The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: We will give it the traditional two minutes for people to load the software and join us.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Let me take this opportunity to check that you are hearing me, right?
>> Yes, we can hear you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Great. Thanks. Okay. I think the participation counter has stopped going up. Good afternoon, good morning, good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome to the MAG virtual meeting No. 15. As usual the meeting is being recorded and also transcribed. There is going to be a summary report that's going to be published on the IGF website later on this week. And please we should try and use the speaking queue. If you cannot use the speaking queue, you can just raise your hand in the chat, but let's try and use the speaking queue. And before we start, just a few apologies from Ana and Rudolph. They are not able to join today.
But from Rudolph's side we do have Rudy Node and we have Ana Liana and Swatji from the federal foreign office who will also participate in the agenda item No. 4. That's the discussion on recommendations of 5A and 5B. With that I will give it to the Chair to start the meeting. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: And thanks a lot for that, Chengetai. Welcome, everyone. A special welcome to our colleagues from UN DESA. It is good to have you in the meeting seeing as you are the formal host of IGF 2020. There were a couple of other apologies if you can record them in the minutes. I believe that Hanna will be joining later.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, she will join later.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for making good progress in taking on the work on organizing the main sessions. We are getting closer to the launch of the IGF. The one thing that I want to make sure that you have all noted with some creative scheduling by the Secretariat we have managed to condense the program of IGF 2020. I know some of you were concerned at this very long extended two phased program. But we now have reduced it to a total of, but to a total of 12, 12 working days, is that correct?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>> CHAIR: We have a much more compact program. And we are able to achieve that without moving away from the principle that the MAG agreed on which is not to have too many parallel sessions.
So if you haven't had a chance to look at the draft schedule that we have shared, please do. I'm also happy to say that the Secretariat has already started checking some of the organizers about the schedule. But let's move on now to the update from the Secretariat. And we will start with the checking on action items from the previous meeting. Over to you, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. So if you do look at the previous MAG minutes, Sam has done it very nicely that all the action items are now at the top and they are all numbered. It is very clear to people what the action items are for the next meeting.
So just reading it out the first action item is MAG members to provide feedback on best practice Forum, on best practice Forums. Let me check with either Wim or Markus, is that going well?
>> Hi it is (inaudible) here. I don't know if Markus is on the line.
>> Yeah. But go ahead.
>> No. I just wanted to refer to the e mail Markus sent out yesterday in reply to Sylvia. Sylvia had asked the question if there could be a Google doc version of the document to comment on. And Markus and I had exchanged some e mails about that. And Markus replied yesterday morning with the idea that one of the most important things for the MAG probably is to take a part of the document, which is a modalities document and that's that we were thinking the most important point the MAG would like to work further on and that the idea was to provide that as a stand alone Google document so that MAG members can take that as their starting point to further discussion and in the meantime use a different way for overall comment and feedback on the documents so that these are sent over e mail to Markus in New York to the mailing list that was set up.
So that they can be incorporated as MAG feedback on the document. I don't know if Markus, you wanted to further add on this?
>> Markus: Yes. Thank you. You explained it well. Maybe just the same in other words. The first three parts looking back at history and so on is an input from the people who were involved in drafting this document. It is the best practice Forum outcome document of this group. And it does not need to be agreed document with the MAG. We hope we end up with a modalities document that will be agreed by the MAG. The MAG will take ownership of that document and going forward it will be the basic documents that will inform people or involve the BPFs in the future. So there are two different parts of the document we are preparing on. Obviously we have most well MAG members are most welcome to provide comments to the extent possible they will be incorporated in the final version of that document. That will go forward also to the MAG. But the first part is it is not a negotiated document. It will be just an input from this group that was involved in these BPFs for BPFs. I hope that's clear and it will meet the agreement of the MAG.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. If you want further clarification you can check the e mail from yesterday.
The second action item was for MAG members and the Secretariat to begin discussions on how to improve outputs for this year's IGF. So we do have something which Sam will present on agenda item No. 8 when we discuss the IGF 2020 outputs. He will just give an overview of what we have at the current moment.
The third item was the MAG Chair to forward to the MAG members the proposal previously sent to the MAG Working Group on strategy regarding possible approaches to IGF 2022. We will combine those two together.
And then we have No. 4, the Secretariat to organize calls for this week and next which was last week and the previous week for the four groups organizing the thematic tracks. That has been done and all groups have met. Hopefully we will get the results of that when we discuss the main sessions in agenda item No. 5. And then the next one is the Secretariat document options available in Zoom. Luis has done that and I think he has distributed that, what the facilities of Zoom that workshop organizers as well as main session organizers.
No. 7 is the MAG members to capture the process of organizing the introductory and concluding sessions for the thematic tracks. And we will hear about that in agenda item No. 6. We won't do that now. And the last one was to share experiences of the recent virtual rights con and yes, those experiences have been shared, at least with the Secretariat. We are always open to input, to anything that will help us improve the virtual IGF 2020 meeting. So if anybody thinks of anything at any time please feel free either to send it on the MAG list or just to directly send to the Secretariat, either myself, Luis or Anriette. I think that's all the items. Back to you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. We will be sending you the weekly reminder of tasks. Many like that. And thanks to those who did contribute to the online documents, the discussion on intro and concluding sessions and also the discussion on outcomes. But I would have liked more MAG members to respond. I want to urge all of you we are now ending the this is the closing run of our work as a MAG. So it really is important that we do contribute to collective outputs and collective documents. But thanks a lot to those who did contribute. I know it is hard to find the time. Move on to the next item, item No. 3, updates from the IGF Secretariat. Back to you, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Chair. So as you all know the dates of the IGF we have managed to compress it a little bit in to the 12 days. So it is now from the 2nd to 17th of November. And we did communicate the draft schedule to the MAG. There has been some slight changes, not big changes, not slight changes just to resolve one or two caches, et cetera. We will be posting this on the IGF website. The session organizers, also the sessions have been opened for the session organizers to update their sessions with the agendas, et cetera. And the deadline for this is the 15th of September. That's for the session organizers to update the agenda and schedule of their workshops.
Workshop 81 which was conditionally approved. It is still pending the U.S. Government speaker confirmation. But we have spoken to the workshop organizer and they have assured us this will be done. They have until the 15th of September as well to do this.
So that's in hand. MAG renewal 2021, today is the deadline. So far we have had 115 nominations with 100 unique people. So as I have said all those deadlines is like a term paper. I am sure we are going to have much more coming in before the actual deadline. But at the moment we have got a wealth of people to that the Secretary General can choose from. I think that call went very well. We have also the the secretary has also communicated the high level leaders track concept note. Some of you or many of you had wanted to know how that was going. So we have communicated that. And we where the the UNDESA largest Secretariat is still in the process of fine tuning and we have sent that out. I think that's all from my side. Let me ask Luis or Anriette if there is anything I have missed.
>> LUIS BOBO: Thank you, Chengetai. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: No. Thank you, Chengetai. Sorry. I think there will be there will probably be more things that people want updates on. But we will in touch on some of them later in the meeting. And obviously we can get back to them.
So I now want to go on to item No. 4, really significant and I am very happy to have UNDESA with us and ask I at this point hand over to you to tell us about from UNDESA's perspective, latest, reactions and responses around the options paper produced by the cochampions for option 4, recommendation 5A. Over to you Wai Min and welcome.
>> WAI MIN KWOK: Sure. Thank you. Say hello to everyone. This is Wai Min Kwok and I would like to acknowledge my colleague Jason. Jason, if you are here
>> Yes, yes.
>> CHAIR: Are you here, Jason?
>> Jason: Yes. Happy to see everyone.
>> CHAIR: A very warm welcome to you and Jason.
