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.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Hello, everyone. It is the top of the hour. We will give it another minute or two for people to join. So just two minutes.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Let's get started. Before we come to the approval of the agenda, of course, we record these calls. I want to see if there are any objections to the call being recorded.
I will do my usual slow count to six to give people a chance to jump in if they have objections. And seeing none, the call would be recorded.
And the next item of business is the adoption of the agenda. The agenda was sent out several days ago. Are there any suggestions or requests for edits or any other items under AOB? Note that a request was sent to cover visas and registration for IGF 2018. And we will cover that as best we can under the Secretariat update and then under host country if they are able to provide someone for the call.
Seeing no comments on the agenda okay. There is an AOB which is June 20 on Digital Economy under AOB. So we will add that. Thank you, Arnold. Thank you for everything that and you Rasha do to work that in the margins and in the press release. Okay. So the agenda is approved with that one additional item under AOB.
I want to also suggest that we will be using the queue. I think that Luis just put the hands up queue link in the chat room there. So if you request the floor, that would be I'm sorry. That would be the way to do it, to use the queueing system. So the first item then is miscellaneous updates by the Secretariat or the Chair. Let me see if Eleonora, Anja have any specific updates.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Hi Lynn. Hi everyone. So I actually am not sure if Anja is on the call or not yet because she is actually on holiday at the moment. So she may not join but we do have just a couple of minor updates since our last call. I'm happy to share that speaking with UNESCO, even though it is still a bit of a slow holiday season and communication is a little bit inconsistent, they have confirmed a space to hold lightning sessions. So it seems that we have that nailed down and I hope that from here we can start talking about how to organize those. In the background the Secretariat has a draft schedule more or less ready for the meeting. And we are starting to plug that in to apologies if it is a bit noisy here, we are starting to plug that in to a scheduling platform that Luis has actually developed. And we are still experimenting with it a little bit and this would be an alternative to what we have used in the past, a program called sched. Some MAG members might have noticed that the Secretariat put out an announcement that we are recruiting for an intern. So please do spread that among your communities.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Eleonora. We'll come to the updates on the main session preparation separately. Luis?
>> LUIS BOBO: Hi. We are going to try to move a new system integrated in our website. The next step is that we probably test it internally. And if we give the green light we will start populating the sessions there.
That's one thing. If you want more updates on Secretariat, the registration has started. We have received the almost already 300 registrations in the first weekend. So it is ongoing. Nothing too similar on that apart from that. Just an important point is that starting next month and there will be boost, translation of the website. A project that we had started as a pilot last year. And as we did as we proposed last year and the collaboration from MAG members will be useful specifically for the review and approval of translations. Not so much for translating itself. But for the approval of translations by collaborators.
So at the beginning of this year we talked about the Secretariat proposing this process. And I will coordinate if you don't mind next month to be in the background. The idea is to have at least by October some content in all United Nations languages before the IGF.
There are no more things from my side. Just we have ongoing the remote hub registration. We have like 15 at the moment but we still have an amount of time. MAG registrations are still ongoing. From my side I don't have more points. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. At this point the process that Chengetai would send out a reminder about the remote hub registration. Maybe I can work with the Secretariat to do that as well and encourage the MAG members to forward that broadly across your IGF and nonIGF community. It is an easy way to get additional participation.
And Luis, are there also activities ongoing to update parts of the IGF website? Anything you want to cover there?
>> LUIS BOBO: Nothing else except for the fact that the speaking queue will be used at the IGF. The schedule, the multilingual session, nothing else. We are in preparation with UNESCO and the host country for the IGF on the technical side and for the coordination with the transcription and these kinds of things. Everything is on track at the moment.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Danko, we will come to your question in a moment. I see Anja has joined us. Anja at this point in the agenda we are asking for specific updates from the Secretariat and I was actually doing the tour of the Secretariat to see if there was anything you wanted to inform the MAG about and thank you to you and everyone else who is actually joining in the midst of the holiday. I appreciate that it is still a heavy holiday week. Any general updates you want to share with the MAG?
>> Anja: Greetings to everyone. Apologies I was a bit late because of some technical issues. I think my colleagues covers my updates on the General Secretariat. We are trying to coordinate with the host country to provide a full layout of the floor. So the organizers, some of the colleagues still on holiday are thinking that probably the beginning of December we will be able to provide a full update, logistical update on the IGF village and what is the full layout and the positions of the booths and the facilities that will be available for the board organizers and whether you will be able to rent anything. Just standard logistics there as every year. Remote hubs I think we already covered that. Just quickly on the MAG renewal I know there was an e mail. If you agree the Secretariat will again carefully look at everything and respond in the (inaudible) about the MAG renewal.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you.
>> Anja: No further questions from my side. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. That would be helpful. I do actually mention that on the mailing list acknowledging the comment that came in said, you know, you would get back as quickly as possible. And also acknowledging that it is not always a given that a MAG member's term is renewed. It does look at participation and from time to time we do have some sort of very significant no shows. Obviously they are not renewed when that slot comes up for renewal. That may be part of it. The Secretariat will get back to us as soon as possible. Danko said he registered but did not get a confirmation. You will get a confirmation e mail. I don't know if Luis or Anja can provide any additional information but
>> LUIS BOBO: Thank you, Lynn. Yes, the confirmation e mail is received upon approval. So you register. You can have access to your registration all the time. You can even modify your registration. And then you receive the approval e mail with this which also should serve for visa invitations, like based on a template, a shared template with United Nations DESA.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Luis. There was a quite. So Danko is saying okay. Normally it doesn't take too, too long. Certainly as a MAG member it shouldn't take any time as well. There was a question posted as well which was with respect to where do we stand with respect to vacancy of the program manager for temporary period. Obviously that's Chengetai's position. Deniz is on the call from DESA. I don't know if he has any updates.
>> Yes. Greetings, everyone. About replacements of Chengetai, we actually completed the interviews and we are ready to recommend a candidate but there are still issues that (inaudible) of Chengetai to the High Level Panel. Once we resolve those issues we will proceed with the recommendation.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Deniz. I do appreciate as well DESA is doing everything they can in the background to add some additional support to the IGF Secretariat as I am. And I just want to recognize how well Anja, Luis and Eleonora are carrying everything forward. It is great teamwork. And really appreciate all the extra effort it is taking.
So let's assuming that covers the updates from the Secretariat and the Chair, I do not see anybody on from the host country. I have one or two quick updates I can give and let me just do another quick search through there. No. I know that, in fact, a couple of our main contacts both shortened their holidays and postponed them specifically so they could get some of the critical work done in support of this in the late July, early part of August. We had previously heard some of the MAG calls and offline conversations that in early September we should expect to see the IGF 2018 website up with all the appropriate supporting information that would obviously cover visas and any of the important information. And as far as we know that's still the timetable they are working towards.
