You are here

IGF 2020 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - V

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. 

***

>> CHENGATAI MASANGO:  Hello, everyone.  Thank you for coming.  This meeting is being recorded and we will try and use the speaking queue, the hand up system, and there is also a transcript of this meeting that is being done.  And the summary report will be posted on the IGF website a couple of days after this meeting.  With that I will hand it over to the Chair to start when she feels ready.  Anriette, please.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks, Chengetai.  It's on the hour.  Welcome to everyone.  Thanks for joining us.  This is quite a crazy time for many of us, and I appreciate that everyone is still prioritizing their MAG IGF work.  You have the agenda in front of you on the screen.  I will run through it quickly and before I do that, Chengetai, can you confirm that up have received apologies.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, I have, I have received from Dalsie and Marcy.  They cannot make it to the meeting.

>> CHAIR:  The agenda is welcome from the Chair.  Secretariat update, item 3, confirming deadliness for the call for session proposals; number 4, finalization of the workshop evaluation process; number 5, final approval of MAG Working Groups for this year; number 6, Best Practice Forum and Dynamic Coalition updates; and item 7, any other business.

Can we adopt this agenda?  Any suggestions or questions about the agenda?  I don't see any hands.  I don't see anyone in the speaking queue so I will assume that our agenda is adopted.  So for me, no further words of welcome.  I think I said what I wanted to say. 

Thanks to those of you who have started to respond to the check in thread on the list.  Let's continue to use that so that we have a, you know, for example, I didn't realize that one of our members was in India having to deal with surgery on their baby and are stranded away from home.  So I think it's good to have a sense of who is experiencing what challenges, and just to create a supportive environment, but we don't have to do that on the call.  We can continue to do that in the email thread.

Nothing further from me.  I just wanted to thank all of the Working Groups for sending in some of their documentation, and for those of you that have been working hard, thanks.  Thanks a lot for that. 

And to the Secretariat as well, thanks to Luis for being the sponsor when we need statistics.  So it's been a productive week for us.  I don't see any questions for me.  I don't see any hands.  I'm going to hand over to Chengetai to give us the update from the floor.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  To start with the Secretariat update, I will just update on submissions.  We have one workshop proposal submitted and 16 started.  We have 10 day zero events and 129 travel requests with 59 in draft mode.  40 IGF village booths requests and three remote hubs have registered.  I would ask you to please encourage remote hubs to register.  The sooner they register, the easier it is for Luis to start organising sessions and to also try and get these remote hubs incorporated into the schedule, whatever we have, the sooner we start, the better. 

We have zero DC sessions, so I will ask encouragement for the DC sessions to apply for their sessions.  So 20 music nights requests.  These figures, believe it or not, are consistent with what we have seen over the years.  We have had, I will just show you a graph from last year.  I don't know if Luis, is it possible for me to share my desktop?  So Luis made up these from last year submissions, and as you can see I did a very rough timeline from last year two weeks before the deadline we had very, very little.  I think that's even below ten.  Then one week it started coming up, and basically all of the action for the workshop submissions really happens three days or 48 hours.  That's when it jumped about 50, and then 24 hours before the deadline, and then that's when most of the people submitted the deadline.  It's just like as I have been saying university school papers, people start handing them in when they are due.

This is a graph of when people started doing their workshop proposals, so basically three weeks out before the deadline, and then two weeks out, one week out.  And then the last 48 hours, of course, there is a jump for people starting them.  So I suppose they don't start them in the system.  They start them elsewhere and they input them into the system.  It would be nice if people actually did their workshop proposals earlier, because the last 48 hours then basically the last 24 hours there is a lot of strain in the system.

That's why you see last year, the deadline was actually the 14th.  But there were so many people, well, not so many people, but a few people, I think you could count like ten or fifteen people at the maximum had difficulty submitting them.  There were system errors.  That's why we gave them a little bit of time to submit.  That's why we extended the deadline a day more.  That's just to show you and not have people get heart attacks about the low submissions at the moment.  I will stop sharing.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks a lot for that.  I will give the mic back.  I wanted to comment on that that I think it's important that we do remind everyone.  I think we are going to discuss extending the deadline, but whatever the deadline is, I think as MAG members we should spread the word and encourage people.  I think the other factor we want to eliminate is communicate clearly that the IGF is still happening.  I think there are many people that have a degree of uncertainty about the status of the event.

We have a general call with the community next week, and before that we will communicate publicly exactly what the status is, so that we eliminate any uncertainty about whether people should submit or not.  Back to you.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, please do advertise that.  We are still carrying on and we are still planning and everything is happening on the schedule.  For the second update, it's the webinar that Anriette mentioned.  So we will be posting an open webinar on the 16th of April that is 14 hours UTC, and this follows the one that we did for the Polish participants, so this is a more general, it's open to everybody, and we have currently got 571 people registered for this webinar.  And the objective of the webinar is to inform people about the 2020 process, the thematic tracks, to highlight the changes in the evaluation process because we have made some changes from last year and we do want people to hand in good session proposals, so to highlight that. 

And I will be approaching some people in the Workshop Evaluation Group.  One person if they could go through changes in the evaluation process.  And then also inform about the Best Practice Forums, the work program for the Best Practice Forums so we can encourage people to join these Best Practice Forums.  Finally, for the COVID‑19, as Anriette says, it's important to inform people that we are taking it into consideration.  We are thinking about the ramifications and we will be watching the situation very carefully.  But we are acting on the information that we have and at the moment, we are just planning as if everything is going to be happening normally.  I will get back to the June meeting.  That will be my point number three.

>> CHAIR:  Can we check any questions for Chengetai at this point or can he continue?

