.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead, Adam.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  You were absolutely right, I was listening having a cigarette on the balcony.  

 I will try to give that up.

 I just wanted to agree with everything that Maria Paz mentioned there.  I think particularly this notion -- I think we're getting a little bit overengineered, as Maria said.  And I think we know how this happens because many of us are involved in other processes where there's a policy development process over time and it seems like it's a layering of process on top of process on top of process.

 So understand why it is and how it happens and it's for good reason.  It has its purpose.  But sort of a little bit of paring it back for next year would be helpful.

 A general comment, I honestly don't understand all of the problems mentioned with hybrid.  I understand that it's difficult to think about.  But I think all we were asking for really was a recognition that some people will be online and some people will be onsite.  And haven't we just lived this experience for the last -- we certainly understand how online working is.  So is it so hard to think about I might be in a room but some of the people will still be online as I was for the last 16 months?  I really don't get this.

 It sounds like it's not an overly complex problem.  It's trying to think about something that we're thinking about globally, not just in the IGF, but how we're going to go back into our working.  Some of us will be in the office.  Some of us will be working remote.

 Is that so hard to think about how your lives are going to continue and what may well be a hybrid format for a long time.  So I'm quite confused by this.  It seems either we didn't explain it well enough or we have a lack of imagination, frankly.  So sorry to be, you know, provocative but that was the intent of that.

 I think there's been just a lack of imagination about where we are in our world, you know?  This isn't really -- we're not all going to be going back to jumping on planes again as we used to do basically.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Adam, I think the issue is precisely that.  I think people have made the transition to virtual processes.  Hybrid is very different.

 So I actually think it is very difficult.  I think it is difficult to manage hybrid offices.  And I have personal experience on that.  It is easier to manage a fully virtual process and a fully face-to-face process than a hybrid process.  I don't think you should be that harsh with the community.  I think people -- I don't think it's a lack of imagination.  I think it is just not knowing what all the factors are.  And I think it's also -- it's the open-endedness of it.  I think if one has a very specific understanding that an event will be hybrid in that you'll have so many people from these countries face-to-face and so many people who are virtual, then you can plan for it.

 But I think people know that it's hybrid.  I think actually making that more tangible is hard, so I do think it is hard.

 But very interesting comments, and I think really important to consider, particularly if we are going to be working with this hybrid process.  

 But as we said in the Open Consultation yesterday, I think this will be a learning process.  And I think I heard Paul Charlton said this in one of the groups.  I think we will have a much better understanding as a MAG of what a hybrid event entails after this year and hopefully then also be able to convey that better.

 And the policy question discussion, very interesting because there didn't used to be policy questions.  And then I think there were policy questions introduced maybe ten years ago, maybe a bit less.  I think the reason for us preselecting policy questions this year is because last year there were literally hundreds of policy questions, many of whom weren't really about policy at all.  And that then became very difficult for the secretariat to capture and synthesize.

 But maybe, yes, maybe we need to move beyond policy questions.  We might not need that.  So these are very good inputs, useful to think about, and we should actually capture some of these before some of the outgoing MAG members leave.  But we'll do that later in the year.

 The last group -- I think that was the group with Tereza, Carlos, Lucien.

 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  Actually, it is me who will deliver the group's evaluation, Madam Chair.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead, Przemek.

 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  We decided -- however I was not a member of the MAG who evaluated the process, nevertheless, I caught a few issues from our discussion.  I divided them into two main parts.  

 The first one is communications, and we discussed roughly two issues here.  First one is we are focusing -- and we would encourage for next year's evaluation to cover increasing communication between the MAG members who are evaluating those workshop submission proposals between -- so increasing the communication during the evaluation phase and it could be somehow streamlined using, for instance, the MAG mailing list as a good way of exchanging views but of course not discussing individual cases because that's up to the MAG members to decide.  So it will be just a general discussion.

 And the other -- the other part, the other area is content issues.  And, first of all, we have -- we have had very good discussion here.  And looking -- hearing the voices of other groups, we very much agree with them.  And what we would like to add from our side is that we feel that we are lacking here evaluating questions.  I mean, regarding the output, what the session organizers' output would like to have.  I think we think that this needs to be added.

 And regarding the format, hardly anyone explained why did they choose this type of format or that type of format.  So there needs to be evaluation on how -- what are the criteria of selection.  So this is also something that's lacking here.

 Some of the proposers did not put anything original, so originality was also raised here as a good way of making those proposals better and more diverse and more in-depth because that was something we were missing here.

 There were many repetitions.  Policy questions were repeated.  So this is something that we missed here.

 Some of the people, as I said, did not answer questions.  There was also -- another two points.  One is that the MAG members could be able to be enrolled in the group where they could have more expertise on because the MAG members who were selected randomly to the groups.  Some of us feel that they could give more feedback according to the expertise if they could be assigned to other groups of their -- of their choice.

 And another thing which was raised here -- and that's the final point of my address is bringing external support, the evaluators, that was actually raised by Carlos who said that in his field in Brazil, they used somehow external evaluators to help them, to assist them in evaluating those -- the workshop proposals.  So that's something that could be discussed.  But, of course, it's depending on financial resources at hand.

 So that's roughly all for me unless Carlos, Evelyne, or other colleagues would like to add something.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Przemek.

 Any additions from anyone else in that group?

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  No, no, it's perfect.  Przemek really summarized very well.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And if I get it correctly, this group actually is making also some concrete suggestions with regard to criteria, that a criteria should be added for being original, originality.  And then also specific evaluation criteria for outcomes and outputs.  And I think -- and in linking the choice of format with a rationale for why that choice of format.  These are very concrete suggestions.

 As for external evaluation, I'm not sure.  That touches on the core role of the MAG.  So that is a more challenging suggestion.

 I'm opening the floor to any other comments or questions.  We have some time.  Other reflections from people.

 And I just want to remind MAG members that while these reflections should be considered for implementation next year, you can also begin to respond to them later today.  So, for example, even if there wasn't criteria specifically for originality, when you do your final selection of sorting the proposals into the different baskets, you can, of course, talk about originality.  It's still a criteria that you can apply in your discussion when you make your final selection and similarly to some of the other points that you've raised.

 And as for policy questions that were in the proposal format, you do not need to use those policy questions as a specific organizing principle for the program.  So you still have a lot of flexibility in how you address some of these issues that you've raised today.

 But are there any other comments or questions or suggestions from anyone?  

 Speaking queue is empty.  I don't see any hands.

 And there's no one from the MAG that's asking to speak, I'm happy to invite past MAG members and observers if they want to share any reflections.

 I see a hand.  And it is Courtney.  Courtney, you have the floor.  Please introduce yourself for the record.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Thank you, my name is Courtney Radsch, MAG member from civil society.

 Apologies, I just got kicked off.  But I did want to contribute.  

 I thought the policy questions were fine.  But I was working in a group that I would say is not my forte of expertise, but I think there are also benefits to that because if you're evaluating workshops where you are not necessarily an expert, then you are also looking for all the components that will help make sure whatever the session is has a decent, you know, support for why that session should be chosen.

 I found it that the policy questions tended to be the same, like, one or two out of a broader set and the same issue was not necessarily then linking that to the narrative.

 I think we could -- we could kind of shorten the open-ended narrative sections because I found a lot of repetition between that and focus more as I have put in the chat on what is the outcome.  I think we focus more on kind of outcome and/or output.  

 That might also help address what I raised yesterday, this tension between wanting to encourage organizations or institutions that are doing kind of policy-relevant processes to bring those into the IGF, share with the community, et cetera, along with new -- newer first-time proposers that might be coming to the IGF for the first time.

 Because if we're focusing on outcome, one of the outcomes could be introducing a new issue to the IGF.  Another outcome could be making sure that there is consultation into whatever the process is.  So I think we should give more value and weight to outcome, reduce the narrative sections.  

 And I had kind of previewed this in my question about what's the difference between policy and relevance would be.  And I still did find that a bit hard to really distinguish.  I felt like some of the way that the evaluation format ended up being used, that it was a little bit redundant in terms of which actors I was considering in my scoring for the different sections.  So I think that would be helpful.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Courtney.  I think that listening to all of this, I think this is always the risk with this type of process, that we -- the strength of MAG processes -- actually, let me save that, and I'll make my remarks at the end.  

 Evelyne, you have asked for the floor.  Please go ahead.  Very nice to have you with us.

 >>EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Anriette.  I just wanted to add something in regards to originality which I think would be a very vital criteria to include because while it's my first year as a MAG member, like, when I read the proposals, I had several of them which were scoring reasonably well on most criterias but there were still, like, not where we -- like, that didn't contribute anything new or I couldn't really imagine that there would be interesting discussion resulting out of them just because there was nothing really -- hard to say, there were no new ideas discussed or no new approaches.  Or, like, it was basically just repeating the call.

 So in a sense, I felt forced to rank them highly on the relevance, on the policy question or even on the quality.  But I would not really feel to attend this workshop just because it's too much mainstream to say it, frankly.  

 And the other thing I wanted to add, I think it would be motivating for us MAG members to also add to the quality of the evaluation process if we would be free to choose which sessions we would want to be assigned to, to evaluate because I think several of us have a background which would greatly benefit the evaluation process, who would really be experts in certain topics but not in others.  And it would also make the evaluation process more straightforward because if you have to rank proposals from an issue area that does not reflect your expertise at all, it needs lots more effort to become familiarized with the topic.

 And I felt that I was not so well able to judge certain topics over others.  So I think it would make sense if you at least had the possibility to say -- like, to indicate a preference and some members might not have a preference, who could still select randomly, but to increase the quality of the evaluation process and also make it a bit more smoother or motivate MAG members a bit more to actually do the work they were assigned to do.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  It's an interesting suggestion, and I think past MAGs had operated on that basis.

 I'll ask the secretariat to share their reflections.  Thanks very much, Evelyne, for that.

 And, Paul, you have the floor.

 >>PAUL CHARLTON:  Yes, hello, Anriette.  And hello to everyone.

 I just wanted to say that in terms of the point that Evelyne just brought up, I think the current system works fine.  

 I guess I would agree with Courtney as I understood her saying if you are not an expert in a given topic, you are sort of bringing a fresh pair of eyes to a proposal, and that might actually -- it may actually be a benefit.

 Maybe the ideal system is one where, as Evelyne is saying, if there are individuals who are specialists very much in a particular area, they could offer to evaluate proposals in that area but others can just evaluate proposals randomly.  Maybe that's a good compromise.

 I do think on the hybrid element where we were saying -- we said join the process, there was a message about -- because so many proposers weren't sure what to do with that, that we would just have to take into account that the format and interaction portion of a lot of proposals would be weak.  I think that was the case.

 I think next year we'll have so much more experience from this year that we will be able to provide more guidance. But I also think that this year, once we've done our evaluations, that the successful workshop organizers will probably still need help, and so I hope that the MAG or the secretariat will be in a position to give ongoing guidance on the hybrid element over the next coming    over the next coming weeks and months.

 And, finally, just to add in a positive element, it was my observation in the workshop proposals that I saw, I thought the diversity element was better than in past years.

 I didn't see too many, for example, male only panels. I saw a lot of gender diversity. I saw a lot of geographic diversity. And so I thought that was one element that was stronger than in past years, at least according to my reckoning.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, very much, Paul. Thanks for that.

 And thanks, everyone. I want to ask all the groups to share their notes. It is in the recording and will be in the transcript, but it will also be helpful for the secretariat if you could email them the notes that you took from your reports.