I also initiated some discussions with the office of digital affairs in the French Government with respect to what else the IGF might do. Coincidentally the Paris Peace Forum and any other things that are taking place at France at some point in time. Some of those efforts included whether or not it was possible for the IGF to have some space. A part of their program is an exhibition area where people are meant to showcase key projects, whether it was appropriate for IGF to be in there or whether or not it was something else we can do to promote our activities through the Paris Peace Forum. It was a reasonable request and works out with the Paris Peace Forum organizers.
So we are waiting for that to come back in September. There is also a number of other discussions we are having with respect to what we can do to increase the visibility with the IGF and possibly outreach to the senior Delegation, ministerial Delegation that would be at the Paris Peace Forum with respect to increasing awareness of IGF. Obviously we hope that would also lead to increased participation and support for the IGF. So some of those activities were kind of evaluating and driving from within the IGF fundraising Working Group and then others would then kind of arrangements with the local host. And if anyone is on the phone, the Secretariat has put in 2018 files under construction. Should still be on target for late September.
I don't there was a discussion on visas in the past. I can't remember the particulars just now. I did actually send a subsequent request to the host country in terms of the responses to some of these questions. Again they are still on holiday this week. So I think we need to wait and hopefully get some additional updates next week. We will try and get those updates out early and not wait for the next virtual MAG meeting.
So with respect to the high level segment, that the French Government told us at the last call is that they were still expecting to have a high level session. They weren't quite certain whether or not that would take place on the Sunday. There were other events, the Paris Peace Forum is already under way on the Sunday. Other events planned for that day with UNESCO. I'm sure their arrangements have been complicated by the President signalling his intent to be there. And I think the French Government was also trying to understand if there was another possible thought perhaps earlier on the Monday morning or something. But again they were in discussions discussions are actually taking place between the Office of Ambassador of Foreign Affairs and the President's office as well. So they need to liaise back and forth. The same thing with the title. We were close to having the preferred title but it needed further input from the President's office. We will pick up all those open items early next week.
With respect to the high level segment location, I suspect that hopefully somewhere on the IGF venue which would be at UNESCO. And I suppose there is also a possibility that it might actually be at the venue for the Paris Peace Forum. But that will also depend on both the day and the timing. So I think we need to wait and get further updates. That's what I have from my last discussion which was about a week and a half ago. I don't know if anyone on the Secretariat has additional updates, later information.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Hi Lynn. It is Eleonora. I don't have additional updates but I wanted to note that we picked up some of Wisdom's questions, too, that came in shortly before the meeting and have gone back to UNESCO to try to get some answers. But again note sure how quickly we will get them, but as soon as we have some of those logistical details we will be happy to share them.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. I said I know they were working very actively on this in July and early August and specifically a member of the staff has postponed and shortened their vacations to support the IGF and Paris Peace Forum activities. So I'm sure they are taking a well deserved holiday just now. And we will get updates as soon as we can in the next week or two.
If there are no further questions, just go in the chat room. I think I have captured the bulk of them. If I missed one, let me know.
Coming to item 4, which is in review of the thematic main session process and preparations for improved mergers. I sent out an update on those preparations and then Eleonora reflected followed up with individual e mails to and establish thematic sessions, informing people how they could actually clear how they could subscribe and not subscribe as well as providing information of the mergers that fell under the theme. If it is going pick up to the shepherding or nurturing those mergers, if that's not possible in the Working Group then we will manage that under the Secretariat.
And let me just Arnold, I did see your note and we will make sure that that's included and that they see that with respect to noting the IGF is a Global Forum.
So coming back to the mergers, let me just see, I think previously we had kind of described the process, described the expectations, things such as those working organizational groups should choose their own facilitator or cofacilitators and set their own schedule and process. Very cognizant of the tight timetable. Also there is potentially a resource which the Secretariat is making available with some follow up support as well which would identify speakers from those workshops that were not accepted so that if individuals are looking for speakers from particular regions or backgrounds, that there was sort of a ready made list of people who were interested and assumed to have been able to participate in the IGF. And we will continue to examine to see if we can to make available.
I wanted to see first if there was any additional comments from Eleonora or from the Secretariat and then we will open the floor for questions from the MAG members. Eleonora?
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Hi Lynn. So I will note just a few things. Since you sent this message out to the MAG list and the Secretariat followed up on the individual lists, it does look like each of the mailing lists have grown and have some more subscribers which are good because there were some particular groups which were very small and undersubscribed. There is not much discussion happening on the lists and in particular in terms of identifying maybe a facilitator or cofacilitators for each of these for each of these groups. After I sent out the individual lists of mergers I did get a little bit of a response from one or two MAG members who did volunteer to step in and support that. So thank you. The good news it seems like in parallel the proposers who have been asked to merge are in the meantime coordinating amongst themselves and starting to get that done on their own. And they have, you know, questions every so often and that they have asked the Secretariat but they seem to be managing okay.
So that's the good news, even if we didn't have a kind of surge of volunteers for the mergers. But thank you to those who did. And I think that's all I would have to say for now. I don't know if there are any questions from MAG members on the mergers process or on the status of the mailing lists.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Eleonora, for those mergers that have started, you know, coordinating amongst themselves, share those updates with the thematic organizing groups as well so that they are aware.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Sure. There was a note of that for each merger in the messages that went out. And maybe some members have an indication that they didn't really need much support but definitely as things develop I will share the updates through the mailing lists.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay. Great. With respect to the hardest part of any of these sort of organizing groups is the first step of organizing. I know one or two of the Working Groups an individual has volunteered to be a facilitator or cofacilitator. We can encourage somebody to volunteer which would be the preferred option or we ask the Secretariat to send a note out to those groups that have not yet volunteers for cofacilitators kicking off the process and suggesting that now is the time to step up and cofacilitate these activities. I don't mind which one but I think it is important that we get this kicked off. And we have people starting to pull these together and processing timelines. Any thoughts from MAG members? If the MAG members are obviously spread across all those thematic sessions, I mean the easiest would be to get MAG members to somebody that's on each one of these groups to kick off the process, either kick off the process for requesting volunteers or to kick off a process volunteering to be a facilitator.
Let's leave it then as I don't mean to give any more work to the facilitators. Specific request of all MAG members, first thematic main session, would a MAG member please take responsibility, the first one to the post, if you will, to kick off the selection process for facilitators and cofacilitators. That's clearly the first step. And we will just watch that. I'm on the list, all the lists. The Secretariat is on the list and we will try to watch that and support it wherever necessary. Are people clear on sort of expectations, the process? We had sent out several times the main guidelines from last year. And I'm sure the bulk of them still apply. There may be some specifics with respect to this year's process that are different. But certainly such as diversity, leaving adequate time, I think we put 50% for engagement with the participants online and physically in the room.
