You are here

2019 IGF - MAG - Virtual Meeting - VII

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

***

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Good afternoon, evening, and good morning, everyone.  This is MAG virtual meeting number seven and before we start, just a quick reminder that the meeting is being recorded, including the messages in the chat.  We'll bough using the hand up method, the speaking queue, and the link is being put in chat.  With that, I'll just hand it over to Lynn.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai, and welcome, everyone.  The first order of business is to approve the agenda, which was sent out some days ago.  I do have one request for a change, and that would be to move the working group on the workshop proposal item up to immediately following agenda item 4.  Agenda item 4 is review the second face to face consultations.  We would then move to the working group workshop proposals, they have a specific request in front of the MAG and of course, it's timely in terms of the workshop submission process and p then we'll just move back to the rest of the agenda.
So, let me see if that is acceptable or if there are any requests for AOB or any other requested edits.  Just doing the slow count to six.  All right.  Seeing some support for moving the working group on workshop proposal forward, let's move forward with the agenda advertise submitted then, with that one minor change.
And the first item of business is the Chair's introduction and welcome.  I will save my open introductory comments until we get to item 4, which is the agenda review, for the second face to face.  With that, we'll turn the floor over to Chengetai for the Secretariat update.  Chengetai?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Lynn.  Just a quick reminder for the coming face to face meeting in April during the WSIS forum week, just a reminder to please register.  If Luis could put it in the chat as well so people can update.  In updates for proposals, we have 22 proposals being worked on at the moment and two are being completely submitted.  We have two open fora and 31 booth requests and nine day zero events so those numbers are fine.  This is how it usually happens, as I say, 80 percent of the proposal submissions happen 48 you hours before the deadline but it will be good if we could encourage people to please submit early.
It's good for us and also, if everybody submits at the same time, then the system will start having faults and crashing, et cetera.  So, it's best to do it now.  If you have any problems, then you can always see Luis and Luis will help you through it.  Better to do it before the deadline than after.
The consultants for the best practice forums are being processed.  We have advertised them.  The advertisement is finished so now we're just collecting the applications and sending them to New York to get processed so hopefully, I would say within two weeks, they'll be ready to operate.
We did have the NRI meeting.  They're still undergoing their consultations so we'll hear back from them when they have p finished their deliberations.  I think that's all for the Secretariat updates and in case I've left anything out, I'll just ask the other people if I've left anything out.  Luis, Anja?  Okay. Nothing.  Then, I'll give the floor back to Lynn.  Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai.  And thank you to all the Secretariat, too, for all the ongoing support certainly with respect to the workshop submission but continuing to support activities and all the very active support going to the NRIs as well.
The next item is the agenda review for the second face to face open consultations and MAG meet.  Before we get into the specifics of the agenda, I just want to call out one specific proposed change.  We did discuss it on the last call, and that was moving the open consultation to day 2 of the three day meeting, whereas, traditionally, it's been held on day 1.  The logic there was based on the fact that we thought there might be the opportunity to increase participation instead MAG meeting if the open consultation was on day 2 as it would not compete with the main session e and opening sessions of the WSIS forum.
The second reason was that given the major purpose of this second face to face meeting was to advance some of the more strategic issues, the thought was that we, the MAG, would have some of those discussions on day 1, could then engage with the community on day 2, and follow up with any feedback on day 3 of the MAG meeting.
Do recognize that this is a change for the community.  We obviously don't want to take them by surprise if people are making their plans but let me, first, open that up for any comments.  Again, there was, so, the support, we didn't ask for a formal approval on the last MAG call but there was some level of support for moving the open consultation to day 2.  Are there any concerns?  Any suggestions?  Any comments from MAG members with respect to that proposal? 
Again, just, okay.  So, seeing lots of support in the room, or lots of support, probably, between five and ten, I guess, if I just scroll back quickly, we'll proceed with that.  The Secretariat spoke to Chengetai, will make it very, very visible, that, in fact, we are moving the open consultations to day 2 in order to try to increase engagement in the open consultation day and to provide feedback on the basis of the strategic initiatives.
Chengetai, there's a pinging I hear occasionally in the background.  I don't know if everybody else is hearing that but it's like a large, loud ping.  Maybe Luis could troubleshoot it.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I'm sure he will, yes.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay. So, and, again, confirmation, it's important to clarify that to the community.  I think we should do that as separately, no the just as part of the general agenda update but I'll leave that to the Secretariat to determine best way to do that.  So the agenda, the proposed agenda, had, again, the main outline day 1 is mostly a strategic discussion.  If the Secretariat, just putting in the chat room there.  The discussion, we want the bulk of the discussion.  There are some introductory and welcome comments, obviously, from individuals.  We've also invited Hu Lil Zau who is the ITU Secretariat general as they are against donating space in the midst of a very busy week for us to host this meeting as well as all the AV support as well.  Not sure we've been able to find the time for that yet, given it's a very busy week, about but hopefully he'll be able to stop by at some point and welcome us.
So, after we get through those formalities, the bulk of the day is focused on strengthening the IGF and of course using that to develop the 2019 program in line with the strategic priorities.  The list that we've included there are basically the main topics that have come up whether it's through the stakeholder reviews or taking stock.  You know, when, let me go through the whole agenda then we'll come back to how we might actually process that.  We did think that at the very end of the day, it was helpful to have, again, some high level overviews of both the plans for the high level sessions and day zero events, the opening and closing ceremonies, and possibly the thematic sessions as well.  We also included a brief review of the IGF 2019 themes.  Of course, the workshop proposal process is still open.  That will not have concluded at that time but I think it would be useful to review the narrative and if there's any view of the r from the MAG with respect to the submissions that are in process at that point.
Again, day 2 would be a community discussion, which really would focus on developing the 2019 program aligned strategic priorities as well as providing, you know, ample time, as much time as we can, for community engagement, for community input.
