The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> SECRETARIAT: Good afternoon, good evening, and morning to those of you that it is early in the morning. Thank you for joining us. This is MAG virtual meeting number 17. And as usual, just quickly, the meeting is being recorded. Also, transcribed. You can see the transcript by clicking the live transcript link. Um ... if you would like to speak, could you please use the speaking queue, if you can't use the speaking queue, put your hand up and we will keep an eye out. But we would like people to use the speaking queue because it makes the things much easier for us.
There is also going to be a summary report of the meeting by the end of the week and it will be published on the IGF website. We do have two people who said they could not join, and that is Resad, unfortunately cannot join us, and also Maria Paz cannot join us today. Those are the ones that I have. And with that, let me please hand it over to our Chair, Anriette Esterhuysen to start the meeting.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Chengetai. Anriette here. It is very nice to talk to you all from the southern hemisphere where finally, we have spring. Our version of climate change this year was a very harsh winter, so it is wonderful to have good weather again.
So everyone, really, it has been a very productive time. So thanks to the MAG members. We have definitely gotten over the top of the mountain when it comes to preparation. You have really didn't extremely well. I think the preparatory sessions are not finalized but are conceptualized and you will do finishing touches on them from now on. Thanks to everyone that has shown leadership. If we could please, Luis, have the agenda back. I will go over to the agenda and then hand over to host country colleagues.
Today, we're going to have our normal updates from the host country, from the Secretariat. We'll review the agenda of the third open consultations, which will be a hybrid meeting. Some of you have asked me how we will ensure that you can all participate, whether you are in Geneva or not. So please, come to that agenda item with any questions that you have on that. And we'll develop a plan. We have already got some plans. We'll just touch base on the preparatory and engagement phase and look at the web page that the Secretariat has created and is populating with the content which the teams have produced. It is actually looking really good.
We'll then have item 6, a quick update on the ‑‑ I don't want to say the dreaded issue mapping wiki pages, because I think it is going to be not so dreaded any more. Not so difficult. And then we'll go on to main sessions. Because now that you have really I think achieved a sense of control and excitement about the preparatory phase, you can begin to prepare for the main sessions.
We have a good enough time to do it really well. And then today, item 8, we want to spend more time on this than we have recently. Some of the MAG Working Groups have plans to present and have work they want to share with the MAG and get MAG feedback on.
Some of the leaders will look at the hybrid Working Groups, FAQ and some MAG members have hosted them, and have given input. We would like you to look at those closely because these FAQ are what we want the community to rely on to give them a sense of comfort of participating in the hybrid IGF. That's it. After the Working Groups, any other matters anyone wants to bring up, put them in the chat now or alert me or Chengetai. Welcome to the MAG members, observers, captioner, colleagues from the host country, past MAG members.
And back to our host country colleague. I'm just checking who is here for us today. You have the floor.
>> PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK: Warm greetings from Warsaw. It is a sunny day in Poland. Happy to be here with us. A quick update. The most important information from our perspective is we have announced an international contest for address to the young people. My Internet of the future, this has been done a few days ago. I'm putting in the chat for everyone to see for the address on the announcement on the website. Either to write, record, draw, there is a little information so I won't dive deep into the details. But everyone, please do familiarize yourself with this information. Please disseminate these among your respective environments, institutions, organizations so we will have a very wide outreach and very wide ‑‑ very broad response to it. So this is actually one of the most important announcement from our side. Of course, we're still working on the preparing the announcements for volunteers, just as last year, in good cooperation with Luis, Anriette and Chengetai. We're working on this announcement and it may be published soon, maybe this week or beginning of next week tops.
Of course, we're working on other issues as well, like the high‑level track concept, but I'm not going to provide you with any details, maybe you can ask Chengetai or someone from the Secretariat. This is being done as we speak. So it is not yet finalized, but we hope that thanks to the assistance of our good colleagues from the Secretariat, it will be very soon. Of course, the IGF parliamentary track. We're having the meeting in mid‑ September, our next meeting on this issue as well. We'll keep you posted after this meeting as well. If you have more questions, please do ask me, I will be more than happy to answer them. Thank you very much. That's all from me from my side. And giving back to you Madam Chair, Anriette. You have the floor.
>> CHAIR: Thanks for that update, and for all the work that you are doing.
Our next agenda item is an update from the Secretariat, so Chengetai, back to you.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Anriette. Just a few reminders from us. Um ... please the third open consultation event is coming up. Please register so we have enough preparations for the seating. Even if you are attending online, please register. If you are planning to attend on‑site, definitely let us know and then we can make the proper preparations. Thank you.
Nominations for the MAG ‑‑ next year's MAG 2022 is open until 10th September, so please, submit your nominations in time. And then we can do the selection in good time for the IGF ... 2021 meeting, we can announce and arrange travel. Please do that.
The next one is ... for the remote hubs. The deadline for the remote hubs is 20th September. So far, we have 24 hubs. As you recall, this is a hybrid meeting. And we do encourage remote hubs. We will be providing funding for remote hubs. And from the Global South. And that includes not just Internet costs, but also if you would like to have a room where you could all meet, we can provide funding as well to get that room. So then also, it is also very important that we can coordinate and see which topics you would like to interact with. And see if we can arrange some sort of intervention or interaction in advance to make things go smoother. At the IGF. And really show that we are hybrid meeting and we do have ‑‑ people do like to see remote hubs from countries or ‑‑ far‑off countries and have people that cannot fly in to interact with them in the meeting and have valuable contribution.
As Typiak mentioned by the parliamentary track, it is now mentioned on the IGF website. I think somebody will put a link on the chat to see the information we have on the parliamentary track. And the last notice is we will have a town hall on the idea of 2021 hybrid format. That is going to be on the 20th of September at 1300 hours, UTC. There will be a general calendar invite that is going to be sent out, but please mark the date and come with your questions and suggestions and also if you would like to help support it, please also, you can let us know then.
Anriette, I think that's all.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Chengetai. Chengetai, about the remote hubs, more or less you said there are 28. What's the regional distribution of the remote hubs? I'm also wondering what the time zone distribution is of those remote hubs? And whether one can work with them in any way? I know some of them are in different time zones. Might they be viewing sessions via YouTube? Is there a way one can perhaps facilitate some other form of discussion? So yes if you can give us a bit of indication of where they are? I agree with you absolutely, I think we have to really factor the remote hubs into the hybrid meeting plan this year.
>> SECRETARIAT: I will let Luis look up where they are and he can give us a couple of examples and time zones. Yes, I figure, yes, it is very important. If they are in a highly inconvenient time zone that they can't make live presentations, we can have a discussion with them with the topics they want to be interested in, and I encourage in the main sessions that we're formulating, that the main sessions we can ask remote hubs if they're interested in this particular topic. If they can't make a remote live presentation, they can also make a.
>> CHAIR: Prerecorded?
>> SECRETARIAT: Recorded one to show during the session.
>> CHAIR: That is exactly what I was thinking.
>> SECRETARIAT: Luis, do you have answers for us? We can come back and you can paste it in the chat.
>> CHAIR: Yes. There is no need to wait. Thanks for that Chengetai. Any questions? Anyone have questions for Typiak or Chengetai before we move on to item 4?
Looking in the chat, there is a very interesting comment from Hannah. And Hannah, I wonder if you wouldn't mind actually speaking to us? I'm sorry. You raised a Chair issue. Actually Teresa already put that on. I thought you were writing about the remote hubs. Teresa added that. And if there is time we will come to that and any other business. I would rather that we complete the agenda and then we can come back to that.
