This is now a legacy site and could be not up to date. Please move to the new IGF Website at

You are here

IGF 2021 Third Open Consultations & MAG Meeting - Day 3

The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 


 Good morning, afternoon, and evening, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to the second day of the Open Consultations and MAG meeting.  So this is the second --
 [ Laughter ]
 Sorry.  Let me start again.  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  And good afternoon and evening, those of you who are joining us online.  This is the second day of the MAG meeting, and it's the third day of the Open Consultations and MAG meeting series.  And this is our final day as well.  I'd like to thank you all for sticking with us.
 And just to go over that, the meeting is being recorded.  And there is going to be a transcript afterwards.  There's going to be a summary report afterwards as well.  We are still trying to use the speaking queue; so if you would like to make an intervention, please put your name on the speaking queue.  If you're unable to use the speaking queue, please just put a message into the chat of the Webex room and then somebody from the secretariat will put your name into the speaking queue.
 And when the chair calls your name, can you just please restate your name and organization and then make your intervention.
 With that, I will pass it on to our chair, Anriette Esterhuysen, to start the meeting.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Chengetai.  Anriette Esterhuysen here, MAG chair.
 And welcome, ladies, gentlemen, and anyone who prefers to have a nonbinary gender entity.  This is the third day of our meetings this week.  It's the second day of the MAG meeting.  I want to start by just thanking the secretariat and our tech support team here at the U.N. as well.  While we had many glitches on day one on the Open Consultation, yesterday was a technical glitch-free meeting.  So I think the MAG and the IGF community has mastered not just Zoom but also Webex.  So any platform you want to throw at us, you know, Chengetai, we'll handle it.
 I want to review the agenda for today.  To give everyone a sense who's here, we have got 19 participants online and we have about -- just about 20 participants in the room.  The numbers will pick up as the day proceeds.  Today we'll start off by having a bit of a recap of the planning for the implementation of the hybrid IGF.  The secretariat will just share with us some of the plans for logistics.  It will be informed by the discussion during the Open Consultation.  I would like you, as MAG members, to keep in mind what emerged from the Open Consultation as well.  So some of those ideas, they might feel quite scattered at the moment.  But if you reflect back, you'll remember that we emphasized how important it is to have a chat moderator, for example; how important it is to facilitate -- comment on sessions by people who are not participating in realtime, et cetera.  So we'll reflect back on our plans but in the light of the comments we've received this week.
 We'll also look at the plans the secretariat has for training session organizers.  And, again, we need to enhance those with input that we receive this week.
 We'll look at the program for newcomers, for the youth summit.  And we won't look at final meeting outputs this morning.  We looked at them yesterday, and the team is still busy updating their plans in the light of yesterday's breakout group discussions.  But later in the day, they'll come to that.
 After that, we'll immediately go on to updates from MAG working groups.  We'll start with the MAG working group on hybrid meetings, the MAG working group on IGF strategy, and the working group on outreach, engagement, and communications.  And thanks to those of you who have presentations and who have shared them.
 Then we will break into groups.  This worked quite well yesterday.  I know it worked well for the people here in Geneva.  
 I must say to those of you who worked online, you worked fantastically as well today.
 So I hope you don't mind doing that again.  
 The purpose of those breakout groups -- I will give you exact questions -- is really to come up with anything specific that you want the secretariat and the MAG to add in addition to existing plans.  So any modifications, any new components in the planning that you feel should be included.  And then that's the one purpose of that breakout group.  And then, secondly, to reflect on any of the recommendations from the MAG working groups.  That will also include the communication strategy for IGF 2021.
 Once the groups come back, depending on how long we've taken and when we'll break, we'll have reports but then we'll go into main sessions.  So we might start the main session discussion before lunch.  We might not.  It really depends on how long the presentations take.  After that, we will go to the main session proposals.  I know MAG members have been working and have been updating their proposals.  I'm talking to the secretariat about when the final deadline will be.  But for today, the way we will discuss the proposals, which I think will do them more justice than what we did yesterday, is for you to send the link to your main session proposal to the secretariat to indicate very clearly who will present that proposal.  And then the secretariat will display the proposal to both the face-to-face and the virtual participants.  And we'll talk through each proposal, and we'll have comments after each proposal.  And we'll capture those comments.  And then MAG members will have to go back and finalize those proposals.
 I'll communicate what the deadlines are for final submission once I've had a chance to talk to Chengetai about that.  But we'll communicate what the next steps are.
 We will then have the presentation from Sorina and Wim on outputs for IGF 2021 which will consist of the existing plans that have taken into account the discussion at this meeting yesterday and the day before.  So they will share what they've planned.
 And then the final session today will be looking at the intersessional work and NRIs at the 16th IGF.  And that's where you'll have a chance to look at what the session proposals are from the BPFs, the policy networks, the dynamic coalitions, and the NRIs.  We already know there's a little bit of overlap, so some of the policy networks are collaborating with some of the main sessions.
 But that will be -- that will be included in that presentation.
 And that will be it.  We'll consolidate what the next steps are for the MAG, what the deadlines are, and we'll then close our meeting.
 Any questions on the agenda?  Anything that we've left out?  In fact, I've realized there is something I would like us to discuss, and that is evaluation.  I've actually talked to Roberto Zambrana about that, the workshop evaluation MAG working group.
 Because while in the debrief of the IGF to 2020, there were comments about us needing to think about two things.  Firstly, rethinking how session evaluations are captured and communicated and actually ideally anonymizing them and then, secondly, to have some overall evaluation.
 We don't have to discuss that today, but I just wanted to table it so that you can actually start thinking about it.  
 Comments or questions?  Or can we proceed?  Good.  Thanks very much for that support for the quite challenging agenda but better than yesterday, I think.
 And, Chengetai, can I hand over to you and the secretariat.  I'm not sure who will start us with the review of the planning for implementation?  Perhaps, Anja, we can start with that -- the hybrid IGF slide.
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Yes, thank you very much, Chair, and let me just briefly share my screen.  Yes, thank you.  So at the beginning of this meeting during the Open Consultations, Chengetai walked us through the logistics about implementation of the hybrid format.  So I'm not going to show the same slide.  I think it would be beneficial for us, as well as for the MAG, if we look at the information that is available now on the IGF website regarding what Chengetai presented.
 So if you go to the IGF website, on the IGF 2021 menu, you will see that there is a tab called About Hybrid Format.  And if you click on that tab, you will basically see the content that Chengetai gave, elaborated on on Monday.  So let me just briefly remind of those elements that were elaborated on.
 So the hybrid format focuses firstly on the objective to ensure that participants participating from the IGF venue in Katowice as well as those participating from any part of the world will have a meaningful experience when it comes about meaningful participation, and we are trying to set conditions as equal as possible for both types of participants.  So in order to achieve that, the participating platform is extremely important.  As Chengetai said, the 16th IGF will be hosted through a unique digital platform, which in practice means that when participants are in the room, meeting room in the Katowice venue, they would need to be connected to the participating platform and the interventions would need to be requested through a floor system through the IGF website.  There will be, as Luis mentioned, a dedicated mobile application which hopefully will make it easier for those connecting through their mobile devices to find information in one place and very quickly access the schedule, the floor system, the -- and the participating platform through it.
 The experience of the venue, so very briefly because that doesn't necessarily relate to the program in terms of the discussions through sessions, but the participants from -- participating from any part of the world will have an experience of entering the venue as participants that are present in Katowice.  So that means that we will have a three-day venue which mirrors, basically, the design of the physical venue in Poland and participants will be able to technically, I guess, virtually enter the venue, virtually enter the meeting room and access the participating platform, which means basically the Zoom platform to join the meetings.  The same applies to the IGF village.  Each board will have its equivalent online in that 3-D venue platform.
 So I'm not going to go into time zones since similar.  You know that the networking sessions will also have opportunity for online participants to participate the way the on-site participants will do so.  And then also on this page on the website, the FAQs are available which are put together in a collaborative effort by the working group on hybrid meetings as well as the IGF secretariat, the host country, and everyone else who participated from the community.  And, of course, there is also a source of -- useful source of information hopefully which is a Town Hall which is hosted very recently.
 So that is the plan for implementing the hybrid format.  The -- probably very important for the MAG as well as for the session organizers and all participants are these challenges that the time zones are posing to many which will not be able to be at the venue.  So we will make sure that there is a way for those participants to feed in their inputs beforehand, so before the start of the session, but also after the session concludes.  And that's very much dependent on the work of the session organizers who will make available accurate session descriptions so that the participants will read the session description, will know what to expect and they can accordingly pose a question through our collaborative platform, which is still in development but probably it will go through the IGF website.  And then also to ensure that they produce a session report 12 hours after the session ends so that in addition to having transcripts and videos posted shortly after the session ends on the IGF website, participants who were not able to attend live that session can actually go through that content and then based on that content pose their questions, which will be, again, responded by the session organizers, by the panelists, through that same platform that-- where the questions will be posted.
 So I think that would be all for the hybrid format.  I can just -- I know that Luis will be speaking about engagement of session organizers for -- I'm sure for the MAG as well, for the secretariat.  That's probably the critical cooperation for ensuring the interactivity between the session organizers and participants, regardless of where they participate.  So we will ensure that we have presented the -- this information to the session organizers very closely so that they're familiar with the platform and so on.  I will not go into those details as that's something that Luis will be doing.
 And then for the program for newcomers, maybe I can come to that point a bit later once it's on the agenda.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Anja.  If there are any questions for clarification, please go it.  I know you will be discussing these in the group breakout sessions, but if there are questions for clarification, please go ahead.
 Next can we ask Luis, are you able to share with us just very broadly what the plans are for training session organizers?  And I think any other outreach that you have to session organizers would be good to hear.
 >>LUIS BOBO:  Thank you, Chair.  Yes, certainly.  Thank you very much.  So every year before the IGF organize some trainings for the different sessions so as the online participation runs smoothly.  Last year it was a purely online meeting, so everything was online and there was specific training for that.  And for this year, we'll have hybrid format.  So there are some peculiarities in the fact that the online participation is really, really given the same way as on-site participants.  So there will be trainings for the different actors participating in this hybrid format and these actors are mainly the moderators, organizers of the session, as well as some volunteers that we have working supporting the sessions, both on-site and online.  
 So what we usually do and what we will do this year again is next week already we're going to announce the dates, but we can say that in the first half of November, so two or three weeks before the -- the meeting, organize a list, a couple of sessions in different time zones so for maximum people to attend live we'll record the webinars.  We'll organize webinars in which we invite all the agents.  These all agents are specifically the session organizers and moderators and these volunteers that will support the session.  Basically we explain what is the role of every agent, and if you want, we'll run a test session, how it will work, a test session so everyone will know on the day of the meeting how this is going to work.
 So, for example, how's it going to work for the volunteers to announce that there will be -- the session will be recorded, that there will be a transcript, where everyone can find the transcript, how can everyone request the queue.  Okay?  That's on the website.  And then the other side for the volunteers, how they could interact with them, being able to manage the session, knowing that they have this technical support from the volunteers, both on site and online.  But also being able to moderate on site and online their own session.  This means that usually that two people per session, one managing more the purely moderation of the speakers, who's going to talk next and passing the -- giving the floor, et cetera.  Another person is probably more concentrated in the online participants, in the chat that was discussed the very first day in the Open Consultations of this MAG meeting, and with us all help each other and they will collaborate closely with these volunteers people.
 So these sessions will run -- there will be the agenda, so how everything will work technically basically, and then like to run a test session.  We also will provide previously and during the session a manual of uses of the tools that we will use.  Basically, you know, these will be Zoom with different things that they can use during the meeting.  And, of course, every other speaker, online speaker or participant, also remote hubs representative that want to join the session will be also invited.  So to see, for example, that the remote hub can request the floor and how does the moderator deal with that, for example, they want to give priority to remote hubs or this is not needed, et cetera.  
 So just wrapping up, there will be the session that will be announced, session organizers will be invited and for them to invite any possible speaker or interested agent of the session.  Volunteers helping and remote hubs would be also invited.  We will provide the recommendation, we will run a test session, and I think that's all.  And the important point of attending any of this session is that you will be able to make the questions live.  Of course, we will be happy also to answer the questions that you may have later or before or later or how the session will be held, in terms of hybridity and all the other aspects.  And that's all.  Thank you very much.  If you have any questions, I'm happy to take them.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Luis.  There are some people in the speaking queue.  Before I give them the floor, also a question in the chat asking which app will be used to create the virtual space for participants.
 >>LUIS BOBO:  So this is a very good question.  Thank you.  So in parallel to Zoom, we'll be using an app.  It was notified before, I think, by Chengetai, not maybe the name but the style.  It is a 3D navigation chat -- sorry, a 3D navigation application specifically for people attending online so they can feel the experience as much as possible of attending the venue onsite.  Actually, the venue is being designed at the moment in 3D so people can navigate the venue and go, for example, can go to the Village booths and attend one of the booths there in the app, getting some meeting, getting some brochures or information, videos, the same things they would find in the booth.
 This app is expected to be also linked with some networking system that we have used in the past.  Basically, you will be able to meet informally with people, so this is out of the working sessions, and chat, like, in the same way if you were in the venue.  
 I personally don't think it's always going to be the same as physical contact but, still, we try to make this networking as good as possible, maybe for future organizations to create this network in advance and make it fruitful.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  What is it called?
 >>LUIS BOBO:  So the app -- the app is CollectiVibe.  I mean, also the remote hubs are also based on this.  I mean, we have, for example, not so many people with onsite experience here.  Actually, with this hybridity, the IGF is becoming more like a host country-based event still but really with more focus in the worldwide basis.  And focus on the different hubs and local meetings is important so people can still interact.  But everyone can connect through this networking app.  
 This is just -- it's not going to be -- it's not perfect, but it's going to help for networking, for navigating the venue, and to make really the IGF experience the best possible for everyone being able to attend onsite in Poland or online or from local --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Luis.  Just one more question from me on the app.  But you wouldn't have to use it?  I, for example, because of my Internet being slow couldn't use the EuroDIG 3D app at all.  So, I mean, if I understand it correctly, one will be able to go directly to the Zoom links from the schedule and the 3D app would be optional.  Is that correct?
 >>LUIS BOBO:  Thank you, Chair.  Both things, of course, will be possible.  You will be able to navigate to the rooms and go to the Zoom sessions, or you can just attend from the schedule.
 Yes, we have that in mind, 3D and the needs of that to deploy the 3D.  It is as slighter as possible.  This was a compromise between the user experience and accessibility in all aspects.  So to make it, for example, multilingual, to make it accessible in all possible aspects.  
 So this is a help.  Again, this is the first year given the circumstances that we use this.  It's the same as the mobile app, for example.  We try that it adds and not removes.  But, of course, we will learn.  If something not does work well, we will learn for the future, as we always do.  And whatever works, we will (indiscernible) it for future IGFs.  This is the idea.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Luis.  
 Sorina, you have the floor.
 >>SORINA TELEANU:  Thank you, Anriette.
 Hello, everyone.  A quick question.  I know these training sessions are supposed to be more technical; but building on the discussion yesterday on outputs, would it be possible to add a short item on the agenda of decisions about the reports so we explain to session organizers and moderators what would be different this year and what we expect from the key take-aways?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  So did you get that, Luis?  So it's adding to the session -- the session organizer capacity-building this component on output and reportings.
 Sorina, I would assume that your suggestion is also to add it to any documentation and guidelines that are shared with session organizers?
 >>SORINA TELEANU:  Absolutely, also because Wim and I are working on that right now.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Luis, would you like to respond?  Should we listen to Tereza first and then you can respond to both?  
 Tereza, please, go ahead.
 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA:  Yes.  Good morning to everybody.
 So, Tereza Horejsova, MAG member, eastern Europe, civil society.  
 In a true hybrid session, I decided to experience this meeting also in a hybrid way.  I participated with you in the room, which was excellent on Wednesday and Thursday.  And today I'll be joining you online.  And I'm curious about the comparison I will take from that.
 One thing I can already say, yesterday I did not have to calm my dog barking all the time.
 So I would like to react on what Luis has been saying.  And my comment will be quite similar to what Sorina raised just a minute ago.  
 We are grateful to receive these details about the capacity-building sessions.  I'm super glad about all the volunteers that will be available to us.  But as also Sorina pointed out, it seems to me this is very technical, operational type of issues which are extremely important; but I feel that the hybrid nature of the session goes much beyond that.
 It's also increasing capacity of session organizers to plan this session with more interactivity in mind, with more experiential mindset.  That was something that I was missing as an element when describing the capacity-building sessions.
 So I was wondering if that could be integrated, if we could help Adam and the full working group on hybrid meetings somehow.  Trust me, we would be glad to do that because I think that we shouldn't limit this to everything working well on the technical level.
 As for the app, again, it sounds great and exciting.  It would be, I think, quite good to maybe try to somehow test it, review it before the IGF to possibly bring any suggestions.
 But, again, I'm not familiar with CollectiVibe app.  I don't know to what extent it can be tailored and so on.  So these would be my comments.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Tereza.  Yes, I was also thinking that the training needs to have those -- the technical component and the process component, the output component.  I think, again, as with Sorina's remark about the outputs, I think the written -- the document -- I know there are FAQs for session organizers.  Maybe we can expand that.  
 But, Luis, over to you to respond to these questions and suggestions.
 >>LUIS BOBO:  Thank you.  I will start in order.  So question by Sorina, this is a different thing which is also integrated, of course, for session organizers.  This is not in these trainings.  I don't know if a different training should be organized for the reporting part.  That's not really technical.  I mean, technical would put the means for the training to be filled but maybe it would be good to think about the training, if necessary, for the rapporteurs of the session.  The technical -- there is like, every session owner, usually the creator, or any other person who requests it of the organizers will have access to the reporting section of this -- the reporting section of the session page and they will be able to feel the different -- at the different times all the reporting information.
 Remember that there is not only that, every session will always have access for the community to send questions in advance, looking for this hybridity, of the IGF.  We started this last year, session questions in advance and send the feedback.  That may or may not be used by the rapporteurs to write their report.  So in their own side, every rapporteur when they log into the website or the app, they will have access to see if someone has, for example, a question or a feedback so they will be able to incorporate that if that's the case into the report.
 That's all for the reporting part.  I hope to have answered it.
 And for a question by Tereza, I see the point, Tereza, what you are saying.  Let me be more precise.  You are again talking more about beyond technical training.  Let me see that in these trainings, we conduct specifically about how sessions are conducted, they are more about that.  They are technical meetings, but they are not so technical all the time, meaning that the object of the meeting is that the session runs smooth and there are tools there for them to use.  So if they, for example, have the access of using the speaking queue and someone has to remove the person from the speaking queue and the moderator has to call someone from the speaking queue, we also show them how to do that.  So it's like in a diplomatic way that you are in the speaking queue, that if you are going to speak, you give your name.  Or if you, for example, want to use any other tool, how you can present it.
 I finish -- I wrap up this part.
