The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Good morning, afternoon, and evening ladies and gentlemen. This is MAG Virtual Meeting No. IV, and before we start, just a quick reminder that this call is being recorded and transcribed, and a summary report will be produced after the meeting. We are also going to be using the hand-up system, and the link is in the chat room if you want to request the floor.
Okay. With that, I'll hand over the meeting to Lynn St. Amour.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai, and hello, everyone. We have quite a full agenda today. There were two recent additions. One is an update from the Secretariat, which Chengetai and I both just overlooked when we were creating the agenda, so that is now Item 2. And the Cybersecurity BPF forwarded yesterday to the MAG their updated BPF, and that was slotted under what is now Agenda Item 6, along with discussion on rechartering the Gender and Access BPF.
At this point in the agenda, let me see if there are requests for any other business, and if not, we'll move to approve the agenda. Any requests for any other business, AOB?
I see -- I'm not seeing any requests for AOB or speaking queues. I do see a note from Veni, though, if we request move the Cybersecurity BPF discussion up. I think that's a good thing to do. Veni, of course, has been very active in the discussions at the UN on the Open-Ended Working Group and the APG, so I think it would be important to have his perspective as well.
Why don't we move that up right after Item 3, 3 or maybe 4. I'll watch the time, Veni. So if everybody is okay with that. Let me see. I'd like to call for approval of the agenda, and we'll do a slow count to six.
Okay. Not seeing any requests for the floor, we'll call the agenda approved, and the first item, of course, is an update from the Secretariat. Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Lynn. I'll just go in no particular order. I've had some requests for information on where the venue is going to be for the Berlin meeting in June. I still have not received an answer from the host country, but as soon as I do, I will post that to the list and also post it on our website.
We will also process the Terms of Reference and advertise for the consultants to support the Best Practice Forums as soon as we've finished rechartering the Best Practice Forums, so hopefully I think that will be done today, and then we can carry out the process.
Unfortunately, the process will take between three to four weeks because we have to advertise it for two weeks, and then -- where we have to process and bring the consultant onboard.
Now, also, in response to suggestions from the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, we are trying out Zoom as our virtual collaboration platform for meetings, so this will begin with the Dynamic Coalition meeting that's going to be an hour after this meeting, and then we're going to go to the NRI meetings, and then our next Virtual MAG meeting will also be in Zoom, so we're just trying it out. Please let us know how the trial is going.
The reason why we're doing this is because WebEx is seen as not being that accessible. It doesn't have as many accessibility features as Zoom or Adobe, and Adobe is much more expensive than Zoom, so we're trying out Zoom.
And just also a reminder to submit your travel support requests for the April meeting. That's the meeting during the WSIS Forum. It's going to be here at the IGF Headquarters. Please submit your requests by the 25th of February so we can get the travel sorted out in good time.
And lastly, I just want to call to your attention that we do have a road map or a schedule for the year, and it is in the documents, the IGF 2019 Timeline. It's the second one on the input documents there, and I think the link is also going to be put into the chat room. I mean, so here, as you will recall, we have said that we're going to start, for instance, the Call for Workshop Proposals on the 4th of March, and it has all the other deadlines as well, so it's good just to keep that in mind.
And I don't have any other updates to give, unless somebody wants to know something that I've skipped. Thank you, Lynn. Back to Lynn.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Chengetai. We'll give a moment to see if anybody else wants to come in. I have one or two quick kind of comments. Maybe with the timeline, is it possible to keep it really front and center on the Home Page so that everybody sees it, not just, obviously, the MAG, but if there's something we can do to really kind of accentuate it, that would be great. And there's the Timeline right there.
I'd like to also recognize and thank DCAD, in particular, Andrea Saks for her work with us on accessibility, and, you know, as she said, all the platforms have some kind of issues, not one of them meets every need, but it was felt that some of the -- that it was important to try some of these other -- other tools to see if they were a better fit, so I want to recognize all of her efforts in supporting this and also Chengetai and Luis Bobo in particular for their various evaluations and work to move this forward. It's been a fairly heavy lift.
And then, finally, re: Berlin, I wouldn't book your hotels. I think the German Ministry that Dr. Bernstrip is a part of, has three locations in Berlin, and they are fairly far apart, so if people can hold off until we get the exact location, I think that would -- would work out best, or you'll have a lovely long walk through Berlin.
So no one -- I'm not seeing anyone --
>> RUDOLF: This is Rudolf from Germany, just to give some clarifications on the venue.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Excellent, Rudolf.
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: Not 100%, but most probably the convention will be in the ministry in the Scharnhorst, S-c-h-a-r-n-h-o-r-s-t, and then Street, so that is in the center and close to the main station, so if you book a hotel around the main station, this will be very close to our ministry, and the other venues of the ministry are not so that far away, so -- but most probably it will be held there.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Rudolf. Thank you. It was very helpful. And as soon as it's confirmed, we'll make sure that the MAG is made aware.
Okay. So moving to Agenda Item 3, I just have a very short introduction, and then we'll turn it over to the various Working Groups that have been formed. One is to thank everybody, again, for all the great participation and support at the last and first face-to-face MAG meeting. I think we covered a lot of ground, and, of course, that's enabled by having additional time in which to manage all of our preparations this year. So, I mean, in particular, you know, I want to note that we all paid, I think, attention to the various reviews that we've seen over all the years and really took a hard look at what we might do to advance some improvements across the IGF ecosystem.
You know, particular focus was on delivering a cohesive focused programme of work, and then, of course, including Best Practice Forums and as well as a programme of the annual meeting itself and that there was also a lot of discussion on what else we might do to increase the collaboration between -- across the IGF community, across the IGF ecosystem with the work of the Dynamic Coalitions and the national, regional, and youth IGF initiatives, and, of course, that work will be ongoing throughout the year.
I think the -- I think the only other point to mention quickly is the MAG did decide to focus on three main themes this year. I don't know that the names are final yet, but the three areas, as we recognized them in the meeting, were Cybersecurity and Safety or maybe just Security and Safety, Inclusion, and Data Governance. Those themes were supported by the results of the most recent community Call for Issues, and, of course, the hope is that we'll create a programme that will actually help us advance the -- the most important -- I think the Secretary General used the word "consequential," the most consequential areas. It's also hoped with the process that we're taking here with the short narrative or the shared reference, that that will actually help pull together work that's happening across the ecosystem in a bottom-up manner, supporting the distributed nature of everything that happens across the IGF ecosystem but really allowing us to maximize the impact of all of our efforts.
I think those three themes will probably end up with two subthemes each. I think the Secretariat and I would hope that we'll manage to keep it at two subthemes. If not, by the time we're done, in fact, I think we would then have an IGF that looked like the last two years' IGFs with, you know, another ten tracks or something, so we will have moved away, I think, from really trying to advance the areas that were seen as the -- the -- I guess the priority for this year. So I just, again, kind of include that as background there.
I think what I'd like to do now is to ask the -- there's a group of people that have been working on the Workshop Evaluation process, and Jutta sent a note from herself and Sylvia and Susan, I guess, with support from Ben Wallis as well, to the MAG yesterday, and maybe we should start by reviewing that, and then -- and I'm not even sure, Jutta -- Susan, that may be combining 3 and 4, which is the Workshop Prep on Evaluation, unless you're thinking that really is the MAG review process, but I will let you walk through that, and feel free to combine 4 if that makes most sense.
And then we'll work through the updates from the three individual kind of main theme areas that are there. And, again, Veni, I will watch the time as well to make sure we get the BPF on Cybersecurity in.
So with that, let me turn it over to some combination of Jutta, Susan, and Sylvia.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Lynn, for giving us the floor for the group or the group in preparation, I would say. I know from Susan that she's somewhere busy, so she might chime in, but she's asked me to explain a little bit our previous thoughts on how we could start or kick off the work of the group.