>> WAIN IN KWOK: Thanks again. This agenda item is a discussion between the Secretariat staff of DESA and the USG office. That's why you can see that this if I may, both Jason and myself we facilitated this discussion. I will start off with a quick introduction. And Jason, please come in at any time. I think all of you followed the process closely, not just sure the MAG but also through your separate stakeholder groups, including the NIIs and others, other streams.
So just to quickly reflect that the SG roadmap that was launched over two months ago and there was discussion during the June MAG meeting. And there was a letter from USG DESA paragraph 93 that relates to the work of the IGF and the current and future work. Following Germany and UAE they have done a great deal of consultation and have an options paper. And this I will leave to Jason to elaborate.
The purpose of this discussion here I know that you have given some some of you have given your inputs but we it is actually both Mr. Luis's office and Fabrizio's office we would like to reach out to MAG in particular to see what are your current views. In what way do you think the options paper could bring us forward. Essentially my own personal view is that there are a number of very good elements, very good things that we can carry forward. But there are also should I say gaps, meaning that there are elements in terms of missing elements in terms of responses, in terms of the modality. So in pushing forward we will need to have a priority list. More specific follow up on that. I will stop here and leave to Jason to say more about the options paper at this point. Jason, please.
>> Jason: Sure. Yes, I think that's a great summary. Just to add to that, so the draft options paper was distributed to the key constituents for recommendation 5A/B for the virtual Round Table that we held on July 27th. That was to get any additional inputs and red lines regarding this draft options paper. Any time now the cochampions will finalize this options paper, incorporating all these all these recommendations and inputs and that will then be considered by the office of Under Secretary General Hochschild, the UNDESA and we will seek inputs from the MAG. Because as you have seen in the draft options paper it is it presents a range of options. And now as Wai Min mentioned there needs to be prioritization of these options and further elaboration and definition of what this should take shape. Some of these next steps will be determined why to prioritize and how to proceed. So this will be, you know, a continuing dialogue among with the MAG with UNDESA, with other entities to see how we go forward. And we will keep the MAG updated on the status of that.
Some of these recommendations, also taken up by the eventual technology who we expect to be appointed by early 2021. So that will also be another dimension, what the invoice use will be. But in the meantime we are proceeding as much as we can with what we have. And trying to put together a timeline for the short term and longer term.
And regarding the finalization options, like I mentioned, expecting at any time, but I don't expect significant differences from what you have already seen in the draft options paper, multiple dialogues and discussions. And I appreciate the work that your Working Group on strategy is already doing to take on board some of these occupations and provide further inputs and thinking around what shape they should take. I think that's kind of where we stand right now. I don't know if, Wai Min, you want to add anything else?
>> WAI MIN KWOK: Thanks, Jason. I think you clarified right now. I don't have anything to add. But for the next 30 minutes or so, plus or minus, depending on how much we want to go and do, I think we can have open discussion and any MAG member can share your advice on what Jason said. How we versus how we may prioritize the list. Second is the because there are also different processed, just example to repeat what Jason said about the appointment of tech. That's in early 2021 based on what the Secretary General said and that's a process that we would not have the full view as it is now. But nothing also to stop us from looking at the some of the options paper that we can already consider. And I think we did consider the MAG, consider in the planning of the current IGF 2020 and also a number of items that has been some work done, either in past IGF or also in the current planning process. So I guess we will stop here. And we can open the floor for any comment, any clarification at this point. Yeah. Back to you, Anriette.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Wai Min and thanks, Jason. Let me open the floor to any comments or questions. I don't see anyone in the speaking queue or any hands. But please MAG members, please do put up your hands or join the speaking queue. What I will just share with you now Jason has already mentioned that the Working Group on IGF strategy and strengthening is working on at least two responses. One will be a discussion paper on the high level body, that is mentioned in the roadmap and in the options paper. And the other will be a discussion on outcomes. And on how the IGF can strengthen its outcomes and reach relevant decision making institutions with those outcomes and link that to the Intersessional work. That's on its way and will probably be finished in the next few weeks. Any questions or comments? Paul, you can take the floor. Go ahead.
>> Paul: Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: Yes, we can hear you. And please everyone just identify yourselves before you ask your question or make your comment.
>> Paul: Yes. This is Paul Charlton. I'm a MAG member from the government of Canada. Thank you for that to Wai Min and Jason for the update on the options paper process. That was very useful. In terms of my own views, I noticed that you were mentioning that the issue now is prioritization of the recommendations in the options paper. And my own views I expressed this when we had the Round Table a couple of weeks ago. But we do have a number of recommendations in the options paper where I think we would have consensus or very close to consensus on things like streamlining and focusing meetings and improving the funding and resources for the IGF and the Secretariat. There are a few other elements as well concerning the conduct of the meeting and planning and things like that. And our recommendation would be to focus on those areas where we do have consensus.
There are two elements which I think everyone understands are a little bit more controversial. That is the proposal for the high level body, and as well there are proposals, certain proposals relating to outcomes and the possibility of the IGF making recommendations, policy recommendations in relation to soft law or norms or areas relating to that. Those are more controversial.
I understood from the Round Table discussion that Germany and UAE as coauthors of the options paper were going to tweak those the those two more controversial elements. So I look forward to seeing what they look like in their final form. But I would urge though that given the time is short and I know the the culmination of the entire HLP process as I understand is supposed to be this fall at the General Assembly on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the UN when there is supposed to be a package on the whole process. So I would urge that we focus on those areas that have consensus and move forward that way. I think the high level body and the issue of outcomes, especially related to soft law, that's those are elements that at the very least need more discussion in my view.
And we shouldn't we shouldn't rush towards them. And I would take notice about what you said about the work of the that the MAG Working Group on strategy is doing in that regard. I think it would be very useful to see that before we proceed much too further. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Paul. And Wai Min and Jason, do you want to respond or should we take another question before you respond?
>> WAI MIN KWOK: I can respond quickly and I am sure that Jason can add as well. Unless there is someone with a question similar to that context. So on that, I think Paul has highlighted a very important question or clarification in terms of the prioritization. It is those are very valid points. The one thing though is that and I think Jason can articulate clearly is that the options paper as all of you know is the drafter, they are from our colleagues from Germany and UAE as cochampions and they have done a lot of work with the very strong support of Jason's office.
However, there the consultation is extensive but at the same time it is still not it is still not negotiated documents. Just like a lot of other documents of that nature including of IGF. So in other words, we it would not be that clear cut to define those consensus. Those of you who joined the Round Table would recall when Germany and UAE shared that document, they did share those proposals, those that have received more widespread consensus but whether it is full consensus. That's the intricacy of that part. So what Paul mentioned about the two the two elements that could seems to receive different views. One is on high level body and second is in relation to outcomes. Even those two there is also differences. High level body is also subject to more discussion in that context to the relationship with the different stakeholders, including the current MAG as well. And also on the outcomes, the outcomes, I must say that also has been involving discussion. And I know that is also one big element that is a focus in the Working Group on the IGF strategy and strengthening as well as even past IGF Working Groups and past MAG discussion. The specific recommendation on soft norms loss, yes, that will still need more discussion and debate to see how this can be taken in to consideration.
Over to you Jason, if there is anything that you'd like to add, please.