And then, later in the day, we would also have a workshop process review session for the national regional use IGF initiatives as well as some discussion on the intersessional activities.  And finally, on the end of the second day, we would have our usual slot which is related to contributions from related or relevant initiatives or organizations.  And then, day 3, again, is when we tie those previous days together.  I suspect a significant portion of the session will focus on the thematic sessions as well as some of the other areas of improvement such as the outputs, increasing engagement across the community as well as broadening engagement which of course was a specific request from the Secretariat general, but I think a lot of those topics there will just sort of run together and permeate through our whole discussion w
Before we come back to how we might actually process our way through this strategic discussion, are there any general comments or questions or reflections?  Suggestions?  Again, just waiting, slow call to six.  So, what's been happening on the mailing list in the background is one or two memos have gone out.  I'm in the process of putting another together to kick start our discussion on the MAG list.  The one I'm working on at the moment is focused on output and strengthening recommendations.  Again, from the working group on multiyear strategic work program, you will have seen some of the open items from the last settle of sessions and the intent    set of sessions and the intent is to move those forward.  I did see similar to the discussion starting out on the strategic multiyear program, we've had numerous discussions on what a multiyear program might look like, so, specifically, I'd like to address that.  And then, as I said, the one that I'm working on at the moment is one on outputs and recommendations, which is a really significant piece of work in the last two years of the working group on strategic multiyear work program.
We've also begun some work on the fundraising program, various discussions on strengthening the intersessional activities.  I know the NRIs themselves are spending a lot of time looking at how they can advance their activities and what the relationship ought to be both amongst themselves and with the MAG.
You know, and as we often say, the NRIs are one of the most, some would argue, the most important outcome of the IGF activities.  And certainly, I think it's really important to do what we can to support them and increase the engagement there as well.
And similar comments to the dynamic coalitions and the best practice forums.  All of them are really attempting to move forward concretely, key topics and advance them across the community.  So, let me, one of the things, we could clearly work through the list, and we could reprioritize the list or add to the list.  My worry is that if we do it serially, we'll be looking at kind of incremental improvements on each one of the line items.  Again, my kind of initial thoughts would be to have a more open approach to the question specifically on, you know, we're 12, 13 years now into the IGF, seven years left against this current mandate, we, of course, have the high level HLPVC, the high level panel and digital cooperation, we'll be putting out its report fairly soon and the message from the Secretariat general in terms of challenges there seeing with the Heinz systems and some specific things they'd like to    United Nations systems and some specific things they'd like to get some additional help with from the IGF and certainly across the broader UN system as well.
So, we've got a number of major activities in play and I think it would be interesting to have a more open discussion initially about where our priorities ought to be and what we might think about doing in order to advance some of the desired improvements.  Again, looking for comments or p suggestions I.  I think it would be really helpful if MAG members can look at kick starting some of the topics, starting the discussion there if we can but certainly spending some time thinking about it, and to the extent, if you can share your thoughts or suggestions ahead of time with the MAG, that will certainly facilitate our discussions there and allow maximum progress.  And I know the draft agenda only came out two days ago or so, so, we're obviously looking for comments from the MAG.  We will leave it open.  We can probably leave it open for another week or so S.
I guess it's just, you know, just a little over a week and that would give us just a little bit less than a week before the MAG meeting itself so we'll give the MAG members time to reflect on it and send in maybe thoughts or comments.  Chengetai, is there anything you or anyone from the Secretariat wants to add with regards to the agenda or anything we United to accomplish?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: No.  I think you've given a good overview and we had our inputs before it was published.  I would say that I would give people a week just so that we can give other people a chance to read it and make their plans for the meeting as well.  If people haven't commented, usually, if people haven't commented within a week then they are not going to so let's call it a week.
>> Okay. That's good feedback.  Could we in the meantime post a head line and article to inform everyone, I think this is good news, they were taking some steps to try and increase participation, taking advantage of the WSIS forum and to engage the community in I think some of the more strategic discussions so if we could get that out today or tomorrow, again, some head line.
>> You are hearing me, right?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, we are.
>> It's just a    so, IGF P the topic would be    so I think it would be good for people who are participating that they should do their registration as soon as possible to make sure they get the feedback in the interim.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I think that's a very good idea.  Maybe we could make that part of the same memo with respect to the overall flow as a face to face meeting.  Chengetai.  Any comments?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry, I didn't catch the question.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I think Carlos is asking, to register for the IGF if you're going to attend in person, you need to register for the WSIS forum and the WSIS forum is more complicated than what the IGF are.  I think Carlos is suggesting that we make that known so that people allow enough time to do so.
>> Yes, we can put a note out and also send the note out as well that they should register early.  Yes.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you.  Thank you, Carlos.  Not seeing any other comments or requests for the floor at the moment.  Let's move to the agenda item, the working group on the workshop proposals.  Jutta, Sylvia or Susan.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Hello, Lynn.  Jutta speaking here.  Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: We can, yes.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. So thank you for putting this issue on the agenda.  We have been talking about the description where the criteria are included at the last meeting and there have also been, has been given some input via the list and these all had been incorporated
>> The descriptions now.  And probably, I do think Sylvia is also on the call, although it's very late for her, I think.  So, I would like to suggest that we share this part of the agenda and Sylvia would walk you through the document with the descriptions once again, and then I would like to give you some explanations on the suggested waiting for the different percentages or equal percentages for the criteria.  Sylvia, would you be ready to take over?
>> SYLVIA CADENA: Hi, Jutta, can you hear me?  I can't speak very loudly because all the family is sleeping so my apologies for that, so, I hope you can hear me while I speak softly.  I hope you can see the document on the screen and its link I already copied on the chat.  The idea of this document is that everything that is on sales that are green and light gray would be like the online forum that we all would see so all the rest are notes for implementation for the Secretariat or comments that other people have incorporated.
There is one comment on this that is not reflected because I was not sure exactly how to put it but I will explain in a minute.  So, the idea is that people will select from a list of workshop titles and the proposal title, and as soon as they do that, then the questions and the criteria and everything else will appear.  So, then, MAG members will mark if they have or not a conflict of interest to complete their evaluation for the proposal.
If they mark that they do have a conflict of interest, then text field will show up where they will be able to explain what that conflict of interest is.  And that information will only be visible for the Secretariat.
When they say that they will not assess that proposal, that proposal will be taken out of their random list and a new one will be given.  So, then, for the six criteria, we have them marked on C1, C2, C3 on the column A so you will be able to see them all and then there is a little bit of a description about on the green that says what question on the application form is the one that the MAG will use, the MAG members will use to refer to how to score that.  And all the criteria, all the six criteria have the same structure given one to five scores.  One absent, poor, need improvement, good, and excellent and then some explanation related to that particular criteria where we took quite a bit of time to word what absent means, what need improvement means, what excellent means in relation to the information that was going to be or is going to be available on the application forum.
