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.
>> SECRETARIAT: Okay, good evening, afternoon, morning. We are now starting our meeting. As usual, just a few words that this meeting is being recorded and transcribed, also including your text messages, by the way, contained in chat.
We will be using your traditional hand up system. The link is in the chat.
So with that I'll give the ball to Lynn to start the meeting.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. You say the chat is logged. It is not actually visible outside of this meeting, right?
Outside of this particular platform?
>> SECRETARIAT: If you play back the recording you can actually see the chat. I found out that is different from the Cisco Webex. In the web he can you can't, but with zoom you can.
>> CHAIR: Okay, okay. I want to make sure we were all clear. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. First item of business is approval of the agenda. It was sent out a week or so ago. And it is up there in the upper right corner.
The primary Agenda Items are review of the theme attic narratives with a view towards finalizing or getting close to finalizing, such that that can be done offline. The same thing with reviewing the status of the 2019 call for workshops. Again the purpose is to get approval for the next steps.
And then a couple of brief Working Group updates, if there's time.
Are there any calls for any other business? Or any suggestions for the agenda?
(There is no response.)
>> CHAIR: Just doing a slow count.
I'll call the agenda approved. And at this point I only have one comment. That is to thank all of the Working Groups and teams who have been working on the narratives and on the Working Group for the workshop evaluation. It has been a tremendous amount of work in a very short period of time. Just really want to recognize and appreciate the effort.
So with that, we will move to the Secretariat updates. Then we will move into review of the near final thematic narratives, Chengtai?
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Lynn. We are still continuing the translation of the 2018 chair summary and key messages that we produced. The Chinese translation is complete and is posted on the website.
We have volunteers for all languages. They are still ongoing, the translations, except for Spanish. If we have somebody who would like to translate this, the chair's summary and the messages into Spanish, please contact me.
I think this is very useful if we can get the chair's summary and the key messages translated into all six UN languages.
The other thing is that to advertise the 2019 IGF meeting, the Secretariat sent out a save the date email to all those people who have participated in previous meetings and who are also part of the IGF community, which is the community on the website, not the larger community.
So I think most of you should have received the save the date message which justices that the IGF 2019 is happening in Berlin, and also giving further information. They can go to the IGF website or the host country website.
Last week as the Secretariat, myself, I attended the high level Internet Governance group meeting, which is housed at the European Commission. And there was a session about, I think there was a presentation on the 2018 IGF and Rudolf gave a presentation on the 2019 IGF as well. We added a few things about what we are doing for the IGF 2019 as it was noted that there was a need to encourage better Global South attendance and praying within the IGF.
There was someone else there who gave the report last year. We are trying to have active informed participation from the Global South.
Also the people from the commission, they also said that we should try to encourage people not just to invite Ministers of information or IT Ministers, but try to invite Ministers of agriculture. There was a call for stronger recommendations to come out of the IGF, which is a bit difficult to do because we don't really have a quorum. And so at the moment we are stuck with soft recommendations.
There was a discussion on IGF NRIs, getting them more involved and integrated, not lose them in a sense, but make them participate more and more visible within the IGF. I think we've done a lot of steps to do that. There was a comment on the IGF annual meeting being in Europe for the past three years, but that can't be helped. We can only go to where we are invited. And Europe has taken up the mantle for the past three years. But we are trying to go outside of Europe. We have several hopeful candidates that we are just waiting to see, waiting for them to make a decision on that.
There was also a discussion on this plan that one IGF should be a standard on IGF, it should flow from one year to the next year. Somebody suggested which I found quite interesting that we have maybe like the EU model and have three tiers, host country chairs, basically. So we have last year host country chair, this year's host country chair, and the chair for the incoming host country chair. Of course, this can only be done if we have the host countries lined up well in advance, which we are working on that.
I would also like to invite -- oh, sorry?
Apart from that we also had a discussion on the future of Internet Governance and there was a presentation by ICANN. Arnold also gave a presentation on Euro dig. I would like to invite Rudolf or Titi if they are on line, to add anything that they took away from the meeting.
(There is no response.)
>> SECRETARIAT: And they are not there. Anyway, this is what I took away from the meeting. I thought it was quite interesting --
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: Can you hear me? No, you can't?
>> SECRETARIAT: Yes, I can hear.
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: Okay.
>> SECRETARIAT: Hello?
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: This is Rudolf. Can you hear me or not?
>> SECRETARIAT: Yes, we can hear you now.
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: Okay. I mean, you summed it up quite thoroughly. I think what I took out of this meeting was a very strong consciousness in the European high level group of the fact that the sole host country European, European host country shift should not at all preclude or should not at all give any doubt for later IGFs. Everyone was repeating very, very clearly this was a coincidence of some circumstances and that we are all very much committed to the global nature and the multi-stakeholder nature and the variety of inputs that come from all over the world. I think that was a very clear policy signal that came out of this meeting again. I think it is also important for the MAG to know that we are here very much on the line, all the Europeans supporting the international community.
>> SECRETARIAT: Yes. I did feel that there were really strong support for the IGF amongst the groups.
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: Yes.
>> TITI: Hi. Sorry for jumping in the discussion. I was attending the meeting but I am not so aware about using the tool. So I agree with Rudolf. There is quite strong support from IGF. We also have strong support to understand how they can improve and increase also the discussion around our IGF. And this is the reason why the commission submitted the questionnaire and we had quite fruitful discussions on how to improve IGF and what can be done.
Also there was a discussion in the afternoon about what we think we can do to improve multi-stakeholder model and what can be do to improve the discussion on the Internet Governance. Thank you.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Titi. Thank you, Rudolf. That's all I have to report from the Secretariat's point of view. Lynn, please?
>> CHAIR: Thank you. There were a couple of items you mentioned in there that could be worthy of extended discussions within the MAG. You know, at another future point. Maybe we can take some of these up on a later call.
But for right now I really want to focus on the final preparation for the launch for the workshop call. In particular, the things I'm thinking about is some of the comments on recommendations that were made in the chat room and online, and even some of the notions about the three host country chairs. My immediate reaction is that it makes it quite a governmental approach. So I think we would need to look at that if this comes out as a serious recommendation or request. These are things perhaps we can talk to the appropriate people offline and determine which ones come forward to the MAG.
So we move to the third item, the overview of the finalized thematic narrative. I'm going to ask someone from each one of the Working Groups to talk us through each one of the narratives individually. And I just want to call everybody's attention to a couple of comments that were made in the email I sent out yesterday and also which was followed up by Sylvia as well.
I think we do want to make sure that we are consistent in terms of language. I think the formats are consistent now across the three Working Groups. I think we've pretty much settled on this shorter version.
The primary driver, I would say, in the discussions was ensuring that it was not overwhelming for those who might be proposing workshops. That it was sort of descriptive enough and helpful enough about what the themes were, that was the narrative. We had policy questions, but of course we still left ample, ample room for the community to determine the topics and the particularities, if you will, within those themes.
So what I'm proposing for this agenda is we ask each one of the, review each one of the narratives. We could probably take five minutes or so to just talk through the narratives and quickly review some of the policy questions.
Then we should come back to whether or not there are any overriding comments on the narrative. And then the same thing on the themes and the policy questions. And the questions we've seen come in online, there were some questions on data governance, whether or not those two themes were a useful framing, if you will, for the data governance discussion.
Then amongst the members of the various Working Groups there also has been a discussion on the number of policy questions. With some of the group members preferring a longer list. Others preferring a shorter list to really make them illustrative but perhaps not imply unconsciously that these were the sort of topics we were really looking for for input on. That is another question we will bring to the MAG at the end here.
So I am not sure. We'll just go through, I think, with the first one following the agenda there. So that's data governance. Not actually sure who is going to speak to each of these. I know who the drivers were online, but that doesn't equate to will speaking up here. Anyone want to speak to data governance?
I'm assuming, yes, it is just taking a minute to unmute?
(There is no response.)
>> CHAIR: Give us a moment. If nobody is putting up their hand in the chat room or on voice here, we'll move to one of the other narratives. In the background -- oh, Helani, excellent. Are you going to speak to this narrative? I know you were quite active in it. You have the floor, Helani.
>> HELANI GALPAYA: Thank you, Lynn. I'm glad I'm able to join. I think this is a huge improvement. Thank you to everyone who actually worked on it. Not only the format. I think the substance is also really, really quite good.