>> Jason: No, I appreciate that. And I appreciate the comment that Paul made. I think even though there may be there may not be the consensus as to the shape that the high level body will take, there is there is substantial support for the establishment of the high level body and the Secretary General himself in the roadmap calls for the creation of the high level body. So that is something that we will advance, but what we are doing now and with the supports of the Working Group on strategy and strengthening is getting views on what that high level body should look like and what the structure should be, how the membership should be determined and so on. So there may be diverging views about how to go about it, but that's why it is important to have these consultations now and inputs and discussions so that we can further define it. So I don't think that because there isn't consensus on all aspects of the high level body, that the high level body should be postponed. But I think it is an important priority. But that's why we are having these discussions to make sure we get it right. That is multi stakeholder and it does have a clear guidance on its terms of work and what relationship is with the MAG and with the IGF and so on. And that can be done in parallel to these other recommendations like the sustainable fundraising and so on where there is clear consensus about what to do. And so the next steps now are to put together initial steps of an action plan of how to go about doing it. What for the fundraising how do we what's the right profile for consultant or somebody to be engaged in doing that, what should be the priorities. How can we better enlist the private sector in fundraising and so on.
So there so that's why over the next several weeks and months it is good for us to put together this action plan for these different areas as well at the same time. There are other options in this options paper where yes, there isn't full consensus either regarding the next steps or definition or the item itself. And so in that case those can be areas of further discussion and consideration for the longer term. But I do think that the high level body in some of those other aspects should be considered that we continue to consult and discuss what the what the best next steps are for going forward.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Jason. So in spite of the fact I mean there isn't full consensus on everything, but implementation will proceed with consultation. But it could be quite tricky I think at times. We have another speaker but I want to ask you a question as well. In terms of the timeline, when can we expect it more or less? And linked to that, how will follow up on this be coordinated? In the roadmap, the Secretary General makes himself responsible and promises to lead on implementation. Other stakeholders will want to monitor and engage on follow up what is the contact point or who is the contact point?
>> Jason: Sure, I can answer that. Yes. This options paper, like I mentioned it will be finalized any time now. So, you know, days or a few weeks is by when I expect that we will receive this final options paper. And then there will be continuing discussions between the office of Fabrizio Hochschild and UNDESA and the executive office of the Secretary General. And obviously we will consult with the MAG as to how to advance them and what the next steps would be. So that's those immediate next steps.
And just to answer the other question before I forget that Paul had it about the UN General Assembly in and the future of the work of the office of Secretary General Hochschild and so on. The General Assembly there will be a declaration adopted by Member States on the 21st of September and that declaration on the anniversary of the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the United Nations will include a paragraph on digital cooperation but that discussion in the General Assembly will not go in depth in to this options paper or in to the work of the office of the special advisor. That the roadmap that was launched in June was a response to the Secretary General to the report of the high level panel. And this office will continue through January to move on these different recommendations from the roadmap. And then when the when the technology envoy is appointed, then we hope for a smooth transition from the work of the office of the special advisor to the work of the office of technology envoy. But to my knowledge I'm not aware of substantive in depth discussions of the high level panel or the roadmap as part of the General Assembly discussions. There will be a number of events taking place around the General Assembly. For example, on the 23rd of September there will be a high level digital cooperations event with UNDP, with ITU and UNICEF and that's going to focus on themes for the roadmap of connect, protect and respect. And there will also be other events organized with the private sector and organized with different entities taking place at that time. I don't think they will go in to the options paper or in to the work of these Round Tables in depth. It is more to have high level discussion on aspects, for example, how to promote global connectivity. But these different recommendation groups will continue to meet. The digital inclusion one, for example, will meet in October. And the Round Table groups on Human Rights, Artificial Intelligence, et cetera, they will continue to meet. Once this options paper is finalized then we will have discussions from the cochampions and Germany and UAE regarding next steps for recommendation group 5A/B as far as when to have additional virtual Round Tables. That will be in parallel to the MAG and Working Group and continuing discussions between the office of special advisor and DESA and the executive office of the SG as well as other entities. I don't know if you want to add anything to that.
>> WAI MIN KWOK: No. I have nothing to add.
>> CHAIR: Thanks a lot for that. Ben, you have asked for the floor. Ben Wallis. Please go ahead.
>> BEN WALLIS: Thank you. I really appreciate having you Wai Min and Jason here to talk to us about the options paper and about the process. And I have one specific question today about one element of the options paper and about capacity building. So the original high level panel report had a recommendation about the IGF plus taking on an observatory help desk function. That wasn't referenced in the roadmap. But it is discussed in the options paper in section 8.
And at the same time a different section of the paper, 83 and 84, a new joint digital capacity development to be led by ITU and UNDP it could provide a clearinghouse function to provide support, et cetera. I know that work is led by Round Table, too, on capacity building, digital capacity building. I just it is a bit of a puzzle for me. It seems like potential for duplication or overlap. I wonder in what ways you see these two functions that's different. And can you also explain to what extent if at all, the champions of Round Table 2 and Round Table 5 have been coordinating on this specific idea of digital capacity building. Thank you.
>> Jason: Sure, Wai Min, if you don't mind, I will go ahead and take this. Our office agrees that we should avoid duplication and it wouldn't make sense to have two help desks created doing the same thing. So that's kind of what our office is doing. It is looking at the various recommendations within the different areas such as capacity building, digital public goods, connectivity and inclusion and so on. Ensuring that we do take in to account these different aspects. And so the recommendation on capacity building, that I believe they will have another consultation or a virtual Round Table discussion early September. And that's where will further define the collaboration between ITU and UNDP and other entities such as UNCTAD regarding how to best set up this capacity building function. If this capacity building and help desk function, if they are strong and they meet the needs then I don't think that in 5A/B will pursue having an additional help desk that does the same thing. There could be points of contacts established that put people in touch with this capacity building resource to be able to support efforts in those areas. And that's there is another piece that I we see in the roadmap which is the role for the resident coordinators. Our office has already been in touch with the the office that coordinates the work of the resident coordinators and will be having a webinar with them in September. And we will be we are putting together a number of initiatives to enlist the resident coordinators that aren't already engaged in providing this capacity building support to be able to connect them with the resources as they are developed and built out so that the resident coordinators know they are available. There are a number of activities underway and as the work of 5A/B, much of the discussion is focused on the high level body and fundraising and outcomes and High Level Tracks and so on, I agree, I do expect that this aspect at least, this high level this help desk function I do expect much of that work to be done through this other capacity building initiative spearheaded by ITU and UNDP.
>> CHAIR: Thanks for that response. And it sounds therefore that those that are looking at capacity building within the IGF need to engage with that cluster sooner rather than later. Go ahead, Wai Min.
>> WAI MIN KWOK: I'm not sure you are going to say the same thing. I want to add quickly that the help desk function can be considered as one important element of capacity development. So I just want to say in that general context capacity development, capacity building has always been one of the focus areas of IGF. So like the these are the past options paper including Global South participation. We should do more. So that's also capacity development. Capacity development is help desk. There is training, other areas supporting participation, the newcomers track of IGF. So there are other elements of it. So that doesn't mean that the capacity building element or the work of IGF will be totally associated with this new element of the help desk.
>> CHAIR: Thanks. I see there is a hand from Constance from Internet Society. Constance, please go ahead.
>> Constance: Thank you very much. And good afternoon or good morning, everyone. And thank you to our colleagues from New York for providing these additional informations on the digital cooperation evolution. I would have two questions I think at this stage. We have talked a lot about this new group, some sort of high level group that would sit next to the special envoy, maybe on top of the MAG. But we haven't talked so much about reforming the MAG itself. And if I recall correctly, in the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements, there were a few pages on ideas to better equip the MAG with resources, have it focus on more substance, less process. Utilize the group for, you know, some strategic thinking. Also looking at its workflow, I think many of us on this call have been or are on the MAG and it is quite time consuming to be on the MAG. So I was wondering if any consideration were given to that.
And another question regarding this new high level group, how do we expect the members to be appointed? Is this something that we should already start advertising within our own stakeholder groups, whether Civil Society, technical community, academia, business and so forth. Just to make sure that we raise awareness, interest and manage to get the right people involved. Thank you very much.
