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: Good afternoon, good morning, good evening. Let's give it our usual two minutes so people can load the program and join the meeting. So we'll give it two minutes. Thanks.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Just making sure you can all hear me, correct?
>> Yes, we can hear you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, I can hear you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Great. Great. I will just wait a little bit longer just to see if the participants can increase. It is 23 now.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: While we are waiting here, Anriette Esterhuysen from Johannesberg, just to ask all the MAG members just to be ready to present their proposals. So if you have not yet done so, just consider whether you are going to share your screen or just do a verbal presentation. I think verbal presentations are actually fine. No need for screen sharing.
But it would be good if we can hear from every team during that agenda item, which is agenda item 4.1. So just everyone to get ready for that.
And thanks to environment and sustainability and climate change. I have noted that Juliana the facilitator can't be with us. Tereza you will present, am I correct?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry. I could hear you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I think let's start then. Welcome to virtual MAG meeting No. 25. As you know the meeting is being recorded. There is transcription and a summary report will come out at ‑‑ in a couple of days done by Soriana. We would like you to use the speaking queue. If you can't use the speaking queue just do the hands up and/or just get the attention of the Chair. The speaking queue is good so that we just keep a record.
And the link to the speaking queue is getting put in to the chat at the moment, if it has not already. But it's getting put in to the chat. So with that, let me just hand the floor over to our Chair, Anriette Esterhuysen, to start the meeting.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai. I'm Anriette. Welcome to the 15th MAG call of this cycle.
And thanks to everyone who is in the holiday period but who have taken the time, those of you in the Northern Hemisphere who are having your summer holidays, much appreciate the fact that you are with us.
And today's agenda is as usual, have updates from the host country and then from the Secretariat. Then we'll focus on the IGF 2021 preparatory and engagement phase. It has been good to see the progress and issue teams and we look forward to hearing to your proposals. And this agenda item would also be an opportunity for MAG members to ask further questions or make any suggestions that might have occurred to you about the preparatory phase. I think for many of you working on the issue teams and working on your sessions might have raised ideas or questions that you can bring to us today.
We'll close that agenda item by identifying next steps for finalizing these proposals. And then we'll look at the issue mapping Wiki pages. And we'll hear from the Secretariat on that and have some suggestions for how the MAG can contribute. We'll then look at planning for main sessions. This will be high level. We will just review the Guidelines for main sessions. And the Secretariat will tell us more or less what timeline we should be aiming for. You are still very busy with the preparatory phase sessions. So I don't want to burden you with too much detail on main sessions during the annual Forum in December but it is good for you to begin to think about that.
And then we'll have an update on the Intersessional work which we haven't had for a while. So I really look forward to what's happening. And we will finish with next steps and any other matters that anyone has or would like to bring to the MAG call today.
Are there any questions? Any comments on the agenda? If none, I am very happy to hand over then to the host country to provide us with updates and any information or questions that they have for us.
I'm not sure who is representing the host country today.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I think Wiktor.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead. Very nice to have you here.
>> WIKTOR SKWAREK: Thank you. It is my pure pleasure to be able to be with you today. A very good morning, afternoon or evening to everyone. As for the update we go forward with the preparations as usual. We do watch very carefully COVID developments in Poland and worldwide. And we are aware that some new regulations or restrictions might be introduced as from the beginning of September, but as for now we don't know any details. So whilst we get the information we will post on the website and we will also update the Secretariat.
And from what we are working on right now, it's the public tendering procedure. We are about to finish the public tender procedure which will result in selecting a logistic operator for the IGF 2021, meaning the company which will provide all the technical assistance on site in Katowitz. And we also cooperate with the Secretariat on a regular basis on the creating, producing the schedule for IGF 2021 in terms of allocating rooms, et cetera, and actually besides for that it is business as usual. If you have any questions to the host country, ask now or if you get any arising throughout the meeting please send in my e‑mail or share it with us via Secretariat. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, very much for that update, Wiktor. And does anyone have any questions for Wiktor or for the host country? Any comments or any questions?
I see no hands, Wiktor. There was a very useful update that I was part of with the host country. We had a call the week before last. And I reported on that very briefly in the MAG Skype channel. But just to reassure you that there is information that is being prepared. And it will be available to the IGF community shortly as Wiktor has been saying. So there is ‑‑ there is information already available but more will be available. And Wiktor, also to note that it is very helpful that you are working with the MAG Working Group hybrid. Having a common platform for sharing information about the logistics around the hybrid character of the IGF is very useful.
So if there are no questions for Wiktor ‑‑
>> WIKTOR SKWAREK: Let me just say, if I may, just one sentence to sum up, that we've been ‑‑ thank you. It makes sense that we post information on restrictions, we wait until September. As we don't want to cause a confusion, but we were posting now and then up to three weeks later we will post another information. It is better to wait in September and we see what information we have to share with the community.
And also regarding the hybrid group, I'm doing my best talking to our logistics and technical advisor and I will answer all the questions that there are on the shared document, I think by the morning of tomorrow. Thank you. That's all for me.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Wiktor. I think, yes, I think September is good. I think as we discussed just keep in mind for people who have to apply for Shangan Visas time is of the essence. In some countries the process is very long. They have to start that process at the beginning of September. One more point ‑‑
>> WIKTOR SKWAREK: We are aware of the situation, but some countries, some countries where there is no Polish Embassy or other Embassy representing Poland have problems with the application process as they cannot ‑‑ they cannot travel to a third country where they could apply due to COVID restrictions and this results from the third country's regulations. We can't help that as we ‑‑ we can't in any way push third countries to change the regulations. Under such circumstances we can only invite such registrants, registries to participate online.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Wiktor. Does anyone have any questions on that? MAG members are well aware of these kinds of constraints. If anyone has information or questions, please do share them and send them to the MAG list or to the host because it will be helpful to them also to get your questions.
I think just ‑‑ it's worth noting that last week a statement was released by Civil Society and I was not aware of it, even know it was issued by the Association for Progressive Communications which I'm secondaed to the MAG from. They did not alert me to this. But I think it is worth everyone looking at that statement. It is not calling for there not to be a face‑to‑face IGF. It might sound like that. But if you read the statement they really just urging the host and the MAG and the UN to ensure that there is full participation in the context of the hybrid format. So we don't have to discuss that now, but I think it might be useful for the MAG to consider if not responding to it, at least making information available that addresses some of those concerns that have been raised.
But let me hand now to ‑‑ I see Amrita saying yes, very relevant statement and the clarifications make sense. It would be good that you think about the statement and how we respond to that. Let me give the floor to Chengetai to provide us with an update from the Secretariat. And also to welcome Eleonora. We have a new old member of the Secretariat that's returning to us. I'm not sure if we welcomed her last week. If we did I apologize but it is good to have her with us. Chengetai, over to you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: No, I think this is her first MAG meeting. She rejoined the Secretariat on the 3rd of August after a two‑year break. And so we are very happy to have her back and she will also be carrying on with some of her duties, yeah. So she will basically be the point person for anything to do with the scheduling, bilateral rooms, the high level panelists, et cetera. So those type of things. And I'll just give a couple of seconds for Eleonora to say hi.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Hi everyone on the MAG. Thank you for the warm welcome. It is very good to be back with the Secretariat. I haven't met many of the MAG members. So I look forward to getting to know some of the new members over the next weeks and months. And yes, and I should apologize in advance because I feel like I'm still getting up to speed on everything. So please forgive me if I'm a little slow to your requests and messages. But I promise I will catch up and again I really look forward to working with everyone.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Eleonora. We have a few updates from the Secretariat as far as registrations go. I think as of last night we had 763 registrations with 583 indicating that they were registering for the face‑to‑face portion. And 180 for online.