I don't see hands.  Please go ahead.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Point number three is the June MAG meeting.  I think it is prudent for us to switch to make the preparations as if it's going to be happening online.  I personally don't see that there is going to be any, if there are any major changes it may happen 1st of June.  We have the rooms booked and we have everything prepared for a face‑to‑face meeting, but I think for our planning purposes we will switch to virtual meeting preparation.

EuroDIG already is going completely online and they are holding their meeting 10‑12 June, CSTD as well is going online for their meeting, and their meeting is on the 8th to the 12th of June.  So our MAG meeting, we are, we are 16th to 18th of June, so we will switch to making it online.  And we did listen to what you were saying in the last MAG meeting that maybe we don't have this 9:00 to 6:00 meeting, but adapt the timing of the meeting making it a bit shorter and also making sure that all of the meetings don't happen 3:00 a.m. Seattle time, and then, you know, Ben has to get up all of the time.  I think we can make a program that is fair to everybody.

We'll be discussing this and we will be setting up the final plan for this meeting, but this is one thing that we are going to start working on right now.  And as I said, if things do change and there is enough time to arrange for program and stuff like that, we can change back.  We are keeping all of our bookings in the Palais for the rooms, et cetera.

That's the end of point 3.  Any questions on that point?

So the fourth and final update.

>> CHAIR:  Chengetai, there is one hand here from Susan.  So let's take that before you continue.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sure.

>> CHAIR:  You have the floor.

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you Chair.  Thank you, Chengetai.  I hope you can hear me.  My connectivity is not that good. Chengetai, I just would like to ask a few questions about remote participation for the June meeting and whether or not there is going to be a plan B just in case for November for the MAG meeting?  I just want to ask if there is any help that MAG members can provide in terms of helping to arrange for those meetings?

I know on a technical level that will be new and different, so presumably we would use Zoom for our meeting in June.  I wanted to recognize that that will be a challenge for the Secretariat to ask if we can lend a hand in any way.  

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Susan.  Yes, as a matter of fact, Veni volunteered to connect the Secretariat to ICANN, because it's holding its meeting virtually and it's quite a large meeting, you could say it's comparable in size.  So I'm going to be speaking to them this week just to see any pointers that they have, et cetera.  And we will note that as I said before, ICANN has been helpful and forthcoming with advice on how they do their virtual stuff.

So that's one way that that helps.  And also we have the CSTD as we said and also the EuroDIG meeting just before our meeting, and we will be listening in, watching them carefully, and also finding out ideas and best practices and also things that, you know, with foresight they could have done better and then we can adapt that.

So, yes, it is going to be bigger.  We have done it, but everybody has been very cooperative.  I have had meetings with UNCTAD as well, and we have the offer in mind.  And if anything comes to mind we will reach out and see how best we can do this planning.  As far as November is going on, let me give it to Shimek from the host team to see what he has to say.  If you could just say something quickly.

>> Yes, thank you, Chengetai, for giving me the floor.  Once again, hello, everyone.  Welcome from, warm greetings from Warsaw.  I hope you are in good form and healthy.  Just to quickly update you, well, for the moment, we are, of course, looking carefully and monitoring the situation constantly, but our plan is to go ahead as scheduled.

So for the time being we don't have any potential changes envisaged.  So, of course, we will follow up the recommendations from our Government and the WHO, which is understandable.  So, of course, if there, if there will be, I will repeat, if there will be a necessary to adapt to some changes, we will communicate the community in good time, but for the time being, no changes envisaged.

So we are going as planned.  And just to quickly update you, we have just signed the agreement with the ICC venue.  So we have the building is set for us.  So we are keeping and going as scheduled.  Thank you very much.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you.

And I think that's all I had to say about the Secretariat updates.  Anriette, back to you.  If there are any questions, we are here to answer them.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you, Chengetai, for that and thanks for the update.  I think it's important that we continue to plan for a face‑to‑face.  It's also important that we make it clear to the global community and the Internet Governance community that we are aware of this crisis.  I think that's very important.  It's as important to continue planning for the event as it is to communicate to people that we are not not responding to the crisis, but I think we will be releasing a statement around that and it will be communicated in the call next week.

So Secretariat, thanks a lot for that.  And to the Co‑Chairs, thank you for your input as well, and I know you are working hard in the background preparing for the meeting.  I don't see anyone in the speaking queue, Chengetai.  Can we move on to the next item? 

There has been a few messages in the MAG list about changing the deadline for session proposals, and I know the Secretariats have given this some thought and they have developed a revised timeline and they have a proposal for an extended deadline.  Chengetai.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Anriette, yes.

There has been some calls from the Polish community and from the world community, and I think also Mary I distinctly remember Mary also asking if we could give more time for the session proposals.  And, yes, we can.  We do have a PowerPoint.  Let me just ask Luis if he has it.  If he doesn't, I can just display it.

>> Please, Chengetai, display it.  Make it faster.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sure, yes, yes.

So if you can see my desktop, at the moment, we have 15th of April as the deadline.  We can give you one more week, and that will be 22nd of April.  That will make the call for workshops and for the other sessions last, well, actually for workshops last seven weeks.  And then we will give four days for the Secretariat to, you know, confirm all of the formal elements that the workshops as far as the instructions go are in good order and everything is filled out correctly.  And then we will give it to the MAG members to evaluate the workshops and that's from the 29th of April to the 29th of May.  That would be four weeks for the MAG members to evaluate the workshops and as we agreed that the groups will be randomized groups, and people will be allowed to recuse themselves from workshops if there is a conflict of interest in those.

And then once the MAG has finished grading the workshops, it's back to the Secretariat, and the Secretariat will collate all of the grading, make the statistics and that will be one week for us, and that's from the 1st to the 5th of June, and then we will give it to the, give the results and the statistics back to the MAG, and the MAG will have one week to look at it, discuss amongst themselves, and then during the virtual open consultations and MAG meeting, that is when the final selection process will happen.