So, for example, in evacuation, you'll see that it's question 8, sorry, relevance is question six and seven.  Format is question eight.  Diversity is, sorry, Luis, could you move it up a little.  Down a little.  Sorry, diversity is question 9 with options.
Based on the information that each application provides, what do you need, what content do you need to look at to open this course.  That's for the sixth criteria.
So, if you go down, Luis, please, then after people have given the scores from one to six, then there will be three blocks of comments.  One says, the idea is that they'll explain the proposal.  The reason for that is is from the time we finish our scoring to the time we get together to actually discuss other steps on the process, we might actually forget why we put a three instead of a four.  So, it's important to use that for our deliberations.
Those can be the same on the integral comments but the supporting comments will be the same for the Mac.  And then the feedback, this is important to help the Secretariat communicate with nonsuccessful applicants so they can receive feedback that help them improve their proposal in the future.
So, I hope that is enough explanation.  If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer now or on the chat.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Sylvia, for this concise explanation.  Are there any questions in regard to the description of the scores and to the use of the form?  I don't see anyone raising their hand or raising a question in the chat, so, with regard to the form and using the descriptions of this course, we still need to decide whether MAG members can have a description before we go assessment of the real proposals, the proposals that come in this year, and if we can do so, it should probably be done within the next few days so that at the face to face meeting, we could discuss the experience people have made with trying to assess a proposal and trying to apply this course according to this disruptions in the system and then also with regard to the agenda for the face to face face meeting, then we would need to have some space for discussing experiences of MAG members with the system.  So, I tried to look for this in the chat.  Okay. There is nothing said with regard to this.  Then, I would like to go over and Luis, if you could show us the evaluation criteria on waits that are on the second sheet of the axil map.  Yes, of course.
So, we already explained last time that we have five different options for the waiting.  Option 1 would be an equal weight for each of the six criteria, which would be 16.67 percent for each of the six criteria, and then we have four other options that give a different weight per criterion and these are slightly, some have only slight differences, others have more or less differences between the six criteria.  As you can see, for example, option 4 and 5 have more or less the same weight for four criteria, but then, for option, oh, let me have a look, it's difficult to follow both images and the chat.  In option 4, we have a smaller weight.  And option 5 has a lower weight for performance and a higher weight for diversity, with 10 percent performance and 20 percent for diversity.  
So in the end, these looks like minor changes but it depends on how the scoring is doing going, whether this will sum up two different overall course for the proposals.  First of all, before I continue and tell you something about the testicle liaison that we did, I just wanted to know whether it's comprehensible to everybody what could be achieved by the different weighting for the criteria.  Are there any others with regard to that?  No one is raising their hands, and no one is writing a question with chat, so it seems we have been very produced a very comprehensible proposal for the weighting.  B still, it needs to be decided whether we stick with what we had in the past years, that would be an equal weight for all of the six criteria or whether we go for a different shading weight.
What I can tell you is when I have tried some test runs with different scores for different to what it ends up and I can tell you that obviously if you give to all the criteria a medium score, which would probably be 3, then there are only really very slight differences between the overall score depending on the different weights so but it's always only on the first or on the first and second decimal place.  There is not so much influence on the weight of the overall score as I would have expected to be.  It turns out to be a little bit different when you give higher scores than of course also the differences between the different calculation methods would be a bit greater. 
But, in the end, it's almost like if you give a score of more or less three or four, then the differences between these five options for weighting are very small.  It's not like it has such a huge impact on the whole thing.
So, that needs to be taken into consideration when we try to find a rough consensus whether it's preferable to have a weighting system that puts more weight on some of the criteria or whether we refrain from that and stick with the equal weighting.  We had also put that list on the IGF MAG list and we got some input into that but I couldn't say that was a main support for one of the options of weighting.  Some people argued that we should not have a different shading weight and other people said, okay, we think    is less relevant and diversity is more relevant so probably form should be less weighted and diversity should have a higher percentage of the weight.
That's all I can summarize.  The working group did not come up with a conclusion and decide what would be best to do.  It's just that we can bring forward to you these five options and then we need your input on to try to find a consensus.  
I see Ben Alice has asked for the floor.
>> BEN ALICE: Thank you for all the work the working group has done to provide us with guidance and descriptions for how to score.  I think that's going to be really helpful this year, and it's going to make it a lot easier.  And hopefully.  So, I've spoken before that I think diversity needs to be weighted more in both the discussions around the workshop evaluations last summer and in the discussions kind of at the end of the year, comments about in the call, comments for how the IGF is done at the end of the year.  I don't hear comments, concerns about the quality of the workshops.  I don't hear comments about the format of the workshop.  I hear a lot of comments about failings or weaknesses in diversity, whether that be, you know, a dominance of one stakeholder group in speakers, speaker numbers or in putting forward proposals, whether that be different geo graphic reasons that are vastly underrepresented.  So, I would like to see more weighting for diversity and I think of the options you put forward, option 2 obviously weights diversity the most in relation to others but I also appreciate that some others have said they're concerned about weighting and they prefer everything to be the same.
So, maybe with consensus, options three and five that less differential between the various criteria but they do have some weighting so, I'd like options 2, 3, and 5, and I'm sure you have other views that kick off the discussion.  Thanks again for your work.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Ben, that was very considerate and I do think it helps a lot because it shows also a bit that some of the weighting options are, have only a smaller impact while others might have more prominent impact.  Anybody else who would like to add up to that?
>> Yes, I'd just like to say something.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: For the weighting, after the decimal point is still very significant because if you have, you know, over 300 workshop proposals and you list them in order of the scores, so, if it's one decimal points, even two decimal points is still means its difference between, you know, being above the line or below the acceptance line.  That's just my only comment.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, thank you, Chengetai, for this clarification.  I can tell you that, for example, I have done a test run and the differences between the five options are even very small.  So if you have a proposal that scores three criteria with two and other three criteria with a three, it's only in the second decimal place that there is a difference.  If there is more diversity with the scores for example, if you give 5 with different diversity and diversity has been given higher weight with the criteria, of course, the difference in the overall scores will be greater.