And as you may have noticed the invitation from the Under‑Secretary General is now posted on to ‑‑ on the website, on the IGF website.
So that's there.
We have 16 remote hubs and I want to also like to note that we will be providing small grants, this is just financial assistance for remote hubs from the Global South, be it for Internet connection costs or for a room, if they are going to get a room where they could all gather and follow the meeting from Katowitz. We will be providing some grants for them. And this is, of course, if the regulations in their countries allows them to gather.
But I think it is important that people can gather and discuss issues and also connect in to the IGF 2021 meeting.
As we did post the ‑‑ I don't know if you want to call it a concept note, for the high level sessions. And we do ask for people who have ideas for panelists that we can invite just to please inform us and also please CC that panelist at intergovforum.org. If you have a panelist we can invite, if you have the contact information or the person we can contact to see if we can get them, please include that information because that's also very useful for us.
There's also the deadline for travel support. So people who want to apply for travel support their deadline is 31st of August. And those people if you have some sort of activity in the IGF you are more likely to get the travel support.
Yes, I think that's all. If ‑‑ let me just have a quick go around to the rest of the Secretariat in case I might have missed something.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Chengetai, while you do that, in the chat there is two questions. One is if you have any sense at this point of what the geographical breakdown of that 500 plus people who suggested or indicated they will attend face to face. And then there was a question about the high level session concept note. Just how it was produced, what the status of it is at the moment. So just a little bit more background about what went in to the production of that concept note.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. For the first question unfortunately Luis is not here. He could have given us the breakdown because there are ‑‑ it is produced by but then you have to go in to the database. But we can inform you later about that. That's not that difficult to produce those statistics.
And as far as the high level session is concerned, the primarily ‑‑ the primary note comes from the host country. Us we're talking about us as being UNDESA have contributed ‑‑ have commented to it. We haven't submitted our final comments to it as of yet. We are doing that so. So that's the idea. So the high level sessions and that is how the high level sessions have basically been done since they I think started 2011 from Kenya.
So host country takes the lead. We have some input and now we're giving, you know, the MAG to have some input as well. And we would also very, very much appreciate names and suggestions for people as panelists because sometimes it is very difficult to get a truly representative panel and also a small panel as well.
Yes. I think that's it. Thanks.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai. And so just in response to that, yes, so MAG members please do, do comment on that concept note because I think it's not just about the content of the concept note is expressed in such a way that it addresses the diversity of the IGF community and MAG members are in a very good position to read it through that lens because you all represent so many different regions and stakeholder groups. There was a question whether the high level sessions that can include speakers that are not face to face. Absolutely the host country is taking great care to ensure that speakers can be from anywhere.
So there is no obligation, the high level sessions can be as more inclusive as possible. Because speakers can be virtual.
I see nothing else here. There are a few questions in the chat that I ‑‑ that I trust we will follow up on and can also capture in some of the notes.
Yes. I think Gunela is also talking about the balance between onsite and offsite and some other comments. I just urge every one of these comments and Marc, that includes yourself, please send those comments in writing. And so that they can be taken onboard by the host country when they do the next iteration of the concept note.
So let's move on to the next item, which is item No. 4, IGF 2021 preparatory and engagement phase and we are going to talk particularly about the issue teams and the work that you have done on the preparatory sessions on the two main focus areas, and the four cross‑cutting and emerging issue areas.
So I invite MAG members who are ready to present those proposals. Let's start with the two main focus areas, economic and social inclusion and Human Rights to prepare to share with us how far they have come with their proposal. And while we wait for the facilitator of that group or the cofacilitator to come forward I want to thank the Secretariat, particularly Farrah who I think is with us, our intern, who has been incredibly helpful. So Farrah, it has been really great to have you support the MAG with organizing meetings and taking notes and documenting progress.
Economic and social inclusion, our facilitators are Evelyne, Lucien and Sooki. Afia is the main facilitator and the cofacilitators are Evelyne, Lucien and Sooki.
>> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ: Hello this is Evelyn. I think that Afia is not with us, is that correct?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, I don't see her. So if you can go ahead, please. Her connectivity might have dropped. I saw her earlier.
>> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ: Okay. I will try. Because I haven't really prepared any presentation because I thought that Afia would be doing that. So let's see, we have worked a little bit further on the online document. So we shared the online document where several members have been working on.
So we made a bit of progress. It's still not finalized I would say. But I also thought that it was very helpful to look at the Wiki pages where the workshops are, in fact, already kind of inserted under this subthemes.
So that gives a bit of a good overview. And so what I have tried myself is to like identify certain messages from past IGFs. I haven't done it very systematically. Other members could have a look at it. But my main impressions was that up to now inclusion, development and Human Rights have been mainly looked at from a data viewpoint but not like as independent topics. That's something that's coming up maybe also because of the COVID pandemic. So they are like some new topics there which are ‑‑ sorry, like a bit more from a critical perspective which was not there before. For instance, this tracing apps or survey apps I haven't seen that in earlier IGFs. That's certainly a point there. Like more critical perspective and more on civil and political side of Human Rights. And I think certainly these topics are getting strength also of development and of inclusion. The question what are we going to do with that. Suggested online document that we could maybe invite different speakers also from IGF community who are already working on this.
And then kind of make them just us or just give a very short overview over there, over the trends that they can identify, like in their area and then make like some breakout rooms where participants then can discuss in‑depth. So that we can maybe identify what are the main topics that we could also take up in the main sessions later on because the thing is like in a way that it's a very, very broad issue area that was my own feeling as well. So we really have to make a bit of effort to go down in the topic, like what are the main things that are ‑‑ main trends we want to build on our main insights that we ‑‑ main messages that we could extract from that.
But yeah, it's not a ‑‑ we didn't finalize our work yet but it is a work‑in‑progress. So thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that report, Evelyne. And I like the idea of breakout sessions where people can, you know, go from the broader themes to more narrow specific issues because that could then be very useful as an input in to the IGF itself. So any comments anyone else from that issue team that want to contribute, and/or any questions for Evelyne and this issue team? The floor is open.
No questions for this group?
>> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ: Maybe something I would like to add is just that ‑‑ because I haven't evaluated on the workshops. If some member is evaluated, it would be helpful to kind of see what workshops are relating to this kind of new topics, like in the sense of new trends also, new insights because this work I haven't done myself. And like as mentioned I feel there is like certain new topics coming up because of the pandemic specifically. Which have not been there in the former IGFs but I found it difficult myself to outline which workshops relate to them because then we could also maybe invite speakers from these workshops who could go more in‑depth, like in thinking particularly related to who Human Rights data, privacy, also surveying because these are really new topics emerging which have not been there yet. But I haven't done that work myself but maybe somebody could come forward on that just to really look at what are new trends. In addition we can also maybe first have a ‑‑ like during the preparatory session, like ask the speakers themselves, like what trends they can identify or ‑‑ and then go in the breakout rooms and afterwards when we come back in the Plenary again during the preparatory session, something that we didn't discuss, get, it would be good to address what kind of governance strategies can we design or what can the IGF do, what current strategies can the IGF adopt to really produce some output out of that as we have been discussing earlier.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. I think ‑‑ just a reaction to that, I think the one thing that I think that struck me when I looked at the proposals, several of the issue teams are actually looking at the IGF. And what role of the IGF or what role the IGF can play in taking discussion and engagement on that issue area forward.