And Hannah has to be out of the meeting, but she will be back.
The next item on the agenda is the third open consultation, the MAG meeting. The Secretariat will bring up the agenda for us. I will ask them to present it to us. As a point of introduction. A few MAG members asked me why we're having this meeting. I apologize to those I haven't sent my email response yet. I think there are multiple reasons.
Firstly, this has been a challenging year for the MAG because we haven't had a face‑to‑face meeting. And the process of a hybrid meeting, I think we're discovering it is more complex in many ways than a virtual‑only meeting. I think for this MAG, it will be an opportunity to really ‑‑ particularly because there are so many new MAG members. To get together for those that can get together face‑to‑face. And to just consolidate the planning and preparation for the hybrid IGF. We're aware that not many people will come or not all MAG members can come. Chengetai can give an indication of how many we know will be there. We have booked a small room.
It won't be a small number of people in a vast U.N. chamber. For those that are there, it will be possible to work really interactively, and we're looking at ways that MAG members that cannot attend can participate. And that is not going to involve you all just getting up at weird times of the day. And there will be a transcript for the meeting.
So it would also be possible, I will make time in the agenda for MAG members who have looked at the transcripts overnight to send in comments that we can then table and discuss, you know, at the beginning of each day of the second and third day. But if anyone has any other ideas about how to make sure it is a fully inclusive hybrid meeting.
As Chengetai said the other day, it is really a practice run in many ways to have an effective, inclusive hybrid meeting. I'm sure I am handing back to you to run us through the agenda.
>> SECRETARIAT: Anja.
>> ANJA: Luis, it looks small on the screen, I'm not sure if participants can see it. I will paste a link in the chat so you can open it yourself as well. Okay. Here it is in the chat. I'm sorry I think I am posting day 2. You can go through the days. If you look at the agenda, which is still in a draft phase, you will see the first day is reserved for introductory remarks and looking into the state of preparations for the IGF 2021 process including the 16th annual meeting in Katowice. And the ceremonial part will be reserved for the first day related to launching of the new IGF website. So we will have 30 minutes reserved for that section.
And then the first day will include discussion on updates from the IGF intercessional activities also NRI with the strategic context on how to strengthen the streams.
The traditional briefing from other related or relevant initiatives, processes, on Internet Governance is also reserved as the last section of the first day. And after that, we will have conclusions in preparing for the next two days of the MAG meeting.
If we go to day 2, the day 2 is basically the first day of the MAG meeting open to everyone to observe. It will focus primarily on continuing on briefing on state of preparations for the 16th IGF in Katowice and focused on the program this time, not so much on the format. Then we'll ask for updates on the high‑level track and concepts on opening and closing sessions.
Then the MAG will go into the discussion on the preparation for the preparatory and engagement phase especially how the outputs can phase into the 16th IGF.
After the lunch break, we will then focus again on the format of the meeting, but in the context of how it reflects the session organizers. And that also means the speaking about the track for newcomers, the youth track as well as speaking about if you want to achieve what the meeting, meaning the form and substance of the outputs. The MAG Working Groups are also asked to provide updates followed by the discussion. Primarily the Working Group on hybrid meetings, strategy and engagement and communication. Strategy will provide updates and the MAG can comment on those.
And then we're concluding that second day with basically preparing for the third day. And then moving into the third day, that is the first of October. That day is really reserved for a very focused discussion on main sessions. What the guidelines for the main sessions, the scheduling practices as well as proposals. It is expected that proposals are ready by this date and submitted to the MAG for review when they will be discussed.
After the lunch break, again, we're focusing on main sessions. This time, on primarily capturing the outputs of main sessions and how they fit the overall output of the process and defining the next steps of confirming and finalizing the proposals and preparing for implementation.
The last very last day of the MAG meeting will conclude on discussion on the intercessional work but in the context of their representation at the 16th IGF. That means that the best practice Forums policy networks, NRI, DCs will give proposal. And they have thoughts on the schedule. They will refer on what are their means of delivering outputs in the Katowice IGF and what is the follow‑up steps after it.
I believe that's the outline of the agenda for now. The agenda is still in draft phase. So any suggestions are most welcome. Thank you.
And yes, sorry, for Jutta, you ask about the time zones. These are the times in the central European times, they correspond to the venue of the meeting, which is Geneva.
>> CHAIR: Thanks for that Anja. I don't see anyone in the speaking queue yet. I will start us off with a question. Is it possible to adjust the time zones a little bit? To have one day more favoring an earlier start. I don't know what the limitations are. You can tell us. And another day which would favor those in the western part, in the Americas? Is that an option or is it simply too difficult taking all the local logistics into account?
>> ANJA: Just waiting for Chengetai to come in. It would require follow‑up. As far as my understanding, it is difficult because it is tied to the venue and the standard UNR, plus we already have the booked scribes. So that is something that should be taken into account. But yes, maybe ‑‑
>> SECRETARIAT: That's it exactly. No further comment. Yeah.
>> CHAIR: Thanks. Thanks for that, Chengetai. I think any other questions? Suggestions. Jutta, you have the floor. Others, please add your hands, raise your hands, or join the queue.
>> JUTTA CROLL: A short remark for the timing of the meeting. In Geneva, it is still summertime until the end of October. So I assume it is central European summertime in the agenda, not CET as the agenda says now. Because summertime changes to wintertime at the end of October. Not the end of September.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Jutta, for that.
Just one thing for you all to note. When we had our last call, we said that the deadline for your main session proposals was the end of September. But in fact, if we look at this meeting, and if you look at the agenda, you will see the plan is to discuss those main session proposals. So in effect, the deadline for the main session proposals will be 27 September, maybe 28 September, but ideally 27 September so we can use this meeting to discuss those proposals in depth. And if I am correct, Luis, do you mind just going back to the agenda?
Luis, if you can scroll to day two, the first day of the MAG meeting. Thanks. Just to the first session. I think what I would like us to do and we can adjust the agenda. Is one day to open the meeting with a debrief of the open consultation. And what we can then do is give those MAG members that are not present who might want to look at the transcript and then send their comments by email or some other electronic means so we can ‑‑ when we do the debrief, we include the feedback both from the MAG members in the room as well as those that are participating virtually.
With regard to the main sessions, you will see that the preparation ‑‑ the discussion of main session proposals is actually on the second day, the third day of the MAG meeting. Is that correct, Luis? If you can just jump to the next day. And there again, I think if we have all of those proposals in writing and if they are all uploaded to the meeting page, that will also give the MAG members who are not present and not able to participate in real‑time the opportunity to send their reactions to the main session proposals. But you will of course be working in your issue teams on the main sessions.
So my assumption is by the time we have this meeting, the issue teams have all reached consensus on the main session proposals and then we'll really use the meeting for open discussion on those main session proposals.
But really, I'm hoping that there are other suggestions for how we can make sure it is an inclusive MAG meeting. This is what we can do is create time for people that are virtual participants, be they in real‑time, in which case they get the floor as any other participant would. If they are not in real‑time, they can send comments based on the agenda and the transcript and that comment will be tabled and discussed. Any other questions about the meeting?
I don't see any other questions. I see comments in the chat about the remote hubs. And I think Luis, that is a really good idea to follow up with that and to connect MAG members to the remote hubs. I see Arsene is asking about the remote hubs.
You can see quite a few in the Americas. That is a more challenging time zone. That is a good topic to discuss. I suggest we add it on that open day. So we don't just make decisions as a MAG but ask the community for ways in which they think we can effectively include the remote hubs.
If there are no further questions on this meeting agenda, shall we move ahead?