>> Jason: Sure. So I can go ahead and take the aspect of high level body, Wai Min. And then you can discuss more of the MAG aspect. On the high level body yes, there is an area where there is ongoing discussion. Nothing finalized. And I wouldn't go out and you do a call for participation or anything like that because this is an area. We don't have the final options paper yet. We don't have the views of the Working Group on strategy and strengthening. There is further discussions between the office of Under Secretary General Hochschild and UNDESA. So we haven't agreed on the number of members, the how they will be selected. But what we do agree they should be high level to give the stature and weight required and encourage continued high level engagement in the IGF. And we also agree they should be multi stakeholder representing Governments, Civil Society, private sector, technical academic communities and so on. Those are some areas where we do expect there to be agreement as far as to the structure of the high level body, but it is not yet defined how they will be selected and how many and so on. So I would wait a bit for that. And I understand that's something that's going to be discussed more in this Working Group on strategy and strengthening later this week.
As far as the MAG itself I think that's a great point and I think the roadmap doesn't really address that directly. What can be done and how to go about further strengthening the MAG and I invite Wai Min if he has a view on that aspect as well as the high level body.
>> WAI MIN KWOK: Thanks, Jason and thanks, Constance. That's a question that stakeholders have been pondering as well. It was discussed in the IGF retreat, we were there as well. It was convened by DESA and quite a bit of focus was spent on the MAG and also a different way forward. I think we have actually been putting in place some changes, hopefully that seem to be positive changes. When I say we, it is a group together. For instance, we reduce the number of MAG members just to be a bit more focused from previously, higher number than 50. And also now shows data both geographical and gender. Right now we have 50/50 and we will continue to maintain that. Taking to the advice of Secretary General we also see how we can consider the aspect of multi disciplinary and not just multi stakeholder. For the upcoming MAG we are hoping as some of you may have seen in the notification, we are hoping that we can have some youth representative in the incoming IGF or I just say representative who have experienced a view of Internet Governance. So that's one other aspect that we see as improvement. So this is certainly ongoing. It is not a separate process but we can actually draw some insights from the SG roadmap as well as the evolving development of the high level body. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Just a couple of questions from me. We don't have anyone else in the speaker's queue. I have not seen much about the Secretariat, but the institutional capacity of the IGF. So that's just something you don't have to respond now. I want to flag that that remains, I think a really important consideration. But just in two quick questions for you. If I understand you correctly, in the medium term coordination of this overall roadmap implementation process will sit with the tech envoy. Am I correct in understanding that? Once the tech envoy has been appointed and office established is that the way coordination will be concentrated? That's one practical question. Where can one get access on all the Round Tables? I personally struggled to find a one stop shop of information on the different Round Table processes. The champions of the processes seem to be disseminating their outreach and separately. Is there a common access point?
>> Jason: Sure. So Wai Min, if you don't mind I will go ahead and take these. That's a great question. I think you can say I am your one stop shop. Our office we coordinate the work of the different recommendation groups. So, you know, we are happy to give updates on the status of the different recommendation groups. They each organize their work independently and to have open discussions they don't make recordings of the proceedings available. However often notes from the virtual Round Tables are made available online if the cochampions agree to that. So but if different stakeholders are interested in particular recommendations group we are pretty flexible with the membership of them and I understand several of you on this call are from organizations that belong to multiple recommendation groups. So involvement in recommendation 5A/B doesn't mean that you are prevented from joining and being actively involved in other recommendations group. And so, you know, the recommendation groups, the original function was to take on board the recommendation of the high level panel's report and provide inputs for this roadmap for digital cooperation. So that was the initial mandate and function of these recommendation groups.
Now that the roadmap has been issued, then the attention and focus of these recommendation groups is shifting towards these initial next steps and action plans for how to go about implementing the roadmap. Now this is a Secretary General's roadmap. So their decisions aren't binding. They then serve as inputs to the Secretary General to our office, to DESA so the executive office of the SG and other stakeholders in the UN system of how to go about implementing this. Don't want to be too long on this. But basically if there are a couple of different ways we can go about, what we could do is anybody is interested in particular recommendation groups that you aren't already involved in. And you would like to be more involved. You can let our office know and we can put you in touch with the cochampions and we can inform them that you are interested. We are happy to convene those. Some of the recommendations groups they are more closed and have free and open discussions within their groups on different issues. Other recommendation groups are more open. We can also inform the MAG when these recommendation groups with more open consultations are having their discussions and if anybody wants to participate and give inputs. For example, capacity building I think many people welcome inputs on what can be done and what could be good approaches for that. So we are flexible.
Whatever, Anriette, whatever you and the MAG members feel are useable. Like you mentioned the technology envoy when appointed will then oversee follow up to implementation of the roadmap, including the work of these different recommendation groups and so then discussions could be held with the envoy and envoy's office regarding what the best way is to connect. Now remember that the envoy him or herself will have as one of the responsibilities to provide linkages to the IGF, to the MAG, to the general public and their stakeholder groups. So that envoy will be actively seeking to update on the work of the different recommendation groups and status of the implementation of different recommendations. So I will turn it over to Wai Min if you want to add anything to that.
>> WAI MIN KWOK: Nothing on that point. The first point, I see that as actually being reflected in the funding. As you all know the current or the past 15 years the mechanism of IGF Secretariat is true. That's both the administrative as well as the extent of the fundraising activities. So I we definitely very much welcome this innovative funding source that's proposed in options paper and definitely, definitely the institutional framework of IGF Secretariat is very important to support the future IGF. Back to you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to both of you. In response to your question, I'm also just reading from the chat a question from the MAG member. Just reiterating the process of how these recommendation Round Tables were compelled is not always clear. They were initially constituted in a call for comment on their HLP DC report. That's when it started. So I think what would be really helpful if you can share with the MAG just a big picture, overview of what the recommendation groups are, and who is leading that. That then can give people the opportunity to reach out and join if they are not already part of those groups, they can reach out to the champions that are leading them. And then if you can share regular updates, that would be enormously welcome and appreciated. So if that's acceptable, if you can do that, that would be really helpful, Jason.
>> Jason: Sure. Definitely. If you look at the roadmap, then in the annex we provide all the different recommendation groups and the membership as of the issuance of the roadmap. So basically there is recommendation there is eight recommendation groups on global connectivity, digital inclusion, capacity building, Artificial Intelligence, global architecture, 5A/B that most of you are familiar with, security and probably skipping a couple right now. But they are all available in the roadmap. And actually and so basically each of these recommendation groups is proceeding at different paces. Some of them have already had virtual Round Table discussions since the launch of the roadmap. And, for example, for Artificial Intelligence the focus of that virtual Round Table is to establish the recommendation on establishing a global body on Artificial Intelligence. They are defining what the work of that advisory body should be and how to get ensure that Developing Countries are engaged and involved in that advisory body.
For digital inclusion they have not had their virtual Round Table yet but they will be meeting after the General Assembly. So mid October. And we will will be sure to let people know when that is scheduled, if they are interested in being involved and engaged on that. Global connectivity in partnership with the capacity building Round Table, they will be meeting in early September. And digital security already had their virtual Round Table discussion. And as you may know, and the roadmap discusses one of the priorities is exploring the potential for a global statement in favor of cooperation and trisome security. There in that discussion they expressed different views regarding that. And as you know for 5A/B they had a then they had a virtual Round Table where that was focused on the draft options paper. Was to get any red lines or feedback on the draft options paper before the cochampions take that on board and finalize it. We would be happy to give recurring updates on these recommendation groups. And I would like to turn it over to You Ping on the call so she can discuss the status of the Round Table groups and what the next steps are.