If you want to just talk about specific questions, I mean, they are quite repetitive. I would say that is the only issue. Broadly the structure at the moment is that there is a separation between data and human rights as one subtheme. And data and economic development as another subtheme. Which is, you know, not at all a bad way to do it. But I think the problem, as I mentioned in my email, is that this ends up separating the communities that really need to be talking to each other. It is a shame that IGF community is multi-stakeholder but we are not interested in how we combine governance in a human rights perspective and economic development enabling way.
My simple suggestion here would be instead of having the dichotomy of the two issues is to simply, as is very simplistic. We have many other good ideas. Is to simply combine these two ideas and pose a big question. Something like perhaps I worded it in the beginning, in the narrative: How do we do both of these at the same time, taking into account human rights and economic angle.
Then we will see these questions which I would say almost all are broadly here. And it will just mean cutting down instead of large ones we have here, we can probably get rid of four or five which are quite repetitive, talking about ethical issues and so on in both places.
One simple thing I would say to maybe slightly improve on what we have here. But I find the questions quite illustrative. Not exhaustive, but I think that's quite all right. So I thank the person who brought it to this page, actually.
I'll stop there. I know you wanted comments on the specific policy questions, Lynn. Sorry.
>> CHAIR: No, thank you, Helani. I think that is very important. We can have an open discussion. If anyone has comments on the narrative description, please comment. What Helani has just suggested, I think, if I understood her correctly, is that we do not differentiate between the subtheme one and subtheme two, but instead leave the narrative and fewer, I assume some rewording of the illustrative policy questions.
If that is what -- if what I understood is correct and what a number of people who have been supporting that in the chat room believe, I think we can take comments on that. I want to make sure this is what you meant, Helani.
>> HELANI GALPAYA: That's right, Lynn. I think minor rewording and combining. I suppose my other point that I mentioned is just in terms of language, there's an incredibly heavy focus on data which I am not denying at all is important. I think perhaps bring up a little bit of the wording the importance of algorithms. We otherwise are only talking about accountability and representativity. So accountability can be an algorithm issue. Representativity is a data issue. They are quite linked.
There's lots of other things about fairness which has a huge human rights angle and development angle. What are the outcomes that we are trying to change the norms, make it better than the current non-algorithmic way.
Explainability which is a completely different standard to accountability. There are other issues in algorithmic decision making and related outputs than just focusing on data and representativity. That might include a larger community if we use more inclusive language.
Again I'm saying it is there. The political questions are broadly there. We just add a few more terms to it. That's all. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Helani. I am seeing support in the chat room from four or five people for the policy questions. I assume there is support as well for not differentiating between the two themes. So they would be basically the major theme and the narrative and the illustrative policy questions.
And Susan is in the queue as well. We are still launching on the force. In order to progress this, the person who was active on that is on a short vacation but would be back tomorrow. We need the Working Group to make those edits, turn this around by the end of the day Friday, I think. I'm looking for some input from the Secretariat because we would then need to do the various consistency checks and, of course, the Secretariat would have to get everything prepared for posting.
So I would throw that out there and we'll come back to it at the end after we are through with the narratives and the workshop proposal. That's the sort of rough timetable I'm looking at. Susan, you have the floor.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: Yes, we can, Susan.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: The transcript says -- thank you.
Thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to thank Helani for her thoughtful comments. I agree with most of, all of what she has said. I think it would be good if there were working changes that she would like to propose, that would be excellent.
The thought occurred to me as I was reading, Helani, your email earlier about the subtheme. There could be a proposal to not require indication of subthemes on the workshop proposal form. I know we are going to get to that later. So I'm thinking structurally. We are not sure we are being too, not have subthemes. Another option would be to have some illustration. The third option, of course, which I think would run contrary to what Helani has suggested would be to require them and to parse those workshops, which I think -- well, I support Helani in this. I don't think that's a good idea, at least it is not how we presently make recommendations.
I want to bring that up in advance because I can see us discussing this once we get to the workshop proposal and its form. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Susan. Paul just made a good point in the chat room a few minutes ago which is that we should hear from all the narratives before obviously taking any final decisions on the template format structure, that sort of thing.
So absolutely, Paul. If that wasn't clear, apologies. I was trying to understand what Helani was suggesting the take away was from that particular narrative.
So Helani, you have the floor. Then let's do a last call for comments on this particular narrative. We'll move to the next. Of course, we can always come back for comments across all three at the end.
Helani, you have the floor.
>> HELANI GALPAYA: Actually, I tried to put my hand down because I agree with Paul, we should hear from everybody. Since I have the floor, let me say I just want to throw a fourth alternative here, which is what a lot of conferences do, which is to put key words under each theme, which people can kick off which might help us as we evaluate proposals. So we don't necessarily call them subthemes but certainly key words. Apples and sort of different types of apples they are talking about. But I'll keep that comment for later. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Helani. Rudolf, you have the floor.
>> SECRETARIAT: Hi. Sorry, his microphone doesn't seem to be connected at the moment.
>> CHAIR: Rudolf, you might put your comment in the chat room. Or if your mic is connected later, come back in.
Let's move then to the second narrative that we posted which is inclusion. In the chat room, someone was asking if Paul would speak to that. I think she is having mic issues.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Hi. I want to put my hand up. Thank you for the team who worked on this. Taking into account some of the conversations that have come through email and in the chat. There was a suggestion that the narrative should have (indiscernible).
(Some garbled audio.)
>> PAUL ROWNEY: And that the first sentence of the narrative should be introductory. We should look at that from a form perspective. So we would look at how we structure them in the same way. And having something that introduces it to the IGF 2019 which we might already have. I don't know that we need to look at how we can carry that across the whole.
We have brought it down from three to two subthemes, and that is quite a separate area. Access, of course, is around the affordability, infrastructure, et cetera. Of course, this will have building fields, building economies, technology, et cetera.
I don't know if people have suggestions, but just thinking about the questions, just getting people's thoughts on how to work around those subthemes. I was wondering, it's difficult to extract a subset. I don't know whether it is possible to have a method of having me scroll rather than explain it all. Just the thought that one scrolls across and then another one scrolls across, one after another. We are not necessarily having a lift, having them display. You are looking at and thinking about leading the workshop. It is possible not to sink that group (?)
That is where we are now, to get guidance from the MAG on how we can bring all three in alignment and how we can have it amended to address the specific needs. I don't know if anyone else from the group wants to say anything.
>> CHAIR: Is there anyone else who does want to comment? I know there was an active Working Group on this narrative. Give a moment to allow everyone to find your controls.
So what I heard you say at the beginning, Paul, was that you were supportive of separate paragraphs of the narrative description and would work to align that with the other two models. At least that's what I took away. If that is horrible, you can let us.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: That's correct. I think that's a good suggestion.
>> CHAIR: All right, good. With respect to the policy questions, as MAG members have kind of looked through them, scrolled through them, any observations? Any reflexes? They are also scrolling through the screen now.
Rudolf, I think the Secretariat is telling me in the background that they can unmute you. If you put a comment in the chat room to make sure that you are unmuted.
>> CHAIR: Rudolf, you have the floor.
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: I just read a line in the chat room too, so my first comment was before on the data document that number 8, with respect to number 8 is a lot about inclusion. I wonder if that can be moved or somehow to the inclusion paper. But then again the inclusion paper already on my view has, if you compare it with the other papers, too many policy questions. I think it is too imbalanced. We have like 15 policy questions and the data traffic, 28 in the safety and security and 35 in inclusion. So I think there should be a send balance between the policy questions.
So we could come to like 25 or something with the inclusion and the security paper. That was my only comment. That is because even if it is not the case, it gives the impression that inclusion is much more important than data and security, and that is not what we intended to send as a signal, I guess.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Rudolf. Yes, I think we are not intending to send that signal in any case. Any other comments on the number of policy questions? Not specific to inclusion here, but just in general? I mean, I think the comments across the Working Groups focused more on if it's illustrative, it should be a smaller number of well-formed questions that look at ensuring that we are not sort of leaning towards a particular sponsor, a particular answer. That we make it clear we want these questions to really pull out points of discussion or points of debate, those sorts of things as opposed to a list that perhaps might feel to the proposers that it is a more complete list that is sort of driving people towards these particular themes.
I don't know if anybody wants to comment or object even to the way I just framed the various debates on the lists. I think it is important that we are consistent across the three narratives.
See if there are any kind of immediate comments to that.
If not we'll come back to the third narrative and we can come back to the meta questions at the end.