And at the moment that's the 16th‑18th of June.  I don't know if the three days will change depending on how we discuss the timing of the virtual meeting.  As I said previously, just to make sure that not just a group of people are inconvenienced all of the time and a certain group of people, it's more reasonable for them during the daytime.  Sparing the pain and the joy, I suppose.

So that is the plan for now if we give a one‑week extension.  Back to you, Anriette.  I think that's it.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Chengetai.  So is everyone okay with this, and with extending the deadline for submission of session proposals to 22 April?  Anyone objecting?  Yes, go ahead.

>> JUTTA CROLL:  I had my hand raised, but it's probably not proper for you to see since we are screen sharing.

>> CHAIR:  I can't.  I can only see the Zoom hands at this point in time.

>> JUTTA CROLL:  I really appreciate this new timeframe, although I hope it doesn't put too much pressure on the IGF Secretariat since I think you have tried to set up some time that was already dedicated to the Secretariat for that initial assessment of proposals, so I hope they will be able to manage.  I can report back that we have sent out the announcement of the call to a list of 1200 people or so, and from them many have spread the message as well further.

We want to send out a reminder and usually give the statistics that we have already seen that people only get back to sending their proposals the last two days.  So it makes it easier when we have the 22nd of April instead of the 15th due to the fact that that is pretty close to the Easter holidays and then people are a bit easy to be reached.

There is one issue that was reported back to us from the community, and that is the fact that many of the big companies have issued travel bans for their staff, and that would mean that people from some of these companies at this point in time are not able to confirm that they will be able to take part in sessions.  So some of these people have refrained from even being mentioned in the proposal because at this point in time they cannot confirm that they are allowed to travel in November due to restrictions within the company.

And I don't think we can solve that issue with extending the deadline until the travel ban is released, but we need to deal with that thing, because we all want to have as much industry as possible engaged in the IGF coming to the workshops and to the sessions, and we also judge the proposals based on the list of speakers looking at diversity, and we want to have this stakeholder group industry in the proposal.

So I do think we need to look into the issue and try to find a solution whether we can offer that, those who are under a travel ban at this time at least say I would commit myself to come to the session if I'm allowed to do so in November or something like that, but I just wanted to highlight that issue and maybe we can discuss it.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks very much for that, Jutta.  That's what I was referring to earlier.  We need to get some kind of, we need to communicate clearly what the plans are.  And so, I mean, so Chengetai Masango, I would like to hear what you suggest there, but we can communicate to people that the IGF will definitely take place.  If travel bans are still in place, then we will have a virtual IGF or we will postpone it, but I think we should make it clear to people that they should submit session proposals based on the assumption that they will be in IGF.

But that's exactly what I'm concerned about.  Actually my civil society organisations have also introduced travel bans for 2020.  So I do think we need to be concerned about this, because we don't want an IGF in Poland in early November with 500 people.  That, I think, would not be a good outcome.  Chengetai Masango, do you have any suggestions for how to communicate this?  My sense is that definitely everyone is happy with the extended deadline.  That's not the problem.  What we do need to do is communicate very clearly to people who are currently uncertain about whether they can travel or not, that they should not let that discourage them from committing as speakers or submitting session proposals.

I'm opening the floor.  Maybe there are other people that have good ideas about how we can respond to this.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just off the top of my head, yes, that is a concern, and we can't really foretell the future as such, but I think if we can just accept an intend to come, and also we will be boosting up our virtual panelists and we can also push that to that.  If you can't come, and as you said, Anriette that some people have a travel ban for the whole year regardless, there is also that opportunity to be a virtual panelists and we will treat them the same whether you will be a virtual panelists or whether you will be on site panelist.  That's my two cents.  Yes.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Chengetai.  I think that's important and to note, and Hanna, I'm not sure if that's what you were asking about in the chat, but there is precedence for having virtual speakers.  The IGF has done that for many years now.  It doesn't always work brilliantly, but it has worked I think more often than not.  So maybe what we should do with this reminder and the notification of the extended deadline is to insert, you know, add a paragraph to that reminder that people who are uncertain about travel should not hesitate to submit proposals or make themselves available as speakers because virtual participation will be enabled or will be possible for session participants and session speakers.

But I think even just communicating to the world that we are planning, that we are aware, and we will keep them updated.  I think even that will help.  And I don't see other, are there other hands on this topic?  The speaking queue seems to be empty.  On that note, I think we can move on.  We have agreed on a revised session deadline and we will continue to remind people to submit.

And thanks to the Secretariat for reducing their work time.  And as Ben pointed out, also thanks to the Secretariat for giving MAG members more time.

Can we move onto item 4, and this very important for us to finalize this today.  Finalization of the workshop evaluation process.  Can I hand over to Avi and Jutta and Susan and others to give us a report from the workshop evaluation Working Group.

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  This is Roberto.

>> CHAIR:  Will you be presenting the report?

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  I am try to summarize what has been done so far.  There was a meeting on the 18th in which Sylvia Sumar said the result in that meeting in a letter that was sent to all of the MAG group stating that we had by that time three recommendations about how to deal with the conflict of interest, the second was a slide amendment to the diversity description and the adjustment that has been made to evaluation criteria.

Everybody is aware of this and, of course, that was the suggestion coming from that meeting.  We also had a recent meeting to cover another topic that was important and it was related to how we should sort the proposals among the members of the MAG.  And what we finally agreed is that we should random allocate the themes and then random allocate the proposals under each team that the difference with the other years was to keep the coordinators that are already involved with or were already involved with the narrative descriptions that we, as you know, we conducted during this process.