So, that's just mathematics.  It's not rocket science.  So, in the end, we need to decide, okay, we can give people the signal that we put different weight and we give higher weight for example to diversity like is what mirrored in what Ben was saying or whether we just say we stick with the equal weight.  I can report back I've been in several sessions the past two weeks where people wanted to get information about the whole process, what are the criteria, more or less explaining what is already on the IGF website and although people asked for the criteria, their proposals would be assessed against, none of them have will asked the question    ever asked the question whether there was a different weight to the criteria.  So, I don't think people are really aware of that that there could be more weight to one criteria an another.
There is some background noise.  Okay. Nabojsa, would you like to speak?  I do see the queue is not working for you.  Yes? 
>> Okay. Nabojsa speaking.  I don't know whack kind of mathematics you did.  As you know, I am advocate for equal weight for all criteria.  But, if we see the first option that you provided here, just one mark out of, let's say, on the basis of all fives and 14, it the difference is one tenth of mark.  So, depending which criteria got that mark four so if it is, I'm talking about option 2.  So, it's really significant difference.  It's not that insignificant.  So, I'm still advocating the equal one sixth weight for each criteria or my second opinion as I see your proposal, the lowest weight was given in all these two options to provided format of course, except, the first one where the equal weights are given to each criteria.  If you any thy that format is not that significant, let's remove that completely, leave five criteria, and all those five criteria have same weight.  So I have two proposals.  One is like this with six criteria same weight or five criteria, removing format, which is obviously considered.  Thank you.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you.  I do think you had already put that on the list and we had taken that into consideration quite well.
>> Sorry, this is the new one.  This proposal to remove format is new one based on the documents that you provided, or Sylvia, whoever sent this, sorry, who sent it a couple days ago and based on that, I formed this new proposal.
And by the way, thank you for great work.  It was really, I know that you put a lot of effort in it and it is great effort that you did.  And I hope that MAG will come out of this with improved results in the sense that we have the best workshops selected.  Thank you.
>> Thank you, Nebojsa.  Of course, the suggestion to move forward is a new suggestion that you did not make before, but, I thank you also for the clarification that the option 2 that we have here prepared for you is the one that could have, option 2 has the highest impact on the overall score and that is if there is significant impact to diversity.  So, this could have the highest impact on the overall score.
I'm not sure about your suggestion of removing format from the list of criteria because I do think it's already published.  People had will know that we asked for format and that this has somehow will go also into the scores for the proposal.  So, I'm not sure whether we can come up with that solution.  I'm going to hand over to Sylvia.
>> SYLVIA CADENA: Thank you, Jutta.  I just want to make a comment about the remarks that Chengetai made with decimal points.  It's very important.  Last year, we had up to four decimal points with similar scores so it's important to look at that difference.  I think the weights besides helping, of course I support the weights, I support option 2 and 5 as I mentioned it on the chat and on the working group.  Option 2.  But the comment that I want to make is that the weights cannot necessarily help us with deciding on the first go which workshops pass a certain line, you would say, for selection.  But that will help us to compare workshops.  They have similar scores.  So, it might be just a tool to help us on further distributions and not necessarily on the first cut for the workshops.
So, just to help us on the deliberation of how that actually works, in terms of the format that Nebojsa just made, I mean, it might make sense thinking that is the one that we are getting less weight in all the different options but I think there is some element there around innovation on those formats that can actually help a proposal that is just about to kind of push a little bit of its weight.
So, I think the six criteria were agreed previously.  And it's important to stick to those and I think I really encourage the MAG to think about really about this in a practical way to help us make decisions of the workshops.  I saw Jeremy's comments about representation in terms of diversity and while I really don't have any evidence to support that, the workshops that I was able to attend last year.  I think they did the best they could in a suggestion situation that was not quite ideal in terms of the cost of bringing people in and all that.  So, if there are examples of workshops that did that, I would really like to see what those workshops were and try to assess and God back and look at how that got in.  I don't have any recollections on that, so that's my comments.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thanks for that.  I do think it's clear, the working group could not come up with a recommendation so far because we were not sure how the MAG would be reacting to the difference options and although we have been discussing this for a while now, I didn't see that we have a, have a rough consensus so I'm not sure how we can proceed from this point.  One last point I woollike to mention is that of course we won't base the decision only on the overall score and on the first, second or third decimal place and say if it's there, it's losing against another then it's out.  Of course, this will be a discussion but nonetheless we could expect that at least we will have the same number of proposals like last year.  I assume it might be more because people have more time and people know in advance where the internet governance forum will take place.  That is different to last year so probably more people can plan for returning the IGF early enough in the year and therefore, also, we'll send in their proposals.  And given that we could assume that maybe we have 400 proposals or even more.  Having said that, I would like to hand over to Lynn again probably to help us find a rough consensus about the waiting.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta, Sylvia and Susan for doing all the really heavy lifting and careful thinking through this.  I have just a couple comments before we try to find a way to close.  When we talked bad this on previous calls, I think there were two threads.  One, of course, was this discussion we just had.  The other one was how we would actually manage this re the community given the workshop process has already been launched.  It's nearly halfway complete.  So, Chengetai and I this morning were discussing whether or not, what was the level of guidance that had been given to the community with respect to some of the topics, and I think that's another important piece of this discussion.  We certainly don't want to be changing the criteria or the requirements in the midst of the process and that determination has to be made from the determination of the submitters.  So, that's certainly one I'd like to hear some b comments on and then just my other general comments with respect to we've talked April awful lot about diversity and someone made one of the previous calls that what was in fact most important about diversity, if you're talking about the panelists, a really good diversity viewpoint.  So, I think that's something, make next steps to call out.  This is not just a matter of getting different stakeholders because frankly, that's not going to help advance the internet governance topic under questions.  So, for that reason, I leaned more towards heavier weighting on things like the policy question or the content, perhaps, but, again, that's just my view.  If we could have just a few comments on how people feel in the midst of the process.  So the floor is opened. 
>> Thank you, Lynn, for that comment, if I may step in.  That was the reason why I told people that my experience was during the last two weeks that people even didn't consider that there could be a different weight to the criteria.  Whenever I tried to explain that there are several criteria where the proposals are assessed against, never asked the question anybody, what weight is given to these criteria so I think people assume that they all have equal weight and that needs to be taken in consideration whether we can change the methodology at this point of time.  Of course, you're right.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta.  Any other comments or reflections?  I mean, to me, this is a critical question.