Chengetai, before we move off agenda item 4, at this point, what is your sense of how many MAG members will we have together in Geneva, more or less?
>> SECRETARIAT: Um ... I mean, taking a wild guess, I would say almost 20.
>> CHAIR: Okay. Looking at 50% of the MAG.
>> SECRETARIAT: Yeah.
>> CHAIR: That will be able ‑‑ really, I know this is hard. I'm very sad we can't all be together. I actually believe it is a good opportunity particularly because many of you are still new MAG members and you will work on the MAG next year. We don't know what our circumstances are going to be next year in terms of face‑to‑face. I think any opportunity, even for a subset of MAG members to get together face‑to‑face is going to be valuable.
Okay. Let's move on to the next agenda item, which is the IGF 2021 preparatory engagement phase, which I think we can all feel very pleased about the progress that is being made on that.
I don't think there is a need to table any of your proposals because we have discussed them in a fair amount of detail. So I want to thank everyone for their work on that. But I open the floor to any MAG member or any issue team who have questions or want to know what the next steps are or share any aspect or any lessons they feel they have learned from this experience. But to get us started on this item 5, I'm going to give the floor to the Secretariat who has done fantastic work in creating a page for us on the preparatory engagement phase. Iliana, Eleanora, I'm not sure which will present this, you both worked really hard on this. So you have the floor.
>> Maybe Eleanora, she's managing from our team the schedule. If she wants to go.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Hi, thank you for giving me the floor, I wasn't prepared to speak on the page itself. I hope that MAG members are satisfied with how if looks, the appearance and satisfied with the changes that were discussed in meetings.
Maybe if Luis can scroll down a little bit to display the page? As you can see, it's divided according to the different types of tracks that we have in the preparatory and engagement phase with each one represented by a color. The MAG convened discussions, which will basically be the introductory sessions, the youth engagement track with the youth focused and capacity building sessions. And the intercessional tracks where all the various intercessional treatments will also introduce their work is there.
As well as all the sessions co‑convened with NRIs that will feature, basically, Secretariat and IGF Secretariat and NRI co‑organized sessions. A lot of those are also capacity focused. And MAG convened discussions of course are also in there. A last category, IGF 2021 outreach sessions that for now basically encompass the town hall that we will have on hybrid formats.
So I think that we have everything covered in the preparatory and engagement phase program so far. And ...
>> CHAIR: Eleanora, I think if you scroll down you can show the links to the session descriptions.
>> Oh, yes, sure, sure. I think we should at least click into one of the introductory sessions to show how their descriptions have already been placed in the calendar. Luis, if you can go all the way down to the introductory sessions in orange. Click here for more information.
What I wanted to say also is we have this sort of marked as a draft program or agenda. But I do think that we're past the draft phase. So here we see the ‑‑ should be the first day of the introductory sessions opening with universal access and meaningful connectivity followed by economic and social inclusion and human rights, with some of the wonderful program information that the issue teams have already provided. So this is how it will display.
>> CHAIR: Scroll down a little bit more, please, Luis. Exactly. A bit more. Just so we can look at the MAG session outlines.
So that's really it. As you confirm speakers and if you want to make any other changes to the session outlines, then you can let the Secretariat know.
In terms of registration, Anja asked me this question today. Maybe Anja, we can also get the MAG's input. The idea is that you will register for a session, you will get one link for that session on that date on that ‑‑ in that time slot. And then people can choose if they want to join at the beginning for the opening or maybe just for the universal access session, you know, so on.
But MAG members have any suggestions about how to ensure participation and registration but that's the plan at the moment. Any other comments or suggestions for how this page can develop further? I open the floor. Any other questions about the preparatory and engagement phase? As Eleanora pointed out, there are sessions that need to be populated.
We have a date for the intercessional activity, that is the day the best practice Forums and policy networks present their work.
I open the floor to both the Secretariat, if you want to add anything or any MAG members.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Hi, Anriette, this is Susan. Can you hear me?
>> CHAIR: I can hear you. Please go ahead, Susan.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, everybody. Just a quick point for clarification. Um ... I'm looking at ‑‑ the first prep session on the first of November, I can assume that this is a starting point and will have further scheduling detail because I see that ‑‑ so for the universal access and meaningful connectivity preparatory session, we are scheduling for 90 minutes and the session on the first of November covers the two main focus areas. So I can only assume that we won't have one entire session that goes over the two main issue teams areas. But rather two separate sessions. Is that correct? So in other words, instead of three‑hour zoom session to cover the two main areas, it will be two distinct prep sessions, one for each issue area.
>> CHAIR: Susan, thanks for that. I think that is exactly the devil in the detail we need to address. I think we need to make the schedule clearer to illustrate. There needs to be a break. So absolutely, we need to make that clearer. In fact, I think we should make the schedule clearer here as well. So that it's more distinct, that there are essentially two different sessions. And that people are obviously participate ‑‑ encouraged to participate in both, but they don't have to participate in both. And that there will be a break. So yes, noting that we need to -- just to Eleanora and Anja, that we need to make that more detailed.
And Susan and other MAG members, this is also where we can liaise with you regarding to exactly, you know, how you want to do it. How long you feel the break should be. In fact, how long would MAG members want the break to be between the two issue areas?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: I have two questions. Amrita, for the record. One is things are it is on the website, but should we inform Eleanora in case we make changes in the particular session details. Not much, but if there are. The second is, for example, if I want to attend both the main sessions, will I have to register in Zoom twice for both the sessions? Or will I have an option when I am registering to choose which sessions I want to attend? Availability and ease for the user.
>> CHAIR: Amrita, the first question is yes, absolutely yes. Any issue team that wants to make changes to the session description, all you have to do is let the Secretariat know. I'm assuming Eleanora is the point person for this. I'll let the Secretariat confirm. The second question is one we discussed a little bit this morning. I'm not sure how final the Secretariat's Resolution is to that. I know they're thinking about it. Let me give the floor to Anja and Luis, have you thought about the registration and access to the links will work for the sessions?
>> ANJA: Yes, we did. We had a discussion on that. Perhaps Luis wants to comment because it is tied to the registration for the IGF in general.
>> LUIS BOBO: I'm happy to respond. [Muffled]
registration as I said before, we'll take the best from last year and listened to (?)
>> CHAIR: You are a little bit hard to hear. Can you be a little louder or closer?
>> LUIS BOBO: Is it better?
>> CHAIR: Yes. Thanks.
>> LUIS BOBO: I was saying we have taken the best of last year to introduce in every session an individual registration and to basically single sign in the sessions. And at the same time, also we listen to request last year to listen to the number of the topic. This is available in the new website, this is very soon. And basically, yes, you need to register once for the IGF and after that, you generate your schedule or sessions that you want to attend. And then you basically with one click you register. You get [muffled]
this is different than for the preparatory sessions, which we will have the new website. And we follow a slightly different model. Basically in this case, you need to register through Zoom to a scenario (?) only for that. You need to register in the IGF. If you have not registered, it will tell you to register in the IGF first and we will follow it for the access. Hope I answered it.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Luis. Amrita, could you hear? Does that clarify?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Yes, if I understood correctly, Luis, is for the registration to IGF it will be similar to what was last year. That you register for IGF and then you select the sessions you want to attend and based on that, you will get individual links, correct, for the IGF.
>> LUIS BOBO: Yes, you create your schedule and you can put or remove from your schedule. Last year, you need several clicks. From your schedule with one click, no more you get that. (?) and then you receive the link to connect in your email and on the screen.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: I can add more sessions if I want, right?