That's pretty much the summary of what we have done in the Working Group, but, of course, I will re‑ask the other colleagues to complete or to complement what I have just said, Thank You, Madame Chair.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you, Roberto, and thanks to you and to Avi for stepping in as the new coordinator and vice coordinator.  Anything else to add from other members of the Working Group?  And maybe you can also give MAG members a sense, more of a step by step sense of what the next steps will be and what there is for them to draw on for source material as they start doing their evaluation?

I don't see any hands but I'm expecting any other members of the Working Group to jump in.  I see Susan there.  Please start preparing your economy.  Susan, you have the floor.

>> SUSAN CHALMERS: In terms of next steps, I think that the Working Group we would benefit from another call to come together and map those out in a cogent way with dates and work with the Secretariat to do that, but generally speaking the documents that we have already published including an overview of the process, I think, are a great resource and I would encourage MAG members to go there to review and there were two outstanding items that the Working Group did not get to today. 

I think those were largely administrative, looking at the timing, looking at the calendar and ensuring that the evaluation process and the evaluation forms that we will use online are coherent, but so I think that next steps in terms of a process will we will probably discuss that on the next call, but otherwise, I would just point folks to that document that we have published earlier, which gives a really nice overview of the evaluation process in general.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks very much for that Susan.  So it sounds to me as if you have actually finalized all of the substantive procedure considerations and you just need to tie a few loose ends and then you will communicate next steps to us, and but as a resource document for MAG members to start looking at and ask questions if they have any, there is the workshop ‑‑ what do you call that document, Susan, the document that describes the process, I have forgotten the title?

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  I'm sorry.

>> CHAIR:  Research the URL so everyone has it at the top of their mailboxes so they can ask questions.  Any other MAG member with questions for the Working Group at this point.  I'm opening the question.  I don't see hands in the queue.  No hands.  So I think you have all done this or most of you have done this so that's not surprising.

If you don't have questions today, that's fine, but you might still have questions in the coming two weeks before we start the work, so please go ahead and ask, three weeks, actually, until we start the work.

Let's move onto the next Agenda Item.  I don't see anyone with any further input.  Secretariat, did you want to add anything or do you have questions for the Working Group?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, not from ‑‑

>> CHAIR:  Nothing.  Okay.  Now, we are moving onto our next Agenda Item, which is final approval of MAG Working Groups for this year.  We actually started this process at the January meeting.  We looked at the Working Groups from past years, particularly 2019, and there has been various proposals and some discussions and Secretariat, could you put on screen, Secretariat, has kindly prepared a document for us.

Just put very brief descriptions of the Working Groups that are proposed for this year.  Is Anya on the call.  Or Luis.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It's coming up.  They are finding it and putting it up.

>> CHAIR:  This document has the Working Groups that MAG members are either continuing or new proposals, and I'm just going to give you a little bit of time.  I will run through proposals we have on the table and then I will open the floor.

The first one is the Working Group on IGF strengthening and strategy.  That was the proposal to came from Titi, and thank you very much to Titi for working on that, many people have supported it.  Some have asked questions about it, but the main focus area of the Working Group will be to discuss how to strengthen the role of the IGF and to find a roadmap and list of actions and to put this into IGF's strengthening into place.

And it will again look at the mandate.  So it's very much a Working Group that looks at the IGF in the present context, but also linking it to how it can best fulfill its original mandate.  And in many ways it will also build directly or indirectly on the work of the Working Group on IGF improvements.

That's the first proposal.  Then we have the Working Group on the evaluation process.  That's continuing, and we have just had a report, Secretariat, if you can just scroll down to number three.  Thank you.  The third one which is already under way that is the MAG language Working Group.  That's been working since the January meeting.  Mary is coordinating that with support from June and you see other names there.

So the purpose of the Working Group, which is already active is to focus on issues of language, to come up with solutions, and within the financial constraints of the IGF and the MAG to supporting linguistic diversity, and also to develop, to make suggestions and proposals for the MAG to consider.

So far this Working Group has made specific suggestions with regard to translating outputs of the IGF, and Secretariat will report progress on that at the next meeting, but they will also look at options for the face‑to‑face or online meeting.

And then the fourth Working Group is the one that existed last year and we now have a work proposal for continuation, which Adana and June shared with us.  The Working Group on outreach and engagement.  If you look at the focus area, it's to increase the coordination among IGF activities through the creation and maintenance and various communication channels and to increase engagement on IGF activities, and increase and enhance the popularity of the IGF and the global spectrum.  So it's very communications and engagement oriented.

I think this could go well with the Secretariat who will also be investing more in communications capacity later this year.  So that's it.  I will open the floor now for questions or discussion on these Working Groups.  Thank you to all of the coordinators, all of the MAG members who have put time and effort into working in these Working Groups and planning them.

Is everyone okay with these Working Groups.  If you don't have any questions, is there anyone with objections?  And Susan is asking Tete if you are willing to say more about your Working Group, Tete, are you able to do that, and then we have Paul in the speaking queue.  And Veni has his hand up.  Tete you go forth and then we have Paul and Veni.

>> Can you hear me?

>> CHAIR:  Clearly.

>> I will just give some information about this Working Group, as has just been said, the objectives strive to define a roadmap and a list of action to strengthen the role of the IGF and to define a strategy.  This will be from the Tunis Agenda man date to improve the end integrated.  The objective from the Working Group besides to cover is to try to understand better what are the mechanisms as we get put in place, we get IGF to pay better facilitator role, and more governance in the community, and how we can strengthen the cooperation between these communities, and this is one of the objectives that the Working Group should follow.

Another one is try to understand how to have figure output can impact more and address better the public policy worldwide.  As you know the Tunis Agenda actually includes recommendation.  Maybe this could be an option or maybe this could be also other possible option that the Working Group can discuss.