First of all, I'd like to explain why we had sent out that email in advance yesterday, and that is because we were under the impression that there was a little bit of confusion about how the three Working Groups working on the narratives on the Working Group on Workshop Evaluation, and we do think that, as explained in our email from yesterday, that the two processes are very much interlinked and that it's necessary that we, from the beginning of preparing the narratives, which will then, afterwards, be part of the call for workshop proposals, to ensure that we get good-quality workshop proposals. These narratives are very much linked to the afterwards process of Workshop Evaluation, and so it's -- from our perspective, it seems to be very considerate to have in mind how are these narratives designed in order to help, then, afterwards in the evaluation process. That is why we -- first we got the impression that not all groups were sure how to work on the narratives since there wasn't a template that we agreed on and it wasn't also not quite clear whether the template was produced among the members of the three narrative groups or should also be prepared by the Working Group on Workshop Evaluation with some people being overlapping into groups.
So what we would like to suggest is that we -- hopefully we could agree on one of the various and slightly different templates for the narratives in our call today or maybe directly afterwards so that the three groups that were working on the narratives on the content then could either start or finalize the work that they have already started on the narratives.
And then the Working Group on Workshop Evaluation would build on the -- the template and the narratives itself to design the process for Workshop Evaluation, and that is -- more or less it was outlined in the -- in the proposal that we've sent out yesterday. We've already received some additional comments on this, and I'm not sure whether we should discuss all this now in the MAG meeting or whether it should be discussed in the Working Group on Workshop Evaluation. I'm not sure about the formalities, what's in the mind of our MAG or what should be discussed in the Working Group.
So if you want me, I can walk you through the next steps that we had proposed, but maybe it's also the point of time where you first step in with questions and then I explain that in my next answer.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I think that's a good idea, Jutta. Let's see if there are any -- any questions. While we're waiting for people to get in the queue, I think that -- to your question with respect to where some of the work is done, which also, of course, leads to where decisions are taken, that that's always been kind of the ---the main role has been kind of no surprises, reduce the elements of surprise. If it's a substantive change from past practices, then I think the MAG needs to very much be notified and likely review and agree on the change. If, you know -- we've -- last year we actually had regular updates from the Working Groups so people could signal the work they were working on and where the work was likely headed so that the MAG was informed, and, of course, it gave us the opportunity to clarify any questions with respect to the MAG role vs. the Working Group role.
So I -- you know, I think in terms of the, you know, hard work, if you will, or the detailed work of reviewing processes and plans and recommendations, I think that takes place in the Working Group. Just make sure that we're kind of signaling any significant changes as they progress to the full MAG, and, you know, if you're ever not sure about whether or not something needs to be a decision or approved by the full MAG, then feel free to ask myself, the Secretariat, or post the question to the MAG list as well.
So I used up a little time there, but I don't see any other questions on the -- okay. But I do have a separate message. Susan has just managed to dial in. She's in transit to a meeting but would like to make some comments, so, Susan, you have the floor. She is the -- she's informing me she's the 202 number, call-in user 2. Yes.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Hello. Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: We can hear you, Susan, yes.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Great. Yes. Thank you. I just -- I wanted to thank you Jutta for that very detailed and accurate explanation of kind of the issue that we had discussed; that is, the issue about the interplays between the narratives group as well as the Workshop Working Group, and I guess I just wanted to thank Jutta for that intervention and be available to answer any questions that folks might have. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Susan.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Maybe -- with regard to the process, I do think that the Working Group on Workshop Evaluation will try to meet early next week. We are trying to find a time and date when it's -- it will work for the members that have signed in so far, and then we will have another Virtual MAG meeting on I think it's the 27th of February, so we -- we would then be a few days in advance before the Call for Workshop Proposals should go out, and then it might be a possible way that we try to send to the MAG -- to the whole MAG our suggestions how the Call for Workshop Proposals is in line with the process of evaluation before we have the next MAG meeting on the 27th of February so that there is another meeting where we can discuss whether that is -- all that is suggested by the Working Group is in line with -- with what the MAG thinks is considerate to do.
The only thing is that we would need Luis Bobo to be ready to prepare for some, at this point of time, we think minor additions or changes to the Workshop Proposal form, but we -- as we have not yet met as the whole group for Workshop Evaluation, we cannot right now say what these amendments or changes to the form would be. Does it make sense to you?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: It makes sense to me, Jutta, but let's see what -- if there are any questions from the MAG, any areas you'd like further discussion on at this point? Otherwise, we'll ask Jutta to -- you know, to continue. Natasa's saying it makes sense. There's some yeses. Not seeing anybody with any specific questions, Jutta, are there some areas you'd like to dive into a little bit more? Do you want to try and advance the template or do you think that's better done -- done offline?
>> JUTTA CROLL: So with regard to the template, I do think it -- the group is too -- covers too many people to discuss this online. I suggest that anyone who has any suggestions for the template should send that directly to the -- to -- either to the MAG list or if you have signed up to the Workshop Evaluation group list so that we can take that in consideration. What we would like to remind of is the template for the narratives, and then after they're ready for use, narratives should be as concise as possible and as short as possible. For example, I went through (No audio) items for Workshop Proposals, and this is such a lengthy document that in the end I got under the impression that not very many people who had proposed a Workshop Proposal had really gone through that whole list. This was mirrored in the proposals that we got that many, just not at that. The shorter we are in the narratives and also in the call for Workshop Proposals and in the guidance we give to proposers, the better people might understand and might follow the instructions. Otherwise, with such lengthy documents -- although I value everything that is written there, but I just do think not many people have really taken that into account when they produce their proposals, so that's with regard to the template.
I do think it should be also as short as possible to ensure that people really read it and then understand how that is related to their proposal, and that is why we suggested -- and that is also in the mail that we've sent out yesterday that it's necessary to -- in the narrative to make clear how these themes or issues like security, safety, stability, and resilience are related to Internet Governance.
Why is it necessary to deal with these themes at the Internet Governance Forum? We are somehow part of the inner circle of the IGF ecosystem, so for us, it might be self-understood that safety is an issue in regard of Internet Governance, but if we consider -- take into account newcomers to the IGF, people who send in their first Workshop Proposal, they might just not realize where is the linkage between Internet Governance and what is on their mind as a very pressing issue that should be dealt with at the IGF, so we do think it's necessary to make people aware that they need to consider that and then also lay down in their Workshop Proposal. That's one point that we think is necessary to have it in the narrative, explain, people please see there is a link between inclusion and access between -- and Internet Governance between Data Governance and Internet Governance and between security and safety and Internet Governance.
And then I -- I really think a narrative could be -- could consist of two or three paragraphs and nothing else to make sure that people can understand and take into account.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Jutta, can we --
>> JUTTA CROLL: I do think --
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, I think the point that you've made -- I just think the points that you've made are very good and really important, and we'll make sure they're called out clearly in the Meeting Summary as well, but would also ask, I think, MAG members to review them and think about them carefully as well.
Just before we get too far, I think it's a good idea to talk about -- and I guess the way to think about it is kind of linkages between those three main themes and Internet Governance, not definitions per se because definitions are always tricky in terms of ensuring that they're, you know, both broad enough and complete enough at the same time, so is that -- is that an appropriate understanding that it's more about defining the linkages between those themes and Internet Governance and why they matter and why this is a place to address them as opposed to trying to define the themes?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, definitely. So we thought that it would be useful to refer directly to the Definition that we already have of "Internet Governance," and then just in the narratives explain the linkage between this definition that is of Internet Governance that is already there and each of the three main themes.