>> Lynn, can I jump in?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Please.
>> Nebojsa, again.  One of the reasons why I am in favor of equal weight is not only because we are now in the middle of process where people expect the same weight for criteria, but if we go in the future with that, we are immediately giving a signal with different weighting which criteria should I pay less attention than making my workshop proposal.  Even if we are at the beginning now, the beginning of the whole process, I think it would be very bad to have, I am not such fan of format and it's not because of that that I'm but just because I think it would send wrong message and especially now in the situation where we are still early in the process but it's already started so it's up to other colleagues to give a opinion to decide.  Thank you. 
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Nebojsa.  While I'm waiting to see if anyone else wants to take the floor, I will note that Ben Wallis put a note in the chat room.  Shoppers have been informed of the criteria and that they should be aiming to meet all of them regardless of whether or not they're weighted and goes on, doesn't think we have stated whether or not that criteria are weighted, therefore, people expect them to be weighted.  This is their assumption.
While I think that's true, I also think we operate in a mode of maximum kind of transparency and inclusiveness and if we were going to weight some more than others, I do think that's something we would have indicated at the time of the workshop launch.  And for me, the test is, if we were doing this ahead of the process, is that something we'd indicate?  And I think it probably would be but again that's just my point.  Any other comments other than Nebojsa and I don't know if Chengetai has a view on changing something from the perspective of the proposers midcycle.  It appears as though Nebojsa is the only one that has that concern.  I will actually say that I do share some of that concern but I'm more trying to make sure that the MAG has taken that into account as well.  Chengetai, do you want to come in at all?
>> LUIS BOBO: Hi, Lynn, this is Luis.  Chengetai is   
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Hi, I just managed.  Sorry, my microphone is coming on and off for some reason.  Yes, I do agree that yes, I mean, we are sort of changing the.  We are changing the stated rules because we did not explicitly state that there's going to be different weightings.  Personally, I'm of the opinion that people should expect it but it's true.  I agree with what Lynn is saying.  It's not an absolutely strong feeling if the MAG thinks that weighting it does bring about, you know, better identification of the better workshops, then yes.  We should go ahead and do it.  So, yes, there's a bit of everything in there.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai.  Make some comments that at the time we actually launched the application form, we had agreed to leave the weights in the evaluation for later to launch on time and that is also why the evaluation former guides will also not mention.  Well, let me see.  If we agreed, so, it doesn't seem as though that second concern is broadly held by the MAG.  Seems as though people, the MAG is quite comfortable with actually moving to a weighting of the criteria and if we agree with that, and I will stop and call that in a moment, if we agree with that as a comment, then, 4/the next step is to try and see if we can reach agreement on which option and Nebojsa.  People are in agreement that the MAG seems comfortable with respect to moving to a weighted criteria.  Assuming we can agree on the criteria.  And informing the community of that.  That there are no objections with proceeding to evaluate which option. so, I'm seeing agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed, which means we now need to move to, can we reach agreement on which one of the options and which ones of the criteria.  I was quickly trying to capture, and I don't know if anyone did a better job than I did, support for the various options.  Two and five had the most support, as far as I could tell, but in total, I think there have only been about 12, tops maybe 15 MAG members that have actually expressed an opinion.  And Nebojsa, could you just walk through or maybe put your email up, I don't know if everyone will have time to open the email.  If there's a takeaway from your proposal, then I think you should.  But, let me just see, Jutta, were you trying to take the floor?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, Lynn, thank you for giving me the floor.  I do think there were support for option 2, for 3 and forb 5.  I only see from Nebojsa support for option 1, that would be equal weight, and I haven't seen support for option 4, but, the two, the three, and the five, I do think these all were supported and it depends on whether we go for five, which is only a very small impact on the overall score because there was not so much difference or whether we go for the two or three, which both have higher impact on the overall score.  That's my comment.  Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta.  Very helpful.  If you Nebojsa, can you share?
>> I just gave in support of the file, the different criterias.  One is for different criterias, the next session is marked.  Only one is three.  All others are five, and in the last sessions, I mixed from one to five.  We can see the first option that from the proposal equal weights is the last one.  So, everybody going through the vertical lines can see what's the difference for different options.  It's just as illustration, what kind of influence these different weights make a certain criteria given the lower marker compared to all others.
It's simply just a, let's say, illustration.  It doesn't say anything in favor, per se.  It just, you know, it's matter of opinion.  Somebody would consider that it's good to have such difference.  Somebody would consider that it's not good to have such difference.
I'm among those that think I am among those, I suggest we get total, for maybe next three days and different options so that invite all MAG members to give their word.  Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Nebojsa.  We have tried to, historically, in the MAG's fairly long history now, tried to avoid doodle polls because in practice, it becomes a vote and we certainly don't have any criteria set for what constitutes a quorum, any thoughts on quorums or numbers we'd like to see from other stakeholders and of course, our representation is fairly heavily weighted to one stakeholder group as well so we usually try to come through consensus and of course, that's a process I'd still like us to try.
There have been one last question, maybe the Secretariat has done this, there have been a couple suggestions that we run like the last 50 or top 80 or whatever, top proposals we automatically accepted, automatically in quotes, last year using these different criteria and ratings to see if that substantially changed them I don't know what I think if in fact it did substantially change them, if that would be something we would feel good about and maybe it was actually identifying those proposals that had more of the things we were prioritizing.
So, I'm not sure it would be helpful but the question has come up several times and then we'll come back to trying to find a way to close this.  Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: We'll check and come back to you.  We have to check the documents.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. 
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. Lynn, would that mean we postpone the decision to our face to face meeting.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: That's hand excellent question, Jutta.  I think the difficulty if we do that, then really we're at the way back end of the process.  And I can, you know, appreciate that some of the community members might feel uncomfortable with that being declared so late in the process.  The, actually go back.  I see a few more comments coming in with a couple people saying they can't support two or five.  And I'm guessing that's because it's significantly weighting the diversity whereas previously, two and five were the ones that were actually getting the most support.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Lynn.  25 percent.  So, that means now that we have six criteria, all of them will have less weight and it's really a crucial decision whether we give one of the criteria more than because that means another will have less.  So, we all have to give consequence to that that we then give more rains relevance to one criteria and if we want to do that, then okay.  We need to go ahead with a different weighting.