 And I think our target here should be to listen and reflect and try and respond to all of these.

 I think the challenges that in a crowd sourced process such as the IGF and the way in which the MAG works, there's also the risk to make the process more complex because as there are more insights, more experience and perspectives, there's also a risk, I think, as some of the MAG members who reported said, to make the process more complex.

 And I think that should be a criteria for the workshop process working group for next year. Listen, reflect, make proposals on adapting the process based on this input, but do it with the goal of simplifying the process, particularly simplifying the process for the organizers for session proposal writers and organizers.

 But I think some very concrete suggestions.

 And so, secretariat, I would ask you if you could actually put these suggestions into a separate document, not just as part of the record of the meeting. Then the MAG can work with it for the process for next year.

 And, obviously, you will take these insights into account as you finalize the selection process for this year.

 I don't see any other hands. I think there is the comment from Carlos Afonso about external evaluators. That's something that can be discussed in the future. That's made in the chat.

 And no one has requested the floor. So I would like to give you a short break.

 We're starting our next session at 10:00 UTC. So that is just in six minutes. If everyone wants to just take a little break and come back for our next session, which will be a breakout group session, but we'll start it in plenary. And that will be for MAG members, and observers will not be able to participate in those breakout groups. So take a break and see you in five to six minutes.

 [BREAK]

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Welcome back, everyone.

 Good. We have everyone back.

 And I hope you enjoyed your beverage or even for those unlucky people like Adam who smoke, that you enjoyed your cigarettes.

 And we will help you give up, Adam. If you need MAG support, you just have to ask.

 And so now let's move on to the next session. I'm just checking that everyone is with us.

 I just neglected to give the secretariat the floor. Chengetai, Luis, Anja, just if you have any remarks or reflections based on the discussion that we had about the workshop evaluation process, please do make them now. You don't have to, but your bird's eye view and your big picture perspective is very valuable.

 Would you agree that the process has become more complicated over time?

 Chengetai, I'm putting you on the spot.

 You are muted.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I said thank you very much, Anriette.

 No. There are two sides to everything. I mean, you can make two arguments to everything. Has the form become more complex? Yes.

 But is there some advantages to this complexity? Yes.

 Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? That has to be seen.

 The form is more detailed. Yes, you have to state in more granular fashion what you're doing to meet the certain requirements, which is good, and it also structures the proposer's mind as well when they are making their proposal. But, I mean, everything has a cost. So that's one thing we all have to consider and just find a happy medium between the two.

 The second question was instead of randomized groups, having the groups chosen according to their expertise of the people. Yes. Okay. You have the expertise of the people, but then a lot more conflict of interests happens because this is where the MAG operates, the specific MAG member operates, in that sphere. So there's a lot more conflicts of interests, and there could also be a lot more bias in that. There's no agreement in all subjects, and there's different types of views. So there's no yes or no answer to any of it. I think it's good that we do try things. Yes, if the feedback is it's too complicated this year, then we'll dial it back next year and see where we can get a happy medium to everything.

 That's my input.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot for that, Chengetai.

 And just to close that, I will remind the newer MAG members that the MAG    the 2019 MAG working group on workshop process did an evaluation where they surveyed organizers and proposers, session proposers, for feedback on the process. So some of the changes we've introduced are also based on that. So that's something that can be done periodically. There's no point in doing it too quickly. But it is something that the MAG has done. And once we have the summary of all these suggestions, we'll move forward with things.

 So thanks very much, everyone.

 And thanks, Chengetai.

 Our next session, breakout groups in the workshop evaluation groups, this is when you will break up into those groups that evaluated proposals in a particular issue area.

 Luis will create the groups, and you need to join your groups. He can check whether you're all in the right group.

 And the task, really, is for you to review the combined scores that have been shared with you.

 So I would urge the facilitators of the group    you know who you are    to have ready the combined scores that the secretariat shared with you.

 And your task then, Anja has sent a slide.

 But, Anja, maybe if you can just display the slide for the task for these breakout groups, that would be very helpful. It's also in the agenda.

 >>ANJA GENGO: Yes. Okay.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: So this is the task    thanks, Anja.

 This is the task which you have started already. And I think some of you have come further in completing it than others. And now is the opportunity for everyone to reach the same point.

 What you need to do is to sort the proposals in your issue area into three baskets.

 We'll focus on    I mean, I will get back. I want Chengetai to emphasize some of this. The purpose, really    here are the three baskets. Look at the second slide first, and then we'll go back to the first one.

 So these baskets are: The green basket, that's where you have consensus in your group that the proposals should be included in the final list, and you don't require any changes.

 You will also identify proposals that you think are good and strong and that you would like to include where you feel, based on the content of the proposal, that it's suited to the preparatory phase.

 The orange basket, that would be for proposals that you did well and you would like to include it, but there are some maybes.

 You might feel that the proposal should be in another issue area or you want to ask the organizers to update a component of the proposal, for example, participation or diversity.

 And you might want to propose a merger with another proposal or you might want to suggest    I think I heard one of the MAG members say at one point that they felt they saw a proposal that would be suited to a different format, not be ideal as a workshop but as another type of session.

 And again here, you can identify proposals that you think would fit into the preparatory phase, if the organizers agree and if all these other areas are considered.

 I think there's one    you left one here    oh, merger. Merger is here. You might also want to consider proposals for mergers. And, again, that happens with discussion of the organizer, and we'll give some sort of guidance on that as well.

 The red basket    and sometimes I think it can actually be quite easy or time saving to start with the red basket. That would be proposals where everyone in your group agrees they were just not good enough to be included or considered further.

 Anja, if you could just move to the previous slide.

 So your main task here is to focus on quality and content, to come up with proposals grouped into these three baskets. Do not be concerned about numbers at this stage. You really don't have to. I'm going to ask Chengetai to explain why, but the purpose here is really just to look at quality and to come up with the proposals that you would like to see included in the IGF's program.

 Between this week and next week, the secretariat will look at the facilities and give you options in terms of target numbers. But there's no point    you know, until we know how many proposals are in people's green baskets, there's almost no point in giving you targets.

 In terms of balancing number of sessions, according to thematic areas, we can do that later as well. So you don't need to focus on that today.

 However, if you to have time, if your groups can also look at subthemes and issue areas to understand the overall program structure, to get a sense of how you want to group it.

 For example, we just heard in the earlier session that some MAG members felt that policy questions might not be a useful category. Maybe the headings of the policy questions, you know, could be subthemes, but that's something for you to look at if you have time. Just based on your evaluation of the workshop, what stands out for you as a way of structuring the program within the issue areas.

 Chengetai, I'd like you to come in here because you have a very clear view of what is important to consider at this point and what should not be considered.

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

 Just from the secretariat's point of view, we feel that the -- of course, the main interest or the main purpose is to have an interesting, relevant, and cohesive IGF that promotes good discussion and people can use what comes out of it to help in their policy-making process.

 So when we're looking at the workshops, yes, it is merit-based but it's not exclusively by the scores.  So we're not just cutting off the highest scores.

 Yes, we do believe that for a certain list we should have a certain cut-off where these ones are accepted because of the scoreset they have, but then there will also be some other interesting workshops that you may see that will improve the IGF and promote good discussion.  And these can also be in the yellow basket, and we can give them conditional acceptance, as such.

 So you may also find a workshop proposer that didn't perform that well; but with a certain amount of changes, that's the condition for their acceptance, that they change this and that, then it can be accepted.  So these comments are also very useful for us.

 And also just reminding you about the mergers, you may find that there are two or more workshops that can be merged together for one.  It is also very important to point out that there may be one workshop that's in the green basket and one workshop in the orange basket and one workshop in the red basket that you feel could be merged.  But not all workshop proponents would agree to a merger.  So when you see a workshop that's good quality and can stand on its own, okay, that's fine.  That can go ahead by itself.

 But then there are certain workshops where we say, can only be accepted if these two merge or one can only be accepted if they merge with another workshop but that other workshop can be accepted on its own.

 So I hope I'm making myself clear here.  But it's very important to signify these and explain what type of mergers is it.  Is it both lose out?  One loses out?  Et cetera.

 And, of course, the workshops with a large variance, it's worth looking into not just because there may be a disagreement in the quality but it may actually be the topic itself which might be very interesting for the IGF and may also promote good discussion.

 And when we're looking at these, at this stage, we don't think you should be concerned about the numbers.  We should be concerned about the quality, the relevance, and whether or not it would help enhance the IGF meeting, either the IGF itself or the preparatory phase.

 We will be issuing out a -- kind of like a skeleton schedule and giving you also the numbers discussion on next week's meeting, not before then because that should not be entering your mind now.  And it should not be clouding the selection or the process into these baskets.

 I think that's all I have to say.  And if I have missed anything else out, please just let me know.  And, first of all, let me also just give a chance for Luis or Anja to say a few words, if I've missed anything.

 >>ANJA GENGO:  That's it, Chengetai.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Luis, nothing from you?

 >>LUIS BOBO:  I think you said everything, Chengetai.

 Maybe I would just add -- but there is completely in a personal capacity.  The suggestion to also consider how the sustainable development goals are a target or give more focus to that in following years.  But this is a personal suggestion only.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.  We haven't actually talked about that, and that is in the proposal.

 So thanks for that, Chengetai.  I noted the comment from Maria Paz about numbers.  And Maria Paz, we'll do that very soon.  It's just that the MAG has not yet completed the process of just deciding or reaching consensus on how they view the proposals.  

 And as Chengetai I think said very eloquently, it's not just about scoring.  It's really about other factors as well.  But we will have the numbers discussion and conclude it by the MAG meeting next week.

 Adam, you have asked for the floor.  Please go ahead.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Yeah.  Just to say that I do agree with Maria Paz.  But I think we don't need to discuss that now but just to note that.  

 I have a couple of questions.  When proposers have been asked to make changes, how successful in the past has that been?  Have they responded adequately?  And what happens if they do not?  Because it's all very good asking someone to make a change to a proposal only if they do it.

 About merging, which personally I have never been a fan of but I'll try to help, why would you even consider merging a workshop that somebody has decided is red?  It just seems completely illogical to me.  So I don't understand why that would even be considered.  I mean, to like score workshops -- whatever.  Anyway...

 So are we anticipated to discuss the scoring as MAG members in our respective greater breakout groups?  Are we meant to use those scores as a guide for us?  Or are we talking in more general terms?  I suppose that's a question.  And if we are expected to be using the scores, I have a more specific question about the numbers that are in the Excel sheets.

 Just a final --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry, go ahead.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Sorry.  Just to Chengetai's point, but number collectively are the only reflection we have of quality.  That's why you had 40 people score these things.  And what we're now seeing is an average assessment of that.

 What other assessment of quality do we have other than an evaluation based on whatever our personal scoring was?  So I'm a little bit confused.  But the specifics are there.  

 So changes, mergers, and then are we meant to be considering scoring in our breakouts.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Let me start -- absolutely, you are to -- 

 Chengetai, you go first.  Go ahead.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Just to answer -- my doorbell rings.

 Just to answer quickly, as far as the numbers -- so sorry.  As far as the mergers are concerned, yes, we've had people -- we've had all sorts.  We've had people that have said, yes, they will merge.  We have people that says no.  Even if they have exactly the same title, except for a comma in the middle of the title, it is totally different and their workshop is going to change the face of Internet governance for years to come.  But it's a conditional.  If they don't merge, they don't get accepted.  That's how it is.