 The support we will give in this training is for the tools -- all the tools that we offer for hybridity of the IGF, all the tools that we put in place.  If the session organizers themselves want to put any other tool which is not written down with what we already offer, they will usually know how to use it.  But we are here as well, if we can help them in some way.  This is not initially supported but, of course, we're happy to help wherever we can.  So this can, for example, appear in the questions of this meeting, okay?  They want to use document setting, platform, how they can do that so it's interactive with all the audience, how could they share their screens, et cetera.
 So the answer can be technical, you see, but -- how to implement that, but the objective is practical.  For them, they have a practical question, I will need to share this content just to make sure the community participate.  And we will give an answer.  Even being technical, the object for them is the session runs smooth with their objectives of interactivity and of output generation.  I hope to have been more clear than confusing.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Luis.
 You know, I think that's enough for now.  I think maybe when the groups have the breakouts, and particularly the group that the secretariat is participating in, you can talk a little bit more about this.  
 I mean, I would suggest that we do the training and that we have mirroring the training also written guidelines because I think often not, all session organizers attend the trainings and especially those who are IGF veterans.  And they might assume they know more than they actually know.  So I think we also need to find a way of making it possible for them to come to the capacity-building but also to share guidelines.  And I think later on we'll hear about the communication strategy as well, which is adding another dimension that we might want them to consider.
 Anyway, thanks very much, Luis.
 I don't see anyone else in the queue or anything in the chat.
 Adam, Adam, you're in the queue.  Please go ahead, Adam.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Hi, good morning, everybody.  Adam Peake speaking as a MAG member.  I wanted to follow up on the hybrid components of the meeting.  It may not be so much for Luis.  It's more a general comment following on from what Tereza said.  And this is something that she, I, and others in the hybrid group have mentioned.  And I do think that it's time we actually contacted all of the session organizers to talk to them essentially about what the hybrid meeting means.  So I'm talking about workshop organizers, open forums, dynamic coalitions, best practices as well, any of the sessions that are not going to be on the main session or high-level track and to have a discussion essential by about what "hybrid" means, what's expected of them, which may not be clear to all of them.  I don't think we have that many -- we've got, what, 120, 130 sessions.  And so we've got 40-odd people participating in this session.  So obviously not all of them are here, so they do need to hear this.  
 And it's just general information about the approach.  Yes, you will need to have Zoom skills.  Many people will have Zoom skills.  I don't necessarily mean the technical skills that Luis may be talking about, although those will be important, but just what you need to know as the host of the Zoom meeting and how to run it, the general sort of modalities of how it's going to work.  
 Time keeping is particularly important.  We learned that last year.  You're not going to run over.  I know that's simple, but it's a good thing to know.
 About the tools that people are anticipating to use, do they want to run a poll?  Do they not?  Let us know about that kind of thing.  Just the general discussion about how it will work, the fact that they need two moderators or a moderator and a facilitator, somebody to make the presentation element, the panel, or whatever it would be, work and then someone to monitor the online elements of that and the interaction that would be wanted between both the online participants and the onsite participants.  Some of them may be online only; and, therefore, we as the MAG, I think, should be helping them to find somebody who intends to be in Katowice who can help them out with any interaction with the room.
 So I'll stop there, but -- I mean, I'm talking far too much.  But I think that, I hope, reflects -- if I'm making sense, then that reflects the need for a session of the type that I'm talking about.  And I think it needs to be done quite quickly because we're getting -- what, 70-something days I think Krzysztof said at the start of the meeting.  This is going to help people understand what they are going to be attending.  It's the sort of thing we need to have confidence in this meeting.  So there's a lot of training to do.  So I hope we can get on with it, and I hope we can have contact with all of the organizers that I mentioned because, otherwise, it's going to be quite confused in Katowice and online.
 So thanks very much.  Bye-bye for the moment.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Adam.  No, you are not talking very much.  And for a native English speaker, your English is actually very clear and easy to understand.  As a nonnative English speaker, I don't always understand English speakers as well as I understand non-English speakers.  But I'm talking too much now.
 I think that's a very good point.  I'm wondering, the secretariat, I defer to them on this.  I think it will be useful for the secretariat if these general guidelines and considerations that you were emphasizing, Adam, if the hybrid working group, if the MAG can actually document that, because then the secretariat can integrate that into their training program.
 But if you document that -- and I think you've already done quite a bit of that because the FAQs produced by the MAG hybrid working group already addresses some of these issues.
 But maybe what we need here is an information sheet or a briefing document for session organizers that emphasizes all those points that you just did, Adam.  And then the secretariat can draw on that for the training?  And in that way, we can also ensure that there's consistency between what -- the conceptualization of how to approach the hybrid meeting that's being done by the MAG hybrid working group with the capacity-building developed by the secretariat and delivered by the secretariat.
 And then I think if we have the documentation, that also means we can use that to reach people who do not attend the actual training sessions.  But I think everything you've said is very, very important.
 Secretariat, do you want to respond?  Do you want -- Adam is asking for the floor.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   May I just jump in?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Adam, go ahead.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Yeah, just before secretariat.  Apologies, Chengetai and team.
 Yes, I think it's -- we do have documentation, and of course we worked on the frequently asked questions and so on, but we can't be sure who read that.  And I think we know from experience that some of the people who are regular participants in the IGF will have done so, but many who are putting workshops in for the first time or something probably will have not.
 So I really do think that we ought to contact them, because we can't rely on --
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   -- information that's just available on the web.  So thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I agree with Adam 100 percent.  We have to push this information to session organizers, and we have to do it more than once.  We cannot rely on them using -- finding the information on the website.
 Secretariat, do you want to respond to that before we continue?  Any thoughts?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I think they're all sensible suggestions.  And, yes, we will be -- I mean, all the session organizers are on a mailing list, and we will be sending them this information and reminding them and sending them the links as well.  So, yeah.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And will you be making a video as you've done in the past?  You know, maybe just a short video on how to approach the hybrid or recording one of the training sessions?  Is that something else you could do?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Recording of the training sessions, that's without a doubt we'll do that.  A more tailored video we'll discuss with our hybrid meeting working group as well.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  Thanks very much for that.
 And, everyone, all participants, you will have a chance to talk a little bit more about this, if you have additional suggestions, in the breakout groups.
 But now can we hear about what the plans are for -- have we covered engagement of session organizers?  There's nothing else?  Are there any other plans?  We've basically covered that and we've added to that.
 The program for newcomers, Anja, could you update us on that, please.
 >>ANJA GENGO:   Yes, thank you.  Just a quick historic reflection.  We have introduced the program for newcomers had in a more formalized format since the IGF in Mexico in 2016, and we had it every year ever since, all the way until last year.
 Our experience overall is very positive.  The newcomers' track, especially the first session of the track which provides basically a navigation of what the process is about and what the meeting is about, is very, very positive and it's a very well visited session.
 Now, in past we had different forms of implementation.  Probably the most ambitious one was, indeed, in Mexico when it included an online webinar which had a very good attendance, especially from the host country participants.  Then the so-called knowledge cafes where the first-time newcomers could meet different stakeholder groups and speak about why these stakeholder groups have interest in a multistakeholder process such as the IGF, all the way to one big session of 90 to 120 minutes which focuses, as I said, on three main segments.  The first segment relates to what the process is about in terms of the structure and in terms of the policy impact.  And then the second segment focuses on the next four or five days in front of them, so what the meeting is about, how to maximize their participation.  And then the third, the last segment would focus on what next after the meeting, so how to long term stay engaged with the IGF.
 Usually those sessions would be hosted in the morning of day one, so before the official program starts.  They would be facilitated by the IGF Secretariat and the MAG chair.
 The preparatory process really is open, and it can include anyone who is interested to contribute to the designing of this session.
 I think in the past three years, our capacity was a little bit limited, so we were not implementing the so-called knowledge cafes that are mentioned, but we were implementing that one main 90-min session in the morning of day one or, exceptionally, toward the end of day zero.  And we would made available all written information beforehand on the IGF website in a dedicated space to help inform the first-time participants before they come to that session.
 The Q&A section of that session is very important, and we strategically tend to reserve the biggest amount of time among those 90 minutes for that section.
 So the plan for this year would be basically what I said now, to do on the day one in the morning a session of 90 minutes with these three segments that are mentioned.  The facilitators of the session would be, again, the secretariat and the MAG chair, of course, with the involvement of MAG and the whole organization as they wish.
 And on the IGF website we would have made available information, written information or in any other format which are relevant for participants to learn about historic process of the IGF but especially about how to navigate the IGF 2021, including the pre-meeting guide which is a very important document.
 So thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Anja.
 Any questions for clarification on that?
 It sounds really well prepared to me.
 And, Anja, I really like how you are integrating the session and, you know, using the pre-meeting guide and trying to create more cohesion.
 And I notice that it's early in the morning on the first day, so from a time zone perspective, it's going to be good for people from -- from Asia Pacific, central Asia, Africa, Europe; not so good for people in the Americas.  But I think there's a way of sharing the recording with people.  So I think that's -- that's -- and maybe thinking about how to make sure that we disseminate the fact that this recording will be available to other newcomers would be good to do.
 Any questions online?  I'm just checking.  No comments, no questions.  Is there anything in the chat?  Gunela is asking:  Is it possible to raise a question about the new website and request for consideration of a short delay before being made public next week?
 Yes, this is off agenda, but don't worry, Gunela.  I'm going to suggest that you and Luis talk about this directly, one on one, and then you can report back to us later.  I'm assuming they are -- they have some suggestions that they want you to consider.
 So I think it might be difficult because the IGF Secretariat and UN DESA, the UK government, you know, have all been working with the date on Monday.  But let's give the secretariat time --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes, but we'll still be able to make improvements --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   -- as we go along.  So depending how deep the improvements would be.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Absolutely.  
 Did you hear that, Gunela?  Chengetai is saying while it may be not possible to delay the launch, modifications and improvements can be made, even immediately in the days subsequent to the launch.
 Okay.  And Carol noted "and we look forward to seeing you later today."
 Just to look back now, Anja, I think we need to give the floor back to you, just to update on the youth summit if there's anything you haven't covered yet.
 >>ANJA GENGO:   Yes, thank you very much.  So, yes, I'll be very brief on this.
 The youth summit, you've seen probably that it's scheduled to be on day zero, so again, in a hybrid format.  The working title as it stands now is "Less Conversation, More Action:  How Youth Could Find Space for Them in Policy-making Processes," with a number of policy questions which we'll develop around this theme.  But the idea is really to provide a space for young people from more parts of the world to speak about what are the potentials and challenges in Internet governance processes they see.  And from there, hopefully to have some forum action points for senior stakeholders and leadership to address on a later stage after the IGF ends. 
 So I'm happy to share a set of policy questions which are associated with the youth summit, but I won't be taking your time here.  
 And in preparing the youth IGF summit, a number of webinars were already hosted in order to foster engagement, especially with underrepresented countries.  But the next webinar that's going to be hosted to really introduce the concept of youth summit, the way how young people can participate and especially its format, will be hosted in mid of October.  So we will confirm the day, but around 15th of October will be hosted.
 And again, the idea through the youth summit goes really just beyond to our session for young people.  It also provides opportunity for us to empower the Polish youth IGF as some sort of a local host for young people, which has strong support from the Polish government as our host country.  So colleagues from the Polish youth IGF are very much involved in organization of the youth summit with strong support from the IGF secretariat and then entire U.N., of course the MAG and the host country, as such.
 And that's  pretty much, I think, that I would like to inform of the youth summit.
 Some of the MAG members, including the MAG chair, may be contacted by the Polish youth IGF with the idea of establishing a mentorship program in case some young people are in need for additional support on various Internet governance topics to be made kind of known to them more closer.  That mentors program is not directly -- well, it's not under organization of the IGF Secretariat, but of course we are supportive toward the activities of the Polish youth IGF and basically their idea.  And if there is any need from us to connect you with the Polish youth IGF, we are happy to do so.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Anja.
 I think that is it on the state of preparation.  You covered opening and closing sessions yesterday.
 I think that if you have any further ideas or suggestions, I think when you go into our breakout groups, I will draft some questions for you, but I think if you can remember Adam's comments because I think that we mustn't -- the problem and the challenge for the MAG and the secretariat and the host when we organize a huge event like this, you can sometimes get lost in the detail and you forget the whole.  And I think Adam's remarks earlier about really emphasizing what it means to have a hybrid meeting, what it means to have an IGF that's inclusive, that's inclusive of people of different languages and different time zones, different abilities, I think it is important that we -- that we always then apply that big-picture lens to all the specific activities that we are planning.  But you can do that in your breakout groups.
 I'd now like to move on to agenda item number 2, and that is the update from the MAG working groups.  And I want to start with the MAG Working Group on Hybrid Meetings.  We've heard a lot from them already, but Adam, Tereza, and others in that working group, do you have anything that you would like to add or report to the community and the MAG at this time?  You have the floor.
 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA:   I don't know, I don't think I need to say anything.  Correct me, Adam, if I'm wrong because we covered quite a lot.  Maybe two points.  I hope that the -- by now, all the MAG members have reviewed and consulted the frequently asked questions document.  If not, please do so, and help us kind of send a message across of the hybrid format and everything that comes with it.
 I have nothing else to add.  I don't know if you do, Adam.  I don't want to be repetitive here because we covered quite a lot on Wednesday.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Tereza.  
 Adam, anything to add?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   No, not at the moment.  Thank you.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks a lot.  I think there will be an opportunity for you.  I'm assuming that the next IGF newsletter can include the FAQs, and I think we've actually just touched on some of the ways to consolidate the work that you've done by including specific content in the training and in the guidelines.
 So let's go to the MAG Working Group on IGF Strategy.  We have one of the co-chairs here with us, Amrita Choudhury.  Actually, we have two of the co-chairs.  I'm not sure if Titti is with us online.  I know Livia can't be with us today.
 But, Amrita, please go ahead and give us an update from the MAG working group - strategy.
 I just want to -- before you do that, because I haven't got (indiscernible) and I know we have observers in the meeting, the MAG works both as a collective and then as working groups, and every year the MAG forms working groups that takes on, there is a MAG working group that is by Roberto Zambrana this year.  There's a working group - strategy which takes a more of a look at big-picture issues and longer term issues.  The MAG working group - hybrid you've heard of.  And later on you'll hear from the MAG working group on outreach and engagement.  And this modality of MAG working groups is a very flexible tools.  These are not always standing working groups.  If a new need emerges, it can be taken on by either one of the existing working groups or by a new working group.
 So I just want to thank the MAG working groups because they are a very important component of the -- of the work that the MAG does.
 And for those of you who might not be aware of that, if you go to the IGF website and if you actually click on the section on the -- the link in the menus on the MAG, there you will find more information about the MAG working groups.
 And the other thing that's very significant about these working groups is that while they are led by MAG members, they are open to anyone in the community to participate in.
 So Amrita, back to you.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   Thank you, Anriette.  Amrita for the record.
 This -- We have a presentation.  I think Eleonora is going to get it on.
 So we are discussing the working group of IGF strategy.  And, you know, if we -- yes, the next slide, please.
 So just as Anriette mentioned, who we are, we are a group which was established in 2020 by the MAG, and the objective is to develop proposals and actions which are implementable in the short- and medium term on how to strengthen the IGF and position it strategically.  And the charter is available in the link with the scope.  And this presentation would be available to all, so you can always click on this link and look at it.
 The next slide, please.
 So what we've been doing so far is in 2021, we shared a link -- set of recommendations to the MAG in the form of proposals and strategic improvement to the IGF and operational measures in 2021 on how it can be more strategic, impactful and inclusive.
 So one of the issues which were highlighted was having issue teams, and the MAG adopted the issue-driven approach this year.  And it was suggested that the issue teams are extended and open to non-MAG members and experts and representatives, which actually happened this year.
 The working group also had suggested to come up with a multiyear plan, you know, where -- so that key issues could be worked upon over the years to provide more continuity and engagement on topics which were discussed in the previous year to the next year and create linkages between IGF and other institutions and decision-making bodies.
 And what we've done so far, you know, we continue this, is like we collected feedback from MAG on how they would want the working group to work.  And it showed that the MAG considers, you know, the following activities to be important in a multiyear plan such as implementation of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and how -- and what could be IGF's role in supporting this goal?  How could IGF improve its communication and outreach?  And strengthening the interaction between IGF and the international decision-making bodies, processes, et cetera.
 And what we are currently doing is we are trying to map the U.N. Secretary-General's Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and the activities which has happened in IGF.  This is on the eight areas.  The mapping exercise is available in the link.  The objective is to create more synergies and integration between the IGF and the U.N. Secretary-General's activities and actually to show, you know, what have been the, you know, contribution from the IGF, the BPFs, et cetera.  It is a living document, and it would keep on being updated.  We would be sharing some kind of result with the MAG and IGF soon, but you're happy to go through it and if you find some things which we have missed, please add them.
 So we've been looking at the IGF priority areas, and we had an action area selected on priorities by the working group for further action.  And, you know, one was strengthening the interaction between the IGF and decision-making bodies.  So what was suggested is to integrate a multidirectional communication between IGF and decision-making bodies to invite relevant decision-makers to use the IGF as a platform and encourage people to participate consistently.  This is important.  Not for one time.  Identify the relevant decision-making bodies and try to communicate the work which is being done by the IGF, the BPFs, and highlight the messages which may be relevant to their area of activity and try to engage relative decision-making bodies proactively in the various intersessional work also.
 In that -- there was also suggestion from the working group on improving the parliamentary track, and we also have the parliamentary track -- MAG working group on parliamentary track working with the UN DESA and IGF secretariat to actually involve not only the host country parliamentarians but also from across to invite them, get commitment from the parliamentarians to discuss on specific issues and establish a permanent team which can work with the MAG groups to involve the parliamentarians.  And apart from these activities, what we are trying to facilitate is support the MAG chair in co-organizing two sessions in the preparatory and engagement phase.  One is on the 16 years of IGF evolution and strengthening, taking stock, and looking forward.  The other is the state of multistakeholder Internet governance and the IGF.  We also want to discuss and collect comments on the recently released Common Agenda report from the U.N. Secretary-General's office and look at ways in which we can support a multiyear plan.  
 And the regular activities which we do is we have regular meetings where even the envoy on technology participates and provides update on the roadmap activities.  As Anriette mentioned, anyone who is interested can join this working group.  We've shared the link there.  And if you find that there are some information which is useful and we could use, please do share with us.  This is something which we had to share, and I have my colleague Roman here in case he wants to add.  Titti, I'm not sure if she's there.  Okay.  Titti, please, if I missed something, please do add it on.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Amrita.  And just to note, the MAG chair's also co-organizing an event in the preparatory phase with the MAG working group on hybrid meetings where we plan to bring together institutions like ICANN and RIPE NCC, the other number organizations and and so on.  We want to bring together institutions and processes inside the Internet governance space who have been working with online or hybrid meetings, just to capture and share what the experience of that has been.  So thanks for reminding me.  We forgot to mention that.  
 Are there any -- just before I open the floor, or actually ask Roman and Titti to add, you have no recommendations you're proposing to the MAG at this point; am I right?
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  No, not at this point in time.  We are here to support in case the MAG needs us for anything in communication outreach for any of these activities.  Roman has something to add.