>> LUIS BOBO: Exactly. Sorry. This is important. Because as a hybrid meeting, when you are registering for a session, you are telling others you will appear. And also when you request the floor, you will be in the list of participants. In a hybrid meeting, it will have you listed online. Of course, before the session, you can check in or checkout. With one click, you get the Zoom meeting if you are a member.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Okay. Thank you.
The only intent is because it should be easy. Last year, we had quite a bit of people asking how to log in, et cetera, et cetera. So it should be easy for people. Because not everyone is that tech friendly. What I understood for the preparatory phase is there is a Zoom registration, right?
>> LUIS BOBO: The only difference is instead of when you click on the session, you are directly put in the link, you have to put your name and email address because you are registering in Zoom. Only for the preparatory sessions. Because otherwise we would need more clicks, et cetera. And this is more like the community connect.
After the new website which is soon for the IGF. With one click, no need to send anything else. You register once for [muffled] it is easy and we listen to the request last year but keeping this. And there will be also ‑‑ won't be exactly the same, but in a more good way.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Amrita, for asking this question. I know many people want to know. Thanks, Luis, what I would like to suggest is if we can add an action item to our meeting notes to ask Luis to send an email to the public MAG list to explain the steps he explained to us. It is good to emphasize how you are making it easier than it was in 2020. Because that has been specifically a priority for the Secretariat ‑‑ as you say, Amrita, people were struggling a little bit last year. So they have tried to make it simpler. The easiest thing Luis is put it in an email, we have it. We have also a text to go on the website and into the FAQ, if necessary.
Any other questions on preparatory and engagement phase? I don't see any questions. I don't see any hands. I think just something to not forget about the preparatory engagement phase is we also want to document what comes out of these discussions. Because that will then be used and built into the recap session that we'll have as part of the main Forum in December. But you don't have to talk about that right now. If you have ideas, please share them. But we will talk about that in more detail during the end of the month MAG meeting.
Let's move on to the next item. Item 6. We are, I think, just almost into our first hour so we're doing well for time. Item 6, the issue mapping wiki pages. These are the pages we shouldn't be intimidated by. We should feel encouraged by them. They are part of achieving the goal of a more interconnected IGF, where the intercessional activities work as more closely at least visually connecting with the main program. And we have really tried to simplify it. The Secretariat, Luis and others have been working on this. I am pleased to give the floor to get an update.
If those MAG members that have come toward to be issue team liaisons, I have some names but not all, type it in the chat as we have the update. Wim, over you to
>> WIM DEGEZELLE: Luis, could you just ‑‑ whoever is able to do it could you show the main issue area page? I posted the link in the ‑‑ I'm sorry. The one on the website.
>> LUIS BOBO: [Not audible]
>> WIM DEGEZELLE: I don't have it on the screen at the moment. What we have been doing since the last MAG meeting. Moving from the Google documents that we have presented some time ago to the MAG. To show the results and show some result on the IGF website. So we have created or updated the issue area page that was there that had the long description of the different issue areas that were developed earlier on. And to make it a little bit more compact.
As you just saw, we had the ‑‑ tried to keep the colors that are also used in the overall programs. So try to keep the colors of that issue. For each issue page.
So I would like to recall the idea of behind the issue pages what we tried to achieve on the one hand is to have the one spot on the website where all the information is available or good overview is available of everything that happens within the issue area. Within the IGF. And secondly, to have an opportunity to enrich that information with linkages and suggestions for other events that are going on outside the IGF.
So that these pages can be very helpful during the IGF meeting but also during the preparatory phase as a background reference. And then after the IGF in December, these different pages are a great overview of ‑‑ and even a report on their own of everything that has been going on at the IGF.
So if you click on one of the issue areas, you will see the IGF ‑‑ yes, thank you. You will see the wiki opens within the IGF website environment.
Linked to that is still the Google Doc. So if you work with the issue team on the Google document, the changes are automatically shown on the IGF web page.
So the issue pages are intended to be living pages that are developed between now and the IGF. They continue to be enriched. At this moment, the basic structure, the background, the issue description is there. It is put together by the Secretariat and put online. And the main structure for the wiki will be presented ‑‑ this is presented already at one or two meetings ago.
Now, the next steps are to further enrich those pages, first, with the help of the MAG issue teams and at the later moment, also create the opportunity for the community to help provide additional information and further enrich the issue pages.
That's basically what has been done between the last meeting and now. I just give a moment to see if there are specific comments or questions at this moment before going to the next steps. I don't see. So next steps.
As we discussed at the previous MAG meeting, the next step would be to sit together with each of the ‑‑ sorry, with the issue area teams. And discuss how to practically deal with the issue pages add additional information and reach out to the community. Anriette also in her email also invited every issue area team to identify one, maximum two people to help working or responsible for, co‑responsible for the wiki.
And the idea is to plan a call and discussion somewhere next week between the Secretariat and the issue teams. I received I think one in ‑‑ one person reacted to me in the email. And I see I hope that there are others that also put their names in the chat. So what I will do is collect the list of names of the people that want to join that call and send as soon as possible, do the poll out to schedule that meeting next week, which is basically to discuss how can we now work with or how can the issue teams help to further populate the wikis. And secondly, what is the easiest and best way to invite additional information from the community.
I would like to leave it there. I hope that you share the feeling we had that known activities are on the website. So they're in a draft and relatively empty form. But it is relatively clear to what I want to achieve and what the possibilities are. But I see that Courtney has a question?
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: Thanks so much. Just about the wiki and communicating externally since this is now on the website. Is this something that we should be sharing with communities and inviting them to submit to? I'm unclear on the purpose of the wiki. If somebody can clarify now what it is for. Now that we have done the backend work to organize it. But going forward, what's the goal?
>> WIM DEGEZELLE: The goal is to show the work that is going on under the IGF umbrella. That means the information, the next bit of information that has to be added are links and references to what is happening in the preparatory phase and later in the IGF program.
But then to further enrich the wikis with links to additional organizations' initiatives outside but related to IGF. If you scroll down on the wiki pages, you will see they're having relevant initiatives. That is information that we. The issue teams and Secretariat can come up with some ideas. The most relevant or useful information should come from the community that recognize linkages with the work they're doing. At that moment, a question should go out to the community in particular, this specific item of how to organize this to get some result is something I would like to take up with the issue area teams directly.
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: To clarify. It is called a wiki. It is not like Wikipedia for everyone to edit. It is to communicate externally with the community but they're not directly editing the wikis themselves? Or that is the goal for them to add their own information?
>> WIM DEGEZELLE: They will be asked to add the information but with a step in between. The idea of wiki is built up with information and build up between now and the IGF. But not the wiki, Wikipedia style where you have that everyone can register or look and add and change the information.
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: Okay, thank you for that.
>> CHAIR: Wim, a few reflections. Courtney, the original idea is people would. But complex in terms of interfaces. It is challenging that we have to be cautious about starting something that we cannot maintain effectively. We have a history of that in the IGF. There was a Friends of the IGF website that was started as an external platform, and it was then, you know not maintained. And people put a lot of time and energy into it.
The German IGF, a wiki was created which was intended to be integrated as well. And yet there wasn't the capacity to do that. I think, yes, the idea was to make it a living, longer term wiki, at this point it is being approached with more caution. You know, that might not be the right decision, but we have to respect the fact that the Secretariat is launching a new website. We will have to see where it goes. At this point, as one said, it is open but not for direct, live editing.