Jutta, you have the floor.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you for giving me the floor. Can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: We can, yes.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Fine. I would be ready to talk you through the third narrative, if that is requested.
>> CHAIR: That would be excellent, Jutta. Before you do that, can I mention, I want to make sure that people do understand why we are piloting with Zoom. It was because of accessibility issues that have been pointed out for quite some time. Webex has some shortfalls and zoom is a different platform. I think we understand that there are shortfalls with most of them but we are trying to understand which ones meet the accessibility guidelines. That's the reason for the move to Zoom.
Before we get far too many questions I also saw Paul was supportive of having a restricted number of policy questions as well. I ask people to keep an eye on the chat as well because it is fairly active.
So Jutta, if you can walk through the third narrative that would be excellent. Thank you.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you Lynn for giving me the floor again. So with regard to the narrative on security, safety, and re-stability and resilience it is already from the title that this is a broad variety of issues to be dealt with in the narrative. That is also somehow the reason why the group came up with the suggestion of having three subthemes for this narrative. And I really can follow Helani's argument on the subthemes with regard to data governance. On the other hand, I do think that in general the subthemes somehow helped to structure the policy questions. So that can be seen in the narrative for security, safety, stability and resilience, since the first subtheme is more or less related to the security issues and especially security of the devices and of the system. And then the second subtheme is related to the safety of the users. That is already laid down in the two paragraphs for the narrative that we are in this area of main theme. We address various subareas with safety and security. And in regard to the people, to the users on the one hand and to the systems and the devices and the infrastructures on the other hand.
That is also why the group came up with a third subtheme, which is Internet ethics and human rights. We also drew on the call for issues and the exercise that we did during our first face-to-face meeting when we had more or less tried to take the issues that came in by the call and grouped them to the three main themes. And also there we saw that there are several issues like hate speech, fake news, disinformation and so on, that are related to Internet ethics. And also to human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of information. That was the reason why the group decided to have the three subthemes.
I could also go along with the idea of having key words instead of subthemes. But still, I get the feeling that with the subthemes we get a bit more structure with regard to the illustrative policy questions.
For the narrative on security and safety, I do think we could pear down the policy -- pare down the policy questions to the number of 20, 25. This reduction would not do any harm to the whole thing because when we understand that we would have illustrative policy questions, some of the questions we set up now are overlapping and I do think they can be reduced.
There have been many people in the group who have been working on the Google document. If anyone else would like to step in and explain a little bit more why we came up with this structure of the whole paper, then please feel free to do so.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Jutta. I see Carlos is on the floor. I don't know if he's in the group. Let me give the floor to Carlos. If anyone else from the group wants to come in, they can come in next.
Carlos, you have the floor.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Hello?
>> CHAIR: You are very faint, Carlos. I can barely hear "hello.)
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: It is better now?
>> CHAIR: Yes, much better.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: I have a few comments on the security and safety and resilience. On theme number two, 1.5 which talks about minors. I think that this should not be the term.
But minor is sort of a theme which is important in some countries.
It is not quite what we are trying to talk about. So it could be replaced by "youth" or "children," et cetera.
The other thing is that in item 3, I did just see the term on accountability. "Restored". restored" means there was trust and accountability before. I am not sure about that. These are my comments about that. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Carlos.
Any further comments either from.
>> CHAIR: Other MAG members?
(There is no response.)
>> CHAIR: Just waiting a moment to see.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Hi, Lynn, I wanted to comment and it is quicker to speak than to write in the chat.
Thank you for your comments, Carlos. I think they are very useful and we should rephrase those points. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Jutta.
Raquel, you have the floor.
>> RAQUEL GATTO: Thank you, Lynn and thank you to the others for the work you've done. Including in parallel with other Working Group on the forms and the evaluations. It is really great to have your work here.
Just a small comment and picking up on the discussion we had just before and having the same or similar number of policy questions. That would be helpful also if you agree to reveal this track and trying to keep on the two themes. I understand and I hear what Jutta is saying about the selection. Perhaps there is something that should be done in particular with the two less subthemes, the vulnerable groups and the human rights dimensions and Internet ethics.
I also, that's the beauty of teams one right after the other. On the data governance one, the team that is concerned, I'm sure they are not the same content, but data and content are different ones. But we could see already the narrative, for example, on issues like accountability, transparency process, so on, that should lead to what we are looking, one flowing to the other. And that seems to be one of the points to pick on.
But anyway, Jutta and the team if you are comfortable on trying to review and reduce, I'm glad to help.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Raquel.
Waiting to see if there are other comments from the floor.
One thing we have not commented on is the narratives themselves. Maybe we can see if there are any kind of immediate comments on any of the narratives. Again that is the two paragraphs at the beginning of each one of these questions. And then come back to some of the open questions with respect to subthemes and policy questions.
I do think we still need to look through the narrative as has been suggested in some of the Working Groups for consistency and that sort of thing. I think those will be extremely minor changes unless MAG members believe any of the narratives need to be edited more heavily.
>> MARY UDUMA: Hello, can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: Yes, we can hear you now.
>> MARY UDUMA: It is (indiscernible) for the record. I want to first appreciate the work that the subgroups have done. And particularly coming up with the narratives and as well as the policy questions. My first reaction was that it looks to me that we are trying to do something like points ... and some of the responses. I think I'm trying to understand where we are going and I want to say that I think the process is that good, but for the subthemes, I don't have problems with them. For another thing, instead of the long list of policy questions which may constrict proposals to some of our own ideas. If we just do the narratives for each of these subsections, I mean subthemes, then the proposal would be allowed to be innovative incoming up with policy questions instead of I know that we are trying to make sure that they are focused, but I think for me it looks to me that it would be mover top-down than bottom-up.
Again I want to say that the policy questions actually, we should just give examples. The examples like then, we are now allowing the community to come up with this. There may be more policy points that they will come up with than just the ones we would come up with. To me it is being straight jacketed instead of the number of items that could come up, allowing the Committee to come up with the things that they believe should be the policy questions.
Having said that, I want also to state that it is great work and I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Mary. I think that is an important point. I see that Mary is asking people to summarize. I think Mary had a similar question on one of the Working Group lists. I think she is looking for affirmation that we are still very much looking to the community to drive the topics and the process here. And that this is not, you know, we hadn't moved to a top-down process. I think that was one of her points. And she also said she was supportive of the narrative has some concerns about the number of policy questions I think because that potentially has people thinking in fact we are looking for those specific topics and perhaps might start to lead them down certain paths whereas significantly fewer policy questions would allow for more creativity, more independence of thinking, if you will. Those are my words, not Mary's, in their responses.
Is that a fair summary, Mary?
>> MARY UDUMA: Yes, yes.
>> CHAIR: Okay, you were a little bit faint. I think that's why people are having difficulty.
>> MARY UDUMA: Yes, that is my summary. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I have to say when we were all together in Geneva and we were talking about illustrative policy questions I really was thinking in the neighborhood of sort of three to five per theme. Really meant to be illustrative and fairly substantive in making sure that they weren't leading questions, that they really were about opening up debate and discussion and not having a long list with each one of them. What was surprising, each of the Working Groups, in fact, moved through that process and each of them obviously came up with quite a number of policy questions.
I think this would be a good opportunity for them to talk to that as a counter point, if you will, to Mary's comments. And I think some support that I've seen on the Working Group lists and one or two comments here in the chat room. These are the two options that really would be a relatively small number of illustrative policy questions versus a more substantive one that maybe is through those policy questions trying to kind of frame the overall theme. I want to open it up, though, to comments from other MAG members.
>> CHAIR: Yes, Jutta?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you for giving me the floor again, Lynn. I think when we did the Google Docs for the narrative, all of the Members of the groups tried to address their ideas for the policy questions. It is not necessary that we keep them all, since we all know it is very long and an exhaustive list. It could be 50 or 60. Then we would like people to think along these questions but to create their own policy questions.
So I can agree with Mary's suggestion. Let's try to reduce it to very few, a handful of illustrative policy questions but make clear that we are just food for thought and that people should go along with their own ideas and create policy questions for that proposal. I do think it would be possible to pare it very, very low down to only a handful of questions. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Jutta. Paul, you have the floor.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Yes, Jutta actually said what I was going to say. A bit of explanation as to how we came to so many. These are big groups and people have ideas and they need to be accommodated.
I think most of us probably do, we agree that we now need to narrow these down. And to make sure that they are not leading. That is work we can do over the next couple of days. And three to five I think we would definitely support, in that area.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Paul. And Rudolf, you have the floor.