 On quality, yes, I mean, it could be a very good workshop that is timely for this time but they may have difficulty in -- I don't know -- they miss one stakeholder group which you feel that is very important and the topic itself will enhance the -- sorry.  I have to answer this or they won't stop ringing -- will enhance the meeting.  So I think we should consider that.

 But this is only a suggestion.  I should remove the word "should."  You should consider considering that.  That's fine.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Good luck with the door.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Let me step in as Chengetai goes to answer his door.

 So, firstly, to stay on mergers, Adam, proposing mergers as a way of dealing with a poor-quality proposal doesn't work.  So we wouldn't expect MAG members to even suggest a merger unless they felt there was real merit in that proposal and in the one they would like it to merge with.  

 We have actually had bad experiences in the past of merging very strong proposals with weak proposals.  So really, it's just in terms of the content and whether you feel they are very similar or they are very complementary.  So that's really the MAG's insight.

 Secondly, do you use your scores?  Absolutely.  You use your combined scores.  But, remember, your scores are different.  Adam, you might have scored a proposal 3 and you might put it in your orange basket but it might be in someone else's green basket.  And then it's a question of talking through those differences and deciding as a group whether you want to keep this proposal in the green basket or the orange basket.

 Similarly for the red baskets, I think achieving consensus on that is important.  You use your scores as a guide.  It will give you a ranking of the proposals, but not all MAG members score all proposals in the same way.  So that's why there's opportunity to talk and then make a decision on every proposal is valuable.

 As for numbers, it's really -- I support Chengetai for us not using that.  For example, last year we had in one issue area so many good quality proposals that we increased the time space allocated to that issue area.  So it really is something we want to do.  Once you've got your green baskets, once we know which proposals the MAG feels really positive about, then we will make of a final selection with numbers.  And we also need to look at parallel tracks, but we will do that soon.

 What else did you ask, Adam?  Did I cover all of your questions?

 You asked about past experience in asking organizers to update or change their proposals.

 The secretariat can add here.  My sense has been that people are keen to be included in the program, so they are usually quite receptive to being asked to get additional speakers or make their session more diverse or more interactive.  

 I think reasonable requests from the MAG, which are then conveyed to the organizers, are generally responded to quite positively.

 And I think the MAG -- someone earlier made the comment -- Paul Charlton, I think it might have been you.  Just the need to support the organizers in some aspect.  That's also something that can happen, that the MAG can even provide some guidance in their request for improving a proposal.

 I think generally the response to such requests are not negative.  Maybe sometimes people feel a little bit offended, but usually they respond very positively.

 Any other questions?  Are we ready to start?

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  I have raised my hand.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm sorry, Maria Paz, I did not see it.  And Courtney has her hand up, too.  Maria Paz.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  Maria Paz Canales representing civil society from GRULAC, third-year MAG member.  

 I'm basing my experience in two previous evaluation process.  I respectfully disagree with the approach that is being proposed for making the review, assigning the proposals in the three baskets.  

 The basket approach, it's something we already used in the previous year.  I am familiar with it.  We did it always in the previous year considering a number of proposals that were not definitive.  I agree with that, with what Anriette has just said about that.  In some cases when there are a number of exceptionally good proposals that are highlighted by the group, there can be slightly increasing number of sessions that can be accepted in a specific issue or ponder it in a different way, the weight of the different issues identified or tracked in the previous year.

 But I think that making without any kind of reference, it's a mistake in terms of operationalization of the process.  

 And even a worse mistake from my point of view is making this analysis without having into consideration the score that are already done, as I believe my colleagues Carlos and Anand pointed out in the chat.

 In terms of the agreement that we already have in terms of the evaluation of the proposal came precisely from the result of the overall score, which is the average of the scoring that each one of us that reviewed the proposal give to the proposal.

 So in previous years of working in this issue of evaluating proposals, MAG always have had a difference for the scoring that have been assigned of the scoring process.  And then when we apply, it was a correction on that.  Looking into, for example, issues that were not well-captured in the number of proposals that are higher scored but that we thought that were relevant for the program.

 And that is work that is totally possible to do in the session we will have next with the issue groups in terms of making the exercise of identifying which one of the topics that we consider relevant for the issue are missing.  But it's very difficult to do if we don't have an initial number of reference.

 In the past, for example, I remember that we were thinking about 80 proposals that will make it to an overall program.  And we thought in considering between 20 and 30 for each one of the issues, considering to divide equally.

 I suggest that we have some kind of number of reference because, for example, in my issue which is the economic and inclusion and human rights issue, there are 68 proposals in that issue.  And it doesn't make any sense that as a group, as a working group, we have to provide again the 68 proposals for deciding which one of them will go to a green, orange, or red basket without considering the scoring and looking into the other things without a reference of how many of them they have a possibility of making to a final cut.

 So I strongly -- I strongly -- it's very few moments in the conversation in the MAG that I will strongly advocate for following a different path because otherwise it will be difficult to really be able to advance in this task in 75 minutes that we have for the working groups.

 And a final point I wanted to make is also related to the criteria of evaluating into the green basket the proposal that will be well-suited for the preparatory phase.

 I will talk personally.  I was not clear about what was the elements relevant for identifying the proposal for the preparatory phase when I did my evaluation.  So for me, to do that work personally, it will invite to go again into the 68 proposals of my issue in order to identify, now that I understand better what it means the preparatory phase, if they will be well-suited or not and review again if each one of the proposers were willing or not to participate in that phase.  Because for me that was not clear in the moment of the evaluation, and I didn't assess the proposal in that line.  I don't know what is the situation of the rest of the members of my group, or maybe someone else can step up in the facilitation of that conversation because I'm not going to be a well-suited facilitator for doing that.  

 So that's from my side.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Maria Paz.

 Courtney, let me hear from you and then I'll try and respond.  

 But I want to make one thing very clear.  There's a misunderstanding, Maria Paz.  We are expecting you to use the scores as a guidance.  I think you can decide where you do the cut-off point, but we are certainly assuming that you will take the compiled scores and the ranking of the proposals that the secretariat prepared for you, that that is where your discussion will start.  

 While we're not saying you need to put 10 or 20 in your green basket, we certainly are assuming that you would use the ranking that was produced by the scoring.

 While Courtney takes the floor, I'll talk to Chengetai offline just to see if he has a solution to your very strong feelings about giving target numbers.

 But, Courtney, it's your turn.  Go ahead.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Sorry.  I just got kicked offline.

 So just in terms of the mechanics, two questions.  One, in terms of feedback on proposals, I found that in many cases the proposers had not sufficiently kind of defended why they needed, say, a 90-minute session.  There certainly were some.  But if the only piece of feedback is this is approved but as a shorter session, is that going to -- like, do you have to do any more kind of feedback to the proposer for that?

 And then the second question is, like, on the mechanics, once -- if somebody can easily repost the links, thank you so much, since I got kicked off.

 We go through the Excel file one by one and basically decide which basket things go into and then at the end, we're going to go through and figure out this many proposals should go through, we think these are the ones that need to be combined.  Can you just talk a little bit more about the mechanics of precisely what we need to come out with from this group since I'm doing this for the first time and it's remote?  It's still a little bit hard to wrap my head around.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Courtney.  I'll try to respond.  And I invite other MAG members and the secretariat to add as well.

 What we want out of this exercise is for the high-scoring proposals that you all agree on, that you feel that are well and should be included to be in your green basket.  

 We can give you a target figure, but I think it's easier if you look at the ranking of the proposals in your group and discuss first -- it can be easiest to start by those that you all agree need not further discussion and then to discuss those that you all agree should be included.

 The purpose then of the orange basket really is just for discussion of those proposals where there isn't easy consensus on or whether there was a high divergence in the scoring or where you feel they add value in the way that Chengetai described earlier.  They add value in terms of unique content area or diversity or interest.  And they might not have been equally highly scored by everyone, but there are people in the group who want to talk about them or feel they should be included.  So that's really the purpose of the basket approach.

 In terms of the cut-off number that Maria Paz feels will be very helpful, you know, we can set a number if MAG members feel it will be helpful to say to you keep your green baskets to ideally no more than 30 proposals, that would be one way of doing it, or 35.  

 But we are not yet at a point where we can say that a particular issue area should have so many proposals.  We need to look at the combined group of proposals and number of proposals that each group would like to put in their green basket and then we can make a final decision on numbers.

 So I'm not sure I really helped.  But does anyone else want to add?  Courtney, does that help to clarify what the task -- the target is of this task?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Yes, thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  If you look at the notes in the agenda, they are actually quite detailed.

 For the orange basket, you know, those are proposals where you -- where there's a further step required of some kind, further discussion point.

 You know, Maria Paz in response to your comment about preparatory phase, I think it was a question in the form whether organizers were willing to include their session in the preparatory phase.  Hopefully there are MAG members that have kept that in mind, even if you haven't, Maria.  

 I think let's see how it goes.  If all of the groups or most of the groups feel that they are not in a position to have identified such workshop proposals, that's fine.  We'll work with that.

 I don't think you should let that hold up the process in any particular way.

 Chengetai, do you have any wisdom on the number issue at this point and on Maria Paz's concern that it will be very difficult to perform this task?

 I see Roberto has his hand up.  Roberto, please go ahead and you can also share --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just very, very quickly, Anriette, just to answer you, let's discuss it offline for five minutes and then we can come back on.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Good.  Roberto, in the meantime, you have the floor.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  

 Hello, everyone, again.  Roberto Zambrana, second-year MAG member.

 I just want to reflect also about what was said by Maria Paz.  Having in charge of the group that is evaluating the one with the largest number of proposals, I think that will be another not problem but something to take into consideration for the other groups.  Because as we know, one of the other groups have two issue groups to evaluate and the other one, the last one, is having the rest of the emerging and cross-cutting themes, which are five.

 So I think it would be another problem having a number, a general number, in that particular last group.  Besides that, we don't have another number regarding each of the issue groups.  So I'm not saying it will be so much critical; but I am saying that in that particular group, they should take that into account because if we only consider the quality, of course, we're going to take into account the final score that we received.  But in that case, if only we considered that score, then -- and we don't look what happens between all the proposals belonging to each issue group, then there will be a problem because perhaps some of those will be out of the suggestion choosing ones from the program.  

 So that's just the reflection for that particular group.  And that's something also I'm going to propose in the case of mine, which we have two issue groups to consider.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Thanks for that, Roberto.

 Look, I'm hoping that we can actually start working now.  Maria Paz, I'm sorry if this doesn't entirely work for you.  But this is not actually a completely new approach.  The total number of sessions have -- has varied.  It was 99 in Geneva.  I think last year we had 84 workshops.  I'm just looking at statistics here.  Berlin had 64.  Paris had 71.

 And to a large extent, the MAG decides that final number not just based on available slots but also based on the number of workshops that they would like to see included.  

 But I'm hoping this will help.  And if you use Roberto's approach, we do need to start working.

 And, Maria Paz, I hope you are clear that you will use the scores.  There was no proposal whatsoever to not use the ranking and the scoring as a starting point for the discussion.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Anriette, may I jump in with a question about the scores?  Because this is -- it may be helpful.  It will certainly be helpful for me.

 So we have a set of scores and they range from a potential of five down to a potential of one, depending on the criteria that we scored, we marked against.

 I'm interested to know what the difference would be -- what is being reflected if we see a score of 4 and if we see a score of 3.9 -- and this may be a question for the group -- what is that telling us?  