The one thing that I think Courtney's question flags for me is that we have to make the goals of this wiki much clearer on this page. You know, when you go to this page, you must see immediately why this has been established. What the purpose of it is. And to make it seem also not so complicated or challenging. Because if you look back at this history, it has clear goals. To facilitate and support closer integration between NRI and intercessional activities. So it is really not something all ‑‑ it is not a new idea. It is just a way of trying to implement that idea. We have to add the goals.
That is quite nice. I like about the preparatory engagement page now. When you go to that page, you immediately see what the purpose is. I think it is important. Because as we present new IGF evolution to the community, we have to try always to be very clear on what the purpose is. It is ‑‑ you know, it can get fairly confusing.
But thanks, very much for that. Wim, do you have a proposal yet for the date to have that call with MAG issue team liaisons about these pages?
>> WIM DEGEZELLE: I don't have a concrete date. We're talking about a limited number of people, between 12, 14. Suggest ‑‑ once we have the names for each issue team, the person that wants to be involved, send it to Paul to have a maximum look at the data and have the maximum number of people input, that will make it easy.
>> CHAIR: That's a good idea. Wim, did you see Rose is making a suggestion to send a Doodle poll to ask those that haven't sent a liaison person to please do. And if you don't have somebody, if the facilitators can step in at least until after you have had this call with Wim to talk about the work in detail. Thank you, Wim, and Luis, for your efforts. I think we are at a point to visualize what it is and what value it will add.
I know it has taken a bit of time, but I think we're getting there. I'm checking the chat. There are positive comments. Really MAG members, you need to speak. Otherwise, we won't have an effective hybrid IGF. I don't see any hands. Let's move on to the next agenda item. Which is main sessions.
Next steps on the timeline. As I said before, we have asked you to have your main session outline so these will be the same teams that have been working on the preparatory phase sessions. And you can invite other people from outside of the MAG. These teams are open. Some past MAG members and others have joined. We need your session outlines by the end of September so we can discuss them at the MAG meeting at the end of the month. So I really don't have more to say on that. I think the one thing I want to ask you is would you like us to have a call in two weeks' time, maybe a one‑hour call before the MAG meeting in Geneva to give people a chance to touch base on the main session preparation process? Or shall we skip that meeting and just give the issue teams time to complete their session proposals? In time for the Geneva meeting, which starts on 28 September? So that is a question to you. Do you need another call between now and then or not? And then I want to open the floor just to any of the MAG members, you know, maybe those that have been on the MAG last year as well.
I know some of you have shared this already. I think now that we are moving from preparing for the preparatory phase to the annual Katowice Forum. Any lessons that people want to share? Any of the past MAG members that have been through this? In how to approach the main session? The floor is open for discussion on main sessions. We have our deadline, which is that you have to have the proposals complete before the meeting that starts 28 September. It is up to you if you want another MAG call or whether you just want to work in your issue teams.
I open the floor to the MAG members to share reflections on what they have learned over the years on main sessions, what works, what doesn't work.
I'm giving it a little bit more time. I see a hand. And that is... Susan. Thank you. You have the floor.
>> SUSAN CHALMERS: Hi, Anriette and hi everybody. I thought maybe for the purpose of the kick starting the conversation I could share a few thoughts.
So in my experience, main session proposals used to be a deliberate ‑‑ I'm sorry. Discussed by the entire MAG which was quite a process.
Over the year, the main session proposals have been discussed by groups within the MAG. So for example, in Berlin in 2019, we had a main session that looked at terrorist and violent extremist content on the Internet and that was inspired by one workshop proposal in particular. Sometimes a workshop can stand out as the seed I guess for a main session idea. Other times, main sessions are just tracking highly visible issues, perhaps in the area of legislative or regulatory developments. And so I just think if I might make a suggestion, it is good to maybe pick, try and focus on a bit of a finite topic that could be inspired by a workshop session or a recent development in the space. And then work from there and be sure to open up the discussion to whoever would like to participate. For what it is worth, I would like to offer those thoughts to get us started.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Susan. I think that is helpful. It points to the fact that the main sessions are different from the preparatory phase sessions. You know, we are trying to be more introductory, scoping the issue. And the main IGF you can use to home in on a particular topical issue, for example.
I see Timea has joined us, another past MAG member. You have the floor.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you for giving me the floor, since you invited the observers to say words from past experience, I thought I would give it a go. Much of what I wanted to say was said by Susan. That is not a surprise. We tend to agree on a lot of things.
What I wanted to highlight is we are having this trend now in the IGF to go more topical. We have done that with narrowing the agenda into a handful of themes and sessions that were proposed like that. We also have this innovation of having an overview and leveler of all participants on different topics. People have a background knowledge of what is happening at the IGF and what is happening in the topics. I think a main session is really as Susan said a point in time where we can sort of zoom in on a topical issue, tighten the issue around the major themes and expand it and further it as much as possible. So in accordance with the IGF main session guidelines, I think when we choose these themes for main sessions they need to be ripened enough for a conversation. They need to be pretty much some discussion already around this or some interest in it. They need to be a couple of speakers that we know can add to this discussion. And I think our general goal should be to try to come up with sessions to move the needle and add perspectives to the ongoing conversation. That is one.
The other thing from past experience, seemed to me always challenging is finding the right speakers for the right session. I say that you will see the moment when you get to finalize what you want for the session, you will turn into find being the speakers and everybody will have millions of wonderful suggestions to put into the session. I'm sure that a lot of people out in the world that can meaningfully contribute, I advise you to keep the session speakers to manageable amount. Because it does get out of hand quickly and to be sure the main sessions are an example of the multistakeholder mentality of the IGF. And that the speakers also have this variety of not just of the regulations and stakeholder groups they're representing, but also of the perspectives, so there is a good dialogue in the session. Of course, in a positive and friendly manner. But that the ideas do meet in these sessions and they're not one‑sided if I so may say.
I think for me, the two main ideas would be for main sessions to pick a topic that we can progress. And to pick the speakers that can demonstrate a good dialogue and debate around the topics.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. That is helpful. And moderators are also important. And also factor in that you are doing these main sessions for a hybrid IGF. So you don't have to have all the speakers on‑site. More speakers, as Timea said, it is more challenging to have too many speakers with some on‑site and some virtual. Very helpful comments. Adam, I give you the floor now.
>> ADAM PEAKE: Yeah, I'm very much in agreement with Susan and Timea, really. I'm a first‑year MAG member, but I have been to a lot of IGFs over the years. Two sessions stand out. The topical matters, as was mentioned, particularly when you set up further dialogue. You have the regulation, where legislation is drafted around the world, whether major economies, which are globally influential or other activities that are taking place at national and regional levels and the IGF can be a Forum as it was intended to be, a prenegotiating Forum where people can come together and discuss their ideas in a slightly less tense or a situation where positions are not set in stone. I think there is an opportunity with the more topical issues to begin a dialogue that would be ongoing. So something like legislation and regulation can be began as something we look at and set up as intercessional ongoing. They tend to be drafted, ongoing and reach their final form. The IGF has a role, as a Forum for dialogue to try and discuss those and share ideas. The other thing ‑‑ sessions I have enjoyed and found useful are where we're reviewing work done by others where the IGF can come together and discuss and review different types of proposals where a topic has matured but really needs all the threads coming together.
I can think of a few examples from the past. Those are always quite useful. As long as there is an outcome there that can then be taken in some form as informative from the IGF, where the threads of the discussion and previous work has come together. I completely agree with the hybrid format. We have seen national and regional IGFs where the quality of speaker really, the expertise that speakers have, it is much easier to get somebody to join a session for two hours than flying them in for a five‑day meeting. You can get extraordinary expertise to join. And also with connectivity. And with hybrid, since we're not used to it, keep it simple. Quality rather than complexity and the number of speakers low. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Adam. Very helpful comments. And people note that Eleanora has put in the chat the link to the main session, and guidelines.