I'm not sure if you can unmute or if the Secretariat needs to unmute you. We'll give it a moment.
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: All right, I think the Secretariat unmuted me. Not much to add. I think that what you said, Lynn, was also my understanding at the beginning. And then we came up with these many questions. As we heard from Jutta and Paul it will be possible to narrow them down. I would very much support this. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Rudolf. We had -- I saw Helani put a comment in the chat room as well. We had three people who have spoken most or have been the representatives of the Working Groups all give support to reducing the number of questions. I think if we can get it to three to five, that would be helpful.
I also think when we put out the call, perhaps we could actually think about just putting a paragraph on what the illustrative -- sorry, a few lines about what the illustrative policy questions were meant to do and that I think what we are trying to do in the policy questions is not be leading. We want discussions in the workshop proposals to include and recommend different points of views and encourage debate and discussion, something like that.
I know there has been some similar text shared on some of the Working Group lists. Perhaps we can put that in the call for proposals.
One more comment, but I wanted to make sure that the Secretariat also, please, come in, request the floor and come in whenever you want in terms of any questions, reflections or comments you have on this. Because you have an awful lot of experience with it and we need to be able to implement it.
I think we need to still go to the themes and subthemes or tags question which we can come to in a moment. I actually see Timea requested the floor. I'll continue to give her the floor and we'll continue to reach agreement on these open points.
Timea, you have the floor.
I think Timea might be on the phone.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Sorry, everyone, I was trying to find my bears with these various devices to unmute myself. Thank you for giving me the floor, Lynn and good evening, everyone.
I want to come in and support what everybody else is saying, to reduce the questions under each area. I think it's a good idea.
And I was wondering in order to bridge this idea of subthemes or tags or key words and the policy questions, when we get to the discussion to look at the workshop proposal form, I think we are hoping to ask people concretely what is the policy question that you want to answer with your session. I think there that we can have a little paragraph to explain what the policy question is, how that should be phrased. We can say, for example, whether you are considering inclusion from the point of view of access, skills, local content, please be sure that your question includes perspectives from all stakeholders or interest groups, something like that.
We already prompt people to think in that way. I think it was Helani who said it in the mailing list very accurately that we have questions that consider the issues from more -- I come back again to the 360 view of the issues. So that we don't end up with people talking to their comfortable silos in a proposing the question, but actually we push them to break those and get others to take up the opposite side of the issue. I very much like that point that Helani made in her comments in the MAG list that we try and break those comfort zones for stakeholders.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Timea. That was a very good point. It agreed with Helani's point earlier. There's a lot we can do with the workshop proposal to get an appropriate level of guidance.
Are we settling on three, three to five policy questions per major theme? Or were people assuming that was per subtheme, if we had subthemes? If we do away with subthemes, then we just have the narrative policy questions and some tags. Then I think the answer is clear. It is three to five policy questions.
But I don't think we've settled on the subthemes yet. There is a proposal, if I'm tracking all this correctly, there is a proposal from the data governance to perhaps not have the two separate subthemes. Treat the policy questions as one, willing from the narrative. I guess my take-away from the inclusion is that they are probably more comfortable with the two subthemes, given the different scenarios and the safety, security, stability, resilience. I think there was -- Jutta said they could go with the tags and move away from the subthemes, I think.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Lynn, if I may step in?
>> CHAIR: Please, I was going to ask everyone to come in and summarize.
>> JUTTA CROLL: We thought that the subthemes give a bit more structure to the main theme. That is mainly due to the fact that the area we are covering with security, safety, stability and resilience is so broad. That is the reason why the subtheme helped to structure this broad area of the theme. Nonetheless, if the subthemes are not as useful, we could go away with keywords or something like that. But we would prefer to keep the subthemes just to give more structure. And if we come in a few minutes to the workshop proposal form, I think this offers somehow a solution when people would be able to choose one of the subthemes. But probably it could also be that they must mention one of the subthemes. But that is a discussion how we design the form.
>> CHAIR: Okay, thank you, Jutta.
That was very clear, thank you.
Paul, could I ask you to summarize the preference from the inclusion? I know this is difficult for you to do because there is no opportunity to have discussions with the bag ground here, but I would ask everybody to come in and comment with any differing opinions.
If I could ask Paul to summarize what he believes would be most appropriate.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Thank you, Lynn. We could go either way, to be honest. I quite like the text and not having the subthemes, but also the subthemes, I think it should be a dictated a bit about how we are going to manage the workshop proposals and how we want to categorize those. Maybe some people will want to revisit after we've looked, how we are going to manage the workshop proposals.
I think we could go either way, to be honest.
>> CHAIR: Okay, okay, thank you.
So we'll take Paul's suggestion that we move to the workshop proposal and maybe come back to this question of the subthemes.
>> HELANI GALPAYA: A quick comment to say that obviously I think we might want to not have subthemes, but this is something that the Working Group can and should discuss instead of obviously me saying that, since we haven't had a meeting about this.
The key words I would personally strongly, tagging key words would be an alternate way to do it and that certainly can be done.
If the other two themes want to insist of having subthemes, we can be forced into it. But we can think of it differently than the two subthemes we have now.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Helani. So we are all managing expectations correctly, before we leave this call we need to agree on a subtheme or tags, there's just no time to go through another circle. I really think this is a MAG decision, certainly on the basis of the recommendations from the Working Groups, but I would expect we would take that decision here before the end of the call.
So let's move then -- if people are okay, I think we centered on consolidated, significant reduction to the number of policy questions. Really moving to an illustrative set of policy questions with obviously some guidance in the workshop proposal form in terms of what we are looking for there. We have an open question on the subthemes versus tags and I think we are in agreement that we will look through the various narratives that are there for consistency, but that the MAG is fairly comfortable with them as they are actually posted here today.
So I say that so that anybody can come in and correct me if there's a different opinion or feel that there's more discussion required. I also see Jutta, Jutta, please, you have the floor.
>> JUTTA CROLL: I just asked for the floor for the next point on the agenda. Please go ahead. And when the next point is called upon, then you can call me back.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Jutta.
Jutta is obviously one of the people who has been very active here in the last few weeks, both in the Working Group on workshop evaluation as well as in the safety and security narrative.
I don't see anybody else asking for the floor. Let me maybe just invite the Secretariat to see if they have any comments or reflections at this point in the process before we move to the next item.
Jutta, are you still all set with this? It's still okay?
>> SECRETARIAT: Sorry, I was also trying to find the speak button. Yes, I think it is fairly clear and I think one of the comments that we had in the Secretariat have been taken up by the number of questions, et cetera, and those have been addressed.
We haven't touched upon the tags which somebody mentioned having key words which we have done in the past with the tagging system. But yes, we are set.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Chengtai, and we'll come back to the subject of tags after we do the workshop proposal.
Jutta, you have the floor. I know you have had two calls already this week and working hard to progress this. Much appreciation. You have the floor.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Lynn. Would it be possible to put the workshop proposal on the screen so that everybody can see? What we have been working on?
>> CHAIR: I'm sure the Secretariat will do that in the background.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay, wonderful. It was already sent out to everybody and you probably have found the time to have a look at it. So when we have been working on the workshop proposal form we already considered that we would have the three main themes and also the subthemes. So you see in the first and the second row, that proposals would be asked to select, see the narratives, select one of the three main themes and then afterwards when they have chosen that main theme they would see only the subthemes for the one that they have chosen. If we go ahead with a subtheme.
Again we saw that it gives a bit more of structure to, for proposals. It gives them some guidance with the subthemes but also it could help us afterwards when we try to bring all the proposals, the workshops together in the consistent programme for the IGF, the subthemes could also help track trends.
We could also try, whether this can be achieved with key words or text like we had before, but so far for the time being subthemes were kind of structuring the whole process.
You also see that we have in the column on the right side we have highlighted in yellow that MAG decision would be needed. Also on the themes and on the top themes. In the Working Group it was discussed whether we should have the, give the proposals, the option to say none of the three themes but another theme. So that they could open it up, either in the area of the main themes or in the area of the top theme as well.
If you agree, I would walk you through the whole proposal form. Then we can go back to the, I do think it's four points that need to be discussed by the MAG and to try to find a decision in order to have the call out on Monday.
So on the third line you see take we ask for a workshop session title. This is more or less like it was in the previous years, but we would like to give guidelines for workshop proposals to have titles that are not too generic and that give somehow also information on what the discussion will be in this session.