So in fact, that might ‑‑ that might be a useful question to cover across the board. And then my other comment was just that I think you have just got to be a bit careful. You have 90 minutes. And if you want to have breakout groups that have really substantive discussion you are going to have to be careful with speakers as well. It can be difficult to combine if you have speakers will have to keep them to a very short inputs. So in a way you almost have to make a strategic choice. Do you want this session to be one where you really give the space to the breakout groups, to discuss in‑depth and make recommendations which are then discussed in the Plenary. Or do you want speakers to present some ideas which can then be taken forward by the various breakout groups. If you do both, just think of the balance. I wanted to ask you as a further question, what are your plans at the moment, when will you be able to send a more complete finalized proposal to the MAG? How much more time do you need in terms of your current planning? Because we were supposed to have more complete proposals today. But how much more time do you need?
>> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ: That's a really good question. Like myself I am on holiday right now until August 16. For my part I'm not going to be able to work any more on it 'til I'm back home and back to work.
But I'm not sure on the other team members, like what their availabilities are or like how we should move on that. I mean that's a question to all the group members. Because I really ‑‑
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Let's ‑‑
(Talking at the same time).
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: No, no. Go ahead. You want more input?
>> EVELYNE TAUCHNITZ: It would be great to have a bit more input in a sense because like I feel a bit that like there are good ideas out there but somehow people are not moving forward a lot.
I would really like to encourage ‑‑
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I would agree. Everyone please ‑‑ Gunela, was that a hand from you?
>> GUNELA ASTBRINK: Yes, it was. And I'm sorry, I'm not using the official hand because somehow I couldn't get it to work. But I joined this group late in the piece. So I worked on a little bit this afternoon. So I haven't had the benefit of the group call. But ‑‑ and it's very late in the piece. So it would be ‑‑ it would be great if somehow we could just have a quick call in the team to work through some of this because I was looking at how we could combine as Evelyne was talking about some of the Intersessional work during by DCs, policy networks and BPFs and using examples from particular ones that work with Human Rights in regard to social inclusion or economic issues.
And seeing how that's progressed. But then being challenged by some of the workshop proposals, successful workshop proposals saying okay, this is ‑‑ this is a new angle or something that we need to consider. So we're bringing in the established Intersessional work together with some of the workshop presenters. And then trying to come up with something as a background towards the end of that session. And it's probably a lot to handle in 90 minutes but anyway, that's just some of my thoughts. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Gunela. And I see Carlo Afonso has also made comments. Just to the issue team I think you need a bit more time to or if you have comments, you need to process them. And I urge you to send an updated proposal by the end of this week. We can still ‑‑ even if it is not a finalized proposal we really ‑‑ it would be good if you can have a ‑‑ from A to Zed type proposal of how you have perceived the session, how you planned, how you visualize it, how you conceive of it. If you can send that by Friday, that would be ideal.
But thanks for that. And thanks for your work. And even thanks very much for stepping in to present.
If there are no comments or questions for this group, let's move on. Now you can always make questions later. There are also overlapping areas between the issue teams. So we might even touch on this issue area again. But let's move on now to the next main focus area. And that is universal access and meaningful connectivity. Susan Chalmers is the facilitator and I think that Susan sent an apology. And we should note that. Not sure if she did. I'm looking for her in the meeting. Who is presenting for this issue area?
>> Sooki: This is Sooki speaking. I can present. Hi.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you.
>> Sooki: Can you hear me?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, we can hear you.
>> Sooki: Perfect. So I will make it very quick. I won't share my screen or anything because I have limited or the functions are not really working properly on Zoom here. So we have everyone have a session of 90 minutes and we start with introductory remarks by a MAG member who will set the scene and just introduce the purpose agenda and also the keynote speaker.
And we give ten minutes to the keynote speaker in order to set the scene. And we decided to focus on the two policy questions defining universal and meaningful access and other one on barriers to universal and access meeting, that we have two main headings. One is on access and the other one is on accessibility.
And the keynote speaker would have ten minutes. After that we are going to have deeper discussions. First of all, on universal access to infrastructure. And here we think of the topic 1, business models that address access barriers and topic 2 would be community levels and capacity building. And the second one is on accessibility. As I said before here we would like to look in to universal acceptance and additional skills.
And then we have five minutes for conclusions. We also collected some ideas with regard to the speakers who could be invited. And we also tried to mention and relate the two main topics on accessibility to the workshops that were approved or accepted for the IGF.
Roberto, I think you are here. If you have any additions or comments or ‑‑ please feel free.
>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Thank you. If I may, Madam Chair. Hello?
>> Sooki: Yeah, I can hear you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead. I was struggling to unmute. Just announce yourself for the record.
>> ROBERT ZAMBRANA: Thank you very much. Roberto Zambrana. Second year MAG member. I wanted to add a simple thing. We decided to have these two parts, that may be a little bit confusing but it's important for us to make it clear. In the first part is the ‑‑ is related with the access and things that may be preventing the humanity to have the broader and universal connectivity, including business models, including lack of infrastructure, perhaps in some places. Or some other aspects that may be against having this broader connectivity.
And that the other part is related to some of the key elements that perhaps are once we have connectivity, the other ‑‑ the other elements that are keeping us to have activity that will work for everyone, like in terms of gender gaps, in terms of digital literacy, et cetera. Even capacity building that will allow to maintain and operate in a good to understand all the infrastructure that would be deployed.
So I just wanted to add that small concept. Thank you Sooki, Anriette.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Roberto. Thank you, Sooki. In fact, this group you don't see that document in front of you right now because they use the MAG central issue team document. You can find the URL. I put the URL to this issue teams session in the chat and I see the Secretariat is very hopefully going to it now. I want to commend them. They have developed a very complete and I think quite ‑‑ a very coherent and easy to understand session outline. So I think really, really good work and good thinking and thanks very much to this group for having done their work. And I think what we see with this group is how it can work quite well if you hone in on one or two issues. One or two questions, is what they have done. They used the policy questions which have developed MAG to do that. To think about how you may ‑‑ you want the outcome of this work, (cutting out) and how to moderate ‑‑ so we can capture those.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I'm sorry, your voice is dragging a little bit. We couldn't hear you that well.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much to this group. Sorry that my sound is dropping. Chengetai, should you take over chairing? I think you should. Chengetai, can you take over? It seems my connectivity is dropping.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Can you hear me now? Emerging regulation, market structure, content data and consumer user rights regulation.
>> Chengetai, can I speak on behalf of the group?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, please do.
>> Dear colleagues, this is Roman Chukov speaking. We already had two calls of which I missed the latest call. I would kindly ask colleagues who were there to share the updates.
Also yeah, as Anriette suggested that by Friday we should update our materials. I think that we will be able to do that. But as previously discussed it will be great in our session to unite different stakeholders, including S digital platforms and legislators and young people. So we will speak about that in the first call. And also as I spoke in the previous MAG meeting that would be great to end up with some feasible recommendations or work better on the outputs of these track's conclusions to widely promote it and especially among the legislators because the emerging regulation seems now for me the most interesting and pressing issue. So dear colleagues who were able to participate in the call, can you kindly comment what was the latest discussion there?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Do we have somebody else from the group?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Amrita, please.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: I would ask that the document is open. In the last call we discussed if the Google doc could be open, please. We were discussing on how the preparatory session should be. Could you scroll down a bit please? We were discussing it could be a 90‑minute session. A bit more, please. So there was also a discussion on how it would be, like, for example, the session would actually be discussing the key issues and the questions. Perhaps have a Moderator like Milton Mueller or someone to introduce the subject on the concept. And with certain names, representatives from various stakeholder groups, some of them have been listed here as indicatively. If these people could come and questions could be asked to them which could be linked to the questions which were the policy questions which were formed. So it gives some idea as to the participants as to what the issue areas are and why these are being discussed.
And obviously toward the end to give them a sense of what they can expect in the IGF. As this is ‑‑ I was not prepared for it. But whatever I remembered I just shared. That's all I can share. If there is anyone else who was there in the call can share that, that would be good.