So I don't see any other requests for the floor on this. You have your guidelines. You have a good number of really experienced MAG members. And then many of you who are not experienced will have your own experience of organizing events and participating in events that you can bring to this. So thanks, very much those that have commented. I want for action items here to highlight that we need all the proposals from the issue teams prior to the MAG meeting.
Because as Susan said ‑‑ I'm not sure if you caught this. But Susan made an important point. That is for the main sessions, we really need the full MAG to look at every main session proposal in detail. And comment on it and give input to that. So that it is not just the issue teams that work on them in isolation. Obviously you will prepare them in groups and that modality works well, particularly for a virtual MAG. But that we need the proposals in writing. And as part of the meeting pack. So that the full MAG can discuss them. So we'll put the deadlines, but I would say the deadline ‑‑ Secretariat, you can correct me.
I would say you need all of these, probably by 26 September to give MAG members time to read them before the meeting starts. I would propose that we work on a deadline of main session proposals from the issue teams, 26 September so that they are complete and then we use our MAG meeting at the end of the month for the full MAG to go through every single main session proposal.
So thanks, everyone. And please if anyone has any further questions, you know, you have the MAG private list. You have the public MAG list. Please go and just feel free to ask questions. Just checking if there are any ‑‑ no. No requests for the floor. No hands. Thanks to those that have given us input. Very valuable. Let's move to the next agenda item.
We have our timeline for the main sessions. The next agenda item is updates from the MAG Working Groups. We'll probably spend the rest of the meeting looking at it.
So to get us started, MAG Working Group hybrid meetings. Take the floor and tell us what you have done share your FAQ and hopefully you will get feedback from everyone.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: I'm a MAG member. We have hinted in the previous meetings what the plan is. I hope this will not come as a surprise. But because we realized there is some confusion about the hybrid nature of this and future IGFs. Because I want to stress again that we're not working just on this IGF but kind of more a sustainable hybrid future of the Internet Governance Forum.
So there was an idea to produce a document to put envisaged or concretely frequently asked questions, which we did. Let me share a link quickly in the chat. I think that may be more efficient than sharing my screen. You can scroll through the document. Here you go.
So at first stage we worked on this, Adam and I. And then within the obviously in consultations with Anriette, with the Secretariat, and of course, the host country, which is super important as they know best on what will be kind of the situation on‑site.
At the next stage, we share this document with the Working Group on hybrid meetings and we had a call where we discuss this further. And yesterday, as you might have noticed I have shared it with the full MAG.
Now, why is this important? First of all, we don't want confusion. We don't want the hybrid nature of the IGF being seen as some kind of a complication. We want also our main message that is to have really equal participation, no matter how you participate in the IGF. So we really want this message to stand out. So that is one thing. We want author and ownership. We want MAG members to be aware of what the plan is of course be Ambassadors of this approach. We want this to be simple, first of all, there is an interaction and we're thinking of possible questions for participants and session organizers.
It is a living document. So you will see some comments unresolved or waiting for further clarification. Which is okay. This document evolves by hour. I would like to thank a few MAG members that already contributed yesterday.
So I don't think I should be like pointing out individual questions just now. Nor do I intend to go through the whole document, but I would rather like to hear your reactions and encourage everybody to spend some time on this document. Get in the shoes of session organizers, participants, yourself as well. Remind us if there might be introspect or question we might have missed. I don't know Adam if there is something I missed. I would like to hear from others here in the meeting as well.
>> CHAIR: Adam, anything to add.
>> ADAM PEAKE: No. The most important thing is what Tereza said, read the document, what questions are not answered? What do you feel you would need to know as a participant, workshop proposer, et cetera, what is not clear?
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: One more thing, sorry?
>> CHAIR: Go ahead.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: One point I was a little scared to be honest, when we realize there is a lot of confusion among us as MAG members.
So that's where I was thinking together with Adam, oh, let's take a step back. We need to really understand the basics, basics, basics. Because we don't want anything to be misunderstood. I would like to encourage everybody to help us make it clear. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Tereza and Adam. Any MAG members ‑‑ I know some of you have looked at this and worked on it. Let's hear and get feedback. Anyone that looked at this and contributed, any reactions?
Courtney, go ahead. I see your hand is up.
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: I haven't looked at this, but I have some questions. Thanks for the great work. There seems to be a lot of focus on how do we make sure remote participation is as meaningful as in‑person participation. Perhaps this is already addressed. Forgive me if it is.
But I want to raise also the importance of clarifying the in‑person participation because it will be that health issues aren't necessarily part of the meeting format, but I think that is going to be an important discussion to include or allude to. People need to make decisions on whether to come in‑person or not. Part of that is to understand what is the benefit of attending in person over remote. I want to make sure we're looking at both sides of the hybridity, which again, apologies if that is addressed.
I want to flag that as something people will be considering. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Courtney. Do you want to respond to that?
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: Yes. Of course. The desire not to discriminate one group of participants goes both ways. This approach to the IGF should be designed if we end up in a situation where there are few attending the IGF in person that they do not feel discriminated and can participate meaningfully. Let's imagine the situation of 90% remote, I hope not, but if it happens it would be difficult and challenging for those on‑site to make their voice heard. The meeting can easily slip into the regular virtual meeting.
That is also our desire to take this into accounts well. That is one thing.
Another part of the question, which I have been asked by some people, who will attend in person? How many people will there be? Let's be frank, these are questions we're all curious about. It is going to influence how many make their decision. I always answer we don't know. We have some indication of significant number of people planning to join in‑person. But people need a bit more transparency on this issue. We from the standpoint of the Working Group on hybrid meetings, that no matter what your decision is it, this will be a good and meaningful meeting, where you don't only efficiently take part in the decisions but you can also network. That is my opinion.
>> CHAIR: Changes, Tereza. I hope you are reading the comments and in the chat. People are expressing a lot of appreciation for your work and the work of this group.
>> ADAM PEAKE: Can I?
>> CHAIR: Go ahead.
>> ADAM PEAKE: Sorry for jumping in. I forgot to raise my hand. More on Courtney's question. Thank you, Courtney. We're asking people on‑site to be able to access the sessions via Zoom, which means they will need a device. And there is an assumption there that everybody who attends an IGF will have a device. That is a reasonable assumption. It is unusual for people to not. There needs to be a technical thought. In the set up will need more PowerPoints that we have. Because of phones and pads and what have you will need to be charged. There are a lot of things we won't know about. Some of that will depend on the number of people attending, which as Tereza said we don't know about. These are considerations we have in mind and they're important for all of us to think about. We're going to have to prepare this because we haven't before. That is one thing.
About the COVID measures generally, I know that the U.N. system for example, in Geneva for the meeting coming up at the end of this month, you know, the U.N. and the area where the MAG will be meeting has COVID measures in place. We don't know what is going in Katowice but we can imagine the Poland Government and the conference will have extremely good COVID measures in place. We will have to hear about those, but those will be important for participants.
Anticipating how many can attend, I can only look at it from my own point of view, I will attend if I can. I honestly can't say if I will be able to attend. My organization has extended a travel ban for work until the end of October. I think a lot of different organizations will be thinking the same way. We don't know what will happen with this revolting virus.
Some things we can't answer because nobody in the world can answer them.