With regard to definitions, we should not try to define the themes, we just should clarify what we understand with the term "inclusion," for example. In the European context, the term "inclusion" is very often focused on inclusion of people with disabilities, but I do think within the IGF ecosystem, we have a broader understanding of "inclusion" to all societal groups, so that would be helpful to explain that a term that we use for the main themes is not reduced to one meaning but is -- is explained that with inclusion, we mean inclusion of all groups, for example, and the same counts for safety and security, which has a slightly different meaning, which it should be explained why we use those terms and what we would like to address with that. So just to make the narratives also as comprehensible as possible.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay. And just to make sure -- I want to make sure -- Susan, I know, is on the phone. If Susan wants to jump in, don't worry about trying to signal some way that you're in the queue, Susan. I know you're traveling at the moment. Just, you know, when we take a breath, I guess, jump in. The but, Jutta, sorry, I interrupted you. I just didn't want to let the conversation get too far away from that last point, so why don't you continue, and we'll see if Susan or Ben or anyone wants to come in after.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Oh, can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Oh, yes, we can, Susan. Yeah.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Okay. Sorry. Hi. Hi, everyone, and thank you for this. No, I think this is a good way to proceed, what we've just outlined what the suggestion would be and the narratives to kind of describe -- describe these themes and then Jutta's idea of trying to address the nexus to Internet Governance within the narrative, maybe referring some folks to the WGIG definition, but that's just an idea, but I think that would be useful to help kind of narrow -- narrow or contain the themes what we're generally trying to do, and then when we get to the Workshop Evaluation criteria, that discussion, also asking the proposer to describe the nexus to Internet Governance of the proposed policy question or topic so that way you have it coming from both sides. I think that helps address some of the points or concerns that were raised by members of the Open Consultation about -- about the relevance to Internet Governance, that question, so I think both weaving it into the narrative, as Jutta suggested, and also asking the proposer to address that in their Workshop Proposal would be helpful, but I agree, Lynn, regarding the definitions, I think that the narrative that -- the way that we've decided to go forward, the narrative will have a more -- a broader and more encompassing impact as opposed to trying to define the term per se, so I -- I really do think that we're in a great spot right now. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Susan. Ben, did you want to come in, or Jutta, is there something you want to continue with? I think there's still topics to be covered here. Ben says nothing to add at this point. Jutta, do you want to continue?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, of course. Thank you. I do think we have covered most of the issues that are important at this point of time if you go through the rough outline of the steps that the Working Group on Workshop Evaluation has proposed.
Our next step would be to clarify the work and to develop the Terms of Reference for the Working Group. Then we also would like to review the Workshop Evaluation criteria and modify them as needed, and one suggestion that came in by Titi was that we also should take into account that we want to encourage youth participation and proposals sent in by youth. That's another question that we cannot answer right now because we have not dealt with it, but it will be taken into consideration by the Working Group and then see how that fits into the form because we do think it's necessary to have the evaluation criteria ready when the form is adopted to the new process.
Then a suggestion was that we either develop mock proposals or choose from last year's examples some that had scored very highly to give people a better understanding what makes a good proposal, and thanks to Luis, who was very quick in sending in a list of the ranks of the Workshop Proposals from last year, so we will have a look at that and then decide whether these are fit for purpose to act as a good practice example how to build a good workshop proposal, and then also, we thought when having the criteria in the form, we would also put at the end before the button to submit the proposal a very short checklist which reminds proposers to check have you really thought through the linkage between your issue, your proposed theme and Internet Governance, have you really considered that you need to have gender balance, diversity in regard of stakeholder and regional representative, have you really considered X, Y, Z so that before submitting, before clicking this is my proposal, people will be reminded just to have a last thought whether they have done everything to make it a very good proposal.
That would be the working steps that we have to do within the next two weeks, more or less, shorter maybe, within the next ten days, to submit it to the Secretariat so that it could be implemented in the proposal or the form for Workshop Proposals. Then the call shall be out on March 4th, I do think. And then all the next steps will depend on what we do within the next two weeks because it's -- it must decide how the process will go based on how -- what we are going to ask from the workshop proposers.
If we split these two processes, the generation of Workshop Proposals and then afterwards the Evaluation, into different steps, it will be more difficult to have a consistent evaluation process.
We will take into account the suggestions made by the Workshop Review and Evaluation group, headed by Raja in the last year and the year before and consider how we can implement that into the workshop evaluation process, but we were also aware that we have new MAG members this year who have not been part of the group the last two years who might have separate and different I December how the evaluation process could be done, and we shall also take these into consideration.
And then the steps will be -- we have the MAG review. I don't know how early we can set the time frame for when that will be done, and we have the in-person evaluation hearing the June meeting in Berlin, so I do think that's it for the moment. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta. And I want to join everyone who's thanked you and Sylvia and Susan, you know, and Ben as well for all the work. I think it's -- I think it's a great start, and we're fortunate that we have, you know, a lot of the processes fairly well defined, so hopefully it's improvements to those processes. And I also very much support the fact that we need to be clear on the criteria by which we're going to evaluate the proposals before the Call for Workshops go out, as you mentioned. We need to make sure we've got the right expectations set by those submitting proposers and, of course, that we're providing appropriate direction as well.
Not seeing any requests from the floor, maybe a final shout out to Susan and Ben to see if there's anything they'd like to add to this topic?
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Lynn. No, nothing to add.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Susan.
>> BEN WALLIS: Lynn, it's Ben here. I wonder -- on the agenda it talks about the Overall Template, I think, and so there's a question about the templates that the three kind of thematic Working Groups are using in order to develop the narrative and organize the subtopics. I didn't see that as part of the work Jutta was leading, and it's kind of -- our programme has driven it and put something out there, and now I think the Working Groups are using that, so I didn't know where you wanted to discuss it, but I was going to talk about it a little bit when we get to the Data Governance track.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yeah, I think that's a good place, either you or I don't know if it's even Paul in Inclusion. We could move to that first. I'm okay either way if people -- I think -- I think for the moment we're fairly clear on what Jutta's just presented, so I would suggest that we move to a high level view of the main -- the three main themes, and I'm more looking for kind of general high-level updates. If there's a specific question you have of the MAG or input or direction you're looking for, then -- then, obviously, call that out. Otherwise, I think the work is, you know, progressing well through the Working Groups, and that's probably where the detailed work needs to -- needs to happen, but why don't we try and go through those three next, and it would either be Data Governance, which I guess is you, Ben, Inclusion, which is Paul, and Safety and Security, which is Jutta.
>> BEN WALLIS: I'm happy to go first and follow the alphabet.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay.
>> BEN WALLIS: With D for data.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Not B for Ben?
>> BEN WALLIS: B for Ben, but not W for Wallis. So I first would say I'm not -- I'm not necessarily the appoint -- it felt like I was necessarily the appointed leader for this work, and I think it's worth remembering we go back to the face-to-face meeting. We already had the great work that was done by Maria Chenai, Natasa, and Helani on that Tuesday evening. They don't -- identified all the Data Governance issues that were mentioned during the discussion of our MAG meeting in Geneva as well as the ones that have been mentioned in responses to the Call for Issues, and they -- they then grouped those various topics under four subthemes, and they also provided a narrative, and Miguel Candia has sent some proposed edits to their document just two days ago, but we hadn't actually had much discussion since the last was set up last week, and so I did try and kick things off in the last couple of days.
As a starting point, we have an overall template to use, and Paul -- as I said, Paul has been very helpful in driving all of the groups forward by thinking about what a template could look like to help the groups produce their narrative and organize the subthemes and populate them with specific topics and policy questions, and I took that template, but I pared it back a bit and simplified it. That was -- it was partly to simplify what we were providing, given the short amount of time we have in the next two weeks, but I also updated the template to reflect the guidance that was provided in Chengetai's 5th of February email. That was particularly the request to limit each theme to having two subthemes.
So what I've done this week for Data Governance is I've circulated -- as I said, a slightly simplified template. It has two parts. It has the narrative, the one- or two-paragraph narrative that we've been asked to produce, and we already had a narrative provided by Maria's team. I've -- I've put that narrative into a Google Doc and I have made my own proposed edits to it yesterday, last night. They're mainly designed to -- to bring out, you know, links with Internet Governance but also you might remember I expressed in Geneva a concern that this is the kind of issue where it's -- you might help get business input if you can think about the business elements and business perspectives on Data Governance, as well as all of the other stakeholder perspectives and input and kind of human rights elements, so I proposed some edits there. That's all up for discussion.