>> Thank you so very much.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Do we have anybody else who would like to add?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Timea was there. She can speak.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Sorry to be taking the floor but I am not a MAG member. But I was there at the meeting. Thank you. So just to add to what Amrita very skillfully summarized from our discussion, one thing that we thought it was very important is to give some sort of a historical overview of how regulation or thoughts about regulation around Internet, Internet Governance related topics has evolved since this started being discussed in the international level during the WSIS process some 20 years ago.
So that's ‑‑ that was our general approach to it. And that's how we would want to have the first sort of scene setting conversation to go. Have somebody, either Milton or somebody else give an overview of what has happened since WSIS or even from before then around regulation. How has the thinking evolved and then even the concept on topics that are present in our policy questions. And we will see if we have speakers invited to address each of those questions or maybe just one or two speakers to address all of it. And then as Amrita said to move in to discussing what are the workshops promising for this year's discussion. This is all in a way to set up for the conversation but also to set up for a possible main session that would take some of this forward. So how we're looking at it is the prep session should give a common point in time where we all agree on what has been handed thus far, general understanding and then during the IGF itself, and the main session we try to move some of this forward. At least that was my understanding from the discussion that we had at the last call. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Anriette.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much. Can you hear me?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we can. I'm on my mobile modem. I think it's a really good suggestion to start with that kind of reflection. And then I think it's actually consistent with what we the issue teams are doing by looking back. This issue team should also look at what the Parliamentary track is discussing. I don't have more detail on it yet. Chengetai or the host might have. But according to the schedule the Parliamentary debate will be on legislative approaches to I think user centric something.
So it might just be good as well to invite whoever is preparing that session, to make sure that they participate in this session as well.
But I like that approach of looking at how the debate has evolved and then trying to distill what the key questions are that we need to discuss at this IGF perhaps looking forward but looking at this IGF. Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you. I will nominate Soriana to join the group to see if there is any synergies that can happen between the track and this. Thank you.
If there is no other comments, Roman, right, correct? I'll call upon the next group.
>> Roman: Yes.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. Inclusive Internet Governance, ecosystems and digital cooperation, I think that Sooki was the facilitator. Are you here?
>> Sooki: Yeah, I'm here. Thank you very much. I just open the document. Yes. Thank you very much and thank you also Anriette and Kara for your remarks and additions to the program.
So we start with introductory remarks by a MAG member, introduction to the topic and also speakers. And then we would like to start with statements of three speakers that we are going to invite. So each speaker has ten minutes to make a statement on advancing global digital cooperation and with particular or in particular with regard to the opportunities that are provided by the focus on digital cooperation, residing from the UN Secretary‑General's roadmap. And also refer to the question is the roadmap succeeding in consolidating cooperation and promoting a more wholistic approach or is it ‑‑ is the global debate more further fragmented.
And we would also raise the question what role should the IGF play and how in advancing global digital cooperation. And after getting statements, ten minutes, ten minutes each for each speaker, we would like to go in to a moderated discussion. And the discussion should be on what has been said in the statements and where to put the focus at IGF 21 and how IGF can advance also the discussion on global digital cooperation.
And we also started collecting ideas for speakers that could be invited and, yes, that's it from my side. Chengetai, you also opened the document.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. And I take it you have ‑‑ I mean Jason and/or Yupeng, you have been in contact with them, correct?
>> Sooki: Chengetai? Was it a question for me?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, if you have been in contact with taken ways office basically?
>> Sooki: No, not yet.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. We'll also help with that as well.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry just to jump in. We discussed that we would invite the tech invoice office to organize a session of their own during the preparatory phase. So that would be something different.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: No, no. Because in the document they have Jason or Yupeng's name.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: There is a long list of speakers but none have been approached yet. They are at the top of the list.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: All right. Do we have any comments from anybody? If not we'll go to trust security and stability. And is Lucien here?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Um ‑‑
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Anriette?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I'm looking at the chat while we wait for Lucien.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Or Amrita.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: There was a question from Susan. I will share the central document in a second unless someone else gets there before me. Rysard has a question. Is a list of requested panel workshops available? The answer is yes. I will let the Secretariat tell you exactly where. And in the meantime I will share the document that Susan and ‑‑ thanks very much. Soriana has just shared it. Chengetai, can you point the MAG to consider they can see the list of approved sessions? It is in the schedule. But it is in the schedule. Chengetai, back to you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, it's in the schedule. And somebody's looking for it and we'll put the link in to the chat.
Panelists are being reconfirmed. So when you see those panelists they still have to be reconfirmed because from the proposal stage we send them an e‑mail and now they have to reconfirm their panelists as well. So those may not be the final panelists that you will see there.
And then again I'll just ask maybe if Lucien is not there, Amrita, sorry, you have been speaking quite a lot.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Yes, I just share about it. Lucien is in the boat. Perhaps his connectivity is not so stable. I have sent him a message. Let's see if he joins. We do have two calls from this ‑‑ for this Working Group. We could scroll down. We try to reach out to the best practice Forum and so we had Wim and Bana joining in for the discussion. What we tried to work on is look at the various sessions which have come, try to categorize in to what specific issues they come in to. And then we spoke on what could be the possible preparatory session based upon the questions, the policy questions, et cetera. So, you know, what we were discussing is there could be an introduction, setting the scene of what trust and security issues are. And define what trust, security or cybernorms mean. Perhaps with a high level presenter. And then we have a thematic approach out here, discussing what would be discussed this year at the IGF in terms of the trust and security track. The discussion framed by the policy questions, looking back on what was discussed last year. And, you know, also take the idea is when we are discussing it, taking some feedback from the community through community engagement as to what they would like to hear from the main session.
We had two options which was discussed. One was having breakout rooms of focused group discussions for ten minutes and coming up with some kind of, you know, an outcome, but then the group also found that managing a breakout room may be difficult because we may not have that many volunteers. The other was to have an open feedback on the Plenary, perhaps use the cloud to capture everything. And see how we can engage the community, you know, globally and locally before the IGF 2021. So this is what we discussed. We have more to do. Unfortunately with many people away on holidays, et cetera, the participation has been quite less at this point. But the idea is to set the tone, try to give the definitions of what we mean by the trust security, cyber, et cetera. Many people may not be at the same level and try to explain what the thematic approach is and what it is through discussions and why these policy questions are important. And then take feedback from the community as to what from these maybe they would like to hear during the IGF main session. The idea is not to make it too broad. Limit it to what needs to be discussed. That's about it. Happy to take questions.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I'll just jump in. Sorry. I really like this approach with this group. I think it is ‑‑ it feels it could be an inclusive way of creating more common language and common understanding. It seems to me as if it could be very interactive. So, you know, and again I think every issue team has a slightly different approach which is fine. But I think what they all have in common is that they are ‑‑ they are getting us closer to having deeper discussion of the issue areas. And more focused discussion which is what we want. I like that idea and I look forward to seeing the final proposal. Back to you Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette. Then another three second count for any other comments. Otherwise we will say thank you very much to the group and then go to the next one.
>> Tereza: Which I guess will be me presenting.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, environmental, sustainability and climate change. Thank you.
>> Tereza: This is facilitated by Juliana. But she is not able to be in the call today. As you might be aware this is AN issue theme that until a few days ago did not even have a facilitator. And there are ‑‑ I'm actually sad to announce that the progress of this group has been quite little so far, especially due to negligible involvement unfortunately of other MAG members and others from the community. We had a call yesterday. Only Juliana and myself. I'm saying it because I would really like to encourage other MAG members who maybe aren't active in other issue themes and would like to help shape the agenda for the IGF for this super important topic to join us. We have a Google doc that I will share shortly in the chat.