 Is that telling us that out of the 40 MAG members, 38 of them gave that overall proposal 4 and two gave somewhat lower?  I'm trying to understand what that means -- what the difference is in that percentage point, a full percentage point, not going lower than that.  Do you see what I mean?  Is that question sort of --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I see exactly what you mean.  I will let Luis explain because it has to do with weighting as well.

 And then he can also remind you how to interpret the variance because that is important.  Luis, do you want to answer that?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Also, just quickly interjecting we are in the danger again of overthinking and part of the overengineering part.  So at some point, it's also good to just dive in and see how it goes.

 Yes, Luis, sorry.

 >>LUIS BOBO:  Thank you, Chengetai.  

 No, it's very clear.  The average is really the real average of the evaluation.  So if one proposal has been evaluated, for example, by ten people, if five of them give a final grade of five and five of them give a final grade of 4.8, so the average will be 4.9, okay?  So it's a completely even average.  

 And the variances, you know the formula.  But basically it would be very low for this because it would be five members with five, five members with 4.8. 

 The other thing that would have been is, for example, a proposal receives a 3 and there are five members that give it a grade of 5 and five MAG members that give it a grade of 1, so the average will be 3 but the variance could be much higher if the ten MAG members have evaluated with a 3 in which case the variance would be zero.  That's all.

 The only thing is that remember that your final score is weighted.  So it was weighted with the secretariat and some criteria have more weight in the final score.  But then the final score is the one that is averaged completely between the evaluators.  I hope that clarifies.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Luis.  

 And I think Chengetai is right.  We need to start.  And hopefully you'll develop more clarity in your groups.

 I'll just add one aspect here which, we also -- we could potentially give a score for you to work with as a cut-off score for what goes into green and what goes into orange.  But it varies a lot by issue areas.  For example, last year, in 2020, in the environment thematic track, there weren't very many high-scoring proposals.  There weren't many proposals to start off with.  So that -- the evaluation of proposals in that thematic track was approached a little bit differently from evaluation of proposals in the trust track which have many more proposals and many more high-scoring proposals.

 So, really, it's up to each group working in an issue area to take into account the sum of what they have and the ranking of the scores.  You cannot necessarily apply exactly the same scoring cut-off point in each issue area.

 But I think let's continue now.  Chengetai was right, we're overthinking this.

 And, MAG members, if you want to adapt how you do this and do it differently from what we've suggested in the guidelines, please go ahead.  The guidelines are indicative.  They're there for you to use.  But you can also develop your own approach, as long as you produce the result which is the green, orange, and red baskets.

 So on that note, let's break into groups.  

 Observers, thank you for being with us.  Unfortunately you cannot participate in this part of the meeting.  There are confidentiality concerns, and the MAG will work in the MAG workshop evaluation groups.

 Luis, can you just explain to everyone how the groups will be formed.

 >>LUIS BOBO:  Very quickly, Anriette, I just repasted in the chat the links.  Basically you can check or remind what group you are and you can join directly.  Now I'm going to open the groups and they are named.  One is economic and social inclusion focus area alone.  Other group is universal access and meaningful connectivity together with the trust and security cross-cutting issue area and then the rest of the cross-cutting issue areas.  

 You check on that page and you can join.  So I will help joining people.  So you can start as soon as -- that's all.  You have that to get the documents.  That's all from here.  I will start as soon as you say, Anriette.  And we will close when you say.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And, Luis, just perhaps remind all the facilitators of groups just exactly which documents they should be using in the folders when they do the discussion?

 >>LUIS BOBO:  The main one primarily is the Excel document with the rank.  It has two tabs.  One tab is it has the score and variance and the rank, and it is filterable by themes.  So you can just see the overall rank or just the rank with thematic area.  

 The second tab is just helping -- it has the policy questions and the submitter information.

 There are two other Excel files.  This is just the organizers and speakers.  So we just added the speakers with the rank and theme or area of those workshops.  So you can see how diversity is represented in the top or in the selected proposals.  That's all.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Luis.

 So, everyone, we are now running very late.  And I apologize for that because it clearly means that the discussion was prompted by instructions not being clear enough.

 So we're going to have to cut your breakout time a little bit.  I suggest that you come back -- I'm just looking at the agenda.  Come back in an hour.  So that would be -- we were supposed to reconvene at 11:30 UTC after a break.  We now won't have a break.  So, in fact, you now will have -- let's make it -- we'll reconvene at 11:45 UTC.

 And then we will go into reports from the groups.

 And those reports will have to be very concise and we'll develop next steps.

 So please go ahead in your groups.  Secretariat and myself will hop around the groups to make sure that you are on track.  And good luck for this process!  Please start, Luis.

 For those MAG members who might not have completed the evaluation, please don't let that stop you from joining your group, your input will still be valuable.  

 [Breakout groups]

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Good.  I think we are back.

 So thanks for doing that.  I'm sorry that you ended up with less time than anticipated.

 You can, and I think some of you might want to have a meeting that you convene on your own in your evaluation groups.  We do need the results of this step in the process by this week Friday.

 But on that, apologies if you were interrupted before you completed the process, but we started late.  Unfortunately, we had to do that.

 And we also have to remind everyone that we have a hard stop for the end of the meeting.  Our captioners cannot stay later than 1400 UTC, so we do need to stick to time for the rest of the day.

 So I see Carlos Afonso says -- Can you hear me, Amrita?  Is that better?  Amrita was saying she can't hear me clearly.  That's better.  I will try to speak close to the mic.  

 And Carlos Afonso is pointing out not enough time.  We accept that.  We really understand that you might not have had enough time, and you can make up the time with your meetings.  In fact, it's important for the workshop evaluation groups to meet.

 But let's get a progress report.

 So can we start with the first group?  I think that is the group Maria Paz.  If your group can just report progress, remind us which issue areas you were covering, and just give us an initial indication of what you found and how far you managed to get and what you still need to do.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:   Yes.  I can do it.  It's possible that I share my screen to show in the Excel?  No.

 >>LUIS BOBO:   Yes, Maria Paz.  This is Luis.  I will give you permission immediately.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:   Thank you, Luis.

 >>LUIS BOBO:   Now you can.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:   Yes.  Here we go.

 So from our group, the approach that we took, it was filtering the whole stack of proposal that was provided in order to identify what were the highest scored proposal for our issue.  Our issue was the economic and social inclusion and human rights.  It's an issue that received the largest number of proposal, 68.

 We considered -- because there was not a clear definition about the number of proposal for each basket, considering the previous experience of other years of IGF, we decided to make a transit area allocation that will be reviewed when we have a more specific number.

 Highlighted in green, the first 20 proposals that were highest scored.  We reviewed that 20 highest scored proposal.  We considered that, in general, they represent a good mix of topics that are part of the issue that we are curating.

 And then we move to identify the next 21 in the orange basket.  In this orange basket, we looked for particular proposals that could be complementary in terms of topic, because they are topics that are not covered by the first 21 high scored that were already in the green basket.  And two particular proposals stand out from that perspective.  Those are the two ones that are in the darker orange in the file that are two topics.  One related to digital labor and the other related to business and human rights that were not captured in the topics that were high scored in the first 21.  So those two we consider are good candidates to be considered in the green basket finally.  So we will be proposing to move these two to the green basket.

 We keep the other ones in the orange basket, waiting for the final number allocations in order to see what others from those can pass to the green basket.  And transitorily again, because of the uncertainty about the numbers proposal, we have put the rest of the proposal in the red basket because, in general, we defer to the evaluation that we did with the scoring of the proposal.  And in general, we see there is a lot of agreement, in general, in the criteria of the group members that were participating today in the call.  But I will highlight that from our group, there was more than a half of the members missing so I think this will require, also, a further review of line interchange in the email list.

 The last thing that I wanted to point out that you can see here in the screen that there are some proposals that are marked in purple.  Those are proposals, in one case, that could be identified as proposal that are better suited to be part of a different issue, not our issue about social and economic inclusion and human rights.  We identified some of them at the beginning of the process, but according to the instruction from the secretariat and our Chair, we proceed to score them, and now we can propose -- finally, there is agreement in our group; we can propose them to remove to the other issues.  In general, as you see, they are well-scored proposal.  They are high-scored, good-quality proposals, but maybe better suited for other issues.

 And the final one, which is the one in the line 133 is a possible merger with other two proposal that we consider.  The proposal itself is good quality, but it has the particularity that is very similar to the other two that are identified here that represent regional discussion.  So we think that this -- this session could be strengthened as a global discussion with some participant of the original other two proposal, the 200, 300, 200A.

 So I will stop there.  I will receive any questions and also ask my colleagues to complement if I am missing something.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you, Maria Paz.

 Does anybody want to add from that group?

 And, Maria Paz, the two workshops that you've identified for different issues, which -- which issue areas would you recommend them for?  So that's 243 -- Oh, I can't see.  The number is disappearing.  Yes, 243, and -- okay.  It's disappeared.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:   Sorry.  Yes, because I have to find my notes for telling you, but I can tell you --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   That's fine.  That's fine.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:   I can tell you because I have it in a different file.

 Yes, in the case of the 243, it will be for emergent regulation issue, and the same for 261.

 And in the case of 122, it will be for trust security and stability cross-cutting issue.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And I suggest that you just forward them.  That you just do an email and send the email to the facilitator or to the MAG list for those groups to consider including -- including those proposals.  There's no need for them to re-evaluate them, but they can look at them and consider them.

 And on the proposal for merger, I get the sense there's consensus in the group that those two proposals would work well together as a regional session.  So if there's consensus, I think you can just pass that on to the secretariat.

 I think what the secretariat needs to be very clear guidelines on how to frame the request to the organizers to consider a merger.

 So -- But I can ask you to just follow up with the secretariat after that.  And congratulations.  You actually did really well.  You got a lot done.

 Any questions for this group or any comments?

 Just checking chat and checking hands.

 Nothing.  Good.

 The next group.  Can we listen to the next group?  I think that was the group -- Afi, I think that was the group I think you were in.  I'm not sure who else was in that group.  But can we move -- actually let's do the group that had universal access as one of their issue areas next.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Madam Chair, if I can share my screen, please?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Luis will give you access.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Okay.  Sure.  Now I am sharing with you the document that we evaluate.

 We worked, as you know, with two groups of things; one large and cross-cutting, which is trust, security and stability, and one main focus about universal access.

 And what we did was to have the evaluation together with the overall composition, and we started marching the ones that we agreed that will have no quality to deserve to be in the program, marked them as red for the red basket.  In the case -- we started at the bottom, of course.  And in the case we had some doubts about this agreement, then we marked them as orange.

 After that, we started marking the ones with green that we all together thought that they were good proposals.  And in the ones that we also have some kind of doubts or disagreement, we marked them as orange, and at the point on which we believed that all of the remaining ones deserved to be orange.

 After that, we just selected the ones regarding one issue group, the one with trust, security, and stability only.  And we started to review how many of the -- of the proposals were in the green basket, the others on the red basket, and the others on the orange basket.  The same with the main focus on universal, which as you can see, have fewer proposals to evaluate.  And we started to review the ones that were -- have higher score but were in orange basket to confirm if those deserve to be in the green basket.  So that's what we did, with one or two that we have in that situation having a final number of eight of these proposals in the green and ten in the orange basket.  And finally to confirm the ones that belong to the red.

 We didn't finish the work.  We need to still reviewing and some of those need to be marked as red, definitely, and also some others could actually belong to the green basket as well as on the other group.

 And we also didn't have the time to discuss about mergers.  There are some suggestions, but we didn't finish that task.