 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:  Yes, Roman Chukov, MAG member for the record.  As we discussed yesterday, maybe there are ways to enhance and strengthen our -- bless you -- our ways to promote IGF, and so maybe this is something which we could emphasize a little bit more.  So this is just the result of yesterday's deliberations.  So I think we should just consider, and during the next working group meeting we can look at some time to discuss this.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  And that was not so much promotion in the way that the working group that Amado is chairing which is the working group on outreach and engagement, I think that was really more about how to maintain awareness of the value and relevance of the IGF in an evolving Internet governance ecosystem.  Titti, did you want to add anything?
 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:   Yes, if I can add something.  I think two recommendations are in order.  One is connected to the multiyear plan we discussed a lot yesterday.  So having just one focus for this year, I think it would be important.  And the second suggestion is related to the work that we have done on making the activities of the roadmap with the IGF activity.  I think this would be further discussed during the IGF meeting on how the IGF could support it could be integrated in the activity that are being done now also for the report.  I know there is a session that has been -- is being planning, the one on Internet governance on the ecosystem.  So maybe we can join the efforts and give more contribution to prepare a session that includes also the work that the working group is doing in these -- in these weeks.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Titti.  I think that, and asking MAG members to take that consideration into account.  I mean, maybe the digital cooperation issue team, I know they are thinking of focusing on the common agenda, which I think makes a lot of sense.  But the digital cooperation issue team also has a session in the preparatory phase.  So there are two opportunities really to look at that.  And I think we could also cover that, or some of that, in that session that we are co-organizing for the preparatory phase on the IGF, the strategic positioning of the IGF.
 Are there any comments or any questions from anyone for the MAG working group - strategy?  Nothing at this point.  
 So just before we go on to the MAG working group -- Giacomo, please go ahead.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes.  My question is very simple, is all this interesting suggestions coming from this group, some of them could be implemented by us.  It's only a MAG decision that need to be taken.  We don't have to wait for the rest of the world.  So why we don't start implementing some of them?  The idea that we're wondering yesterday, for instance, to make a test about a topic that we could -- one or more topic that could decide to be the focus of this year IGF and start to see how it works and refine through the experience the work, why we have not implement?  Is there any technical problem?  Do we need authorization by somebody?  By the Pope?  By the -- so why we don't start?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I -- my response to that will be, you are absolutely correct.  You don't have to wait.  I think it's a question of timing.  That document that we are referring to, the issue-driven approach that the MAG working group - strategy released, was actually only made public this year, in January, I think.  By that time the secretariat had already shared the call for input because the secretariat has to also follow a timeline which they have experimented for many years.  And they have a schedule.  So I think it's just a case of anticipating that.  And also the new MAG had just come in, and there was a very big rotation in the MAG.  So most of the MAG members of this year were still not that aware, or many of them, were not actually that aware of what had emerged from the MAG working group - strategy process.  
 So Giacomo, my point would be or my suggestion would be to the MAG working group - strategy is that if you would like to see the 2022 MAG, you'll have a new MAG but a lot of overlap, you'll have a new MAG chair, and you'll probably know by the time we go to the annual forum who the new MAG members are, who the new MAG chair is and initiate that discussion about how to approach the issue focus in 2022 as early as possible.  I think that's -- that's what my proposal would be.  Because I think -- you know, IGF timing has its own -- has its cycle.  It has its timetable.  And I think that can sometimes make long-term planning quite difficult because you do sort of start afresh every year.  And I think if you want to prevent that, consider how to approach focus in 2022 before the end of 2021.  And liaise with the secretariat on how to approach that call for issues.  
 So I'm going -- but I think in principal you are absolutely right.  There are definitely recommendations in that document that need to -- that can be implemented by the MAG.
 I think the other thing that held it back a little bit this year was that the MAG only formally discussed and approved those -- endorsed those recommendations at the first MAG meeting and Open Consultation, which took place in February.  So I think that was the other lesson learned from the working group - strategy.  Be sure to present your proposals as a MAG working group to the rest of the MAG and to get formal approval and endorsement from them.  I think that -- you know, that happened this year, but it happened a little bit later than it could have happened.
 I hope that helps, Giacomo.
 >> Anriette, I'm sorry, the microphone.  Anriette, the microphone.  Sorry.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry.  I wanted to ask the secretariat, before we move on to the working group on outreach and engagement, we have questions in the chat about language.  This question relates to both the languages in which the website is made available as well as how the IGF, the hybrid IGF, is responding to language diversity.  So I would like to ask the secretariat just to update everyone on what facilities are built into the process for that.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'll just start off with just talking about languages in general.  We have tried over the years to accommodate different languages as far as the six U.N. languages are concerned.  Of course, this comes at a cost and it also comes at a high cost.  Well, maybe not say high cost, but it comes at a cost.  Because if we put resources in one area, that means those resources are not directed in a -- into another area.  So, you know, it's how to balance the budget, so to speak.  And over the years we've had MAG meetings that are in the six U.N. languages, in the two U.N. languages.  There was a time that we had it in English and French because those are the two working languages of where the secretariat is based and that is in Geneva.  And we've had an analysis as well of who's been using those languages.  We've had MAG meetings, we've seen that, you know, even though there's a lot of French-speaking people, everybody speaks in English and it was very hard to justify over the years that we should have these languages when we can do an analysis afterwards who's been listening in what language and we find that most people have been listening in English.  So should we still do it in English and French or put it in another -- I mean, those are ongoing questions.
 As far as the website is concerned, we are having it in the six U.N. languages.  And Luis has been -- also been in charge and overseeing the translation of key documents into the six U.N. languages.  And for this, we've been asking for volunteers.  And we've had varied success on this.  We've had a lot of documents that have been translated and we've -- and we're very thankful to former host countries.  I know Egypt did some translations and also other countries like the UAE as well did some Arabic translations and also individuals also did translations into Chinese, et cetera.  And the group has been -- and this has been also checked by other speakers of that language to just to check that it is correct.  But using the U.N. language services is -- is not that easy for us because, first of all, we're extra budgetary and we always come last in the queue and we also have to pay quite a lot of money for this translation.  So we're using the community to translate these documents.  And I think that has worked quite well for some of the key documents.
 But for this website, we are going to be using translation services as well to -- just to translate the content, and we have a disclaimer.  I'll let Luis speak a little bit more about that.
 For the preparatory phase, we have not had many languages for the parliamentary section because we've had some donations for that.  We are having it in the three languages, English, French, and Spanish for the parliamentary track, just to encourage parliamentarians from all around the world.  But unfortunately, for the other tracks in the preparatory phrase, we're unable to do that at the moment.  
 At the IGF 2021, of course, everything in the main room is going to be in -- interpreted into the six U.N. languages, and the Polish parliament is also providing the six U.N. languages for the parliamentary track.  So thank you for that.
 But let me just put it onto Luis just to see if I've missed anything else and if he wants to add anything on that.
 >>LUIS BOBO:  No.  Thank you, Chengetai.  I think that you have gone well through all the parts that we can do, which is the written translation, the different interpretations.  Wherever we can with the resources we have, we put interpretation.  
 We have to announce that not only languages but this year we will also put sign interpretation, International Sign interpretation, for accessibility in the opening and closing ceremonies and (indiscernible) events.  Of course if we could do more, we would do more.  We would support doing sign interpretation for different meetings, so requesting as well.  And I think that's it.  Also for the translation of the website, this new website is a great advance because it's fully translated into the six U.N. languages.  Also using today's technology, artificial intelligence, it has been requested by Karim, MAG member before.  Now we consider that technology is mature and we just disclaim the possibility of small errors.  But I, for example, just checking the Spanish and really the translation is very, very, very good.  And the same with the documents as Chengetai said.  
 And I want to finish just saying that that does not prevent us to try to continue improving, you know, to improve.  You know that, for example, for accessibility there is now automatic transcription.  It's not perfect.  It will never be like human transcription.  It will never be the same on-site but it's basically not the human touch, not been with human touch.  It will be never perfect, but automatic translation of, for example, the chats in the -- in the online platforms is already ongoing.  So even if this year we cannot have all these tools, I hope that year after year we are continuing improving the multilingualism at the IGF.  Multilingualism and accessibility is very, very important idea here.  Thank you for that.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I'd just like to add one more thing.  For day zero events and some of the networking events, they can be done in other languages as well so we have that.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And during the preparatory phase as well.  Any of the community-organized events in the preparatory phase can be in any language that the organizers would like it to be.
 Karim, please, you have the floor.
 >>KARIM MOHAMED ATTOUMANI:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  Karim Mohamed Attoumani, MAG member, for the record.  I have three points.  First of all, I'd like to know exactly as the -- the IGF is a process.  The IGF is not only the December meeting.  So if we are sure that we'll have a lot of translation of the end of the year, it's intended for who?  For which people?  As most of the people who will be interested to join maybe, they didn't know what we're doing.  I'm exaggerating, but I think that we need to pay attention on the way that if we intend any translation facility at the end of the year, we need to ask ourself for which communities, for which people we plan it.
 Most of time the response is about budget.  And we need to ask again:  Who is doing this prioritization?  In which basis we can say we're going to prepare the IGF in English, we call all people to join to be involved but we do it only in English.  And at the end of the year, we say we will have facilities -- translation facilities.
 Last year, when we work at the language working group, which I'm a co-chair, we tried to identify where it was set up -- that's the IGF -- should be done in English.  So I think that we need to do reflection, because we can make effort to involve people, to encourage people to join.  But people come and if you have to follow what others are doing, you don't -- you can't imagine the effort we have to put, to understand what others are doing by the translation.  And most the people will refuse to be engaged because they will say, Ah, I can't speak English and there is any facilities during the process.  So I will be here just to hear others, and I think it's not a good thing.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Karim.  
 Really noted -- noted that that is a really major, major challenge for the IGF.
 I just want to share one thing that I learned from 2020 when we had the MAG working group on language diversity that Karim chaired, we organized an online discussion, an online consultation.  And I think one of the points that was made -- well, there were two things I think that really stand out for me.  The one is that the IGF uses its relationship with the U.N. as one of its success factors, prestige and legitimacy.  It gives the IGF a lot of legitimacy that it's part of the U.N.  And the fact that IGF is not able to consistently disseminate information in U.N. languages actually does detract from that a little bit.  I think that is really a serious consideration.
 Chengetai said, however, that the IGF is extrabudgetary, so that really challenges the IGF.  But I think it's something to consider in the longer term budgeting and planning.
 And in the second point that came home to me in those discussions, Karim, were that when we look at linguistic diversity in the IGF, we need to look at the IGF as a whole and we need to look at the diversity that the NRIs facilitate.  And in some ways, you can be much more impactful and inclusive by using the NRIs as platforms for engaging people in IGF discussions in other languages and in other parts of the world.
 So I thought that was also quite helpful, that we acknowledge that even though there isn't always translation into every language, because there are more languages in the world than U.N. languages.  And the NRIs are actually a way of reaching people in all those other languages.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I would also like to put my appreciation to the national and regional initiatives as well because they have provided some translation for the IGF website.  So thanks to them, and I just would like to acknowledge them for that, too.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm struggling to press my button properly today.  Apologies.
 I'm just looking at the chat.  And more comments about language.
 And, yes, I think good challenging questions.  So I think we should note these questions.  And we're about to break out into groups.  And I've structured the questions for the groups in such a way that some of these questions can also be addressed in the breakout groups.
 So I will try now to share my screen.  Okay.  Can you all see that?  We now have -- it's 11:26 Geneva time.  And I'd like you to break up again into two groups, the way in which we did it yesterday, which were the people who are here in Geneva have the wonderful opportunity of going outside and standing in the Geneva sunshine.  And those of you that are virtual can stay in your homes.  You can have a cup of tea or coffee and talk to one another.  So two groups again as we did yesterday.
 And really if you can think back on the discussion this morning, the presentations from the secretariat but also the discussion in the first two days of the Open Consultation and the first day of the MAG meeting, then just come up with very specific proposals.  
 Two responses -- two areas of responses.  Firstly, specific, achievable.  Please be realistic.  
 Sorry, Chengetai has just alerted me to the fact we haven't had the communication strategy.  Thanks.  I'm so sorry.  And I see the MAG members in the room are looking at me with concern.
 But let me complete this because then I've completed the outline of the exercise and then we'll go back and listen to the communication strategy and working group on outreach and engagement.  And then you will break out and discuss these questions.
 And then, secondly, any discussions you might want to make.  I'm following up here specifically on Giacomo's input for consideration by the secretariat and the MAG for 2022.  So that's it.  Talk about specific, achievable suggestions for 2021 based on the secretariat inputs, the MAG working group inputs, including the MAG working group on outreach and engagement, which we'll hear just now, and then for consideration for 2022.
 So my sincere apologies.  Amado, Eleonora, please, can you now go ahead and present the proposals and plans for IGF 2022 communication -- 2021 communications.
 >>AMADO ESPINOSA: Thank you, Madam Chair.  
 I'm happy to share with you some conclusions from the working group so far in which I want to thank the secretariat for all the support and all the members of these working group.  Looking forward how to provide the IGF with the best communications and outreach strategy possible.
 On behalf of Courtney Radsch and myself who are co-chairing this working group, we have so far proposed following objectives.  First of all, to enhance the visibility of IGF, to improve internal/external communications.  That means how aptly can we help the whole organization, the secretariat, the MAG, to be part of the global context in terms of be a key decision maker in terms of how to further discuss to keep Internet free and inclusive for everybody.
 Second objective is to define a specific and successful strategy which can be implemented immediately.  That means for 2021, but looking also as you already mentioned at the middle term, that means 2022, 2023 in which we can also enhance some strategies or some activities which could help the first objective to be fulfilled.
 Can we go to the strategy document, please?  
 In this document which is going to be available for all of you, we are looking for specifics.  That means how are we going to address the gaps already existing in the communication strategy as we have learned from the different participants at this third consultation.  There is a need to integrate and unify the communication strategy.  And for that purpose, we have -- we are suggesting right now this different four-phase work that can be accomplished, in which time frame, which will be the key responsible for all of those activities.
 And we also define the time frame in which they are -- they have to be fulfilled.  That means in terms of the 2021 event and also trying to keep ongoing work for the 2022 meeting for which we really want to have proper time strategy for communications.
 And certainly that applies for Japan for the 2023.  We do not have to wait until the 2022 event takes place.  But maybe we can start doing something also in this regard to helping people or helping society to be aware that they can participate in the long run in the preparation of the sessions, the workshops, or whatever possibility they foresee to be part of the IGF can be included into the regional area or into specific topic or specific issue or specific activities, politically speaking.
 Can we continue with the presentation, please?
 You can, of course, take a look at this document.  It's also, of course, a living one in which the -- all feedback from the different groups will be very welcome.
 Third objective is how to strengthen the collaboration as you already said.  And also my other colleagues before me emphasized, the working group on strategy, how can we strengthen the collaboration with the U.N. ecosystem.  That means, of course, all the outputs from the strategic working group will be very welcome to us.  And certainly, we will take advantage of the outputs or the conclusions of these meetings.  And we would like to make them public, and we would like to make the participants in these committees to keep on working together and also having some public information for the rest of the members and also perceived as a value-added for new members, new country members and new organization -- institutional members who want to join the IGF as such.
 And, also, we want to certainly make an open call to different communities and organizations to realize how important it is to have a common ground, a common place to further discuss the different issues that they are really linked with at the different regions.  And I would think it's really a great opportunity for all of us to come to attend these meetings in hybrid or -- hybrid format to discuss what our concerns are.  I mean, of course, we are suggesting right now specific issues.  But there are many others that are also important, and certainly we look forward how to support these initiatives.
 We would like to work on a global repository for these communication strategies.  That means we want to work together with the secretariat in order to define a proper database which can be used for the current MAG members or institutions who are observers -- active observers right now and for the future ones who will look at the IGF not only as the most important event but also as a very important help, organization who can help these collaborative agenda to be a reality.
 Next one, please.
 And for that purpose, we are suggesting a methodology, a communications methodology which can be certainly also consulted on the Web in which we want to work for the so-called microtargeting strategy to point to the specific organizations with relevant specific messages for each of them, not to have just one for everybody, one size fits all.  But a specific interest of each one of those groups which have -- shouldn't be probably not more than we already -- that we already have defined by the secretariat but maybe we can be just a little bit more specific in terms of how to approach the academia.  But it is not the same working in a public university or in a research center or in a private one.  And maybe we can send different kind of messages as well for the public sector is not the same as the legislative power, as the executive one or the judicial one.  They have different needs.  They are really longing for some guidance.
 If we just can fit the need with the offer available by the MAG, I think we can make a very good job for both sides, for the users and for the IGF as such.
 Also, to prepare a joint strategy, we heard from the LOC -- Polish LOC that they are trying to focus on strategy locally in their country and also probably in the European region.  But it has to be -- if it's global event, it has to be a joint strategy.  And then we would like to find those partners who can really help us in this regard.  
 Certainly, the U.N., as we just learned, they have a great experience approaching the media and the press, key players.  And we would like to take advantage of those relationships and certainly to have whatever is right now available at the Internet and the electronic marketing strategies.
 Next one, please.
 The plan to action, here we have some recommendations for the MAG and for the secretariat in terms of how can we really work on a shared narrative which it would be certainly coherent with these new initiative of working based on issues.
 I think the -- all those working groups related to these issues can provide us with the specific input that they think it's important, it's relevant to send to those specific groups.  And if they think some activations could be also part of the strategy will be very helpful to learn, let's say, a very small clip from one of the key presenters or the keynote speakers in a couple of specific ideas, as a summary of what the participants are expected or can be expecting to learn at the meeting, will be very helpful.  And certainly we can take advantage of it.  And of course, as you already mentioned and read, the IGF is part of a process.  And then of course we do have to have a master plan for a project management organization in which we can work together with this project that we define together where the communication strategy can start properly on time.
 It will be certainly really appreciated that if the -- if our colleagues from Ethiopia will be here at this point of time, and we can start discussing with them what will be the best strategy for us to go in Africa, which they are probably expecting, at least, 50% of the participants at least coming from the different countries there.  And, well, how can we help them right now?  How can we help them during the 2021 event?
 And so the same thing should happen with Japan in the next event.  We shouldn't wait until two months before or 70 days before the event to foster the study, but we can start right now properly on time, because we already know who are the players.  And that will help also the LOC to be very prepared for that.
 Besides that, we want to ask for the MAG community to help us to define who are the key decision-makers in their communities.  We will like to work very close together with Anja to approach the NRIs in order for us to -- to ask for their support on the local -- on each local IGF organization in each region, in each country, and to learn, okay, which organization will be the best ones to be approached.
 And where our -- our understanding is, our hope is having a personalized communication from the IGF will then those local organizations to learn that we are caring for them and that we are waiting for their feedback and waiting to learn how can we better help them during the event, and based on the different other groups and documents available at the -- at the organization.
 And this is an open call for all MAG, current and past MAG members to help us find out those organizations and those contact persons.  And certainly that should be part of a ongoing work that we have to implement.
 Next one, please.