Then we will ask the proposals to which the policy question or questions that shall be addressed during the workshop of the session. And there were no objections or any comments from the Working Groups. So this means if you look into the right columns that everybody in the Working Group was more or less agreed to do it that way.
Then the fifth row is relevance to the theme. How, so here the proposals of that explain how the proposed session will contribute to the narrative or to the theme that they have already chosen. And then an additional field, they go a bit more into depth and also explain how this is related to Internet Governance. Then we have the seventh row where the workshop session format is to be discussed. And it is to be defined. And we discussed whether panels would be an option or not. And in the end it was suggested to leave the panel but to say it is the last option that people can select. And if they choose panel over are all the other format, they still need to explain why they have chosen panel as a format, just to dis-encourage people to go for a panel session.
Then as we had before in the eighth row, it is the diversity question. And there is also a decision to be taken by the MAG because we need to let applicants know in advance if they need to fulfill all the diversity criteria which are listed from 1 to 7 at the bottom of the row with gender, geography, stakeholder group, poverty perspective, persons with disabilities, youth, and local community.
So if we could allow them, for example, to address at least three of these diversity criteria and then explain why it is, then ask them to explain why it would be difficult for them to address all diversity criteria.
There were also discussions whether they are all on the same level or whether there may be some on a second level of diversity. But in the end we came up with these are the seven and it needs to be decided whether all of the seven or which number out of these seven diversity chiropractor needs to be addressed.
Then people shall be asked to explain how the session will go and how they will support practical outcomes, substantive policy discussions and how the discussion will be facilitated during the session, et cetera.
Then in line ten you see that this is something that we already discussed in Geneva, whether the applicants shall address tangible outcomes of their workshop sessions and it was discussed in the Working Group whether the world "tangible" is really necessary or whether we should just ask for outcomes because it might be a very high requirement to explain in advance before the session takes place what tangible outcomes the proposal would expect.
Then we have some of the formalities. We have explained it, the form from last year for more information on the speakers, on the moderators, and the rapporteur. Then in line 16 we have explanation which was in the previous form. I do think it was called online participation or remote participation. We now have tried to have a more consistent approach and asking for how will the interaction in the session be facilitated and how will participation on site and also online participation be facilitated.
Then in relation to the SDGs can be marked to and from the list. And the final row says that it would be like it was in previous years, also possible to provide for background material, preferably with applicants adding a link to supporting materials, papers and this would not be mandatory. So it would not be part of the assessment of the workshop proposals if there would be background material or not. Also MAG members would be able to refer to the background papers when assessing the workshop proposals.
I would leave it at that for the moment and if the Secretariat can scroll up to the point where MAG comments are needed. Please come in with your comments and help us make the right decisions on the questions that are left open.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Jutta.
I think that was very clear. If there aren't any other comments from any of the other Working Group Members at this point, I propose we just go throughout request for MAG decision one by one. If you're okay, would you like to introduce them and walk us through, make sure you have everything you need?
>> JUTTA CROLL: I don't know whether Sylvia is also on the call. I need to --
>> CHAIR: She is not.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Sylvia and Susan have put a lot of work in this as well. Maybe Susan can amend something. Susan, would you like to lead through the discussion of the questions that need to be decided by the MAG?
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Hi. This is Susan. I actually wanted to share some reflections that I had as an individual. So maybe that is better placed elsewhere. I'm also happy to facilitate discussion and answer questions.
>> CHAIR: Why don't you share your reflections, Susan. I don't know whether they will have a bearing on the open questions or they will address some of the other areas, but it is probably good discussion ahead of time. You have the floor.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Okay. First of all I want to thank Jutta for her leadership. She has really done a great job in getting us through this process, and Sylvia as well.
I was unable to join the call that we had yesterday, I believe. So I did just have a few things to mention on the workshop session proposal form.
I would like to make comments on lines 3, 8, 10, and 12. With regard to workshop session title, I believe it was the Secretariat who suggested that for titles that do not make sense and do not adequately reflect the content of the proposals, that we could gently guide proposers to change it. I think that titles are very helpful. Some can be quite poor, but I do wonder about creating guidelines to titles.
Second, I'm not sure if Lucien is on the call. But on line 8, the diversity requirements, I would just add a note. What we did last year, we had for the criteria of which there were four, that MAG members would assign a score to each one of these four categories and diversity was a category.
This year there were proposals to include items 1 through 7 into the diversity category, which I think that's fine.
Overall, though, the MAG members will be giving, assigning one numerical score to diversity. I want to make sure that folks don't think that we would be assigning a score to different elements of diversity.
So it was suggested that the local communities be involved in the diversity requirement. I believe that the intent there -- Lucien, correct me if I'm wrong, the intent there was to draw in participants from the host country. There was, in the past there has been some frustration that was expressed, last year particularly, where local communities weren't sufficiently present on the programme. I suppose because they were all from the host country and there was not much diversity there. I suggest that instead of including local communities as a component within the diversity criteria that we consider a separate -- I don't want to use the word track, but perhaps a separate space to keep the participation of people from the host country and the surrounding area.
Just moving on to workshop session expected tangible outcomes. So as is noted on the proposal form, it is up to the MAG to decide how to address this requirement. I would personally, it might be useful to describe the outcomes, but I worry about using the word "tangible."
For folks who are familiar with the CTIF Working Group on IGF improvement, one of the recommends is that the IGF produce more tangible outcomes. I believe that direction is to the MAG and to the chair and to the community, but I do not believe that it is to workshop proposers. So I would discourage inclusion of word tangible because I don't think that is our mandate and sets too high of a bar for workshop proposers.
And the last one. Oh, right. Just a note for the Secretariat, the reporting requirements. So at present the workshop proposal form asks if you organise the system in previous IGF events, please give the name of the session and provide the link to the report.
I just know that it might be tricky for folks who organised events in 2007 or 2010 even, maybe even up to 2013 to find those reports. I would be sure that we are a little bit cautious around this requirement because I understand that it is meant to be a screening for folks who did not report from their session and so it could be used in a punitive way. And if that is the case we need to be very, very careful about that.
So that is all I have to say for right now. But I'm happy to help answer any questions along with Jutta. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Susan. I'll call Carlos to the floor and then I think, and Paul who just came in. Then we will start to work through each one of the open items.
So Carlos, you have the floor.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Yes, I replaced my microphone. Are you hearing me?
>> CHAIR: Excellent! Very well.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Okay. Can I make some comments on what Jutta just presented? Right now?
>> CHAIR: Please. I think we are opening it up to all the MAG members. Please, you have the floor.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Okay. On the points 1 and 2 which is theme and subtheme, there is the discretion on whether we should include the option "other." I'm not sure what to think about it. Maybe the Working Group people could summarize a discussion around this so we can make a decision. I would be fine if the group decides whether we include or not include the "other" option.
On the format, I found very curious that people were against -- some people are against the panel format, but there is the G format which is none of these. You open up for people to suggest a format. So it is curious because if you don't want a panel but you do open for any other suggestion or format, this is a bit contradictory.
I want to keep the panel and I am not sure about this G option. We better fix the format so we are sure that we are not going to create more trouble for the organisers, no?
And I think this is the last comment. At this point on the diversity issue, there is this fourth offer in the list which is policy perspective. I understand that it is, if the workshop is going to discuss public policy issues or not. I hope this is what you mean by this.
That's it at this point. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Carlos.
Paul, you have the floor. And then Jutta, I'm not sure if you are making general comments. If not, if I could ask you to walk us through the various open points so we can close it, that would be fantastic.
Paul, you have the floor.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Yes, mine are minor comments, but let me just talk to them quite quick.
>> CHAIR: Please, we want general compensates but I want to make sure that Jutta knew that she was being task the to drive us home.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: On diversity, we are saying the organisers coming from Developing Countries ... I think we need to have a link to a reference document that defines which countries are classified as developing and which regions are defined as under representative. There is no confusion there.
I also think on diversity it is very subjective how we score. So in preparation for how we think about scoring this, I think it needs to be structured in such a way that there can be a matrix built from the response from the workshop presenters that gives us consistency in the scoring around diversity because we all have different perspectives of what diversity means.
On the remote moderators, I saw a challenge in the area where a lot of the workshops, they, the moderator didn't know how to use the IGF systems, the hands-up queue and accommodating remote moderators. I don't know whether a remote moderator should be provided by the MAG or whether moderators and possibly remote moderators should be required to attend some training, online training on how to use the systems that will be available.