 So it's pretty much the summary.  I don't know if anyone would like to add something else.  Carlos, perhaps, who was facilitating the group.

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   No, that's okay.  That's better.  That's what we managed to achieve.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Roberto, and everyone else in the group.  So I think you've achieved quite a lot.  You clearly will need to continue, but I'm hoping that you can do that without too much difficulty by Friday.

 So congratulations with the two first two groups.

 The next group.  Can we have your report?  I think that's the group with Adam and Tereza, and I'm not sure who else was in that group.  Please go ahead.

 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA:  I can take it.

 >>LUIS BOBO:   Yes.  Please go ahead, Tereza.

 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA:  Okay.  So I'll be brief because I'm coming from the presumption that we don't know these proposals so there is no point in kind of going -- going into any individual ones, but we were covering merging and cross-cutting issues except for trust.

 And we started our modus operandi in a group which basically only comprised four MAG members:  Juliana, Roman, Adam, myself.

 We took the advice of actually starting with the red ones.  Yes.  So we took the least-scored ones, and then we took some time on actually reviewing there is any proposal that we would like to fight for and bring it from the red basket to the orange basket.  And there actually were some cases and some proposals that made it, as you can see, that we would like to further consider, with some -- with some comments that we also noted down, like input direction, people said that improvement should be going.

 We, of course, also looked at the top, highest-ranking proposals and put them in the green basket here.  Obviously we had some discussion about the indicated number again, but at the beginning we had only five so we decided we need to make it a bit -- a bit wider.

 Now, we have not managed to discuss mergers yet.  We have not managed to discuss the proposals fit for the preparatory -- preparatory phase, but we started kind of selecting some proposals in the orange basket and, among ourselves, kind of qualifying in which direction possible improvements should be going.

 I'll stop here.  I'll ask my fellow MAG members from this issues stream if they have anything to add, and of course other MAG members and participants for any questions.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Tereza.

 Anyone else to add?

 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Hi, it's Adam.  There are two things there I wanted to highlight.  There was a session -- sorry, there is a proposal that had a high degree of variants, and it found itself in the red basket based on our simple evaluation.  And what we looked at when we found the variant was to look at -- well, what we actually found was that my three colleagues on the call all scored it significantly higher than I did.  I had it in the 2 area and they had it in the high 3s or 4s.  And this is the kind of thing I was trying to say before we broke to the sessions, is that where there is a variance and someone has scored it 2, for example, and someone -- and others have scored it 4, it's good to examine why that is the case.  So we've highlighted that particular session, and it's up to me, I think, to justify my low score and for others to persuade me why they scored it higher.  And hopefully we may, as a result, positively thinking, we may move that further up.

 And that's the sort of exercise we were thinking of.  So we've moved something from what would have been, on its score, a red into orange for that reason.

 The other that was highlighted was one on gaming.  We wanted to highlight this because it is an interesting topic.  The speakers are expert, but it lacked diversity.  It lacked certain elements that could be improved.  And one of them was gender diversity, clearly.  And it's also a proposal from Polish participants, experts from the host country, and we didn't see very many from the host country.  I'm not sure that this is something we want to overfocus on, but it is another example of why something was taken from, on its face, score red into highlighting it as a -- as one that definitely needs consideration as orange.

 So just to mention that.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Adam.  That's helpful. 

 That's why Luis chose the results and the ranking with you. It is why he includes the variance, so that you can focus on the proposals with the variance. 

 The other groups also managed to discuss proposals with the variance. I hope you did. If you haven't, then add that to what you saw me do this week to complete the task. 

 I think, Adam, the consideration -- or let me ask you a question back. If this proposal is now an orange, do you want to go back to organizers and ask them to make their panel more diverse, or are you happy with it as it is? 

 >>ADAM PEAKE: That would be my thought, that we would want to consider this over the next week, yes. If that were me, that's exactly what I would do, but, you know, we're a group. Defer to the group. 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Well, I don't think that you need to answer that now. That's what we would like you to do in the coming days. 

 I noticed that none of the groups looked or identified proposals for the preparatory phase. I think that is fine, if you have done that. It would be good to reflect on that. But if there's anyone in your groups that have noticed a proposal that you think would fit into the preparatory phase, check whether the organizers have agreed to that, and then we can highlight those. But I wouldn't consider it a priority. I think that, really, the priority is for us to get the green baskets. 

 And I have a question which I'm opening to everyone, and that is we haven't today treated the emerging issue areas or the cross-cutting areas -- emerging and cross-cutting areas differently from the main focus areas. 

 What are people's feeling about this? You know, when we get to the point where we structure the program, do you feel that we need to allocate more time and more sessions to the main focus areas? Or do you think that we should not or is there perhaps -- are there some of the cross-cutting issue area proposals that might be clustered well together with the main focus areas? 

 I just want to test whether anyone has had any insights or thoughts on that, as you did the evaluation. 

 So I'm hoping the floor to that and any other comments. 

 >>VINT CERF: Hi, Anriette. It's Vint Cerf. 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Hi, Vint. Lovely to have you here. Go ahead. 

 >>VINT CERF: Thank you so much. Just responding to your question about the time spent on main focus plus emerging issues, I think that it's a tricky balance because the main focus items we want to be able to report on at the end of the IGF so that we can have, you know, some substance coming out of the meeting; but, at the same time, it's really important to have enough time on the emerging issues so that we can set the stage for the work in the following year. 

 So I struggle a little bit with that balance too. But given the importance of showing some sort of results, I think I would probably tend to favor the main topics in the hope of getting substantive reporting out of the meeting. 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks, Vint. That's actually good guidance. 

 Maria Paz, I see you've asked for the floor. Please go ahead. 

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES: Thank you. Sorry. I was having trouble finding my unmute. 

 Just only to remind that when we had the first discussion about the issue areas, I recall -- and it was what we were sharing with my group in the discussion -- that we initially assigned it a weight of 60% to the main issues and 40% to the cross-cutting and emerging issues, but we never go further in detail about how that will, for example, be shared inside the different issues. 

 For example, if the main issue areas are 30% each one, and the other ones will divide the remaining 40 with 10 each one, we left that issue for further consideration. And I think we have arrived at that moment. 

 I don't know if even the decision of having the weight of the 60-versus-40 percent, if that's something that we can still review right now, but I just want to recall that that was the regional conversation that we had when we were defining the issues.

 Thank you. 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: So, Maria, just that because you were also fading for me a little bit. So we did consider initially connecting some of the sessions in the cross-cutting areas to one of the main focus areas. Is that what you were reminding us of? Am I right? Because if that is it, I think that's something that could be done still -- 

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES: Sorry. I think that -- No, I was not talking about that. Can you hear me better now? 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, that's better. Go ahead. 

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES: Yeah. No, no, no. I was reminding that at the beginning, when we defined the different issue areas for this year, we initially allocated a weight of 60% for the main issues and a -- 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yeah. Yeah.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES: -- 40% for the cross-cutting and emerging. What we didn't define in that moment is what would be the insight allocation in those groups. For example, if the main issue would be 30% and 30% and in the case of the cross-cutting and emerging, it would be 10% each one, for completing the other 40%, we didn't talk about that because another criteria that also can be considered -- and I think the working group on process, they advanced that analysis in their document, and they kindly shared it with us in advance to this meeting -- that, for example, we could have into consideration the percentages of proposals that were submitted for each one of the issues. 

 For example, if you look at the numbers, the result is very different because, for example, inside the main issues, the 75% of the proposals were for economic and social inclusion and human rights versus the 25% for a universal access. 

 So that will be reflected in the program. We'll give it a more balanced allocation. And I don't remember the names for the -- sorry -- the numbers for the cross-cutting and emerging issues, but the same applied for them. 

 Thank you. 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes. And I think the implication of doing that is that it could affect what Vint was referring to, you know, the desire to have more comprehensive outcomes in those main focus areas. But we'll find a solution, and we'll get back to that. 

 Let's hear from Adam and then from Roberto. 

 >>ADAM PEAKE: Yeah. I wonder, I mentioned in the chat if we could take a look -- if the secretariat could display slide number 14 from the statistics deck that was presented. First of all, this goes to the -- this is a slide about thematic comparisons by average token score. 

 And I was just wondering -- if we could look at that? I think one secretariat, one of you, should have that slide deck because you presented it first up this morning. 

 What it shows is a thematic comparison by average total score. It's showing the top 40 by score, and it's showing the top 60 by score and with a diagram that illustrates the percentage by the thematic areas. 

 Is this acceptable given what we've designed for the thematic areas, the percentages that we anticipated by theme? Because if it is, our scoring gives us our direction. 

 If it's not, then we start to have to fiddle around a little bit with, you know, pulling potentially orange -- I'm sorry. You don't have the slide that I'm talking about on the screen. I wonder if -- oh, Anja. It may be clearer if you can see that. 

 Yes, that's the one I'm talking about. 

 You know, is this reflective of what we anticipated when we started to think about the balance between, you know, different thematic areas? Or would this be a sort of an abhorrence? Would it be totally wrong and against what we were setting for ourselves as a target, remembering that our themes came from our first consultation with the community in January? So this is something that we're responding to the community's input from, but, at the same time, we ought to caution against setting ourselves hard rules which we follow as opposed to guidance that we follow. 

 I hope this comment is helpful. 

 So, basically, I'm saying if we accepted the top 60, are we offending the principle around themes and the percentage we assign to themes? 

 I hope that's clear. 

 Thank you. 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I think that is clear, and I think it is a good question to answer because I think it takes you back to what your original goals were and what the goals for IGF in 2021 and, in fact, partly, also, the goals for IGF 2020 and 2019, which is to be more focused in discussions. 

 I think, for example, in 2020, if we used a proportionate approach, we would have had very few sessions on environment. 

 If we just used, you know, scoring, and yet environment was identified as an important area for the IGF in 2020. And so, therefore, it was included. 

 So I think, yes, obviously one can adjust and needs to look at this, but I think the MAG needs to keep the big picture, the overall goals, the thematic issue goals, of the IGF in mind. 

 Roberto, let's hear from you. 

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Thank you very much, Anriette. 

 Yes. I was just wanting to complement that analysis about what we did when we made the call for proposals because it wasn't just an agreement inside the MAG. It was actually trying to influence to the proposals actually to be -- at least to know what was the emphasis for this IGF 2021, and that's why it is included in the (indiscernible) proposals. This distribution, I mean, having 60% assigned for the main focus areas and having the remaining 40% for the emerging and cross-cutting themes. 

 And the response from the community, when we see the numbers of the different proposals that we have about this 203 proposals that we received, actually, the response was 45% for the main focus areas and a 55% for the emerging and cross-cutting themes. 

 The other thing we defined was to give flexibility inside each of these two groups. That's something that we also needed to take into account when we are going to define a program. That is why it is important for some or maybe many of us to have an idea at least about the slots that we have in order to allocate the final recommended proposals. 

 In the remaining days, I think at least for these last days, it would be good to have an idea of those numbers, and they do have insight and exercise about this distribution, again particularly in the group that are evaluating three of these emerging and cross-cutting themes because I will say that in that (indiscernible), it is easier for the group of economic and social inclusion because there's only one particular subject that they have to analyze, but it will be harder in the case -- 

 It's hard for us in the case of universal access and also evaluating the second one that has a lot of proposals, which is the trust, security, and stability. 

 And, of course, as I said before, it will be hard for the other group. But I think it will be good to consider at least some numbers about this particular distribution. 