And just sending general questions there. Anything we can provide additional information on? So to me I think that in the chat room they are saying are happy to go volunteer to help facilitate the session on development. And I think the place to put that would be to send that actually to the Working Group list. We are asking each we are asking each organizing group to manage those plus themselves.
Okay. For each of the MAG calls going forward we will leave more substantial time for updates on these. We have organizing groups for each one of the thematic sessions. The full MAG usually kind of weighs in and reviews all of those thematic main sessions certainly with a view to provisional support if a particular organizing group is looking for a specific type of resource, whether it is a region or expertise. Obviously a good place to look is to your fellow MAG members. And what we would expect to see quite soon then is a high level draft of the session that's proposed. Potential speakers, titles, that sort of thing. The earlier we can get titles and the high level description identified and speakers we, of course, post those on the website and post those in the schedule.
Okay. Just checking some other messages here in the background. No questions at this time on the main session process. The Secretariat are here to help if there is anything that we can do to provide some guidance or experience from last year. There are also a number of MAG members and other community members that have been very active in organizing these main sessions in the past and I know would be very willing to provide some additional support and information as helpful.
So there is a question in the chat room which is can we have by e mail the final status of each main session composition on gender region. So that actually brings up a good point. The Secretariat are working on a final set of statistics capturing all the various diversities from the approved workshop selection. And that will be posted very, very soon. Just completed the work and it is waiting for review. I believe the Secretariat may be doing some additional graphs to support that as well. We will put that up for the workshops that were approved. We don't have that detail for the main sessions yet as they are not yet completed, not yet defined. But certainly once that is we should look to again the same diversity criteria for the sessions, main sessions, as for the workshops and we can certainly provide those or add those overall.
Okay. Moving to sorry. There are so many different messages here in the background. And hopefully I am being fair. If I am not being fair, please jump in. The next agenda item is the MAG Working Group updates. We have five Working Groups. Let me see if who wants to go first. (Inaudible) you want to go first?
>> Good morning. Thank you. Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, we can hear you.
>> We are still in the process of reviewing proposals for approval by the volunteers. I know that we have made some advance in some of the categories that we cluster to look in to in to them from some of the volunteers. I would like to remind them most of them are here in the call, that we set up the deadline for this process by the end of this month. So we can then move forward to consolidate all the reviews. And send it to the MAG for for evaluation and see how can we take out the proposals from the Working Group to be followed up, implemented and so on.
So basically we are still in that process. And I encourage all the volunteers to continue with also other MAG members.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. (Cutting out). I am not sure we heard the end of your statements. (Cutting out). Can everyone hear me okay?
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Hi Lynn. I can hear you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: It appears the transcriber can as well. You can see from the transcript where your remarks cut out. You can actually send the rest of your update in the chat room or by e mail.
I can still hear you trying to come in but it was just it is a funny sort of buzzing in the background. Okay. Let's move to the next Working Group. Is there somebody who is prepared to speak on communications and outreach?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes.
>> I am from (inaudible).
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yeah, we can, Mamadou.
>> MAMADOU LO: Working group, update.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes. Please.
>> MAMADOU LO: Thank you. The group has kept looking to spread out where the information to gather IGF preparation. So invitation to for the IGF, to the to the Secretary General. IGF 2018, reminder of the core for IGF 2018. And call for contributions. Besides that we work in this language. So the group will start working as soon as possible on the Spanish version with other members of the group. As for other activities, draft proposal for setting IGF goals during anti governance events to speed up IGF core values and activities concerns to the Working Group. For that we will not reach out to the Government stakeholders. IGF needs to go where where they during anti Government events. We still to the community and reach out to them. We can use opportunities given by Governments. Make it to talk about IGF. Thanks.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. And were there any questions for Mamadou? If there are any questions for Julian, we are working on improvements. Either in e mail or chat room given the audio was not working at the end.
Any questions for Mamadou for the Working Group on communications and outreach? Seeing none, thank you, Mamadou, to you and all the members of the Working Group. Critical activity. I'm not seeing anyone I think that can speak for the Working Group on workshop evaluations. But let me see if there is anyone here. And I know we were hoping to get a meeting started quite quickly while we still were close to the process. So I will follow up offline there with the facilitator and see if we can get that scheduled for the in the next few weeks when everyone is most live back from the holidays.
That remains two Working Groups then. One on fundraising and one on the strategic work program. I have a brief update on the fundraising Working Group. In fact, we just had our sixth meeting this morning. It was before this call. The primary activities is for working in a couple of different streams. One is to put together a process to prioritize and approach, you know, a manageable set of potential donors for the IGF. So we are working with the Secretariat to build a platform to share information and prioritize. We also had a really robust discussion going on for several weeks with respect to outreach materials, letters, leaflets. A request to update the brochure, was, in fact, an IGF brochure on the website. That's several years out of date. And those activities continue. We hope to have some kind of templated letters or letter templates and aimed at different levels. One would be very senior VIP level. Those participating in the high level session at the IGF or the Paris Peace Forum. And then other bulk specific materials for other potential donors. And we also reached out to all of the Intersessional activities to see if there were organizations they wish would participate more deeply in their work. We could help them outreach to both in terms of enriching the work and downstream potentially, donors to the IGF trust fund. And then there are a number of activities underway to try and make some of the donor information on the website a little more visible, working on modalities to recognizing in kind donation and that sort of thing. It is a it is a small group. Fairly active and I would say fairly ambitious in terms of everything that we are trying to take under but I think that just recognizes the criticality of getting some additional funding in so that we can increase the resources in the Secretariat.
All the meeting summaries, in fact, for all of the Working Group meetings are published on the website along with the charters and the process for registering if people want to join a Working Group. Should feel free to do that. We also just this morning agreed to try and progress kind of the work, would focus on support MAG members, Secretariat, Chair, DESA, et cetera. Also I think providing some additional resources and laying out some additional guidelines. I think historically it has been really sort of loosely managed. And the results show that.
So it is time to step up the process and certainly put some additional resources out and I think exert MAG members and everyone, engaged in kind of the Intersessional activities of the IGF to do what they can to promote the IGF, make it clear that we are an extra budgetary project of the United Nations and that Member State contributions do not go to funding the IGF, the trust fund. Further that the trust fund supports the Secretariat expenses, expenses to support Intersessional activity and to support participation from Developing Countries that does not fund the annual IGF meetings. That is funded by the host country.
So to the extent that we can all sort of keep that in mind and keep our eyes and ears open for potential donors. If you have somebody you think is a potential donor, don't hesitate to send a note probably to Eleonora and the Secretariat until the Chengetai replacement is in or myself and we will work the appropriate process to follow up.
Any other comments from any other Working Group members on that report or any questions from MAG members?