 And, well, how to make the difference right now?  We really want to understand how can we move forward.  I mean, if you -- if you will certify the methodology of the IGF right now and you apply any quality management system like (saying name) or whatsoever, all the processes inside the organization should be already organized, documented with some people responsible to update them, and so on and so on.  And those documents should be available for the MAG members and certainly for the secretariat, the staff.  And I think to -- in order to build up these communications, the outreach strategy properly, trying to fulfill the interest from the different participants, I think it will be a very good practice that we can document the processes inside the MAG and also the project management document which should fit the different strategies like this one for outreach, communication and engagement, and where we can eventually, not this year but maybe next one, to define a couple of KPIs to learn how good we are performing in terms of gathering all the different communities together and how are we able to deliver the message.  We do not want to become the best secret -- the best-kept secret in the world.  We want to make public all this huge work that is already undergone from the different standpoints of the MAG members and the U.N. offices supporting the IGF.
 And the last one, I think.  Yes.
 For that purpose, I want to emphasize our call, our invitation to all current and former MAG members to help us to try to build up this database.  We want to define this database in a matricial form in which we can make the segmentation of the -- of all the context that we are going to have there.  If we can take a look, please, at the format.
 This format is going to be available at the web, and you can take a look at and ask your contact people to start filling out those contacts.
 One of the -- one of the requirements that we do have is that your organization or all the contacts that you are going to include in the list, you are authorized to share them with us.
 Please go back, Eleonora.  At the -- yes.  A little bit more.
 We are emphasizing here -- yes.  There.  We are emphasizing here that it is very important that you are -- you are allowed to share those contacts with us because we are talking about the U.N. database, which should be properly populated.  But we do -- we do not want to have any -- any possible problem regarding the use of this public data.
 Okay.  This is also a -- an open document.  It is going to be upload in the IGF site.
 We can go back to the presentation, please.
 And we will -- we want to ask all the communities to join us in this effort to prepare this database, which should be a very, very active one with all the input from all the possible sources that we have available.
 And I want to finalize by telling you that we -- we want to welcome not only this kind of information.  We would like to -- we will be very happy to have some feedbacks from the communities in terms of the success stories related to the -- related to the Internet governance, and what they have found as a challenge and what they think it's a very important issue which has not been solved at other places.  It comes, of course, from the infrastructure till the use of the cryptocurrencies or the cybercrimes or whatsoever.  But in all this range, we will be very happy to receive your feedback related to those specific practices from (indiscernible) which will be interesting to learn to other countries or, from your side, to ask for another opinion in our communities in that this becomes the new digital village that IGF is trying to become and becoming this -- an ongoing program with a specific agenda addressed to the different issues groups.
 And, well, the presentation will also be available to for to look at anytime, and we appreciate the opportunity and be very, very glad to get your feedback.
 I thank again Courtney and Eleonora for all their tremendous support, and June who has been also very helpful with her experience, and other MAG members who have helped to figure out which will be the best proposal.
 Thank you very much, Ms. Chair.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you, Amado, and thanks for an excellent proposal.  So, really, I echo your thanks to Courtney and June and others and to Eleonora for her work on this.
 I think this is a really long-term view on IGF strategic communications, which I think is going to -- and I urge everyone who is working on the IGF next year to use this as a resource.
 But let's open it to the floor for questions or reactions to this.  I know you'll talk about it in the breakout groups, but let's first have some discussions now.
 Any questions?  Any comments?
 And, Amado, you're getting very positive comments in the chat as well.  People are saying, "Great presentation."  It reflects the goal and the discussion.  And there's also a request for where this will be found.
 The presentations will all be on the meeting page, about.  You'll be able to find it there.
 And as for your suggestion, asking to sign up, please do sign up for this working group.  You can see now what a fantastic working group it is, so people, please do sign up to it.  Eleonora has just posted the link to where you can find the presentation.
 Amrita, please go ahead.  You have asked for the floor.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   Thank you, Anriette.  Amrita, for the record.  
 I echo what you mentioned.  As a long-term strategy, it's excellent, especially linking the next IGF and the other host countries.  It would weave into the long-term strategy.  I'll focus on the short-term strategy that is this IGF 2021.
 Have we -- Are we also looking at, for example, mapping, you know, the existing NRIs which we have or the countries where we have some kind of people with whom we can spread the communication vis-a-vis some areas which are completely gap?  This, I'm coming from my APR IGF hat where we did this kind of an exercise wherein we tried to see where we are not getting people from at all.  And we found certain areas, and we tried to do some specific activities out there to get, at least, some, like Kazakhstan or Mongolia or something.
 I guess if we have some kind of sheet wherein we have the countries and we have the NRIs there, they are the first contact who can help spread the message and identify where the gaps are.  And then perhaps we, the MAG members, or others who may have contact there can help in reaching out.  And I think one discussion which had happened is we don't have much people from media coming, and I think Courtney was working on it.  Perhaps then we can also suggest whom from media we could share -- you know, if there's a country where is mapping also, it may help us also to reflect faster.  I don't know whether it's possible at the last moment or not, but, you know, if we want specific targets for 2021 December, we need to act smart and not build on -- and build on what is already there with the IGF MAG.  You know, what is being -- you know, IGF Secretariat which is doing, not reinventing the wheel.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Amrita.
 Do you want to respond to that, Chengetai and Anja?
 Wim, I know you have asked for the floor but if they can quickly respond to that because there is an existing contact database and a new section on NRIs.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.  Again, I would like to join everyone else and congratulate you on the presentation and the hard work that has all gone into it.
 And as Anriette says, yes, it's  very good to have a long-term plan as well.  And we will be looking at it very, very carefully and discussing it among ourselves, with UN DESA, and also with our communications -- U.N. communications team there as well.
 And yes, we have a contact sheet there on our website, and we also have the organizations that have also shown interest in previous IGFs, which we will also include into that contacts database.
 I think that's all I can say for the moment.
 >>ANJA GENGO:   Yes.  In addition outreach database of contacts, the IGF said, what Chengetai mentioned, for the NRIs, we do keep continuously updated database of contacts of the coordinators and members of the organizing committee, and that's as far as it goes.
 But across the NRIs, I spoke to Amado informally, there are excellent practices on how they exercise their communication and outreach activities.  I mean, Amrita mentioned the APR IGF.  Lucien was telling me yesterday have a -- basically a PR agency that does a very good job for them.  And so it's a very nuanced ecosystem in that regard.
 But the IGF Secretariat has that, as I said, database.  We're more than happy to connect you to the coordinators, and then the communication would need to go from there in terms of getting additional contacts in their local communities.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.  Thanks, Anja.
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:   Thank you.  Well, first of all, congratulations for the presentation.  I have been involved in similar initiatives or exercises in the past, and I know how easy it is to start thinking about communication and how quickly it becomes very complex and difficult to even start to do mapping and thinking what you want to do.  So that's definitely an excellent presentation of work that has been done.
 But the point I want to make is a point that was made yesterday, I think in the afternoon during the discussion, it was not made by me, but again, underlying the importance between a communication and a communication strategy on the one hand and the whole thinking about reporting and reflecting the outcomes on the other hand.
 I think in the past, sometimes things have been mixed up and that make it even complex to deal with, but I think also complex for the outside.  And I think it's really good that there is not only the MAG but also the colleagues and the secretariat, people in UN DESA, that are working on communication.  They should be the ones that can use what comes out of the whole strategy about documentation and the process of documentation.  But the two should not be mixed up.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Wim, and for these questions.
 I have lots of suggestions.  I won't make them because we're going to break out into groups now.  And I think that, in fact, this proposal actually includes several suggestions for longer term consideration.
 So let's take the time now.  We have an hour left.  I suggest that the groups talk for 40 minutes and that we are back in this room at 20 to 1:00 Geneva time to hear the reports from the two groups.
 And I'll put on screen again the questions.  I had put them in the chat as well.
 There they are.  So based on these plans presented by the secretariat, the MAG working groups, including the Working Group on Outreach and Engagement, the communication strategy they presented.  Do you have specific, and really try and be specific, suggestions which you would like to propose for the short term and the longer term?  So for 2021 IGF, you can reflect on the preparatory phase, the website, the planned session organizer training and engagement, the annual forum.  And then, secondly, the 2022 process.
 So, please.  Assign your rapporteur at the beginning of your breakouts so they know they have to take notes.  And I look forward to seeing you back here in the room to start our reports 20 to 1:00 Geneva time.
 [ Breakouts ] 
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Welcome back, everyone, from your breakout group discussions.  And thanks, everyone, for continuing to give so much of your energy and thought to the meeting.  We're on the last day so it's not easy.  
 While I give the virtual group a little bit of time just to get back to me on their rapporteur, can I invite the sunshine group to present their -- the output of their discussion to us.  Who's your rapporteur?  And Roberto Zambrana, you have the floor.
 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  Roberto Zambrana, second year MAG member from Bolivia IGF.  
 Well, we were discussing about things that we will need improvement for the -- for the different activities that we have in the rest of the year going to our IGF 2021.  And one of the things we were -- we were discussing about was the -- all the different concepts that we have about the IGF.  Most of these concepts sometimes are even clear for the new MAG members.  So we think that it is really, really important for the new attendees and for the people that will be engaging the IGF, maybe even for the very first time, to have all these concepts very clear.  As we remember, last year we managed to have some sort of videos for the introductory sessions, as we remember.  And perhaps that's something that we could do now.  We could invite some MAG members to speak even in their own languages, in a very common language also, so they could explain what are the different phases of the IGF, what are the different stages, the processes, et cetera.  That will be good.  And also you could get some sort of maybe graphical or animated videos for the people to understand in a very easy way.  That also could be really, really help to understand all the IGF and all the different processes that we have in this.
 The other thing that we consider, because as we all know, during these two days, three days actually, several suggestions were made, and I'm sure everything was very well synthesized and we have the record of many of this interesting suggestions.  So the other -- the second suggestion is that we also were discussing during the task in our working group is related to the communications efforts that we need to do for the rest of the year aiming to our IGF 2021, and perhaps it will be need to coordinate maybe closer -- we all know that the secretariat is working very close to the host country.  But it will be important to know what are the different strategies that they are thinking, particularly about outreach and communication.  Perhaps they already are in charge of the media manager, like the people that is going to tweet for those days.  Perhaps they are not thinking about it yet.
 Another example is the Web page.  We don't really know if the Web page -- so far what we can see is that the Web page that was arranged by the host country is linking many of the comments -- of the content to the actual Internet Governance Forum Web page.  We don't know if they're going to prepare some other content.  It could be good to have a knowledge about it in order to contribute also with that kind of content.  And the same goes for the media administration, for the media actions.  Who is going to tweet?  If the people that they already hire is going to be there to make this kind of communication through all different social network channels, et cetera.  And if they don't or if -- if it wasn't defined yet, perhaps we're going to start looking for some volunteers to support that kind of work.  So that's another important thing that we discussed regarding to part one.
 And regarding to part two, so what are the things that we should think about for the IGF 2022, we thought about -- well, to make a very big effort to reach MAG members and procure their commitment from the very beginning.  As we all know, we couldn't have all the involvement of MAG members during the whole process during this year.  And it's a really, really complicated situation, but we, as from the previous year, we're even less people involved in this.  And as we all know, there is -- there are a lot of different activities we need to take care of.  So it would be good even if we could get them together by the end of IGF 2021 and also inviting the future host country, which in this case is going to be Ethiopia.  It will be great to start having a meeting just by the very end of this IGF 2021.  So by the beginning of 2022 we could start working and the other good thing will be to start arranging the different working groups that -- particularly in the first stage of the process, the work that this working groups are going to do, as we all know, is very, very important.  So the more people we have involved, the better.  Particularly the newcomers that I'm sure they will need a lot of support and a lot of engagement so we don't have lack of participation as we do have now.
 Well, I think that's what I have so far.  I'm not sure if one of our other colleagues would like to add something else.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Roberto.  No additions from anyone.  Thanks very much for that.  Let's hear the second report, and then we have some discussion and feedback.  So our virtual group, a report will be presented by Wout.  And Wout, please go ahead.
 >>WOUT de NATRIS:  I'm trying to get the video on.  But you can already hear me, I hope.  Yes, there I am.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  We can hear you.  We -- we'll survive without seeing you, as long as we can hear you.
 >>WOUT de NATRIS:  I think I'm there, Anriette.  Thank you.  And yes, after the sunshine group, this is the darkness group and we discussed quite a lot.  I'll be reflecting on the topics that we discussed.  I think the first topic that came up was the micro targeting that was discussed by the communications working group.  And that had some support because it's extremely important to reach out to stakeholder groups in their language and in their -- their issues to make sure that they understand the added value that the IGF can have for them and not resort to comments like, you're just a talking shop so why should I ever have to go there, which you quite often hear from the business community, for example.
 Another comment that was made was about the dynamic coalitions; that some people noted that they're not really integrated into the process enough, and that maybe a lot of them do not understand the added value they can have to the whole process.  And that, also, perhaps they should be integrated more into the whole IGF process itself so that they can assist, they can participate in working groups, if necessary, and they can understand what the added value to the IGF is or should become if they're not aware of it.
 So in other words, there are not enough dynamic coalitions involved in this process, actually, that we're having today.  So that is especially where the outcomes in the future are concerned is an issue to reflect on in the coming IGF cycle.
 Another comment made was that to make the IGF more important overall, it becomes important to pay attention to it at a regular basis at the highest level.  So somebody suggested that is it possible for the United Nations Secretary-General and the Under-Secretary-Generals to point to IGF processes in a continuous way so that we have meetings that are on Internet governance, that the Internet Governance Forum is mentioned, and perhaps some topics are highlighted on the side of it.  An example that was given is that in a U.N. discussion going on at this point in time, feeding into the U.N. GGE discussions and the open-ended working group is that the high-level ambassador is pleading to start an Internet Governance Forum to have discussions on Internet governance.  So in other words, he had no idea that there is such a forum already, and he is speaking to the rest of the world to create it.  So in other words (audio difficulties) words again phase is discussed, going from MAG to MAG and IGF cycle to IGF cycle.  And that there's a clear need that there needs to be a flow of activities; that when the new MAG comes in, it's not just the new MAG that has to be instructed about what has been going on before but also the community itself.  That it could become much more clear when points -- when it's possible to have influence on the MAG program as IGF community.
 So that could be better announced, and perhaps also more urgently announced to -- to the community.
 We discussed it a little bit further on decision-making, because I've made a comment, Anriette, about why not decide now.  And I understand why you -- why you responded in the -- in the chat as you did.  But we discussed it in a more broad way, and we came up with a couple of points.  That, one, and that is a very general one from a few new MAG members, they said the amount of work simply seems to be too huge.  There are too many lists, there's too many outputs, and it's almost impossible to keep up with the rest of your regular day work, et cetera.  So perhaps work needs to become more focused in the future.
 But how to make sure that decisions are actually made?  So we have seen presentations from working groups, but there's also experiences with working groups in the past where, in the end, never a decision was made.  So they put in a whole year of work and the new MAG comes in, and a new working group was established and it wasn't really discussed or decided on in any way.  So how could we make sure that there becomes a process that when working groups are institutionalized by the MAG that there is a clear point in time where a decision is made and not to leave it to a new MAG who may have totally other priorities and usually starts focusing on the next actual IGF and puts all its energy in that.  So in other words, to create a process on decision-making.  When we got to decision-making, there was another comment that was made, is about the MAG mandate.  So we are discussing strategy.  We -- and I mean you.  I'm not a MAG member.  Apologies for that.  But we today are discussing strategy, communication, et cetera, et cetera, but does the MAG actually have the mandate to make a decision on topics like that?  And for internal use undoubtedly, but is it also the case for the wider community and beyond?
 So that was a topic that was asked to look into for 2022.  And perhaps from there, discuss with the U.N. on the actual mandate of the MAG, if that should be changed, also looking forward towards an IGF Plus or Plus Plus model.
 So should the IGF or should the MAG in general have more power?  So that, for example, when outputs are made that they are presented in the U.N. General Assembly once a year, because how do member states ever understand what the outputs are the IGF are if they're never, never confronted with them in one way or another?  So is there an option for the IGF to report to the general meeting in the assembly in the future?
 So that's the sort of very broad discussions and very limited discussions that we've had, but I think I've tackled them all, but please join in if I have forgotten one or misunderstood.
 So with that, I'll stop, Anriette.  And have a good meeting.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you very much, Wout.
 Anyone want to add from the virtual group to Wout's report?
 No other comments.
 Well, thank you very much, both groups.  I think those are very interesting comments.  And I think they're also very concrete comments.
 So, I mean, let's open the floor.  We've got a few minutes left.  Are there any additions?  Any questions?
 Any reflections on these proposals?
 I have a few that I will just highlight.  The one that is actually not necessarily here, but I think it's implied, but I would suggest that the working group - strategy and the Working Group on Outreach and Engagement have a joint meeting together with the secretariat, both the team in the secretariat dealing with communications, Eleonora, and with women, Sorina, just so that you agree on just a common approach and common targets for the reporting and the communications and the outreach, because there was a lot of overlap between -- between the working group - strategy and the Working Group on Outreach and Engagement.  And for the longer term, but I think also for the shorter term.
 Then I wanted to ask, both groups talked about the need for this MAG, for this IGF to really focus on messaging and branding and communicating with people about what the IGF is and how it is -- why it's important.  And, Roberto, you suggested the idea of videos, and Wout talked about communication in different languages.
 So I was wondering perhaps if there are going to be videos, if we can use the diversity of languages in the MAG and have maybe just a very short script that's developed about this year's IGF and why it's important.  And then we ask different MAG members to -- to record that in their own languages.  So -- And similarly, we could ask others in the secretariat, you know, in the intersessional modality.  So I think that's a very exciting suggestion, as long as we keep it realistic, and Chengetai is, again, willing to lend his expertise, I think that's a very good idea.
 And then I thought, Roberto, your point about -- your group's point about the need for coordination between the MAG, the host, and the secretariat, social media strategy, the different web pages, the admin of media and liaison and engagement.  Why not develop -- work with Eleonora and the MAG and the host country just to develop a briefing document, a short briefing document on what are the communications platforms and processes?  Would that be something that's doable, Eleonora?  Were you already planning that?
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:   Thank you, Chair.  Yes, of course that's doable.  And I'll also add that it's within our communication strategy and part of the presentation that Amado from the working group gave to engage MAG members in this social media activity.  The form that was displayed on the screen while Amado was giving the presentation is, in fact, an invitation to MAG members to provide us with their social media handles and to indicate their interest in being kind of more focused social media Ambassadors so that we in the secretariat can share content with them that they can then further disseminate.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   That's fantastic.  And I really like the -- I like the concept of social media ambassadors.
 And then what was my other thought?  I think very -- very concrete, very useful suggestion, and I would like Chengetai to -- perhaps UN DESA to comment on whether it's feasible to have a face-to-face meeting of the incoming MAG in Katowice at the end of the IGF.  This has been attempted before.  This is not -- it's not a new idea.  It's not an easy idea.  But the U.N. Secretary-General and UN DESA has really made a huge effort, and in fact we now have new MAG members announced much earlier than they were in the past.  But it's not always possible.
 So I'm going to ask Chengetai to refer to that.  But I think it is a good idea to have that -- that meeting and to start working earlier rather than later.