For the subthemes and related policy questions, I drew on the various topics that have been gathered together by the team in Geneva, but that was done into groups. I've suggested grouping them into two subthemes, one on Data and Human Rights and the other one -- they've called it so far data -- Economic Development and Digital Sovereignty, and so then I've -- within those two subthemes, I've put the issues that have been identified by -- by the team in Geneva. I've also added to them and I fleshed out a lot of policy questions for each of them.
So as it stands -- and as I say, this is really only taking the document from Geneva and with my own additions, but as it stands, we have two subthemes and underneath the first subtheme we have four priority topics, and underneath the second subtheme we have five priority topics. I won't go through and list them, but if people are signed up to the -- the Working Group for Data Governance, they'll have received a link to the Google document, and I can -- I can put a link into the chat now as well just for illustrative purposes so that people who aren't signed up to the list can see what I've suggested. But if people want to get involved, yes, I'm going to send a link to the Google Doc, but I certainly ask that they -- well, thanks, Eleanor, for that in the chat. I would suggest people sign up to the list so they're able to see the discussion going on in the mailing list as well as the document being developed as a Google Doc.
So, yes, that's what I wanted to add for now. Lynn, I'm sure there might be some other people within the Working Group that would like to add comments.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ben. You say notice. I think the last time I scanned the list quickly, both Chenai and Natasa are on the call if there's anything they want to add. If so, please just take the floor. Chenai says nothing from her side at the moment. And Natasa, nothing to add at the moment as well.
I would add that I think the mailing list, even to these Working Groups, are all open, the list itself, the archive, so if you wanted to drop in and see without signing up for the group, you have that ability as well, but I think we do need to make sure that those people that have an interest in this topic do join the Working Group effort. Time is fairly short for all of these as well, so I think it's important that we get your inputs in throughout the process.
And maybe as we go to the next two, we could ask Paul and Jutta to just kind of share any reflections you have on the template. I think it's important that, at the end of the day, we have a consistent template across all three main themes if you think about this from the workshop proposer's point of view, so if you have any thoughts at this point in the template, maybe just share that quickly. And if not, I think that we should take that as an offline exercise and get the three groups to look at the various templates and agreeing --
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Lynn, Paul here.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Hi, Paul. Could somebody please mute the other line in the background? I think it may be Rudolf. Paul, just a second. I'm sure people are having difficulty hearing. Could someone please mute --
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: It seems the background does, indeed, come from Paul's line.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Oh, okay. Then, Paul, you have the floor.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Yeah. Hi, Lynn. Let me move to someplace a little more quiet. Just on the template, we had several rounds between the different Working Groups, and I think we've come to a consensus on a common template that we're all working from. I will stand on the correction on that, but I believe right now we do have fundamentally the same templates. There will be commonality on that moving forward.
On the template -- it's similar to what we started with with a few changes. I think we could share the template with the MAG to see if there's any objection. I think it works in general based on the discussions that we had in Geneva and meets the objectives of the specific groups to get their thoughts out on those particular themes.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Paul. That's very helpful. And, yes, we should make sure the transcript notes that it was Paul Rowney speaking and not Charlton.
Paul, do you want to give an update on Inclusion?
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Yes. The -- just quickly on inclusion, we -- we've got a shared document in Google Docs again, and our team on the Working Group have diligently started to work on this. We have three subthemes right now. We are looking to see how we can consolidate those into two subthemes to maintain consistency. We have between four and five priority topics that we've identified so far for each subtheme.
The main subthemes that we have right now on Inclusion are Access, Adoption, and Application. So what -- the main work that's happening now, really, is around the illustrated priority questions that are aligned to those priority topic areas, so we're starting to share thoughts, and then, of course, each project topic will be aligned to one of the UN -- one or more of the UN SDGs. We've got -- I think we're quite close to our narrative. We just need to review it just to make sure it does clarify how our thoughts of inclusion applies to the Internet Governance and how it's going to enhance the -- enhance the opportunities around driving inclusion, et cetera.
So what we're striving to do from our Working Group is to have a first working draft that could be shared with the MAG by Monday next week, the general comments, and then we can accommodate any of those comments for a final that should be available by the middle of next week or end of next week latest.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Paul. That's really good progress, and thank you again for all the leadership you showed during the MAG meeting as well by kicking the topic off.
Any comments or questions for Paul? Not seeing any, then, let's move to Jutta for Safety and Security.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Lynn, for giving me the floor. This will be a really short update. I can say that with regard to the template, I think we are on the same page with the other two groups. The template pared down a bit by Ben Wallis seems to be ready for purpose for the Safety, Security, Stability, and Resilience group as well.
It seems with regard to working on the narrative itself, we have not come very much further than we've been in Geneva since we somehow were waiting so far for agreement -- consent on the template. Nonetheless, it seems a bit difficult to concentrate on only two subthemes since we already have three -- four different terms in the title of the group, so we will try to achieve that, but I'm not sure whether it will be successful, given the differences in the understanding of these four terms, but we will try to do so in the end and then also prioritize the topics that shall be dealt with under the three subthemes -- the two subthemes for this narrative.
So I understood that the working with the Google Doc was working quite well for the other two groups, so we will set up this within today or tomorrow and then invite people who have joined the Working Group on Security and Safety to work with us so that hopefully in one week's time we will also be able to present a Draft Narrative to the whole of the MAG.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta, and thank you for your efforts to combine as well. Again, the titles are not --
>> JUTTA CROLL: I'm sorry.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Go ahead.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Sorry to interrupt. I forgot one point that I do think is important for the three Narrative Groups, and that is when we were in Geneva, we came to the conclusion that there are some cross-cutting issues related to all the three main themes, and I've not heard yet from Ben or Paul how you're dealing with those cross-cutting themes that came out of the Call for Issues in your two narratives. I have that on the slide that we said legal and regulatory issues is a cross-cutting issue for all the three narratives, and I'm not sure how we will deal with that. Maybe Paul or -- and/or Ben can explain how you were dealing with these cross-cutting issues. Thank you. Sorry for interrupting.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: No, no, no, absolutely no problem, Jutta. And my point was just going to be with respect to the title, I don't think that we firmly fixed any of the four titles of the main themes, so, you know, if there's a further consolidation that you think is more helpful, then feel free to do that. As I said, I don't think any of them were firmly fixed.
I'll see if Ben or Paul want to come in in a moment, but one quick comment on Google Docs. I know in past years, Google Docs have given individuals difficulty, they can't access them in their organizational contexts. If that is a problem, then I would simply ask those individuals to note that, and I'm sure the Working Group members will -- will, you know, export them in an appropriate -- in an appropriate format, but I don't want anybody to think that they shouldn't participate or can't participate if they're not able to easily access Google Docs.
Ben or Paul, any comments or response to Jutta's question on the cross-cutting issues? It
>> BEN WALLIS: If I could just -- Paul go first.
>> PAUL ROWNEY: Was that P before B? From our side, we haven't really looked into the cross-cutting issues much. I think what would possibly be useful is between the groups we just identify what we believe to be the cross-cutting issues so we're all under the same understanding, and we can incorporate that into our document. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Paul. Ben.