>> CHAIR: Just to confirm, just to explain why we are asking. Because what we have in the roadmap we have the list of institutions in the different recommendation groups. What we don't have is a contact point. But I'm happy to if the contact point, the link between MAG members and those recommendation groups if that can be you, Jason and You Ping, that's fine. As long as the MAG members know where to go if they want to join one of those groups.
>> You Ping: Just to confirm that the contact point is Jason and myself. We would welcome that. The Round Tables themselves for some of them as Jason has noted the process a little bit different. There are still discussions that occur in a policy level but in others we are really sort of moving forward on implementation of the Secretary General's roadmap. It is not that policy discussion has concluded but the focus of those Round Tables really is on implementation, and here we are looking at activities to take forward the key actions data on the roadmap. When it comes to the connectivity part of the discussion for the roadmap, there are really clear action points that have been laid out in the Secretary General's report, looking towards the Round Table to look at convening how best to take these actions for it. It is not to say that the discussion is concluded. In some ways we are moving forward now on actions as opposed to just discussing policy. When it comes to other areas, for instance, the digital trust and security piece, again we are very focused on what's in the roadmap and the specific call of the Secretary General to have the global statement on digital trisome security. It is again focused on roadmap. I wanted to sort of flag that for MAG members. In some cases it is very focused of what's in the roadmap and implementation of those specific actions.
>> CHAIR: That's. That's a very important clarification, that the processes are different in the different recommendation groups. But I don't see any other MAG members or participants in the meeting requesting the floor.
So I really want to thank all three of you. This has been enormously useful from my perspective. I'm sure from MAG members' perspectives as well. And we will share with you, I will be convening a series of discussions about the IGF as well which overlaps and touches on related topics. And I will be sharing that with you and hoping to have your involvement in those as well. So nothing else from me. Wai Min, do you have any last words?
>> WAI MIN KWOK: No. Not last words. But I will still be around. Thanks, Chengetai, Anriette to putting us in this agenda item. Feel free to reach out to You Ping, Jason, myself on any related questions. It can be individually or as a group. But we will continue to engage. As you mentioned the follow up process is it will be as complex as the consultation process. We will continue to want to stay engaged with the MAG. Thanks.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much all of you. Remember we are talking about the present evolving in to the future. When it comes to the IGF and what the IGF has achieved to date, the MAG has been, the MAG and the broader IGF community has just invested a huge amount of commitment and capital, human capital and other forms of capital in to this process. One thing that's really important but it is important not to exclude this body of institutions and individuals that have carried the IGF to where it is now with the support, of course, and the implementation coming from the UN and UNDESA Secretariat. Beyond the roadmap is bigger than the IGF but at the same time I do urge you to keep this community informed and connected.
So thanks on that note and I think we can make you go if you want to go. You are welcome to stay. I know it was very early for you. So on that I would like to move on to the next agenda item which is the updates from main session organizing groups.
Secretariat I know I have seen maybe the main session group, Jennifer sent in a report. I'm not sure who else has sent in a report. So please Jennifer, I am going to ask you to start. But then if others who are ready to report can just identify yourselves in the chat so I can call you to the floor when necessary.
So Jennifer, are you ready to start?
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Hi, yes, this is Jennifer speaking. Yes, I'm ready to start. Can you all hear me?
>> CHAIR: Yes, we can hear you clearly. The document is on the screen.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Oh, good. Thank you Luis for sharing that. I don't know if you are sharing the actual live link.
>> CHAIR: I don't know if this is the live link but this is the Google document main session template trust.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Good. Maybe I did send it over to the main MAG mailing list. So everyone does have the link to it as I'm going through it. The trust main session Working Group did meet last week. We had a very good and fruitful call in which we decided that we wanted to focus on Internet fragmentation and part of it would be regarding digital sovereignty. And underneath that would be this information and how we came about picking these I guess these main subthemes was from the work that was done by Sven and Sylvia and also when we were assessing the trust workshops. This is the high level subthemes that we looked at. And we also looked at the flow of the entire trust track to see where the workshops lie. And we don't really want to duplicate the workshop discussions that we will have in the virtual IGF under this track. But kind of tied together a more high level focus for the main session.
So moving on over to I guess you can see the description, we want to root the main discussion in the debates surrounding Internet fragments with consider on different aspects of it. We understand in the call and also in many of the comments we received from the colleagues that the sovereignty is not an established concept but also recommendations I think from Sylvia and Jutta to establish some sort of baseline definitions to be able to discuss this. Part of that also will flow in to how we can address Internet fragmentation, what the situation looks like right now, what the situation may look in the future, if this is something that, you know, as a community, as an Internet Governance community if we want to bring that forward. I know many of us for many years have advocated for maintaining the integrity of the unified and open Internet. But, of course, as we know there are many different factors that are pushing this environment right now both in terms of political changes and also in technological changes. And it is quite an urgent discussion, especially now to have a year that's quite turmultious with a backdrop of a global pandemic or the backdrop of many national elections that will have many global ramifications. So that's something we wanted to focus on.
Of course, we can tweak and refine the description that you currently see. But that's basically what the main session trust, main session Working Group would like to look at. Moving on to the section 6 in the policy questions, right now we don't have five identified. There are more in terms of three clusters. And I did mention we are rooting the Internet and ramifications of that. We will try to I guess look in to your clusters on workshops that's a little tighter. Bearing in mind that the main session does have 90 minutes and we don't want to we don't want to have a discussion that's too skewed towards one section or too skewed towards a different section, but we do want to have a very fruitful discussion that's not just touching on something that's very surface. We do want to dig in to some of the more I don't want to use the word controversial, but definitely some of the more interesting aspects of this discussion.
If I can move down a little more, currently the session agenda is quite flexible. It is quite general right now. I think when this group finalizes a little more, the policy questions as well as decide on who our Moderator might be, there has been some very good recommendations both from Sylvia and others from the group that we could probably call on the Internet and jurisdiction project. They do a lot of very good work on this and they would be able to provide some of their expertise as well as perhaps moderate this main session. I know that we have reached out to them. We will be following up with them as well to see how this we can work here.
The facilitators for this main session is Lucien who is on the call, Jutta who has given her apologies for this call and myself. We don't currently have concrete suggestions for speakers just yet. But we do have a nice table that Sylvia kindly recommended that was used in a main session last year, which is quite useful just to know that we have a good spread and reflect, you know, the multi stakeholder, multi sectoral aspect of the IGF within the context of this main session as well. So I'm hoping that MAG members that are not just on the on the trust main session Working Group, if you have any suggestions, you do have the link to be able to comment and add some of your suggestions there. Dalsi will be our Rapporteur, but I am sure the cofacilitators will be happy to help and assist with creation of the report that comes afterwards.
I will be very brief for the next few sessions, because it just is quite general. We do need to work on the output that this main session will go to. There are some sessions within this year's schedule that does talk about certain items that we will be discussing in this main session. But we are also looking to have it be more long term as Anriette our Chair has urged us to think about very closely. How we can have this not just as a discussion that just stops, starts and stops at this particular instance but then carry that forward. So this is this section will probably have to think a little bit more about perhaps I could even go in to the planning that's being done for the the strategic Working Group. And also I guess the future of IGF as well. So I think the rest I don't really have to talk too much about, and I would like to ask if Lucien wants to jump in if I have missed anything or anything from the trust main session Working Group.
>> LUCIEN CASTEX: Hello everyone. Lucien speaking. Quite fine by me. We are in contact with Internet and jurisdiction policy network. And we are in the process of following up with them about the session.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much Jennifer and Lucien. Does anyone else want to add? Does any MAG member have a question or a suggestion for the trust group? I don't see anyone in the speaking queue. I am just checking if there are any hands. I don't see any hands. Congratulations. I think you have made fantastic progress. It is nice to see you also think about how you are going to use the online platform in the design of the session. So thanks a lot for that.