 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Thank you very much, Anriette.  Just a quick comment.  It could also be a hybrid.  It doesn't have to be all face to face.  That's some sort of suggestion.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Of course it can be hybrid.  We did have a meeting very early.  We had a meeting in December, as far as I -- as I recall, of the new MAG.
 (Off microphone).
 No, there was a whole -- there was a full MAG meeting.  So we did start very early.  And I can assure you that with this year's IGF, we had orientation to new MAG members, we had individual outreach to MAG members, old or new, that were not participating actively.  And we have a record.  We maintain -- myself and the secretariat maintain a record of MAG members' contribution to the work of the MAG.  And I must say, I really feel that both myself and the secretariat have done as much as we can to reach out to MAG members.  And I think all in all, MAG members have been very responsive.
 But you're right, it was -- it was difficult to have such a big transition, so many new MAG members and such a small MAG relatively to the previous year.
 So I think if it's hybrid, that is good, but I think, actually, taking advantage of the face-to-face opportunity, because I think for this year's MAG, which was really difficult, was not starting the cycle with the opportunity to get to know one another a little bit.  It's -- you know, we are human, and no matter how good we are at working online, it's harder if we don't know one another at all.
 Okay.  Adam, I'm going to come to you now.  I just want to run through my notes because then I've done it.
 I think based -- Wout, your comment about dynamic coalitions, I actually -- what I've observed this year is they have been very actively integrated into the planning of the preparatory phase and the main sessions.  I agree with you that I would like to see dynamic coalitions more actively involved in Open Consultations and in MAG meetings.  And I would suggest for the incoming MAG and the secretariat to look at maybe formalizing a little bit more what you expect from dynamic coalitions.  They are independent, obviously.  They are autonomous, like NRIs.  But I think it would be good.  In the way that we see NRIs actually being very present at certain moments, but with both of those modalities.  I think, you know, maybe having an agreement or understanding that they know they are expected to participate at every single Open Consultation and observe MAG meetings.  I'm just saying that for consideration.  Of course it's still voluntary, but I do think we would benefit.  I think the MAG would benefit from having their participation.
 So, secretariat, you can comment later.
 And I think Wout's point was about the U.N. Secretary-General, the status of the IGF and how the IGF is represented and presented within U.N. spaces.  I think that's an important consideration, and it links also to the mandate of the MAG.
 I think it's part of the evolution of the IGF, and UN DESA is focusing on that.  And I think perhaps if they can share with us some of their reflections or proposals on that.  We're just running a little bit late, but maybe before the end of the day.
 And that relates to member states.  And you may not remember but there was an input to use the mechanisms from the previous IGFs to ask the host country to also play a role in presenting the IGF output reports to other member states.
 But all of this has been documented, and these proposals that you've made for 2022, the secretariat will put that in the meeting summary and it can be -- and MAG members you will be here so you will have those proposals and just raise them at the first MAG meeting for the next cycle so you can start with these ideas.  
 I would add to this also Giacomo's suggestion earlier which is to start looking at how to approach the issue focus earlier rather than later.  And just to remind everyone, we did actually start this year with having only two main issues and four crosscutting issues.  And we are now actually treating them all equally.  But let's not forget that they are not entirely equal.  We did want to focus more on the two main issues.  And we'll see that reflected also when we look at the session reports.  Because remember, there was also an allocation of sessions to the different issue areas.  So I think it will emerge in the documentation of the outcomes as well.
 I see Adam, you have asked for the floor.  Please, sorry that I took so long, Adam.  Go ahead and then we'll break for lunch after Adam's input.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Thanks, Anriette.  It's Adam Peake, for the record.  And not a problem at all.  It was very interesting, and thank you.  I had two points.  One is quite straightforward, and I will note that I am not a diplomat and not politically very aware.  
 About publicizing, making the IGF known, making -- encouraging people to participate, we do not seem to use the office of the Secretary-General who is probably one of the most influential and connected people in the world.  And he -- we are convening the IGF on his behalf.  I wonder if he could include a note about the IGF in his talking points when he meets with business and civil society and governments and intergovernmental organizations to just simply say, by the way, the IGF is very important to me and please take a look at this information my office has prepared.  You know, something like that.  Because we work in a world of talking points and so on. I don't know if that's a feasible thing to do, but I do think we have the opportunity of, as I said, one of the most influential and connected people in the world hopefully on our side.
 Anyway, but the point really carrying on from the discussion here is my impression as a new MAG member this year is that the process is too complicated.  We have a -- an important process that in and of itself is complicated.  It's a complex thing to arrange.  We also have this project is -- has limited resources.  It has limited resources because we act as volunteers.  It's limited resources because the excellent secretariat is a small group of people who are very, very overworked, and we very much appreciate the work that they do.  But we do have a habit of seeing an issue and adding a bit of process to it.  It might be a new working group.  It might be a new mailing list.  And I think we could do with just thinking about what process we're doing before we add more.  Documenting that process, making it understood so that there's a --
 >> (Indiscernible).
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  -- so that there is a -- so that there is an understanding of just where are the mailing lists, where are the wikis, what is being done on those things, and don't create a new one.  We've had issues, as Anriette just mentioned, since the start of this year.  There should be a single issue list that starts in January and runs potentially even into the next year, if that's relevant, because we need an institutional memory.  And if we keep flipping around between lists, we don't have that.  We have wikis that appear on different topics.  And these are just some of the more obvious sort of public-facing examples.
 So document the process, make them understood, give clarity, and don't keep adding extra layers of process.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Adam.  Very good suggestions.  And I hope that the new website at least will help to simplify some of that.
 We do need to break for lunch, but I want to ask the secretariat if they wanted to comment at all on any of this input from MAG members.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.  No.  There's a lot of good ideas there.  We need to look carefully at some of them.  I mean, there's -- first of all, the meeting with both MAGs, I think that's a good idea.  I think we've attempted to do that in several MAG meetings, and we will do that, try and do that again.  It's a good thing that it is a hybrid meeting because I'm not too sure how many of the new MAG will be able to come, et cetera.  So we can give it our best shot on the day, maybe on the last day.  I'm not too sure.  But we'll do that.
 And these other issues that we have to consult on, especially with New York, et cetera.  I mean, there was this idea about the MAG directly addressing the General Assembly.  I personally don't think that's possible, and yes, there is a change of the MAG's mandate, which has been discussed because the MAG, you know, stands at the advice to the Secretary-General so I don't think they can act independently as such.  I don't think that's possible at the moment.
 And yes, and I echo Adam's statements.  Very good statements again.  And also, adding processes.  We really do have to take a good look at that and to see.  Also, as Adam has mentioned, that the MAG is a volunteer group, so when we add processes, when we have -- there was the suggestion of having, you know, secretariat, host country, and MAG as well.  Is that really -- does that really forward the agenda or does it just add another layer that doesn't really enhance anything as such.  Or is it better to have it that, you know, there is regular reporting to the MAG and the MAG has the opportunity to comment, et cetera.  So again, a lot of good ideas.  We have to look at some of them internally.  We have to discuss some of them with New York as well.  But thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  And I think take a long view because perhaps in the resolution the General Assembly takes in 2025, there could be a little bit more about how the IGF's outcomes and outputs can be communicated.  But, of course, it's very difficult to get member states to agree to anything that could conflict with what they feel should be the second process, which will come up in that resolution, and that's enhanced cooperation, which is still on the table.  So it is -- it's tricky.  
 I just want to echo Adam's suggestion and maybe if we can put a -- as the MAG, actually sent a message to the SGs office because we know the SG is concerned with the IGF and his presence has been incredibly helpful in terms of raising the profile of the IGF, but documents that emerged from the SG's office tend to refer to the IGF as something that needs to be improved.  So it might be also helpful if the SG could also produce something in writing that recognizes and commends the value of the IGF.  You know, perhaps in response to the evaluation.
 Anyway, thanks very much, everyone.  I'm very sorry we went over time.  Good comments for this year and for the future.  So let's break for lunch, and we'll return at 1500 Geneva time.  And then we'll have main session proposals.  
 I would like the main session proposal presenters to prepare, and if you could share your screens.  The secretariat actually have to use their computers, so they've put in a request that they're taking meeting notes and documenting the meeting so unless you really cannot, it would be helpful if the MAG members who present share their own screens.  We'll help you, if necessary.  Enjoy your break.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Chair, I'm sorry.  May I just add something to that, for the room.  Please still send your main session proposals to the secretariat though because we will post them in the meeting documents section so they're accessible to everyone.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Good, good.  Thanks, Eleonora.
 [ Meal break ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Afternoon, evening, morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Let us start the afternoon session.  Without much further ado, I will hand it over to our chair, Anriette Esterhuysen.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Hybrid meeting, there it is.  Thanks.  Thanks for that, Chengetai.  Anriette Esterhuysen, MAG chair for the record.  And we are starting the final segment of the third Open Consultation and MAG meeting.  
 So welcome back, everyone, from your meal breaks.  I know some of you had dinner.  Some of you had lunch.  This afternoon we'll be looking at the main session proposals.  And the MAG members will present them.  And then we'll look at capturing outputs for IGF 2021.  And, finally, we'll just do an overview of the intersessional activities and their proposals for main sessions.  In fact, we probably should do capturing outputs right at the end, after all the session proposals have been discussed.
 So Sorina and Wim, you'll be our final presenters of the day.  And you'll make everything feel coherent, strategic, outcome-oriented with clear outputs.
 But just to close on our discussion prior to the meal break, I'm very happy to hear that Wai-Min Kwok from UN DESA is online with us and can contribute to that discussion that we had about the interaction and communications between the IGF and the U.N. Secretary-General.  So, Wai-Min, thanks very much for being with us.  And you have the floor.
 >>WAI-MIN KWOK:  Hi, Anriette.  Can you hear me?  
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, we can hear you, Wai-Min.
 >>WAI-MIN KWOK:  I would just like to quickly react, and I wanted to add a bit earlier but I know it was close to lunchtime and it's a long meeting.
 So greetings to all MAG members and other colleagues here.  I'm Wai-Min Kwok from UN DESA.
 I would like to respond -- apologies, I'm not able to listen carefully to all the points.  I could still be half a asleep when I was listening.
 But on some interventions, especially those discussed in the last session about the communication of the Secretary-General, like all other past annual meeting of the IGF, the communication, we always go through the Department of Global Communication, DGC, of the United Nations.  We also have a colleague there who will help us with the communication to coordinate at the system level, including at the Secretary-General office.  Likewise, we look forward to work with them on that.
 On specific talking points for the Secretary-General, we have been including where there's opportunity for senior officials, including the Secretary-General, including the Deputy Secretary-General, and, of course, our Under-Secretary-General.  
 So just to give an example, last week that was during the general debates, we had -- I was the notetaker for a meeting between ESG Spatolisano, who also is the OIC of the Tech Envoy Office.  She met with one country, and they asked about cybersecurity.  And we referred to the work of the best practice forum on cybersecurity.  So we should do more of that or continue to do that.
 One other point in terms of linking to the intergovernmental work at the United Nations, as you know, every year the IGF is also being considered by the Second Committee of the General Assembly.  There is one specific resolution on ICT for sustainable development.  Normally this year they will consider the draft that is being discussed earlier at ECOSOC and earlier through CSTD.  So the final area will be through the Second Committee resolution.  
 The facilitator for this year is the delegate from Mexico and Singapore.  So we are in touch with them, and we will see -- I'm sure that their area, there will be reference to IGF.
 So in addition to the assisting text, we will see whether we can include some new text, including through the Common Agenda.
 To my last point on the Secretary-General Common Agenda, I think Adam and earlier our IGF secretariat colleague Anja also shared the text.  There's two paragraphs in particular I think will be very relevant for IGF and advice of MAG, paragraph 92 and paragraph 93.  
 Paragraph 93, there is actually this reference for IGF to adapt, innovate, and reform.  When we put these three together, that's the acronym of AIR, A-I-R.  It's like the IGF needs a breath of fresh air.
 So we invite this.  And we actually intend -- UN DESA, we intend to organize kind of by discussion similar to what we did in 2016 of the IGF retreat.  We are thinking of when we can put this discussion together.  And I'm sure we will get that advice by May, both this -- the current MAG and past MAG members.
 I will stop here for now.  Back to you, Chair.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Wai-Min.  I think that you've -- I think it's really -- what is important about your contribution is that I think it both exposes the MAG both to what the opportunities are and what the existing channels are as well as an understanding that there are channels and that they are complex.  But you have to follow those channels.  And it's not always a simple process, but that there is already a lot of effort that is going into following those channels.
 So does anyone have any questions for Wai-Min?  Adam, I'm not sure if you are with us already, if you had any responses for further questions on this.
 And, Chengetai, please, go ahead and add.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Wai-Min just reminded me as well, part of the communication efforts last year, and I think also the previous year, both of us and the USG as well attended the noon press briefings that are held in New York by the Secretary-General's office.  And we did push the IGF.  And we updated the journalists that are assigned to the U.N. there about the IGF and the IGF annual meetings.
 So I think we'll be able to do that as well again this year.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Wai-Min, I do have a slight follow-up question for you and for Chengetai as well.  I mean, that was dealing with the Secretary-General.  
 In terms of inter-agency communications, the IGF was always a very active participant in UNGIS, the U.N. agency on information society.  
 But it seems to me that somehow since the digital cooperation process has started that UNGIS is not quite as active as it used to be.  Is that process still there, and is it one that the IGF can also use to communicate with other U.N. agencies?
 >>WAI-MIN KWOK:  Thanks, Anriette.  
 UNGIS is still there.  As you know, UNGIS has a rotating chair but is also, I would say, IQ (phonetic) and UNCTAD take more of a coordinating role.
 I would say that these different mechanisms, they are still finding grounds to see how they could complement each other.  And UN DESA through our colleague Dennis, who is always involved in the UN DESA process, we always include the work of IGF.
 On connecting with other U.N. agencies, one thing I would like to add is that we have since invited, I think, a list of 30 U.N. agencies similar to the push that we did for IGF 2020.  We have received confirmation -- quite a number of confirmations.  In fact, I believe NRI and other colleagues, we are going to reach out to some of the session organizers, including the main sessions, to suggest some will be at the head of agency level, some could be the deputy or delegate, to participate as a panelist for the related main sessions.
 At the same time, we are also planning to have an inter-agency -- by law among the U.N. agencies.  It will be open to all participants of IGF in Katowice, of course, to discuss about the inter-agency collaboration in IGF and also as a means of response to the Secretary-General Common Agenda.
 One point, Anriette, I'd like to add is that I also just -- we send a response to Presman (phonetic) after his intervention.  
 We are working to have a joint briefing to delegates of the missions to the United Nations, missions both in New York and Geneva, join the virtual session.  Maybe we can do that in end of October to brief all delegates about what for expect in the upcoming IGF in Katowice.
 Back to you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry.  I had my mic disabled.  Thank you for that, Wai-Min.  
 I said that's a really good idea.
 And I think also just draw on the existing partnership with the DiploFoundation's Geneva Internet Platform.  They have always also played a very useful role in reaching particularly the Geneva missions.
 Adam, please go ahead.  You've asked for the floor.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Yes, thank you very much, Anriette.  Adam Peake for the record. 
 Wai-Min, thank you for those comments.  It's really helpful.
 And I think we trust you on the communication.  I think you know this is an important issue and that the MAG will be supported, as we can be.
 On the Common Agenda, thanks for reminding us also about paragraph 92.  The problems we have with discrimination and generally aggressive treatment of people online is very well worth noting.  And it actually came up in the parliamentarian session -- the preparatory session we held with parliamentarians a couple weeks ago that it makes democratic discourse with parliamentarians in their communities and their constituencies very difficult.  So, yet, another relevant example think of that, and I think that's helpful.
 On paragraph 93, yes, thank you.  As mentioned yesterday, this seems to be a new issue that would be important to bring into probably the emerging digital cooperation session.  It gives us an impetus to think about the roadmap and take that forward in a broader and new way.  I think that's helpful.  I don't know if everybody agrees.  But I hope we will see that.
 So, yeah, thank you very much.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Wai-Min.
 You will probably hear that the main session on digital cooperation is planning to focus, as far as I understand, on the Common Agenda.  But that would complement more of an open forum-type session where U.N. agencies do a briefing.  So I think the two sessions would complement one another really well.
 Thank you, Wai-Min and Adam, for contributing to that.
 Let's move back to the agenda.  And we will now have the MAG members -- the MAG member-led issue teams present their proposals for the main sessions.
 As I said before the break, I would ask the presenters to share their screens.  
 And we'll go through them in the order of whoever is ready to present.  I don't want to propose the order like I did yesterday.  That was very confusing.  But let's start with the people who are here in the room.  
 Amrita, please go ahead.  And you'll be presenting trust, security, and stability, correct?  Please, go ahead.
 Let us know if you need any help.  But you should be able to share your screen.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  That's what I'm kind of trying to do.  No, it's not enabled.
 Okay, I can speak for the benefit, and I will post it in the chat. 
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Amrita, just hang on a second.  Let's try and sort it out so that everyone else -- Okay.  Good.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHARY:  That's okay.  I guess -- --  I've shared it in the chat.  The only differences which we're having -- this is from the trust and security working group.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I would like the proposal to be on screen for everyone to see.
 I can share my screen if that would help.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Yes, that would help.   Thank you, Anriette.  We had some differences from what we were discussing yesterday.  
 We have seven title options given to us for the session.  We still have to choose the appropriate one.  In case any of you feel, you can always share -- No worries.  I can share.  
 So we've got a number of title suggestions now.  We have to choose which one.  We don't know the date yet when we have to have the session.  It's a 90-minute session.  And as I said yesterday, the session would first provide a summary of the preparatory session.  This will include trying to map the inputs which we received during the session and share a map of the cybersecurity situation, which includes how the community perceives the various -- and prioritizes threat, identifies measures and instruments and stakeholders that are present, you know, that can be addressed at this point of time and issues or threats which possibly have no measures or instruments at this point of time and what needs to be done.  
 It would then highlight the main trends and use cases from select communities and then it will be followed by an open discussion where speakers would share their take on the main trends, highlight the different approaches, share what measures are required, discuss what can be the role of different stakeholders and what can be the role of IGF.  And lastly, there would be an audience interaction, and the key takeaways would be summarized in the session.
 The policy questions which we are looking at.  It may be more, but these were certain things which we came up, is what are the cybersecurity practices and mechanisms.  How can we ensure a safe digital space.  What are the current international standards available.  What should be the role of -- roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in protecting against cyber attack.  What should be the framework of international rules and state accountability.  And what should be the accountability of private sector.  
 So if you look at the draft agenda, we have an initial opening of five minutes, a summary of the preparatory session which is for ten minutes, a speaker would be sharing on the main trends, ten minutes.  There would be use cases.  One would be from a youth organization that is working on these issues and the other one is to have perhaps a journalist or someone who has worked on breach to come and share their perspective.  Then we would have an open discussion for 35 minutes where the speakers would be highlighting their own perspective on the main trends or different approaches and measures and what could be the role of IGF.  Followed by audience interaction for 20 minutes and summarizing the session.