Another thing that I think should be core to this group is about which to call this could be more involved in the MAG and in the IGF community, not to have a better impact also of the level, to have better policies.  I think an important role should be done by the Government, by the parliamentarians and at this point I mean the parliamentarians are not so involved in the MAG group.

We can also improve this one.  And another objective I think is important to discuss is how to have a discussion about IGF.  The problem of IGF is to have economic sustainability.  So maybe the Working Group can discuss better if there is some model, some mechanism that can give to reach economic sustainability.  So another important way, I think, that this could also be included is what action can be put in place to improve the IGF to the IGF class model.  There is a lot of discussion, so maybe there are already some mechanisms, a level at IGF coalition that could be, I mean, better strength to reach the IGF plus model.

And maybe we can also discuss what is missing in the IGF model.  So this is just a list of services I think the Working Group should discuss, should discuss, compare the views and try to define a roadmap in the list of actions.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you, Titi.  I think there are important to note that there is aspects of previous Working Groups that will be covered even if it's only partially by this Working Group.  That's the Working Group on the multiyear work program that Lynette introduced, the Working Group on IGF improvement, and the Working Group on fundraising.  So aspects of all of those Working Groups can form part of the work of the Working Groups.  Thanks for that, Titi, and I see Paul, Susan and Veni asked for the floor.  Paul, you go first.

>> PAUL ROWNEY:  Hello, everybody.  Paul here.  I just want to say I support the Working Groups, all of the Working Groups.  I think all Working Groups are good.  Just a comment on the summary.  It would be good to see a list of what the expected outcomes or outcomes would be for the specific year that we are renewing the workshop for, and some of is actually captured in the main focus areas, but it would be nice to say this is what we are working towards, this document would be updated or amended or a new document will be created or whatever., but the key deliverable that would happen at the end of the year.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  I think that's a really good idea, Paul, and I think Working Group members, if you can communicate ‑‑ I know you have all sent proposals to the Secretariat, but make sure that you have those upwards.  And, Paul, just before I hand onto the rest of the queue, my sense is also looking at the work of the previous Working Groups that people took on too much and then they did not necessarily end up delivering or they feel they didn't deliver enough.

So I think very important not to be overly ambitious in terms of what Working Groups take on.  Susan.

>> SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, Chair.

I actually took my hand down.  I just wanted to say that I support, I support all of the Working Groups, and thank you to Tete for providing that explanation.  I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but it was great explanation.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you, Susan.  Veni.

>> VENI MARKOVSKI:  I obviously support the establishment of the Working Groups.  I would have liked to see something that would also focus, and maybe it would be in Working Group one on IGF that they continue the work that they did in the financial Working Group last year how to find more funding, especially that this was written in Titi's document or email maybe that she sent out.

However, I also want to ask kindly to edit the main focus area because the Working Group itemizing the Tunis Agenda is something that is way beyond what the Working Group and the MAG is actually doing.  The Tunis Agenda has been discussed at the WSIS, and it has been also discussed at the WSIS+10 negotiations at the UN in 2015.

I don't think we can do this as a group, and as a subgroup of the MAG, I mean, and also that's a very delicate question which is within the UN, not a body that was established by the Secretary‑General because just to remind everyone, the MAG actually is not in the Tunis Agenda.  This is something that the Secretary‑General of the UN came up with.  So if we can, if we can, whoever is editing the main focus area would make it more insightful.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that Veni, I do think, however, the intention can be made clearer in the text is to look at the mandate that the IGF has given in the Tunis Agenda, and to look at how to strengthen the IGF to fulfill that mandate.

And I think that is, there is reference to that in MAG members terms of reference.  So I don't think ‑‑ I don't think that it's necessarily going to involve the MAG overstepping boundaries.  I know that is a senseless issue.  Just one under consideration I think which I would urge the Working Groups to keep in mind is to work collaboratively with the Secretariat.

And, Secretariat, I think it's important for you also to be quite up front about this.  My sense is that at times in the past, sometimes the Working Groups are working on similar issues to what the Secretariat is working on, and may not necessarily working in a harmonize the, sufficiently harmonized or complementary way.  So I think that's important to keep in mind as well.  Any other comments on Working Groups or can we accept these as our Working Groups for 2020.  Let's note the suggestions for clarifications in the text, and for clarifying what the output, intended outputs are, and then we can make these Working Group outlines available on the website.

>> Okay with me.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  That's fine by me.

>> CHAIR:  On that, what is our next Agenda Item?  Let's see, we have now covered Working Groups, thanks a lot, everyone.  Updates from best practices forums and Dynamic Coalitions.  Can we start with is Markus on the call?  Markus, if you are on the call, can you give us an update on the BPS of BPF?

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Can you hear me?

>> CHAIR:  Yes, go ahead. 

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Happy to.  We had a call last week among the coordinators of the BPFs, and I also briefly outlined the procedure.  And with the help of the Secretariat, we have identified which I think most of the key people who are involved in past BPFs since 2014, and have put together the email addresses and in the next few days I will send out an email to all of them informing them of the exercise on the way including the terms of reference and can I take if that these are not draft terms of reference anymore, I have circulated to the Chair of the group more than once, I think, and can they be taken as accepted by the MAG so that we have a charted process to go ahead with?

And we would ask then all of these people who are involved in past BPFs is that is co‑facilitators, also the Secretariat and consultants have supported them, and some of the lead experts who have been particularly active in the exercise to get back to us saying they are willing to participate and subscribe to a mailing list and we would then organize the first call in, I suppose by the time we have it together would be mid-April, shortly after Easter, and we would send out or elaborate a questionnaire.