I'll also point out that, of course, these MAG Working Groups are open to the broad community. It is not restricted to MAG members. Before I go to the final report I see that Julian is back on. His computer crashed. Julian, do you want to finish your report?
>> JULIAN CASABUENAS: Thank you, Lynn. I'm not sure until to what part you heard.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: My memory escapes me.
>> JULIAN CASABUENAS: I'm sorry. Basically I was reporting is that we continue working in the review process of the proposals for improvement asking MAG members that volunteer to catch up and continue the work. We set the deadline by the end of this month. So we are in that process of reviewing. And our idea is that after all the categories that we cluster with the proposal for improvement, a review by the volunteers will be presented to the MAG with our comments and our proposals for action. So basically we are still in that process. And I mention also that in the report of 5th of July that is in the Working Group Web page that just put the link in the chat, you can find the description of the process we are working in. So if you are interested to join, more than welcome. And we will be ready to respond to any questions for those that want to join. So that will be for now. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Julian. Any questions from MAG members for Julian?
I just want to recognize and thank you Julian and all the Working Group members for that work. I mean there are so many new useful suggestions and contributions that have been made through the CENB working on the IGF improvements. WSIS+10 process that take a careful review of those and the action is incredibly useful. And I think that we will actually take a good stock of where we are, what we have taken up and we should also prepare I think some status reports, high level status reports that we can provide back to those various efforts as well as to the IGF. They hear periodically that the IGF needs to continue to improve. I believe they are continuing to improve. I think it is useful to take stock of what we have on action and also show that we are tracking the other suggestions and looking to action those as well. So thank you. We know it has been a huge amount of work.
So the final Working Group update is on the multi year strategic work program. Last night I did send out a written update to the MAG because it is a little more involved. This is either our seventh or eighth meeting. I'm not sure so far. But we are working on basically a couple of mainstreams. One of them is absolutely develop a multi year strategic work program. And we want to do that, engaging the MAG and IGF community Intersessional activities and the NRIs. So that's that's one of the key focus. We started some work suggesting what the process ought to be and have just formed a drafting team within the Working Group to put a more concrete proposal for a process together that would have us identify and by us I mean kind of across the IGF ecosystem working with all of them. A relatively small number of critical topics that we believe could move forward. The notion was that if we had a multi year view of some of these topics that we know stay with us even if, you know, they change over time we would actually be able to pull in greater participation, broader participation, hopefully advance the issues more significantly as well. And specifically notion would carry us through one kind of IGF cycle and in to a second IGF cycle.
So I think the new news there is that a drafting team is working on a more concrete process for how we might roll this out and engage in the community and hopefully we will have something that's probably another two calls. So probably close to a month before those, something concrete that would go out to the MAG. I would like it to be sooner than that, but I know there is an awful lot of work in front of everyone at this point in time.
The second major sort of stream of work we are doing is really trying to address what the IGF can do to advance international public policy issues across the IGF ecosystem, specifically with respect to producing more tangible, more concrete opportune IGF activities. There are three sort of activities under way at the moment. One of them is a proposal for an IGF program framework which basically builds on the program component document that was published last year by the Working Group and the Secretariat but made much more useful format and useful information. It documents the current state and includes a graphical flow of both inputs and outputs and supporting processes. There are links to the guiding documents for these various processes and the Working Group actually hopes to get it out for a broader community review within the coming weeks. We are actually working on the appropriate kind of presentation format and the commenting platform. And I think the members are also looking for some specific sort of questions to poll from the community with respect to this process. The purpose is actually to get agreement on this as a general framework for the IGF activities. Specifically it documents the process we are working to today.
So it doesn't look forward. One of the ways I can see this process changing significantly when the MAG is appointed ahead of this MAG being stood down, of course, it will allow for a much needed transition. No loss of momentum and about three months additional time in which to accomplish the work. I think we should look at some point that might actually enable us to deliver the process. But at this point in time it simply documents the current process.
The second and third set of activities are both part of the same thing and basically they are trying to find a way to facilitate Intersessional work that would actually work towards some form of conclusion or recommendation at the annual IGF meeting. And the recommendation, I mean this is all driven from the Tunis Agenda. We are not looking to break that. We want to work fully with the community. There are many different types of recommendations. We don't need a formal policy recommendation and we certainly are not trying to turn the IGF or any of its activities in to a negotiating process or a negotiating Forum. But, you know, recommendations might mean something simply, you know, such as identifying other groups or other places where a very useful piece of work that can be done that can help advance a particular public policy issue. It could just be looking at some of the publications or conclusions or outputs from today's work and finding ways to better promote that, make them more useful.
But what we are also trying to do is to really kind of find a way to dig a little more deeply in to some of these processes in a deliberate and deliberative manner. So actually substantially leave the IGF substantially help advance some of these issues. So there was some work that was done last year and that's documented in a report and was documented in a previous Working Group update. But we continue to bring forward. One of them is looking at sort of what some of the methodologies might be for development of written IGF outputs. And what we thought based on past pilots whether it was the sample deliberative pilot of a few years ago or something that was tried within the Dynamic Coalitions. Some of the questions we heard then is how do you define the IGF community. How do you know those would have been adequately engaged. What sort of stamp could you put on this with respect to IGF activity. And those are some of the questions that we are hoping to address with the proposed first pilot. And this is not it is not the review has not been completed to the Working Group yet in the middle of this. But we were proposing that we take an issue that's been defined and out there in the public, broadly supported.
The two things that are mostly discussed are the protective core of the Internet from the GCSC work on the work on disabilities done by the Dynamic Coalition by accessibility, DCAD with the ITU again because both of those pieces of work are simply broadly supported and we wouldn't be in a position of having to develop an agreed position. More trying to understand how we could assess support for these activities across the IGF community but know the IGF community might want to do or say about them. These are IGF community and how do we know they have been adequately engaged or polled. So that's what we are trying to address with the first pilot.
The second pilot and can actually think about them as a phase 1 and phase 2. Because the first pilot we are actually hoping to complete at IGF 2018. And the second one would be completed at IGF 2019 which would start much further back in the chain as really two to answer the question what is a topic or topics that the IGF could address that we could help substantially advance and work through the Intersessional process and find a substantive output coming out of IGF 2019 on that particular topic.