 So the suggested name for session moderator is Chris Disspain because he would be there at Katowice.  We've not yet zeroed on as to who would be sharing the summary from the preparatory session, but definitely one of the speakers.  For the main trends, we have the name of the French Ambassador for Foreign Affairs.  This is a suggestion.  We can look at others.  The reason for this speaker is because he has been involved in the Inter -- the Christchurch call and the Paris call.  
 For the case studies, we have Josephine from Hate Aid, which is a youth engagement initiative, from Germany.  There have been suggestions for the other journalist option from Reporters Without Border or Amnesty International or even from Forbidden Stories, which was shared yesterday.
 For open discussion we have some suggestions in terms of speaker from ANSSI or ENISA.  We have a confirmed speaker from Kaspersky.  A suggestion of Latha Reddy from India, Chris Gibson, which came yesterday, from FIRST TC.  There was a suggestion which came in from the Pacific Islands, and then we have a suggestion of Priya Chetty from South Africa, Melody Musoni from South Africa, Rene Summer from Erickson, and another speaker, Enrico Calandro from Africa.  We've reached out to contacts in China and others for certain names.  We've not finalized because, you know, we want to see the names and perhaps we may also take someone from the preparatory phase also.  
 The rapporteurs need to be -- we would have two rapporteurs we have to still finalize.  In terms of interaction, it is mostly on chat, questions, perhaps use a or something.  
 Lucien and I am the facilitator from MAG.  And possibly the next steps which we look at is connecting with potential speakers and brief them on our requirements.  And if possible, if they can, you know -- if they have the time and can come and attend the preparatory session, it would help them to also, you know, prepare better.  
 And in terms of SDG links, we're looking at goal 16 for promoting just, peaceful, and inclusive society.  So that's all from me.  We are open to questions.  Lucien, if you wanted to add something.
 >>LUCIEN CASTEX:  Thank you, Amrita.  It was an excellent summary of the work which was a collective effort and which is still ongoing.  We are to reach to speaker and, well, thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much to Amrita and Lucien and everyone else who contributed to that.  I've checked in with Chengetai, and the deadline for finalizing these proposals has to be two weeks from now.  So we're talking about Friday, 15 October.  And that includes speakers.  Of course, with an understanding that you might change some of the speakers at a later stage, but that would be a finalized proposal that can then be added to the schedule and used for the purpose of promoting the IGF.  So thanks very much to that.  
 Any comments or questions from others on the proposal from the issue team on trust, security, and stability?  Because we can't necessarily see the speaking queue right now, feel free, those of you that are with us virtually, to indicate in the chat that you want to ask a question or make a comment.
 I don't see anyone.  
 Amrita, Lucien, others in that group, do you need help with anything?  Is there any aspect of your proposal or your session organizing process that you would like assistance with?
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Perhaps, you know, the speakers which we choose, Anriette, in case there are other better -- and I would not say more appropriate options -- and the secretariat feels or even anyone else feels, you are free to let us know and we are open to it.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  I think my only comment, and I suspect I'll probably make this comment again, is that just be careful not to try to cover too much in your main session.  You know, a session that is -- I mean, there's a general goal in the IGF, part of what the IGF is trying to achieve this year is fewer issues, deeper discussion.  So just keep that at the back of your minds when you plan that.  Because you are adding quite a lot to it.  So you might want to, before you completely finalize that, just think through it from that -- through that fewer issues, deeper discussion lens.  But congratulations.  Thanks very much.  And Ben Wallis is in the speaking queue.  Ben, please go ahead.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Hello to everybody.  I'm with Microsoft.  I'm a former MAG member.  I don't know if it's possible to put the proposal up on the screen.  It's not too important.  I had a couple of comments.  One to your comment there, Anriette, about not trying to do too much.  I noticed in the list of potential issues is something about a trusted digital space.  I can't remember exactly what it was.  Oh, safe space.  So I just wanted to point out, I think, you know, around the digital safety issues it looks like the emerging regulation -- yeah, how to ensure a safe digital space.  It looks like the emerging regulation session is interested to look at content moderation.  So that is probably something that does not need to be covered by the trust session.  I don't show exactly what you were thinking in terms of a safe digital space, but when it comes to content moderation, it seems that's something you can maybe set to one side and let the other main session look at.
 And then just in terms of speakers, I wondered, it's obviously interesting to have individual stakeholders.  I wonder if it's also interesting to have some groupings who might be able to represent the kind of broader perspective.  I'm thinking in terms of groups like the CyberPeace Institute, which I think would probably -- I'm not sure if that would be a nonprofit civil society or international organization or I'm not sure what.  CyberPeace Institution and the Cyber Tech Accord, which is a business grouping.  There are a couple of groups who might be able to represent stakeholders from -- more globally than a particular country, in case that's interesting.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Ben.  Any reactions from -- I see Amrita nodding, Ben.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Yeah, I completely agree with you, Ben, in terms of one, we should not overlap issues.  And two is, you know, the suggestions you've given of, you know, the people whom we can reach out to is very welcome.  And, you know, those are the kind of things which actually help.  
 And in terms of issues, in the preparatory phase we have identified it into four groups.  I'll just try to take out that.  And we want to keep the discussion related to that itself.  Lucien, are you able to get into the initial document which we had?  So we had looked at it in four major groups.  I think it was cyber norms, it was cybersecurity, and two more.  So we would want to stick to that.  I'll send it to you in chat.  I won't take out this time, but I'll send it to you with chat.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.  And just, I think, for this group, but all the other groups as well, and you have the links.  You can add your comments and your suggestions to the Google Docs themselves.  But I suggest you also mail these proposals to the issue team lists.  Proposals for speakers and for modifications.  And in this case, the point about not focusing on content regulation if one of the other main sessions are focusing.
 Thanks a lot for that.  And I see Przemyslaw is with us.  Welcome, Przemyslaw.  I'm not sure if Krzysztof is with us at the moment, but welcome to our co-chairs representative.  Who is ready to present next?  Timea.  So that would be emerging regulation issue team.  And Roman will complement that, I'm sure.  So please go ahead, Timea.
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you, Chair.  Hello, everyone, online and off.  Great to connect with you again around this main session.  I have to say that we did have quite a vigorous conversation all throughout yesterday afternoon and evening and this morning and throughout the day.  And that still seems to be going on.  So I will present where we stand right now and ask you all to intervene to help us further refine our session.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Can you share your screen?
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  I'll try.  One second, please.  Can you see this?  Yep, perfect.  Great.
 >> Yes, we can see.
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you.  So in order to start off why this session and what we want to do with this session, we did try to accommodate, first and foremost, the input that we received from the community back from the beginning of this year when we started to talk about this session.  And about the emerging regulation within the IGF.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Timea, sorry, sorry.  Could you perhaps increase your document, zoom your document a little bit so we can see better?
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Trying to do that.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.  Much better.  Thank you.
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  There we go.  So why this session and what we wanted to do with this session was to accommodate the input that we received from the community around emerging regulation and to see how the recent conversations around the globe on regulation and digital technologies are going forward.
 Now, I have to underline here that we do have quite a bit of interest in this session and quite a bit of different ideas on what regulations and emerging regulations are and the topics of interest for various communities around the globe.  So it's very difficult to put that all into a 90-minute session.  We tried our best.  We also wanted to make sure that we don't overlap with what's going on in other sessions and in high-level sessions as well.  And, of course, we wanted to make sure that we consider perspectives that are global and that are -- that reflect takeaways, best practices, common learnings that we can all move forward with.
 So the group has discussed a couple of different approaches to a main session.  And a lot of the commonalities that came forward from our discussions were around how to approach regulation in a way that it is helpful to preserving the common open, interoperable, and interconnected nature of the Internet.  The question that most of us raised in our conversation was, is regulation helping us preserve this nature of the Internet or is regulation posing, in some instances, barriers to that.
 So this is why we chose the title Regulation and the open, interoperable and interconnected Internet, challenges and approaches.  We are planning, as I said, a 90-minute session.  We'll see the date together with everyone once we are ready to schedule main sessions.  And our objective, as I said, with this session is to think about regulation and how it affects this global, interoperable nature of the Internet.
 We wanted to make sure that we look at issues that regulators and other stakeholders around the globe are considering and not single out specific stakeholder groups or regions or countries of the world and their unilateral or one-sided approaches but really to think about what is the -- what are the issues here that many of us are thinking about that need to be regulated.
 So this was why we came up with the idea of looking at not more than three main topics to -- in this session and to think about how regulation is affecting the Internet in various different layers or perspectives.
 So we thought that we look at the issue of infrastructure, data, and content, first, but I see that many of us still have very different ideas around what are these three sessions, three topics that we are going to discuss.  So there are other options on the table, as far as I can see.  So option a was, infrastructure, data, and content.  Another option I see is data, content, and artificial intelligence.  There were suggestions to include cybersecurity in there so that could be, I guess, cybersecurity, data, and content.  As well as an approach to frame the issues around -- a little bit differently around perhaps digital trades, data security, and privacy, and content.  So these were the various issues that have come up.  There are also some transverse or crosscutting considerations that we want to include which whatever the three main area issues that we select.  And these crosscutting considerations are issues around market structure, competition, and market behavior.  Other one is consumer protection.  And the third crosscutting issue is, as I mentioned, our regulations moving forward or backward of the interoperable nature of the Internet.
 So this is where we are at the moment.  We are thinking about moderators and speakers.  All of this is still in draft form.  We have very many ideas that we still need to decide on.  It was mentioned that we invite Jovan as a -- Jovan Kurbalija from DiploFoundation as the moderator because he will be also moderating all our prep session, so that could possibly have some continuity.
 Then, of course, there are a number of suggestions to include prominent scholars on this topic, to include prominent speakers, and of course we would want to link up with the conversations that the parliamentarian track is having and to include representatives from national parliaments as well or somebody from the parliamentarian track who I know are also considering some of these issues.
 So I don't know if I mentioned everything, but I'm sure my colleagues here in the room and online will have things to add.  So I'll stop here, and happy to respond to any questions you might have.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Timea.
 Roman, do you want to add?
 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:   Yes.  Thank you, Timea.  Thank you, everyone, who contributed so far and today the morning session with Timea and Amrita when we finalized what was on the table,  but we see the email didn't go through at 10:00 a.m., and people received this updated draft a bit late, so that is why there are some comments which we also just see right now.  And I believe that we need some more time to finalize these issue tracks and of course speakers because I think maybe one or two people just proposed speakers so far.  And we definitely need to ensure the diversity of the regions, stakeholder groups, and all other forms of diversity which also can be in the context of sharing those best practices, which we wanted this session to be like more about.
 So I don't know if it's clear from the description which we, like, propose.  But, yeah, again, the idea is not to blame anyone or do something like this but to show what good is on the table globally and how it all can be used for the sake of good and prosperous Internet for all of us.  So no less than that.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Roman.
 Adam, Susan, Amrita, Maria Paz, anyone else in this group, would you like to contribute?
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   Amrita here, Anriette.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Go ahead, Amrita.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   I think we are agreed on most of the issues that we would take one or two or maximum three issues, discuss it, as we would be discussing what the issue is, what are the regulations or best practices, and what can happen.  So I think we -- no.  My audio is disabled --
 >> Yes, your mobile device has the echo.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   We perhaps need to work on a bit of integrity as to who could be the speakers, et cetera, and some of the comments we have to include.
 So as you said, we have perhaps just the tiny changes we need to make in terms of getting it into shape.  But we are more or less agreed on certain points.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Amrita.
 Susan, are you with us?  Do you want -- or Adam?  I know you were part of the discussion.  Would you like to comment?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   No, I -- oh, I'm sorry.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   No.  Susan and you?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   Hi, Anriette.  Yes, just to note to say I think it's important that we come to agreement.
 [ Audio difficulties ]
 The regulatory examples and issue areas.  I think that what has -- Can you hear me?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes, we can.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   I think that what has been proposed here is a really good way forward.  The regulatory examples (indiscernible) content and AI I think will give us plenty of options to look at approaches by different -- well, different approaches by whoever, I guess, we choose to speak or invite to speak.
 I have noted in the Google doc that we cannot -- that focusing on critical Internet infrastructure in general is not an example of regulation, so it does not fit.
 So we have two different -- we've got apples and we have an orange.  I think for the sake of consistency, we need to just have all apples, if you will.
 So that is my only comment at this time.  Thank you.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Hi, it's Adam.  I don't know if you can hear me, but perhaps waiting for Anriette to jump back in.  And I agree completely with Susan's comment there.  And Timea I think introduced a very fair assessment of where our discussion's gone.  Looking at the chat, Nigel, thank you for your suggestions.  That's helpful.  And we will talk more about the regulatory examples.
 I think one of the intents of the session, and I think we mentioned this a number of times, is that regulation legislations are being developed around the world.  This is not a fixed target, as it were.  It's not a fixed issue.  So there is an opportunity here, I think, for the IGF to continue a discussion in some form after the main session so that we can provide that opportunity as the multistakeholder forum for dialogue to have an input into some of the drafting processes and discussions that go on for that input being perhaps in terms of principles or broad thoughts and so on.
 Anyway, thank you very much, and thank you, Timea, for introducing this for us.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you, Adam.  And thanks to this group.
 So you have time to go and complete your session proposal and your proposal for speakers.
 Do not shy of having debate.  I think that we've already seen in the comments in the chat that people are suggesting looking at the UK, looking at France.  I think sometimes you do need to look at -- while we do not have a name-and-shame approach in the IGF, and we are -- you know, the IGF we are respectful of -- of individual countries, sometimes we do have to look at specific examples and approach them from what works and what doesn't work towards an open, inclusive Internet that respects human rights.
 So in a sense what I'm trying to say to you is this is a topic that could generate very exciting debate.  Don't shy away from debate.  Debate is important and debate is interesting and it attracts people to the IGF, as long as that debate is conducted in a way that is informative and respectful.
 So I think we should leave it with you and we'll see what you come up with.  And you don't have a lot of time but you have enough time.  So -- And thanks to all of you for working through this and contributing.
 Should we move on?  Timea, go ahead.
 >>TIMEA SUTO:   Just a really quick question about our deadline.  If you can reconfirm that, please.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Deadline is 15 October.  And that has to include speakers as well, even if you might make some changes at a later stage, and moderators.
 And again, I think try -- I know you've got the three areas.  It looks good.  It works well.  But again, especially if you're going to have intensive debate, you're going to have to be careful.  I think on the one hand, if it's a very abstract debate about regulation as an enabler, regulation as a fragmenter, you know, that could work.  But if you are trying to do justice to all the specific issue areas you've got, it might become difficult to have really exciting debate.
 So just be careful again about now trying to cover too much.  It's not a workshop.  It's a main session.  It's -- So try for that.
 Thanks.  Thanks to that group.
 Giacomo and Raquel, you are in the room so if you don't mind, can I call on universal access and meaningful connectivity?
 Giacomo, are you ready?  Who is presenting?  Roberto.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   Anriette, I'm able to present.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Susan.  Go ahead, Susan.  Susan, are you able to share your screen?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   I am not.  It's a security issue.  I'm on a government device.  So I hope you understand.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I will ask one of your colleagues to share the screen.  So Roberto, are you able to share your screen for universal access or Giacomo?
 Raquel is.  Raquel is.  Thank you very much, Raquel.
 Susan, Raquel will bring up the proposal on the screen, and you can go ahead.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   You can start with your intro remarks.
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   Wonderful.  Thank you so much, and thank you, Raquel, for helping.
 So the universal access and meaningful connectivity issue team has been working for some time, not only on the prep session but I'd say deliberations have definitely sped up recently for the main session.  And there was an agreement selecting multilingualism on the Internet as a specific topic within this UAMC main theme.
 I should also note that during the IGF 2021, there will also be a session that is organized by the Policy Network on Meaningful Access.  So I think we all can appreciate, like all of these issue areas, the breadth of different subtopics within each issue track.  So multilingualism for the main session will be complemented fortunately by those other issue areas in the UAMC track during the PNMA session.
 So this session will enable us to focus in on how to help advance the multilingual Internet.  And though we are in mid discussion, and I'm not sure if our colleague CA is online, but we are -- we had a discussion last night amongst folks who were in Geneva, and I dialed in, and we coalesced around the idea of a multilingualism session that focuses on the interplay of the importance of developing local content and content in local languages and the importance of universal acceptance as the technical foundation or means to convey that local content.
 So in other words, if you have local content that's developed in a specific language, and let's say it's developed in a non-ASCII script or a language that is based on a script that's other than Latin characters, then you need universal acceptance to be able to convey that in the same different script or non-Latin characters.
 So it will be a dance between these two different topics.
 There have been some suggestions which, owing to the hybrid nature of this MAG meeting, we've been unable to sit down with Giacomo and some others to fully resolve the suggestions there, but I think that, generally speaking, we are -- there's rough consensus around this format to hone in on local content and universal acceptance.
 And so we, as you will see, have our rough draft in terms of the session agenda.  However, I think the session description, which, if, Raquel, you wouldn't mine zooming up a little bit -- there we go -- is pretty much agreed.  And this is -- I'll just read this.  So the brief description -- description and objective is the following:  The ability -- it should be of Internet users to engage online in their own language is a key element of meaningful universal connectivity.  Building upon previous work at the IGF, including the Best Practice Forum on Local Content as well as the ongoing work of the Policy Network on Meaningful Access, this main session will explore the role of local content development and universal acceptance of domain names as key drivers for a multilingual Internet.
 And so that is where we are, Chair.  And very happy to answer any questions that anybody may have and to enter into discussion.  It would be great to hear people's ideas.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you very much, Susan.  And you're getting positive comments in the chat.
 Nigel Hickson is saying there could be a link between this and the new policy work in ICANN on increasing the scope of international domain names.  And Carlos Afonso is also online and Giacomo, and I think you must be very happy to see the link between the session proposal and the work of the Best Practice Forum on Local Content and language diversity.
 Does anyone want to add to Susan's presentation?  Are there any questions or comments?
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Yes, it's Carlos here, for the record.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Carlos Afonso, and then after you it will be Roberto.  
 Go ahead, Carlos.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Okay; thank you.  Yes, I am very happy with that, and we are trying our best to find speakers to correspond to the expectations, of course.  Very good.  Very good work.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you, Carlos.
 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you also, Susan, that did a good presentation of what we are intending to do.
 I would only like to add that it was a very interesting possibility to get, as I mentioned it yesterday, to have these two sessions which are very linked, the PNMA session that will come first, and after that, after a break of three minutes, we will be able to have this main session.
 And it will be also important to include that something that perhaps we're going to discuss in the following days, to include this concrete linkage between these two sessions at the beginning of the second one, at the beginning of this main session.  Because as we are looking at it, it is a very important and concrete theme that we are going to talk about during this session, but it is also important to do this following up that I mentioned yesterday between all the previous work that has been done and in a way, that we can actually see.  Because if we remember the session last year, actually there were several policy proposals that were mentioned by the different panelists.  So it would be good to know which one of those proposals were actually executed during this last year.  It would be good.
 And again, it will be some very good approach to make this linkage between the two sessions.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Well, you could use that, I suppose.  If you brief your moderator and your speakers to prepare to respond to some of those specific comment on those proposals, you can actually achieve that.