But basically really I cannot ‑‑ I cannot say this is very much representative because it is just some exchanges that we had one‑on‑one, but a few points that I would like to share with everyone is that when we review the workshops that fall under this theme that were accepted for this year's IGF, we feel that most of them are rather specific or niche type of issues. That's why we would really like that the preparatory session kind of sets the scene, provides a zoomed out view, kind of helps to portray the IGF as a very important Forum for discussing the links between digitalization and environment for IGF to appear as a player in the field. And obviously and that's mainly my role together with Joyce to bring more attention to the policy network on environment and digitalization.
That's I would say the only ‑‑
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I don't know whether it is me but we can't hear you anymore.
>> Tereza: That's the point of view of the Developing Countries which often, of course, do not see environment as such a pressing issue. And we wouldn't like this session to only go along the narrative, environment, digitalization is an important topic but we would like to bring some reality check to the discussion as well.
So I will share the link in the chat right now. Once again I would really, really appreciate if others got involved more because it should be MAG work ultimately and it's not happening at this moment yet. I will pass any comments that will ‑‑ we will ‑‑ will be mentioned in the coming minutes to Juliana, the lead facilitator. Sorry to not be able to give you more details.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Tereza. Do we have any comments? Let me just review.
And we do strongly encourage you to please see if you can join the group, except for Amrita because she is in quite a few of them. But I mean environment is a very important topic and it is a very new topic. And yes, we do need to give it our support.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Chengetai and Tereza, I did leave some comments which you probably haven't seen it. I think it is coming together very nicely. As you will see from my comment, Tereza, many Developing Countries are very deeply concerned with this issue. And you will find that Governments in the Global South often have policies about using renewable energy for new Internet infrastructure, and then they're very challenging issues that some Governments have dealt with regarding to e‑waste. There is the case of the Philippines and Ivory Coast. Tereza's point is what the teams should take in to account. That the narrative is inclusive for people from different parts of the world. So I think Tereza, it is possible to do what you want to do. There are different ways of doing it but I think it's coming along well.
So thanks for the effort that's gone in to this to date.
Is that it? That was the last proposal I think.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, I think it is. Yes. So next topic is 4.2, next steps to finalize and promote the preparatory engagement phase. If I recall correctly last meeting we did share the schedule. It is up now. And we did ask for comments. And we did receive some of those ‑‑ we did receive those comments. So I think now we'll just see if there are any other comments. If not, the Secretariat will take this as agreed upon and then start populating the ‑‑ our online calendar, et cetera.
It's also a pass on to Anriette to see if she has anything to say on this.
>> Thank you. Nothing specific to say. Mostly we're waiting to see if the dates are fine with you for your introductory sessions and if you are fine with two issue areas being hosted on one day as shown in this draft schedule. If not you should just let us know.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Chengetai, I think my only concern is timing. You know, these sessions are scheduled for 22 September, I think is the first one. And our MAG member and proposals are progressing. But people are not yet ready to invite speakers. I'm a little bit concerned. I want to put this to the MAG, do you feel you have enough time to finalize your proposals, invite speakers, get confirmations from speakers and promote and disseminate these sessions widely enough? So I'm putting that to the MAG and I'm asking you for your input, whether you feel starting on 21 September, in fact, if that's realistic.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: And the option would be? I think it is good to state the option.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think the option would be to move these ‑‑ not the ‑‑ do not change the rest of the preparatory phase schedule. But to move these three days that we've set aside, it would be yes ‑‑ it would be these three days, 21, 22 and 23 September, to move them in to October or even November. We just have to be careful because there are other events as well. But it really depends on the MAG. And whether you feel you have enough time, maybe it's also worth looking at the ‑‑ is it strategically helpful to move these closer to the December event. I hope that addressed your question.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, it did. Thank you. Susan.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Good morning, everybody. I think so long as the three days can avoid conflict with any other Internet Governance meetings or events, such as ICANN, this would be a useful suggestion. Personally I was never quite clear on why there was so much time and space between these prep sessions and the actual event itself. I think that regardless of the MAG's preparation, state of preparation for these meetings it might ‑‑ it would be more useful I think to close the distance in between the prep session and the actual event. I think this is a sensible proposal for more than one reason.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Susan gave the reasons. The other thing is, you know, since we are having less contribution at this point in time, perhaps our sessions may not look so good. Looking at the tight schedule we have of September. It may also be good to have it sometimes in November if possible. So that it is on the top of the mind of people whom we are wanting to target. If we do it in September there is going to be a lag of two months. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Thank you. Maria Paz.
>> MARIA PAZ: Thank you. Just to add my two cents also to what has been said and a lot of things can happen that can be relevant for this discussion between September and December. So I also consider that like moving them closer to the annual event main phase. It will be of benefit of capturing some of this relevant discussions or development that can be happening. So I also agree in moving it. Having it in to consideration what Susan mentioned of being careful of not to clash with other relevant Internet Governance Forums or relevant dates. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. I think what we'll do is that we'll go back and look at the calendar. We will make some suggestions, maybe three suggestions. And give a doodle poll to the MAG and help us check the calendar as well. And then we can come to some sort of a decision then. Would that be okay for everyone? I need at least one person to say yes.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think you have several yeses actually in the chat.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: General consensus. And note also, pointing out that September dates might have clashed with the General Assembly high level sessions. No, I think that's an excellent suggestion. I don't think ‑‑ it doesn't mean that the issue teams should slow down on their preparation. But ‑‑
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Definitely not.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Good suggestion. Back to you, Chengetai. Let me do this with you. So for next steps to finalize, so let's not ‑‑ so Chengetai will follow up on the doodle poll on looking for alternative dates. And can we please have finalized session proposals at our next call in two weeks? By finalized I'm suggesting that you have the list of speakers. It is fine if you haven't invited them yet but at least if we can have more of a complete sort of A to Zed type proposal. If it helps we can post a little template for how you can present your session information. And ask everyone to complete that and send it before next call which is in two weeks' time.
So Chengetai, I think that's clear enough. If people are comfortable with that, do the issue teams need any further assistance? I have to tell you that Farrah will be leaving. So please just beware of that. Her internship is ending soon. So she won't be around. But myself will still to be available and the Secretariat to support you as needed.
So deadline is in two weeks' time. Back to you, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: All right. Thank you very much. So I think we'll leave 4.2 now. And go to 4.3 which is issue mapping Wiki pages. Now I will call upon Wim.
>> Hi. Since Wim is not on the call ‑‑
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorina then.
>> SORIANA TELEANU: Thank you. I will try to share my screen. I'm hoping that everyone can see it.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we can.
>> SORIANA TELEANU: It is nothing really new. If you remember who were on the call last time Wim has presented the Wiki pages and they haven't changed very much. I added very small new things and I will go quickly through them. And then if we can discuss about how issue teams can contribute to that, that would be the most important part of the discussion. What I'm showing here is just one of the Wiki pages for the economic and social inclusion and Human Rights issue area as was said several times before we have, of course, the general introduction and description that have been developed at the beginning of the process with the subthemes and policy questions, as a sort of reminder of what these issue areas are about. On the Wiki structure we have this table of contents here, but scrolling down through it we start with the preparatory engagement phase. And how some of the sessions relate to the issue areas.
So on the one hand we have the preparatory sessions that the MAG is organizing and we have just spoken about it. And this is where ideally MAG members and the issue teams could be contributing once you have the sessions prepared and descriptions on THE website. So people know more about the sessions. And then if I'm not wrong at the previous calls it was discussed that the issue themes are also looking at how the issue areas are related with messages from previous IGFs. So if the issue themes are still mapping this out it would be useful to add whatever results you have from this mapping to the Wiki pages. It is not a matter of doing more work but adding what you are doing for the preparatory sessions and probably the main sessions.