If there are no questions for this group which I don't see, can we move on to the data group? Can the facilitators for the data group please update us on their planning?
>> I'm sorry, this is Maria Pascals speaking. I am not the point facilitator of the data track. I couldn't make it to the meeting. But I was looking in to our list, what happened with the meeting. And I think that June was the one that was volunteering herself for reporting, but I think that she couldn't make it to this meeting. And I am not sure if someone else that was present in that meeting can share any reporting. I am willing to participate in the group, but sadly I couldn't make it to the call. And I am not sure how much progress they were able to do. For saying that I am looking forward for one to speak the rest of the participants of the meeting in order to help out. Thank you.
>> Good morning. Hello. This is June. I sorry, I did attend the meeting. We did we tried to come up with our main session document. We tried to look at the document and edit the document. I don't think I am volunteering to be co Chair. I am not sure we have a Chair. So in the meantime I would step it up. So the document is being edited at the moment. And we will look in to getting a Chair as soon as possible. That's about all for today.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: This is Jennifer. May I jump in really quickly just to give a little bit of background on this? I don't want to take up too much of the speaking time because I just did. For the data main session Working Group, I think we had quite a thin attendance on the initial call. So there was only some brainstorming that was done in the hopes that more work will be with the will be done to coalesce it in to an actual proposal, but I can share my screen very quickly to just to show that we have decided that we will talk about the role of basically want to root the main session on COVID 19 and how it has influenced the discussion on data practices. I don't know why I can't share my screen. But maybe I can just drop the link here for people to look at. And hopefully more people on the data Working Group, data main session Working Group will be taking over on this as well.
>> CHAIR: Thanks for that, Jennifer. So this is quite concerning, but I think what we can do is, I also had an apology from Hanna who has just been for reasons that are completely out of her control not able to report on the digital cooperation main session today. So let's go through the other main sessions, but what I want to propose is we have a call next week and we will cover only main session updates. That will give all a little bit more time because I know this is tough, but we do need to get ahead and we need to invite speakers. We don't need Chairs because MAG members will moderate, facilitate, but we do need to start firming up our proposals and invite our speakers. Let's move on. So environment, are you ready to report?
>> TIMEA SUTO: Hi everyone. This is Timea. Can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: Yes.
>> TIMEA SUTO: I will venture and you give an update for the environment main session. We are quite the thin group working on it. It is June and Alfie and myself and initial input from Lucien as well. I would like to start getting it out there, we would appreciate comments from the rest of the MAG who was interested in joining us for this session. I see that June is typing in the chat that she missed the first meeting. But I mean it is still fine. That sometimes happens with people. But thank you nonetheless for the comments on the shared document that I'm also sending here for anybody who would like to comment. So far what we have done is just our initial thinking on how the session could be framed. And this is very much linked to how the track narrative was developed by the same group with most of the same people in the beginning of this year when we were thinking for the environment track narrative and the workshop call. So the main elements of this session is really just to think about how where the linkages between the digital technologies and the environment, and we our initial thinking identified three main points. On one point is looking at digital and ICT industries on climate footprint and what can be done to counter that throughout the entire supply chain and ecosystem. The other option is the other pillar rather is to looking at how ICT and digital technologies can be used to monitor climate change and catalyze response and encourage climate action. And then third how can we look outside of the whole digital and ICT industry and enable other industries to forward the goals of the Paris Agreement. So these are three main pillars for the session. And I think this is already being shared here as well on the screen, I hope. If not, please follow the link. We have identified some initial policy questions which again are very much aligned with the track narrative from earlier this year. And now we are in the process of refining these initial ideas and then looking in to who could be the speakers for this session and who could be the Moderators for this session. And what roles could MAG members take.
And I am very happy to report that Alfie and June have both volunteered to be Rapporteurs which is really great. Alfie and myself have also volunteered to be to be online Moderators for the chat and Q and A sessions. And will be looking at, of course, more high level Moderator or even several. And then to find relevant speakers to the topics that we have identified. So that's from us so far.
And again just to call to all of you who have environment in your interest to please join us for the planning of this session. And I'm I see that June is connected and Alfie is. So if you have any other comments on this please don't hesitate.
>> CHAIR: Thanks a lot, Timea. Does anyone have anything to add or any questions for this group? I don't see any hands. I left a comment on the doc, Timea. I suggest that you invite the head of the United Nations environmental program Ingrid Anderson. She spoke at the roadmap launch and she basically tackled Fabrizio and gave him a hard time of not taking this topic seriously enough. And I was impressed by her grasp of the internet ICT environment climate change linkages and she is a good speaker as well. I suggest you reach out to her and see if you can get her.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thanks. I will note it.
>> CHAIR: Any other comments? I really urge all of you, as I put in the chat, we can't have these groups just be carried by one or two individuals. This is the MAG, the MAG the main sessions are designed, developed and implemented by the MAG members. So please everyone, join at least one group, if not more. We need to pull together on organizing those.
Okay. Let's hear from inclusion.
>> Hello, Anriette.
>> CHAIR: Go ahead.
>> Good morning. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. We had a very good meeting last week. We have several MAG members involved. As you know in this case this is the one proposal was already reviewed by most of MAG members during our meeting in June. So many of them are pretty much aware of the content and in this case what we did was following the lead of the other groups we also asked Paul to be facilitator with Karim and I, that we made the original proposal. As you may see we started a different discussion about the content. Starting with the title of the of the proposal and I think there is a good job done so far. We started to work also about the policy questions and most of the current discussion you will be finding in the link that we provided, that now you all have and, of course, it would be great as suggested that we could have all the all other feedback from the rest of the MAG members. And I think we have a good advance because we already did prepare the whole document in advance. But, of course, there are a lot of room for improvement. But we think that we are going in the good track. That perhaps Karim or Paul would like to add something else.
>> CHAIR: Do you have any speakers in mind yet?
>> Yes, we thought already we have some proposed in the document. You can go through there. We have initially for Latin America we have Christian O'Flaherty. We have Sonja and also proposed Moktahar from the African Union. Sylvia Cadena was proposed. We thought about Vint Cerf from the private sector. We also received several other proposals of people that we may approach. And I think that will be good if we have several names and then to identify who else will be good to have. We agree that some representative from the telecommunications operator will be also good to have them in the panel.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Karim, do you have anything to add or anyone else in the group?
>> Hello. This is Karim. I don't have anything to add. Roberto already summarized the ongoing work.
>> CHAIR: Any questions or suggestions for this group? I don't see any hands. I think you have mentioned it, Roberto, but also listening to Jason and Wai Min and You Ping, maybe you can have this main session also reflect on, include some of the work that's being done by the inclusion Round Table process.
So, you know, it might be a nice way for the IGF to continue to play its role which is to be the primary platform where this open and inclusive discussion on these issues. So even if that Round Table process is already implementing as You Ping explained this would be a good place for that to be shared. In fact, I think some of the speakers you have identified is part of that process and then the ITU as well. But thanks for your work. And I think just for everyone, don't delay inviting speakers. There are so many online events. Even though we don't have that burden of having to be sure that people have to travel to come to be physically at an IGF, we are dealing with the schedule that's challenging, with time zones that might be challenging for some people. And so many other online events taking place. So just I really urge you not to delay in finalizing speakers so that we can invite them. Thanks a lot for that. And I think that is. I think we have had an apology from the digital cooperation group. I think everyone else has reported. Am I right? There is there are no other reports.
You have made progress but my sense is that we need to move more intensely on organizing these main sessions. So my proposal is going to be that we have a call next week just on main sessions. It can be an hour call. It doesn't have to be a two hour call and it can just be to have prereceived in writing proposals for all the main sessions. And hopefully by then you have finalized your speaker list. It would be good also for everyone to look at modalities. Do you want to use breakout groups or calls or anything like that? And then it should be a relatively easy simple call. While you reflect and use your opportunity to either agree or disagree with the proposal, Carlos Afonso you have asked for the floor. Please go ahead. Carlos, you are muted. We can't hear you. I wonder if Carlo has dropped. I see him online but I see him muted. Let's move on.