We can prepare for other things. We thought about what you need on‑site with the tablet or phone to access the meetings. What do you need? These are things to try to anticipate.
>> CHAIR: Thank you all for your question and answers and Tereza has put things in the chat. Do the suggest mode or comment mode. When you add your comments, please do add your comments.
Adam, Tereza, Secretariat, I have one issue I think we should consider. While you have approached this FAQ as a hybrid IGF FAQ, I think for most participants, they don't want different FAQs for IGF 2021. I would suggest that all other material that is being prepared for people who have questions about participation, that there is a common entry point, whether it is FAQ on hybrid format or information on travel, to put this into account. For us this might seem like a separate set of FAQS related to the hybrid character of the event, in fact, they're FAQs about participating in IGF 2021. That can be done at a later stage.
Thanks a lot. Let's move on to the next MAG Working Group ‑‑ go ahead, Tereza.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: I apologize. I think it is important to be practical and becomes an open‑ended process. I think it would be good to communicate these modalities to the wider community. Not as soon as possible, but soonish. I imagine people would make decisions about the participation mode very soon. They should have answers to the questions. I will rely on Eleanora and Secretariat for guidance with Adam to determine how and when.
It is useful to know how and when this should be published, shared. And it will obviously also give other fellow MAG members an idea when to comment on the document. Could you advise us, please?
>> CHAIR: That is an important point, we need to add that in the action items. We need to sign off on the first version. Communicate it to session organizers and everyone else. Secretariat I know you are planning another newsletter at the end of September. I'm not sure if you feel that is adequate Tereza? Or sooner?
Secretariat do you have any response to when and how we communicate the FAQs?
>> SECRETARIAT: I will leave it to Eleanora our communication Secretariat.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: I think the newsletter is ideal for transmitting that information to the FAQ and the community. We have ways to make it more prominent, but we can also make it visible on the social media channels. We want to communicate them as widely as possible with the resources available.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Eleanora. Tereza, I propose we leave it open for MAG comment for at least another week. That would be 14 September. That gives you time to work with the Secretariat on the final packaging, getting it online, once it is on the website, we can use the newsletter to communicate to the rest of the world. I think one other thing you might want to consider is for the Secretariat to communicate to the workshop organizers. I suggest you also send the link to all the session organizers. That is my proposal. If everyone is okay with that, if you are not, shout now. So we give the MAG until 14 September to comment. Then we finish, make public, and of course, it can continue to be a growing, living resource.
Next, we have the Working Group MAG Working Group on IGF strategy and strengthening. I believe Titti will give us the report. You have the floor.
>> TITTI CASSA: Thank you for giving me the floor. I want to share a few information on the last exercise that is started by the Working Group strategies. The mapping table that maps the activities of the digital cooperation with the IGF community. I put the link in the chat. Maybe you can just access the table and see what is the status.
It is a very easy table because it includes nine areas of works that came from the recommendation of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation.
And for each of them, there is a short explanation of the main action that are undergoing. I mean, by them, the Office of Technologies. And for each of them, there is the link to the related IGF activity, and the past activity also the ongoing activities. We as a group of work have started this table and we also both invited the Coalition and DTNE to include their information in the table that is supposed to be a living document. What is the objective this of table? That the Working Group continues to discuss this table.
Also during the IGF because it is important to exchange how the IGF can be included in the activity of the Roadmap. I invite you as MAG members to view the comments and share your views on how to proceed out to discuss during IGF 2021 the Roadmap and implementation activity.
I invite also Amrita, and Roman. I know Lidia is not on this call. To include any information I may have missed.
>> CHAIR: Thanks.
>> Nothing to add.
>> CHAIR: I see there are other MAG Working Group strategy members on the call as well. So if anybody wants to add, now's the time. Any questions for Titti or Amrita or anyone else? I see Roman is with us today ‑‑ now he's left already.
I see no questions. But I really do urge MAG members to look at this. I think we need to be a little bit careful. We're human beings, which means our attention spans are not very long. But in 2020, the MAG and the IGF were ‑‑ we were very concerned with digital cooperation because it was a new issue and the Roadmap got published. And we took it all very seriously. Some of that topicality is gone now, but it is an ongoing process. There are others within the U.N. system and beyond working on the digital Roadmap and Roadmap implementation. I think it is very important for the longer-term strategic relevance of the IGF that we continue to always maintain that the IGF is a very important Forum. If not the most important Forum for discussion of many aspects of digital cooperation. So I do ‑‑ I know this is not quite as maybe ‑‑ what's the word I'm looking for? Glamorous? That is not the right word? In the public eye as it was last year, but really the digital cooperation process continues to be very important for the IGF. So I do urge people to try and follow that.
I know you have a lot on your plates. I'm now handing over to our last MAG Working Group to share their work with us. And that is the outreach Working Group. We have been working hard with the Secretariat to develop a communication strategy. Eleanora, Amado, over to you.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Thank you, Chair. I would ask Amado, first, if you would like to intervene and say a few words on behalf of the MAG members and the group.
>> AMADO ESPINOSA: Thank you, ahem. We are currently work on the different strategies that we can put in place in order to encourage MAG members to join our communication and outreach efforts to make this as positive as possible by including different key participants into the strategy into the initiative as well as how big advantage of the resource for the wiki and prepare some content for after the IGF proxy and summaries to include in that which can be useful for the NRI or for the different organizations that are interested in the IGF outcomes to be used for their own purposes on their local organizations.
And yeah, we are working very nicely with Eleanora, which I thank the Secretariat for allowing us to do that. I think we are going to have an interesting strategy in this regard. Eleanora, please.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Thank you Amado. So I will be very brief, just discussing what the group's work has been together with the Secretariat, only because we have shared amongst ourselves a draft strategy, but we have not had the chance yet to meet and discuss it among the wider MAG. I note Courtney's request to discuss this topic. I will give her the floor in a moment.
I will share the draft communication strategy that the group has seen and has developed but not yet really discussed in the chat, just for MAG members to peruse.
And I will say that this draft strategy, as it is, in this undeveloped form, in its basic form is essentially a ‑‑ the product of what the Working Group has discussed over a few months with a few incorporations from the Secretariat of sort of routine and projected communications work that would also come from the Secretariat side so this is altogether in one comprehensive place as part of one comprehensive strategy.
What I do think is important to note from the one meeting above the discussions that have been had by email that the Secretariat has had with the group is that a few important points emerged that this draft strategy tried to address, which are that first of all, the IGF's communications activities are a little bit ‑‑ I wouldn't say scattered necessarily. But you have communications activities coming from different places. You have communications coming from the Secretariat itself. From MAG members, of course, from members of the community, and then as you get closer to the annual meeting, communication support also coming from the U.N., from the U.N. Department of Global communications. So the strategy tries to address those various areas of responsibility who is responsible for which communication activity. Of course, sometimes that responsibility is mixed.
So the strategy tries to clarify that. Another important point that emerged in the meeting that we had was that the strategy should definitely be objective focused. Should really set out concrete and realistic targets as there was a thought that maybe in the past some communications ambitions were maybe just that, a bit too ambitious and that we should be focused on meeting some tangible objectives keeping in mind the resources that we have.
And the third important point that emerged ‑‑ this is a little bit more maybe, I would say, existential, in a way. It was about whether the IGF should be striving to communicate to the wider world what Internet Governance is. Is the messaging directed to everyone? Or are our primary communication targets people in the IGF community or in the IG community, in digital policy communities who may already have a similarity with the IGF's work. There was a little bit of interesting discussion surrounding that within the group. And I think, you know, there's an idea that when you are communicating to the IGF community, then they can actually carry out that messaging to the wider world, that it has a kind of ripple effect. But should the originators of the communication be aiming for that wider world.