>> BEN WALLIS: As I kind of looked at the narrative and -- for the Data Governance and fleshed out policy questions, there were a few areas where I used the term "legal and regulatory frameworks" and where that seemed to be part of the issue to where and when and to what extent our legal and regulatory responses and framework's the right response to this particular issue, so I guess that I hadn't thought of it as a cross-cutting issue, I thought of it as there were elements that were relevant to Data Governance, and I've tried to reflect those, so I don't know if that's helpful or if there's -- whether they could be seen as, you know, legal and regulatory issues are relevant to all of the themes but that you kind of reflect them in the way you -- you flesh out the illustrative policy questions rather than having it as a single cross-cutting issue. I'm not sure that makes sense, but, yeah, I -- I certainly reflected that there were legal and regulatory questions related to the Data Governance topic, but I kind of tried to incorporate them in the narrative and in the policy questions related to the topics themselves.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I think your point and Paul's and Jutta's is all complementary. I mean, I tend to think of legal and regulatory as an issue within a bigger theme, as you're saying here, but I think if people consider your point, could follow Paul's suggestion, which is identifying any issues that they think may be kind of uniquely cross-cutting, and then pick it up from there across the three Working Groups is probably the best next step.
Jutta, any further comments or reflections on that, as you brought the issue up?
>> JUTTA CROLL: I do think what both of the colleagues said fits very well, so understanding the issues as elements of the -- of the narrative and of the policy questions, that might be useful. My point is that it -- people who have taken part in the Call for Issues should find what they have put into the process back in the narrative, so if that relation is given -- and as Ben has explained, he has referred to legal frameworks and regulatory frameworks within the narrative, so people will understand that when they had marked that out in the Call for Issues that that's important for them and they find it, then, afterward in the word of the narratives, that would be a perfect, good solution. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta. I'm not seeing any requests for the floor, and it's just gone top of the hour. If people are okay, I would now move to the discussion on the rechartering of the two BPFs and start with the Cybersecurity BPF, and then, Jutta, give you a moment to see whether or not you want to come back to -- it was Item 4, which is review emerging suggestions from the Working Group on Prep and Eval. I'm not sure -- I'll come back after we complete the BPF rechartering discussion.
So Cybersecurity BPF, is that Ben, Markus, Maarten?
>> BEN WALLIS: I think that's -- unfortunately, for people who've heard enough of my voice this morning, I think that's going to be me. I know -- yeah, Markus is on the call, and maybe he'll want to add, but I can talk to this, seeing as I circulated an email already to the MAG.
So -- and, by the way, I think we've lost Veni, but I can also touch base with him offline after the meeting. So --
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Did we? He was supposed to be here for an hour and a half.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: I'm online. I'm online. I'm on the phone.
>> BEN WALLIS: Sorry, Veni. That's good. So, yes, as we remember from the meeting back in Geneva, there were -- there's support for the BPF to look at this, but there were concerns that this shouldn't be done to the exclusion of looking at other relevant Cybersecurity initiatives, and particularly that the two initiatives coming out of the United Nations were referenced as ones that deserved the attention of the IGF this year.
So what Markus and I did with our lead expert, Maarten Van Horanbeeck, was to go back to our proposal and to try and broaden it up to provide some examples of some other recent initiatives and to broaden the proposal so that it would look at various initiatives and see if there are best practices that could be identified that would help drive forward those initiatives by helping signatories and -- to those initiatives, see how they might implement any commitments they've made within those initiatives.
So we also fleshed out the proposal a bit by making clearer that there will be a two-step process. That would be a first step where we would kind of do a background paper for the BPF -- within the BPF, which would identify what are the relevant initiatives out there and what are the elements within them that we might want to look at and ideally to focus on a set number of elements.
I'm sorry for that. Can you still hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: We can, yes.
>> BEN WALLIS: Great. Yes. There's two steps. The first step this year will be to identify all the relevant initiatives and what are the elements within those initiatives that the BPF would like to look at, and then the second step would be to go ahead and see if we can identify best practices that match to those elements.
I -- we were able to have a call of the BPF on Monday, and I circulated the revised proposal to the BPF ahead of that call, and there were some ideas about how we could take the work forward in the first stage. There weren't any objections to the way the proposal had been revised, so I circulated it to the MAG yesterday. I did receive comments from Susan Chalmers, who wanted to clarify that we were -- when we talked about commitments, whether we were talking about the Paris Call as a commitment or whether we were talking about commitments within the Paris Call, and they refer to elements within initiatives rather than commitments, and so I took onboard that wording and recirculated the document to the MAG and seeking the approval of the MAG to take this work forward following the revisions we've made to try and reflect the comments we received back at the face-to-face meeting.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ben. Any comments or questions from the -- from the MAG? I mean, the -- my recollection of the discussion in our face-to-face meeting was that people were generally supportive of the direction but, as Ben said, thought it should be -- should also include some other initiatives, which has now been done.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Lynn, this is Veni.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Hi, Veni.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify something. It's -- it wasn't so much that we should cover other existing initiatives, but it was more about -- it's a way to say there are a lot of initiatives taking place around the world dealing with security, stability, and safety of the Internet, and instead of us going to those initiatives to present what the IGF is doing, we should be asking them to come and tell us what they're doing. This is just a small clarification, nothing -- nothing more.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Veni. That -- I mean, that's true. I remember that -- that point as well.
Ben, any reflection, Markus?
>> BEN WALLIS: So I think, if I remember going back to the proposal, I think there's certainly an idea that we would invite those people to the session in Berlin at the culmination of the work. I don't know how explicit that is within our proposal, but it's something the BPF can do. The BPF, if it's approved it, it can work, you know, within its list during the year on a report and it can think about how to reach out to get inputs to its report, and then it would have its session at the meeting in Berlin where it can invite relevant people to come in and talk to us, so I think are a couple of ideas to do just what Veni's saying, which is trying -- bringing those initiatives and get them to come and talk to the IGF or feed what they're doing into the BPF, but I take on Veni's comment and thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Ben, can I just spend a few more minutes on that, I think? I know the BPF, in particular the BPF on Cybersecurity, has been, you know, active in terms of trying to engage more broadly beyond the kind of usual suspects, if we can use those terms. Isn't this an opportunity to really engage with the GGE and the Open-Ended Working Group, and I understand there are complexities within that engagement, but to engage with them now as they both imagine and organize their work for the year and I'm not quite sure what that engagement might look like.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Lynn.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Veni, yes.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Sorry. Because I'm not online to put my hand up.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: No, no, you have the floor.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: The -- these two groups, by November, will have the -- I mean even earlier, they'll have their chairs, we'll know who -- you know, of the -- it will be perfect to actually reach out and talk to them. In fact, the Open-Ended Working Group first meeting is in June, around the same date that we're meeting in Berlin, so we may be able -- I think we're just a couple of days later, so we may be able, actually, to hear from them probably remotely, so that's just a note.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: No, and I think, Ben, was it Maarten who forwarded a link, which I scanned very quickly last night, which basically said that the GGE and the OEWG have laid out their plans and activities and schedule for the next two years already online? I think the question still stands, which is make sure that we are thinking as kind of broadly as we can about how we can engage the Paris Call as they work through their own agenda over the coming year.
>> BEN WALLIS: Thanks, Lynn, and Veni, I'll definitely take that as an action to reach out to the people leading those proposals, those UN initiatives, and I might need to ask Veni for his assistance there. When Maarten and Markus and I had thought about it, we did reflect that those two initiatives might not have gotten particularly far in themselves when the BPF's trying to work on its report this year, and so we might -- that just might put in place natural limits the extent to which we can reflect the outputs of those UN initiatives, because there might not be any at that point, but it's -- as you say, we can certainly -- it provides a good basis for reaching out to them and making that connection and linking our work to this, so I will take that onboard as an action should the BPF be approved for this year.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ben.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: And sorry, Lynn, one more item. Outside of those two, we also have the Global Commission on Stability in Cybersecurity. We -- Cyberspace. We also have the other meeting in London to speak, so we should put out those calls to reach out and we know the people who are either running them, Secretariat, or et cetera, so we get a really good coverage, not only of the UN initiatives but also of other key elements of these discussions. Thanks.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Veni. Good points. In fact, the GCSC has reached out to us in the last two meetings, one in Singapore as well, for the participation, so the BPF on Cybersecurity, so they're clearly looking for, you know, collaboration there as well.