So just to summarize and conclude that the action items following up on
>> CARLOS AFONSO: Hello.
>> CHAIR: Hi Carlos.
>> CARLOS AFONSO: Yes, I couldn't find the mic.
>> CHAIR: It disappears sometimes.
>> CARLOS AFONSO: You asked if there were any additional suggestions regarding the inclusion. And I think that the names that were mentioned are very good. And particularly Internet Society people, when some other organizations, people could recommend names for one topic which I think is important to be referred to, which is the work being done in several countries, several regions in community network, specifically the effort to connect remote communities and in several ways and the way in which they are able to use properly, adequately the networks that they have help to build. The Internet Society is very active in that and APC as well. So it would be interesting to look for names that could represent that. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much for that, Carlos. I shared that. Now with the pandemic it has been more evident than ever before that the mainstream efforts to ensure that everyone is connected, have not worked, that different models are necessary. Okay.
So to conclude on item No. 5, our action item is that we will have a call next week on Tuesday, the Secretariat can determine the time. And it will be a one hour call. It will be quick and we will focus just on main sessions. And every group will update their proposals. And I ask the participants in those groups to just be a little bit more attentive than you have been. Join the meetings if there are meetings and comment online. As Jennifer asked, please also look at the proposal of the groups that you are not part of so that we can have as many eyes on these proposals as possible.
So on that, I think let's conclude. I am just looking at the chat and Sylvia, I have noticed there the question about scheduling, there are there is a schedule available and it has been shared. So if anyone is not clear on that schedule or have comments on those schedule, then please reach out to Anya and we can provide you with more information.
Let's move on to item No. 6, update on the introductory and concluding sessions. Paul Rone, can I give you the floor to take us through the proposals that have been developed to date?
>> Paul: Yes. Thank you. So while the document is loading, I want to thank Ben, Sylvia, Anriette and (inaudible) and their involvement for putting this document together. Apologies if I missed anybody. Ben initiated the document and we had a good meeting last week where we worked through the document. And I think we have a sense of how we want to move forward.
There are some points that we do need to think about before we can finalize. The document that we have which is not being shared yet, let me just talk through it anyway
>> CHAIR: I think this for the next agenda item. This is the wrong document. This is a Google doc that we need now. I will put the link in the chat. You carry on talking, Paul.
>> Paul: Yep. So this was a new initiative from last year where we looked at topping the tracks, thematic tracks. So the beginning of the process really was to look at what happened last year and whether that's relevant for this year, whether it should be changed, how constructive, take in to account this is not on premise IGF, virtual IGF. There were some key take aways that we will visit just now. But looking at the beginning in general each of the prethematics from last year follow the similar format. They did vary a little bit. The general format for the introductory session was the welcome and introductions, followed by expert that gave a setting the scene type of interventions. Followed by some questions and then some thematic breakout groups where the breakout groups then did a readout of their findings and a wrap up.
So in general that worked well. There has been some questions raised whether having a keynote speaker, an expert is really needed. There has been some thought about whether breakouts to thematic groups are relevant and thought about whether there is a need to do this as an interactive live session or to do it as a prerecording. When we look at the concluding sessions, again they followed a similar theme which was welcome and introduction, breakout discussions which was just to get some input on how the thematic streams worked to see if we can frame some key messages. And then basically reporting back on a summary of what happened on the concluding sessions.
Participation varied by thematic groups. And the general take away from my sense was that the introductory sessions were good. They did enable participants to come together. They did enable participants who don't normally participate in the break away groups to actually participate. And I think gave a lot of thought to the facilitators of those thematic tracks. So the take away I think at the beginning of this year was that we should continue with the introductory and concluding sessions. The document shows a bit of discussion process and some of the comments that have been captured. But if we go back to the key areas that we really need to give thought to, which is really the organizers of these groups, the proposal here is that the thematic evaluation groups should be the organizing groups for the introductory and concluding sessions. There is a suggestion if there are members of those thematic evaluation groups that feel that they would be better served because of their expertise in another thematic they should be allowed to move. So it is not going to be prescribed that you have to be there. But because these thematic evaluation groups have a good sense of the workshops that was submitted and selected, but that would be the ideal basis for the organizing groups. So we can conclude on that. If there is any objections or thoughts.
But then the big question is should be live or prerecorded sessions. There is advantages or disadvantages to both. In my personal view it should be live to enable interactive discussion and bring in topics that might have arisen in the days preceding the IGF.
Do we need those breakout sessions? Or should be a directive process where we talk about what's going to happen. If we have the breakout sessions that does direct us through the live rather than prerecorded. Is there a need for a keynote speaker? If we do drop the keynote speaker it does streamline the process and take in to account this is an online rather than an on premiss. There might not be a need to have a keynote speaker in this year's introductory session. Should the meeting be a 60 or 90 minute. Without the keynote the 60 minute would make more sense. There was a discussion should this be restricted to workshops on the thematic streams or should it be broadened to include the BPFs and DCs and NRIs. And the general consensus was that we should invite and engage with the BPFs and DCs and NRIs. There is a lot of cross cutting issues that would be discussed in those other streams. So it does make sense to have inclusive introductory session and also introduce, you know, how that thematically will feed in to the DCs and NRIs and BPCs. Does concluding session still have relevance to have a closing or concluding session with the thematic groups. So we need to finalize on that. And if we do have a concluding session it does enable us to visit the messages that have come out of the work, thematic tracks and discuss those. That's a summary of where we are. It is not a definitive proposal but to get a sense of those key areas on how we should finalize them and we work with this consortium. But this opens back to a bit of an open discussion. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much for that very comprehensive and clear presentation. Does anyone have any questions or reactions to this? And others who have worked with Paul on this and Sylvia in particular, do you want to add anything? Paul is also outlined some questions. I mean the one is do we need keynote speakers or not. So, you know, these are these are questions that we do need to address. And I'm just checking, are there any hands up? I don't see any hands. Paul, I want to give back to you. And what do you need from fellow MAG members at this point? Do you want input and then to finalize this process? I think we should also listen to item No. 8, the IGF 2020 outputs discussion where the Secretariat will be presenting some of their thinking. That might have implications, particularly for the concluding sessions. But Paul, what would you like to see as next steps in taking this towards conclusion?
>> Paul: I think we have a strong Working Group that I believe are committed to finalizing this. If there is no material objections or anyone having any particular argument towards having one or the other. The key things should be live or prerecorded breakout sessions, 60 or 90 minutes. I think the inclusion of BPCs and DCs and NRIs is key and can be taken as read. Do we focus on the introduction and not have a concluding, or do we still think about the concluding?
>> CHAIR: Let's listen to the discussion on the output. We have programs that are in the program. My answer would be yes. But let's be creative about how we make them really useful. Paul, I don't know if you have had time just to check the chat. Sylvia has her hand up. It seems to me that most people feel aligned with you, Paul. They want these sessions to be live rather than just prerecorded. And Sylvia, please go ahead. Let's hear you.