I think that in a sense, we should be. And the strategy tries to address that, too, with some ideas for how communications can be strengthened really for the general public and not just for people who already have familiarity with the digital policy space. So those are some of the things that we hope are contained in this, as yet undeveloped version of the strategy. And we will definitely be welcoming a lot of MAG feedback on this.
And I certainly invite Courtney to ‑‑
>> CHAIR: Courtney, go ahead. You have the floor. Thanks, Eleanora.
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: This is Courtney, MAG member. I want to say thank you to Eleanora for taking what this Working Group discussed over the last months since she joined recently and going into that really helpful, log‑frame approach to setting out the strategy. It is a lot more detailed than in the past. Granted we need to discuss the specifics. And we want to give a lot of input on it. It does a good job of lying out the objectives and who the targets for the objectives are. I want to flag to MAG members, I think everyone is cognizant of the ask being made of various members, but communications is definitely an aspect where we can't succeed unless everyone is on board.
One of the things we want to do is make it as easy as possible for MAG members and communities to amplify the messages and engagement, et cetera. That is one thing to flag. Whether it is drafting posts, newsletter, et cetera. And to Eleanor's point toward different target audiences.
I would add there is a mid‑level audience between the existing Internet Governance community and the general public. The ecosystem affected by intergovernance decisions and intergovernance modalities. Whether that is Intergovernmental communities or education community, et cetera. Thinking about the different consent Rick circles can be helpful for that. You can come up with meaningful activities that are as Eleanor rightly put it, feasible and doable and we can achieve the objectives.
I want to thank her for the work and the other groups, the other members in the group. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much, Courtney. Really thank you very much to this group. It is not easy, this aspect of your work. But it is absolutely critical. And if you look ‑‑ if members of this Working Group, if you look at the recommendations on the IGF group of strategy and strengthening, you will see there the communication strategy is something recommended as a priority. It is not easy as Eleanora said.
Last year, 59% of participants were first‑time IGF participants. That also gives us an indication of who the audience is.
And for this Working Group, do you have any deadlines that you want us to note in the meeting summary? Timeline for you to get comments from other MAG members.
I see Eleanora says you will disseminate this week. Should we make it 14 September as well? And we give MAG members the same deadline for commenting on the hybrid meeting FAQ and on the communication strategy? Is that acceptable?
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: Chair if I may come in and clarify on my comment.
>> CHAIR: Yes, please, Eleanora.
>> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI: The Working Group will meet this week to discuss the strategy. I think it will be good to incorporate some of the comments from the group. And then share with the MAG. Would it be all right if ‑‑ all right if the MAG has it officially in their hands by the end of this week or beginning of next week?
>> CHAIR: Okay. That will be an action item. The Working Group on outreach will share the strategy with the rest of the MAG for comment say by 14 September.
Thanks very much, everyone. We're actually almost out of time. We did have Tereza and ana table the issue of the MAG Chair renewal. We don't have much time to discuss it. Tereza, if you want to raise that, please do and we'll give Chengetai a chance to respond.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you. I'll be quick. First of all, I fully respect and understand the appointment of the MAG Chair is fully at Secretary‑General's discussion. I would, however, appreciate the process and I hope the stakeholder for the ISG, would communicate to the MAG how they feel about this. I think there should be clarity and transparency about the length of terms so we're not in the situation so there is various duration of terms of the previous Chairs.
One thinking solution is if there is a clear indication that MAG Chair is always appointed for one year and term can be renewed for maximum one more term, that stakeholder groups must rotate every two years in this or that order. This is good for the predictability and transparency of the full process.
With that said and that was the other part of my message however, this turns output for our current Chair, I want to give appreciation for the leadership of Anriette. I was disappointed to hear there might be a change because if in this disruptive era, we need some stability. That is my brief comment. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Sorry. I was muted. Thanks, Tereza. I see hands from Adam. Then also someone from UNDESA with us. So Adam, you take the floor. Then we'll get a response. That's it. We won't be able to take any more hands today. Adam, you have the floor.
>> ADAM PEAKE: To reiterate what Tereza said and how much I personally appreciate your help, Anriette. I'm sorry it worked out this way. I think it is important to have clarity. Thinking of this as somebody that is not just grateful to you and as a MAG member, it does need clarity. It needs clarity if it is a rotation between stakeholder groups, which is a good principle. I'm talking about the MAG Chair. If it is one year, two year, three year, give clarity on that. This position is important. It is driving a global process in the United Nations and multistakeholder, you have done it well Anriette, so did Lynn and Guillenis and Markus. Clarity, it shouldn't be a month or six weeks to find a new Chair. It is an enormous amount of work, voluntary.
To finish, very grateful for everything you have done. Thanks, Anriette.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Adam. And I'm not sure who is with us from UNDESA.
>> WAI MIN KWOK: It is Wai Min. My apologies. I could not change my name to identify myself because I log in through another platform. I would like to reiterate, no way is this a call that the MAG Chair candidates that this is unfavorable assessment of the current MAG Chair. In fact, I join all of you in giving all the kudos to Anriette. Because it is a very challenge term the past two years.
I would like to just to recall really for the U.N. appointment, especially for advisor and all the U.N. secretary advisor role. Most are one‑year appointment. That is also clearly mentioned in the MAG Chair in terms of reference. It is correct that we have varying number of years for the past, but we are also looking ahead to see that first of all as you said, the multistakeholder and it is given the MAG Chair role, that is also attention and also request to see how the MAG Chair can be rotated to other stakeholder group. Also we're looking ahead before the IGF the mandate be review at the margins in the 2020 ‑‑ 2025 is come soon and we have four years. It could be appropriate.
I said "could be" because it is not common at this stage that we will have MAG Chair for subsequent two years. It is precisely because we are very much sensitive to the fact that IGF need to be multistakeholder.
At the same time to what Hannah mention, it is very challenging if you can appreciate to note that because it is the prerogative and it supports, we cannot play out the full process one year in advance. I think this is what I have to say. I will be happy to listen to all feedback from any one of you. Thank you. Back to you, Chair. Please.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, very much for the feedback, Wai Min. And thanks, everyone, for all the support. I really appreciate it. I think that we are over time now. I think we should bring this meeting to a close. And I think there are ways for us to continue this discussion and for you as MAG members to continue this discussion. But as I said in my email to you, I really do respect the principle of rotation as well. I also, as much as I'm very happy to stay, I have been around the IGF for a long time. I think the IGF has its own sustainability built in. Continuity is important, it is good for more time. But on the other hand the IGF is designed in such a way it can accommodate rotation. It is a collective process.
If I am not around next year I will be part of the process in a different role or as a member of the community. But thanks. I do appreciate the support. I leave it to you to take it further. But for now, bring this meeting to a close and continue with the hard work of convening a successful virtual IGF 2021.
Thanks very much everyone. And Chengetai, I'm going to hand over to you. My inclination is we don't need a MAG call in two weeks' time. We'll give people a little bit of a break. And we'll meet again when we have the face‑to‑face/hybrid meeting in Geneva. We'll have communication back and forth. I'll hand over to you Chengetai.
>> SECRETARIAT: We concur. The next meeting will be face‑to‑face meeting. We'll coordinate online and do the work that needs to be done and be ready before the face‑to‑face meeting. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, everyone. The meeting is closed. Thanks to the captioner and to all our observers and all the MAG members and Secretariat. And thanks for joining us, everyone. Good‑bye, everyone.