Then the other section is about other sessions that I included in the IGF 2021. And we have the main sessions where the MAG issue teams can contribute to. For the work groups we have done this on the Secretariat side, including a mapping of the workshops, the accepted ones as they relate not only to the issue areas but also to the specific subthemes, if we can call them like that. And then we still have to look at how other sessions in the IGF program are related to the issue areas and that includes anything from open Forums and lightning talks to whatever other sessions might be there that are or maybe are not that new this year.
The next session is about IGF community activities. So going a bit beyond what happens at the annual meeting. We will see how we are going to map this. It will be probably a combination of Secretariat doing some of the mapping and also involving the Intersessional activities. So trying to add here as much as possible about how this DPF and Dynamic Coalitions are related to the issue areas and what work they are doing in relation to the issue areas. The same goes for national and regional plus IGF initiatives. And then the last section is about stakeholder initiatives. Trying to see if there are other initiatives out there undertaken by various stakeholders at THE national, regional and international level that work on the issue areas. And the subthemes. And here again we would welcome input from MAG members and teams, just adding a link here or the title of the initiative or the stakeholder, that would be great so we can go a bit beyond the IGF community itself and seeing what others are doing.
And that's basically it. The same goes for other UN initiatives or Intergovernmental organizations and how they might work on the issue areas. And then after the IGF, of course, we would be adding also the outcomes. The usual messages and see what else comes out of the IGF that is related to the specific issue areas. So that's that. All these links to the specific issue areas Wikis are included in the central document, the name we're using. So if you go under this third column you have mailing list and issue area and as a sort of reminder of what I have said, we would very much welcome support from MAG members and issue areas on three key elements of these Wikis.
I'm scrolling up again. First would be the short descriptions of the sessions you are preparing for the preparatory phase. And then if you ‑‑ if you are working on mapping the messages from previous IGFs and including results from the mapping. As you go ahead for the preparations with the main sessions, adding short descriptions here also and at the bottom of the document if you are aware of any stakeholder initiatives and you can go and add comments on the Wiki pages. And that's as Wim has said in previous meetings once the new website is developed we will see how this Google docs are integrated there. Whether kept as Google docs as part of the website or some sort of other web format. That's for a bit later. I will stop sharing my screen and take any questions if there are. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Do we have any questions? It means one of two things that everything was extremely clear or ‑‑
>> Or extremely confusing.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, it wasn't clear at all. So please ‑‑ another thing ‑‑
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Chengetai, I'm just reading the comment here from Mark Carvell who is welcome to take the floor. Why don't you do that. Back to you, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, Mark, please.
>> MARK CARVELL: Thank you. I just wanted to underline that point I put in the chat, about the critical importance of mapping for the profile of the IGF and its outcomes and bringing together all these focused Intersessional activities in conjunction with the IGF event, helped by the preparatory phase I think is going to be so important. So that's ‑‑ and then, you know, when we ‑‑ when we as a community reach out to Governments, policymakers, to industry decision takers, to anybody of influence in internet and Digital Economy, with the outcomes in the IGF, we've got the whole thing mapped and rooted in a kind of systematic way. That's what I wanted to underline in my message as having followed the IGF and wanting the IGF to move forward very much in this direction. But I think it's how the tech envoy is also hoping the community is going to move. Thanks.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Mark. Any other questions? I mean we will also make sure that we can ‑‑ we will reinforce this process within the individual issue teams as well. But if you want further time to reflect and to read through it and then maybe more questions will come up or if it is indeed very clear, but the team here will be working with you on this document as well. Yeah.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think it would be useful as a goal for us for the next call for all the issue teams to have added at least the overview of their preparatory phase session to this document, to this Wiki. Then that gives you an incentive and it will also make it easier for you to display the content.
And so the blurbs and short descriptions of your sessions at least, and assume that it's for a public audience. And then as Sorina said if you have identified and I know many of you have, messages, outcomes from previous IGFs, then please add it here. It is work that some of you have already done. So it's just a case of adding it to this Wiki. And as I put in the chat you could also assign this responsibility as you share the load between members of the issue team, perhaps that's one thing you can do is to get someone on the issue team to take on the role of adding content on behalf of that issue team. Back to you, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: And thank you very much, Anriette. And again within the issue teams, also if you have any questions, feel free to contact Wim or Sorina. Thanks.
Shall we go on to the next agenda item, which is planning of the main sessions and next steps on the timeline? So let me just remind myself what were our ‑‑ where we left off with the main sessions and the planning. Sorry, I can't find the place in my notes. So I ask ‑‑ Susan, yeah. Is your hand still up or is it from the last one?
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Yes. Chengetai, it is Susan. Just a suggestion, the working documents I think contain a lot of the information that could go ‑‑ could populate the various Wikis. So while I know everybody is strapped for time, if the IGF is able to have another intern that might be a useful project for them to pull from the working documents and populate the Wikis. Just thought I would make that suggestion before we move on to the next topic. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. Yes, we will be getting another intern and that is a very good suggestion for the task that we could give her. Okay. For what we have for the main sessions is that we did agree so far that well, we have to start working on the planning of the main sessions and the sessions' proposals would need to be ready by the beginning of October to allow time for implementation. So we still have some time before the deadline that we set to ourselves. And we will be developing a more detailed timeline with a relevant milestones because also with the main sessions we also have to inform panelists in good time to invite them and before we invite them, of course, we need to have a set agenda for each of the main sessions.
And we would also be sharing the ‑‑ the lists of invited panelists for the high level sessions as well as for the main sessions. So we can borrow from both of these types of sessions, can borrow from each other the high level sessions and also the main sessions.
Yes. And it was also ‑‑ we have to incorporate this also for the planning of the introductory sessions. So I think that's where we are. Yes. So I think that's where we are. We ‑‑ I think maybe the best thing to do is let's concentrate and finish first on what we're doing now and then we can go in to the main sessions. So by the next meeting we can go in to the main sessions and start really concentrating on the main sessions. And we'll work with the ‑‑ I'll work with the MAG Chair and also with the rest of the team here just to have some concrete, more flushed out and concrete timeline for the main sessions.
Let me just open the floor and also give a chance for others from the Secretariat to speak on this.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Chengetai, Anriette here. The deadlines we worked on previously was we would have the proposals by 5 October. And then we had the finalized, absolutely final polished confirmed speakers, the deadline for that according to the MAG dashboard was the first week of November. We might actually want to bring that ‑‑ 2nd of November would be everything would have to be finalized, including confirmation of all speakers.
So but we can revisit that.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: If we can do it earlier the better.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think one thing to point everyone it's in the meeting documents and Secretariat put it up. If people can familiarize them with the main session Guidelines. So as we discuss it at the next call as Chengetai proposed you can raise any questions then. Back to you, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. Do we have any further questions on this before we go to the next agenda item which will be updates from the Intersessional work? So I'll just give that six seconds. Susan, is that your new hand up or is that an old hand?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: In the chat Susan was asking ‑‑
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks, Chair. Yep. So I just opened up the main session Guidelines. Forgive me I haven't reviewed the most recent draft of these Guidelines. But I'm wondering as we start to think about organizing the main sessions are there any insights that Tereza or Adam or the group on hybrid meetings can share any guidance that we can have in terms of organizing main sessions, given that it will be a hybrid format?
>> Shall I just react?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, please.
>> Tereza: Thank you very much. Thank you, Susan. This is very important, of course. So what we are doing now is that we are working on the document with frequently asked questions that have some main points that we have heard from the community for both the participants, and also for the session organizers.