And then just a more general comment. How do we measure compliance of the workshop proposers? Ie. someone presents a good workshop proposal but they don't meet what they presented. Then they resubmit again. We are at risk that they are going to follow through the same, put a good proposal through but don't follow up with a good workshop with the same quality.
How are we measuring what people proposed, delivered, and then are trying to redeliver the following year, if that makes sense. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: No, those are very good points, Paul.
Let's go to Jutta. Maybe we can walk through each one of the open questions. Either those identified in yellow or if a question has been brought up by other MAG members here.
Jutta, are you okay driving us through that?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, I will try to do so, Lynn. Thank you for giving me the floor.
I do think I can address the first two points there, a MAG decision is needed by trying to answer the question from Carlos. With regard to the other option.
So in the discussion of the Working Group and also I do remember some interventions on the mailing list that we might narrow down the options for workshop proposers if we don't allow them to suggest any workshops for other than the main, three main themes.
And the same counts for the subthemes. It was not discussed to an end in the Working Group whether the "other" option would be necessary among the three main themes. Or only then with the subthemes. So my personal view from our face-to-face meeting in Geneva was that we agreed that these three main themes were broad enough to cover any workshop proposal, but afterwards on the mailing list and also in the Working Group this was not as clear as it seemed to be in Geneva. So it is now up to the MAG to see whether it will be useful and help us in the programme for the IGF to open up the option to have another main theme other than the three main themes that we have the narratives for.
I would also like to caution somehow in that direction because we have built up the narratives to have a consistent programme and to make people understand what the MAG was thinking along the lines of the three narratives and the three main themes.
And if we open up there another option, it could also bring in some confusion.
Second point might be that we open up the other option only for the subtheme and that is now up to the MAG members to bring in their opinion.
I will go to the other points afterwards, but I think we should firstly try to come to common sense on these two points in line one and 2.
>> CHAIR: I agree with that approach, Jutta. Let's open up the floor. There have been a couple of comments in the chat room specific to this point.
I think the questions are quite clear.
I mean, Jutta, do you want to put forward a proposal then? And we ask the MAG members to either support or express objections?
If I communicate the points, for instance. To me, I would actually put in the point that there was middle ground. Which I don't know, she wants to come non-and talk to or people want to read there in the chat room, I don't know if you think that's an option based on the discussions in the Working Group?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Sorry, the discussion in the Working Group and on the list are mainly that the proposers or applicants should not have to follow a too narrow path. And if we could agree take we would not have the "other" option for the main themes but say okay, you need to choose one of the three main themes but then open it up on the second level. It is either adding another subtheme or adding text or issues to the proposal. Either way would be possible, but I would suggest not to go for the "other" option in the area of the main theme.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Jutta, that was quite clear. I do think that is in line with where the MAG was as we left Geneva. I also think there is a slight risk of confusion if we actually open it up on the subtheme level where people would believe that they were perhaps generating subthemes. But maybe there is a way to make that clear in a note or, as you suggested, maybe it is a different designation somewhere else in the process.
>> JUTTA CROLL: At that point if we stick to the three main themes it might be clear to applicants that if they suggest another subtheme or another tag, that must be in the area of one of the chosen main themes. So it could not become broader than the main theme has been before.
>> CHAIR: Jutta, could I just ask you to just state the proposal once more succinctly and we'll ask the MAG whether or not they support that?
If someone has a serious objection to raise their hand or note that in the chat room. Again if you could just put your proposal once who are to the floor?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. The proposal would be to have only the choice between the three main themes from the first row and going to the second row with the subtheme, the proposal would be that we list the subthemes and proposers would also have the opportunity to choose. I have another subtheme under the previously chosen main theme.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Jutta.
So we are asking the MAG whether or not they support that as a direction. I will note that that does bring us back up to the narratives, which means we would move forward with subthemes under the individual narratives.
So let's keep the discussion going. There are a couple of comments in the chat room. And Raquel has asked for the floor. Raquel, you have the floor.
>> RAQUEL GATTO: Thank you, Lynn. And thank you very much, Jutta, for the presentation. Going on this point, I had exactly the same question. So we put in the chat this means we are going back to subthemes. I guess we are leaning towards the trend of not having subthemes.
But I think it would make more sense for us to work on the keywords or the tags and so on. But also have some language that puts the expectations for the proponents in terms of if you really need to make an additional keyword or tag, just don't expect that this is going to pull up because we are trying to build a concise and more streamlined programme and so on.
So if we had some way of setting those expectations, I think it is important. We don't want to cut good ideas and I think it is healthy to keep this some sort of open suggestions. At the same time, we need to be clear that not everything can bubble up to the final programme.
I hope that makes sense.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Raquel, for your comments and I strongly support the fact that we need to be really clear throughout any kind of introductory note and throughout the form itself to make sure that we are setting expectations clearly.
There is a comment in the chat room from Veni. Does that mean that anyone can offer a subtheme if it is not listed?
>> MARY UDUMA: Hello, can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: Yes, Mary, we'll come to you in one minute, Mary.
So I am let you per use the questions in the background, Jutta. We will go to Mary, then we have Susan and Veni in the cue.
Mary, you have the floor.
>> MARY UDUMA: Can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: We can, yes.
>> MARY UDUMA: I want to step back to the first theme, we have the narratives, right? And we already agreed on the three tracks we are going with. And I think we should not add others from that level.
Then when a subtheme is selected and there is a (indiscernible).
(Audio cut out.)
>> CHAIR: Mary, we've lost you.
>> MARY UDUMA: Add any others so that ...
(Audio cutting out.)
>> CHAIR: We are not hearing you. I don't know if you are in the chat room or not. Can you send your comments by email or chat room? What I heard you say at the very beginning, you support having the three themes and not the possibility for an "others" at that top level.
>> MARY UDUMA: Yes, at the top level, no. The second level, I support it.
>> CHAIR: Okay, thank you.
Susan, you have the floor.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, chair. So I guess to start out at the top level, I concur with Jutta and Mary that adding a catch-all for other or miscellaneous would go against the whole spirit of trying to narrow the IGF programme and to restrain the themes.
I would support not having a catch-owl or "other" theme.
I do think that Helani really made a great illustration about the problem of, at the second level of having the subthemes. I do worry that understanding that I don't think we have time to go back and to rediscuss the two subthemes. I think as long as we are getting rid of at the top level the other miscellaneous category, I like the idea of the proposers submitting under one narrative and not having to submit under one subtheme but rather identify with a few tags what their proposal will focus on.
As has been suggested in the chat, I think that -- I mean, I don't think the proposers would ever suggest subthemes per se. There wouldn't be a separate track created out of subthemes or suggested tags at the second level. However, that would just be informational.
And the Secretariat does have some experience with tags and collecting and analyzing tags. So I would support that. So deferring, of course, to the consensus of the group, that there would only be three themes at the top level and then at the second level as it were, if we wanted to think about it like that, proposers could suggest their own tags and that we do not further parse the proposals for the reasons that Helani explained in her email and earlier. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Susan. I will go to Veni on is on the floor and then I think ask the MAG to make a call on the proposal that you've just articulated quite clearly. Veni, you have the floor.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: Yes.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: So clearly the chat is showing a lot of support not to have outcome themes and subthemes, I guess. We put something which says "other" and people have to figure out what this "other" is. We are opening ourselves to a process that we may regret going through. Because it will be more difficult for us to figure out what are the criterias, how do we create, decide these criterias, et cetera, et cetera.
I think if we decide a subtheme depending on the theme, then we are in a much better territory with regard to finishing on time the evaluation and making sure that the evaluation is correct.
I try to bring to the attention of the especially the newcomers that last year -- I mean, this is my second year now. Last year we had a number of comments which were put on the workshop proposals by ICANN which were a bit of discouraging for the global ICANN community. They were saying whatever topics are suggested are good topics for an ICANN meeting, not for the IGF.
So if we, I mean, we might see something similar with other organisations and their workshop proposals for the IGF 2019. So perhaps we can do this. We know the themes and we can do the subthemes and not open it to global inclusion or global definition, if you will, of opening actually the definition to anybody who wants to submit a workshop proposal. Thanks.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Veni. Just trying to pay attention to the time. I know it is very late in some parts of the world and very early in others.
Let me just put out a couple points. I'm hearing that people want to stay with just the three themes at the top level. So no others there.