But, compared to last year when the four criteria each had 25 percent, we now have to find conclusion that gives it different weighting that means of one of the criteria would have different weight than it might have and the other would have more weight than it had last year and do people expect that.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta.  I think with respect to, you know, were people expecting their criteria to be weighted, I think the MAG has already expressed their belief that this is not something that would overly concern the community, if I can say it that way.  We were told that all of them were important and the MAG has already said that they're, they would be comfortable noting, sending a note to the community that in fact they were going to be looking at weights.
If I quickly scan the chat in the background, and again, if anybody has any information, we can follow the discussion and think at the same time.  There has been a fair amount of support for options two, three, and five and very little for one and four.  Subsequently, a few people, one or two people have come in and said that they were not comfortable with two and five.  I think because of the heavier weighting on diversity.  If, in fact, that's true, and Heiki is actually making a good point as well, which is if option 5 has relatively little effect, then go for two or three, that would actually leave us basically with three.
If that's true, we are making the best decision we can provided there are no strong objections.  What I'm hearing are maybe most pressing concerns but not a really strong substantive suggestion.  So, given the preferences seem to be for two, three, and five, but I think there's been a few things made with respect to diversity and not wanting to overweight that at this point in time.  Sylvia is talking for less weight with policy and why she preferred option 2.  Personally, I have a lot of support for that as well.  They do think the policy question, again, gets to concretely, what is the purpose of the session.  What are we actually trying to advance.
There was some support for Sylvia's comment from in the in the chat room but Sylvia's comments and relevance also go together so I can kind of make it work.  Are there any, if we were to move forward with option 3, and again, if anybody has a better way to state where they think we are, please, please suggest it.  And I'll give a few moments to see if anybody wants to restate a possible path forward, and then we would go for closing.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Lynn, while in the chat room, some people are giving their opinion, I have two other points to report from the working group just for consideration that we need to talk about these issues.  That is, first, the question based on what information will the proposals be allocated to MAG members.  That was a discussion in the working group last year, whether we should continue with, you can get proposals allocated to you based on your expertise, the MAG member indicated before, or whether it should be a random process.  I do think we need to come to a conclusion with regard to that question, but not necessarily today.  We can postpone that to the face to face meeting or to our next virtual meeting then afterwards.
And the other question is that we do think it will be necessary to define what will state a conflict of interest.  There are some criteria that, where it's quite clear, conflict of interest would be if a proposal comes from an organization I'm working for but there might be a situation where a conflict of interest might arise and that would also need to be defined by the MAG.  Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Those are excellent points, Jutta, and maybe I could ask the working group to put them to the MAG list potentially in two separate threads as well so again, we get some it discussion ahead of time which I think makes for a much better decision making process and possibly even the ability to close them online reserving the face to face time for the even more strategic discussions.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Just for a thought on the group expertise.  I mean, since we only have three groups this year, wouldn't it be better to have random groups.  I'm just thinking of the difficulty of assigning and people, if it's based on your expertise, also the chance of a conflict of interest happening also increases quite considerably.  So, if you randomize it and then people will indicate to the Secretariat whether there's a conflict of interest and we can assign.  We only have those three groups, it will be good just to randomize it.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai, for those important contributions.  Maybe Jutta, if there's kind of a burgeoning consensus within the working group.  Is there a recommendation or is that still an open discussion?
>> JUTTA CROLL: It's still an open discussion.  We got the, we got it from the, we got it from some concern that there was an allocation based expertise.  I do think Chengetai made a really good point and that's better and we can base that also on the recommendations from the final report from the working group last year.  Then that probably might be solved by that way and I would only put the question of how we shall define the cases of conflict of interest for which of the IGF MAG members.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay. I think that's a good way forward, Jutta.  As you said, I know last year's working group was really quite strong on supporting random allocation, not self declared expertise or interest, and sill certainly, the comments about Chengetai and support in the chat room I think seems to be strong support for random allocation.
So, I think we can go forward with that.  Again, as this is a way forward quickly, if there's a strong difference of opinion, people should declare that.  And we can, I suppose, informally leave time open on the list as well.
But, let's move forward on the since that we're going for random allocation.  I think the conflict of interest as you, per your suggestion, some further definition would be helpful.  We can take that to the list.  It did seem there was support for option 3.  I don't think, again, the chat is moving very quickly.  Lots of support.
So, if we move forward, there was also, I just saw in comments, if we're choosing option 3, suggesting increasing the policy question from 15 to 20 and reduce interaction from 15 to ten.  I'm a little loathe to start individual suggestions.  I don't know where we stop as much as I support Maria's comment because I feel that we're not, I guess we're slightly deprecating, in fact, the policy question and equal weighting would have 6.7 percent and if in this one has 15 percent.  But, compromise being what it is. 
>> JUTTA CROLL: It's a tricky question.  Potentially, there were other options as well so I very much appreciated June's comments on the chat saying, Okay. Let's go ahead with option 3.  Let's see how it's working and it's not like it's carved in stone forever so if we see that probably we might need change that in the next year, then let's be open to that. 
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yeah, I would like, I think that's a very good suggestion and we need to make sure that we start it early enough and allow enough time for the full MAG discussion as well.  I mean, the weighting on relevance, for instance, I mean, if it's not relevant, it's not going to get a high grade so, you know, it's, to me, I don't know what that criteria is really adding and to weight that more than the policy question itself, it's hard for me it me to wrap my head around that, I think speaking directly.  But there was support for moving forward with option 3.  I'm sure all the MAG members will be very, very thoughtful as they review all of the proposals and make sure that we are advancing along the strategic kind of areas we really identify which was really focused on policy questions.  I think diversity of viewpoint, and, so, option 3, we'll need to work with the Secretariat to get a communication out really quickly.  Chengetai, do you have any comments or questions or thoughts on that?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: No, that's fine.  We'll get something together and start publicizing the option 3 and the marking scheme.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you.  Thank you to the working group    oh, Maria.  Maria, you have the floor.