I wanted to stop there for a moment. I know I saw Jeremy on the call earlier. Jeremy is leading one of the pilots. Ralph is leading another but I don't see him on the call. Jeremy, is there anything you want to add? I hope that was clear. But sometimes I feel like I am so in to the details that I'm perhaps not explaining the whole picture quite so well.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: I think if people read through the document that you have sent that will make things fairly clear to them about where we are trying to what we are trying to explore here. The idea is that we don't have a process that's well established for generating the kind of tangible outputs that we think might be useful. By trying something new as a pilot we are not committing to anything for the long term but we are seeing if there is another sort of more intensively facilitated process that might be useful to the IGF and might help it better fulfill all of the aspects of its mandate. So I would encourage the MAG members if you maybe have some misgivings at first to read through what is proposed and to think about giving it a try for this year. And then we can always reassess how it went the next year and decide if we want to do anything similar again or not.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jeremy. Any questions, comments, observations from the floor from the MAG members? So Christoph put a comment in the chat room. I have heard these concrete proposals for these pilots were shared for the first time with the Working Group yesterday. Having no time to analyze and have an opinion on them and despite the opposition of some members due to this fact, a first insight of them has already been shared with the MAG. This does not seem to be observing the due process. If the text, the Working Group agrees and endorses this proposal and the pilots are going ahead then I did a poor job writing because that's not true and I certainly hope it doesn't indicate that. So I will I can take a look at it and if so adjust it or send another note out. But with respect to the due process I have to register a pretty strong objection to that. This is a Working Group of the MAG.
The Working Groups are meant to keep the MAG up to date on any critical activities, critical pieces of work as the work is progressing. The last thing we want to do is say the MAG has spent three months proposing. Here is the proposal for the MAG. I think that has little chance of being supportive of the MAG. We have an obligation, I think that's even in a Working Group charter to keep the MAG comprised of all the significant pieces of work that are happening in the Working Group. That's what this update did. It is what previous updates did. And these two pilots have actually been on the table since the end of last year and last year's Working Group. And have been discussed at every one of seven or eight meetings that we have had so far this year. The only difference between this last week is that we actually have a proposal from a vender to support this activity which was received last Friday and shared with the Working Group yesterday.
So I don't feel that we have either gotten ahead of the Working Group process and I think the due process actually requires that we inform the MAG at all kind of substantive points in the Working Group activities. This is not this is not the Working Group does the work, makes a recommendation, and drives it. We are a functionality, facility, if you will, that allows additional work to get done without in parallel with all the other work of the MAG.
Let me stop there and see I have Ben in the queue and I would like anyone else to come back in as well because I think that's a pretty serious accusation and I think we need to kind of come to grips with any kind of discomfort that's in the system and figure out how we move forward from there. Ben, you have the floor.
>> BEN WALLIS: Yes. Thank you, Lynn. I'm just I'm a bit nervous about taking on something this year which has a cost associated with it. I'm a member of the fundraising Working Group which you are driving forward and that work is so important because as a member I should know the figures. I think we are under budget this year to cover the existing costs and have been for a number of years. And that once we cover the existing costs I think the next priority was to try and increase the support to the Secretariat and equip them better to support the IGF. I was nervous about proposals that would carry a cost this year while we are still trying to line up donors to get the trust fund in a better place. Thanks.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: That's a key consideration. The notion was and what I understand has been done before is that we could go back to some of the donors that we know are, you know, very supportive of the IGF trying to do more and trying to work towards some of these outputs and seeing if they would make an extraordinary contribution or extra contribution for this work. That's done periodically from the Secretariat for those activities. I do think it is a possibility for funding and the funding we are talking about is 22,000 Euros just for transparency here. But obviously we wouldn't undertake those if it was not possible financially or not the right set of priorities. So I think we should continue to keep that in mind. But it shouldn't distract us from talking about where the will of the MAG and where the IGF community to explore where and how we might produce more tangible outputs.
I think Timea has requested the floor.
>> Timea: (Cutting out). I am getting unmuted on all my devices. I would want to raise two points in support of what Christoph and Ben were saying earlier. And also would like to echo the point that you made earlier, Lynn, that this proposal I believe is filled with the work to consider. This is an update for the MAG on what the but I also want to repeat the thing that I raised yesterday afternoon during the call of the Working Group that we talked about the proposal and haven't seen it in this concrete Forum with the cost estimate attached and all. It was sent to the Working Group in the same Forum and I shared it with the MAG last night. The Working Group has not yet had the opportunity to consider or review it in its entirety. So the next step of the Working Group and those discussions they are having should happen with the Working Group. And this is proposal in its full merit and giving it forward to the MAG for final approval or to follow the process that we have in front of us. I still want to share the concern that Christoph mentioned that the kind of expedited process while I understand the MAG is wanting to progress and have some outcomes because we have been talking about them. But it does not lend itself well to fully consider decisions if we are rushed through this nor does it inspire engagement or commitment, time to engage in Working Groups of active members like such. I want to caution us to be considerate of the process. And as Ben said to be considerate also of the costs when we have the funding problems that we have. So thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Let me just be clear that the proposal that was received was only sent to the Working Group. The MAG just has this two page Working Group update. The same thing we have done in the past, the same thing we did last year, which again is intended to keep the MAG apprised of all the substantive developments or work that's being undertaken in the Working Groups. So the details and proposal is only with the Working Group. You can imply your comment that you thought it was sent to the Working Group and then immediately sent to the MAG which is not true. Then it is very much still with the Working Group for UN approval. I do hope while we are going through yet again some of these objections that we focus on where is the role of IGF and the role of the MAG to work to advance more concrete outputs. You know, it is pretty clear that the world is expecting more from the IGF. In fact, the High Level Panel on digital cooperation is because the world is expecting more in general on international public policy issues. Not specifically alone from the IGF. One of the biggest kind of areas of requesting improvements for the IGF is on concrete outputs. So that's what we are trying to explore and we would appreciate whether we go forward with these pilots or not, that we spend some time thinking about what is possible and how we improve some of those outputs.
There is a lot of new tools and a lot of new applications out that would make getting the thoughts and opinions more broadly across the IGF community known. And for me that's part of the appeal. You don't need to be at the physical IGF meeting to participate in helping to advance some of these issues. We have processes and tools that allow us to engage and pull broadly in a thoughtful, deliberative manner so that we can understand frankly where this position sits across the world. Those are some of the things that I think we should consider trying to understand how we can advance.
I have Liesyl in the queue.
>> LIESYL FRANZ: Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes.
>> LIESYL FRANZ: I guess I would say I haven't been able to follow all the details of the Working Group as much as I would like. But I was intrigued by the idea of having a way to reflect the outputs of the IGF. I mean I as I think I said before I tend to think there are some pretty rich outputs that we have already in the course of the work of the IGF, the convening of the meeting itself every year, the rich content that's there as well as the rich content we have in all of the Intersessional work that we do. And I guess if I if I, you know the comments that we have heard about, you know, process and prioritization, notwithstanding I would like to add if we have $22,000 to spend I am wondering if there is a way that and that's a question. I don't know if we have it is the point about the funding issue. But if we do have it and we are able to, you know, cabin that chunk of money, I wonder if there would be something more immediate and productive that we can do by capturing that Intersessional work that's currently sort of out there in this atmosphere and then website and things like that and make it more tangible and make it more available to the community and particularly Governments that we are trying to pull in to the discussions and work of and convening of the IGF itself.