And with respect to item 2, the subtheme, at least in the chat room there have been a number of suggestions that we move to tags or maybe call them focus areas instead and not have the subthemes.
But I would not say that is a conclusive opinion. With respect to the themes, are there any objections to keeping the top level themes at just the three with no "other" category?
Wait to see if anybody wants to put an objection in the chat room or by voice.
Comments for just the three, and more support coming in.
Let me go to Timea just now. I hope your opinion is on the subtheme given one of the compensates you put in the chat room so we can get agreement on that. We'll hear you just shortly. Timea?
>> TIMEA SUTO: Yes, I will be short, to my mind whenever we call it subthemes, tags or other areas, I don't want to create the impression in any way that a subtheme is going to create a separate track or we end up with three themes, but on the three themes, there are areas that just basically there is one purchase. If that creates confusion, I say either we go with tags or scrape the whole second level all together and focus only on the policy questions, defining what the workshop is supposed to be doing.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. What I see from the comments in the chat room would mean that we have the three themes at the top level, if we're using that language.
Obviously when the proposers come to Smith proposals they see the choice of three themes, a narrative and a small number of illustrative policy questions.
If I recall Mary's point earlier in terms of really wanting to kind of foster creativity and some independence of thought, if we stop there and ask them to self identify tags for their particular proposals, that meets Mary's comments and concerns earlier.
I think it has a fairly good bit of alignment with the comments I'm seeing in the chat room. Let me see if there are concerns or contrary views. I'm not really trying to force anything through here. I'm trying to find a consensus in a process take has had only a few voices here. Yes?
>> JUTTA CROLL: If I can jump in here? If we choose to have the option to have tags or focus areas, whatever we call them, the question would be whether this is an open field where anything can be put in, which would cause more work in the assessment process to categorize how these individually chosen words, key words or texts could influence the whole idea of the programme.
On the other hand, I was wondering whether we could build on the issues we've already got from the call for issues. Put them there as a list so people can firstly choose from the list of these issues, but also could add something else if they don't think that any of the already mentioned issues on the list does not fit to their proposal.
Would that be an option?
>> CHAIR: Let me open it up to the floor. I mean, is Jutta's proposal clear?
>> CHAIR: Jutta, do you want to put your proposal one more time since we are not seeing, just seeing one comment in the chat room from Carlos?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, I see that Carlos has agreed that we should not ignore the results of the call for issues.
The proposal would be that on the second level after the people have chosen their one of the three main themes, then they will be provided a list of the issues that already came in with the call for issues. So they can choose from the issues list those that are related to their workshop proposal and they could also have the option to add other issues if none of the ones that were on the list fit to their proposal.
>> CHAIR: Just to be clear, that means that when people see the individual narrative, we've chosen a theme, that they would see the narrative description. They would have the link to the SDGs there as one line. Some illustrative policy questions and I guess the equivalent of tags or focus areas that would be drawn from the call for issues.
So we would not have anything called subthemes.
Yes, Raquel, I think that's what is being said.
Helani, you have the floor.
>> HELANI GALPAYA: I have a question or a comment, I'm not sure how to categorize it. I like what Jutta is proposing because that would then really put the onus on the three theme Working Groups to go and make sure we take as many of the topics from the open consultation into our focus area or tagging list or whatever. The only, I don't know whether it is a danger because I can't remember how many different topics came up in the open consultation, that we end up with an extremely long list, ten, 15, 20 things that don't pertain to the three themes that were discussed.
So that could be a danger, but I'm not sure it is a valid one without actually remembering.
Take whatever of the themes into the three top cans that came up in the consultation, include those three themes and whatever is left over as you just said as long as it is not extremely long. Again that would defeat the purpose of giving an "other" category because we will end up with an unmanageable list. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Helani. I think if everything was just rolled in as it came through, then I think we would have the problem you just mentioned. I think that also takes us away from a more focused programme which of course is the key driver between what we are trying to do here.
So is there any other comments or anybody who would like to take the floor? Otherwise I would ask people to show their support or nonsupport, concerns in the chat room.
Again this is to Jutta's proposal. I do think we have to be thoughtful about it as Helani just said.
Giving it just a moment for people to come in on the chat.
I suppose we have the yes or no functionality at the top and we should probably figure out what take is going forward. That's for later.
Okay, I'm seeing support and no objections to your proposal, Jutta. So let's go forward on those lines.
Now let's go, if we can very quickly, to the remaining significant open questions.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay, if I may take the floor quickly. I do think that the next decision needs to be on the diversity issue and I take in Paul's comments. I do think reference document will be necessary in regard of what are the under represented regions and disadvantaged regions, or whatever it was named. And also we might need to define youth as we said before. What do we mean with the requirement in regard of diversity?
Nonetheless for the scoring which was also raised by Paul, the decision has to be made how many of the criteria need to be met by -- there was some background noise -- how many of the criteria for diversity need to be met by proposals and the suggestion was that at least three of out of the seven diversity sub-criteria need to be met to get the scoring, but the more are met the better the scoring would be.
So this is the proposal from the Working Group, that at least three need to be addressed but it is up to the MAG to decide whether they want that all of the seven are sub-criteria to diversity are necessary to be met by proposers.
>> CHAIR: Okay, thank you, Jutta. I think Chengtai wants to comments on the reference docks and we'll come back to this proposal. Chengtai?
>> SECRETARIAT: Yes, for the LDC and LGBT citizens and under-represented groups, we have those and we can attach them so that the workshop proposers can view them.
Just making a comment from the previous discussion, yes, I totally want to undear line what Helani said and what Veni said as well. We don't want the blank tags defocus. There is a chance that having the blank tags could actually defocus and do the work of unfocussing from the outside levels but we can see how that goes in the construction of the documents.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Chengtai. Jutta, I'll come back in a moment to close on diversity. There was also a comment in the chat room, though I forgot who made it, who said it is not getting diversity on those characteristics. It is also diversity of viewpoints. I think we can ensure that that's clear. Possibly by putting a further description under the policy discussion or labeling that one of the points.
Jutta, I'll turn it back to you to follow up.
>> JUTTA CROLL: I've also tried to follow the comments in the chat. I would say that if we can agree that three of the criteria must be met to score any points with regard to diversity. So the proposal that would only address one or two of the diversity sub-criteria would not score one point. It would be zero. So it must be three at least to score. Then from, if we go from 1 to 5 which we had last year, but 3 would be the minimum. The more of the diversity sub-criteria are met, the better the scoring would be. It would give the MAG more variety in how they score a proposal on diversity. Not one would be put down only because it doesn't meet one out of the seven, but the more they meet, the better the scoring would be. That is the suggestion.
>> CHAIR: One comment on the Working Group. Was one of the considerings we have had is that there have been normally far too many speakers or Panelists or whatever titles we give them depending on the format. And that that didn't allow enough time for engagement with the community.
Any thoughts on if you get extra points for having four and five types of diversity, does that kind of force you to try to build up the number of recognised speakers? Panelists?
>> JUTTA CROLL: I don't know because the groups thought that diversity applies to not only to the speakers but also to the organisers and the co-organisers and to, you could also achieve diversity by the moderators you may have for the session. So diversity can be addressed in various ways. It is not only that diversity of the proposal is narrowed by the speaker.
>> CHAIR: Would there be a distinction between the speakers and the other roles? Of course, the other roles aren't visible. They are not visible, not active. They are very important and very key, but the event itself, what's really noticed and what a lot of people would recognize as diversity are going to be those who have a visible speaking role, if you will. Just something to think about.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. As far as I remember, the group said that diversity can be achieved especially also by other co-organisers. So it is not only the speakers but the organisers, the co-organisers, and the speakers as well. And probably also with be creative. There are other options. You can bring in groups to the session that are not in a specific role like being a speaker but having another role in the workshop session and address diversity, that would be fine.
>> CHAIR: That's a good point as well. Every time I say speaker or Panelist, I'm doing air quotes here because I do agree that we need to think through a lot of those folks, definitely.
I am seeing in the chat room support for three or several comments which would support at least three criteria.
If there's additional recognition given, if you have above three, that probably takes care of those that would like three at least. Let me just leave that sitting with everybody here for a moment and go to Paul. Then we'll come back to you, Jutta, to see if we can close on that particular point. Paul, you have the floor.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Paul Rowney here. Just a thought. Can we not, when the workshop proposals are putting in the speakers and the organisers and the names, et cetera, can we not have them tag each speaker, organiser, with these different categories? Speaker X, you can give the gender, where they are from, what stakeholder group they represent? That would help us then in the back to build that matrix rather than have any of these separate area where they present their view of their diversity.