Let me see if there are any other comments, reflections. Markus, I know you've been very active in this BPF since its -- since its start four, five years ago. Is there anything you want to add? Markus says nothing to add.
So, I mean, I think the questions -- the BPFs are chartered by the MAG, with the -- and maybe this is a question first to Ben. I mean, do you feel you can kind of accommodate the comments that have been made here in the current Charter or are there some slight modifications required, and then the question will be, of course, to the MAG, how comfortable are they approving this BPF? But, again, do you think your current Charter is complete enough or would there be at least slight modifications?
>> BEN WALLIS: I'm not sure we'd need to modify the document. I mean, we've -- their proposal -- we've referred to the GGE, CSC, for example, and the proposal already had that as an example, but, as I said there, the first stage of the work would be to go out and identify what the relevant initiatives are, and as part of that, we would probably want to reach out to those various initiatives themselves and make them aware of our work, so I don't think that's a problem at all, and I can make that clear when I report back to the BPF that this is something that we would do as part of our proposal.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Ben. Is the MAG prepared to approve this BPF? Do we require more time to look at it? I mean, I will say that I think the additions were relatively minor based on the review we had at the face-to-face meeting a few weeks ago, so it's now been in front of the MAG for approximately three weeks. I see Carlos is requesting the floor. Carlos, you have the floor.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Okay. Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, we can.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Okay. Great. You asked if MAG is interested in approving this BPF. I think -- well, my personal view is that we should approve it. That's it.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Okay. Thank you, Carlos. Ananda, you have the floor.
>> RAJ ANANDA KHANAL: Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: You're very faint, but yes. Can you continue, Ananda, and maybe just speak up?
>> RAJ ANANDA KHANAL: ITU, the International Telecommunication Union, is working on the global Cybersecurity agenda since 2008, and it's producing Cybersecurity -- Global Security Index for the last three years. I think the work of ITU should also be integrated in this particular work that we are proposing. Thank you very much.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ananda. I'm assuming that Ben would say that that is one that they will take into account in their first step as well when they look at other activities and efforts, given that's what he said a few moments ago.
So I see lots of approved and agree with continuing with the BPF. Let me just see, is there anybody who has any strong objections to approving the BPF? Just give everybody a moment either in the chat room or to come in. Doing a slow count to six, I'm not seeing any objections. I think we will note that the MAG has approved this BPF and ask the Secretariat to put all the website, and thank you to the BPFs for turning this around so quickly as well.
So that brings us to the second BPF on Gender and Access, which, as you recall, the proposed Charter was actually circulated during the face-to-face meeting. There was very little discussion on it, as it had just been circulated during the meeting, so this is the introduction, if you will, to the BPF, and Raquel, are you the person who's going to speak to that?
>> RAQUEL GATTO: Hi, Lynn. Hi, everyone. I don't know if Maria is on the call.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: No. I don't think so.
>> RAQUEL GATTO: I can briefly talk about it. As of now, the BPF on Gender has been focused since the past three years, it has evolved into different topics from gender violence and abuse to more focused agenda on access issues and gender equality, and building on the work that has been done and within the discussions we had in IGF Paris on the future of this BPF, one of the recommendations include the past leads check from ATC who has been leading the BPF for a while, has suggested to make it on -- on a concrete topic around digital economy and how the access issues impact -- the future -- for example, the future of jobs and then the education and skills for women and girls, so integrating also with more timely discussions.
So overall, that's the proposal, to continue to have this focus on -- on the digital economy, the digital society, and it's still bringing -- we need to continue to look at the concrete examples, and that's a successful methodology in gathering the concrete examples from the ground and building from that the policy recommendations for enabling this environment. And I hope that -- that's a general overview, but if you have any questions or updates to the document, we're also happy to take onboard.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Raquel. I think it also speaks to some of our inclusion focus as well.
Let me see if there are any comments or questions.
I'm a little worried that maybe since this came out in the middle of the last MAG meeting, which was a very busy period, and it's been busy since then, that maybe this hasn't quite had the review it should have by the MAG, so I think the question in front of us is, is the MAG -- have the MAG members reviewed the proposal and are you prepared to approve or not approve it, or should we take this to the list and give everybody another week to review it? I'm just really looking as to whether or not people have spent the time with the proposal that they're comfortable taking a position on it or do we need some additional time?
Ananda, you have the floor.
>> RAJ ANANDA KHANAL: On the gender issue, ITU has been working very well, and International Girls United is one of the initiatives that I feel has started. That happens before the first day of April every year, and this encourages the young girls to adopt the ICT as a career, bring awareness, build capacities, and there is -- it is one of the action items that IGF has been doing, so I think we can have a better collaboration with ITU and come up with this best practice. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Ananda. I know in the past there's been work with the ITU EQUALS Programme as well and through the BPF, but Raquel, is there any additional comment you'd like to make to that?
>> RAQUEL GATTO: Yes. Thank you, Lynn, and thank you, Ananda. Indeed, ITU EQUALS has been collaborating already with this BPF, this BPF Gender, and in the outline that we have circulated -- that Maria has circulated on the list, and I think Eleonora just put it in, it has a specific action for collaborating further with -- with the EQUALS Programme, but it's good to remind us that it -- not only EQUALS but the G20 that has a specific group of engagement around women and so on, we can include others. It's very helpful. Thank you. And anyone also interested to join -- Lynn, I'm sorry to jump in, but I forgot to mention -- the list is always open to anyone who is interested to join the efforts. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Raquel. And it's an important point. I mean, the BPFs are a significant sort of additional stream of work that the MAG has a significant role in as well, so it's -- obviously, it's open very broadly and open to the community. The MAG members are encouraged to participate in the BPFs. It's one of the more sort of specific output streams, if you will, from the -- from the IGF.
So I see some comments in the room supporting approving and continuing with this BPF, not a lot, it would be fair to say, I think, but is there anybody -- I'm going to ask two questions. One is going to be is there anybody who feels that we should allow another week to review this? And the second one, depending on that question, would be, are there any objections to approving it so we make sure we cover it from both sides? So, first, is there anyone who feels there should be additional time for MAG review for the BPF? I see Jutta asking for another week. I see more comments that they're okay. Just waiting for the comments to come in the chat room here.
I guess one of the difficulties, of course, is it does delay the call for consultants, unless -- maybe I'll ask the Secretariat -- I see more comments coming, okay with BPF and happy to support it, okay. I saw two comments looking for some additional -- an additional week for review, but the bulk of the comments -- and Jutta's saying she doesn't want to stop this going forward.
Maybe we could ask the Secretariat to go ahead with the Call for Consultants so that that happens as one effort. If Jutta is okay going ahead and Mamadou -- we have two choices, either we approve it this week and we ask Jutta, Mamadou, and folks to maybe give it a quick read and get back to the organizers, and if there was kind of minimal changes required, they could do that, it's so substantive or a substantive disagreement, then I think we would bring it back formally for approval, but maybe we can call this tentatively approved so that the Secretariat can go ahead, ask Jutta and Mamadou to review it in the coming days, and if you could signal to the BPF proposers your view, any comments, questions, or support for going ahead, that will help us close the -- close the loop.
So Jutta's saying that works for her. And Mamadou is saying it works for him as well, that he'll come back with some notes, so appreciate that, everybody. And thanks to those that are working on the BPFs. It's obviously a very important area and appreciate all the effort.
So let's move back up, then, to Item 4, which was Review Emerging Suggestions from the Working Group on Workshop Prep and Evaluation. Some of this was covered in the earlier review, but Jutta, Susan, or Sylvia, although I think you two are the only one on the call still, any other items you'd like to bring up, please do that now.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Lynn. There are only a few things that I think would be helpful to try to clarify right now, and then the group can continue working and we could postpone the whole issue to the next scheduled MAG meeting. There are three things that I just wanted to put into the discussion.