I have talked a lot, I think the U.S. and I have talked a lot about sort of capturing packaging and promoting the outputs of the IGF. And I realize that, you know, the drive to improve "outputs" but I don't necessarily mean I think that means that we have to concoct new ones necessarily before we can capture the outputs that we already have out there. So I guess I would just put in a placeholder for that kind of prioritization for the money and the and what outputs we want to I guess package and promote at this point as a part of the discussion.
I'm not saying that, you know, that has to happen in a final way before the deliberations of a Working Group which I realize a lot of people spend a lot of time on. But I think that, you know, we have been talking a lot about capturing the outputs we have so far and I would hate to lose that. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Two points. First for the funds, I don't think it is anybody's expectation that this would come out of today's operating budget for the Secretariat. I don't expect that there is probably room for it. I think the idea was that as I said historically the Secretariat has gone out and asked some of the traditional supporters, if you will, if they would support specific efforts, projects and programs so that this would be specifically would be specifically sought or given for this purpose.
And again that's something we need to continue to work. May or may not be possible. May or may not be possible. With respect to the, you know, repackaging, better promoting the outputs of the IGF, I mean I think that's something we all like to do and, you know, we are all trying to find ways to do that. The resources that were available that we have been able to find. So last year the so called Geneva messages, the main messages from the main sessions were a part of that effort. This year's IGF we are asking every workshop proposer to provide a main a main message coming out of each one of the workshops including the thematic sessions. And we are kind of thinking about different processes that will allow us to pull that together, perhaps by theme so that we can capture thematic messages coming from the IGF, whether it was from a thematic main session and IGF, Dynamic Coalition and our activity, et cetera, and put those out.
There are some other things we are trying to do as well. I think, you know, there needs to be things that the community will support or the community will stand up and help organize or drive. Otherwise we are limited to the resources we can tap within the Secretariat or some of the consultants. We have some consultant friends helping with the main messages and we can this year. There is a lot more we can do with capturing and improving the outputs with better resource. And that is certainly part of the reason for increasing the fundraising. If anybody has any ideas, you know, with respect to what else we can do with what's in front of us today, and that means both the kind of content that is put in front of us as well as the resources that we pick through, we are trying to vote that end of the of this kind of situation just as much as we can. So they are not neglecting it. I actually don't see it as an either/or because I think it actually the pilots would test something beyond just that. It actually tests and better supports a much more deliberate and deliver the process intersessionally across the IGF community which I think should help advance the work. And then, of course, also begins to focus on what could we say the IGF thinks, believes, suggests, recommends, et cetera, to the set of activities. I think doing them more than that as well. Jeremy, you have the floor.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thanks. I mean there have been other efforts including some that you haven't mentioned. I don't think you mentioned the friends of the IGF initiative, did you? Because that's another one that attempted to capture the very extensive discussions that come out of every IGF meeting to make them more tangible and actionable, but the problem that I think and that by the way had more than 22,000 Euros in funding if you total up what they put towards that project. But the difficulty again is that the source material was just so divergent and so extensive that it was difficult to say although this is what the IGF has resolved or reached a Consensus on this year on this particular topic. So I think the idea of the pilot is to not so much condense a broad range of discussions, but rather to have a narrower discussion format by means of the way it is facilitated, come together in a more narrow and concrete and tangible way not for the need to be condensed or summarized in the same way that we would have to for all the other IGF processes. That's sort of my two cents worth. So I don't quite agree with Liesyl to that extent.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. Liesyl.
Liesyl, you have the floor.
>> LIESYL FRANZ: Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yeah, I can hear you now.
>> LIESYL FRANZ: Sorry. Two things. The friends of the IGF, I think that's a great project. All the ways to capture the content are good efforts. There are others that, Jeremy, you didn't mention either, but I guess one thing that you said that gave me some pause that I hadn't really heard in the discussion so far about that is the need to capture something from the IGF in a Consensus way. I actually think that there is a huge amount of value to the divergent views that everyone in the community brings and the discussions that result out of those. So I'm a little bit more concerned about this idea of putting forward some kind of consensus view from the IGF in that kind of way.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Jeremy, do you want to respond?
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: I think it would come down to the topics that we choose for this process which are ones that there is a consensus anyway. Because we are just trying out these
>> LIESYL FRANZ: I presume there is consensus.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: But I think the idea is we would try to find a topic that is already pretty consensual. Already been a lot of work done on it and a pretty good understanding of it. Because we don't want to break new ground on the substantive topic when we are also breaking new ground on the process. So I think really this is more about experimenting with a process rather than creating new consensus where it didn't exist before. And so that's why there are only a couple of topics that really can be considered for such a process. And they are already pretty mature topics.
>> LIESYL FRANZ: I might pause. There is already presumed consensus on the norm the way it is. So I would just caution that we can't really presume yet I would say that there is consensus on those things. But I appreciate the clarification about the process piece. But I do think that that requires the diligence that Lynn has described and, you know, capturing, making sure to capture the community, we are describing the community and we know what the community is. And we feel like there is a I mean if if we presume a consensus we need to be able to reflect that and I am not sure there is. But thanks.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. I mean that was really helpful. I do think I am sure many of you get why can't the IGF come out with this and why can't the IGF come out with that. We all know about that. Some of it is remit and omission. Some of it is not. We are an organization. So that those are the questions that where is the IGF community and how do we know when somebody is going to be adequately engaged, polled, et cetera. Some of the things that I think are interesting is that either GCSC or the DCAD work if people aren't aligned around support for the norm, I think it would be really useful to understand why not. I think it would be interesting to understand in a broad, open discussion why not rather than frankly whatever the GCSC is going to get to their norms and whatever they are doing to get support for it. You know, I think it is a good it is kind helpful to understand, you know, where there is a divergence of views. On the other hand, the other initiative that we are looking at was the Dynamic Coalition work on accessibility, DCAD work. The Dynamic Coalition has done a lot of good work working with the ITU. I think they tried to get support for some of the principles some time ago but people were uncomfortable with the process. Again we get stuck in the process and they didn't get the content discussion out broadly enough. And I mean I think they are quite keen to see if there is some way to advance this as well which again would be, you know, I'm sure they would like there to be consensus if these are appropriate principles for access. But even if it didn't get that far just to understand where there was a difference of opinion and what was driving a difference of opinion would help them in their work enormously, but we don't have a way to bring some of these discussions that have fairly broad consensus to any kind of closure. They just get stuck in limbo. We don't have a group. We even know why we don't or where we are disagreeing. And, you know, I don't know what happens with the GCSC either, but to try and understand if we could again more liberally and much more broadly, not within just the DCAD IGF or not even with the GCSC but understand what the global community thinks about those, some of the things would be useful to moving the work forward.