 Thank you, Maria. 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks, Roberto. 

 By the way, we went and checked the process last year, and in this phase, MAG members did not have target numbers. They were asked to just evaluate by quality, and we only did number balancing after that. So this process this year is actually not yet different from last year. 

 But I want to flag an issue that Lucien raised in the chat. And I know at one point, this was going to be included in the proposal form. But are they perhaps some of the proposals in the cross-cutting areas that are also connected to one of the main focus areas? Is that perhaps something else that could be considered or looked at? 

 It certainly looked like that to me, from looking at the titles, that there were particularly emerging regulation. There were some that could be linked to one of the issue areas. 

 And, Lucien, I don't know if you want to speak to this or if anyone else wants to reflect upon this.

 What I am saying here, to be clear, is we do not necessarily need to treat all of the cross-cutting areas or proposals in those cross-cutting areas as completely standalone.  If they do meaningfully relate to one of the main focus areas, we should consider that.

 Courtney, I see you have your hand up.  Please go ahead.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Thank you so much.  Courtney Radsch, MAG members.

 Yeah, I feel like some of the cross-cutting and emerging issues definitely touched on the main issue area.  So for me, a lot of the ones that I evaluated were not, like, super, you know, only in one category.  So I feel like we have a little bit more flexibility there.

 It seems to me that we should try to respect a little bit -- kind of an essentially even or slightly more on main themes division, but not worry -- and then, you know, have the final outcome result reflect what the community submitted as proposals.

 I think it would be kind of false to what the community is telling us that they want to discuss if we had, say, an equal division between the three cross-cutting issues when we didn't see that necessarily reflected in the number of proposals submitted.  You know, and what I found is that most of the sessions that I evaluated, you know, had to do with some level of policy that would be relevant to a couple of different areas.

 So I think, you know, we could aim to do that, but I also think we need to give ourselves, you know, some flexibility because we also want a high-quality program and a diverse program.  So, you know, we don't want a hundred cybersecurity sessions just because we had a bunch of really high-quality cybersecurity proposals, or, you know, whatever the issue is.

 So seems to me first we try to get at that kind of general proportional representation, and then we look at what that means for the full program, because we definitely want the environment to be in there but that's also kind of a very, very specific dynamic versus kind of broader issues, and certainly reflective of what the community submitted.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Courtney.  And I think another consideration is if you look at regional diversity.  So we might have had fewer proposals in universal access and meaningful connectivity, but most of those would probably have come from developing countries, whereas most of the trust and security and stability proposals might have come from developed countries.

 So I think the divest of the community and the different concerns also need to be considered.  And I think having that flexibility for the MAG to build a meaningful program is very important.  So I think that's an important consideration.

 I think also keeping the consideration on the table that you want to be more outcome oriented.  That has to be -- that has to be maintained as well.

 Any other comments or questions before I think what we need to do now -- I see no other hands -- is just to refine what the next steps are.

 So I will start, but I'm going to ask Roberto to add, and the secretariat, and then anyone else who wants to contribute to this.

 So firstly, the groups need to reconvene.  I think as Maria Paz said earlier, they were absent members.  So I urge all the group facilitators to reach out on the lists and convene, and encourage those MAG members who were not with us today to join.

 And for you, then, in those discussions to complete the process that you started of producing the green, orange, and red baskets, discussing possible mergers, possible preparatory phase events, and any other requests for feedback or for updates from organizers.

 I think the other consideration that we'd like you to take up in your groups is this idea of issue areas, how they relate to one another; any thoughts you have on program structure, on subthemes, you know, the discussion that we put in the task but there wasn't time to deal with that today.

 For the secretariat, we need to start looking at giving you some target numbers to look at, and that will depend in large part on the number of parallel tracks.

 The MAG had decided earlier this year to have no more than five parallel tracks.  That will have an impact on the number of sessions that can be accommodated.  So what the secretariat will do in the next few days is to give the MAG some options to look at of number of sessions and number of parallel tracks.  We'll start with five parallel tracks, which is the goal the MAG aimed for.  That might not enable us to have enough -- enough space for the workshops we want to accommodate, but we'll find a way of getting to a number that everyone's happy with.

 What else do we need to do at this point?  Chengetai, Anja, and Luis, any other tasks for the groups that I've overlooked?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I myself can't think of anything at the moment, but maybe the others can.  Anja?

 >>ANJA GENGO:   Nothing from me as well.  Thank you, Anriette.  

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And, Roberto, you've already developed quite a detailed list of tasks which we've shared.  Can you complement or update that list that I just ran through?

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Thank you, Anriette.  No, I think it's -- it's clear.  I mean, we could use that document as reference.  I included -- even though I didn't include as it was suggested and I agreed at that time, we didn't include the final numbers of course, not even as a reference, but I did include some consideration about percentages about this allocation.  That, of course, is only reference.  But it's good in order for the groups to have an idea on how to distribute this -- this -- the decision about the recommended proposals to be approved.

 And the other thing I would like to add is, yes, I would like to strengthen this recommendation of having a meeting during the following days.  At least in my case, I will ask my group, who is facilitated by Carlos -- which is facilitated by Carlos, I will also ask the groups to convene during the following days in order to have the final decisions that we need to do.

 Thank you, Anriette.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Roberto.  And I would ask all the groups to complete this process by Friday, which will then give the MAG -- the secretariat and the MAG the opportunity to consolidate the decision so that we can present it and package it for you for the meeting on 30 June.  Because on 30 June, we have to finalize the decisions.

 So is that clear?  Are there any questions on these -- on the next steps in terms of finalizing the selection of workshops?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Yes.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Go ahead, Courtney.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Thank you.

 So with respect to workshops that we want to make recommendations for changes to, could you please clarify the precise, like, steps and timing of that?  Are we doing that as the MAG working group on that topic?  Is that done by the secretariat?  Does that happen this week?  Does that happen next week?  Could you just give a little bit more clarity?

 And then also, how -- what happens when they send it back?  How does that evaluation process -- Could you just, for those of us that are new, explain a little bit more of the details?

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And that's a good question to ask, Courtney.

 Can I ask the secretariat to respond to that?  Because the secretariat is the point of contact with the organizers, with the proposers, because remember, the MAG is scoring these proposals blind.  You do not know who the proposers are, and so we maintain that protocol of communications with organizers managed by the secretariat.

 So, Anja, Chengetai, can you outline --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I didn't catch the real beginning, but I propose that the question is that when you've requested changes and you have these conditional accepts, who would make the final evaluation; is that correct?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   I'm really asking for more detail about the precise process of what does the MAG working group convey to whom?  Who conveys that to the workshop proposals?  What happens after that?  So really whole process from starting from today.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.  I mean, once you've made your selection and also the conditional yes, the secretariat will be the one that will contact the proposers and give them the -- the results and the comments, and especially also the comments if they need to improve anything or if they need to -- to merge.

 What we would prefer is that since it is the MAG that has made those recommendations is that if they could review, after we've received -- you know, we set a deadline, and after we've received the -- the amendments to those that needed to be amended or improved in any way, or merged, that those, we send it back to the groups and then the groups can say, yes, it satisfies our.  So we will just be acting as a go between.

 But if the MAG thinks that they would want to leave it to us, then, yes.  I mean, we've done it both ways.  It just really depends on how much the MAG wants to be involved in the process.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Chengetai.

 So, Courtney, the immediate next step would be for the evaluation working groups to identify and document the feedback or request for updates or proposals for mergers.  You share that with the secretariat.  The secretariat will then communicate that to the organizers and set a deadline for a response.  And then it would go back to the evaluation groups ideally.  That's how it was done last year as well.

 But as Chengetai said, it can be done differently, but I propose that's how we proceed.

 So this is -- this is also, then, for the completion of this phase of the MAG's work by Friday to also document those cases where you would ask the secretariat to follow up with the proposers.

 Does that -- does that answer you, Courtney?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Yes.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Good.

 Anything else?

 I think -- I see no further hands, and we are also back on time, almost.  So I will close this session now.  And thanks, everyone, for the work.

 It was quite rushed this year.  Normally the MAG would have done more of this work in their groups prior to the Open Consultation.  And that's also why we -- we staged or organized the meetings this June, to have time between the first day of the MAG meeting and the second day.  So we actually -- this is -- we're actually on track.  We anticipated that you would need time between today and the second day of this MAG meeting, which is why it's scheduled for 30 June.

 So thanks, everyone.  Thanks for bearing with the process.  And I know it's challenging.  But I think we are mostly on track.

 We are now moving on to something different.  We've done with workshop evaluation for today.  And for the final hour of the meeting, we'll hear from the MAG working groups.  And MAG working groups have been active, and they have some recommendations, and specifically on IGF 2021, some that are broader.  And I'm very happy to thank them for their work and invite them to share any recommendations that they have with the group.  Starting with the MAG Working Group on Hybrid Meetings.

 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA:   Okay.  Thank you very much, Anriette.  I will try to be brief.

 So as our exchanges last week kind of already touched upon, the session proposals that we've been reviewing have not been as creative on the hybrid aspects as we maybe would have expected or would have liked.  However, we all need to realize that the circumstances are unique and that there are very unknowns in the planning, both for us as MAG, the IGF Secretariat, but of course also for those submitting the workshop proposals.  Therefore, any proposals that, in our view, put some thinking into how to move on from the previous way of having just remote participation to really more meaningful involvement and equal involvement of both on-site and online participants should be kind of appreciated and would, in our view, tick the box to some extent.

 The same goes, obviously, for the proposals; that certainly put some thinking into enhancing the interactivity.  That is to say going beyond listening to panel speeches and then leaving the last 15 minutes for discussion.  You know, so anything that has moved in this direction is definitely -- is definitely great.

 Now, what I wanted to point out, and I'm talking for both Adam Peake, my co-chair of the working group, and myself is that this is a process.  This is something that we are just starting, and it is going to last a few years, as the community adjusts.  The session organizers needs to adjust, the MAG needs to adjust, the IGF Secretariat needs to adjust, the U.N. needs to adjust, the community in general as well as the host country need to adjust.

 So hybrid meetings, we feel, are definitely here to stay.  That is clear.  And this is also an opportunity for the IGF, an opportunity to showcase that in even dealing with digital policy issues can also embrace tools for engagement, online tools for engagement.

 It is also kind of an opportunity to maybe make the IGF more attractive for communities that we have long been struggling with bringing to the IGF to justify their participation, such as governments or the private sector, because for them, being kind of able to meaningfully participate in the meeting, really active and not just observe, in an online manner could be a good incentive.

 So I will maybe conclude by saying that please do not seek clarity for every single aspect on how the hybrid IGF will work.  Yes, there was confusion in the evaluation.  There will be confusion now.  And the reason is that there is no clarity.  We do not have and we will not have some crucial information for quite some time, such as what will be the number of participants, and their online and in situ balance, what will be the exact arrangements on-site for sessions that only have online speakers?  How are the session organizers actually ready to experiment?  We are also limited by the tools that we can use in the session.  And we are, for instance, bound by Zoom, so there are limits to how experimental the session organizers can get.

 I would also like to encourage you that if you feel very strongly about these issues, please do join our Working Group on Hybrid Meetings, because that is where we are trying to shape these debates.  So if this is your topic, we have a mailing list that is open for everybody to sign up for, and we would be very glad to have you -- have you with us.

 Last point that we feel that we really, really need to focus on in the coming weeks, first, really make the process of registration to the event and navigation throughout the event as smooth and as easy and intuitive as only possible.  This is absolutely essential.