>> No, sorry, Lynn.  It's okay.  I was only raising the hand to bring my point but at the same time, you read it in the chat.  So, it's okay.  And I totally understand that it would be difficult to open the discussions with you also so I'm okay.  It's not perfect for me but I can compromise on that option, leaving option 3 as it is.  Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Maria.  Appreciate your support forward as well and like I said, I think we can do a very thoughtful, careful review and of course the waiting is follow up.  If we move, just quickly before we move to agenda five, Chengetai,    had a comment on open forums and how they're actually reviewed and the MAG's role in that.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yeah, I think, apply for an open forum, but just quickly speaking, I don't think his institution meets the criteria for an open forum.  I might be mistaken, but I don't think it does.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay. Well and maybe you can take is that offline with him as well.  I do think it's important with the open forums, again, that the MAG does have visible.  We obviously had visibility into the criteria.  We reviewed those criteria.  The open forums were actually a vehicle to increase participation from organizations and governments that weren't coming in, weren't comfortable coming in from the workshop process.  Wanted to be one way presentations and move forward and internet substantive process.  It's not just an organizational show case.  So, I think everything we can do to continue to reassert that, reinforce that, is important.  And maybe that even means that the Secretariat or the Secretariat and some MAG members review those open forums with that in mind and go back with advice, suggestions, counter suggestions, et cetera, to ensure that the open forums are really living up fully to those expectations.
So, I would like to request that we continue to look at that process and make sure we're doing everything we can to coach, advise, help improve that process as well.  So, with that, we move to agenda item 5 which is the BPF updates and updates on co facilitator selections.  Is there somebody who wants to go first? 
>> BEN WALLIS: Lynn, it's Ben, I'm happy to go first.  I'm the co facilitator.  We held our first meeting since the MAG approved our proposal for the workshop this year.  We trialed something, which I'm sure others have done of holding the meeting on two different days, on two different time zones to try, specifically to try and provide a better time for people in the Asia Pacific region.  So, we held the same meeting twice.  The outcome of the meeting is that we move on to some couple of elements if we get here so there's some research going on amongst these volunteer groups over the next six weeks to look at what agreements and initiatives on cybersecurity exist and could be relevant for the BPF this year and to kind of try and work out which common elements amongst those various agreements should be the focus of the work this year.
And another volunteer group will look at legal frameworks that could be BPF this year.  So, the plan is for those volunteer groups to produce these background papers by early May at which point they will be put to the BPF for any further comments and then they serve as background for the call for input to the entire community.  And this was something we did last year that worked quite well last year.  This background paper became part of the output and a lot of people said that it was very valuable part of that final output so that's the way we're in preparation so that when people come to the annual meeting they've had enough time to consult colleagues and bring reviews on their reports because obviously that discussion at the annual meeting is the last point at which we take comments on the output before it's finalized.
So, that's something we're trying to build into the timeline already at this stage.  Yeah, that's where we've got to with a cybersecurity BPF.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ben.  And thank you for being concise with it as well.  We do still have a lot of the agenda to get through.  We have three other BPFs.  Is there somebody prepared to talk to one of the others?  Hi, Titi, yes, we can hear you. 
 (inaudible)
And Titi, we can't hear you very well now.  You're fairly faint.  It sounds like you're far away from the mic or.
>> CONCINETTA CASSA: Okay. Can you hear me better now?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: That's better.  Yes.
>> CONCINETTA CASSA: (inaudible).
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Titi.  We still can't hear you.  My speaker is at max and I can't.  That's better, if you can stay right there.  (laughter).
>> CONCINETTA CASSA: Okay. So, I don't know what's going on with my microphone, so maybe I can, thank you, Titi.  We look forward to the update either in the chat or on the mailing list.  Is there somebody to speak to the local content or gender?  Can the Secretariat sort of inform us as to whether or not they have the appropriate leads in place or is there something the MAG needs to address.
>> Lynn, it's Raquel, can I jump in?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Please.
>> I can give a quick update on the BPF in gender.  With started, we have a call lined up with the MAG members facilitators, me, Maria Paz and Shinai and the former one, Jack from IPC.  So we should be lining up the first call, the kickoff call with the first group.  I am assuming we're going to use the same mailing list.  So, we are just hoping that we can have the charter approved in the website, the last version.  But, I can work with the Secretariat on that.  So, I guess those are the updates for now.  Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Raquel.  Maria, I see you were about to give an update as well.  The Secretariat is asking for who is in the working group so if you could inform the Secretariat of that and they will help you to post the charter and take care of the other arrangements as well.
And is there somebody to speak to local content?  Does the Secretariat have facilitators identified for that BPF?
>> Not to my knowledge.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Could I ask the Secretariat, then, to, I guess look through past meeting minutes or    previous discussions, to the MAG.  It's getting late for there not to be a facilitator or anybody to speak to that activity.  So the MAG is really supportive when we are moving forward with that one or not.  So, moving to the next update and thanking everybody for all of the work on the BPFs and for moving them forward, they really are very critical parts of the IGF ecosystem.  So S it's something we will be checking in on regularly and the MAG should all be working within support of the various BPFs.  The next item is just a quick kind of discussion on thematic sessions.  That's obviously a piece of work that is still ahead of us.  Historically, we still had one thematic session, workshops available, anywhere between six and eight themes and the last few years, we've also had main sessions both from the NRIs and from dynamic coalitions.
This year, with the focus on three major themes, I think we actually have the opportunity to think about what we to do with those thematic main sessions.
So, the NRI main session and the DC main sessions are separate topics.  I'm not talking about those here.  We're silhouetting to hear from those two groups with respect to what their requests are but with respect to the thematic sessions that are under the MAG for review, I think we have an opportunity to reimagine the main sessions.  From my perspective, in the past years, the main sessions have frankly looked just like a workshop session only they take place in a larger room with interpretation.
And I think that's a missed opportunity.  I know a few years ago, we had a really good main session was led by Marylyn Cade and another MAG member at the time.  Full disclosure, just, I mean, I was one of the moderators of that session but it actually focused on the WSIS post ten and draft outcome document at that point in time.