Again, you know, I won't say any more on this. I think we can start to wrap this item. We have Ben in the queue and I guess Ben, you might actually want to say something. Let's go to Ben and start to work to close this out so we can go to the remaining agenda items.
>> BEN WALLIS: Thanks. I'm not sure I can add too much to the discussion and I won't take long. I wanted to support a lot of what Liesyl said. There were things that I reflected on at the first MAG meeting this year but for me a lot of the value of the IGF is this bringing together different viewpoints and hearing from and learning each other's perspectives. And rather than necessarily spending time to drive consensus on something and in some ways. And we talked about an example related to cybersecurity. We have best practice Forums where groups can work together during the year to bring together areas of general agreement. So yes, I won't go on and I know that time is short but I wanted to there was a lot in Liesyl's comments that I wanted to express support for.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: A lot of good comments for support over the last 20 minutes. The core of the IGF, the heart of the IGF. I think this is something that would add to it. We are not trying to fundamentally change the IGF or, you know, adversely effect it to this agenda either. More on this as we go forward. There is more discussions within the Working Group to be had as well. Again thank you everyone for their support here. And I want to encourage participation in the Working Group, if you have strong feelings or thoughts on this as well. It is the decision of the MAG. We want to make sure we are bringing everything forward to the MAG in a responsible enough manner that we can action quite quickly anything that might come out of the Working Group.
Thank you, everyone. The next agenda item is updates on the Intersessional activities, BPFs and DCs and CENB. Should we just start with
>> BEN WALLIS: It is Ben again.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, please.
>> BEN WALLIS: Thank you. So I will present a brief update on BPF for cybersecurity. We have launched a call for inputs for our 2018 report. We put out a public call for inputs and also a slightly different one addressed specifically to NRIs because we want to really try and find ways to better incorporate their activities, their knowledge in to the work this year. The Secretariat and our consultants also used social media to emphasize the call for inputs and our lead experts, Martin Van Hornbeck, published a blog page this week. As part of the calls we published a background paper which was produced by the BPF members in June and July. The purpose is to provide some context for this year's topic for the development of culture, norms and values in cybersecurity for people to read as they think about the input they want to make. We've asked for inputs of two to three pages. And we've asked to receive them by early September and by the 15th of September at the latest. And the reason for this is that we plan to write the report in the following four weeks and publish a draft report by the 15th of October. And we chose this timeline so that a draft report was available four weeks ahead of the IGF meeting so that attendees have time to consult colleagues and be able to bring views on the report to Paris. We were particularly conscious of Governments whose views are hard to get incorporated in to the work and might need to consult several Government departments and get any views signed off before they can share them in Paris.
Following the IGF meeting we will then finalize the report to take in to account the fact that we received at Paris. We are currently scheduling for two or maybe three meetings to take place during the two months between mid September deadline for inputs and the IGF meeting in November. And I will paste the relevant links in the chat now for people. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ben. Any questions for Ben about cybersecurity? Is there somebody who is prepared to talk to BPF on gender and access? I will count to six. We will follow up offline to get an update from them.
Anyone to speak to the BPF on local content? I guess we are still impacted by holidays here.
>> Hi Lynn. I can just give a very brief update on the BPF local contents.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you.
>> We have only had one meeting where we basically discussed the proposal, MAG proposal and focused on what can we do with it. They singled out a couple of hard lines that are linked or linked to the IGF policy framework to focus on the broader team of developing local content value chain. Most relevant for now is there is a next call planned next Monday, 3rd of September at 2 p.m. in the afternoon. And I think from that call our main focus of the call will be okay, how will we know, start reaching out and how we will start to collect practices, the practices and the examples we want. So I think the main that's the main thing for now. So I think after Monday we will also see some calls for detailed calls for inputs.
And I would like to add that it is basically for the three for all BPFs. We are trying to do our best to keep the website, the individual Web page updated for the latest information and also for the links for all calls, upcoming calls and reports on past calls. So I think it is useful for MAG members but also if MAG members if you want to reach out to people and say okay, the BPF might be interested for you, you can refer to the specific Web page of the BPF. And at least we try to do our best to have the latest details and hopefully you can join on where we are in the discussion there. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay. Appreciate the update. Is there anyone who wants to speak to the BPF on IoTs, Big Data, AI?
>> CONCETTINA CASSA: Hi. This is Titti. Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes.
>> CONCETTINA CASSA: I can give an update. We have five meetings so far. The next one would be on September the 6th and we have done a lot of work so far. We are working on updating the report. And then we are hearing a lot of competition. Actually the report is trying to make a definition of review and define how they come together. And how (inaudible) in this format and they can address the SDGs. And also we have actually we tried to select also a list of workshops is the main objective, try to share best practice, but the idea is that try to contact the speakers and the workshop related to BPF owner and the Big Data. And try to (inaudible). Also we actually ran a survey. The objective of the survey was always the same, try to understand the main focus of the criticalities and try to understand the platform that could be involved in the discussion.
So I think let's see. Thanks for giving the floor.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Titti. Ben, you have the floor.
>> BEN WALLIS: I didn't mean to take the floor again. I was still hand up from my cybersecurity update.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Any other questions for Titti on AI, Big Data, Internet of Things, BPF? Not seeing any then we move to the next agenda item sorry. We have Dynamic Coalitions.
>> It is Uta speaking on behalf of the Dynamic Coalitions. Martin is on vacation this week. We have not had another monthly call since the last MAG meeting. So there is not so many things to report from the Dynamic Coalitions, but anyway the work on the thematic session where the Dynamic Coalitions will be engaged in is already going on. The theme is development innovation and economics. And so there is already ten dynamic coalitions have expressed interest on joining the core network. Child online safety, gender, Internet of Things, small island developing states, platform responsibility, Net Neutrality and community connectivity. And any other Dynamic Coalition that is also interested in the organization of this thematic session should just either contact Eleonora or me or also maybe Timea who has fortunately volunteered to initiate some discussion on the collaboration of this thematic session. And I do think also that Eleonora had a very brilliant idea on how to organize that a little bit in setting up a matrix which have the Sustainable Development Goals on the one line and the topics addressed by Dynamic Coalitions at the IGF in the other line. So as to find out which are the crosses in this matrix and then to address the policy issues based on the findings in this matrix. And once I do think maybe Eleonora, you would like to say something else about that. But I think you announce to have that ready within the next few days. So that all Dynamic Coalitions could have a look at it and try to find out which SDGs are addressed by the work they are doing in the Dynamic Coalition as a basis for the thematic session.