The first very basically questions would be very much, what works well, what worked less well, what would we would differently, but then we would also elaborate on specific questions, and based on the feedback, we will prepare and hopefully by then the consultants on board would prepare a report that would go to the MAG ahead of the June meeting, and then, again, with the feedback received from the MAG we would work to revise the version open to public comment that would then be submitted again for approval ahead of the annual meeting, whether that be virtual or physical, and that would then inform the process for evaluating and selecting BPFs from  '21 forward.

 And my direct question to the MAG now, can we delete the word draft in front of the terms of reference and then send it out to the people identified as the official terms of reference for this exercise?  Thank you, Anriette.

>> Yes, we can, I agree, Markus.  Very good.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks Markus, thanks a lot for that.  And also we did as Markus said, we had a call last week and Secretariat and myself and all of the BPF coordinators, so thanks everyone.  We are making process on working in a more systematic way.  Next, we have, I just put it in order there just so we have the sense of the sequence.  Cybersecurity next, then the Best Practice Forum on data and new technologies in an internet context, then gender, then local content and then the Dynamic Coalitions.

And let's listen to everyone and then we will take questions from the MAG.  So next we have cybersecurity.

>> BEN WALLIS:  Hello, everyone.  It's Ben here with the BPF on cybersecurity.  So I can give a brief update.  I think I already said on the last MAG call that we had our first meeting of the Best Practice Forum to discuss how to scope out our work for the year.  And we have decided to split the work into three work streams.  I won't go into much detail, but basically the first work stream is a kind of continuation of last year, but going deeper, and that's looking at what international agreements there are around cybersecurity norms and how they are being implemented so we will pick a couple and go into a lot more depth.

The second work stream is a new one and it's about understanding how norms are assessed.  So have you assessed whether or not a norm of behaver is actually being adhered to, for example, by Member States.  Are they adhering to cybersecurity norms or not.  And we are actually going to look to other social science disciplines to see how norms are assessed in those areas as well as thinking about how it could be done in the era of cybersecurity.

And finally, we are going to the last work stream is about outreach to widened participation in the Best Practice Forum, particularly looking to try and bring in more Government involvement, more involvement from the youth constituency.  So those are the three work streams, and the step we are at the moment is finding volunteers within the BPF to work within these three different work streams for the coming months until we have something that can be published or consultation in the summer.

So that's my update for now.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks very much, Ben.  Next we have the Working Group on Data and New Technologies in an Internet Context.  Titi, will that be you?

>> I will give you a brief update about the BPF activities.  We had the last call on the 20th of February where we introduced pay new co‑facilitator Manuela Govasi, and Manuela was informing several informational projects and then using the BPF.  We have just presented the focus to be covered here.  The main focus will be of the BPF it will be how data is collected and the use of the issue that they bring benefits from users, and then we have also shown the draft work plan to the participants.  Here we explain that we have three main issues for the first one.

We identify the issues to cover, and the second part will be more on identify the call and also the existing (?) and the third one would be on collecting.  We ask participants to give input, we share documents, and then we plan the next call for the 17.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks a lot, Titi.  Next we have gender and access.  I see Maria Paz, are you able to report on gender and access?

>> MARIA PAZ:  There is not much to report really in the work of gender access.  We were like reactivating the core group that works to coordinate the gender and access BPF, and we were trying to link better with the gender coalition, but we haven't been entirely successful to contact the people coordinating said group, but the idea is to have a coordination meeting next book with the core group that is coordinating the core group of the gender and BPF and hopefully add people to the coordinating group to being able to start the work with the list ahead of the nomination of our consultant for this year.

So this is basically what we have done so far and we know we are a little delayed in the timeline, but because of everything that's going on currently it has been difficult to attract the attention of many people in the list of the Working Group so we will keep trying and for sure we will update soon with more substantive work.  Thanks.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks Maria Paz.  Carlos, do you have anything to report on for local content and language.

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes, not much, like Maria Paz said.  This group is a bit dormant, but we are trying to stimulate some reactions in the list.  There are more than 100 people subscribing to the list, and I think the issues that we dealt with in 2019 are basically the same we will continue to deal with in 2020.  Starting with my other co‑facilitator Giacomo a survey with the group to see who are really interested in getting involved in the coordination and helping us to stimulate the process of gathering information, gathering practices and so on, and I plan to draft this survey in a week or so and send it to the list and see what happens.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks very much, Carlos.  And, Secretariat, I think it would be good if we could share some of the action items that came out of the BPF coordination call with the MAG and just to tell the MAG members, I think, what we talked about most in that call was to respond to the need for integration with NRIs and between BPFs and the NRIs.  And we came up with various concrete ideas around how to do that more effectively.

And I think that the next step now is for the BPFs to begin to think about that.  The one concrete action that we agreed on is that there will be a call with the NRI list where all of the BPF coordinators can talk to the NRIs about their work and find ways of collaborating.

And we felt that it was better to, for the BPFs to also offer to the NRIs some expertise, some opportunities for learning through webinars, and to switch the relationship around a little bit, because in the past BPFs have mostly approached NRIs as a source for input, for responding to surveys.  So we will continue to do that, but we thought we should also think at how the BPFs can be more actively oriented toward adding value to the NRIs.  So we will keep you briefed on how that goes.

I don't see any questions from the floor.  I don't see any hands.  Does anyone have any comments or questions?  For the BPF?  I see nothing.

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  If I may.

>> CHAIR:  Go ahead, Roberto.

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  I just wanted to comment on behalf of Karim, that he and I were working according to your suggestions, Madame Chair, and also the other members of the group to dig a little bit more in what's being done by the subject we were trying to propose as a BPF, and we actually finished, to do that research, we went through all of the things that were done during the term that the policy options regarding Connecting the Next Billion were working and also about the Dynamic Coalition and communicating networks and also the things that some other organisations did in the past, like the one association for Internet affordability.