We will be sharing it with the MAG very, very soon. Also on Thursday we are having a next meeting of the Working Group on hybrid meetings where we will try to kind of finalize or clarify any remaining confusing points. I hope that will give some guidance. Maybe one aspect that is important to realize is that nothing will be totally bulletproof. We are still experimenting and still a few issues that we need to clarify both with Poland and with the Secretariat. But what I think is the overlying effort that we should all have in mind is that plan this session in a way that does not favor onsite or online participants. I'm stressing this as well because we might have an IGF this year where more people will be participating online than on site. And what we would want to achieve is to have it meaningful, even participation for any group, no matter how you are participating. It would be good if the main sessions and that's my personal opinion, would also strengthen this hybrid spirit. That is to say practically speaking combining speakers that are on site with speakers who will be ‑‑ who will be joining remotely and making the session interactive which might not be very practical for the main sessions.
But still kind of refrain from sessions that might have worked in the past, very long sessions with mostly in‑person attendees. We know that it is unlikely if somebody is sitting at a session in front of their screen if it is very long. Did I tackle what you had in mind?
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: This is great. I just popped some expression of gratitude in the chat. This is such a key part of organizing for IGF 2021. I'd just like to thank you and Adam and everybody else in the Working Group for having undertaken this work. We look forward to the FAQs.
>> Tereza: Thank you, Susan. It is a community effort, yes. The more concerns we hear from the community at this stage the better chances we have for a truly hybrid event. So please please please keep them coming. Because we shape this together. It is true. If you have specific concerns, specific questions you would help us most if you either participate in the group or just shoot us an e‑mail. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. And thank you, Susan. So from what I see from my agenda right now is that the next agenda item is updates from the Intersessional work.
Sorry I have got Maria.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry, I wanted to alert you to that.
>> MARIA PAZ: Thank you, Tereza, for updating the work of the hybrid Working Group. I want to add my appreciation for the hard work you have done so far in this difficult and moving issue. But I also want to stress a little bit what I put in the chat as a comment in terms that it could ‑‑ it could maybe be a good option also to add in that Q and A that you are working on document, a section related with the condition that had ‑‑ that needs to be discussed with the host in terms of ensuring the effective engagement and equal participation between on site and remote participants. Because I think that a lot of the success in this interaction depends not only of the provisions that the organizers can do or the speakers can take, but rather in the ‑‑ what are the structural conditions for developing the session. Particularly, for example, in the main sessions and ‑‑ but for all the sessions the different workshops.
So I don't know if you have a collaborative document for this Q and A. I mean it's possible for other members of the MAG to contribute directly in that document. I would be happy to do it. I recently tried to enroll to a list of the hybrid meeting Working Groups. I couldn't do it before and now I am trying to organize or have more time to participate. But I have had some problems in the ‑‑ involving the list. I don't know if I'm there or not. I want to highlight my interest to contribute. And I'm pretty sure if you can share with the extended MAG that document maybe we can also directly contribute with some of those examples, concrete examples that you are requesting. So happy to do it if you point it out me to the right place to it. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. And we will look in to it, I joining the list. If you have not joined we will add your name to it.
>> Tereza: Thank you. Maria, thank you for indicating your active involvement. Having a member like you would truly benefit the work we are doing. I sent an e‑mail to the group today with the document. If you haven't received my e‑mail a few hours ago that means you are not on the list. Please Chengetai, if you could check because I had some difficulties kind of generating the members to check with some of the delays, yes. So if you could please, please check or add Maria Paz directly because I don't want to miss this opportunity to have her on the team. Thank you. Maria, some of the questions you asked are in the notes that we kind of get most stressed about these days but we can plan things. We can have an idea of how things would work. But ultimately as you rightly pointed out much will depend on what is the logistics in the room, what equipment is available. And we have been touched as I think mentioned earlier in the chat already with both the Secretariat, of course, with Anriette's facilitation and the host country clarifying some of these questions.
I have nothing against personally sharing the document with the full MAG immediately. I just thought a more practical way is a kind of two‑step process where we first have the Working Group on hybrid meetings to shape it first before sharing with a larger group. But actually Anriette, Chengetai, if you think we should share it immediately because this is a matter of concern I'm happy to do it.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much.
>> Tereza: I can see that Anriette confirmed she is okay to sharing it with the team. Thank you. So I'm sharing a Google link in the chat now. Anybody who has any ideas, suggestions as I said before, that they think should be clarified, because we are kind of in a tunnel vision a little bit, but you might have very new and fresh ideas. So please, please, please check it out. The link is coming your way. Thank you. And just ‑‑ I mean it's obvious but either comment or add it in track changes. Thank you. And the Working Group on hybrid meetings is meeting on Thursday at 8:30 UTC. If you are not on the list, would still like to get involved, please let me know. And I'll send you a Zoom link. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Tereza. I think we have to ‑‑ we have got 15 minutes left. So let's try and see if we can complete everything. Updates from the Intersessional ‑‑ from Intersessional work. So I will just call people. I think we'll start off with best practice Forum on gender, if we have anybody who can update us on that. I'd like to commend you. You have been speaking so much on so many different groups. And yes. I think you're one of those people that we should look up to. Thank you. Please.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Yes. So in our last call we tried to summarize, you know, we created a document. We are trying to create a framework on which we will put in whatever learnings we have. Initially we had three or four calls where we had specialists coming and sharing different issues related to, you know, to the general information and other aspects related to it. And the main goals which are there. So currently we are trying to work on what the framework is. And have certain people writing that part. And then what we were thinking is perhaps in the preparatory phase we would share some of this information. If it is going to be in November it will help for us so that we can validate more of, you know, what our findings have been. And then kind of, you know, rework a bit on the document if required. And after the final session, the main session at IGF we try to incorporate the best practices, et cetera. And come up with the actual document. That's all from me.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: All right. Thank you. Sorry, for Maria Paz, I have just enrolled you in to the mailing list. You should be set. If not, then just contact me again. Thanks.
Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from Amrita's presentation on the gender and ‑‑ okay. Thanks.
Next is there anybody here for best practice Forum on cybersecurity? If we can see, do we have anybody?
>> Hello? Do you hear me?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.
>> Good afternoon. Thank you, Chengetai. So there is just a quick update from the BPF on cybersecurity. The work is on progress for each workstreams, both groups are planning to have the first draft document ready by the first half of September. And that the scheduled BPF meeting updates is on Thursday 19th of August at 3 p.m. UTC. There not much updates from the BPF on cybersecurity but all the work is on progress. That's all from my side. Thank you, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions? I'm sorry, I'm not really taking too much time on it. But we do have 12 minutes left. If we don't have any questions on the update, then we'll go to the policy network on environment, and I have Tereza's name next to that as the MAG liaison?
>> Tereza: I am surprised to hear that. I didn't count on a presentation because Lorena did it. If she is not here, I understand she is on vacation.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: We can go around and I can call you in the end just to collect your thoughts.
>> Tereza: It is in the update I did at the last meeting. Policy network, got going on writing the report that should be available before next IGF and thank you. You can see on the shared screen the topics or issues within the realm of this group, the report that we will be covering. Florina also started involving the larger community in the work of the network. That's the case also for MAG. So if there is an issue where you would like to join a particular workstream, please feel free to do so.
The focus is on the very first chapter on the introduction on the setting ‑‑ a setting of the scene. So there is the chapter that should be available the soonest.
I hope that's suffice. Otherwise there is not much to say. Otherwise there is work going on in these workstreams. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you. And sorry for putting you on the spot. Do we have any questions based on that update?
Six count. And no. Okay. So next and I hope I'm not putting Roberto or Carlos on the spot for policy network PNMA on meaningful access. Can we have a brief update for the MAG? Either Carlos, Roberto, Karim? Nope?