I do think we will probably have our next monthly call directly before the next MAG virtual meeting takes place. So then next time we will maybe be able to report more from the DCs. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Uta. Eleonora, is there anything you want to add or if not we will move on to the CENB.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Hi. Nothing specific to add. Only to say that I think we are off to a good start with the session and also working well with Timea on how to fuse some of these ideas and then bring them back to the DCs and in to our next call which will be in about a week and a half or a couple of weeks.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Uta. CENB. Is there someone who can give us a quick update on the CENB? Not seeing anyone. We will follow up then with those activities that were not able to give us an update today and get them out to the MAG list. It would be helpful if everyone could actually send out a written update to the MAG. There is obviously a lot more detail that's shared in these discussions and written updates and would be captured in the meeting summary. Would be helpful for the MAG members to see. The next one is NRI updates from our focal point. NRI focal point, Anja.
>> Anja: I will provide an update very quickly and IGF annual meeting and then quickly just reflecting what is happening outside of the NRI participation at the IGF. Very quickly, the NRIs are working on preparing the main sessions which was focused on the evolution of the stakeholder governance. On the latest meeting there was consensus that the NRIs will develop a set of policy questions that will serve as guiding for the content of the sessions. So we are in a phase where we are trying to finalize those policy questions. Next week we will have the virtual meeting and we will be able to produce better questions to be shared with the MAG and wider IGF community.
And as for the format that is also under consideration of the NRIs, they are running their bottom up processes within their respective communities. The town hall approach was mentioned and received by some significant support on the NRIs. But as I said nothing yet is finalized. Hopefully by the end of next week we will have the information finalized. As for the other Forums of NRI participation, second IGF, as you know the collaborative sessions are already finalized. So through the bottom up process, NRI agreed to organize five collaborative sessions focused on access to connectivity, fake news where they will be comparing practices, inappropriate content and so on. The third one will be how different communities can develop the people priority, Digital Economy and under that subject the role of SMEs, start ups will be discussed. Also the national policies and trade regulations, recovery on natural disasters and (inaudible). The fourth one will be focused on the impact of emerging technologies on the national level and discussing the aspects of current policies, IPv6 implementation and block chains and similar aspects. The fifth was agreed it will be focused on cybersecurity. Given that the cybersecurity is a very broad subject, NRIs are covering different aspects of this tactical framework. And it was agreed that we will be liaising very open with the cofacilitators on cybersecurity and Lynn as a (inaudible). Especially had us navigate this session content and try to cover the gaps maybe that other sessions that presented at the program that do not necessarily cover.
We are in a phase where we are trying to form the teams for each of these sessions. There are a couple of alternative proposals where we see some of these sessions will not have enough interest from the NRIs. Of course, collaborative sessions will be completely organized respecting the IGF procedure for all sessions. That means that the regional diversity and the stakeholders diversity for sure will be represented and respected and the biggest burden of NRIs to try to communicate these sessions and purposes for these sessions to their respective communities and run consultations within their teams to see who can be the expert speakers and the format and so on. Of course, traditionally the NRI session will be organized. All stakeholders are very much welcome to join. We will be entering the very busy phase of planning agenda for this session. It could be that the agenda will be remaining that discussing the fewer of IGF process on any level, certain level of country or regional or global level and importance of capacity building, these were some of the inputs were very key from the NRIs. And this is very much like for discussion discussed with the NRIs and finalization of the agenda during September.
The NRIs booth that would be my last update. So the preparations for the joint booth are underway. Last year we are trying to develop some material and identify who could be the potential donor for printing a couple of copies. The front page of the brochure will be displaying the landscape of NRIs and describing the process. NRIs are also trying to develop a schedule of NRIs spending some time at the booth. So everything is still under planning. And it is an open process. Aside of the NRIs integration at the IGF 2018 annual meeting as you know August was also a very interesting month. We had a very successful meeting that was closed in the Asia Pacific Region. I am thinking on the APrIGF but also the Pacific IGF was held one day meeting. There were a couple of a lot of actually interesting sessions. But what I would like to inform the MAG is probably one of the most important outcomes for us on this side when it comes to the process is that the host of this year's APrIGF, the Government of Vanuatu decided to establish a multi stakeholder process on a national level and given how interesting the region is and how specific the issues we are very much looking forward to working with the colleagues there to establishing this process and hopefully next year they will be hosting the IGF meeting.
Outside of Vanuatu update, we are discussing with the colleagues and interested communities there to publish an IGF. The same is with youth IGF. South Sudan National IGF discussions are also under way. As you know the African IGF this year is happening in Sudan. That's really waking up the regions and they would like to have their own national processes following the request of the community. So we are discussing with colleagues there. And I believe by the end of this year we will have these processes finalized there.
And just recently we have recognized the Haiti IGF. Haiti is the region that has the South Pacific challenge. National IGF annual meeting and we will be definitely informing the community about the details in case you would like to join. So that's the NRIs. And if you have any questions I remain at your disposal. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Anja, thank you. That was a very complete and very interesting update and very good news with respect to a lot of the regions and emerging NRI processes. Any questions for Anja? I am not seeing any. We have one request for an AOB which was an update from Arnold on the G20 that just recently concluded. Arnold, you have the floor.
>> ARNOLD VAN RHIJN: Can you hear me, Lynn?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, we can.
>> ARNOLD VAN RHIJN: Great. Hello everyone. Very short note on the G20 economy and ministerial meeting. This was held last Friday in Argentina. The Netherlands although not being a prevalent member G20 was kindly invited by the host country to participate. This meeting was successful and had a declaration which I had the rounds yesterday to to our fellow MAG members and to go through it. But that's the topics which have been discussed will come back at the IGF. And to name a few the focus was primarily on the G20 digital Government principles, bridging the digital gender divide and accelerating digital, these are laid down in annexes and recommendations of G20 to follow up. It is a 21 page document. And I think lots of the issues which have been discussed will come back whether it is Working Group or international sessions or the NRIs. And Japan is the next presidency of the G20 and already committed itself to continuing this valuable work. And we are happy to see that the European participants in G20 come up with a common press release and stated that they are committed to follow up on this process and from the perspective of international meetings coming up.
And then well, of course, very good to see that the IGF was mentioned as one global Forum next to the G7 and G20 next year. So once again to go through this document and pick some of the usual recommendations that hopefully you can use in the remaining Working Group or other meetings of the IGF and meeting in Paris. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Arnold. Thank you for everything you and any of your European contributors actually did to make that happen. In terms of things we can do to continue promoting the IGF and national and regional activities across the world. Any further comments for Arnold? Questions? I'm not seeing any and the speaking queue is empty. And I can't recall if we have the next MAG meeting already scheduled or not, but I will work with the Secretariat to get the calendar out from now until the IGF, I think we are going to have to maintain this schedule of meeting every two weeks given the number of items in front of us. And we will make sure that their calendar is complete through November.
With that I just thank everyone, particularly for those that it is outside of normal working hours and anybody who might be interrupting their holiday to participate, I appreciate it and talk to you all soon. Bye.