>> CHAIR: Right, Jutta or the Secretariat? I don't know if you discussed that already.
>> SECRETARIAT: I mean, it is possible -- it is possible. It is more work for the proposers, but let me let Luis answer that from a technical point of view, of what will take a long time.
>> CHAIR: I'm not sure it's more work for the proposers. If they are trying to build diversity into their workshop, isn't that something they would know?
>> SECRETARIAT: Sure, yes. Luis? Are other fields available?
>> LUIS BOBO: The other field, you mean, for -- sorry?
>> SECRETARIAT: The fields that have stakeholder group of the speaker, et cetera?
>> LUIS BOBO: Yes, the opportunity to set over, it is possible. We can say that. But indeed not really because we have like the community already existent and most of the community has already selected a stakeholder group. They have to classify like that. So we could extend from now on, but this could mean that it would not be realistic in the way that people are really in one of the stakeholder groups already.
>> JUTTA CROLL: If I may step in here, Luis, I don't think it is only a technical question whether it is feasible or not to tag the speakers and organisers and so to their stakeholder group. The whole idea of asking for the proposers for their thoughts on diversity is that they consider whether they have achieved diversity or not with their workshop proposal. Just tagging and saying I have stakeholders, this is from that geographic area and from that stakeholder group and from that gender, it is not like reflecting on diversity.
So I do think it is absolutely necessary to have the field where they put in their own reflections on how they would like to achieve diversity in that special topical area they are addressing with their workshop session. We also said in the Working Group that if they can't achieve more than only the three or less than the three, they at least need to explain why from their perspective it is not necessary or whether they do think that the workshop is still worth for consideration. Also they don't have the diversity, for example, in regard of geographical area or stakeholder group.
So it is more pushing them, encouraging them to consider how they can achieve diversity than just ticking the boxes.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Jutta.
So I think we've got the support for the three. There have been a couple other comments in the chat room with respect to making clear that we are looking for diversity and policy perspective, that sort of thing, or viewpoint.
I think we can work with the Secretariat offline to see what is possible with respect to Paul's suggestion. And also to show that we are facilitating.
>> SECRETARIAT: The title line as well.
>> CHAIR: Yes. So is there anything else that you need on diversity? Jutta?
>> JUTTA CROLL: No, I don't think so. So far it would be fine for all the Working Group. We will need to be more clear when we come to the question of criteria and we've already considered that it is necessary to decide on the criteria how to evaluate the proposals very quickly, not later than at the beginning of next week when the call has come out due to the transparency reasons. So it needs also to be clear for the applicants to know about the criteria we will assess their proposals against. And then we will also need to decide more precisely on the diversity issue. But for the time being it is fine.
>> CHAIR: So Timea put a number of comments in the chat room, of course, which is how we would rate it. Those five speakers all from the same region, one from another region, is that a diverse session?
I think these are kind of complicated questions. I also think that when we send the call out, we need to be clear with the proposers on what is important. I don't know if I think that we need to share with them the specifics of how it is going to be evaluated. You know, I prefer that we were thoughtful about that evaluation and make it clear what is most important. We then have an obligation if we are not clear on all the evaluation criteria to not change the relative importance by the way we are actually doing the evaluation. I think there's a forward looking and backward looking. But I say I know there has been another discussion on the mailing list as well. I think we can have a quick conversation, the timeline -- I think Jutta has one or two more points that she needs clarity on.
So why don't we continue going through your questions here. I don't know if you have any thoughts with respect to Timea's question or any other Working Group members -- and for this Working Group as well with respect to how we could ensure that we are just doing the right thing by diversity, not only in one category but of course looking across all of them.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, I do think for the time being it is fine to, I don't think we had some rough consensus but at least three of the seven top criteria to diversity need to be met. And that is fine for the call going out. I don't think we need to say anything more by Monday on this issue. Nonetheless, what Timea wrote in the chat is we need to be clear on what the criteria are, and I think proposers need to know what they are being scored on. Of course, that is necessary. That's why the Working Group already has considered how we can work with the information that we get. Unless it will be more information that we get from the applicants than we got last year. We have more, we can do our assessment on that. So the assessment might be a bit more consistent in the end.
But we will need to discuss the criteria and then be transparent and let people know.
So the final point that was marked yellow in the right column was the MAG to decide how to address the requirements for working session expected outcomes.
I summarized from the previous discussion that probably we just say there willing expected outcomes and we leave out the word tangible, which was already discussed in the Working Group, that "tangible" might be too high of a requirement and if the MAG could agree that we just go with expected outcomes from the workshop, I do think the Working Group could agree on that.
>> CHAIR: Let's pose that question. So instead of tangible outcomes it would say expected outcomes.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Right.
>> CHAIR: Is there support for that from the MAG? Or any concerns? Then we'll come quickly to the diversity criteria in a minute.
I am seeing some comments of support for expected outcomes.
Again I think all of these could be, you know, useful if you had pop-up boxes behind that to give some examples or definitions of what we are looking for here.
There was a chat, a couple comments in the chat with respect to diversity as we were trying to close out that last point, Jutta. There was support for going ahead now. There was a suggestion take we need to be clear, which of course we all support -- how this is going to be evaluated by the MAG but more stating the importance and a definition of diversity which Susan offered to help pen and a couple other MAG members were going to support as well.
The more detail we can put to the criteria the more helpful it will be and the more transparent with respect to what the MAG will evaluate as important.
I think there was support for going ahead along the previous agreement as well.
Raquel, you have requested the floor. You have the floor.
>> CHAIR: Raquel, searching for your unmute button?
(There is no response.)
>> CHAIR: Raquel, come in, or put something in the chat room when you're ready to come back in as well.
Jutta, was there anything else in your document or anything? I know Susan made one or two-points, I think that we haven't covered yet. One or two of them were perhaps more questions for sort of the Secretariat. But is there anything that you think we still need to suggest? Or Susan?
>> JUTTA CROLL: No, from my perspective we have gone through the four open opinions. And I think it is a good basis to continue working on the form and finalizing the call for proposals.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Jutta. Susan, were any of your earlier points need to be taken up now with the MAG? Or do you think they need to be put to the Secretariat? I am having a hard time recalling them at the moment.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: No worries. I think we can take this offline and continue to work on them. Thank you, chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Susan.
Chengtai, do you want to talk through the timeline? And we should follow up with respect to the list for the MAG.
>> SECRETARIAT: Can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: Yes, we can hear you.
>> SECRETARIAT: I don't have the full-time line with me, sorry. I'm using my cell phone here. But we should be publishing on the 4th. At the moment I think we can keep to that. For the extended timeline, I'm sorry, I don't have the details in front of me.
>> CHAIR: What we need to do apart from obviously there's finalizing the forms, finalizing the text.
I think we need to maybe ask the Secretariat to work with the Working Groups and myself to put together a quite specific and detailed set of next steps because we need to ...
>> CHAIR: Ask the Working Groups to move from subthemes to tags and both ...
(Captioner disconnected and reestablished connection.)
>> CHAIR: It will be better if we can articulate what we really want from the proponent is the impact of this session. Maybe again this is an opportunity for us to have a pop-up box that talks about the expected outcomes in either the drivers or specifically what we are looking for are in terms of impact.
So maybe we can ask Raquel to help provide some additional text there as well.
I know we are seriously over time. I think we will move obviously the Working Group updates to a later time.
Could I ask the Secretariat to share with us in the next day or two whatever introductory text you would be putting up with respect to this launch? So we can make sure it covers the critical kind of direction as established at the last face-to-face MAG meeting?
>> SECRETARIAT: Yes, we will do that.
>> CHAIR: Just quickly, let me, very sincere thanks to everybody in the Working Groups and the workshop evaluation, everybody has done a tremendous amount of work in a very short period of time. Jutta, I want to thank you very much for driving the conversation through here today. The documents were the only thing I think that made this discussion possible. They were very helpful. I really want to thank you for all your effort and leadership here.
We will pick this up on the mailing list. The only final point is to thank the transcribers and also we should note and thank the IGF support association who, of course, funds the transcriptions as well.
That was also related to the earlier point about some of the accessibility issues as well.
So thank you, everyone. And we will see you on the list. Thank you.