>> SYLVIA CADENA: Thank you. I hope you can hear me. The reason for some of the comments let's say about last year experience with the keynote and the live discussions, there was not much participation in the introductory sessions around the session organizers for the track. The discussions were not happening with having to change the sessions or incorporating feedback during the introductory session or bringing the points people made in their own sessions because they were not present. It was a discussion of people that were interested in the topic. But that were not organizers of the session. So whatever we do, I think that it would be very important that the organizers of the sessions for a particular track have confirmed that participation to the sessions. Because whatever happens, if it is if there is a keynote or not, if there is there are breakout discussions or not, if the organizers are not participating, then nothing that happens there will have an impact on what they do the following week when they have their sessions going. Right? So that is the that was the reason for considering having prerecorded interventions, thinking that if it is the pitch of each sessions asking people to join their session, then they need that little bit of information. So remember that it is not introductory for newcomers to each topic. It is not to discuss everything under the sun that it relates to that particular environment, for example. It is not an introductory introducing the sessions under that track, that will happen. So that is where the MAG input from the MAG will be really key for this working group to continue to return. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks. And I suppose they are not mutually exclusive. One could have a prerecorded component with session organizers to, you know, like a 30 second pitch of their session. And then a live introductory session. But I think what this seems to me is that some really good comments in the chat, Paul. I hope you have taken note on them, including for the time frame, the inclusion of NRIs and DCs and BPC. If I can urge everyone to put their comments in the Google doc so that Paul and his colleagues can compile it for us and then we will discuss that. Not next week but at the next MAG call.
I'm afraid we have got to move a little bit faster. I think we are getting close to conclusion on this. And Paul, most of your questions have been answered, even if the answer is not 100% resolved. So I think the action item on this agenda is for MAG members who have not yet given input to give input in the coming week on the Google doc and then Paul and helpers will consolidate that in to a process document that we can use.
Okay. So let's move on. We have got very little time left. And now we are going to look at my proposal and we don't have to discuss that in depth. I want to make you aware of it. Both present IGF as well as the evolving IGF that's emerging from this discussion on the cooperation. So I don't want to present the topics now. I want you to look at them and send me your feedback. And I do want to announce this quite quickly so we can get started with these discussions. I want to emphasize why I think it is important. There is a lot of discussion about the IGF and the IGF plus model. As we heard from the briefing from our colleagues in New York earlier today a lot of discussion is taking place outside of the IGF community. So I feel that we need to create a space for those stakeholders that are involved in shaping and molding the IGF. Have an opportunity to reflect on the IGF and its mandate and how effective it has been in meeting that mandate but also reflect on the evolution of the IGF. So please send me your comments.
Hopefully by Friday this week we will go public with this. Any comments if you want to participate, thanks some of you for already sending me messages saying you would like to be part of some of these sessions. We are working with strategy convening this and also proposed a session for the Working Group on language. If there are other MAG Working Groups or MAG members who want to be involved in shaping these discussions just let me know.
So we don't have much time to discuss but I do want to open the floor to questions. Does anyone have any questions or concerns about these online discussions, series of I think between 7 and 10, see how many we can put in to start in early September and to continue until October and not part of the IGF program at all. But for the we all contribute to the debate that takes place during the IGF. Any questions or comments on this? Okay. I don't see any hands. I don't see anything in the chat. But please do send comments in e mail to me directly or to the MAG list and I really do need MAG participation and support if this is going to be useful to us.
Okay. So let's move on to item No. 8, which is important. We don't have to spend too much time on it now, but the Secretariat is still working on developing this. But Secretariat, let me hand to you so that we can just have a sense of what you have planned so far and how that or what implications that has for MAG members and their preparation. So over to you, Secretariat, for item No. 8. Excuse me.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. I will just hand it over to Sam who is going to give us an outline and as Anriette this is what we have at the moment. If you have any suggestions or comments, you don't have to give them to us now since we only have five minutes left, but you can do it over the mail and stuff like that. E mail. Yeah.
>> Sam: I am going to try and share my screen. So is that working? Yes. So this is just a quick overview of how we are trying to frame how we are developing the outcomes plan. So we are trying to make it clear who has created or synthesized the output because that seemed to be well received from last year's streaming of output. Make it clear how we are getting certain information out of the report forms after sessions. Reading a lot of the workshop proposals and the reports from the last year people seemed I think if we make it clearer what we are seeking in the inputs then it will help us create better outputs, which lead us to the next one, what is the purpose of output and input in to something else and who are we aiming it at. And as part of the overall trying to make the outputs some sort of cohesive body, how do they fit together. Also just from documentation point of view we would like to make this as modular as possible so we can reuse the content and be able to automate extraction of information for analysis in other activities.
Okay. I'm going to swap screens now. I will stop sharing while I find the next document. Okay. There it is. So this is very draft. So please bear with us. This is a very high level view of the sorts of inputs and outputs that we are looking at, that the High Level Track but hopefully this gives you an overview of what we are trying to wrangle at the moment. So there is three main areas of sources of documentation or synthesis. We have got the MAG. We have got the community and we have got the Secretariat.
So we have been in Anriette's document that she posted about the outcomes, the IGF prereport. That's in this document. It is under preIGF phase 1, the guide to IGF 2020 themes and issues. That takes us inputs, the MAG's early work on to the themes and the policy questions in the subissues. The communities' proposals, also hopefully the updated session proposals. That's another issue for more time.
That then hopefully can help feed in to perhaps things like the introductory sessions for thematic tracks. Also then will help a lot of that information will be able to use from that guide in to the final outcome document. You may remember last year we did those thematic high level messages. This year, what we are thinking is to help enable the community to have more input in to the sorts of messaging that comes out. The community will have the ability to write key take aways from sessions as well as the policy recommendations and ways forward that they have in the past. We will use those, too, as the Secretariat to draft high level thematic messages that will go out like last year for community feedback and amendment. So that the final three major outcomes that the Secretariat is looking to produce is the high level thematic messages, Chair's summary, and the final outcome document. The structure of the final outcome document is something we are still working on at the moment. We are focusing on the premeeting outline. Hopefully that gives you some indication of where we are heading. I can send a version of this very draft flow chart to the MAG list if that's helpful. Any questions?
>> CHAIR: Any questions for Sam? And Sam, thanks for being with us. I know it is very late for you. Sam is in Brisbon. Any questions for Sam? I think not at this point. A call for you to send it to the MAG list and also thank you to the people who did give input on the discussion on outcomes. Not many MAG members provided input. But those that did your input was integrated in to the Secretariat's planning and you will receive more information about this process. And just so that you all get it, Sam said it but I want to make it really explicit, that while the outcome documentation is the responsibility of the Secretariat, it is really useful and important. If MAG members can in their planning of the sessions do it in such a way that it contributes to the work of the Secretariat in compiling the output documents. And that and in many ways the whole connection between focused agenda and more effective outcomes is what this process is trying to capture. So thanks very much Sam and colleagues for this. And I'm concerned that we are over time. So Sam, in terms of action items for this agenda we will share this flow chart and further documentation that is still under development. And MAG members please do send comments and questions on the MAG list.
And I don't see any hands. No one in the speaking queue. Any other matters that anybody wants to raise at this point? Any announcements? Nothing. So I am going to hand to you, Chengetai. If you can close the meeting for us and from my side thanks very much to everyone and thanks to our captioner, Tina. Is it still Tina our captioner? And to all of you for making the effort to be in this call. I know it is very hard for many of you. The time is challenging. Thanks a lot and good bye from me. Chengetai, over to you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. The next meeting is next Tuesday. And it is going to be still keeping the rotation. It is going to be 1400 hours UTC next Tuesday. We will, of course, send out the Zoom link and the calendar thing out. Thank you all. And have a pleasant day or evening.
>> CHAIR: Thanks a lot. And just to remind you that next call will be just focusing on main session. Main session planning. We will do a full MAG meeting the week after. Thanks everyone. Have a good day, what's left of it and look after yourselves.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. See you soon.
>> CHAIR: Bye everyone.
>> Bye, everyone. Good night.
>> Bye bye. Have a great surgery. We wish you the best.
>> CHAIR: Yes, Sylvia. I share that.