And really had a really robust community.  Improvements and priorities we're trying to address and possibly think about reimagining sessions and frankly stepping them up a bit.  Are there any comments either from the Secretariat or any MAG members with respect to those.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: One of the points that the Secretariat general has made or in answer to    challenge.  Since the main session should not just be an enhanced workshop or not.  So, we can really take this and bring notice or bring to center something that will enhance the IGF and the IGF discussions.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I think that's good input, Chengetai.  I'm assuming any other suggestions that have been made in the past would be that we find a way to sort of introduce and come to closure on these thematic, the main things we have, the major trends that we could perhaps set up kind of an introductory session and then use sessions toward the end of the week to try and close.  We also have possibly some opportunities depending on what happens with the high level, of any of the results that come out of the HLDC.  This doesn't need to if any take place, we can do consultations as well but I think there are a number of opportunities in front of us so sharing that just to get everybody's creative juices flowing and we'll pick that up at the face to face meeting.  (inaudible) will absolutely be discussed in the next face to face MAG meeting so thank you.  Not seeing any other requests from the floor.
If we move to update on the MAG working groups, I sent out this morning and I could have sent that out a few days ago but I think I wasn't clear that I was supposed to a proposed charter on working IGF improvements.  As the note actually said, that working group was rechartered on the meeting a little over a month ago and that one, the working group on outreach and engagement and the working group on fundraising, were all rechartered and the charters were meant to be updated along the lines discussed within the MAG meeting.  So, I think Flavio and possibly Julian.  Flavio is here on the call.  I don't see Julian.  If people have any questions, but, they also point out that both Flavio and Julian, good linkage between the efforts of the working groups and the MAG.  So, the next step there's are for people to look at the charter.  We can leave that open, know that we're looking for a MAG member to co lead it.  And MAG members to sign up in support as well.  So, right now, Flavio, is there anything, I'd invite you to take the floor if there's anything I've forgotten or anything you would like to call to the MAG's attention.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Hi, Lynn, do you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, we can hear you.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: No, I think you have already explained very well the situation.  We are just waiting for MAG members to step up and volunteer both for being the leaders of the working group but also to help in the working group.  So, we need more MAG members.  And of course, I and Julian would be very glad to continue supporting the work of the working group and explain all the results we already had in previous years and tasks we have before us. 
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Excellent.  Thank you, Flavio.  I know it's been an excellent piece of work so really appreciate all of your support, Julian's support, and the working group as well.  Any other comments on the working group IGF?  Working group on outreach and engagement?  Again, Mamadou had made the request for the working group to continue.  The MAG had supported that back in midfebruary.  At the time, it also indicated that he was unable to continue to be the lead.  I think we have had?  Support for another lead.  I don't know if that's been closed or not.  Maybe the Secretariat can help or is there somebody who can give an update on that working group, outreach and engagement.
>> Hi P IGF.  Mamadou, can you hear me?  I think, the working group now, he is not actually in the call.  I think, I was    somebody on the last call.  I think the effort to lead the working group.  But now, I, I'm going to give some update.  Even they had, item 64, I think, on outreach and engagement, I think it was very, very input, even for communicating, on communicating the work, doing that now.  And to subsidize all the community to continue working with.  What we're doing to distribute information, information from relating to workshop proposal.  Day zero, and social media.  Lastly, I had, I have put in the chat support on IGF.  This was just a proposal from me
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Be a co facilitator.  The requirement is that we simply like at least one co facilitators to be a current MAG member again, just to ensure appropriate linkages between the MAG and the working group efforts.  I'll come back to that in a moment.  Are there any other comments or questions for Mamadou in Arsine's abanswer on the work on outreach and engagement.  Seeing none, and I'll work with the Secretariat, I think, to make sure that we're doing everything we can to make sure that the working groups are obvious that we've got facilitators or calls for facilitators out and that they're promoted appropriately so the facilitators know that these are approved for community participation as well.
Finally, the working groups, we said again on the column in mid-February that it was a single focus this year and that was physically reaching out and making proposals to donors and working to get commitments in support of the project documents of IGF.  Last year, we did a lot of background work, administrative work, clean up work.  I'm sure there will continue to be improvements needed in that area about the single focus has got to be on outreach and promoting so that charter was updated two weeks ago, I think, and was all disclosed a matter of a few days ago so then we'll be formally launching that as well.
I do hope we get MAG members to support it and community members as well.  It does take a specific skill set and it also does take time so I think the members we actually get in the working group should be well aware that this is a substantive and submissive piece of work and be clear on that as well.  If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to talk to me offline as well.
And then finally, last year, there was a working group on multiyear strategic work program and as I said earlier, the working group felt it was more appropriate to move some of the open pieces forward in the full MAG as opposed to in the working group.  You sent out a working group several months ago and a discussion paper to try and move some of those key pieces forward and I've started pulling out some of the open topics individually so that we can get some discussion and again, some thoughts going ahead of the meeting on March 17th so a little over a week ago, I sent one out which was meant to kick start a discussion on multiyear topics.  Again, just from the interest of time, we're coming up to the hour, I won't review that.  It came out March 17th and really just tried to focus on the question that was in front of the working group and the questions that are in front of the MAG with respect to that topic.  And nearly complete a similar exercise on outputs and recommendations again from those two previous reports.
You'll call it, there was substantive agreement that we needed to do more across the IGF with respect to concrete and substantial outputs and also a proposal that we actually looked at different types of recommendations and again, every time I say recommendations, I stress that nobody wants to move away.  Nobody wants to make it a negotiating document and of course, they're not kind of legally binding enforceable policy recommendations but there are already recommendations in many of the things we do, best practice forums are probably one of the most notable events and I think there's a discussion here which is what else might be considered with respect to substantively improving our outputs and again, it gets to a discussion recommendation as well that I will send a kick starting document out.  I hope that everybody will read it.  Two pilots proposed last year, one of them is moving forward as a community effort with support from a couple of different stakeholder communities.  And the other one is still open, and that would look more at kind of deliberatative processes and in that note, I will note that there is a substantive effort going forward by the German government and mission public with respect to a form of deliberative in our face to face meeting for an hour.  I will open that up for comments with anything I just said with respect to that particular effort.  Not seeing any, and just in closing, note, the Wai Min mentioned his colleagues are going to give support to the fundraising working group discussion and the other working groups as needed.  And Wai Min will actually, it's Dennis, I think s who is going to be with us at the face to face MAG meeting in Geneva.  Attending the WSIS form.  With that, thank everybody for the timing and effort.  Please do thank everybody for the mailing list and see if we can get some of the discussions there.  It will help us make maximum progress and take full advantage of this meeting and travel safe and see everybody soon.

Información de Contacto

United Nations

Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage

Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Tel.: +41 (0) 229 175 778