Okay. Then I will come back to you. And I will ask Sorina or Markus to give us Dynamic Coalitions updates.
>> SORIANA TELEANU: Thank you. I will cover that as well. Just briefly a recap on what Dynamic Coalitions are doing, we are working on the paper, documenting the Dynamic Coalitions history and future how they can better contribute to the overall IGF process. If you remember your road plan is to have the paper published by the end of October. So before that will be an interim version for public comment and share that with the MAG. So stay tuned for that. We have had quite a lot of sources of input including the public survey to which some MAG members have responded. So many thanks to those MAG members who have taken the time to provide some input on how they see Dynamic Coalitions. We have had individual discussions and have gotten useful feedback from, especially on the they think they can better contribute to the IGF process. So the paper will include some recommendations and suggestions on that note.
And that's all the paper. Then in September we will start planning the main session, the usual Dynamic Coalition main session at IGF and will look in to how to link that at least one of the IGF 2021 focus issue areas. Dynamic Coalitions have also been invited to contribute to the preparatory phase. And there is some interest to host some sessions. So when the new schedule will be published you will see some Dynamic Coalitions and will have a session on the paper itself trying to collect some more feedback on the interim version we will be publishing probably early October. And I think that's it from Dynamic Coalitions. If you have any questions I will try to answer. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions for the Dynamic Coalitions? I will give it a three count. Okay. None. Just circling back to the PNMA, if either Carlos, Roberto, Karim have anything to update us on.
>> Actually not from my side except that we had a meeting with ‑‑ last meeting was last week. We were advancing with Raquel who is facilitating our group. And we need to start preparing ‑‑ we exchanged some ideas for the session that we're going to have with the group.
That's ‑‑ that will be all from my side.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. I don't know. Let me just check if Karim is there.
>> Yes. Not much else from my side, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Is this session the next online session that you are going to be having, right? Yes.
>> Yes, yes. We are having that soon.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. All right. Thank you very much for that update, Carlos and Roberto. Let me just look at my schedule again. And I'm sorry, multi‑tasking, I have lost my agenda.
(Talking at the same time).
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. Okay. So next is next steps. So we did agree that the Secretariat is going to send out a doodle poll for the preparatory and engagement phase just to shift those three days. And we'll give you some options, the original dates and some other options in October. We will not do it for the last two weeks of November because I think there's a lot of things going on in the last two weeks of November. Either the first two weeks of November or in October. And then we did agree that all the issue teams will finalize their proposals by Friday. So we'll have them by Friday, that there will be finalized. And then we have the ‑‑ for the main sessions, we will have that discussion in our next meeting. And we are going to look and see whether or not we need to flush out the timeline, but we have to start thinking about the main sessions now. And see where we can go with them. And then have I left anything out that we're going to do between now and our next meeting?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: No, I think that's it, Chengetai. It is the final ‑‑ it is the call, it is the poll for changing the dates. And then complete proposals. And adding content to the issue area Wikis.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. Okay. Our next meeting is going to be on the 24th of August. We have to discuss the time because the time of the call is of particular issue.
So I've received several proposals. One proposal is that we keep it at 11 UTC. The next proposal is that we keep ‑‑ we do it at I think it's 13 UTC. So I would like to know some general feedback on when you think is the best time to have this meeting? Should we keep it at a static time? Should we fluctuate the times so that people from various time zones also get to get up early or stay up late or make it a little bit more equitable? I wouldn't say fair but equitable. Please can we have some comments on the time for the meeting? Amrita says 11 or 13 UTC is fine. But will go with the group.
Courtney is proposing 1500 UTC and that we should fluctuate. Another thing we can do is do a doodle poll again and see if we can have answers by Friday. But we do understand that with a doodle poll it is not the majority because if it is always the majority then obviously the best time for people in the Africa and Central European time zones will succeed. But this one will mostly be ‑‑ trying to find out what people cannot do.
So that we know that we don't want to leave somebody out because we always hold our meetings at a difficult time. I think maybe we will just have those three times, 11, 13 and 15 UTC and then we'll come to some kind of consensus.
>> Courtney: Could I please make a comment?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, Courtney.
>> Courtney: I think this is really important that we vary the time. All the three‑day intensive meetings have been at a very inconvenient time for people who are not in a UTC time zone. And I think that it is important that we move those around. And if we do voting you are always going to have the ideal UTC time because of how the world is organized. The entire western hemisphere is pretty disadvantaged from a 11 a.m. meeting. From the outset we had talked about making these meetings at different times and given that all the major MAG meetings, three‑day meetings have been at an early time, that we should rotate these periodic meetings to make it more equitable for the people in the Western or far Eastern hemisphere. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you. Thank you for the intervention. This is the type of discussion that I also wanted to bring up, so that we know your views. It is not a voting majority because we do know the time zone that suits the majority of people and that's why I'm saying we are trying to be equitable and it is fair for everybody as such.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I wanted to comment on this. At the request of MAG members I looked in to this in detail. And there are times that are inconvenient, but the times that we were using for MAG meetings such as the 2000 UTC time, for example, these were times that were 1, 2 a.m. for some people in some parts world. We have to spread it around I agree. If we have to choose between a 7 a.m. meeting for someone and a 2 a.m. for someone, I think the 7 a.m. is inconvenient but it is doable. We were asking some of our MAG members, particularly those in Southeast Asia and Asia and Australia to meet at times that are unreasonable. So I think what we need to find is a range that is more reasonable. But I suggest that we do what Chengetai was suggesting which is to do a poll. Not from the point of view of establishing what the majority wants. But really from the point of view of working out what people can live with. I think we can spread it around. That's always been the practice. But I think we were using some times that were designed for MAG members who were on the West Coast of the Americas and we don't have those at the moment. So I think we can change it a little bit. What I looked at when I looked at this is that a range between 1100 and 1500 UTC. And seems to be one that doesn't put anyone in a really, really terrible situation, even though it is inconvenient for some.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. So let's do that. And we'll have the options of 11, 13 or 15. It won't be 11 for the next meeting definitely. But is that okay? Are those three time zones okay? And we'll just do a doodle poll for the next meeting and we'll ‑‑ and also to see whether or not we can keep those times. Thank you very much, Carlos.
And do we have anybody who says no, they would want another time to be added in there? Don't see any. Okay. So we'll do that. And then we'll see ‑‑ please feel free to also comment when I do send out that doodle poll in case there's ‑‑ we will leave out the 2000 UTC because I think ‑‑ yes, that is 6 a.m. in Australia, but I think in India and in places in between that's when you get the 2 a.m.s. And so we'll leave out the 20 UTC because we are using the consensus mode we have got strong objections from people for 20 UTC. Thank you.
I'll ‑‑ I think I'll leave it at that and I will give Anriette the floor for any final words.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Chengetai, thank you very much for stepping in. I apologize for my connectivity. I am in Johannesberg. Thank you for the MAG members. And I want to urge all the MAG members who have not yet contributed to the work of the issue teams, to please join in. And Chengetai, my proposal with regard to mailing lists is that people are manually added by the Secretariat. I think we can conclude that people adding themselves using the interface is not reliable. So I think from now on let's ‑‑ if you want to be joined to a particular mailing list write to the Secretariat and copy the facilitator and ask them to add you. Thanks very much, everyone. Back to you, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. Okay. Yes. We'll do that. Please write to Luis. I will add two people who have said ‑‑ I have already added Maria Paz and I will also add a number of other people who have said they want to join in particular, unless Luis is on leave at the moment but he comes back on Wednesday. Thank you very much. And please have a good rest of the day or rest of the night. Thank you very much for joining. Bye.
>> Thank you, Chengetai. Thank you, Anriette.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you to the scribes. I keep on forgetting sometimes.
>> Thank you. Bye.