One thing -- one point came in by Mamadou when he suggested to evaluate the workshops executed on-site during IGF, and I'm sorry, but I'm not sure whether I really got the meaning of your suggestion, Mamadou. Probably you could explain what you -- what you mean with your suggestion. That would be really helpful.
>> MAMADOU LO: Can you hear me? Can you hear me?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes.
>> MAMADOU LO: Okay. I was just explaining that how, as a rule, we can also relate the workshop in -- during -- on set -- on-site because I think that during the IGF, when the workshop is happening, I think we -- the -- we need to have some MAG members there or someone there to see what was really happening in -- during the workshop taking place and then perhaps giving a MAG in order to have a grade for the workshop. I was just thinking of that. I know that it is not easy as that, but I've been thinking that that will help us to grade the workshop as a rule. I think this can help, Jutta.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. I -- now I understand. So what you are proposing is that once we have had our evaluation process and have decided which workshops shall happen during IGF and shall be part of the programme, we also do an evaluation when the workshop is performed and see whether it fits into the expectation that we had when we decided this is a very good or an exceptional proposal in advance?
>> MAMADOU LO: Exactly.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. And that would help, then, for next year's evaluation process because we would better understand how the grades or scores we gave to the proposal have been mirrored in how the -- the workshop had been performed during IGF?
>> MAMADOU LO: Okay. Okay. That's only what I mean by this proposal.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. Thank you. I do think we can take that into account in the Working Group and discuss -- discuss whether it's possible to do, whether it's feasible, how MAG members should be involved, and everything. It has a lot of consequences, I think, but it's a really great idea because it would ease the whole process for next year probably.
The other two things that come from the -- the document the Working Group produced at the end of last year was that we suggested to have a trial evaluation session during one of the Virtual MAG meetings, and that was because in the last year, when we had the face-to-face meeting to decide on the workshop proposals, to finalize the evaluation process, we became aware that the MAG members had all kind of used different measuring scales. Although we had the scores from 1-5, it was different what one MAG member thought would be a 5, which means an excellent proposal, or a 4, which is a good proposal, that was different among MAG members, and so we came to the conclusion that it would be good to give this just a trial maybe on two or three workshop proposals that could be used as an example.
Maybe if we would be able to dedicate one hour of our next Virtual Meeting -- it must not be the next but maybe one shortly before we start with the whole evaluation of all the proposals, that would be very helpful.
And if -- if you agree, I would have a look at the calendar for the Virtual MAG meetings, and then the Working Group can suggest at which meeting it would fit best to have this trial of your evaluation session.
And the second thing was that -- it's also in the paper prepared by Raja that MAG members got the feeling that when you are somehow submerged with 70 or 80 proposals and we don't know how many will come in this year, when you go through all these proposals, you can't do that in one session, you need several days and hours to sit; therefore, the evaluation then -- you yourself might lose your awareness of how have I scored the first proposal and then the second and the last proposal. There might be differences in the calls over time, and that was why it was suggested to do the whole scoring on an Excel sheet where you can have a formula to see what is the average that you have graded for the workshop proposals, are you always in the average level or do you sometimes go to the highest scores or to the low scores, and then when you have finalized the whole process, this could be uploaded to the -- to the scoring or grading system, and this is also a question that would be helpful to have answered in advance, and it goes, more or less, to Luis Bobo whether it would be possible to help us achieve this -- doing the grading, the evaluation with an Excel sheet and then upload the whole thing when you have finished your task.
>> LUIS BOBO: Hi, Jutta. Maybe I'll try to answer that right now. Well, that's only partially possible because we -- we can do that for specific situations as an Excel upload, for example, but normally what we do is that -- the evaluations have done online and you can do all the things, even see the averages, do your changes, so everything that they're proposing and all that online, but if some particular member could have an Excel sheet, it could be possible that it can be uploaded, but provided that this is just last evaluative evaluation, doing it online, you can keep it safe, and if you want it in the Cloud all your comments, all your suggestions for mergers, et cetera, so this is -- this is the situation.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Luis, for the clarification.
This would mean if I do the evaluation online in the system, I could check whether the -- the 10th proposal I have assessed is above the average of the four or nine proposals I have assessed or below the average. I can see that for each individual workshop proposal?
>> Yes. That could be shown online. So this would mean minor things that we need to add. If, for example, you want to check if some proposals are below your average, but that could be put online, and, again, the upload is possible for specific situations in which, for example, a member could not upload beforehand and everything has to be massively uploaded, but the other one touches -- all that we need online is like you can always do your changes, you can always visualize everything without doing these formats because they are already integrated into the platform, and what is discussed, for example, can be integrated into the platform.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. Thanks a lot. Would it be possible that you open the system for the members of the Working Group just to see how it works also for those who are new to the MAG and would like to -- better understand before we decide on the evaluation process how the system works?
>> LUIS BOBO: Of course, I can do that, yes.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Okay. Wonderful. Thank you so much.
Then the only question that is left open from my side as Chair of the Working Group is whether we -- we will be able or -- whether you would like to have this trial integration session during one of our Virtual Meetings in the time to come.
>> LUIS BOBO: Yes, I also answered that. Indeed, that's a regular practice we do every year, so every year we try to improve the systems. We also adapt to the changes, like the MAG that year, for example. This year we can have the different tracks, et cetera, or we can just evaluate a different aspect, and there is always one session before the evaluation starts, so this year it would be, I don't know, around April, for the MAG members to check the system, to make questions, and maybe even suggest or produce some last-minute suggestions that can be given in the last minute. I mean, this is a regular practice we do every year.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Jutta, Luis, can I maybe ask you to work together? There are two streams; right? One is what we have once we think we have the proposed system, we want to make sure that the MAG has a chance to review it, and then there's a tutorial subsequent to that, but it might be worthwhile to have a more in-depth review with the Working Group and yourself, Luis, ahead of time to just kind of iron out any of the -- you know, the additional details, but could I ask the two of you to go ahead and work up that timetable and schedule?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Definitely, Lynn. Thanks for helping us to -- to come to a conclusion on -- in this regard, and I do think we can bring that back to the Working Group and then probably in two weeks' time we can do the next step. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Jutta. And I think there were really excellent suggestions there as well, so thank you for picking up all this work in addition to the other -- other Working Group work you've picked up as well.
Obviously, all of our efforts in the MAG here are volunteer efforts. We need to make sure that the MAG fully is contributing, so if you haven't signed up to support some of these Working Group efforts or the BPF efforts or some of the other activities, then please consider doing so. It is the only way we actually progress the work within the MAG is through these kind of volunteer efforts, and great thanks and appreciation to everybody for all the work that's been done since the last MAG meeting as well. You know, it's quite a lift in a relatively short period of time.
And, Jutta, just one last question. There was some -- a couple comments in the chat room that I'm not sure you've seen, which -- where people were suggesting that maybe there's a quick online -- we can make sure the Secretariat sends you those comments from the chat room, but maybe there was a quick online survey for those participants in the workshop and a couple of other similar suggestions too, so I just want to call those to your attention, and we'll make sure that you can get a copy of them from the Secretariat if you don't -- if you haven't seen them.
Let's move quickly up to Discussion on Chartering or Rechartering here in the last 15 minutes. I'll just go just through the list that's there, the Funding Working Group. Every one of the Working Groups from last year submitted a -- kind of a year-end report, if you will, a Transition Status Report, which talked about the work that was done last year and recommendations for the work going forward.
The Working Group on Funding, which I chaired that June Parris was a cochair on as well, basically said that this year the -- the kind of singular focus should be on getting in new funders, new donors. Last year there was a lot of administrative work and cleanup work and kind of communications and outreach activities, clarifying the roles and responsibilities. We think we now have that pretty well set. I'm sure there's always room for improvement, but that this year the work of the Working Group needs to singularly focus on contacting potential new donors and working to bring them in.