And with all of that information, we prepared a sort of justification and also as an introduction for main session proposal that, of course, first we need to discuss with the group that kindly are supporting us to see if that makes sense, and if that's the way to go, and, of course, after that hopefully to present a final proposal.  That's the only thing I wanted to remember, I mean, this is not something we forgot.  We actually are working on it, and that's what I wanted to comment.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks a lot, Roberto.  In fact, I was thinking about the fact that we didn't ask you to give us an update, so I'm very glad that you did.  And just share that proposal when you are ready so we can comment.

Do we have the report from Jutta and Markus, anything new from interaction with Dynamic Coalitions to share?

>> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes, I can give a short input if you allow me to do so, Anriette.

>> CHAIR:  Please go ahead.

>> JUTTA CROLL:  Jutta speaking here.  So the Dynamic Coalitions had a call on the 23rd of March incorporating several aspects.  We were talking about like in the same way we did in the MAG about the COVID‑19 and the IGF and what impact that could have not only on the annual meeting, but also on the work the Dynamic Coalitions are doing so for, but that was only a first exchange of impressions so because at that point in time, nobody could really tell what impact the pandemic would have in the weeks to have.

Then we gave to the Dynamic Coalitions and I need to say that we had a very good coverage of nearly all Dynamic Coalitions to took part in that call.  We gave them an update on what the MAG had already discussed during the last virtual meeting about the sending in of workshop proposals and also session proposals from the Dynamic Coalitions.  We informed Dynamic Coalitions about the deadline that was set and reminded Dynamic Coalition representatives that there is also an obligation for Dynamic Coalitions to have their report on the intersessional work they were doing.

So for some Dynamic Coalitions, this is directly linked to the session they had in the last IGF, in Berlin, while others do more intersessional work not so much focused on the session they have during the IGF annual meeting.  So these reports may vary in form, but nonetheless, Dynamic Coalitions were informed that these reports are due before they will be able to have a proposal accepted for a session during this year's figure, and that led to a bit of confusion among some of the Dynamic Coalitions.  Therefore, coalitions agreed that it would be good not to have a template, but at least to have a structure of what would be necessary to make a report of the annual work of the Dynamic Coalition, a proper report that could be accepted.

And that is under way, and I do think that Dynamic Coalitions will, would really be happy if the extension of the deadline for workshop proposals from the 15th to the 22nd would also apply to the Dynamic Coalition sessions to take away a bit of time pressure from the Dynamic Coalitions coordinators.

We were also talking about the cooperation among Dynamic Coalitions, and Dynamic Coalitions with the NRIs, as was said before, that there is a desire to have more cooperation to make the work of the Dynamic Coalitions more visible in the NRI activities.  And we will see how this turns out given the fact that we won't have so many face‑to‑face meetings, but still there are plans under way for Dynamic Coalitions taking part in also virtual NRI events.

Yes.  I have already been talking about the deadliness, so maybe Markus, you might add something if I have missed some of the things that we were talking about at the meeting.

 >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Jutta.  No, you have not missed anything, but just to repeat, that was one of the questions that came, whether the deadline would stay the same, and we said if it would be something that presumably will be discussed at today's MAG meeting.  And I repeat the question was a request for extension by the DCs that they be treated, keep the same deadline as the workshop proposal, that there be an extension of the deadline by one week until the 22nd.

And maybe just a few words, Jutta explained very well that there was a bit of confusion on the request for the report.  As you will recall, that was introduced some years back just to make sure that there were no free risers.  There were many Dynamic Coalitions that didn't do any work between the meetings, but they used their status as Dynamic Coalitions to get free meeting slot at the annual meeting.  And this reporting request to prevent that we want to make sure that they are bona fide Dynamic Coalitions.

So it's not the request for a lengthy cumbersome report, but it is essentially a request just to document that they have been active between the two annual meetings with their intersessional activities.  What we came up with from back on the website is not that specific.  It just says they are required to report on work as a pre‑condition for being eligible for getting a slot at the annual meeting.

But there I think they will be a little more specific to avoid such confusion in the future.  And also, we have never set any deadline, but it may also make sense that we actually make the deadline maybe 31st December of each year, but that is work in progress.  And we will discuss that with the Dynamic Coalitions and we will report back when we have concrete proposal.  That's all from me.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Markus.  And I think if you and Jutta feel that you need to give them a different deadline.  I think just raise that with the Secretariat, but for now, we will stick to the common submission deadline.

Do we have ‑‑ Anja, I don't think we have ‑‑

>> ANJA GENGO:  I'm sorry, Anriette, all we want is the same deadline for information.  So that if it's ‑‑

>> CHAIR:  You are happy with the same deadline.

>> ANJA GENGO:  Absolutely.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Do we have, it's not specifically on the agenda, but I wanted to check with the Secretariat, is there anything regarding NRIs that you want to update the MAG on?

>> ANJA GENGO:  Thank you, Anriette.  We gave an extensive update during the meeting.  So nothing new.  EuroDIG is posted online.  So we are looking forward to learn from EuroDIG.  And I'm glad that their host from this year decided to host the meeting next year, so next year will be in Italy, but other than that, everything is in line with the update given on the MAG meeting.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks for that, Anja.  I can also say the Latin American IGF will be held virtually and also the Asia‑Pacific.  African IGF is still hoping to convene face‑to‑face, but we will decide on a later date.

We are up to the final Agenda Item.  Any other matters or any other business?  Does anybody else have anything else to raise or to share?  I don't see any hands in the queue.

>>  Can you hear me now?

>> CHAIR:  Yes, go ahead.