 So -- As I asked earlier, do you need any specific help?  Any requests at this point that you need?  I didn't ask that from the previous group because I think they still need to go back and do more work, but do you need any help from the MAG or the secretariat at this point?
 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   I think we can reach out if we're having challenges in finding speakers.  I did see an email come through from our colleague Eleonora on some speakers that may be available.  The secretariat may be able to facilitate connections.  So perhaps we can explore that later.  But given that we are engaging with a number of people from the PNMA who work in this area, I don't have any concerns at this point that we will not be able to -- to engage speakers.  But I'm always keen to hear what -- what others think on that.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Susan.  And thanks to Raquel also for supporting this process.
 Okay.  I see no further comments or questions.  Shall we move on to the next?  And, Juliana, if you don't mind, I'm looking at you, you're sitting there right in front of me, can you take us through environment and climate change?
 While Juliana is sharing her screen -- can you share your screen?
 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI:   I try to share the screen.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Who will be next?  Can I check?  So that we can move on to the next proposal.  Who is presenting economic and social inclusion?  Afi?  So will you be able to go next after Juliana?
 Juliana, I see Afi has just shared her screen.
 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI:   Okay, I think if Afi --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   So she can go first.
 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI:   Yeah, Afi can go first.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   So Afi, you go ahead with economic and social inclusion and human rights.  And secretariat can one of you just go and check-in -- maybe not right now, but with Juliana who help her share her screen.  Thanks.
 Afi, please go ahead.
 >>AFI EDOH:   Okay.  Afi Edoh here for record.
 Okay.  Afi Edoh here for the record.  I'm presenting the main session on economic and social inclusion and human rights.  According to the draft of the calendar, you have it on the 10th of December.  It should be 90-minute session, and the topic that are related is economic and social inclusion, innovation, human rights, and digital technology.
 In this document we have a brief description of the topic and what the -- and our objective.
 As for the policy question that we will be discussing, there will be the rising of significance of inclusion and human rights in societal debates and public advancement; the new risks that have mentions the pandemic; and how can the use of technology offer new opportunity in the -- for the positive change.  And also the role of IGF to promote economic and social inclusion and human rights.
 In the session calendar.  You have an introduction session remark by the moderator, five minutes, and the first block of discussion which should be the trend and new opportunity and risk.  A short input talk for the four speakers, panelists.  And the second block will be the discussion of governance strategies to promote inclusion and human rights, including the role of IGF.
 And finally, final discussion among the audience and panelists.  And at the end, a summary of the topic.
 For the -- For the moderator, you are yet to confirm it, but I'll be the chat moderator.
 You have speakers like Doctor (indiscernible) -- sorry for the name. 
 (Off microphone)
 Okay.  For the international organization and Scott for another international organization, but we are to confirmed it later.  And then for business we have Mr. Wafa.  And we need a speaker for youth -- UNCTAD.
 You have academia, Noah, and another academia, Nanjala.  And Jess for the technical community, Panic for civil society and Neema for civil society.
 For the rapporteurs, rapporteurs you have Adama, former MAG member; June, former MAG member.
 The plan for participation and engagement, we have a caption of presentation discussion, online moderation, and question-and-answer sessions.
 For the facilitators, we are yet to confirm it.  
 And what we will be looking at as far as outputs will be an explanation for the rising significance of inclusion and human rights in societal debates and public awareness, new risks emerged since the pandemic, and using new opportunities offered by digital technologies and the Internet for positive change.  And the last part, we have the role of the IGF on promoting economic and social inclusion and human rights.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Afi.  
 Anyone else want to contribute to the proposal?  Lucien?  Any questions and comments and additions?
 Lucien, please, go ahead.
 >>LUCIEN CASTEX:  Thank you, Madam Chair.  Lucien Castex for the record.  
 Just posted on the chat but could be interesting to discuss it, why not Michelle Bachelet which is a commissioner for human rights which could have great insights on the topic.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yeah, it's a good idea.  And she's also from the Global South, so that's a good suggestion.  And I think it's interesting that you've got this pandemic focus, and you might want to even strengthen that as kind of an entry point for the session.
 Any other -- any other additions?  Any comments, or questions?  I cannot see the queue, but please do just use the chat to say if you want to add or suggest something.
 I think what is nice about your session is you've got quite -- quite common, everyday questions that you are asking.  I like those questions about why is there such increased awareness, such a heightened concern about -- in fact, it made me think even, people are talking now about the Internet destroying democracy, for example.  And that is a debate that might not really have been the case five years ago.  And the fact that more and more ordinary people are asking questions about whether the Internet is good for the world or bad for the world, to use that, I think, is quite a nice idea and to not make it too complex or too technical but then to have really good debate about this and about how the pandemic is really, you know, revealing this -- the fact that social -- being able to have access to social and economic rights needs the Internet.  So it's a -- I think you need to do a bit more work.
 But I like the direction in which you're going.  I think it responds quite well to what the community have asked as well.
 Do you have any specific needs at this point in time from the MAG and the secretariat?
 >>AFI EDOH:  Yes.  We need a facilitator, one moderator, and one speaker.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  So we need to send suggestions for moderators and speakers and then any other comments that anyone has.
 I'm just checking if there's anyone here in the online members who want to -- Ben has his hand up.  
 Ben, please go ahead.
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Very sorry.  That is an old hand.  And I will lower it now.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I thought you would be able to come up with something important to say, Ben.  So you've disappointed me.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>BEN WALLIS:  Sorry.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Anyone else, any further comments for this group?  Okay.  
 So, Afi, thank you very much.  Thanks to everyone who has worked on this with you.  Yes, it needs a bit more work but you're getting there.  
 Deadline 15 October.  And I think just to you, but it applies to the other groups as well, try to keep your session description, at least the first paragraph of it, short enough so that it works well in a schedule and it works well for the purpose of promoting the session.
 Juliana, are you ready to go?  Great.  Go ahead.
 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI: Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues.  This is after yesterday's presentation.  I think we come with some improvement on policy questions and good suggestion on the speakers for the session.
 There's something we need to define, a brief description and title.  We will work later.
 For the policy question, we come up with some idea about the environmental impacts of ICT supply chains, how effective the potential of multistakeholder community, advanced efforts in making and enhancing sustainability in the digital sector, and how to make sure the possible impacts are sustainable, the future of environmental issues related to digital technology, and about data governments.
 We still need time to discuss if we are working on the specific issue or more broad issue on the main session.
 For the moderator, there is a suggestion to get help from Michael Oghia.  And from the speakers, we have quite good suggestions from the colleagues.  There is some from E.U. question, from UNEP, from Hackton, from UFFCCC, from the government -- from the government of Berlin and Nigerian Youth SDG, from academia, and from private sector from Netflix and Microsoft.
 The output is we want to sustain working this issue in the future IGF and have good impact in the policymakers as well as the best practice.  
 And as we mentioned yesterday, we are working closely with the PNMA working group.  Flurina is here.  Maybe you want to have some input into this document.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Juliana.  
 Any comments or additions?  
 I'm a bit worried that you might be covering too many issues.  I think that's what you need to -- because on the one hand, you want to have a focus on the governance of environmental data, that's obviously a theme.  But, yes, I think you just need to be careful about not covering too many -- I think it's better to cover one aspect or one issue area really thoroughly than trying to skim too thinly.
 That's my only comment at this point.
 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI:  Yeah.  I understand there's too much aspect in the policy question.  And we will need to discuss whether we will focus on some issue to make the discussion, mentioned, more meaningful and more good for the others for the net result.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Juliana.
 Anyone else with any comments for this group?  
 And, Flurina, you are collaborating with Juliana and the team on this.
 I think it's quite a nice idea to also -- it's a way also to make more people aware of the policy networks and what they are doing.
 But I think you've got great speakers.  But, again, they come from very different -- they have different areas of expertise.  So you might want to relook at your speakers once you've decided what your priority focus area is.  You've got fantastic speakers.  But they're very diverse in terms of their specialities.  But very good speakers.
 So, everyone, no comments further for Juliana and the environment team.  You clearly have a bit more work to do, but you've got the two weeks.  Really, this is the last deadline.  We can't extend this deadline further, everyone.  It's hard work, these main sessions.
 Next, and our final -- unless I have forgotten someone -- digital cooperation.  Sooki is not with us.  
 Adam, are you able to take us through digital cooperation, or is there someone else?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  I'm not, sorry.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm just checking if there's anyone online.  Is there anyone who can take us through the digital cooperation proposal?
 So I don't see anyone and that might not be a bad thing because that gives the MAG members who are leading the preparation of this digital cooperation issue area session to check in with UN DESA and people in the SG's office on how to collaborate and focus on the Common Agenda.
 But I think this was a very good discussion.  Adam did yesterday -- I had asked him to email his suggestion to the mailing list and he did.  And Sooki who is leading this has responded.  So there is actually in the background a very dynamic discussion going on about this main session.  It's not as if nothing has been done.  But, again, we need to finalize this in two weeks.
 But my sense is, Adam, that there is agreement that we can focus on the Common Agenda.  Am I right?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  I believe so, yes.  It's Adam Peake speaking.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  That was one of the reasons I suggested it.  This working group has sort of lost track, and this gives us not only a very timely and relevant topic but it also gives us one to focus on in an easier way.  And I think your suggestion to work with UN DESA is a very good one.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Adam.
 Have we covered all the main session proposals?  Okay.  Thanks.
 So before we close on this, I would like -- I've mentioned the deadline of the 15th.  I just wanted the secretariat to get an opportunity -- I mean, Eleonora from a communications perspective, are there any pointers that you want to give the MAG members that you'd like them to consider as they finalize their proposals?
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Thank you, Chair.  Nothing immediately comes to mind.  I picked up on your comment to keep the description nice and short and reader-friendly.  That's good advice for everyone.
 Other than that, if the secretariat thinks of some things that can be done to improve the proposals or the descriptions that are going to be posted, then we will reach out and speak to the organizers.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Eleonora.  And then, remember, when you finalize your speaker selection, they do not have to be English speaking or fluent in English.  There is interpretation available in U.N. languages for the main sessions.  So, you can have people who would speak in Spanish or -- Spanish or Russian or French, for example.  They do not need to be physically present.  You can do what Adam suggested yesterday, which is take advantage of the fact that you don't have to pay business-class ticket for important people or people who see themselves as important.
 But also take -- keep in mind that it is also about diversity and perspective.  So don't only go for high-profile speakers for the sake of it.  It is good to have some -- to attract attention to the IGF but also try and get people who can speak meaningfully and from experience on the issues.
 So you don't have a lot of time.  And I'm really -- we really do need to finalize this.  So we'll -- at the next MAG call, we'll have finalized this.
 I think that is it on that agenda item.  So, everyone, thank you very much for the work on the main session proposals.  And wishing you good luck.  Don't wait.  Really.  Meet early next week.  You still have quite a lot of work to do, so don't delay in getting back to work on these.
 Next we're going to hear from the secretariat on the plans that are currently available for the main sessions being organized by the NRIs and the sessions being -- they're not main sessions but the dynamic coalitions and NRIs are organizing main sessions, and then the best practice forums and policy networks are also organizing sessions.
 So, Anja, shall I -- can you start us with that, please?  And just before you start, I want to just give -- why this is important for the MAG to listen to these session proposals, even though you're not directly involved in them, is because as a MAG, you are responsible for organizing the program for the 2021 IGF.  And so, in fact, you are -- you have a degree of accountability and a role to ensure that there's a coherence and value and interest in the overall program of the IGF.
 So even if you are not directly responsible for these main sessions, it's important that you're aware of what they are going to cover so that that can contribute to your thinking and planning.
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Yes, thank you very much.  I'll give an update on the status of preparations of the NRIs of their main session.
 So the NRIs, as MAG will know, they run a bottom-up call to ensure that the consensus-based view on whether a topic for the main session of the agenda reflects everyone.  And based on those -- based on that call, it was decided by the NRIs in a consultative process that their main session will focus on access to the Internet and digital inclusion with specific focus on the role of the Internet during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially looking at good and bad practices of the use of the Internet and, in that sense, the status of a digital policy.
 Now, there are a couple of working versions for the title.  Such, for example, is The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Internet During the Pandemic.  But they were still struggling a little bit to understand the consensus-based view of the NRIs on the title.  
 In any case, there is the understanding with the NRIs that we have to comply with the deadline of the 15th of October.  So full proposal will be submitted by that time also to the MAG and for the schedule.
 In terms of the issue areas which are associated with the planning of the NRIs' main session, certainly that will be the universal access and meaningful connectivity.  It is expected it will reflect on economic and social inclusion and human rights but also on inclusive Internet governance ecosystem.
 The purpose of the NRIs' main session, as always, has been to bring perspectives of communities which are gathered around the NRI processes.  So it's going to focus on, as concrete as possible, issues, good practices but also not good practices that exist on the NRI levels.  And the moderator always has a challenging role to give us a summary in terms of how the global ecosystem looks like from the perspective of the NRIs.
 We're going to have a next meeting in -- around two weeks from now.  And that next meeting will serve to finalize the policy questions on this thematic focus that I just presented but primarily to understand what could be the format of this session.  And, of course, the MAG's advice in that very creative brainstorming activity is always most welcome.
 That's as much as I can say.  Maybe just a quick note that the NRIs' main session, in order to streamline quite a number of planning processes that exist with the NRIs, as you know, there are technically seven sessions we're planning.  There is the task force which is formed of the interested NRIs to come up with a proposal based on the input of all the NRIs.  And this methodology is applied for the very first time this year.
 And, of course, we are going -- the secretariat will also feed the inputs from today's meeting to the NRIs to ensure there are no overlaps, meaning thematic overlaps, between the issue area, main sessions that are planned by the MAG, and the NRIs' main session.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Anja.  
 Any questions for Anja?  No.  And I mean, Anja, I just have one question, and I think you've actually covered it as well, but my sense has been that the NRIs have been very responsive to the -- these efforts to integrate with the work that's done by the MAG.  They've been very cooperative, I have felt.  Is that true?
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Yes.  I join and confirm for sure.  I think the NRIs were very cooperative, and they welcomed the new issue-driven approach that was developed by the MAG and tried to comply.  I, from experience, am saying that it's been the most difficult year to understand the consensus in terms of the thematic focus of all the NRIs, probably because of the shift caused by the pandemic in terms of the priorities on the local levels digital public policy. 
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.  I think that's an important reflection, actually, for the future, because if the MAG wants to both be single issue focused, more focused narrower, but also integrate with the NRIs, you know, these might also be difficult to achieve because you want to also give the NRIs the space to focus on their own priority areas.  So -- but the lessons will be shared at a later stage.  
 And Sorina, do you have an update from the dynamic coalitions on their main session?
 >>SORINA TELEANU:  Thank you, Anriette.  Markus has covered this yesterday, but I can repeat quickly what he said then.  We're still working with dynamic coalitions on planning the main session.  I am not sure we will have it ready by 15 of October, but doing our best to at least come up with a more concrete proposal.  
 The idea would be to focus the main session on two main issues.  The first one, building a bit on the paper we presented the other day to look at how DCs can contribute to advancing digital cooperation efforts and to building a more strategic and impactful IGF.  And then the second part, to look at connections between this work and the IGF 2021 issue areas, but specifically what they're doing or planning to do around these things.  
 Now we're doing a bit of a mapping exercise to see how this work is connected with the issue areas, and based on this we would probably identify a few policy questions to go through during the session.  
 Markus, is there anything you would like to add?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Sorina.  We have covered this as well.  And so, I mean, on the BPFs both you and Wim presented the draft tables of contents or the outlines, the structures of your -- your thematic reports.  Do you have anything to add on the BPF sessions, or do you feel it's been covered.
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:  On the BPF sessions, it's -- well, it's relatively simple.  The BPFs are working on the documents that I presented yesterday.  Normally the documents will be ready to -- in a draft version ahead of the IGF so the community at least has some time to read.  
 And the sessions themselves will be used to get back to the documents.  Typically what is typically on the BPF sessions is not just presenting the documents but trying to focus on one of the parts of the documents and have some high-level speaker so that even some input from the session itself can be added to the final document.  
 So there's no concrete plan for the session, but all will follow from the work that comes the next weeks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And, Sorina, I assume that applies -- I mean, it's -- I think what -- well, certainly, Sorina, you're not doing BPF this year.  I think the important thing for the MAG to keep in mind, as Wim says, is those sessions are validation sessions really and you present the report, you get further input, you get a sense of where -- where the BPF -- what's been missed if [ echo ] sorry, there's an open mic somewhere.  
 So for the MAG members that are the facilitators of those BPFs as well as other MAG members that are concerned with the outputs of those BPFs, go to those sessions.  They really are -- they are the opportunity for the community to look at what the BPF has done and feed into it.  Because the consultants will then produce the final versions of those report after the fact.
 I think policy networks, Raquel, Flurina, you've already talked a bit about your plans, recommendations, and reports.  Do you have anything to add on the sessions that you are organizing?  Flurina, you go first.
 >>FLURINA WASPI:  Yes, I have prepared a document that I can share with you.  If secretariat will stop sharing.  Okay.  So you should be able, yeah, to see it.  So I -- yes, sorry.  So I have prepared some notes on the planned PNE session.  I've adjusted the template that I've seen the main sessions do, so I hope that's fine.  Obviously we'll also have 90 minutes.  And the description of the session I've put there.  So basically what we want to do in these 90 minutes is to present our draft report.  It will still be a draft report at that stage because the idea is that we can really implement or also take up the inputs that we get from that session.  So I've just reiterated what the goal of our report is, and basically the goal of this session is that we invite an interested public to engage with the coauthors of the report.  We'll be present in the session with input and comments being integrated into the final version of the report after the IGF 2021.  
 And the objective is really to stimulate engagement of this wider public who is interested in this nexus of environmental sustainability and digitalization with the PNE and to engage in a discussion on the proposed policy recommendations.  
 We address various SDGs.  It will be more in detail in the report.  We will point them out, if it makes sense.  
 The speakers in our session will be -- well, the moderator, I will moderate the session.  We will have the PNE co-chairs, so Przemyslaw.  As you all know, we have also Kathryn and Daniel who are -- so we have three co-chairs of the PNE, and we have the work stream facilitators.  
 And here I've drafted an agenda.  This is yet to be confirmed by the PNE community or PNE work group.  But this is just the draft that I've kind of sketched out.  So I want to have a little welcome and introduction to the PNE.  So a bit of an overview of why it was created and what the goals are.  And then obviously the presentation of the policy recommendations done by the work stream leads ideally or other reps from those work streams.  And since we only have 90 minutes, so my idea would be that we really plan for an engagement with the public and with the people who attend that session.  So after a quick presentation or explanation of the thought process behind the policy recommendations, I would like to do some form of breakout so that we can break out into groups on these different topical areas and receive feedback.  Yeah, feedback and further notice on these policy recommendations.  And also what I've been thinking at the last couple of days, kind of how can we strengthen this link to policy.  Obviously we are a policy network.  So the idea is that these policy questions -- policy recommendations go from recommendation to implementation.  It will -- this is the big challenge and will be for next year probably.  And we -- I think it would be nice to have some input on that question, to really make it more relevant to get some input on how -- yeah, how can we move from policy recommendation to implementation.  