 Second, our working group, and I'm happy to announce it, will provide a 24/7 kind of social networking platform where both participants that are normally participating on-site but also those online can kind of jump in anytime and connect.  A network with others.  We will be using the Wonder platform for this.  Some of you have experienced it already in the last Open Consultations.

 And last point, please make sure that we go away from the webinar format.  It is really important that participants know who is in the session and that some kind of a transparent and open interaction can be going on while the sessions are in progress.

 That will be it from me.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much for that, Tereza.  So some very specific proposals there for the secretariat to consider or to implement with regard to registration and with regard to meeting format.

 I think your point about the process and about co-creating it, I think it's very valuable that you made that.  I made it yesterday actually based on your report.

 And just a reminder, Tereza invited people to join this working group.  So this Working Group on Hybrid Meetings is open to non-MAG members.  So for all the observers that are here and MAG members, invite your colleagues and your participants to join this working group.

 As Tereza pointed out, this process of learning more about how to be effective in hybrid meetings is not just for 2021.  This is a longer term effort which we all need to invest in.

 Any questions for this group or any additional comments from Adam, the co-chair, or other members of this group?

 No comments?  No questions?  Next, can we hear from the working group on outreach and communications?  I'm very happy that this group also had a very good session together with the secretariat.  So if you can update us and suggest or table specific recommendations for consideration.

 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  Yes.  Anriette, thank you very much for the invitation.

 As you already mentioned, we have already met with the secretariat in order to look for how can we support -- better support the communication activities from the secretariat.  And I think we have come to a very reasonable strategy in order to take advantage of the social media resources that are already available now in the strategy that is already in place from the joint support in the IGF.

 We have prepared a sound document which is to be fully discussed in order for us to find out which could be the most important for answers who can help us to spread the word coming up from responsibles at the NRIs or at the different DC and BPF groups as well as from the different U.N. agencies and institutions who already support the IGF organization.

 I don't know if from the -- from your side, Courtney, do you have any other specific comment on the strategies that we can use in terms of communication?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Sure.  Thank you so much.  This is Courtney, MAG member.

 So I think in addition to what you helpfully laid out, some of the overarching goals that we have for the coming weeks are to meet with the secretariat to really drill down into the communication strategy and figure out how we can really focus on understanding key objectives with respect to the journalistic community as an amplifier as well as key stakeholders that can help amplify the message in various forms of media, listservs, social media, et cetera, and drilling down into greater detail.

 We haven't discussed this internally but I think Amado kind of alluded to it, which is that at some point it will be great for all of the MAG to think about whether they can contribute contacts to build the capacity of the secretariat to create a database of journalists and key stakeholders who aren't already inside their sphere of influence.

 And I think that in the coming weeks, we'll have a social media strategy that also includes guidance for MAG members and trying to make it as easy as possible for you all to help amplify and connect through various media and whatever makes the most sense for you and your work.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Courtney and Amado.

 I think actually the social media strategy is also a component that will support the hybrid meeting because participation via social media becomes an element of being part of a hybrid process.  So I think that would be good if you can also present that or discuss that in the context of the hybrid meeting approach.

 Any additions from anyone else?  Or any questions for this group?

 And, secretariat, did you want to add, seeing as you are part of this process?  Which I think is very important because the communication strategy is implemented primarily by the secretariat.  So the idea here is that the MAG supports the secretariat and that they work in a complementary way.

 So, Anja, I'm not sure if you or Chengetai wanted to add anything at this point.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  What I can say is, yes, I know we do agree and we look forward to the meeting we're going to have with the group.

 We are getting Eleonora back, and part of her duties will be to liaise and help with the communication.  And she has experience in that.  She actually used to work for the communications department in New York as well.

 And we are still very hopefully to get Giacomo on board.  So, yes, we look forward to working together.  Yeah, that's all I can say about it.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  And holding thumbs for Giacomo joining us.  And this will become a priority as soon as we have the workshop evaluation process completed.  I think then the outreach and communications will really come into scope.

 Next can we hear from the MAG working group on IGF strategy and strengthening.

 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:  Thanks a lot, Anriette, for giving me the floor.  Can you hear me?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, yes, we can, Titti.

 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:  Okay.  So, thanks.  Thanks again to the MAG for giving this opportunity to share a few recommendations from the MAG working group on IGF strengthening and strategy.  

 I put the link in the chat to the notes that have been drafted by the working group, including some recommendations to the MAG.

 So the working group is -- has already send some recommendations last January on how to have a more impactful, strategic, and inclusive IGF and is very pleased that the MAG has already adopted some of them for this year, opting for an issue-driving approach in designing the IGF 2021 program.

 On this aspect, the working group on strategy is also suggesting that the issue themes are extended open also to the nonMAG members, experts, and also representatives of decision-making body and institutions that focus on that specific issue.

 Among the recommendation coming from the working group on strategies, one is related to the multiyear plan because the working group considers it very important to work to the development of this multiyear plan to anticipate the key policy area that the IGF will address in the remaining years, until 2025.

 The working group thinks this work is very important also to give more continuity and engagement between discussion in the previous year and this year also to link -- to increase the linkage between the institution -- within the IGF and the institution and the decision-making body.

 In this aspect, the working group also wants to share the main results that came from the questions that have been submitted with the MAG.  It was related to the multiyear plan where it was highlighted importance to include those activities in this plan:  The implementation of U.N. Secretary-General roadmap and also the IGF role with the roadmap, also in relation to the digital cooperation broadly.

 And it is important also to include in this plan, IGF communication and outreach also in partnership with the MAG working group on communication.  And it's important to also strengthen the interaction between the IGF and also international decision-making bodies and processes.

 And, also, important to include discussion on the evolution of the MAG's role, responsibility, together with the revision of the MAG terms of reference to integrate the evolution of the IGF.

 And, also, the importance to -- for the IGF to continue the activity on IGF institutional capacity development.

 And in this aspect, the working group on strategy is suggesting to integrate further this list that came out from these questions comparing the views with the NRIs, the BPFs, the policy networks, and also dynamic coalitions and having an open discussion with the IGF community.

 In relation to the capacity-building development, the working group on strategy also wants to recall what has been already included on the IGF retreat in July 2016, highlighting the role that the IGF should be improving capacity-building activities, not only as a knowledge trust but also disseminating best practice to students, government staff, activists, and so on.

 And, also, the importance to activate and promote partnerships with other institutions that are specialized in this capacity development.

 Further, the working group thinks this is important to increase the link between the MAG and ITU/UNDP network that has been established by the U.N. Secretary-General Roadmap for Digital Cooperation.

 One concern, MAG's roles and responsibilities and also the revision of MAG terms of reference, the working group on strategy is suggesting to organize an open discussion and also to collect input from MAG members and also from the past MAG members.

 And the working group also -- I think it's important to consider also the works that have been done from the previous MAG working group on IGF improvements because there are several proposals of the multiyear plan that have not yet been addressed and are related to the multiyear plan.

 So about all the recommendations, the working group wants to just remember the work that has been done on the priority areas, recalling one of the priority areas included in the document that's been produced by the working group.  Action area's title was "Action Area selected as a priority by the working group for further action," recalling that the priority 1 was focused on strengthening interaction between the IGF and decision-making bodies.

 And on this point, the working group thinks that it's important to share the initiatives that are taking place and are -- currently, the secretariat and also the MAG is managing these interactions.  

 As, for example, the strategy working group is suggesting the IGF secretariat to share the list of decision-making bodies that maybe could be reached for better engagement in IGF 2021 but also during the preparatory phase.

 One more recommendation is related to the parliamentary track where the working group on strategies is suggesting more important of the MAG in the planning in the development of the parliamentary track through the activation -- suggesting this aspect just to mention some of them.

 So working or suggesting to activate a MAG working group on parliamentarian track, working with UN DESA, the IGF secretariat, and the local host on the parliamentarians' engagement at IGF 2021 annual event.  Also to invite some representatives from IPU to join this working group.  And also to commit parliamentarians on specific issues, asking to share the main initiative and the best practice on the national -- by national and regional government.

 The last recommendation was related to establish a permanent team within the MAG groups in order to involve more members of parliament in the IGF activity.  And as a larger number of (indiscernible) parliamentarians should be institutional convened with a formal mandate from their own parliament.

 As last information I want to give you is related to a useful exercise that the working group also saw activating the last days as it has been decided to start a mapping exercise to map all the eight areas of U.N. Secretary-General Roadmap on Digital Cooperation and IGF activities.  This is to create more synergy in the integration among the IGF and the U.N. Secretary-General activity related to the roadmap implementation.  And the results of this activity will be shared to the MAG.

 So now I want to thank all the participants to contribute to the note that has been drafted by the working group.  And I invite the other co-chairs, Amrita Choudhury, Livia Walpen, and Roman Chukov, to add anything that I may have missed.

 Thanks a lot.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Titti.  Roman, Amrita, Livia, do you have anything to add?

 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Nothing else to add.  I think Titti said it all.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Amrita.  

 Roman, from you?  Nothing further.  

 And I see Livia isn't with us.

 Thanks very much for a very comprehensive list of recommendations that I see, if I look at them, some to be led by the working group, some by the secretariat, and all of it with the collaboration of the MAG.

 Are there any questions for this group?  Any comments on these recommendations?  And I welcome the secretariat as well, if they have any questions.

 I don't see any hands.  I suggest that you continue with these recommendations.  

 And I think as with the working group on outreach and communications, there are areas of these recommendations which need to be implemented together with the secretariat, but I think that's covered in your report, Titti, because you actually propose engagement with the secretariat and UN DESA around many of these activities which are -- for example, the multiyear planning which is led by them.

 And the way I under the proposal of the parliamentary track is really that you're not asking for the process to be completely changed in that it is led by the secretariat and the host country, you're asking for more MAG involvement in that and on a more continuous basis.  I think that's a good suggestion.  It's been a frequent request from MAG members.

 If there are no further comments here or further questions or concerns about these recommendations, I think we can take them as having the general support of the MAG.

 If there are no comments or questions.

 On that, we are finished with this segment of the agenda.  I see no hands.  I am just taking a last check.

 And thank you to the working group for your work.  And thank you to the many past MAG members and people from outside the MAG who have been supporting the work, particularly of the working group on IGF strategy.  It's really an invaluable work.

 And I think this working group is making such a significant contribution to maintaining an open conversation about the IGF and the U.N. Secretary-General's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation, which is a separate but very connected process.  And I really want to thank this working group for facilitating the sharing of ideas and information to keep these processes linked which is exactly how they should be.

 And we can now move to the close of the meeting.  And we are on time.  In fact, we are doing very well for time, relatively well for time.

 I wanted to just open the floor to all the MAG members.  I sense that there is a lot of uncertainty still about how this IGF will pan out.  I think what we can be really confident of is that the host country is preparing and preparing very thoroughly and very enthusiastically.  And I think as Tereza said earlier, there are still a lot of unknowns about having the hybrid format.  We don't know yet how many people will be there face-to-face and how many people will be virtual.  And I think we just have to give ourselves the space to work with in this relative uncertainty.

 I think we worked with uncertainty last year in a different way and, yet, we managed to organize together with the community a really successful IGF.  And I'm confident that we'll do that again.  It's challenging in a different way.

 But I invite MAG members in this last bit of the meeting just to share any concerns you have or any hopes that you have or any suggestions just so that we can get a little bit of a reflection on how you feel about progress, what you are most uncertain about, and what you feel we should emphasize and prioritize in planning.