So I put that out there for comments. If -- if -- and invite comments on it. If -- depending on what those comments are, I would then update a very simple Charter statement, and we would bring that to the MAG online for approval.
But are there any -- any further comments on the Fundraising Working Group update? I think we all recall how critical the situation is.
>> JUNE PARRIS: This is June.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Hi, June. You have the floor.
>> JUNE PARRIS: I just wanted to add to what you said and I think that fundraising is very important. It should be high on the priority list, and I would like to carry this forward. I'm also inviting other MAG members to join with the group because it's very important to all of us. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, June. What I'll do, then -- I don't see anybody else asking for the floor -- is I will circulate a new Charter. It will be, as I said, fairly singular in its focus, and we'll work to get that approved online as quickly as possible.
The next one up for -- again, this is to keep the work moving forward here. Obviously, there's no the a lot of time for really formal reviews, but we have had the benefit of the reports in front of the MAG now for three weeks or so.
The IGF Improvements Working Group. Julian, will you be the first person to speak to it? I know you led it last year. I recognize you're no longer a member, but I appreciate you sitting in on these calls and appreciate all your efforts with the work.
>> JULIAN CASASBUENAS: Yes, Lynn. Basically, as you know, we sent to the MAG list a proposal of options for the continuation of the work developed by the Working Group on Improvements, and basically, if you want, I can just briefly mention what are these recommendations for -- being considered by the MAG?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, please.
>> JULIAN CASASBUENAS: So this was prepared by Flavio. I believe he's as well in the call, and he can add more comments if he wants. We make a series of considerations regarding the work of the Working Group. First one is that the Working Group (Audio cutting out) many recommendations that it has identified and classified. Second, many other assessments still need to be revised, as they have been proposed by just one or two members of the Working Group. Third, many recommendations are directly related to issues being discussed by the other MAG Working Groups, so as Working Group for Fundraising, Working Group of outreach and engagement, and the Working Group for Multi-Year Strategic Work Programme.
Next, all assessments need to be shared with the MAG and the IGF community at large and then revised by them. And then finally, the Working Group of Improvements considers that the assessment of the recommendations to the improvement of the IGF, it's a very important task and may represent a very valuable input for the MAG and many of its Working Groups, so that these activities shall not be interrupted without an adequate outcome.
Then the Working Group proposed to the MAG three options as possible strategies for the continuation of this activity in 2019.
The first one is to recharter the Working Group with the current scope, extending its work until December 2019 so that it may conclude its activities as outlined before, and for that, the Working Group shall work closely with other MAG Working Groups and share its findings with the MAG and the IGF community.
The second option will be to split the scope and activities of the Working Group using a proposed strategy, which is, first, recommendations that are directly related with other MAGs' Working Groups are forwarded to them. These Working Groups become, thus, responsible for assessing these recommendations and for using these assessments as input for their own activities.
Second, other recommendations we have not directly related to other Working Groups shall continue under the responsibility of the Working Group of Improvements, and the Working Group of Improvements will be rechartered so as to reflect the reduction in this scope.
The third proposal is a variant of the previous one, so instead of the Working Group to continue, all the recommendations we have not directly related to other MAG Working Groups shall fall under the responsibility of the MAG itself and the IGF Secretariat. The MAG shall later define how the assessments of these recommendations will proceed.
And we also highlight the importance of include new sources of proposals for improvement, such as the Taking Stock processes and the Geneva Messages, as -- and others that the MAG considers relevant.
Also highlight the importance of develop targets, milestones, and indicators to measure the current and future progress towards recommendations that have not been fully implemented, as proposed in previous Charters of the Working Group. So that's the proposal that we sent to the MAG list. It was sent by Lynn, and I don't know if Flavio would like to make any other comment or clarification.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Julian. Flavio?
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Hi, Lynn, and thank you, Julian. I think that Julian has very clearly stated which are the possible options we have in front of us for continuing the work of the Working Group. Most important is that this work is not interrupted. There's still lots to do. Either the Working Group is rechartered and we continue to work as before, either we split the work with other Working Groups, but in any option, it's important that the work continues. Thank you.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Flavio. And I really want to recognize Julian and Flavio's and Debra's and others' work, but Julian and Flavio have been really involved in this work in the last few years and have moved it forward. Raquel and others have as well.
Was there -- I appreciate the three options. I think they're very complete. Did the Working Group have a preference or a recommendation to the MAG?
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: This is Flavio here.
>> JULIAN CASASBUENAS: Go ahead, Flavio.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Please, Julian, go ahead.
>> JULIAN CASASBUENAS: I think that (Audio cutting out) in favor of continuation of the work of the Working Group, and as stated in the proposal, it's important to include other recommendations and proposals for improvement that we have not been able to review because it was not included in the exercise, and -- but we believe -- or at least that's my point of view is that the proposals for improvement that are aligned with the work of other Working Groups should be taken by them and to -- included in their discussions and see if they can follow up them and maybe include or make this exercise with the other proposals for improvement, as we mentioned, coming from other sources.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Julian. I mean, I personally think that's a really good recommendation. I do think keeping the focus of the Working Group and extending it to the few areas that you mentioned are important, and I think it's equally important that those topics that are being addressed by other Working Groups, once we're through chartering and rechartering them, pick up those activities as well. They certainly should be very much aware of past suggestions and working to address them.
Let me see if the MAG is willing to approve the rechartering of this Working Group, in which case I think we would ask the Working Group to kind of reestablish a Charter, calling out this specific recommendation, and then that's used to kick off a call to the community for participation.
Are there any comments or thoughts from MAG members to this Working Group before I call for approval?
So I see people commenting on approving the rechartering, approving. I'll let those continue to come in.
Are there any objections to continuing with this Working Group along the lines Julian just laid out?
All right. I'll give it just another few seconds, but all I'm seeing in the chat room are calls for support and no objections, thanks for the work.
Okay. Julian, Flavio, and all of the other Working Group members too, thank you very much. I said it. This is just a tremendous, tremendous piece of work, so appreciate all your efforts, and if you could update the Charter online with the recommendation you just made and we'll get that posted and notified to the community.
Now, we're just two minutes before the top of the hour, and there should be three other Working Groups that we should review. Maybe we've done enough on the Workshop Review & Evaluation Process for the moment, and we could ask Jutta and folks to come forward with a new Charter as the work progresses. Does that make sense, Jutta?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, of course. That was what we already suggested with the email that was sent out yesterday evening.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Right. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. And I'm going to let mom do you go next on outreach and engagement so that he's not the last one to speak here and then I'll come back quickly on the MWP. Mamadou, can you just provide us with a status of where you are on the Working Group outreach and improvement?
>> MAMADOU LO: Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me?
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes, we can.
>> MAMADOU LO: On the Working Group on Engagement, I took last year the Working Group as something like facilitator, caretaker because of the resignation of -- of Israel Rosas. We -- we begin doing the work at the -- at April, last April, something like that stating some particular way to go forward preparing IGF 2018 by helping the IGF Secretariat, convening information, distributing information by mailing list, by social media, and something like that. That's why we have not done a lot of meetings in the group because we had some particular things to do given the time we have. The recommendation I have this year, is that going a more particular way on communication, interpersonal communication, B2B communication and going forward trying to set something like -- like booths dealing IGF -- IGF -- accompanied by some documents, some materials of IGF to help communication within IGF -- IGF community.
My Working Group will be working in areas, and it will be difficult for me to facilitate it, but I will -- I'm here as a background to support, and if someone is available to take it, I think I will be available to that, but if someone is -- is able to take it, I can be in the background and support. Thank you, Chair. I think this can help.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Mamadou, and just quickly to the captioner, I understand you can't stay. That's fine. Thank you very much for your effort. We have the recording, obviously, so we can rely on the recording for the meeting summary, and we're going to wrap up here in a moment in any case, so please, do what you need to do, and thank you for -- for all the efforts.
(Captioner had to leave session at 9:02 a.m. CT)