 On this I've also commented in the main session that it would maybe be nice to already prelude to this link to strengthen this aspect of policy to maybe invite someone who's an expert on policymaking to really stimulate a discussion on policymaking within the IGF and to then to then follow up in this PNE session.  
 And then obviously have a synthesis in the end, a quick summary of what has been discussed and also to quickly kind of indicate what the future of the PNE could look like and encourage participation in that process as well.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot, Flurina.  Does anyone have any comments or questions?  It's very unfair to have you so late.  People are exhausted.  But thanks for that well-prepared presentation.  Raquel, do you have anything to add to the --
 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  First of all, I need to congratulate Flurina for the great work.  I honestly have been a pleasure to work with her.  Also seeing the synergies between the policy networks.  
 But I would like to see if Roberto Zambrana or my colleague, one of the MAG liaisons for the PNMA, he was ready to make a few more notes as we evolved the main session, the PNMA main session.  Roberto?
 [ Laughter ]
 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  I'm trying that too.  As you said, the jet lag.  Well, I just wanted to repeat what I said before, and I think it will be great to join this effort.  Raquel is doing a great job coordinating the -- coordinating the PNMA network.  As we all know, we have gathered a very great group of people, experts in the different areas, that have very strong voice in their different areas of development.  So they're actually going to be very influent, it will be the first time that we are actually working with the policy network.  It's not -- I don't think it's an experiment anymore.  I think it's here to stay for the future.  But one particular thing that we need to do, I know I also mention it before, is that we need to evaluate.  We are always commenting the lack of following up about all the different discussions that we have during the several years that the IGF have been with us, and it will be a very good opportunity, in this particular very important area, which is universal access, to actually see if all this previous recommendations and this time not only from the last year but from the different years that because this particular subject was -- was discussed before several times, I think before (indiscernible) the pandemic, What -- the problem was that perhaps we all thought it was some kind of solved.  I think it's something that some other colleagues mentioned before.  But the pandemic showed us that it's not.  So it's an ongoing issue, a very important issue to solve.  The Secretary-General gave us the mandate.  That's one of the first and more important parts.  So I think the PNMA is going to provide a very strong joint voice, not only as we usually did with policy recommendations but with actual actions regarding policy.  So that's something we wanted to mention, and I thank Raquel again for doing this job.  And perhaps she also wants to do something.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Roberto.  Raquel, anything to add?
 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Roberto.  Just I hope you can see my screen.  This is the more evolved version for the main session and connecting, as was said several times, with the universal and meaningful connectivity issue main session.  The members that are listed here are also -- sorry, the speakers that are listed here are also members of the PNMA multistakeholder working group that have been very active in sharing their expertise and also in pushing forward this policy implementation.  So it's the time to do something.
 I also would like to invite, if Giacomo or Karim had any other comments, or Carlos Afonso, I'm sorry.  We've added everything in this dry doc -- document, and as Anja was presenting, I also took note of the topic for the NRI main session, and I believe that's also important to include them -- or look for the synergies to bring them together and be as inclusive as possible in this time.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Raquel.  Are there any questions?  Checking in the chat, there was -- and Flurina has thanked him -- a comment about connecting a link, connecting the policy network on the environment with discussions at COP26.  And so that connection, I think, is being made.  And there's recognition of Anja's work with NRIs and how effective that has been.  And I must say we have also had -- really Sorina you've been thanked for your work with the dynamic coalitions and, Wim, your work with the best practice forums and Raquel and Flurina.  So I think really, a huge thank you to the secretariat who are working with these external communities.  You are the glue that's holding this bigger IGF ecosystem together, and you're doing it very well.  So thank you very much.  And I think we should all give you a big hand.
 [ Applause ]
 So on that note, I believe that Sorina and Wim have prepared a musical production for us with some song and dance on IGF 2021 outputs.  Interpretive dance.  And the interpretive dance will be done by Chengetai, is that correct?  And you now have the final presentation of the day.  So everyone, you have to wake up because this is about IGF 2021 outputs.
 >>SORINA TELEANU:  Thank you Chair.  Yes, the highlight of the day.  The final outputs.  We will be short hopefully, but yeah, happy to take any questions afterwards.  We've prepared some very basic slides trying to show how this whole development of output at the IGF 2021 would work.  And starting with the preparatory phase, and as you said, Anja, it's based on the discussions we had the previous days.  The idea would be that sessions being held throughout the entire preparatory and engagement phase would be reflected in the pre-meeting guide, building on the experience from last year as well and, of course, on the wikis.  And that would be sort of a shared task between the secretariat and the MAG members who have kindly volunteered to help with the wikis.  And on that note, thank you to the MAG members who have volunteered for that.  So that's overall for all the sessions in the preparatory phase.
 Wim, if we can move.  And then there's a bit of a special treatment, if I might call it like that, for the introductory sessions which are being prepared by MAG issue teams and this is also building on what has been discussed yesterday, and I think you made the very good inputs there.  They would be developing reports, summaries, we call them briefings out of the introductory sessions.  And this would then feed into the encapsulation that we're still seeing how we would put into the schedule of IGF 2021 at the beginning of the meeting.  And that would be another way in which outputs of the introductory sessions would fit into the IGF 2021.  And this is in addition to what was shown on the previous slides about the pre-meeting guide and the wikis.
 And that's about the preparatory phase.  Moving to the full IGF meeting in December, it's more or less the same process as before.  We just tried to make it more clear here on this slide.  And I hope that's clear for everyone.  So we have all the sessions which session organizers will summarize ideally any key takeaways, and Wim and I are working on a simplified reporting template and guidelines on what we actually mean by key takeaways.  So hopefully that will be helpful for session organizers so they have a better idea of what exactly we are expecting from them.  
 And then all of that would then be put together by us, the secretariat, into the usual messages we have been developing also in previous years.  And then, of course, at the end of the IGF we have the summary, the chair summary, which would be including not only messages but also references to all other types of IGF outputs which you see on the other side of the screen.  And that's the overall process, and I'll pass it to Wim for the -- more of an explanation on the session reporting.
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:   Okay.  Thank you very much.
 Unfortunately, I don't have my dancing shoes with me, so...
 [ Laughter ]
 Before moving to the next slide, I just wanted to add one thing to what Sorina just said.  As I noticed, the discussion yesterday was -- there were a lot of ideas.  And I think it might also be helpful to really make the difference between what we mean for IGF 2021 outputs and what is the other side of the slide is actually the thinking of, okay, we need to try to summarize everything that has happened in a way that it's more easy to present.  And that's done more to (indiscernible) the session, the key takeaways, moving into the summary.
 But if you -- and I would suggest that the MAG also takes on if you refer to outputs of IGF 2021, that are actually everything that's on the right-hand of this slide.  And if you remember last year, this was also presented as such on the IGF website and even the year before.  There was one page that said "IGF Outputs," and there it was clearly listed all the different types of documents that came out to -- came out of IGF 2020 and 2019, it was.
 Now, just going to the -- not going back but going forward to what we are working on in terms of easier templates and re- -- I would even say reduce the work for session organizers and the secretariat and trying to make process simpler and easier for the reporting.  Also keeping the words from just before the lunch break in our mind, new processes shouldn't add work but try to reduce work.
 So the idea is the session organizers will be asked to produce a very short output document that only focus on the one, two, maximum three very focused key takeaways within two hours of the session.  This would then feed into the -- this would then be published on the website and would also feed in the overall set of messages.
 This should be kept very, very short and very focused.  That's why we would -- we suggest this is done within two hours after the meeting.  And that replaces, then, the first report last year that had to be submitted within the 12 hours.
 Then in return or in addition, we would -- we ask the session organizers to spend a bit more time on their actual report or the actual summary of their session, and asked to submit that no later than two weeks after the -- after the session so that can be compiled in the complete set of outputs of the BPF.
 By giving a little bit more time, we would expect that the rapporteur for the session has more time to reach out to the other teams, other members of the organizing team for the -- for the session to come up with more detailed description of the discussion itself, including a point we picked up yesterday or two days ago, the importance of also reflecting what was said in the chat during the meeting.
 In addition to that, a point that also came up yesterday, I think, the -- not everybody will be able to follow the meetings and provide immediately content.  There should also be a way to receive or give an opportunity for people that listen to recordings during the night or during their breakfast, as they are in other time zone.  So by giving a bit more time for that final report, we would expect this of the session organizers and the rapporteurs also to reflect that in their report.
 And then also the final report is the -- the moment when the typically question about the agenda participation in the -- or agenda report card in the session -- about the session could be add, because also this year this is more complex than others as we have a hybrid model.  It will be a number or a reflection on what was -- or who was in the room, but should also try to give some input on who was also following.
 That's the overview.  I hope that is more simple and a nice way to end and go with a big smile back home.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you very much.
 Can you just go back to the pyramid slide, please.
 I think what -- I just want to highlight, I think what this slide makes very clear is what we talked about yesterday on attribution; that the takeaways and the session reports are the words of the session organizers.  And the session organizers, it's very clear that it's their voice.  We hope that they are as inclusive and objective as they can be in representing the different opinions and views that were -- were shared in the session.  But that is they're -- they're the authors of that.  And then the messages are produced by the secretariat based on the session organizers' key takeaways.  And then finally the chair's summary is authorized if not produced by the chair, which is the host country chair, not the MAG chair.  People often get confused.  And that then becomes the most comprehensive record of the -- of the event.
 So it's -- I think it's -- I mean the outputs are there, and I know people complain that there are multiple outputs, and it makes it difficult, but at the same time, if you look at the multiplicity of voices and actors that are involved in organizing the IGF, I think it's very hard to get away from having these different outputs that then are attributed to different processes and people.
 But thank you very much for your work on that and for integrating the discussion yesterday.
 Any comments or questions for the secretariat on this presentation?
 Who has a hand up?
 I'm looking at the...
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:   Yes.  A practical question for Wim and Sorina, is -- when you say you give two weeks for the report, it means that you will have first an immediate report, short report as it is today and then they can make a final version within two weeks or we will have only the final report after two weeks?  Because the problem is, especially if you need to integrate elements from various plenary and sessions, et cetera, et cetera, in the other reports, probably you need to have two versions of the same document available, one immediately that is for the communication (indiscernible), the media, et cetera, et cetera, and the other is for more reflected discussion.
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:   If I may answer?  Well, the idea is that -- actually, there is no first report anymore.  So the short report is replaced by just and only the key takeaways.  And if that is -- personally, if that is two sentences that really capture a strong message that came out of the session, that's even better than having like three long paragraphs describing the session.
 So the idea is that within two hours or even immediately after the session, the session organizer says this was the most relevant point that came out of our discussion.  And all the other elements, giving more flavor to what was discussed, giving more background, giving more differentiation in opinions is expected in the summary report, which is also expected to be the summary report of the discussion and not just a copy-and-paste of the session description.
 I hope that's helpful.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Giacomo, okay.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:   For instance, if we go -- it doesn't seem the case this year, but if we go for focusing on some issues during the IGF, and this will be the one on which we need to have more in-deep report, we need to have both tools, not for eventually for all the events that are hosted within the IGF but at least for those that are -- let's say artificial intelligence.  For those you need both, and not in forms of few phrases.  Because if not, all the process will be delayed for long time, because if you have to wait for two weeks before to have the document, then when you will produce the in-deep analysis of what came out.
 We have to think about the future, of course.
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:   No, just a quick reaction.  Actually, it doesn't have -- nobody is obliged to wait that long; I mean, if a session organizer or a session team wants to have a report ready on a shorter term.  And maybe that's a suggestion.  If it's like one week or less time.
 I think what we want to avoid, and that's also something we saw from experience, that the session report is something that's on the shoulders of one person, and that one person is -- has like a very limited amount of time to put something together on paper.  And some of the other people involved are -- don't have the time because they have other sessions.
 So instead of creating that same situation just by putting pressure, we try to give a little more time for the substantive report so that more people can be involved.  But it doesn't have to be two weeks.  I mean, that just seemed realistic.  But if one week is enough.  But we just wanted to avoid the situation that people feel the pressure and that you see the report is one person's work who just made something quick.  And then often the second, longer report is just a small addition to what was already there and not a substantive longer report.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Wim and Giacomo.
 And there's also a question from Wout.  Wout, please go ahead.
 >>WOUT DE NATRIS:   Yes, thank you, Anriette, for the opportunity, as a non-MAG member.
 One question.  I know that the IGF Plus model is not there yet, but we have heard of really substantive potential outcomes of this IGF.  Is there -- has any thought been given to reaching out more directly to several stakeholder groups?  Because the pyramid I saw is more or less the same as it has been in the past, well, two years.  And we want to attract the right specialists and experts in the process for 2022, my guess is.  So how are we foreseeing to reach them and to make sure that they participate in 2022 cycle?
 Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Wout, I think to some extent that was covered by the communication strategy that Amado and the MAG working group and Eleonora presented earlier today.
 I think we also need to keep in mind that what Wim and Sorina just presented are the outputs that are produced through the host country and secretariat supported processes.  I think there can be other outputs as well.  They are the Diplo session summaries which are up very quickly and which people use, and then different stakeholder groups.  I know ICC/BASIS often publishes their debrief on the IGF.  Groups like the Association for Progressive Communications do an IGF reflection.
 So I think we also need to keep in mind that what -- they cannot do everything.  They cannot -- What they can do is to provide the raw material, which can be used as both the official record but and also inform other people's perspectives.
 So I know I'm not answering you entirely, but I think we also have to look at how we have to have clarity in terms of the record, the attribution and the type of document, the type of outputs documents that are produced, because without that, without clarity at that level, you cannot then really build a dynamic communications and outreach strategy.
 So I think your point is valid, and I think it needs to be undertaken as part of the process of implementing this -- this communications and outreach strategy, but wring it is -- it's part of what the plan is.
 So, Eleonora, I'm not sure if you wanted to comment on that, but that definitely is part of the longer-term strategy, what I heard this morning.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:   No comment from me.  Thank you, Chair.  But, yeah, Wout's -- Wout's feedback is well noted.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Eleonora.
 So, everyone, if there are no further questions, we are finishing early, which is very commendable.  I'm just doing a final check of the chat.  And the hands.
 There's a comment just to find the way to translate the final messages for users in understandable and simple language.  The IGF having a drafting committee.
 The idea of a drafting committee was actually raised.  That's what the Asia Pacific Regional IGF does.  At this point in time, that's not part of the IGF process.  But that comment has been made and I think it will probably be considered for the future, and there is nothing further at this point.
 Adam, you have asked for the floor.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   I have, again.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   So please go ahead.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Adam Peake for the record.  Yes, nine weeks away from the IGF, I believe.
 So a question I think would probably be helpful for me to know, could we find out how many MAG members intend to attend the IGF in person?  I think intention rather than absolute certainty is probably what we can go on at this stage.  But who intends to go would be helpful.
 And something I mentioned at the start of the meeting, if we can have the information about the COVID measures that will be in place, both for the blue zone venue and the venue as a whole, and any information about the COVID measures generally in Poland would be helpful.
 Everything that would be helpful to, you know, make sure that we are able to travel.  So thank you very much.  
 Thank you very much for chairing the meeting, Anriette.  It was wonderful.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Adam.
 Chengetai, can you please respond.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Adam.
 For your first question, I would ask MAG members who are going to -- who have the intention of coming just to put a little note in the chat.  I think that's the easiest.  If you're not, please don't.  If you do intend to come, just say a yes or a +1 in the chat and then we can do a quick count.  I think that would be good.
 I do also urge everybody, please, register in advance.  We had some MAG members even coming here and they had not registered.  It would really, really help us.  It would really, really help the host country if everybody registered as soon as they can.  And that will help us, especially with the visa issues and the COVID certificates and all that stuff.  I think that is very helpful.
 As far as the measures are concerned, there is some information on the website.  We did have some discussions when Przemyslaw was here.  He was having some discussions with our DSS, Department of Safety and Security.  So there will be some more updated information on the Poland website about the COVID measures probably end of next week.
 But then, again, this information is going to be continuously updated; and it's going to be fuller and fuller as we go towards the IGF 2021 meeting because, as you all know, it's a moving situation and there is always updates hopefully for the better and not rolling back.  Please do check time and time again.  If there is anything that is outright, we will try and also put it in our newsletter.  But, yes.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Chengetai.
 And, Adam, I hope that was sufficient for you.  We just have to accept that we'll be dealing with continuous information on this.
 There's a request that everyone indicates in the chat of the Webex interface, the MAG members, if they're going to be attending.  Thanks to those of you who have done that already.
 But, Chengetai, I think we should have more information on that really soon.  I think rather than take too seriously what we have -- we don't have all the MAG members present in this meeting.  I think there is a strong indication that many MAG members will be there.
 We also know that some are constrained and might not be able to be there, and that is why we are having a hybrid IGF.
 MAG members, observers, secretariat, friends and family of all genders, I think this is the end of this meeting.
 The next steps -- the most important, immediate next step is for the issue teams, the MAG members, to complete their main session proposals.  And I think do that with fresh energy.  I think you've done really good work.  Be open.  Look at what the community input was.  Think of how those sessions can be entertaining and interesting and dynamic.
 And we'll see your final proposals on the 15th of October, Friday the 15th of October, which means that by the time we have the next MAG call, we can start looking at how they'll be displayed and promoted.
 And the next MAG call will be on...
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It's going to be on the 19th, Tuesday, the 19th.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Tuesday, 19 October.
 So I would like to thank everyone for being in this meeting, for bearing with us through the hybrid format, to our virtual participants who probably tried to multitask while being in the MAG meeting and in different time zones, to those who got up early in the morning and those who stayed up late.
 Thanks to the transcribers.  They are incredible and invaluable to us.  And we haven't had interpreters, but we've had our transcribers.
 And the Webex team, the U.N. Palais' Webex team, thank you very much for your support.
 And then to the secretariat who has, as always, patiently and diligently supported the process and provided the technical support and all the conceptual and administrative support that we need.  
 And Pascal, that includes you.  Thank you for your support to get those of us who traveled from far away here.
 Thanks very much, everyone.
 Chengetai, do you have any closing remarks?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I would just like to echo our Chair's words.  Thank you very much.
 Also, if you have any problems trying to find some panelists for your main sessions, please do contact us.  We do have a list of VIP guests that we could recommend for you for your panelists.  We are getting more and more confirmations each day from the VIPs that we have invited to come in.  And they may be very, very willing to come on to your panel for the main session.
 With that, I would also like to say a very big thank you to our chair as well for these three days.  I think she did a very, very great job and she needs a hand.
 Thank you.
 [ Applause ]
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, everyone.  It's a collective effort.
 Amado, they have got a list.  They've got records.  It's easier for the secretariat, if MAG members ask them and say We, need somebody from that part of the world or from that stakeholder group or from that sectoral area, it's easier for them to go and look at all their different -- there's a database, but they also have records from past high-level sessions.  
 I think it's easier for them if you ask them, and then they'll provide some suggestions.  It's not one database.
 The meeting is now closed.  You can go away and have fun!
 [ Laughter ]

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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