 So I want to open the floor first to MAG members and then to observers.

 I see no MAG members yet asking for the floor.

 Courtney, I see you have your hand up.  So Courtney, and then we'll have Phalguni Sundaram.

 Courtney.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Thank you so much.  Thank you.

 This is my first year as a MAG member, so definitely enormous learning curve.

 I guess like the main piece of feedback I have is that it seems to me, you know, these three days of meetings, finding more time to let us discuss in groups and use this time for doing the work is -- I guess I was under the impression that that was what these meetings are for.

 I think it's going to be very challenging to find time another in the two days when people from across, you know, I don't know how many time zones, I guess 24 time zones can meet.

 And so I want to think about -- I want to encourage us to think about how we can use the time that we bring everyone together for doing more of the work and maybe making it clearer, like, when, if there are kind of informational updates -- and I obviously know this is a U.N. process so there's a lot of formality, but I'm just a little bit concerned that, you know, out of kind of two days of meetings, it feels to me like the only time we really got into the details of what we need to do here to go through the meetings.  And maybe I'm misunderstanding what this is about, but my understanding was that we were really going to delve into the proposals.  I think having one hour for that was insufficient.

 I think the discussions around process are important, but that maybe we can also put more emphasis on the time that we have to delve into the discussions, negotiations, and all of that around the program, because ultimately we can have the most amazing process, but if we don't have the time to implement it, it's not going to pay off as much.  

 So that's just some of my initial feedback and not in any way to like undermine all of the work that has gone into this.  I really appreciate it.  But I just thought I would provide some of that perspective.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.  Thanks for that, Courtney.

 Next we have Adam Peake from the MAG.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Oh, thank you very much, Anriette.

 Excuse me.

 So my thinking about what are we thinking about now and what's on my mind, it's really about the other sessions that are taking place at the IGF.  So as the MAG these last couple of days and the community members, the observers here, we've been thinking about workshops.  But we've also mentioned the high-level track.  We've mentioned the youth track.  There was -- Titti just mentioned parliamentarians.  And I think there's a general feeling that these sorts of tracks should be integrated in some way.  We don't really know what those tracks are in detail yet.  So that's a, you know, conundrum.  That's something we doesn't know as we think about the overall session.

 We also don't know about the other sessions.  We don't know about the open forums and the town halls and who will get them and how they will get them and how they will be assessed.  We don't know about the dynamic coalitions and the Best Practices Forums and the NRIs, how will they be integrated and where will they be on this agenda for the week in Katowice and also for, of course, people online.

 We have, I suppose, importantly, given the major innovation for this year and also coming from the roadmap, the policy networks.  How will they be integrated into the session?  Will they have sessions?  Will we try and -- you know, there are all kinds of things I won't try and speculate on.  But for me, it's going to be -- it makes it more challenging to think about the workshops and, which, historically, we've thought of as the core of the IGF because it's the -- it's where the community is represented and that ideas, and so on, and the dynamism -- I'll try a new word for that, dynamic nature of it all.

 So that's my concern, is I feel that we have a lot to do but there is a lot that is very unknown at the moment.

 So that's just my thought at the moment.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.  Thanks.  Yes, we need a big-picture view.  So secretariat, take note.  And they've been very busy, but this is definitely on the agenda to update you.

 Next I want to call observer, we have Phalguni, and then Vint Cerf, and then I'll go back to the MAG.

 Phalguni, you have the floor.

 >>PHALGUNI SUNDARAM BISWAL:  Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Introduce yourself.

 >>PHALGUNI SUNDARAM BISWAL: Thank you, Anriette.  Actually, I want to suggest academia.

 I want to suggest --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Go ahead.

 >>PHALGUNI SUNDARAM BISWAL:  I want to suggest that academia.  It would be good.

 >>JUNE PARRIS:   Academia.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   You mean to include academia in the IGF?

 >>PHALGUNI SUNDARAM BISWAL:  Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   The academic sector and academics?

 >>PHALGUNI SUNDARAM BISWAL: Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Well, it's an interesting point because at the moment they are -- they're very present in the IGF, but they generally, when we present participation statistics, they would be clustered together with civil society mostly.  And it's a bit of a conundrum, actually.  I think we should table that because I don't think we adequately reflect in the IGF the important role of academia.

 So that's a good suggestion.

 And you can type in the chat, if you want to elaborate a little bit on that.  Just type it in the chat.

 >>PHALGUNI SUNDARAM BISWAL: As you know, Anriette, European Union, OECD, (indiscernible) they already had a academia event.  UNDESA even, United (indiscernible) also recommended for academia.  But it's acknowledged that IGF also included, but few academia, not join.  It's per my knowledge.  I know.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I'll share in the chat with you some more information, but thanks for that contribution, Phalguni.

 >>PHALGUNI SUNDARAM BISWAL: Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Next, Vint, you have the floor.

 >>VINT CERF:   Thank you very much.  First of all, I really appreciate this thoughtful discussion.  I think Adam made some very good points about the scope of IGF now well beyond the various things that we've been discussing.

 So I think it would help all of us, MAG and observers like I am, to have a better understanding of the scope of plans for the IGF, recognizing that the Internet has become increasingly important to a broader range of participants than ever before.

 On that last point about academia, it's ironic, in a way, that it's the academics who invented this thing to begin with, so I suppose we ought to acknowledge their presence and contributions, which continue to this day.

 Perhaps most important thing, point that was made earlier, is enough time to discuss our views of the various proposals that are main for the various meetings.  I don't know whether it's possible to extend the meeting times from an hour to two hours, or something like that, but I am sure everyone feels a certain amount of time pressure to try to get things done.

 One thought that occurs to me is that if -- at the end of this one, of this IGF, the MAG could propose a process for the next MAG's operation, perhaps we could remove from the debate all of the process discussions because we would have settled on a process for planning -- planning the next IGF and spend most of our time in discussions on the content and selection rather than spending a lot of time trying to figure out what the process should be.  I don't know if that's possible, but maybe that would make things more efficient.

 That's all I have.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Vint.

 You know, it's a very good suggestion.  And I think -- I think it happens that there is documentation of process, but there's also -- because it's such a bottom-up process, there's also a kind of re-opening of process every year.  And I think that's a challenge for an -- you know, it's the balance between institutionalizing process and consolidating process and keeping it open and bottom-up.

 I certainly think that it's really necessary to document process.  And the secretariat and I have started.  We've been too busy to do much work on it, but we've started a document that actually documents all the different approaches to decisions such as work of selection.  And I really hope that we can have time this year to open it up as a kind of Wiki to past MAG members to also contribute, so that even if the next MAG wants to make adjustments to the process, at least there's very clear capturing of what it is that they change, because you're quite right, we do lose a lot of time in doing that.  So it's a very good suggestion.

 Next I give the floor to MAG member Sook-Jung Dofel.

 >>SOOK-JUNG DOFEL:   Yes, hello to everyone.  Thank you very much for organizing this.  And I really appreciate.  I know how much work it goes into planning and organizing such thing as we had also today.  And I just wanted to say that I -- I really like how you organized it with regard to the evaluation of the workshop, the proposals, meaning that you indicated how much time that would consume to evaluate at each, all the proposals.  So I could block and plan my agenda according to -- according to what was needed.

 And I feel sometimes a little bit lost when it comes to -- to the tasks that we are facing.  So, for instance, today I just heard, okay, we have to evaluate all the proposals by Friday, and I was not really prepared for doing so.  Meaning that tomorrow and the day after, I'm actually quite packed with other appointments that I have work-wise.  And I would -- I would ask you to maybe update the calendar that you have on the Internet and also to indicate the time that would be needed in order to fulfill the task.  That would be very helpful for me.

 And another suggestion I have is -- because I really would like to do more and to support you more in fulfilling my role as a MAG member, and maybe you could also think of having something like a Kanban board where you also put all the small task and say, okay, maybe there are some volunteers doing some things within the next one or two weeks.  And with tasks that are (indiscernible) in detail.  So that would be very helpful.

 So if you need more support from my side, I would love to do so, but please give me some indication on the time consumption of fulfilling this task, then.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Sooky.  And I think it's a really good idea to facilitate some kind of sharing of tasks.  And also more work is ahead.  You know, we're very immersed in the workshop evaluation process now, but for those of you that are new MAG members, and the MAG curation of main sessions and, in this case, also the introductory sessions during the preparatory phase will also be demanding.  

 So, but thanks very much, and thanks for all the support and hard work from those that are doing it.

 And anyone else?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I'm --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Go ahead.  Yes.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I was just going to say I can just answer the last two interventions, Adam and Sooky.

 Yes, for the other sessions, we are going to have, actually, some time in the second day of the MAG meeting on the 30th of June where we are going to go over the other sessions for the MAG.  So that will be in the morning of the 30th of June.

 And as far as the calendar is concerned, yes, we hear you.  And this isn't the first time that we've heard it.

 We are making great improvements in the calendar function for our new website, which will be out in September, all things working well, but I know this may be a little bit too late for people who are working now.  So, yes, we'll try to improve what we have now, but the major improvements are coming when the new website is launched, as far as planning and the calendar functions and notification of events, et cetera, is concerned.

 Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And task lists.  I think that would also be very useful --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yeah.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   -- to have a facility to manage tasks.

 And, Chengetai, I was actually going to give the floor to you, if you wanted to make any further remarks, and to just remind MAG members of when we'll next convene.

 And then I will give the floor to our co-chairs to make some closing remarks.

 We're finishing early, which is good.  I think we all need it. a little bit early.

 So, Chengetai, if you can just remind us when we reconvene next week.

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

 So the next time we reconvene is going to be the 30th of June.  And it's going to be at 900 hours UTC.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Chengetai.

 And please do complete this phase of your work.

 And, Courtney, your point about preferring to work during actual meetings is taken, and we'll try and balance that.  It does also put further pressure in terms of time zone.  So that's actually also one of the reasons, Courtney, why we encourage MAG members to organize group meetings outside of the main meetings, so that there's more flexibility for them to select a time zone that works for everyone.

 But your point is taken.  I think it does work well for us to work together in sessions like we did today.

 And, Przemyslaw, do you have any remarks, having -- and I hope you feel encouraged about the IGF and not -- and not intimidated.

 Do you have any reflections from the host country's perspective?

 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:   Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor.

 No, no, I do not feel discouraged by any -- by any point.  I feel even more encouraged by today's meeting, and I was very, you know, happy to participate in the working groups that we had today to gather some of your issues and perspectives on the workshop evaluation process.  That was very good experience for me.

 I also listened to your suggestions from the MAG working group, especially the MAG working groups on hybrid meetings and strategy, but also the working group on outreach and media strategy, communication strategy.

 So all of those points are well taken, will be well taken into consideration.  Of course we will discuss this further on with our good colleagues from the IGF Secretariat.  And we are very, very happy and looking forward to cooperate with you in the coming months as well.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Przemyslaw.

 And on that note, I thank everyone.  Thanking to our scribes, our captioners, to the observers, and everyone who is a supporter of the give.  And to the MAG members.  You know, if this was easy, we wouldn't be doing it.

 And I think that we've made good progress, and I look forward to our meeting next week.

 Good-bye, everyone.

 >> Good-bye, everybody.  Thank you, thank you very much.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Anriette, for your chairing.  And thank you, everybody, for your attendance and your contributions.  And see you next week.  Thank you.

 >> Thank you, good-bye.