>> Unfortunately,  I was muted and I'm connected by phone so I could not intervene before.  I want just to say that on the point of the Working Groups, I think it's a very timely and important initiative, and I totally support what it is doing and ready to co‑collaborate.  Sorry to say it now, but unfortunately I could not say anything, and for the BPF, of course, I support what Carlos just said before.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you, Giacomo, and thanks for joining us even if it's by phone.  And, Ben, you have the floor.

>> BEN WALLIS:  You listed three IGFs that are going to have virtual meetings in the coming months, and I don't know whether it might be helpful when the Secretariat announces to the community that we are extending the deadliness and kind of talks about how the IGF is thinking, is aware of the Coronavirus, and is planning around it that we can say we will honestly be watching with interest how the regional IGFs go with their virtual meetings and learning from them.

Just to kind ever sense of linking together what the global IGF is doing with the regional IGFs.  I know, I know that you might not want to kind of set too many hares running with the idea that there might be a virtual meeting in Poland.  We don't have to go that far, but it just kind of shows that we are considering all options and thinking of plans B and C.  Just an idea.  Thanks.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you, Ben, I think that's a good idea.  Chengetai, let's note that and integrate the awareness into the communication we send out.

>> Can you hear me, hello?

>> CHAIR:  Yes, go ahead.  Who is speaking?

>> This is Mary.  I'm joining by phone.

>> CHAIR:  Go ahead, Mary.

 >> Thank you very much for giving me the floor, Chair.

  I just want to bring you, I'm sorry, I'm bringing you back to the Working Groups and the Secretariat relationship.  The Working Groups are getting, we are getting more Working Groups and the process is dwindling in terms of hands, and those that will follow the Working Group activities and the meetings.  So I don't know whether there is a look at that as well what to do to, also have them be able to meet up with all of the Working Group programmes and activities and be able to cooperate and collaborate with them and work with them as well.

So I don't have an idea of what to do, but I'm just raising it in context of what you said about the Secretariat's Working Groups.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thanks, Mary.

I'm still in discussion with the Secretariat, because I have got limited resources, but what I'm hoping we can do is to have one person from the Secretariat work with each Working Group.  But it should be in a way that is consistent with work that they are already doing.  So we will discuss that, and I will give Chengetai some time to consider what would work best for them and then we will share that with you.

But that I think would work quite well to make sure that there is at least a relationship between each Working Group and the Secretariat.  But we will share more on that.  Gunela, you are asking for the floor.  Please go ahead, and everybody else seeing as we are winding down, coming to an end, if you want to contribute just add your name to the queue.  Gunela, you have the floor.

>> GUNELA ASTBRINK:  Thank you very much.  I just wanted to add something about the Working Groups and about the Dynamic Coalition about accessibility and disability.  At the last MAG meeting, we talked about the possibility of our Working Group on accessibility because there were a number of issues raised, and it seems like it's too late for this year, but we might be able to consider it for a following year, because it cuts across a number of accessibility issues, and the activities in different Working Groups when it comes to participation by people with disabilities at the figure, online facilities venue, we have talked about this a number of times.

It's just bringing all of that together.  And being able to plan forward, and as a new MAG member I'm happy to communicate as I have done before with the Secretariat, but maybe from that experience we can look at proposing an Accessibility Working Group next year.  So that's one point.

And just some information about DCAD, Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability.  There has been a change in the management of that from the ITU, and as we all know, Andrea Saks has been an incredibly strong advocate for accessibility over many, many years, and was instrumental in setting up DCAD very early on in the IGF years and now she has passed the baton on, and that would presumably be me leading DCAD, and it will be under management under the eyes of accessibility special interest groups.

And we are just working through some admin issues and other issues, and then we will have our first call with members.

So we are very excited about that.  And looking forward to doing more intersessional work.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  Thank you, Gunela.  The fact that there isn't a Working Group on accessibility doesn't mean that we should not be working on accessibility.

I think we will, as we plan the event, I think also our engagement group can also put this into their consideration, and definitely once we plan the event, we need to factor in accessibility as a priority.  So don't feel that even though there isn't a Working Group that it's not a legitimate issue for us to put into our agenda and our program.

On that note, I don't see any other hands or requests for the floor we had really good participation today so thank you to everyone from me.  Secretariat, did you have anything to add or to raise before we close the meeting?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Nothing comes to mind, Anriette.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  When will our next call be?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  In two weeks' time, and that would be the time is very interesting, I think, I think that would be the ‑‑ just hold on.

>> CHAIR:  It will be just before the, before we close, before the close of the deadline.  The deadline for the session proposal, so it would be a good opportunity to check in that everyone has been assigned to a workshop selection group.  And that everyone is clear about what these steps will be for workshop evaluation.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It's going to be 2000 hours UTC.

>> And that's on the 14th of April or the 21st?  Two weeks' time is 14th.  That's one week before we have the deadline for the proposal, the new deadline.

>> CHAIR:  Chengetai Masango can you confirm that it will be on the 14th.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I get 13th, but let me ask Anja to confirm the date.

>> It's 13th, you are right.

>> CHAIR:  It's the 13th of April.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Thanks.

>> No, the 13th would be Easter Monday, so that's a holiday.  The 14th is Tuesday, on the calendar we see on the screen.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So there is the proof.  So 14th it is, yes.

>> CHAIR:  Okay.  Thanks very much for that.  Chengetai will send a confirmation of the meeting time and date.  Thanks, everyone, for your time, and take care of yourselves and speak to you online and in two weeks' time, thanks to the Secretariat for excellent preparation.

>> Thanks for giving us back 30 minutes of our time.  Thank you.

>> CHAIR:  I know.  Thanks it's a pleasure.  Bye‑bye, everyone.

>> Thank you very much.

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